So do you consider gay marriages a sin then? Is that a moral rule? How do you decide what is a moral rule? Does it not apply anymore because Jesus died on the cross for us?
Questions pertaining to the nature of God are unrelated to the question of whether or not God exists.
One may disagree with a purported action of God's, or believe that said action is ridiculous, but these sentiments have nothing to do with the possibility of a being that exists in 4+n spatiotemporal dimensions, and therefore has by definition supernatural abilities.
Some people mistakenly believe that a thing must not exist if it can't be observed. Can you send me a picture of gravity?
I don't think this necessarily relates to the video, but I've always been curious. Why would God, who supposedly loves all people, only select a certain group of people to be His people in the beginning? Such selectivity contradicts what happened in the NT, and I don't see how God can contradict himself if he's the same at all times.
So wait, your argument is that humanity developed more to be able to choose good over evil because evil was wrong, and not choose good over evil because you would be killed by doing evil, so God changed the rules?
What's your basis for believing that there was such a change in humanity? Doesn't it make more sense that Jewish leaders invented these crazy punishments to control the people, and that God had nothing to do with it?
"you should sell your daughter into slavery if she is disobediant" "it is ok to beat your wife just don't mark her face" "attack the city and slaughter all but the hot young virgins (moses quote)" "stone a woman to death on her wedding night if shes not a virgin" Don't try and dress up the sick twisted stuff in the bible and make it sound reasonable, I don't care if you think god changed his mind on morals or just puinishment. If I thought god was real I'd be terrafied! He sounds fucking EVIL!
Maybe "realized" isn't the best word. "knows that" would work better. But when I said "realized", I didn't mean to say he went along for so long no knowing that.
It wasn't a revision. It was part of the plan. For example, if you had kids you would punish them differently at 6 years old than you would at 16 years old. would you have to "realize" this along the way? No, I'd think you'd know since the moment of birth that you would tailor any punishments to make them appropriate for their age. Just like you with your theoretical kid, I think God would have known since creation that he would handle things differently as humanity developed and "grew up".
I was pondering this question some more, at my boring, boring job - and this very answer occurred to me, as the only one that could reconcile God's supposed perfection with his confessed inconsistency.
Props for coming up with it on your own.
You've won THIS round, 5thWatcher, but I WILL be BACK! MWA HA HA HA HA!...
@5thWatcher My question to you is why would God have carried out a plan that would allow us to screw up? I mean being all knowing and powerful God it would make sense to create beings that would not screw up. This would then would eliminate the need for punishment, but your God seems to like punishing people considering that he knew people would screw up, yet he punished them anyway. Your God sounds pretty sadistic.
@jol223334 People do bad stuff on purpose, too, you know. Also, without vice there would be no virtue, and no need to strive for greater things, and nothing to learn with no mistakes to learn from.
because what urs saying is that he first said ah ur going to get stoned, then said ok this isnt working really well. let me go down there and kill my self for my self and put Every one that is not saved by me in an eternal hell.
what next? hes going to torture ur family and loved ones for eternity in front of ur eyes? or who knows maby he will make u sit in front of him for the rest of ur life thats a good way to torture someone isn't it ? :)
I felt the same way when i herd him say that. "God realized" But God knows everything. I thought about it for 2 seconds. And I'm pretty sure this guy doesn't actually mean that. What he meant was God realized it was time to change things and send out his son's soul.
Yeah. I guess it's just my cross to bear. Keep up the good work dude. Oh yeah I was wondering... What would Jesus do about Marijuana? I used to smoke alot before I joined the Army and Ive always thought he'd be ok with it. Opinion?
Hmmm. I suppose if he took issue with it, it would probably only be because it's illegal and we are supposed to follow the laws of God AND man whenever possible.
Personally though, I've never actually touched the stuff.
LOL. How is that even possible? To each his own of course. It's not really in the cards for me ever again, I'm going to work for the man forever because they're the only ones who offer a pension. MJ isn't worth it
I dunno, I think I just had gone so long without ever trying it that I thought it would be cool be able to go on saying I never have. It'll be a fun selling point if I ever run for a public office, since they all seem to get asked that question.
Can god change his punishments if he is infallible? At 2:15 you said "god realized..." which makes me think immediately of an "oh shit" moment. "Oh shit, shouldn't have told them to stone each other. Jesus! fix this.
Maybe you could explain that to me more because that's just how it came off.
I'm not sure if I said this in the video, but I think god has and will changed his style of governance as humanity grows and learns. I don't think of it has an Oh shit moment, but rather as part of the plan... just like how you punish/reward a 16 year old kid differently than a 6 year old kid.
I see what you're saying and it's an interesting point but if god is the source of good and ultimate truth in the universe he shouldn't command slavery (for example) no matter the societal implications. God can not sin even if it would help society. So why can he not command the good even if it's detrimental to society or at least certain societies of the time? Would he not be commanding evil?
I look forward to a response. It's a genuine question :D
And this claim is getting tired, but God does not condone slavery, he just failed to condemn it. Back then you were only a slave for 7 years so it wasn't as bad as the modern idea of slavery. Soem entered into it willingly, even.
Morality, doesnt only apply to "laws". For example, stoning disobedient children in Deuteronomy is a moral standard you dont see in the New Testament. Exactly because the bible is written by humans without any "divine" inspiration, its moral standards evolve just like our morality.
In other words, we cant stone children no more, so we need to bend our religion to fit our new societies.
And dont give me that Jesus died for our sins bullshit justification.
I proved to you that moral standards are not absolute, not even in the fucking bible. And all you came up with is this random bullshit? You honestly think that god changed his mind about stoning children due to humanity evolution?
What about sex outside marriage? Seems like god could use a seminar on sexual psychology, and re-adjust his view on the matter.
You've basically just reiterated my point and then tacked on a few insults. You aren't even arguing. And seriously. Watch your tone, I don't tend to let insulters stick around too long.
"You've basically just reiterated my point and then tacked on a few insults."
Your point is insulting human intelligence.
Im arguing that the pattern human evolution - religion morality change is more plausible than a mind - changing god. By definition, absolute wisdom, and knowledge cannot be bend that way. Also, if your argument is true, there are no moral absolutes, which is a key factor of Christian religion.
Im watching my tone lately. The little fuck is acting up on me.
It isn't that the new convenant deals with only punishment, but Jesus introduced a whole new way to interpret the pharonic laws and the Old Testament laws. After Jesus' death, the apostles still preached using the Old Testament, they simply believed that Jesus was the fufillment of the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.
No, it just means humanity evolved passed that being an effective or appropriate punishment. Not dealing with humanity the exact same way for eternity only makes God not all knowing if dealing with us in the same way for eternity was supposed to always be a part of the plan, and I don't think it was because even humans know you have to change the plans when the variables change.
Moses brought down from Mount Sinai 313 Commandments. Christianity only has Ten.
And you implied during this video that God realised that the Punishments should be altered. In other words, God changed his mind? The infinite force that he is, with knowkedge of future and past, changed his opinion? *Your argument crumbles before my megalith intellectual totem penis*
I wouldn't say he realized anything. I'd say he simply moved to the next phase in his plan. Would you punish a 15 year old the same way you punish a 4 year old? Humanity simply grew up a little, so God started dealing with us differently. And when a child grows, you don't "change your mind" about how to raise him/her, you do it in a fashion that is appropriate given their age.
I really can't make this any simpler. This is getting so out of hand I think this might require a video or something.
Well you're making the assumption that we were more childlike or immature in the past. Which I strongly disagree with.
Buddhism, Hinduism. Philosophy in china. These are not childlike people. These are people that are just the same as us. We are not superior than our ancestors. I dont think that requires references. Because its obvious. There are peaks and lows of development. Democracy, doesn't mean people who held those values didn't exist prior to Society taking on democracy.
The ten commandments were specifically for the Jewish people. If you read the text it will be largely obvious that the rules were meant for them specifically because of how the words of God refer to Jews specifically.
The entire Old testament was writen for the Jews. Simply because its Judaism. That's really not a good argument. Otherwise are you insinuating that non-jews are totally exempt from the Old Testament?
There were actually a different set of laws for non-Jewish people called the Laws of Noah or the "Noahic laws" or something similar to that. Google finds proper results on that phrase but I am not sure that is the popular incarnation of the term for it. They are far more general and much less culturally specific.
I don't think that's exactly common knowledge even to a Jew. & the other thing, if someone were to follow the Noahic laws wouldn't they jsut be Jewish if they felt the need to follow the Noah Laws? & anyway I dont think that was my main problem. My main bugbear with this video is the implication God changed his mind, & that People in those days were less intelligent than us, today. Which sadly, not true. But we shud leave the generalisations 2 the experts - Extremists. Take care, luv ur videos x
Dietary laws such as shellfish had to do with health. God is un changing. The Ten Commandments still are to be held to. Since it impossible for humans to hold the law in perfection, Jesus did so for us.
I'm saying that the sentence I quoted makes no sense. If it is impossible for humans to hold the law in perfection, then it is impossible for Jesus to do the same, since Jesus was human as well.
I'm not going to get into the argument of whether Jesus was God, man, or both, because that's just retarded. The Bible itself says that Jesus was a man.
Your half right. He was the God man. God condesecended Himself into flesh. The Bible says that He was the co-Creator. Joh 10:305:18 Isa 9:6 Jer 23:5-6 Mat 23:34 Joh 8:23
Okay, the law is the same. So, do you work or turn on any lights or appliances on Shabbat? It seems like that was a pretty big law, seeing as how it made it into both sets of ten commandments. And, come to think of it, wouldn't the punishment be inherently part of the law?
While I'm at it, do you think it was ever moral or even acceptable to stone a woman for the crime of not having a hymen? Also, I realize this part is only tangentially related to the topic.
So the offspring still deserves to be punished for the mistakes of their parents, except the punishment has changed? A woman should be punished for not atoning after certain days in her menstrual cycle, except the punishment has changed?
Use your God given senses and reason to derive what is right. The bible is a bankrupt moral guide in modern society. It will justify anything with the right interpretation.
The Menstrual Cycle thing is obviously not of the moral caliber... it's not so much on the side of health either, like a the shellfish thing is, as mentioned in the video. It's actually pretty clearly on the symbolic side, along with the "Don't wear mixed fibers" rule.
Yes, I know what's right and can deduce rightness with my own intellect, but your deliberately harsh interpretations of the Bible are in no sense traditional or accurate.
If God tells you to do something, or not to do something, isn't disobeying make it a sin contrary to said "moral fiber". Our ancestors, in neglecting to follow dietary guidelines regarding a certain fruit lost us paradise and gave us death. There is no harsher punishment in the entire book.
The only way you can make these distinctions between moral fiber and non-moral fiber is by using your own intellect to twist the bible's very frank language. You have had to draw this line yourself.
Well geez, that would totally shatter the Christian and Jewish faith if it weren't for the fact hat your statement is ignorant of the reality of the situation which is as I describe it. And It's been that was probably 5 times as long as you can trace back your family tree. You know, 3000 years. That's like, a while.
What is the situation as you describe it? A lot of the punishments or decrees supposedly executed or endorsed by God in the bible are wrong. Not fuzzy, just plain wrong. I know this because they are not self-consistent or worthy of respect. I believe in God, but not the one the bible purports to exist.
That's a complicated answer... but in a few words, those egoist Christians that can't see reason, view the world in black and white terms, and minimize the peaceful teachings of Jesus in favor of something far more authoritarian.
but in a few words, those egoist Christians that can't see reason, view the world in black and white terms, and minimize the peaceful teachings of Jesus in favor of something far more authoritarian. Which terms R is it just the attitude?
Lack of knowledge regarding the "laws" in the bible is what leads to persecution, bigotry, and hypocrisy. Culture comes into play. Context, specific religious practices, primitive thinking, language, etc. One cannot logically expect men living in that time period to not include their own personal views, or what could be considered for safety purposes, such as the eating of tainted meat, their lack of medical knowledge, scientific aspects, etc.
Early Christians didn't have the bible and these things to delve into. Why would an intelligent approach to said text be any different than taking it word for word? Certainly in modern society, the eating of shellfish, slavery, mixing of fabrics, etc. we cannot expect people to follow. The bible was written by primitive men, therefore we can expect for their biases and traditions to be included. Good video by the way. Glad to see another one up.
i'm saying because we point out the wrongs and rights of the bible so therefore we obviously don't get our morals from it!
so its pointless to look in it for moral guidelines/failures as its obviously largely irrelevant to societies moral structures expect for a few fringe elements...
(me too am far too lazy for arg just wanted to clarify)
Holy Crap! that's awesome that you say that because actually I HAVE been... I've left a few comments on her recent video about morality called "I can be a good girl without God"
and I was thinking of echoing them in a video to her so more people would see.
I'm not really arguing with her though so much as pointing out her logical inconstancies OF WHICH THERE ARE PLENTY.
Morals never changed. Circumstances changed so rules changed. God was preserving his people to have a pure line to deliver the messiah by and save mankind so very strict obedience was necessary. For the salvation of mankind - so harsh rules were in effect. After Christ these were no longer necessary.
Is there any objective (or at least agreed upon) standard on what are moral laws and what are just basic laws (like shellfish)? What's the standard for saying "Eating shellfish isn't about morality, but homosexuality is" for example. Or, actually, is your interpretation that the homosexuality line was not a morality issue, but rather a practicality issue, as is the shellfish?
I guess the homosexuality thing could have been either. I figured the rules on sex were just to minimize STDs, honestly.
It's relatively standard thinking I believe that the law refers to the 10 commandments. Obviously a Rabbi could tell you a for-sure answer, but otherwise I figure it is relatively easy to apply the human ability of abstract thought in order to deduce what laws are practical and which are moral and for people to be able to come to a similar consensus on this.
Kind of like a Jesus-pedia eh? Bible Wiki. It means what we collectively decide it to mean.
As tongue in cheek as my comment is, I generally actually favor that kind of view. It can become a problem if you form a Tyranny of the Majority or something silly like that, but that's no more likely to occur under this line of religious thinking than under a direct democracy...
"It's relatively standard thinking I believe that the law refers to the 10 commandments."
Which version? Also: Why single out those verses, in the middle of a long list of rules and regulations, all claimed by (allegedly) Moses to be from god?
Because the 6th came after... that's much like asking why you were born before this person and after this person... it's just how it went down. There is no why.
Ahhhh. Interesting. Though I'm sure everyone wants to know who is the first. I mean, does the first watcher call himself 1stWatcher, or is he just "Watcher"
Probably he would say "1st". It's pretty much like if I called you by your social security number, though, so we wouldn't refer to each other like that.
Don't take any of this all that seriously, btw. :-P
That or maybe I just enjoy talking about strange cult things that are true and then brush them off like I was just teasing with you as an outlet to occasionally talk about my secret underground life without any real consequences.
iMovie, Version 6. For non-youtube stuff, as in, real film projects (I am a film major) I use Final Cut Pro. thanks Dude. Ur the Christian side in this, eh?
... Okay, so what do you know/believe about your god, other than that he created the universe, and that Jesus died to save mankind from basically being punished in ways that were patently absurd and could only have been created by a really jackass of a deity?
I try not to assume too much so I don't go too far beyond that, and I consider the possibilities to be just that - possibilities. I also think that every religion is a valid attempt at bringing God to the people.
I am confident enough in the existence of a supreme deity to justify the faith it takes to fill the gap in evidence for such a being.
How then to distinguish between the severity of different "sins"? For example Christians take other people's "sin" of homosexuality extremely serious while their own divorces rarely warrant public protests or constitutional amendments. How do they decide that?
It's not a judgment, it's an observation made with harsh exaggerated language. I certainly won't claim to know where their souls are headed, although I'd actually assume it'd still be heaven by Christian standards, no matter how flawed they are.
I wonder if you really don't know how it works or if you really think this line of questioning is making me squirm, or something, because it's not. No offense... but that is the tactic of many.... ask questions even if you know the answer just because it gets people uncomfortable.
In short; the morals are enforced, and we are all guilty. Only through Jesus we can has forgiveness. for our transgressions.
In my experience you can get all sorts of different answers from Christians to the same question. The answer usually reflects the person's attitudes and not their religion (that's obvious since they all operate based on the same text and the differences result from what they want the Bible to mean).
As for Christians, there are a few schools of thought:
1) You must constantly ask for forgiveness if you keep committing new sins. You must continually be genuinely sorry for every sin. Failure do this results in purgatory or even Hell. (2 schools within, I guess)
2)Another school of thought is if you are saved you are pretty much good, since God realizes everyone is a sinner, are totally imperfect and may not know better to be sorry. He forgives our ignorance even if we don't know that we are.
No, I said it doesn't count because it's not a moral law. "The Law" refers to moral laws. The shell fish thing was a religiously imposed health-code; shell fish was not safe to eat back then.
I agree. And I know that it's not the traditional Christian perspective, but I think god coming down in a human form made him truly sympathize with us.
I think god is all powerful, especially compared to us, but I also think he has the ability to control this power. IE he is not always inside our minds because he chooses not to be. The view I expressed is probably a bit gnostic of me. with this and other things, I have not chosen a position, I just remain familiar with several of the possibilities, since I can't know for certain how exactly it is. True empathy requires experience. I'd suppose he wanted to make sure he showed he really had it.
OK, I'll point out a couple things and then I'll stop bugging you because I think I'm starting to get annoying.
But surely, you have to realize, when you say things like "all powerful compared to us" that means not really all powerful. Just relatively really powerful.
And when you say "he wanted to make sure" that also implies him not being all knowing.
God really only has to be powerful enough to do whatever he wants and have full control over the universe. I think god is at least knows all that he wishes to know.
I think there are a lot of philosophical problems with omnipotence and "all-powerful-ness", at least how it is usually defined.
srry, an allpowerful being can have empathy without experience. A, and btw, to be allpowerful implies to be ilogical, one can't present arguments against an AP being, you just have to answer "he is AP, he can do it"... there is no point
as I told you, you can't apply logic to allpowerful beings, it's useless you get contradictions. There is an esy way of making your point: G is AP, G is AK, thus, everything G does is the best thing that anyone could have done, even if we don't think so,a nd even if it lookes stupid or evil. Don't try to give arguments for those things, they're just dogma, I don't care if you believe it or not, just don't prentend they're not dogma
I actually agree. I think people assume god does more than he's want to. Certainly an "all powerful" being would also have good self control and an ability to be contained as he pleased.
Lots of people consider "all powerful" to be a self-contradiction: Stone so big story. A more reasonable view on omnipotence is the ability to create a stone of any size, and lift a stone of any size. In a sense, it is an entity whose power is unlimited except relative to itself. Of course, there are other ramifications past that-namely that God basically has to be apathetic under those conditions.
And on the apathy thing... I think I prefer it that way.
WE need to learn for ourselves without God holding our hand and we could do without Godly wrath every time we make mistakes. Self-reliance is a good trait to have. I certainly hope whatever God is out there appreciates the fact that I don't call on him for every little thing.
Because there's still the problem of interpretation. People twist verses even today to justify stuff. But the ten commandments, IE the law, are relatively simple and straightforward.
Have you ever read Deuteronomy? How about Leviticus? The bible clearly condones slavery. How can you say that the morality of the bible/Christianity is unchanging? I should hope that you don't think one can own a human slave and still be considered a moral person.
One must keep in mind the cultural context; in the ancient biblical time the Hebrew term abad or ebed means what today would be known as a servant. The translation slave is not even accurate except in the passages pertaining to captives of war, but even then there were rules for non-abusive treatment. There are even passages about servants wanting to remain as servants for life, because the life style was pleasant.
I love the way you justify it by saying 'servants', like it's just a mistranslation, and that it's not slaves.
Read that passage, It says a Hebrew 'servant' can leave his master after 6 years, but if he has had a wife and child they are the owned by the master. which means if he wants to be with his wife and child he HAS to say. Laugh at the way you say "because the life style was pleasant", oh yeah because everyone wants to be a slave, sorry I mean "servant".
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Should they be put to death? Doesn't seem very moral by today's standards.
Apperently, then it is, but it's no worse than any other sin by biblical standards, and we are all sinners. Ever have sex outside of marriage? It's the exact same sin, apparently... I'm a respecter of life styles so I don't go trying to change my gay friends just as they don;t try to change me.
Bottom line is all sin is equal. And we are all sinners, so there is no need to over-condemn someone for one kind of sin.
If all sin is equal, then doesn't sin basically become meaningless? If my having sex outside of marriage is of the same magnitude of sin as my murdering my mother, sin becomes irrelevant as a reasonable measure of morality. That doesn't mean sin isn't equal, but it definitely demolishes the typical Christian argument of "How can you have morality without God?" I don't think a system that puts premarital sex on the same level as murder is really all too moral...
Even if all sin is equal in the eyes of God, I certainly agree that in earthly practice it is better that we assign degrees of severity as far as punishment goes. Then again, that could be God's method too, if there is anything to the theory on the "circles of hell".
So then sin is sin, but they are dealt with according to the crime.
I always just saw it as a way to make sure people didn't make themselves out to be better than others. We are all sinners, and so we are all equal in that regard.
Okay, so you're not one of the people who use the "But without god, there can be no morality!" thing, instead viewing sin as a tangent to morality that evidences that no entity (perhaps save God, at least by your logic) is perfect. Correct?
You seem to be arguing from the defensive position, rather than from the offensive position, unlike That One Guy, so your responses tend to be significantly less... asinine. Still, some parts will seem absurd, but I'll deal with those as they come.
I never really considered that part of Christian morality. Jesus taught the golden rule, to love the sinner and never mentioned homosexuality, not even once. I am a Christian for Jesus's teachings on tolerance and forgiveness.
So do you consider gay marriages a sin then? Is that a moral rule? How do you decide what is a moral rule? Does it not apply anymore because Jesus died on the cross for us?
domarama 1 week ago
@domarama That's part of the whole deal.
5thWatcher 1 week ago
Interesting commentary.
Keep it up, interested Atheist,
I wan't more commentary on bigger targets.
Dawkins and Dennett perhaps . .
PoWBlackOPS4 3 months ago
Questions pertaining to the nature of God are unrelated to the question of whether or not God exists.
One may disagree with a purported action of God's, or believe that said action is ridiculous, but these sentiments have nothing to do with the possibility of a being that exists in 4+n spatiotemporal dimensions, and therefore has by definition supernatural abilities.
Some people mistakenly believe that a thing must not exist if it can't be observed. Can you send me a picture of gravity?
Suckbutton 5 months ago
I don't think this necessarily relates to the video, but I've always been curious. Why would God, who supposedly loves all people, only select a certain group of people to be His people in the beginning? Such selectivity contradicts what happened in the NT, and I don't see how God can contradict himself if he's the same at all times.
Harbinger631 2 years ago
So wait, your argument is that humanity developed more to be able to choose good over evil because evil was wrong, and not choose good over evil because you would be killed by doing evil, so God changed the rules?
What's your basis for believing that there was such a change in humanity? Doesn't it make more sense that Jewish leaders invented these crazy punishments to control the people, and that God had nothing to do with it?
Harbinger631 2 years ago
"you should sell your daughter into slavery if she is disobediant" "it is ok to beat your wife just don't mark her face" "attack the city and slaughter all but the hot young virgins (moses quote)" "stone a woman to death on her wedding night if shes not a virgin" Don't try and dress up the sick twisted stuff in the bible and make it sound reasonable, I don't care if you think god changed his mind on morals or just puinishment. If I thought god was real I'd be terrafied! He sounds fucking EVIL!
SkyDoginthetube 2 years ago
Intimately familiar with all things religious? What about the DIFFERENT moral codes of 1000s of religions?
The PUNISHMENT is different?
Firstly, that alone means a change in morals. So you contradict yourself.
You mean going from KILLING someone for worshipping another god to NOT killing them is not a change in morals?
Or stopping enslaving conquered civilians?
How is going from the wife being ruled by the husband to equal rights a change in punishment.
Your argument is nonsense.
dbes02 2 years ago
correction/clarification -
it's a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license.
It's in the description of most/all of my new vids, and most of the older ones, where applicable.
RabidApe 2 years ago
"And God realized that too"?
God goes around REALIZING things?
I've not ever heard anyone use such a phrase before; EVER. Isn't God supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect?
Never mind the rest of your video, or this discussion. I see a whole train-wreck of contradiction, contained within that single phrase.
psychoholicmike 2 years ago
Maybe "realized" isn't the best word. "knows that" would work better. But when I said "realized", I didn't mean to say he went along for so long no knowing that.
5thWatcher 2 years ago
I guess I figured it was mainly a semantic mistake...but I'm still tempted to say "Freudian Slip."
The fact remains, God seems to have made AND CONCEDED a mistake, and not a small one.
Perfect beings have no need of revisions, ever.
psychoholicmike 2 years ago
It wasn't a revision. It was part of the plan. For example, if you had kids you would punish them differently at 6 years old than you would at 16 years old. would you have to "realize" this along the way? No, I'd think you'd know since the moment of birth that you would tailor any punishments to make them appropriate for their age. Just like you with your theoretical kid, I think God would have known since creation that he would handle things differently as humanity developed and "grew up".
5thWatcher 2 years ago
I was pondering this question some more, at my boring, boring job - and this very answer occurred to me, as the only one that could reconcile God's supposed perfection with his confessed inconsistency.
Props for coming up with it on your own.
You've won THIS round, 5thWatcher, but I WILL be BACK! MWA HA HA HA HA!...
psychoholicmike 2 years ago
@5thWatcher My question to you is why would God have carried out a plan that would allow us to screw up? I mean being all knowing and powerful God it would make sense to create beings that would not screw up. This would then would eliminate the need for punishment, but your God seems to like punishing people considering that he knew people would screw up, yet he punished them anyway. Your God sounds pretty sadistic.
jol223334 7 months ago
@jol223334 People do bad stuff on purpose, too, you know. Also, without vice there would be no virtue, and no need to strive for greater things, and nothing to learn with no mistakes to learn from.
5thWatcher 7 months ago
is ur god experimenting on us?
because what urs saying is that he first said ah ur going to get stoned, then said ok this isnt working really well. let me go down there and kill my self for my self and put Every one that is not saved by me in an eternal hell.
what next? hes going to torture ur family and loved ones for eternity in front of ur eyes? or who knows maby he will make u sit in front of him for the rest of ur life thats a good way to torture someone isn't it ? :)
waytohell2 2 years ago
No your arguement makes no sense whatsoever. God could have REALIZED that before time even began.
Punkandfunk420 2 years ago
@psychoholicmike
I felt the same way when i herd him say that. "God realized" But God knows everything. I thought about it for 2 seconds. And I'm pretty sure this guy doesn't actually mean that. What he meant was God realized it was time to change things and send out his son's soul.
FunnyAnimations 2 months ago in playlist More videos from 5thWatcher
Dude, VAST is awesome.
wehaveacar 2 years ago
DUDE, that means you are awesome as well. For liking them.
5thWatcher 2 years ago
Yeah. I guess it's just my cross to bear. Keep up the good work dude. Oh yeah I was wondering... What would Jesus do about Marijuana? I used to smoke alot before I joined the Army and Ive always thought he'd be ok with it. Opinion?
wehaveacar 2 years ago
Hmmm. I suppose if he took issue with it, it would probably only be because it's illegal and we are supposed to follow the laws of God AND man whenever possible.
Personally though, I've never actually touched the stuff.
5thWatcher 2 years ago
LOL. How is that even possible? To each his own of course. It's not really in the cards for me ever again, I'm going to work for the man forever because they're the only ones who offer a pension. MJ isn't worth it
wehaveacar 2 years ago
I dunno, I think I just had gone so long without ever trying it that I thought it would be cool be able to go on saying I never have. It'll be a fun selling point if I ever run for a public office, since they all seem to get asked that question.
5thWatcher 2 years ago
Yeah dude that is a good idea. You'd be a very good civic servant.
wehaveacar 2 years ago
Can god change his punishments if he is infallible? At 2:15 you said "god realized..." which makes me think immediately of an "oh shit" moment. "Oh shit, shouldn't have told them to stone each other. Jesus! fix this.
Maybe you could explain that to me more because that's just how it came off.
SubRandomv6 3 years ago
I'm not sure if I said this in the video, but I think god has and will changed his style of governance as humanity grows and learns. I don't think of it has an Oh shit moment, but rather as part of the plan... just like how you punish/reward a 16 year old kid differently than a 6 year old kid.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
I see what you're saying and it's an interesting point but if god is the source of good and ultimate truth in the universe he shouldn't command slavery (for example) no matter the societal implications. God can not sin even if it would help society. So why can he not command the good even if it's detrimental to society or at least certain societies of the time? Would he not be commanding evil?
I look forward to a response. It's a genuine question :D
SubRandomv6 3 years ago
"I think god has and will changed his style of governance as humanity grows"
Who is more likely to have changed? The "perfect divine creator of absolute truths" or religion made by evolving humans?
Dont you see the pattern here? You try to justify an unjustifiable aspect of a divine being. Gods by definition do not change their minds.
Even if god did change his style, you still worship someone who thought it was ok to stone children 2000 years ago.
Enjoy your divine father.
WhereTheyAre 3 years ago
Pure epic strawman. God hasn't changed if said change was always a part of the plan.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Pure epic fail.
The (not so strawman) argument is that it is more likely for religion to have changed due to morality evolution than a child abusing god.
Where's the strawman Einstein?
Also, answer to SubRandomv6's question. Can a god that promoted slavery, or child abuse sometime in history be the source of good?
WhereTheyAre 3 years ago
I think it's both.
And this claim is getting tired, but God does not condone slavery, he just failed to condemn it. Back then you were only a slave for 7 years so it wasn't as bad as the modern idea of slavery. Soem entered into it willingly, even.
5thWatcher 2 years ago
Oh, i will let you hear it again.
Morality, doesnt only apply to "laws". For example, stoning disobedient children in Deuteronomy is a moral standard you dont see in the New Testament. Exactly because the bible is written by humans without any "divine" inspiration, its moral standards evolve just like our morality.
In other words, we cant stone children no more, so we need to bend our religion to fit our new societies.
And dont give me that Jesus died for our sins bullshit justification.
WhereTheyAre 3 years ago
Or the punishments evolve with humanity.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
"Or the punishments evolve with humanity"
What?
I proved to you that moral standards are not absolute, not even in the fucking bible. And all you came up with is this random bullshit? You honestly think that god changed his mind about stoning children due to humanity evolution?
What about sex outside marriage? Seems like god could use a seminar on sexual psychology, and re-adjust his view on the matter.
How the fuck you could be so naive?
WhereTheyAre 3 years ago
You've basically just reiterated my point and then tacked on a few insults. You aren't even arguing. And seriously. Watch your tone, I don't tend to let insulters stick around too long.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
"You've basically just reiterated my point and then tacked on a few insults."
Your point is insulting human intelligence.
Im arguing that the pattern human evolution - religion morality change is more plausible than a mind - changing god. By definition, absolute wisdom, and knowledge cannot be bend that way. Also, if your argument is true, there are no moral absolutes, which is a key factor of Christian religion.
Im watching my tone lately. The little fuck is acting up on me.
WhereTheyAre 3 years ago
It isn't that the new convenant deals with only punishment, but Jesus introduced a whole new way to interpret the pharonic laws and the Old Testament laws. After Jesus' death, the apostles still preached using the Old Testament, they simply believed that Jesus was the fufillment of the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament.
AliasSpecWriter 3 years ago
Yeah that sounds right. There are a bunch of subtleties to this that others would be better at explaining.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
You explained it fine, I was just adding my 2 cents worth :)
AliasSpecWriter 3 years ago
So God thought stonning was okay and then changed his mind, cool. But wouldn't that mean his is not all knowing?
midas41 3 years ago 5
No, it just means humanity evolved passed that being an effective or appropriate punishment. Not dealing with humanity the exact same way for eternity only makes God not all knowing if dealing with us in the same way for eternity was supposed to always be a part of the plan, and I don't think it was because even humans know you have to change the plans when the variables change.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Moses brought down from Mount Sinai 313 Commandments. Christianity only has Ten.
And you implied during this video that God realised that the Punishments should be altered. In other words, God changed his mind? The infinite force that he is, with knowkedge of future and past, changed his opinion? *Your argument crumbles before my megalith intellectual totem penis*
ellyunfortunetly 3 years ago
I wouldn't say he realized anything. I'd say he simply moved to the next phase in his plan. Would you punish a 15 year old the same way you punish a 4 year old? Humanity simply grew up a little, so God started dealing with us differently. And when a child grows, you don't "change your mind" about how to raise him/her, you do it in a fashion that is appropriate given their age.
I really can't make this any simpler. This is getting so out of hand I think this might require a video or something.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Well you're making the assumption that we were more childlike or immature in the past. Which I strongly disagree with.
Buddhism, Hinduism. Philosophy in china. These are not childlike people. These are people that are just the same as us. We are not superior than our ancestors. I dont think that requires references. Because its obvious. There are peaks and lows of development. Democracy, doesn't mean people who held those values didn't exist prior to Society taking on democracy.
ellyunfortunetly 3 years ago
The ten commandments were specifically for the Jewish people. If you read the text it will be largely obvious that the rules were meant for them specifically because of how the words of God refer to Jews specifically.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
The entire Old testament was writen for the Jews. Simply because its Judaism. That's really not a good argument. Otherwise are you insinuating that non-jews are totally exempt from the Old Testament?
ellyunfortunetly 3 years ago
There were actually a different set of laws for non-Jewish people called the Laws of Noah or the "Noahic laws" or something similar to that. Google finds proper results on that phrase but I am not sure that is the popular incarnation of the term for it. They are far more general and much less culturally specific.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
I don't think that's exactly common knowledge even to a Jew. & the other thing, if someone were to follow the Noahic laws wouldn't they jsut be Jewish if they felt the need to follow the Noah Laws? & anyway I dont think that was my main problem. My main bugbear with this video is the implication God changed his mind, & that People in those days were less intelligent than us, today. Which sadly, not true. But we shud leave the generalisations 2 the experts - Extremists. Take care, luv ur videos x
ellyunfortunetly 3 years ago
Dietary laws such as shellfish had to do with health. God is un changing. The Ten Commandments still are to be held to. Since it impossible for humans to hold the law in perfection, Jesus did so for us.
Brucev7 3 years ago
"Since it impossible for humans to hold the law in perfection, Jesus did so for us."
Um... Jesus was a human.
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
Are you saying He was only human?
Brucev7 3 years ago
I'm saying that the sentence I quoted makes no sense. If it is impossible for humans to hold the law in perfection, then it is impossible for Jesus to do the same, since Jesus was human as well.
I'm not going to get into the argument of whether Jesus was God, man, or both, because that's just retarded. The Bible itself says that Jesus was a man.
787Bisurdaddy 3 years ago
Your half right. He was the God man. God condesecended Himself into flesh. The Bible says that He was the co-Creator. Joh 10:30 5:18 Isa 9:6 Jer 23:5-6 Mat 23:34 Joh 8:23
Brucev7 3 years ago
Okay, the law is the same. So, do you work or turn on any lights or appliances on Shabbat? It seems like that was a pretty big law, seeing as how it made it into both sets of ten commandments. And, come to think of it, wouldn't the punishment be inherently part of the law?
While I'm at it, do you think it was ever moral or even acceptable to stone a woman for the crime of not having a hymen? Also, I realize this part is only tangentially related to the topic.
Not trolling, btw.
BoozyBeggar 3 years ago
So...god realized he was wrong in his punishments before the new covenant?
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
Something like that.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
How is that compatible with an omniscient or infallible god?
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
I gave you 5 stars
Leilatheloony 3 years ago
Thank you, Ms. Loony
5thWatcher 3 years ago
hey 5th, your apolog-fu is strong my friend.
So the offspring still deserves to be punished for the mistakes of their parents, except the punishment has changed? A woman should be punished for not atoning after certain days in her menstrual cycle, except the punishment has changed?
Use your God given senses and reason to derive what is right. The bible is a bankrupt moral guide in modern society. It will justify anything with the right interpretation.
hugesinker 3 years ago
The Menstrual Cycle thing is obviously not of the moral caliber... it's not so much on the side of health either, like a the shellfish thing is, as mentioned in the video. It's actually pretty clearly on the symbolic side, along with the "Don't wear mixed fibers" rule.
Yes, I know what's right and can deduce rightness with my own intellect, but your deliberately harsh interpretations of the Bible are in no sense traditional or accurate.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
If God tells you to do something, or not to do something, isn't disobeying make it a sin contrary to said "moral fiber". Our ancestors, in neglecting to follow dietary guidelines regarding a certain fruit lost us paradise and gave us death. There is no harsher punishment in the entire book.
The only way you can make these distinctions between moral fiber and non-moral fiber is by using your own intellect to twist the bible's very frank language. You have had to draw this line yourself.
hugesinker 3 years ago
Well geez, that would totally shatter the Christian and Jewish faith if it weren't for the fact hat your statement is ignorant of the reality of the situation which is as I describe it. And It's been that was probably 5 times as long as you can trace back your family tree. You know, 3000 years. That's like, a while.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
What is the situation as you describe it? A lot of the punishments or decrees supposedly executed or endorsed by God in the bible are wrong. Not fuzzy, just plain wrong. I know this because they are not self-consistent or worthy of respect. I believe in God, but not the one the bible purports to exist.
hugesinker 3 years ago
I can haz Pwnage?
hugesinker 2 years ago
I love VAST!
kdaniels19 3 years ago
Awesome. Yeah they are one of my favorite bands and have been for years.
I have one or two other band shirts that have not yet made video. I'll have to wear those next.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
How do U define fundamentalism; 5thWatcher
TJae1 3 years ago
That's a complicated answer... but in a few words, those egoist Christians that can't see reason, view the world in black and white terms, and minimize the peaceful teachings of Jesus in favor of something far more authoritarian.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
but in a few words, those egoist Christians that can't see reason, view the world in black and white terms, and minimize the peaceful teachings of Jesus in favor of something far more authoritarian. Which terms R is it just the attitude?
TJae1 3 years ago
Sorry they have changed!!! you're just saying the rules that have changed don't count! go to hell for wearing more than one cloth why don't you!
conorsmurf 3 years ago
Lack of knowledge regarding the "laws" in the bible is what leads to persecution, bigotry, and hypocrisy. Culture comes into play. Context, specific religious practices, primitive thinking, language, etc. One cannot logically expect men living in that time period to not include their own personal views, or what could be considered for safety purposes, such as the eating of tainted meat, their lack of medical knowledge, scientific aspects, etc.
bashfulbutterfly 3 years ago
Early Christians didn't have the bible and these things to delve into. Why would an intelligent approach to said text be any different than taking it word for word? Certainly in modern society, the eating of shellfish, slavery, mixing of fabrics, etc. we cannot expect people to follow. The bible was written by primitive men, therefore we can expect for their biases and traditions to be included. Good video by the way. Glad to see another one up.
bashfulbutterfly 3 years ago
I actually have more confidence in the rationality of ancient people, but other than that I think you could at least be right for different reasons.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
So God realized that his punishments were wrong? God realized this, so are you telling us that God made a mistake?
archraw 3 years ago
HAHA! For real dude.
velcroboy87 3 years ago
If God was wrong then the democrats are right.
What I am saying is, this is like politics... no one's right. It's subjective.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Ok, I can buy that, thanks for the clarification.
archraw 3 years ago
I am actually very impressed that you except the subjectivity of it. Most people are total slaves to their biases and can hardly ever see reason.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
the books impossible to get a working set of morals out of without having a set pre-imprinted in us thanks to evolution. the books pointless.
conorsmurf 3 years ago
...your mom is pointless?
Lol, sorry.
I'm not interested in arguing about it specifically but I think your point is largely irrelevant.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
sorry if i didn't express myself clearly.
i'm saying because we point out the wrongs and rights of the bible so therefore we obviously don't get our morals from it!
so its pointless to look in it for moral guidelines/failures as its obviously largely irrelevant to societies moral structures expect for a few fringe elements...
(me too am far too lazy for arg just wanted to clarify)
conorsmurf 3 years ago
Jeez, I'd love for you to go against gogreen18.
Do it, pleeease D=>
astr323 3 years ago
Holy Crap! that's awesome that you say that because actually I HAVE been... I've left a few comments on her recent video about morality called "I can be a good girl without God"
and I was thinking of echoing them in a video to her so more people would see.
I'm not really arguing with her though so much as pointing out her logical inconstancies OF WHICH THERE ARE PLENTY.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
SWEET
I love using logic against atheists. =3
And I really love your videos; I think I've subscribed. If I haven't, I'm on it right now. =)
Please do that video! I'd love to post it on MySpace and get you out there.
astr323 3 years ago
well said.
vb18panda 3 years ago
Morals never changed. Circumstances changed so rules changed. God was preserving his people to have a pure line to deliver the messiah by and save mankind so very strict obedience was necessary. For the salvation of mankind - so harsh rules were in effect. After Christ these were no longer necessary.
EduardCurrent 3 years ago
you finally release a new video and it's not even 4 minutes long? :( way to leave us hungry, 5thwatcher
Bjarku 3 years ago
Fantastic! So glad to see you posted a video. Always makes my day, listening to your viewpoints. Look forward to seeing more
Tessietots 3 years ago
Interesting...
Justinfh2point0 3 years ago
Is there any objective (or at least agreed upon) standard on what are moral laws and what are just basic laws (like shellfish)? What's the standard for saying "Eating shellfish isn't about morality, but homosexuality is" for example. Or, actually, is your interpretation that the homosexuality line was not a morality issue, but rather a practicality issue, as is the shellfish?
Theycallmetomu 3 years ago
I guess the homosexuality thing could have been either. I figured the rules on sex were just to minimize STDs, honestly.
It's relatively standard thinking I believe that the law refers to the 10 commandments. Obviously a Rabbi could tell you a for-sure answer, but otherwise I figure it is relatively easy to apply the human ability of abstract thought in order to deduce what laws are practical and which are moral and for people to be able to come to a similar consensus on this.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Kind of like a Jesus-pedia eh? Bible Wiki. It means what we collectively decide it to mean.
As tongue in cheek as my comment is, I generally actually favor that kind of view. It can become a problem if you form a Tyranny of the Majority or something silly like that, but that's no more likely to occur under this line of religious thinking than under a direct democracy...
Theycallmetomu 3 years ago
Well, not much more likely anyway.
Theycallmetomu 3 years ago
"It's relatively standard thinking I believe that the law refers to the 10 commandments."
Which version? Also: Why single out those verses, in the middle of a long list of rules and regulations, all claimed by (allegedly) Moses to be from god?
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
Nice try trying to be all clever. The other rules were extensions of those ten basic rules. everything is kinda like fine print.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
You still haven't told me which version. Roman-catholic, orthodox, anglican, or lutheran?
CapnOrdinary 3 years ago
It's a Jewish thing, originally... It'd go Torah on this one.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
so why are you the 5th watcher? why not the 6th?
Nick1814 3 years ago
Because the 6th came after... that's much like asking why you were born before this person and after this person... it's just how it went down. There is no why.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
So, do you know who the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th watchers are? And who will be the 6th? Are these beyond your limited realm of knowledge?
Theycallmetomu 3 years ago
There are 200. And we've all been around for quite awhile. Not quite sure who everyone else is though. If you find any, send them my way. :-P
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Ahhhh. Interesting. Though I'm sure everyone wants to know who is the first. I mean, does the first watcher call himself 1stWatcher, or is he just "Watcher"
Spoooooky.
Theycallmetomu 3 years ago
Probably he would say "1st". It's pretty much like if I called you by your social security number, though, so we wouldn't refer to each other like that.
Don't take any of this all that seriously, btw. :-P
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Gasp! So you mean it's all been a LIE?!
Theycallmetomu 3 years ago
That or maybe I just enjoy talking about strange cult things that are true and then brush them off like I was just teasing with you as an outlet to occasionally talk about my secret underground life without any real consequences.
YOU DECIDE.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Gasp! Refuge in Audacity? You Magnificent Bastard!
Theycallmetomu 3 years ago
Hehe, I found that entertaining and I'm glad that there is another rational Christian on youtube that can respond with clear concise arguments.
WhatisaJugallo 3 years ago
iMovie, Version 6. For non-youtube stuff, as in, real film projects (I am a film major) I use Final Cut Pro. thanks Dude. Ur the Christian side in this, eh?
TJae1 3 years ago
I guess I am. though I argue with Christians too.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
What variety? exactly
TJae1 3 years ago
Fundamentalists.
I could get into detail, but that word probably sums it up well enough.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
pretty well gotcha.
TJae1 3 years ago
So where are the new punishments specified?
mbruck77 3 years ago
Jesus took on the "new punishment" so that we don't have to, as a result, we can simply be forgiven.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
... Okay, so what do you know/believe about your god, other than that he created the universe, and that Jesus died to save mankind from basically being punished in ways that were patently absurd and could only have been created by a really jackass of a deity?
Theycallmetomu 3 years ago
I try not to assume too much so I don't go too far beyond that, and I consider the possibilities to be just that - possibilities. I also think that every religion is a valid attempt at bringing God to the people.
I am confident enough in the existence of a supreme deity to justify the faith it takes to fill the gap in evidence for such a being.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
How then to distinguish between the severity of different "sins"? For example Christians take other people's "sin" of homosexuality extremely serious while their own divorces rarely warrant public protests or constitutional amendments. How do they decide that?
mbruck77 3 years ago
That is quite simple:
They are retarded.
Hypocritical.
And so on.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
That is quite simple:
They are retarded.
Hypocritical.
And so on.
Who is?
TJae1 3 years ago
These fundamentalists.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
These fundamentalists. which 1s or all?
TJae1 3 years ago
All of them, that is, all the ones that fall into my definition of the term.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Ur definition being = ?
TJae1 3 years ago
Wait, now I am confused. You are a Christian, aren't you supposed not to pass judgment?
mbruck77 3 years ago
It's not a judgment, it's an observation made with harsh exaggerated language. I certainly won't claim to know where their souls are headed, although I'd actually assume it'd still be heaven by Christian standards, no matter how flawed they are.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
So basically for Christians their actions have no consequences and all the morals we keep hearing about are never enforced?
mbruck77 3 years ago
I wonder if you really don't know how it works or if you really think this line of questioning is making me squirm, or something, because it's not. No offense... but that is the tactic of many.... ask questions even if you know the answer just because it gets people uncomfortable.
In short; the morals are enforced, and we are all guilty. Only through Jesus we can has forgiveness. for our transgressions.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
In my experience you can get all sorts of different answers from Christians to the same question. The answer usually reflects the person's attitudes and not their religion (that's obvious since they all operate based on the same text and the differences result from what they want the Bible to mean).
mbruck77 3 years ago
As for Christians, there are a few schools of thought:
1) You must constantly ask for forgiveness if you keep committing new sins. You must continually be genuinely sorry for every sin. Failure do this results in purgatory or even Hell. (2 schools within, I guess)
2)Another school of thought is if you are saved you are pretty much good, since God realizes everyone is a sinner, are totally imperfect and may not know better to be sorry. He forgives our ignorance even if we don't know that we are.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
"genuinely sorry for every sin" This is no hurdle at all, human brains do this sort of self-delusion on a daily basis.
If you steal something are you supposed to be "genuinely sorry" for breaking god's laws or for causing property damage to another person?
mbruck77 3 years ago
Probably both, but I am of the opinion God would recognize a flawed effort since he knows we are far from perfect.
In other words, there may or may not be a "correct" way to be sorry... but there is obviously a way to be genuine about it.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Great vid!!
safenders 3 years ago
thank you.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Wait a minute, are you saying that eating shell fish is still an abomination, it's just the punishment that has changed?
h8uall66 3 years ago
No, I said it doesn't count because it's not a moral law. "The Law" refers to moral laws. The shell fish thing was a religiously imposed health-code; shell fish was not safe to eat back then.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Ah, gotcha. Thanks.
h8uall66 3 years ago
By the way, for future reference, how do you differentiate between Old Testament Moral Laws and all others?
h8uall66 3 years ago
The law is pretty much just the ten commandments and the other rules that branch from it.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
wow snap! A christian who knows what he is talking about. Thats amazing.
Great video
intelligentfalling 3 years ago
I know I'm like one of six guys total. :-P
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Some vids were a real labor of love that took all night to make. What video editors do U use?
TJae1 3 years ago
iMovie, Version 6. For non-youtube stuff, as in, real film projects (I am a film major) I use Final Cut Pro.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Benji was here o_O
THExBENJ 3 years ago
Why would an all-knowing being change his mind about punishment? Moreover, how would he do that while being ouside of time?
Changing one's mind implies both incomplete knowledge and being subject to time.
darktango78 3 years ago
I agree. And I know that it's not the traditional Christian perspective, but I think god coming down in a human form made him truly sympathize with us.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
So you believe in a god that's not all-powerful and all-knowing? I.e, that needed that human experience in order to empathize and sympathize?
darktango78 3 years ago
I think god is all powerful, especially compared to us, but I also think he has the ability to control this power. IE he is not always inside our minds because he chooses not to be. The view I expressed is probably a bit gnostic of me. with this and other things, I have not chosen a position, I just remain familiar with several of the possibilities, since I can't know for certain how exactly it is. True empathy requires experience. I'd suppose he wanted to make sure he showed he really had it.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
OK, I'll point out a couple things and then I'll stop bugging you because I think I'm starting to get annoying.
But surely, you have to realize, when you say things like "all powerful compared to us" that means not really all powerful. Just relatively really powerful.
And when you say "he wanted to make sure" that also implies him not being all knowing.
darktango78 3 years ago
God really only has to be powerful enough to do whatever he wants and have full control over the universe. I think god is at least knows all that he wishes to know.
I think there are a lot of philosophical problems with omnipotence and "all-powerful-ness", at least how it is usually defined.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
srry, an allpowerful being can have empathy without experience. A, and btw, to be allpowerful implies to be ilogical, one can't present arguments against an AP being, you just have to answer "he is AP, he can do it"... there is no point
mortemdei 3 years ago
an al powerful god would also have no roadblocks in getting said experience if it was needed.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
as I told you, you can't apply logic to allpowerful beings, it's useless you get contradictions. There is an esy way of making your point: G is AP, G is AK, thus, everything G does is the best thing that anyone could have done, even if we don't think so,a nd even if it lookes stupid or evil. Don't try to give arguments for those things, they're just dogma, I don't care if you believe it or not, just don't prentend they're not dogma
mortemdei 3 years ago
I actually agree. I think people assume god does more than he's want to. Certainly an "all powerful" being would also have good self control and an ability to be contained as he pleased.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Lots of people consider "all powerful" to be a self-contradiction: Stone so big story. A more reasonable view on omnipotence is the ability to create a stone of any size, and lift a stone of any size. In a sense, it is an entity whose power is unlimited except relative to itself. Of course, there are other ramifications past that-namely that God basically has to be apathetic under those conditions.
Theycallmetomu 3 years ago
Right right.
And on the apathy thing... I think I prefer it that way.
WE need to learn for ourselves without God holding our hand and we could do without Godly wrath every time we make mistakes. Self-reliance is a good trait to have. I certainly hope whatever God is out there appreciates the fact that I don't call on him for every little thing.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
If Christian morality is unchanging then why was the bible used to justify slavery up until 150 years ago yet today most Christians reject racism?
faitheist 3 years ago
Because there's still the problem of interpretation. People twist verses even today to justify stuff. But the ten commandments, IE the law, are relatively simple and straightforward.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Have you ever read Deuteronomy? How about Leviticus? The bible clearly condones slavery. How can you say that the morality of the bible/Christianity is unchanging? I should hope that you don't think one can own a human slave and still be considered a moral person.
faitheist 3 years ago
One must keep in mind the cultural context; in the ancient biblical time the Hebrew term abad or ebed means what today would be known as a servant. The translation slave is not even accurate except in the passages pertaining to captives of war, but even then there were rules for non-abusive treatment. There are even passages about servants wanting to remain as servants for life, because the life style was pleasant.
seanmPWH 3 years ago
seanmPWH is correct.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Oh you must mean, Exodus 21:2-6?
I love the way you justify it by saying 'servants', like it's just a mistranslation, and that it's not slaves.
Read that passage, It says a Hebrew 'servant' can leave his master after 6 years, but if he has had a wife and child they are the owned by the master. which means if he wants to be with his wife and child he HAS to say. Laugh at the way you say "because the life style was pleasant", oh yeah because everyone wants to be a slave, sorry I mean "servant".
10shinhan 2 years ago
Also how many "servants" have they're ears pierced with a sharp spikes and claimed to be owned by there master for life.
What a horrible thing to do making a man choose between his freedom or his family. What the hell do you think he is going to do?
How can you even try to justify this sickening cruelty?
Wake up, stop following fables.
10shinhan 2 years ago
Also a question.
Leviticus 18:22
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination."
So my question to you is: Is homosexuality an abomination?
faitheist 3 years ago
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Should they be put to death? Doesn't seem very moral by today's standards.
faitheist 3 years ago
I totally covered this in the video. Jesus's death on the cross means no one has to be put to death anymore... for anything, ever again.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
I knew someone would bring this up.
Apperently, then it is, but it's no worse than any other sin by biblical standards, and we are all sinners. Ever have sex outside of marriage? It's the exact same sin, apparently... I'm a respecter of life styles so I don't go trying to change my gay friends just as they don;t try to change me.
Bottom line is all sin is equal. And we are all sinners, so there is no need to over-condemn someone for one kind of sin.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
If all sin is equal, then doesn't sin basically become meaningless? If my having sex outside of marriage is of the same magnitude of sin as my murdering my mother, sin becomes irrelevant as a reasonable measure of morality. That doesn't mean sin isn't equal, but it definitely demolishes the typical Christian argument of "How can you have morality without God?" I don't think a system that puts premarital sex on the same level as murder is really all too moral...
Theycallmetomu 3 years ago
Even if all sin is equal in the eyes of God, I certainly agree that in earthly practice it is better that we assign degrees of severity as far as punishment goes. Then again, that could be God's method too, if there is anything to the theory on the "circles of hell".
So then sin is sin, but they are dealt with according to the crime.
I always just saw it as a way to make sure people didn't make themselves out to be better than others. We are all sinners, and so we are all equal in that regard.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
Okay, so you're not one of the people who use the "But without god, there can be no morality!" thing, instead viewing sin as a tangent to morality that evidences that no entity (perhaps save God, at least by your logic) is perfect. Correct?
You seem to be arguing from the defensive position, rather than from the offensive position, unlike That One Guy, so your responses tend to be significantly less... asinine. Still, some parts will seem absurd, but I'll deal with those as they come.
Theycallmetomu 3 years ago
According to Christian moral standards homosexuality is immoral. My question to you is "Is Christian morality absolute morality?"
WhatisaJugallo 3 years ago
I never really considered that part of Christian morality. Jesus taught the golden rule, to love the sinner and never mentioned homosexuality, not even once. I am a Christian for Jesus's teachings on tolerance and forgiveness.
And that stuff is absolute.
5thWatcher 3 years ago
I was actually responding to someone else's comment concerning that, but that doesn't make your reply any less valid.
Though I'm interested in why you don't consider that part of Christian morality.
WhatisaJugallo 3 years ago
We;ll just cuz Christianity = Jesus, so I take what he taught first and foremost over everything else.
5thWatcher 3 years ago