I dont agree with this one Father, The "spiritual blackmail" tactic has been used by Saint Paul tuns of times... Its a profession of God's anger!
Not only saint Paul, king David even prayed for God to smite all his enemies.. Even Jesus himself used this tactic on the Priests and the Pharesies of the Jewish council.. how can you bluntly say that we should let these atheists push us around?
@ozweblogs I love Jesus, and have faith in Him. You, on the other hand, have twisted Jesus beyond recognition into a torturer! You forget that Jesus was tortured and then vindicated by God. God is present with us in our tortures (Emmanuel). God is not the initiator of torture. Talk to fewer fundamentalists....
@hawkertruffelsnout Yeah, I admit that was a bit of a cliche. Please note in all subsequent videos, I don't wear leather. Not with a collar, at least.
This sounded like this priest just said that the teachings in the bible are not to be taken seriously. Does this mean that if I do not take the sabbath day and keep it holy that you will not stoneme to death?
@SailingMonsoon Christians put Christ first. So, no, I wouldn't stone you for not keeping the Sabbath day. Remember when Jesus and his disciples were picking corn on the Sabbath and it almost got them killed? Jesus gives us a fresh view of God and the Scriptures, even today. You take the Scriptures quite seriously when you read them through the lens of Christ.
@redrod123986 As Jesus said, "Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven." And what he says to the priests of his day: "Even the crooks and the harlots will enter the kingdom before you!"
@FatherMatthew do all the crooks and harlots believe in Jesus? I guess that's how they get their ticket to heaven. I am neither a priest or a crook but the most precious thing in my life that I hold dear was violently ripped from me and I'm not going to forget that!!! My wife and child deserved better than that!!! >:-((
cont.... Just want to say I have friends of faith, as well as friends who are not. We've had many discussions with out trying to convert the other, with out being uncivilized about it, without fist fights. I don't understand why either side has to be snide about being right, I think it comes with both sides preaching their views as facts, when neither side has them.
Anyway, long winded, but thank you for being civil about this whole thing, really appreciate that.
Hey Matt, just wanted to say I appreciate your stance. I look forward to the day where we can all talk and have a civil conversation as well, without either one trying to convert the other.
I'm Atheist by the way, some of blasphemy videos are bad, but, there are bad ones on the other side as well with the counters. A lot of atheists have gotten the idea that Christians all just only want to attack, "Christians" (quotes for I don't think some are true) think the same about us. cont....
The New Testament basically is a veiled threat, the gist being 'if you don't believe in me, you go to hell'.
"[the] unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." - Revelation 21:8
It's frankly condescending to be told that doesn't say what it clearly does. You reject Jesus, you go to hell. Don't mince words. You want a conversation? Start with the truth. It's interesting to note we get thrown in with murderers and liars.
That day will not come Father Mathew, people just want the world in a neat little form they can understand. For some it's atheism, for some it's religion of some sort, for others it's conspiracies. When these views conflict there is often little room for debate as their very sanity depends on them maintaining that view. However I commend you for trying to calm the surging masses.
i like this guy though we have different view points
im an agnostic and i too hope for the day we can just alk about it rather than feel the hate most people r not over it though and ill act the same if sumone attempts to force religion on me but u seem like a more resonable person than tht i can apreciate it and respect you
@calmreason Well, as Christians, I think we should be not scandalized by any taboo, so that we do not participate in the creation of scapegoats (Jesus being the prime example of a scapegoat for Christians). The good news is that God doesn't scapegoat anyone, and we Christians proclaim this and seek to live it out. This is one way that I reconcile the two. the good news is proclaimed in word and deed but not forced onto people.
Never thought I'd say this but.... I like this priest! thumbs up =)
though I must take issue with the notion that people are rejecting religious doctrine just because we're sick of being bombarded with it.
Oh, we ARE sick of being bombarded with it but many people dont believe simply because they've seen no logical reason to.....just like you see no logical reason to believe in bigfoot.
didnt think i would ever thumbs up a video from a christian, seriously it is truely amazing to hear a man speak who claims to be a man of god who does not appear, at least at first glance to have been religiously labotamized
@desertsun13 - I'm sorry but you are sounding increasingly stressed and irrational - I don't think this debate is doing you any good at all. I don't personally believe that suffering is a pathway to grace (or whatever) so it would be morally wrong for me carry on with this.
I have learnt stuff from you, even a bit of the dreaded 'theology' ;-)
But for your sake I'm going to stop this right now. And it's perfectly ok for you to call it evading if you want.
@desertsun13 - let me quote you "Is killing someone bad also an opinion?"
In my opinion (sigh) it is not objectively bad when someone kills another person. And now you'll go off (again) because you don't or won't or can't accept that I don't have to believe in your concept of objective morality.
Whether it's good or bad in (what you call) subjective morality depends on the circumstances, and who is making that call.
@desertsun13 - You might be right about THE ONLY REASON i'M A NON-THEIST, but you might be wrong - but who can say? But you are wrong to assert what you cannot be sure of. But I'm starting to recognise that as a continuing theme in your character.
@desertsun13 - I'll be charitable and assume that you are sincere in what you think - but, I swear, on everything I hold dear, that I've never, in many years of debate on many subjects in YouTube, on the newsgroups or in any other forum - ever, come across anyone so prone to misinterpreting the words of another like you.
You don't need a reason to tell a child God exists - it would be bizarre if you didn't have a reason but you don't need a reason to tell a child God exists!
@desertsun13 - once again, not what I said. I said that we are subjective creatures (meaning that our opinions are subjective, with, in practical terms a few exceptions as mentioned before). But that has no bearing on the nature of the universe.
I also didn't say that murder is bad objectively. You asked if killing someone bad was an opinion - I said that it wasn't an opinion, it was an action.
Not a misunderstanding on your part?
I thought the question irrelevant but didn't want to evade it.
@desertsun13 - so did you spend many years studying this stuff?
re: 40% change faiths - that surprises me. I have always understood that many people move between different sects of the same faith but so many actually changing faiths? Wow. So if, in a predominately Christian nation, most people come from Christianity - what faith do they go to? Are you sure about this?
@desertsun13 - but my doubt that the ultimate particle will ever be discovered, ie. we get that ultimate knowledge. Is the part of the definition of 'Agnostic' that does fit me - I'm only trying to help you out here - I thought you wanted to label me as Agnostic.
@desertsun13 - yes it is, of course it is, why would you think otherwise? We could spend our lives prefacing everything we say with "it's my opinion that..." but isn't it more practical to take that as read?
It's my opinion that killing someone bad is an action.
And it's also my opinion that saying that someone bad should be killed is an opinion.
And my opinion is that the flip flops are in your mind and due to your misunderstanding
@desertsun13 - The truth is I never said God (or perhaps god(s)) is (or perhaps 'are') negated (or not negated) by evil. I think you need to take a break.
Deconstruct the irenian theodicy ? I have no idea what it is (now I know you'll just jump on that one!). A problem with it? Perhaps
@desertsun13 - Now you know that you didn't specify 'life changing' - if you had I would (I think) have agreed.
re. Theodicy - my reasons for not engaging indepth with theodicy are:
1. Many angels, many pins
2. Lack of time
3. A certain suspicion that anyone, in debate, who points you to a book or large body of work is probably doing so because they have trouble explaining it succinctly and perhaps that means they don't fully understand it themselves. If they can't, what chance have I?
and yes you could accuse me of trying to have an answer to every question too - but I don't (see my breakdown of the Agnostic definition).
Doesn't your intellectual honesty tell you that, if you were born to it and had devoted as much time to study of (say) Islam as you have to Christianity - that you would find it's beliefs just as compelling? Millions do, and not only that, there seems to be a lot less variations in what they believe.
@desertsun13 - Yes wow! who would have thought that you would read so much into your assumption that I meant your god exclusively. Why did you assume that BTW - is it only the Christian god that gets to use a capital G?
@desertsun13 - not religion specific I assure you - perhaps I should have said god(s) instead of God - my bad. Again, it's not the message, it's the indoctrination and exclusion of other world views that I think immoral.
I guess I do "doubt the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study" - for example, I'm not sure that we will ever get to the discover the ultimate particle in physics - we seem to keep on finding more and more detail. Which I makes me an Agnostic (who would have guessed!). But tell me, do you think we'll ever discover the ultimate particle?
Pretty much all knowledge is an opinion (outside Maths and some physical sciences), we are subjective creatures. You can't dismiss someone's view point as 'only an opinion' when opinions are all we have (subject to the exceptions above) - and I have already explained the usage of the phrase "I assume".
@desertsun13 - as I said, I must have missed it somehow, I'm only human you can believe me or not.
Why are you rephrasing and repeating back to me my point about i) ii) and iii) ?
Theodicies - a theological and philosophical study which attempts to prove God's intrinsic or foundational nature of omnibenevolence. Attempts, and in your opinion succeeds I assume? (sorry, not assume, how about 'do you think?')
and in this case, setting up the mechanism of AIDs so that it was not transmitted in the womb would not provide proof anyway - who would know? And how you can say that the universe is 'functioning correctly' when babies are born with AIDs is beyond me.
@desertsun13 - and I will make this simple for you. If God exists and is able to stop the baby being born with AIDs then he is immoral not to. Some would say that if he did it would provide proof of his existence, and proof denies faith. When you say 'belief' I think you mean Belief (with a capital B) because ordinary (subjective?) belief is not made 'obsolete' by evidence, in fact, quite the opposite.
I don't claim if God existed he would stop evil from taking place
"The rest of your post is an attempt to beef up your position which really is weak." - a very weak attempt to dismiss a serious point about how theologians have spent a lot of time trying to reconcile God's nature and the nature of His creation with basic (subjective) morality - "suffering heals" is an all time classic.
@desertsun13 -"then we should see option B all the time in our world" - I must have missed the bit where you actually justify that assertion.
"Suffering is not from God" - If he exists, but is not all-powerful then that, might, be right. However is there a single aspect of this universe that he is not, ultimately responsible for? Unless he is not all-knowing too.
Wisdom sometimes comes from suffering. I had a headache this morning - the pain is gone but I'm still waiting for the wisdom.
I was very impressed and learnt a lot from him. Not in the sense of theology, which from you I have learnt to despise (to a certain amount). But in the sense of spirituality.
I'm pretty sure that Jesus existed and would have been something like him.
I had a debate with a religious guy about a year ago. He didn't bluster, insult or have PROBLEMS WITH HIS CAPS LOCK KEY. Or try to logically prove what can't be logically proven
I believe he kept a dictionary handy and didn't twist words the way that theologians notoriously do
He had a quiet faith that he was very secure in and didn't pretend to have an answer to every question.
And so I think religion has it's place. But I feel strongly that indoctrination should not be necessary, arrogance is divisive and insulting, and religious intolerance is one of the major sources of the world's ills.
"a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." - which I don't
or
"a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study." - which I also don't
@desertsun13 - Except that the definition of Agnostic that I find doesn't fit and you haven't provided me with a definition that does. And anyway, as I believe I've said before, even if you can provide me with such a definition, it doesn't bother me - henceforth I will duly label myself as an Agnostic.
btw "as I believe I've said before" is not an assertion, it does not mean "I've said it before"
@desertsun13 - Just so as we are talking about the same thing - give me an example of natural evil. Notice how I'm avoiding using the 'I assume' form for your sake?
re: inbox - It doesn't seem to have turned up in my inbox yet
@desertsun13 - sorry, I forgot that not all Christians are literallists (thank God!). But I did learn from that that you hold to the doctrine of original sin. And that was what I was aiming at.
And you are right, i didn't say the bible was part fiction, part fact - at that time. Though why that is relevant I fail to see.
@desertsun13 - maybe it's a language / usage issue. I'm from the UK and here the statement 'I assume' is just an attempt to illicit confirmation or denial or further info on a point one is not sure of.
It can obviously also be used in a sarcastic manner.
You can logically and usefully accuse me of assuming something, but only when I've not previously used that form.
ex. "I assume you'll be at the match today?"
In fact, thinking about it, the question mark is also a clue.
@desertsun13 - What you have to understand is that we are dealing with multiple simultaneous threads can be confusing. As I've said before, the only stuff of yours that I've not responded to are some 'angels on a pin' issues and some oversights. I am also capable of answering a question with a question, not to evade, but to clarify your question because many of the concepts are new to me - it's really a variation of the 'i assume' issue that you failed to id as an attempt to elicit.
"If God does as YOU THINK HE SHOULD then all of creation would now of his existence which would not allow any of our earthly systems (economy, governments, art ect.) to function in any sense."
The only conclusion I can come to is that either i) God is immoral or ii) God does not exist or iii) There's some clever theological excuse to otherwise explain it. Or perhaps a combination of the above
I didn't respond to that previously - must have missed it somehow.
"The creator exists since there would be no possible way for evil/suffering to exist EVEN in a WORLD where evil is a possibility" - which logically (correct me if I'm wrong) means that evil can't exist where evil possibly can exist. And now evil is absolute. Which is fine in itself - but if evil can't exist I'm left with the conclusion that it's possible for an absolute thing not to exist.
So if "it's not like they have a choice at this point" has been "completely shattered" you can probably go on to tell me why Aids babies do have a choice. Was it in the womb?
I can easily see why 'original sin' is good theology. Or at least good for rheologists. ditto. 'channels of grace'.
I far as I understand it ( = 'I assume') suffering is the channel of grace which heals, preserves and tests
Of course it must be so because otherwise (and I'm sure theologians worked this out a long time ago) God would be a monster, and that can't be right can it?
'Suffering heals' has also got a certain Orwellian ring to it. War is peace, freedom is slavery. etc.
'Assuming' is not as good as scholarship - but "I assume" is an attempt to elicit an opinion on the validity of a premise. The idea is that you say "yes, that's correct" or "no that is incorrect" and so we move on.
As I said "Some fiction, some fact" which covers 'allegorical' quite nicely too. I reasonable man here would agree with that point, or if they didn't agree, at least argue it. But I get the feeling you'll just move swiftly on - I hope I'm wrong.
@desertsun13 - and racists believe that black people are inferior - and is it their responsibility as parents to raise their kids in that belief? I think that they would probably say - yes.
But don't go off on one saying that i'm equating you with racists - I'm not, but I think the parallel is exact. If you think it's not then please say why not.
Just to stress again - all you need to do is find a definition to support your 'agnostic' and 'agnostic framework' - come on, take me that one last step...
If "worldviews without subscription" means "worldviews without bias" (apart from the moral aspect) then you are right. And all you have to do is then provide a definition of agnosticism that encompasses that point. I can't find one. Perhaps you can? If you can then, fair enough, I'm raising them in an agnostic framework, if not, then your assertion is unjustified. It really is that simple.
@desertsun13 "Brainwashing requires established beliefs" - not in dictionary. c o m. , not in the Cambridge dictionary. But I admit that other some other dictionaries are not so clear.
But anyway - I repeat - what is this 'context' that you say definitions which definitely counter your argument lack. And, again, see if you can find any paired example of definition / context. I'm genuinely interested.
@desertsun13 "there would be no possible way for evil/suffering to exist EVEN in a WORLD where evil is a possibility" - perhaps you might want to re-consider your words because the logic of your statement is surely that 'evil can't exist where evil could exist' -> evil doesn't exist. Which is arguable and may be what you think. Do you see 'evil' as a relative or absolute term?
@desertsun13 - "These people still maintain faith in God" - perhaps the majority of them do. Perhaps the majority of battered wives stay with their husbands. But why does a caring God that can stop this, not stop this? There's serious question of a new-borne begin guilty of anything is there? It's not like they have made any choice at this stage? I haven't read you answer to my enquiry about original sin yet - perhaps new borns are guilty?
@desertsun13 - I've always assumed that the bible is based on a true story. Some fiction, some fact - I think most Christians agree with that. So you can see how your judgement that I think it is "NOTHING BUT HISTORY AND SCIENCE" - is simply, wrong.
"I believe in a ordered existence where objectivity is real and objectively reachable" - doubtless you do.
You tell your sons God exists, then you tell them again, and again, and again. You don't (I assume) allow them to consider the alternatives. After many years of this they Believe. They'll do the same to their sons.
My kids will decide for themselves based on what they learn throughout their lives. And religious or not, I hope they allow their own kids the same freedom.
2. Understand that my kids go to church about once a month and that I happy for them to be religious (I just hope they don't turn out arrogant and intolerant)
3. Then get back to me and tell me how you equate the two.
@desertsun13 - my point exactly. Following your accusation of failing to cover your points I thought I had better inform you of yours. I realise that my 'head of a pin' reference was a bit oblique and I have explained it in more detail elsewhere.
1. It's not my definition
2. It does not have a get out clause saying 'this does not apply to children'
@desertsun13 - Concerning Genesis, are you one who rejects the concepts of Genesis, inc. original sin and the need for everyone to be saved because of it?
But - we'll leave the subject of morality if you want. , but I believe you were objecting to the brainwashing thing on the basis of 'lack of context'. I don't think you got around to explaining what you meant (tho' I did ask). An example of a definition needing context will help.
@desertsun13 - "Babies and aids are a form of natural evil/suffering that are dealt with philosophical and theological theodicies" - 'dealt with' are they? mm that's good, makes it all better does it?
We started with abuse and brainwashing. You raised the subject of morality. We are now discussing the morality of the entity that you get your morality from.
@desertsun13 - Many, many of the things you have brought up are moot to me because they assume a belief in the existance of God. Discussing how many angles can dance on the head of a pin is to some extent futile when we haven't established the existence of angels. Put the rest down to oversight.
Concerning children with aids - how many of those parents would not wish them to have been born with aids? But I repeat my point - why did God do it? And was that a moral choice?
@desertsun13 - So if God did exist "it's wrong to murder" would be objective? If you say so but to me it's just angels dancing on the head of a pin.
I agree with what your God says about the sacrifice thing so is my morality objective?
Naturally I have to mention here God's granting of the blessing of AIDs to new-born children, his non-intervention in the various misdeeds of his representatives on Earth and the old testament cruelties that would give even the Aztecs a run for their money.
2. And I believe that religious indoctrination is a bad thing The only indoctrination that is a good thing is the teaching of morals. But you knew that already...
3. Moral indoctrination is not a bad thing (or do you disagree?) therefore how can I be guilty of it?
4. But in the inevitable gaps in our scientific knowledge you paste bits from the bible?
1. True - prayer is not brainwashing. Repeated telling of the Christian God theory to impressionable children over a number of years, without also telling of the alternative gods and other world views is (according to the definition I found). You failed, I noticed, to explain why a definition needs context.
@desertsun13 - The pain of innocent babies is not his fault - because they are not innocent - after all we are all guilty of the original sin that our supposed ancestors committed millions of years ago when they gave in to their God-given curiosity and human nature and ate of the apple of knowledge that God had placed there just to tease them. He knew it was going to happen. He was even there when it did happen (though he claimed otherwise).
@desertsun13 - let me get this straight. First we had, subjective morality, then objective morality, and now there's a new type called objectively subjective? Talk about a tangled web. Is there some kind of order of precedence?
My reference to babies and AIDs was a point about the immorality of the foundation of your 'objective' morality.
@desertsun13 - I may have overdone the sarcasm there - but did you miss the reference to babies being born with AIDs? I'm sure that was an oversight on your part and there's no question of you not responding to my points.
@desertsun13 - no, on second thoughts, don't explain.
You said that objective morality comes from God. But is different from the more mundane subjective morality like "it's wrong to murder". I subscribe to what you call subjective morality. It is what I teach my kids.
"there is nothing bad, but that we think it so" is a denial of morality - you can't argue that it's subjective morality because you already told me that "it's wrong to murder" is subjective.
3. I don't "speak of it as if everyone would know what I'm speaking of" (either read my words properly or stop trying to misrepresent me). There's some common ground but of course morallity is subjective. Pretty much everything is subjective.
1. If your religion does not give you consolation then I'm sorry - I guess you'll have to do without.
2. My morality's external source/foundation is what I learned from my parents, the world and the people around me. No God - though I do admit that it resembles what is written in the bible. But as I say, God was not involved.
@desertsun13 - I guess I'm lucky, my moral system does not rely on the debatable existence of an kindly old man with a beard who lives in the clouds, wears a nightshirt and will eternally torture anyone who doubts his existance or, indeed, hasn't even heard of him. Who also will let babies be born with AIDs. And you tell me that you get your morality from this monster?
"When you make sense - I'll agree with you" - how is that not rational and reasonable? mm?
"And the reason that I don't agree with your positions is because I simply can't understand your point of view? " - I didn't say that was the reason and I didn't say you can't understand my point of view - stop trying to misrepresent me. I'm beginning to thing that your 'objective' morality is the only kind you have.
So you agree on this aspect of evolution. How about the other aspects?
Science is often misidentified as a belief. We can say that we believe in the scientific method but we really mean that we believe it should be used. Science itself is just a method. A method that aims at getting us closer to the truth. As best as we are able, at that time. And with due recognition that we may get closer in the future.
@desertsun13 - Read again what I said about the evolutionary advantage of cooperation within the tribe/family.
You may believe that 'no God = no point' and I'm glad your religion gives you consolation. I don't need it. Perhaps I'll need it in the future. At the moment death holds no fear and morality doesn't need belief in any external force (if that's the right word). If you can accept that you will start to understand and perhaps respect the non-religious viewpoint.
2. Definitions don't need context - unless you mean "it doesn't apply in the religious context - because whatever is done for religious reasons is ok"
3. Dictionary definitions don't need backing up by academic study - hence the example of 'rain'
4. Fair enough, you accept evolution. (I believe I mentioned that I was guessing - once again words do have meanings) How about creation? Do you accept the scientific explanation of that?
@desertsun13 - no I'm not. Look at the definition, in a dictionary, and you will see that it does not fit.
And to say that i'm doing so is a straight forward implication that I am an agnostic. Because a moral person does not raise their kids in a worldview that they do not believe in themselves. And you have already stated that you are not calling me immoral (btw. negating your earlier statement the "there is no morality without god").
A genetic pre-disposition to cooperate within the tribal/family group is certainly an evolutionary advantage but it's not morality, there's no sense of right or wrong - it's self-interest.
Your kids started on the path to morality long before they were old enough to have it explained to them. As soon as they were able to interact with the world they started learning - from you - what was considered good and bad behaviour.
@desertsun13 - and how do you know your kids motivation is a sense of right and wrong? Before they understand our verbal communication they learn our tone of voice, our body language, and the sub-consciously given reward system of comfort and affection. Hence they learn from us what is good and what is not good behaviour - and it doesn't happen overnight.
@desertsun13 - If the dictionary gives the definition of rain as "a form of precipitation" - would you believe it? Or would you insist on scientific evidence? Also interesting how you try to turn to science when you hope it'll support your beliefs - yet (unless you are very odd theist) turn away when it won't (I'm guessing, evolution, creation etc.).
And is dictionary dot c o m (who I quoted) guilty of hate speech?
IF a "staunch atheist would agree there was no objective morality without God" - it would be because an atheist believes there is no god and therefore no objective morality. Surely you can see that?
@desertsun13 i really don't know what label you would put on how I raise my kids. But I can describe it.
There are many worldviews, it is arrogant to believe yours is the only right one. Each person eventually finds their own way, given time and the information to do so and not being bombarded with just one worldview to the exception of all others when they are young and impressionable
@desertsun13 agnostic = a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
3 clauses: A and B, or C
B and C don't fit me - therefore I'm not an agnostic, therefore you are misrepresenting me.
@desertsun13 "without god there is no morality" - your words.
Interesting (now) to hear that there are two kinds of morality. An example of my subjective morality would be 'don't steal'. What would be an example of objective (Objective: impartial, fair, impersonal, disinterested.) morality be?
Ps. I don't know if you are a parent but to me it's blindingly obvious that children are not born with a moral code - or if they are it is unlike what you or I would call moral.
@desertsun13 - As I have no god so your claim that 'no god = no morality' was pretty explicitly accusing me of having no morality - I hold morality to be very important - you don't even know me and yet you accuse me of immorality. That was an unjustified and baseless charge. Of course I got angry.
That you are a recent convert - and I assume that you are not reverting to a childhood faith, is irrelevant to the issue of childhood religious indoctrination.
I bet you see your self as a good person - but you are in reality a decietfull, arrogant hypocrite who supports the brainwashing of innocent children and yet still has the gall to claim some sort of moral supperiority. However, you to were a victim of the same brainwashing as a kid so I guess you are not totally to blame.
"there is no morality without God" - lol, you don't even know you are doing it do you?
@desertsun13 - yes I'm sure you hope not. Dictionaries providing the universally accepted true meanings of words has always made them uncomfortable reading for any kind of theologian.
@desertsun13 I repeat that I said any religion, not any worldview.
It may confound your stereotypical view of the world but I am not against my kids developing religion. I think a religion like mainstream Christianity, has many good points and is healthy enough. If that sounds like agnosticism to you well, fair enough, call my an agnostic.
@desertsun13 - if it's easy to refute my charges of brainwashing, I recommend you check its definition then try to do so. There are many good online dictionaries you can use.
Brainwashing - "any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion"
To Indoctrinate - "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view."
Brainwashing - "any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion"
To Indoctrinate - "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view."
@desertsun13 - wrong again - read my post properly and you'll see that it's only raising a child in religion that I object to as indoctrination. Yes, you can try to put words into my mouth by substituting 'worldview' for 'religion' but it's hardly honest to do so is it? I guess you'd call it bearing false witness. Now to me, lying is immoral. But what do I know?
And allowing my children free choice is "raising them in one side of the argument"?
@desertsun13 - "I think keeping a child ignorant of your theological and philosophical positions in place of blind agnostic worldviews is brainwashing"
- my children know my views, and know that my views include them making there own minds up. They can choose to be Christians or whatever. How is that brainwashing?
I don't subject them hundreds of hours over many years of one side of the argument - how is that not brainwashing?
2. re: me forcing down agnosticism down children's throats - one of my kids is heading towards Christianity, both attend church about once a month. They are free to choose so there's no forcing or brainwashing involved. - so it's easy to refute your charges of brainwashing - now lets hear you do the same. Of course many people in your position will try to ignore this issue - but that in itself is a pretty clear answer
1. "My morality is tied to my spiritual worldview" - I'm hoping that you would still be a moral person even without your spiritual worldview - and if that's true then your morality is not tied to your spiritual worldview.
@desertsun13 "still must raise them which entails a system of belief" - if you mean a belief in a moral code then you are right. If you mean a belief in things spiritual then you are wrong. If they are drawn to things spiritual then fair enough, And I figure a valid spiritual belief will grow of it's own accord - it won't need me to be forced down children's throats over a number of years.
Noted how you ignored my point about freedom of conscience by the way.
The sad thing about these people who`ve foolishly made their reservation in Hell is that when they grow up and one day they`ll grow up. They`ll think back at the amazingly foolish act. They`ll have more life experiences and a little more maturity then they have how, that`s when they`ll come begging God for forgiveness. But God will have no other choice but to ignore their plea of mercy and curse them to eternal damnation, because Blashphemy of the H.S is the only sin he won`t forgive. Wow!!!!
@desertsun13 - Yes it is an abuse to raise a child in any faith - including atheist of agnostic (not that they are faiths). And yes, six is too young to make a sound decision, but make the info available to them and one day, when they are ready, they can make the decision if they wish ( I somehow doubt you'd want to risk such freedom of conscience)
So your 'feeling' and your 'assumption' are wrong - and it's not my argument that fails miserably, it's your imagined version of it.
The idea of a deity is human concept, evolving with human thought. No child is born knowing of a deity. A person has to tell the child that there is this unseen deity that is watching them at all times. Defending a myth as if it's reality in this modern age is crime to the human mind. You tube has helped some, but we still have our stupid churches and theist bullshit doctrine around every corner. How can we rid ourselves of this BS?
I think its our duty as followerd of Jesus to preach the Gospel. If people listen and want to know more, then great. But the bible says many will fall short of the Glory of God, so after you've explained how God works if people still deny Christ, there's nothing that can be done for them. If they want proof they will have to seek it themselves, like I did. We can't make them love God. So let them blaspheme the Lord and fall short of glory.
@smurfboywv - I agree that people should be free to choose but I don't see why children should be subject to the abuse of religious indoctrination every Sunday from an early age.
Surely, in the interests of balance, they should be exposed to all religion and even to atheism? Or perhaps balance is not what you are interested in. Or perhaps your own brainwashing doesn't allow you to consider alternatives?
NOT ONE WOrd of God in this Video! Not one point of teaching per the Bible of sin, the cross, the blood of Christ which is the cleaning agent for our sin. He didn't even mention Hell? Just shoed a picture! Well the Bible mentions Hell and condemnation more than it does Heaven! More of th lies of the "ecumenical" movement rooted in Rome! REader, viewer BEWARE! Jesus is Lord of your life or He is not! Get into a Relationship with HIM and be "Born-again" as He tells us to do to get to Heaven!
Sectarian violence in Iraq between Shiites and Sunnis demonstrates the opposite of course--the capability of ppl to buy into demands for orthodoxy so much that they refuse to recognize the other as having any value. Of course if you believe in damnation of all other religions and atheists as either a Muslim or a Christian, you're in the same page as far as im concerned for your ideology.
anyway, i am all for a strong protection of right to practice religion. just hope to dissuade
I am sure that this is true of a disturbing # of muslims' attitude. but many muslims in the US accept pluralism. and look at Egypt lately some Salafi Muslims have attacked Christians in street riots and there was a bombing of a church, yet a large number of Egyptian Muslims joined a "human shield" movement to attend a mass, stating that they would be killed by any attack. Moreover, many protesters in the anti-Mubarak revolution called for Muslim-Christian solidarity.
FM seems nice enough but...in his reply, he indirectly called atheist whores ("those who are well have no need of a physician").
the fact is the morality of the entire bible is inconsistent and full of crap. and the conclusion "blessed are those who do not see but still believe" and "if a man does not abide in me and i in him, then he will be cast out like a branch and the branches shall whither and be burned" (quotes approximate)
…it seems some atheists feel a similar compulsion to uncover a tradition they are convinced is full of hate. My own impression regarding which camp listens better to the ‘no thanks’ following an initial offer would be the atheists. It's good to hear you yearn for the day of the end of belligerent evangelism. I share your wish if not your optimism.
We _can_ work towards shared goals of social justice, freedom of religion, etc. without shared fundamental assumptions. This occurs often in the secular sphere. But atheists can’t help but notice your sincere, restated goal of evangelism within the very same video where you claim to “get it.” You feel desperately compelled to share a god you are convinced is full of love,…
Yes, when these people actively seek & perform the most iconoclastic, “unforgivable” act they can find within a tradition, they are saying, "Back off" as clearly as they can. If a friend has a compulsion that he must convince you that his brand of toothpaste is superior & he won’t take ‘no thanks’ for an answer, one has to find a more voluminous means of communication. Within the context of an initial offer, this would be ‘cold’ as you say, but not within the compulsive context.
Doing this is like getting a tattoo only its more like getting tattoos all over you body then later you don't want the tattoos but you already did it !
If you think it's getting more charitable and conciliatory, take a look Robert Barron's videos. They are filled with arrogance, illogic, and sarcasm. He even has the arrogance to discuss the YouTube "heresies" and to declare that any belief other than the catholic god in blasphemous. The ultimate insult was to deny the mathematics of Stephen Hawking, when Barron knows NOTHING about mathematics whatever. Now, YouTube observers, that is ARROGANCE.
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" . This article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is also given to general atheistic social perspectives
I just saw the 'Blasphemy Challenge' video and it seems incredibly manipulative. I may be only 16, but as a result of a sort-of 'awakening', I've been a proud Episcopalian for two years now. Long story short: being Catholic didn't feel right to me and it took almost dying to realize that there was something else.
There is no God
MegaToyboat 1 week ago
lawl ur a joke dawgie phuck Jesus
MegaToyboat 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I dont agree with this one Father, The "spiritual blackmail" tactic has been used by Saint Paul tuns of times... Its a profession of God's anger!
Not only saint Paul, king David even prayed for God to smite all his enemies.. Even Jesus himself used this tactic on the Priests and the Pharesies of the Jewish council.. how can you bluntly say that we should let these atheists push us around?
hininga28 1 month ago
Comment removed
hininga28 1 month ago
If only more christians like you.
MetalBru01 1 month ago
You are expected to have Faith in Jesus/God but he has no faith in you.
He threatens you with eternal hell fire whether you are good or bad unless you believe in (have faith in) Jesus.
That is not freedom of choice.
I have as much faith in god as he has in me. zero.
ozweblogs 1 month ago
@ozweblogs I love Jesus, and have faith in Him. You, on the other hand, have twisted Jesus beyond recognition into a torturer! You forget that Jesus was tortured and then vindicated by God. God is present with us in our tortures (Emmanuel). God is not the initiator of torture. Talk to fewer fundamentalists....
FatherMatthew 1 month ago
this guy must be cool, he's warring a leather jacket, I wear a leather jacket so he must be speaking directly to me,
hawkertruffelsnout 2 months ago
@hawkertruffelsnout Yeah, I admit that was a bit of a cliche. Please note in all subsequent videos, I don't wear leather. Not with a collar, at least.
FatherMatthew 2 months ago
This sounded like this priest just said that the teachings in the bible are not to be taken seriously. Does this mean that if I do not take the sabbath day and keep it holy that you will not stoneme to death?
SailingMonsoon 3 months ago
@SailingMonsoon Christians put Christ first. So, no, I wouldn't stone you for not keeping the Sabbath day. Remember when Jesus and his disciples were picking corn on the Sabbath and it almost got them killed? Jesus gives us a fresh view of God and the Scriptures, even today. You take the Scriptures quite seriously when you read them through the lens of Christ.
FatherMatthew 3 months ago
But all the athiests, muslims,chrisnias,taoest,hindus are all still going to burn in hell right?
redrod123986 3 months ago
@redrod123986 As Jesus said, "Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven." And what he says to the priests of his day: "Even the crooks and the harlots will enter the kingdom before you!"
FatherMatthew 3 months ago
@FatherMatthew do all the crooks and harlots believe in Jesus? I guess that's how they get their ticket to heaven. I am neither a priest or a crook but the most precious thing in my life that I hold dear was violently ripped from me and I'm not going to forget that!!! My wife and child deserved better than that!!! >:-((
redrod123986 3 months ago
@redrod123986 Yes they did. I'm sorry for their deaths.
FatherMatthew 3 months ago
I'm really impressed by this video. This is amazing
tfavors28 3 months ago
cont.... Just want to say I have friends of faith, as well as friends who are not. We've had many discussions with out trying to convert the other, with out being uncivilized about it, without fist fights. I don't understand why either side has to be snide about being right, I think it comes with both sides preaching their views as facts, when neither side has them.
Anyway, long winded, but thank you for being civil about this whole thing, really appreciate that.
amgoD 4 months ago
Hey Matt, just wanted to say I appreciate your stance. I look forward to the day where we can all talk and have a civil conversation as well, without either one trying to convert the other.
I'm Atheist by the way, some of blasphemy videos are bad, but, there are bad ones on the other side as well with the counters. A lot of atheists have gotten the idea that Christians all just only want to attack, "Christians" (quotes for I don't think some are true) think the same about us. cont....
amgoD 4 months ago
The New Testament basically is a veiled threat, the gist being 'if you don't believe in me, you go to hell'.
"[the] unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." - Revelation 21:8
It's frankly condescending to be told that doesn't say what it clearly does. You reject Jesus, you go to hell. Don't mince words. You want a conversation? Start with the truth. It's interesting to note we get thrown in with murderers and liars.
jakebowkett01 4 months ago
You know, I disagree your beliefs. . . But, you seem like a good guy. Keep it up.
MroAeon 4 months ago
By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.
Proverbs 16:6 (KJV)
XBleach88X 4 months ago
That day will not come Father Mathew, people just want the world in a neat little form they can understand. For some it's atheism, for some it's religion of some sort, for others it's conspiracies. When these views conflict there is often little room for debate as their very sanity depends on them maintaining that view. However I commend you for trying to calm the surging masses.
MegaLinuxer 4 months ago
i like this guy though we have different view points
im an agnostic and i too hope for the day we can just alk about it rather than feel the hate most people r not over it though and ill act the same if sumone attempts to force religion on me but u seem like a more resonable person than tht i can apreciate it and respect you
cjshadow0 4 months ago
SIN!!!! Or Jesus died for nothing.
ItsKnucklez 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I WANT EVERYONE ON EARTH to KNOW the TRUTH about the Unforgivable Sin, which is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit: It's PERFECTLY FALSE.
I'll PROVE IT.
In John 20:21, 23, our dearly beloved Jesus Christ our savior CLEARLY says this:
If you FORGIVE the sins of ANY, they are FORGIVEN; if you RETAIN the sins of ANY, they are RETAINED.
If all of you religious hypocrites completely deny, LOOK IT UP YOUR SINFUL SELVES.
I hope to the good lord with all my heart that this greatly helps.
God Bless
MagicMaker7 5 months ago
I just don't get why anyone would believe in religion, it's such bullshit!
glennheston 5 months ago
"Love the sinner, hate the sin." Thank you so much for calling that ugly slogan out.
nicksum29 5 months ago
Fr Mat - do you answer these? I would like to know how you reconcile your tolerance of breaking taboo with the need to spread the 'good news'?
calmreason 5 months ago
@calmreason Well, as Christians, I think we should be not scandalized by any taboo, so that we do not participate in the creation of scapegoats (Jesus being the prime example of a scapegoat for Christians). The good news is that God doesn't scapegoat anyone, and we Christians proclaim this and seek to live it out. This is one way that I reconcile the two. the good news is proclaimed in word and deed but not forced onto people.
FatherMatthew 5 months ago
This is just another stage of the nati,s take over there plan was written and secular humanism was one of them so what's next
lando9386 6 months ago
wow...
Never thought I'd say this but.... I like this priest! thumbs up =)
though I must take issue with the notion that people are rejecting religious doctrine just because we're sick of being bombarded with it.
Oh, we ARE sick of being bombarded with it but many people dont believe simply because they've seen no logical reason to.....just like you see no logical reason to believe in bigfoot.
stiimuli 6 months ago
HOLY SHIT, an honest priest who admits the BS obsessive believers try and pull off, man this guy needs to give lectures at the vatican
55metalmonkey 6 months ago
didnt think i would ever thumbs up a video from a christian, seriously it is truely amazing to hear a man speak who claims to be a man of god who does not appear, at least at first glance to have been religiously labotamized
Guffrus 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - I'm sorry but you are sounding increasingly stressed and irrational - I don't think this debate is doing you any good at all. I don't personally believe that suffering is a pathway to grace (or whatever) so it would be morally wrong for me carry on with this.
I have learnt stuff from you, even a bit of the dreaded 'theology' ;-)
But for your sake I'm going to stop this right now. And it's perfectly ok for you to call it evading if you want.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - let me quote you "Is killing someone bad also an opinion?"
In my opinion (sigh) it is not objectively bad when someone kills another person. And now you'll go off (again) because you don't or won't or can't accept that I don't have to believe in your concept of objective morality.
Whether it's good or bad in (what you call) subjective morality depends on the circumstances, and who is making that call.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - You might be right about THE ONLY REASON i'M A NON-THEIST, but you might be wrong - but who can say? But you are wrong to assert what you cannot be sure of. But I'm starting to recognise that as a continuing theme in your character.
And which argument do you assert doesn't work?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - So what I called sects are in fact different religions? Oh well, you live and learn. :-)
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - I'll be charitable and assume that you are sincere in what you think - but, I swear, on everything I hold dear, that I've never, in many years of debate on many subjects in YouTube, on the newsgroups or in any other forum - ever, come across anyone so prone to misinterpreting the words of another like you.
You don't need a reason to tell a child God exists - it would be bizarre if you didn't have a reason but you don't need a reason to tell a child God exists!
shumble32 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@desertsun13 - I'm surprised that you, as a theist, would need me to defend this point, but OK.
I defend my belief that: God(s) = not abuse
Because people are entitled to their own beliefs as long as it doesn't harm others.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - once again, not what I said. I said that we are subjective creatures (meaning that our opinions are subjective, with, in practical terms a few exceptions as mentioned before). But that has no bearing on the nature of the universe.
I also didn't say that murder is bad objectively. You asked if killing someone bad was an opinion - I said that it wasn't an opinion, it was an action.
Not a misunderstanding on your part?
I thought the question irrelevant but didn't want to evade it.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - so did you spend many years studying this stuff?
re: 40% change faiths - that surprises me. I have always understood that many people move between different sects of the same faith but so many actually changing faiths? Wow. So if, in a predominately Christian nation, most people come from Christianity - what faith do they go to? Are you sure about this?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - Despite what you say, my time is limited. This is an interesting diversion but I have family, work etc to consider.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - You are wrong - because I did respond. This is that response
And you are wrong again - I didn't say it was immoral to tell a child about a god(s) nature!
If I was to use the term 'circus retoric' like you do I would certainly include the use of strawman arguments.
It's like you are ever more desperately trying to fit me into some sort of category that you learnt at collage
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - but my doubt that the ultimate particle will ever be discovered, ie. we get that ultimate knowledge. Is the part of the definition of 'Agnostic' that does fit me - I'm only trying to help you out here - I thought you wanted to label me as Agnostic.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - yes it is, of course it is, why would you think otherwise? We could spend our lives prefacing everything we say with "it's my opinion that..." but isn't it more practical to take that as read?
It's my opinion that killing someone bad is an action.
And it's also my opinion that saying that someone bad should be killed is an opinion.
And my opinion is that the flip flops are in your mind and due to your misunderstanding
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - done that - check your inbox
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - The truth is I never said God (or perhaps god(s)) is (or perhaps 'are') negated (or not negated) by evil. I think you need to take a break.
Deconstruct the irenian theodicy ? I have no idea what it is (now I know you'll just jump on that one!). A problem with it? Perhaps
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - Now you know that you didn't specify 'life changing' - if you had I would (I think) have agreed.
re. Theodicy - my reasons for not engaging indepth with theodicy are:
1. Many angels, many pins
2. Lack of time
3. A certain suspicion that anyone, in debate, who points you to a book or large body of work is probably doing so because they have trouble explaining it succinctly and perhaps that means they don't fully understand it themselves. If they can't, what chance have I?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - yes, I was thinking of that exception. He got really angry! One of the best bits in the illustrated bible I had at school.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - just expressing an opinion.
and yes you could accuse me of trying to have an answer to every question too - but I don't (see my breakdown of the Agnostic definition).
Doesn't your intellectual honesty tell you that, if you were born to it and had devoted as much time to study of (say) Islam as you have to Christianity - that you would find it's beliefs just as compelling? Millions do, and not only that, there seems to be a lot less variations in what they believe.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - Yes wow! who would have thought that you would read so much into your assumption that I meant your god exclusively. Why did you assume that BTW - is it only the Christian god that gets to use a capital G?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - not religion specific I assure you - perhaps I should have said god(s) instead of God - my bad. Again, it's not the message, it's the indoctrination and exclusion of other world views that I think immoral.
shumble32 6 months ago
I guess I do "doubt the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study" - for example, I'm not sure that we will ever get to the discover the ultimate particle in physics - we seem to keep on finding more and more detail. Which I makes me an Agnostic (who would have guessed!). But tell me, do you think we'll ever discover the ultimate particle?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - The clauses:
"a person who holds that:"
"The existence of the ultimate cause, as god, are (is) unknown and unknowable" - there's an outside chance that God exists - so no fit
AND
The essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable - I don't know if this is true or not - so no fit
OR THAT
"human knowledge is limited to experience" - definitely wrong - so no fit.
OR
(wait a minute)
, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." - which I don't
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - sounds reasonable
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - did you not read my post where I admitted that I forgot that not all Christians were literalists?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - sorry 'bout that, I felt ashamed even as I typed it. But I'm still waiting for that definition that proves your point.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
Pretty much all knowledge is an opinion (outside Maths and some physical sciences), we are subjective creatures. You can't dismiss someone's view point as 'only an opinion' when opinions are all we have (subject to the exceptions above) - and I have already explained the usage of the phrase "I assume".
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - as I said, I must have missed it somehow, I'm only human you can believe me or not.
Why are you rephrasing and repeating back to me my point about i) ii) and iii) ?
Theodicies - a theological and philosophical study which attempts to prove God's intrinsic or foundational nature of omnibenevolence. Attempts, and in your opinion succeeds I assume? (sorry, not assume, how about 'do you think?')
shumble32 6 months ago
and in this case, setting up the mechanism of AIDs so that it was not transmitted in the womb would not provide proof anyway - who would know? And how you can say that the universe is 'functioning correctly' when babies are born with AIDs is beyond me.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - and I will make this simple for you. If God exists and is able to stop the baby being born with AIDs then he is immoral not to. Some would say that if he did it would provide proof of his existence, and proof denies faith. When you say 'belief' I think you mean Belief (with a capital B) because ordinary (subjective?) belief is not made 'obsolete' by evidence, in fact, quite the opposite.
I don't claim if God existed he would stop evil from taking place
shumble32 6 months ago
"The rest of your post is an attempt to beef up your position which really is weak." - a very weak attempt to dismiss a serious point about how theologians have spent a lot of time trying to reconcile God's nature and the nature of His creation with basic (subjective) morality - "suffering heals" is an all time classic.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 -"then we should see option B all the time in our world" - I must have missed the bit where you actually justify that assertion.
"Suffering is not from God" - If he exists, but is not all-powerful then that, might, be right. However is there a single aspect of this universe that he is not, ultimately responsible for? Unless he is not all-knowing too.
Wisdom sometimes comes from suffering. I had a headache this morning - the pain is gone but I'm still waiting for the wisdom.
shumble32 6 months ago
I was very impressed and learnt a lot from him. Not in the sense of theology, which from you I have learnt to despise (to a certain amount). But in the sense of spirituality.
I'm pretty sure that Jesus existed and would have been something like him.
shumble32 6 months ago
On a related note
I had a debate with a religious guy about a year ago. He didn't bluster, insult or have PROBLEMS WITH HIS CAPS LOCK KEY. Or try to logically prove what can't be logically proven
I believe he kept a dictionary handy and didn't twist words the way that theologians notoriously do
He had a quiet faith that he was very secure in and didn't pretend to have an answer to every question.
shumble32 6 months ago
And so I think religion has it's place. But I feel strongly that indoctrination should not be necessary, arrogance is divisive and insulting, and religious intolerance is one of the major sources of the world's ills.
shumble32 6 months ago
And the logic is:
Altho I'm pretty sure that the whole God thing is a delusion. Delusion is a fact of life that no-one is free of. (IMHO)
for example - I delude myself that I'm pretty hot stuff, my confidence is therefore high, I therefore get the girl.
The delusion is that my subjective judgement is in fact objective - but this end justifies the means
And are we aware of how much we delude ourselves? I think not. The master self-deluder would have no idea.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - you don't understand..
Telling your child God exists = not abuse
Telling your child repeatedly/indoctrinatingly that God exists, excluding all other 'worldviews' = ABUSE
Telling your child God does not exist = not abuse
Telling your child repeatedly/indoctrinatingly that God does not exists, excluding all other 'worldviews' = ABUSE
The benefits of Christianity (and other religions) are: social inclusion, charity work, community singing and (I'm told) do-nuts. the logic follows
shumble32 6 months ago
Because the definition I have is:
"a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience." - which I don't
or
"a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study." - which I also don't
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - Except that the definition of Agnostic that I find doesn't fit and you haven't provided me with a definition that does. And anyway, as I believe I've said before, even if you can provide me with such a definition, it doesn't bother me - henceforth I will duly label myself as an Agnostic.
btw "as I believe I've said before" is not an assertion, it does not mean "I've said it before"
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - Just so as we are talking about the same thing - give me an example of natural evil. Notice how I'm avoiding using the 'I assume' form for your sake?
re: inbox - It doesn't seem to have turned up in my inbox yet
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - sorry, I forgot that not all Christians are literallists (thank God!). But I did learn from that that you hold to the doctrine of original sin. And that was what I was aiming at.
And you are right, i didn't say the bible was part fiction, part fact - at that time. Though why that is relevant I fail to see.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - don't get angry
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - maybe it's a language / usage issue. I'm from the UK and here the statement 'I assume' is just an attempt to illicit confirmation or denial or further info on a point one is not sure of.
It can obviously also be used in a sarcastic manner.
You can logically and usefully accuse me of assuming something, but only when I've not previously used that form.
ex. "I assume you'll be at the match today?"
In fact, thinking about it, the question mark is also a clue.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - just a little baby step - I know you can do it!
shumble32 6 months ago
I am v.interested in the 'evil can't exist where it's possible for it to exist' concept of yours. I assume that it's still waiting in my inbox.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - What you have to understand is that we are dealing with multiple simultaneous threads can be confusing. As I've said before, the only stuff of yours that I've not responded to are some 'angels on a pin' issues and some oversights. I am also capable of answering a question with a question, not to evade, but to clarify your question because many of the concepts are new to me - it's really a variation of the 'i assume' issue that you failed to id as an attempt to elicit.
shumble32 6 months ago
"If God does as YOU THINK HE SHOULD then all of creation would now of his existence which would not allow any of our earthly systems (economy, governments, art ect.) to function in any sense."
The only conclusion I can come to is that either i) God is immoral or ii) God does not exist or iii) There's some clever theological excuse to otherwise explain it. Or perhaps a combination of the above
I didn't respond to that previously - must have missed it somehow.
shumble32 6 months ago
Let me get this straight...
"The creator exists since there would be no possible way for evil/suffering to exist EVEN in a WORLD where evil is a possibility" - which logically (correct me if I'm wrong) means that evil can't exist where evil possibly can exist. And now evil is absolute. Which is fine in itself - but if evil can't exist I'm left with the conclusion that it's possible for an absolute thing not to exist.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
No, again and again you either misread, misinterpret or misrepresent my position.
Me giving God advice would make as much sense as me asking Father Christmas not to let his reindeer eat my roses.
shumble32 6 months ago
So if "it's not like they have a choice at this point" has been "completely shattered" you can probably go on to tell me why Aids babies do have a choice. Was it in the womb?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
I can easily see why 'original sin' is good theology. Or at least good for rheologists. ditto. 'channels of grace'.
I far as I understand it ( = 'I assume') suffering is the channel of grace which heals, preserves and tests
Of course it must be so because otherwise (and I'm sure theologians worked this out a long time ago) God would be a monster, and that can't be right can it?
'Suffering heals' has also got a certain Orwellian ring to it. War is peace, freedom is slavery. etc.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
'Assuming' is not as good as scholarship - but "I assume" is an attempt to elicit an opinion on the validity of a premise. The idea is that you say "yes, that's correct" or "no that is incorrect" and so we move on.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
As I said "Some fiction, some fact" which covers 'allegorical' quite nicely too. I reasonable man here would agree with that point, or if they didn't agree, at least argue it. But I get the feeling you'll just move swiftly on - I hope I'm wrong.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - and racists believe that black people are inferior - and is it their responsibility as parents to raise their kids in that belief? I think that they would probably say - yes.
But don't go off on one saying that i'm equating you with racists - I'm not, but I think the parallel is exact. If you think it's not then please say why not.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
"faith abuse" - angels and pins again I'm afraid.
Just to stress again - all you need to do is find a definition to support your 'agnostic' and 'agnostic framework' - come on, take me that one last step...
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
If "worldviews without subscription" means "worldviews without bias" (apart from the moral aspect) then you are right. And all you have to do is then provide a definition of agnosticism that encompasses that point. I can't find one. Perhaps you can? If you can then, fair enough, I'm raising them in an agnostic framework, if not, then your assertion is unjustified. It really is that simple.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 "Brainwashing requires established beliefs" - not in dictionary. c o m. , not in the Cambridge dictionary. But I admit that other some other dictionaries are not so clear.
But anyway - I repeat - what is this 'context' that you say definitions which definitely counter your argument lack. And, again, see if you can find any paired example of definition / context. I'm genuinely interested.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 "there would be no possible way for evil/suffering to exist EVEN in a WORLD where evil is a possibility" - perhaps you might want to re-consider your words because the logic of your statement is surely that 'evil can't exist where evil could exist' -> evil doesn't exist. Which is arguable and may be what you think. Do you see 'evil' as a relative or absolute term?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - "These people still maintain faith in God" - perhaps the majority of them do. Perhaps the majority of battered wives stay with their husbands. But why does a caring God that can stop this, not stop this? There's serious question of a new-borne begin guilty of anything is there? It's not like they have made any choice at this stage? I haven't read you answer to my enquiry about original sin yet - perhaps new borns are guilty?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - refer to my previous post today for this one
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - I've always assumed that the bible is based on a true story. Some fiction, some fact - I think most Christians agree with that. So you can see how your judgement that I think it is "NOTHING BUT HISTORY AND SCIENCE" - is simply, wrong.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
"I believe in a ordered existence where objectivity is real and objectively reachable" - doubtless you do.
You tell your sons God exists, then you tell them again, and again, and again. You don't (I assume) allow them to consider the alternatives. After many years of this they Believe. They'll do the same to their sons.
My kids will decide for themselves based on what they learn throughout their lives. And religious or not, I hope they allow their own kids the same freedom.
shumble32 6 months ago
And then back to the agnostic charge.. ho hum
1. Look it up in a dictionary.
2. Understand that my kids go to church about once a month and that I happy for them to be religious (I just hope they don't turn out arrogant and intolerant)
3. Then get back to me and tell me how you equate the two.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - my point exactly. Following your accusation of failing to cover your points I thought I had better inform you of yours. I realise that my 'head of a pin' reference was a bit oblique and I have explained it in more detail elsewhere.
1. It's not my definition
2. It does not have a get out clause saying 'this does not apply to children'
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - Concerning Genesis, are you one who rejects the concepts of Genesis, inc. original sin and the need for everyone to be saved because of it?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
But - we'll leave the subject of morality if you want. , but I believe you were objecting to the brainwashing thing on the basis of 'lack of context'. I don't think you got around to explaining what you meant (tho' I did ask). An example of a definition needing context will help.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - "Babies and aids are a form of natural evil/suffering that are dealt with philosophical and theological theodicies" - 'dealt with' are they? mm that's good, makes it all better does it?
We started with abuse and brainwashing. You raised the subject of morality. We are now discussing the morality of the entity that you get your morality from.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - Many, many of the things you have brought up are moot to me because they assume a belief in the existance of God. Discussing how many angles can dance on the head of a pin is to some extent futile when we haven't established the existence of angels. Put the rest down to oversight.
Concerning children with aids - how many of those parents would not wish them to have been born with aids? But I repeat my point - why did God do it? And was that a moral choice?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - So if God did exist "it's wrong to murder" would be objective? If you say so but to me it's just angels dancing on the head of a pin.
I agree with what your God says about the sacrifice thing so is my morality objective?
Naturally I have to mention here God's granting of the blessing of AIDs to new-born children, his non-intervention in the various misdeeds of his representatives on Earth and the old testament cruelties that would give even the Aztecs a run for their money.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
1. fair enough - but objectively speaking you may not know your true, sub-conscious reasons.
2. Subjectiveness is all around us - we are subjective animals. It's neither feeble or non-feeble.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
2. And I believe that religious indoctrination is a bad thing The only indoctrination that is a good thing is the teaching of morals. But you knew that already...
3. Moral indoctrination is not a bad thing (or do you disagree?) therefore how can I be guilty of it?
4. But in the inevitable gaps in our scientific knowledge you paste bits from the bible?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
1. True - prayer is not brainwashing. Repeated telling of the Christian God theory to impressionable children over a number of years, without also telling of the alternative gods and other world views is (according to the definition I found). You failed, I noticed, to explain why a definition needs context.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - The pain of innocent babies is not his fault - because they are not innocent - after all we are all guilty of the original sin that our supposed ancestors committed millions of years ago when they gave in to their God-given curiosity and human nature and ate of the apple of knowledge that God had placed there just to tease them. He knew it was going to happen. He was even there when it did happen (though he claimed otherwise).
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - let me get this straight. First we had, subjective morality, then objective morality, and now there's a new type called objectively subjective? Talk about a tangled web. Is there some kind of order of precedence?
My reference to babies and AIDs was a point about the immorality of the foundation of your 'objective' morality.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - I may have overdone the sarcasm there - but did you miss the reference to babies being born with AIDs? I'm sure that was an oversight on your part and there's no question of you not responding to my points.
shumble32 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@desertsun13
1. Be honest, have you addressed all MY previous issues? - be careful, it is quite easy for me to go back and check.
2. You misunderstand science, it does NOT explain all physical and temporal phenomenons - science only TRIES to explain them.
3. Our ideas of the truth are notoriously subjective
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - no, on second thoughts, don't explain.
You said that objective morality comes from God. But is different from the more mundane subjective morality like "it's wrong to murder". I subscribe to what you call subjective morality. It is what I teach my kids.
"there is nothing bad, but that we think it so" is a denial of morality - you can't argue that it's subjective morality because you already told me that "it's wrong to murder" is subjective.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - explain
shumble32 6 months ago
3. I don't "speak of it as if everyone would know what I'm speaking of" (either read my words properly or stop trying to misrepresent me). There's some common ground but of course morallity is subjective. Pretty much everything is subjective.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
1. If your religion does not give you consolation then I'm sorry - I guess you'll have to do without.
2. My morality's external source/foundation is what I learned from my parents, the world and the people around me. No God - though I do admit that it resembles what is written in the bible. But as I say, God was not involved.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
1. & 2. Why, pray, does the definition of brainwashing need context 'in this case'?
3. If (taking one definition) previous beliefs are a prerequisite to brainwashing - does that make the indoctrination any better?
4. So you subscribe to the scientific method as and when it suits you?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - I guess I'm lucky, my moral system does not rely on the debatable existence of an kindly old man with a beard who lives in the clouds, wears a nightshirt and will eternally torture anyone who doubts his existance or, indeed, hasn't even heard of him. Who also will let babies be born with AIDs. And you tell me that you get your morality from this monster?
shumble32 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@desertsun13
"When you make sense - I'll agree with you" - how is that not rational and reasonable? mm?
"And the reason that I don't agree with your positions is because I simply can't understand your point of view? " - I didn't say that was the reason and I didn't say you can't understand my point of view - stop trying to misrepresent me. I'm beginning to thing that your 'objective' morality is the only kind you have.
shumble32 6 months ago
So you agree on this aspect of evolution. How about the other aspects?
Science is often misidentified as a belief. We can say that we believe in the scientific method but we really mean that we believe it should be used. Science itself is just a method. A method that aims at getting us closer to the truth. As best as we are able, at that time. And with due recognition that we may get closer in the future.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
2. There is also the saying that "there is nothing bad, but that we think it so" - which it philosophically arguable but is no way to raise our kids.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - Read again what I said about the evolutionary advantage of cooperation within the tribe/family.
You may believe that 'no God = no point' and I'm glad your religion gives you consolation. I don't need it. Perhaps I'll need it in the future. At the moment death holds no fear and morality doesn't need belief in any external force (if that's the right word). If you can accept that you will start to understand and perhaps respect the non-religious viewpoint.
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13
1. The definition is from a dictionary
2. Definitions don't need context - unless you mean "it doesn't apply in the religious context - because whatever is done for religious reasons is ok"
3. Dictionary definitions don't need backing up by academic study - hence the example of 'rain'
4. Fair enough, you accept evolution. (I believe I mentioned that I was guessing - once again words do have meanings) How about creation? Do you accept the scientific explanation of that?
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - no I'm not. Look at the definition, in a dictionary, and you will see that it does not fit.
And to say that i'm doing so is a straight forward implication that I am an agnostic. Because a moral person does not raise their kids in a worldview that they do not believe in themselves. And you have already stated that you are not calling me immoral (btw. negating your earlier statement the "there is no morality without god").
shumble32 6 months ago
@desertsun13 - When you make sense - I'll agree with you.
And you ought carefully to read my posts and your own. And try to understand other people's points of view.
shumble32 6 months ago
A genetic pre-disposition to cooperate within the tribal/family group is certainly an evolutionary advantage but it's not morality, there's no sense of right or wrong - it's self-interest.
Your kids started on the path to morality long before they were old enough to have it explained to them. As soon as they were able to interact with the world they started learning - from you - what was considered good and bad behaviour.
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - and how do you know your kids motivation is a sense of right and wrong? Before they understand our verbal communication they learn our tone of voice, our body language, and the sub-consciously given reward system of comfort and affection. Hence they learn from us what is good and what is not good behaviour - and it doesn't happen overnight.
shumble32 7 months ago
You imply that I'm immoral - then later try to weasel out of it by saying that there are two types of morality
You tell me that I'm raising my kids in a agnositic wordview when I'm not
You therefore imply that I'm an agnostic when I'm not
You fabricate and evade in a way that is frankly typical of most theists.
You call for the support of science only when it's convenient to do so.
and finally attempt to silence me by a false accusation of 'hate speech'
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - If the dictionary gives the definition of rain as "a form of precipitation" - would you believe it? Or would you insist on scientific evidence? Also interesting how you try to turn to science when you hope it'll support your beliefs - yet (unless you are very odd theist) turn away when it won't (I'm guessing, evolution, creation etc.).
And is dictionary dot c o m (who I quoted) guilty of hate speech?
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - but you claimed I was raising my kids within an agnostic framework - if you wish to take back those words - fair enough
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - why would I not quote you?
IF a "staunch atheist would agree there was no objective morality without God" - it would be because an atheist believes there is no god and therefore no objective morality. Surely you can see that?
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 i really don't know what label you would put on how I raise my kids. But I can describe it.
There are many worldviews, it is arrogant to believe yours is the only right one. Each person eventually finds their own way, given time and the information to do so and not being bombarded with just one worldview to the exception of all others when they are young and impressionable
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 agnostic = a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
3 clauses: A and B, or C
B and C don't fit me - therefore I'm not an agnostic, therefore you are misrepresenting me.
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 "without god there is no morality" - your words.
Interesting (now) to hear that there are two kinds of morality. An example of my subjective morality would be 'don't steal'. What would be an example of objective (Objective: impartial, fair, impersonal, disinterested.) morality be?
Ps. I don't know if you are a parent but to me it's blindingly obvious that children are not born with a moral code - or if they are it is unlike what you or I would call moral.
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - As I have no god so your claim that 'no god = no morality' was pretty explicitly accusing me of having no morality - I hold morality to be very important - you don't even know me and yet you accuse me of immorality. That was an unjustified and baseless charge. Of course I got angry.
That you are a recent convert - and I assume that you are not reverting to a childhood faith, is irrelevant to the issue of childhood religious indoctrination.
What is relevant is that
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - You try to misrepresent me again - I did not say agnostic was abuse - I said raising kids as agnostic was.
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - Having looked at the Oxford online dictionary, I admit that it doesn't state it quite so explicitly
"pressurize (someone) into adopting radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible means:"
But it still fits
a) the pressure is social, and forcible (if forced to go to church)
b) "radically different beliefs" - seeing as we don't come out of the womb believing in God. Non-belief to belief is certainly radical and different.
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13
I bet you see your self as a good person - but you are in reality a decietfull, arrogant hypocrite who supports the brainwashing of innocent children and yet still has the gall to claim some sort of moral supperiority. However, you to were a victim of the same brainwashing as a kid so I guess you are not totally to blame.
"there is no morality without God" - lol, you don't even know you are doing it do you?
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - yes I'm sure you hope not. Dictionaries providing the universally accepted true meanings of words has always made them uncomfortable reading for any kind of theologian.
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13
Lacking "context" is a feeble way of saying that it doesn't apply to you.
look at dictionary dot c o m
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 I repeat that I said any religion, not any worldview.
It may confound your stereotypical view of the world but I am not against my kids developing religion. I think a religion like mainstream Christianity, has many good points and is healthy enough. If that sounds like agnosticism to you well, fair enough, call my an agnostic.
But brainwashing stinks.
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - if it's easy to refute my charges of brainwashing, I recommend you check its definition then try to do so. There are many good online dictionaries you can use.
Brainwashing - "any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion"
To Indoctrinate - "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view."
Be honest - it fits like a glove.
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 Look in a dictionary
Brainwashing - "any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, especially one based on repetition or confusion"
To Indoctrinate - "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view."
Or are the dictionaries wrong? Do tell.
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - wrong again - read my post properly and you'll see that it's only raising a child in religion that I object to as indoctrination. Yes, you can try to put words into my mouth by substituting 'worldview' for 'religion' but it's hardly honest to do so is it? I guess you'd call it bearing false witness. Now to me, lying is immoral. But what do I know?
And allowing my children free choice is "raising them in one side of the argument"?
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - "I think keeping a child ignorant of your theological and philosophical positions in place of blind agnostic worldviews is brainwashing"
- my children know my views, and know that my views include them making there own minds up. They can choose to be Christians or whatever. How is that brainwashing?
I don't subject them hundreds of hours over many years of one side of the argument - how is that not brainwashing?
- your use of the loaded term 'blind' is noted
shumble32 7 months ago
2. re: me forcing down agnosticism down children's throats - one of my kids is heading towards Christianity, both attend church about once a month. They are free to choose so there's no forcing or brainwashing involved. - so it's easy to refute your charges of brainwashing - now lets hear you do the same. Of course many people in your position will try to ignore this issue - but that in itself is a pretty clear answer
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13
1. "My morality is tied to my spiritual worldview" - I'm hoping that you would still be a moral person even without your spiritual worldview - and if that's true then your morality is not tied to your spiritual worldview.
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - I don't mind organized religions - just their methods with regards to children.
And, ok, you subscribe to freedom of conscience but is a mind really free to make choices after brainwashing?
shumble32 7 months ago
@desertsun13 "still must raise them which entails a system of belief" - if you mean a belief in a moral code then you are right. If you mean a belief in things spiritual then you are wrong. If they are drawn to things spiritual then fair enough, And I figure a valid spiritual belief will grow of it's own accord - it won't need me to be forced down children's throats over a number of years.
Noted how you ignored my point about freedom of conscience by the way.
shumble32 7 months ago
The sad thing about these people who`ve foolishly made their reservation in Hell is that when they grow up and one day they`ll grow up. They`ll think back at the amazingly foolish act. They`ll have more life experiences and a little more maturity then they have how, that`s when they`ll come begging God for forgiveness. But God will have no other choice but to ignore their plea of mercy and curse them to eternal damnation, because Blashphemy of the H.S is the only sin he won`t forgive. Wow!!!!
LACraig621 7 months ago
@desertsun13 - Yes it is an abuse to raise a child in any faith - including atheist of agnostic (not that they are faiths). And yes, six is too young to make a sound decision, but make the info available to them and one day, when they are ready, they can make the decision if they wish ( I somehow doubt you'd want to risk such freedom of conscience)
So your 'feeling' and your 'assumption' are wrong - and it's not my argument that fails miserably, it's your imagined version of it.
shumble32 7 months ago
The idea of a deity is human concept, evolving with human thought. No child is born knowing of a deity. A person has to tell the child that there is this unseen deity that is watching them at all times. Defending a myth as if it's reality in this modern age is crime to the human mind. You tube has helped some, but we still have our stupid churches and theist bullshit doctrine around every corner. How can we rid ourselves of this BS?
cropdusterfull 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cropdusterfull - "How can we rid ourselves of this BS?"
Education and recognition of religious indoctrination of children as a form of child abuse.
shumble32 7 months ago
I think its our duty as followerd of Jesus to preach the Gospel. If people listen and want to know more, then great. But the bible says many will fall short of the Glory of God, so after you've explained how God works if people still deny Christ, there's nothing that can be done for them. If they want proof they will have to seek it themselves, like I did. We can't make them love God. So let them blaspheme the Lord and fall short of glory.
smurfboywv 7 months ago
@smurfboywv - I agree that people should be free to choose but I don't see why children should be subject to the abuse of religious indoctrination every Sunday from an early age.
Surely, in the interests of balance, they should be exposed to all religion and even to atheism? Or perhaps balance is not what you are interested in. Or perhaps your own brainwashing doesn't allow you to consider alternatives?
shumble32 7 months ago
NOT ONE WOrd of God in this Video! Not one point of teaching per the Bible of sin, the cross, the blood of Christ which is the cleaning agent for our sin. He didn't even mention Hell? Just shoed a picture! Well the Bible mentions Hell and condemnation more than it does Heaven! More of th lies of the "ecumenical" movement rooted in Rome! REader, viewer BEWARE! Jesus is Lord of your life or He is not! Get into a Relationship with HIM and be "Born-again" as He tells us to do to get to Heaven!
rtarasiak 7 months ago
I was thinking, "Don't eat it. Don't eat it!"
GodPatrol 7 months ago
@7danyul
Sectarian violence in Iraq between Shiites and Sunnis demonstrates the opposite of course--the capability of ppl to buy into demands for orthodoxy so much that they refuse to recognize the other as having any value. Of course if you believe in damnation of all other religions and atheists as either a Muslim or a Christian, you're in the same page as far as im concerned for your ideology.
anyway, i am all for a strong protection of right to practice religion. just hope to dissuade
Daniel0112358 7 months ago
@7danyul
I am sure that this is true of a disturbing # of muslims' attitude. but many muslims in the US accept pluralism. and look at Egypt lately some Salafi Muslims have attacked Christians in street riots and there was a bombing of a church, yet a large number of Egyptian Muslims joined a "human shield" movement to attend a mass, stating that they would be killed by any attack. Moreover, many protesters in the anti-Mubarak revolution called for Muslim-Christian solidarity.
Daniel0112358 7 months ago
@7danyul
FM seems nice enough but...in his reply, he indirectly called atheist whores ("those who are well have no need of a physician").
the fact is the morality of the entire bible is inconsistent and full of crap. and the conclusion "blessed are those who do not see but still believe" and "if a man does not abide in me and i in him, then he will be cast out like a branch and the branches shall whither and be burned" (quotes approximate)
Daniel0112358 7 months ago
…it seems some atheists feel a similar compulsion to uncover a tradition they are convinced is full of hate. My own impression regarding which camp listens better to the ‘no thanks’ following an initial offer would be the atheists. It's good to hear you yearn for the day of the end of belligerent evangelism. I share your wish if not your optimism.
myerssa7 7 months ago
We _can_ work towards shared goals of social justice, freedom of religion, etc. without shared fundamental assumptions. This occurs often in the secular sphere. But atheists can’t help but notice your sincere, restated goal of evangelism within the very same video where you claim to “get it.” You feel desperately compelled to share a god you are convinced is full of love,…
myerssa7 7 months ago
Yes, when these people actively seek & perform the most iconoclastic, “unforgivable” act they can find within a tradition, they are saying, "Back off" as clearly as they can. If a friend has a compulsion that he must convince you that his brand of toothpaste is superior & he won’t take ‘no thanks’ for an answer, one has to find a more voluminous means of communication. Within the context of an initial offer, this would be ‘cold’ as you say, but not within the compulsive context.
myerssa7 7 months ago
Wow, you seem extremely reasonable for a christian.
mehico33 7 months ago
Doing this is like getting a tattoo only its more like getting tattoos all over you body then later you don't want the tattoos but you already did it !
majorl311 8 months ago
If you think it's getting more charitable and conciliatory, take a look Robert Barron's videos. They are filled with arrogance, illogic, and sarcasm. He even has the arrogance to discuss the YouTube "heresies" and to declare that any belief other than the catholic god in blasphemous. The ultimate insult was to deny the mathematics of Stephen Hawking, when Barron knows NOTHING about mathematics whatever. Now, YouTube observers, that is ARROGANCE.
Mike96727 8 months ago
Checked back, but the good father hasn't really responded or defended his faith.
NormanMinetaTestimon 8 months ago
god is dead,thank god.
zeropointemcs 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" . This article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is also given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 8 months ago
this dude aint no Christian.
jesusrulezdood 8 months ago
So Matt how do you know your god actaully exists? Please don't say "fatith" because faith is not the pathway to truth.. Good luck trying to expalin
richstpete 8 months ago
I just saw the 'Blasphemy Challenge' video and it seems incredibly manipulative. I may be only 16, but as a result of a sort-of 'awakening', I've been a proud Episcopalian for two years now. Long story short: being Catholic didn't feel right to me and it took almost dying to realize that there was something else.
lilgunner94 8 months ago