there's a differences between faith and science. If you jump off a bridge, you will fall. We can *prove* that. We have proven gravity. We know the physics behind gravity. Can you prove that if a person is evil, he will go to hell? Can we prove that a god exists? No, we can only believe it. Yes, the idea has merit. But nothing we can see or show can fully back up religion. I *believe* that heaven does not exist. I do not know. *Faith* is relative. Truth is not.
Truth is not relative. If everything is right, then nothing is false. If nothing is false what’s the point in even saying everything is right?
If you say all truth is relative it even includes itself or excludes itself. If it includes itself that means the statement is not always true, which means all truth is not relative and if it excludes its self, it’s making an absolute statement about relativism while deny that absolutes exist.
@BuzWeaver Even if ( hypotheically) accept that truth is not relative -- not everyone who claims to have the truth is correct.. how can you tell the diffrence between the "truth" and someone claiming to have the truth.
Keep in mind that nearly every relgion claims to have the truth..
@badpanda84 Naturally there is going to be distinctions, however Truth can't be relative because it would have to include itself while it would be excluding itself. Granted, there are going to be people who may not believe certain things, religion as you mentioned, however the general rule for truth when applied to our everyday life can't be relative. I'm also drawing on my background in law where the correspondence theory of truth is applied.
@badpanda84 Think about this. If you're saying that truth is unknowable, then is your assessment of truth being unknowable, true? If you're using mathematics as your benchmark, then we know 2+2=4, we have confirmed a known truth :-) Something that is true for example math, is true for all persons at all times in all places. Now, as far as someone's belief system or world view, then there are gray areas, but it doesn't change truth.
@BuzWeaver Proof has a slightly diffrent meaning in mathamatics.
Look up mathamtically proof in wiki
"n mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true.[1][2] Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception"
@bigboyburnsy You can't prove something like morals because they are subjective.. However murder could be justified in self defence for instance.. or what about the death penalty .. what about in war to defend you country.. what about in the bible when God commanded to kill people.
It is merely your opinion that murder and rape are wrong in all circumstances. There is no such thing as objective morals -- merely peoples opinions
that is my point -- no one can prove there morals are correct ( or incorrect) .. Merely stating that murder and rape are wrong in all circumstances dose not make it objective -- that is merely your subjective opinion.
Granted some morals like "rape is wrong" is held by the vast majority of people but that dosent make it objectively right or wrong
@badpanda84 I find that its dangerous to be neutral with things such as murder and rape. One thing i know for sure is that pre-meditated murder is wrong, forcing yourself sexually on someone is wrong. There is no middle ground here.
@bigboyburnsy I'm not neutral as such I have my own subjective opinions as well and agree.. But they are still subjective.
Of course you only hold those views because you live in a society which agrees that murder and rape is wrong.
Now lets say you grew up in a Muslim country under Shira Law -- where they might think is acceptable to rape women who expose themselves.. Also under Shira Law it may be acceptable to murder homosexuals for instace
@badpanda84 Okay, but just because a Muslim country think its acceptable to rape women or to murder homosexuals does that make it right? Regardless of whether you live in that Muslim country or not, does it make it right?
@badpanda84 I highly disagree and heres why. I live in America where homosexuality is deemed as something that is normal and is highly tolerated yet i do not believe homsexuality is right, therefore regardless of whether or not i live in a society that says murder or rape is right i would still think it is wrong.
@badpanda84 Let me rephrase that cuz i knew you would take what i would say literally. When i said i would still think it is wrong i meant my conscience would still tell me it is wrong, not that i would ponder whether it is right or wrong.
@badpanda84 You said it correctly, we are all born knowing what is right and wrong, we come into this world knowing what is right and wrong. To prove this you can talk to a group of toddlers about the same topics we are talking about (you would just have to explain things differently to toddlers) then talk to a group of mature adults about the same topics and you'll see what i mean. Your conscience puts out what you put in.
@badpanda84 This is somewhat true yes, we do mirror our parents and pick up their beliefs but i'll give you an example of what i mean. My mother is Hindu and raised me to be Hindu but as i grew older i discovered that Hinduism and my mother could not answer questions that i would ask so as i searched for truth myself i came to Buddhism and from Buddhism God led me to Christianity and now i have discovered that truth comes from God's word (the bible) (cont)
@badpanda84 (cont) So your statement that culture and parents and our society, environment etc shape our belief and value system is somewhat true but ultimately truth comes from God and from his word which is the Bible, the Bible and the LORD answered all the major questions i had about life and how to live life with true purpose.
@bigboyburnsy LOL you honestly think morals come from the bible.... maybe you should actually re read it --- granted there are some good things in the bible but you have to cherrypick..
@badpanda84 I honestly believe good morals come from the Bible. Stealing, committing adultery, mudering, coveting are some of the things God tells us to stay clear from in the Bible, and rightly so. Jesus Christ tells us to love one another, to help each other out and to have patience, self-control and to be forgiving, and rightly so, there is no cherrypicking here, all of God's word is good.
@badpanda84 The killing and bloodshed in the Old Testament was caused by people who turned their backs on God, God gave them what their hardened hearts desired. Believe it or not there are still people being killed in 2011.
@badpanda84 There cannot be remission of sins without bloodshed. Thats the reason there was so much bloodshed in the Old Testament and in Leviticus (sacrificing/slaughtering choice animals for the LORD) to teach Israel and ALL mankind ultimately how awful SIN is, it was NOT PLEASANT to slaughter animals, but it taught us that blood was required to pay for sin.
Then the blood of Christ was spilled on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice, thus we are now living sacrifices....
@badpanda84 It's called a blood covenant, the promise is sealed with the blood of God's Son Jesus Christ which was shed for all our sins. The best example i can use to explain this is a couple who have stayed virgins till marriage then after they are married the couple make love for the first time and the woman's hymen breaks and she bleeds, the man and the woman are now one flesh, sealed by the womans blood, through the act of making love with one another for the first time.
@badpanda84 Ok but us human beings can and are expect to forgive each other without the need for bloodshed.
Yet there are many that don't forgive and are burdened their whole lives because of unforgiveness. I KNOW i am forgiven for my sins because Jesus Christ paid the ransom for me.
"why is it that we can forgive others without bloodshed yet and all mighty god cant"
It's not only forgiveness, he also wipes our guilt away, something we can't do on our own. We may forgive but guilt remains.
@badpanda84 ......and there is no need to sacrifice animals anymore as the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the cross has been fulfilled, so I must be a living sacrifice to the LORD just like Christ was a living sacrifice for me.
Truth is word that can only be used on things that can be proven or applied. Many people believing god is real doesnt make it true where as gravity or maths are true so sprituall things cannot be proven to be true therefore cannot be called true. this doesn't mean tehy are untrue just unproven
:22 He said you will die, and that was an absolute truth...by why is he alive at the end? Apparently another failed example of absolute truth. 1:23 he has risen!
How can you relate gravity to religion? I get the point they are trying to make but but when you compare science and religion religion always fails since one can be tested and the other can not.
On a second note Truth has been proven to be relative to the observer. It was proven with a very famous test known as "The Double Slit Test."
@fellums The double slit test was improved. We now have the "delayed choice test" of 2007. Just Google "after a short delay quantum" in quotes and read the artice about it. Scientist who want to sitll pretend they know anything dismiss the results as merely "counterintuitive" but this is an A-bomb that just destroyed everything we think we know, for science more tha religion, since religion says we see what we believe instead of we only believe what we see. But look it up...well worth it.
But don't get me wrong. Objectivists, like people who believe in fixed static truths, catholics for example, are just too stupid to understand relativity.
Did I say stupid? Man, that was rude and inappropriate sorry.
I forgot how upset people who believe in and defend a belief system they were born into (cuz their parents indocrinated them into it,) can get when you point out how little they can think for themselves.
(The point is, that whatever you'd like to call it, a thing exists, regardless if it's been proven and before it's proven.)
Yes, it exists based on belief alone. You believe it exists. And what is the problem here? What is wrong with that? Why are u associating belief with some kind of sin?
There is nothing wrong with belief as all of us have belief in things where we don't have any truth statements that are proven to be true.
" it's because He is in existance, regardless of proof"
So if you believe that something exists without proof, then please go into your bank and tell them that you would like to withdraw your $75 Billion from your savings account. And of course, you or they shouldn't need to prove that you actually have that money because it EXISTS in your account WITHOUT PROOF!
No. Reality is what is, though we are interaction with it in the sense of our knowing it. But it exists outside of our mind and perception....objectively.
And that same reality is there regardless if a human being is there to know it and prove it.
And since the reality is that there IS an Eternal Mind. That makes you incorrect regardless if anyone proves it.
So the true disagreement here is not "is there objective truth" but "Is there a God".
Reality is what WE perceive. Actuality is what is actual, outside our human perception. For example, we cannot perceive molecules, atoms, quantum matter etc. But we have developed instruments that can detect their presence; hence actuality - not reality.
The reality is that an eternal mind is a belief that YOU have; unless of course you can prove it. And that is what is actually "correct".
Talk to the science department of the Catholic Church in Rome. They will tell you that an eternal mind is based on belief only. They have made their position on these matters very clear - in that you must have faith.
Ok, I'm just responding to your statements. I'm not yelling at you or trying to be rude. You shouldn't feel being attacked by someone who disagrees with you.
And the sweetheart comment doesn't bother me; it's a bit odd, but I won't lose sleep over it.
Anyway, belief is correct or incorrect when it is proven to be so; otherwise it is accepted as belief or not accepted at all.
Actuality is what is proved - just like we recently proved quantum particles exist. Understand now?
I didn't feel attacked at all. I was just letting you know internet courtesy.
I understand all the definitions you have given to the different terms we've been discussing. I understand what you're saying. The point is, that whatever you'd like to call it, a thing exists, regardless if it's been proven and before it's proven.
it's not because it's not proven and we are believing something that's not 'in existance', it's because He is in existance, regardless of proof.
And maybe you've spent a little too much time in the classroom to realise I was poking a little fun (sweetheart....lol). Perhaps you thought you were speaking with a man??
" it's because He is in existance, regardless of proof"
No, the Catholic Church in Rome does not talk about proof. Their faith is only based on belief and not proof. You have stated your subjective opinion on this matter. I suggest you call the science department of the chruch in Rome and have a discussion with them. You will be surprised what their position is on this matter.
You have belief, not truth or proof in any form. And there is nothing wrong with that. You keep shying away from belief and faith - why is that? Why are u scared of faith alone? Your ideology goes against the Catholic church, but I'm sorry to say that it is perfectly in-line with the Protestatant, and in particular, the Pentacostal Chruch.
No I didn't think I was talking to a man or a woman or a neither. My belief is that I don't know. So calling someone you don't know sweetheart, is odd!
(The point is, that whatever you'd like to call it, a thing exists, regardless if it's been proven and before it's proven.)
By definition of "existence", something exists only when you can give 1 truth statement about it. And the statement requires it to be proven true. Once true, the object of the statement in question exists.
If you have a more consistent definition for "exists" that applies to all existence, then please provide it.
Remember: reality isn't true, objects aren't true, existence isn't true, etc....Only statements about them can be proven to be either true or false. And statements require a mind and a language.
Without a mind and a language there is no statements and no truth and no belief - there is only is.
So.....when you're saying there is no absolute truth, you don't mean there is no absolute reality. You mean that there is no absolutely true statement?
Yes, there is no statement that can be conceived by a human mind that can be ascertained to be of absolute truth. Why? Because absolute truth is by definition, eternal truth; hence requiring an eternal mind to conceive such statements.
Once we can prove the existence of an eternal mind, and a statement conceived by it, and a resulting truth; then we have proven absolute truth.
Reality is obviously what it is because we are in constant interaction with it - it is what we perceive.
You haven't proven your bald assertion that truth is absolute. Since by definition, truth only applies to statements that are proven to be true, absolute truth is defeated and is only a fallacy.
This is why absolute truth can only be based on belief, just like invisible pink unicorns are.
This vidoe is demonstrating the physical truth of gravity is an absolute whether we believe it or not. If you look at science, science is studing the physical truths that already exist.
So my question to you is, do you beleive there are absolutes in the physical world, such as gravity?
Truth is absolute. It does not exist merely based on proof. It exists for you to prove it and discover it.
For example, If I see a tree far in the distance with flecks of red...suppose I say it is an apple tree. I have not examined the tree and am not close enough to see it clearly. But it is an absolute truth that the tree exists for me to either correctly or incorrectly identify.
Truth comes before proof not the other way around.
Truth does not exist. If you say it does, then please demonstrate how it exists; in physical form or in supernatural form?
If you say "that tree is an apple tree", then your statement is false if later you proved it was not. When you examine the tree, it is at that time when you have empirically proven to be an apple tree or not.
Before that time, your statement about the tree can only be taken as belief and nothing else.
you haven't demonstrated how truth comes before proof. By definition, truth only applies to statements that are proven to be true, otherwise it is only belief.
BTW, it is ok for you to believe that truth comes before proof or whatever you want to believe in, as people believe in many things. Proving them, is another story!
Truth is a concept that is used to signify the validity of statements. Once a statement is proposed, then reality is used to verify or prove that statement true or false.
Truth is a concept and has nothing to do with reality because it is used to label a statement as being true or false.
The propositional statement in question has to do with reality because it is making a proposition about reality.
Right....my statement would be belief. But the point was that the tree is what it is regardless of what I call it or whether I prove it to be. It is there for me to prove in the first place......A truth of reality not of statement.
You are confusing existence with truth - the 2 are very different and not related in any way.
No statement is true about any object without first proving that the statement is true. Once proven, it is truth - otherwise, the statement can only be taken as belief.
The tree is what it is when a mind identifies it to be what it is commonly known to be in a specific language, like English for example.
Without a mind to assess the tree, nobody can make any statements about it that can be of truth, and hence no truth can be ascertained about that object unless it is first proven. Without a mind, no truth exists - why? Because truth is a concept and concepts are of the mind.
Sounds like what you're saying is "truth" is objective when yours is in the consideration but relative when it comes to others. Isn't this world a wonderful circle of contradiction and irony!
All truths are both objective and relative. If you think there is any conflict in saying so, then you misunderstand either "relative" or "objective", or possibly both.
@KhmerTruth "Sounds like what you're saying is "truth" is objective when yours is in the consideration but relative when it comes to others. Isn't this world a wonderful circle of contradiction and irony!"
Not really, because no one is born a christian, no one is born into Truth. So everyone has to discover it. Truth is always objective to everyone. I was not born as a christian, i became one through revelation and objective truth already there beforehand
@joorailkken Truth is always objective to everyone."
LOL Exactly .. everyone will say the have the objective truth because to each person usually thinks they are correct ( why believe in something you know is wrong).
OF course every religion claims to have the objective truth ( why follow a religion if you know its false).
@joorailkken, no one is born a Buddhist or Muslim, etc... either. They have to discover it. Truth is objective to everyone who subscribes to that notion of the truth. Buddhist believes their notion of the truth to be objective, Muslims believe the Islam notion of truth to be objective, Christians believe Christianity notion of truth to be objective. Your truth isn't necessarily the same thing for other people. That's all I'm saying.
There were comments that were censored and deleted from this video after being here for many weeks.
youngcatholic, please explain yourself. This is not something that a Christian should be doing. Why don't you have peaceful and rational discussion instead of deleting people's comments which were not offensive in any way?
If you think you are right, then please talk about it youngchristian.
LOL I love how he sees his friend almost die by jumping off the bridge and insted of going for help he explains to us the things of god.This comment isnt sposed to be satircal but i just found the situation funny
Wouldn't it be true to say that anyone who believes ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE should have no problem with this video and only have positive comments because this is how the "young youtube producer" views reality. How can a relativist put down a non-relativist. Doesn't a relativist endorse an "anyone can believe what they want" attitude?
To point out error in an absolutist's views, you assume that objective truth exists.
If you correct me, u must assume error exists, which then assumes truth exists
Man, truth and relativity is a tough one to tackle in only 100 seconds. Props for the attempt. Remember though, the Pope tried it at Regensberg in less than 4000 words and half the world was calling for his head...good job! Keep it up!
The stuff Hitler did was not immoral because of some magical/spiritual mumbo jumbo, it was evil because of the people who thought/think it was evil. Right and wrong can only be relative, even if there is a god!!! God, try to think a little bit before you post a video! I do not mean to be a son of a bitch here, but please think!
so you're saying that you don't think what Hitler did was evil? Sounds like you could use some thinking. Or at least studying. Try thinking before you post a comment
I have never said anythibng like that. I am saying that things are evil because we think they are evil, but things can at the same time be good as long as people think they are good. I think on regular basis! ;) If moral is objective give some evidence or proof!
Well, I know I wouldn't feel good if I were stuck in an oven or gas chamber. But that's just my opinion. Obviously, if I change my thinking, it will be morally just. In fact, why don't I break into your house and stick you in a gas chamber. Just try not to think of it as evil, but good.
My point is that you should watch the video and this time, LISTEN TO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING!!
If there were no laws, then why should we have emotions? Why should we feel guilt at doing something wrong, or joy at doing something right? Not because we're told what is right or wrong, but because it is part of our humanity.
Maybe you should listen to what they are saying? What do you mean? Explain the first question a little bit more please! It is true that feeling things like "right" and "wrong" is something that is universal, but that does not mean that right and wrong are absolute. Right and wrong are values, and values come from the minds of thinking creatures.
I heard you guys on Lino at Large. It's good to see other young Catholics out there who aren't afraid to be open with their faith. Keep up the good work!
there's a differences between faith and science. If you jump off a bridge, you will fall. We can *prove* that. We have proven gravity. We know the physics behind gravity. Can you prove that if a person is evil, he will go to hell? Can we prove that a god exists? No, we can only believe it. Yes, the idea has merit. But nothing we can see or show can fully back up religion. I *believe* that heaven does not exist. I do not know. *Faith* is relative. Truth is not.
Seabreeze843 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just loved our brazilian ambulance behind!!!! :)
Young Catholic is amazing, I'm using the videos to help catechism classes! The kids love it!
lidiaffd 4 months ago
Just loved our brazilian ambulance behind!!!! :)
Young Catholic is amazing, I'm using the videos to help catechism classes! The kids love it!
lidiaffd 4 months ago
Truth is not relative. If everything is right, then nothing is false. If nothing is false what’s the point in even saying everything is right?
If you say all truth is relative it even includes itself or excludes itself. If it includes itself that means the statement is not always true, which means all truth is not relative and if it excludes its self, it’s making an absolute statement about relativism while deny that absolutes exist.
BuzWeaver 8 months ago
@BuzWeaver Even if ( hypotheically) accept that truth is not relative -- not everyone who claims to have the truth is correct.. how can you tell the diffrence between the "truth" and someone claiming to have the truth.
Keep in mind that nearly every relgion claims to have the truth..
badpanda84 6 months ago
@badpanda84 Naturally there is going to be distinctions, however Truth can't be relative because it would have to include itself while it would be excluding itself. Granted, there are going to be people who may not believe certain things, religion as you mentioned, however the general rule for truth when applied to our everyday life can't be relative. I'm also drawing on my background in law where the correspondence theory of truth is applied.
BuzWeaver 6 months ago
@BuzWeaver But the problem is that outside of mathmatics.... there is no such thing as truth.
You can't know the truth -- the truth is unknowable.. so wheather or not its relative is irrelvant
badpanda84 6 months ago
@badpanda84 Think about this. If you're saying that truth is unknowable, then is your assessment of truth being unknowable, true? If you're using mathematics as your benchmark, then we know 2+2=4, we have confirmed a known truth :-) Something that is true for example math, is true for all persons at all times in all places. Now, as far as someone's belief system or world view, then there are gray areas, but it doesn't change truth.
BuzWeaver 6 months ago
@BuzWeaver Proof has a slightly diffrent meaning in mathamatics.
Look up mathamtically proof in wiki
"n mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true.[1][2] Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception"
badpanda84 6 months ago
Also we don't believe in gravity just because its our "opinion" we accept gravity due to evidence...
badpanda84 1 year ago
But you can prove things like gravity --etc
but you can't prove morals and vaules.
You can't prove that murder and rape is objectively wrong in all circumstances..
badpanda84 1 year ago
incorrect, murder and rape are wrong in all circumstances. Prove to me that they arent.
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
@bigboyburnsy You can't prove something like morals because they are subjective.. However murder could be justified in self defence for instance.. or what about the death penalty .. what about in war to defend you country.. what about in the bible when God commanded to kill people.
It is merely your opinion that murder and rape are wrong in all circumstances. There is no such thing as objective morals -- merely peoples opinions
badpanda84 1 year ago
@bigboyburnsy Prove to me that they arent."
that is my point -- no one can prove there morals are correct ( or incorrect) .. Merely stating that murder and rape are wrong in all circumstances dose not make it objective -- that is merely your subjective opinion.
Granted some morals like "rape is wrong" is held by the vast majority of people but that dosent make it objectively right or wrong
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 I find that its dangerous to be neutral with things such as murder and rape. One thing i know for sure is that pre-meditated murder is wrong, forcing yourself sexually on someone is wrong. There is no middle ground here.
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
@bigboyburnsy I'm not neutral as such I have my own subjective opinions as well and agree.. But they are still subjective.
Of course you only hold those views because you live in a society which agrees that murder and rape is wrong.
Now lets say you grew up in a Muslim country under Shira Law -- where they might think is acceptable to rape women who expose themselves.. Also under Shira Law it may be acceptable to murder homosexuals for instace
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Okay, but just because a Muslim country think its acceptable to rape women or to murder homosexuals does that make it right? Regardless of whether you live in that Muslim country or not, does it make it right?
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
@bigboyburnsy that depends on your opinion. which is heavily influced by culture.
If you grew up in a Muslim country then yes -- you would think it is right..
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 I highly disagree and heres why. I live in America where homosexuality is deemed as something that is normal and is highly tolerated yet i do not believe homsexuality is right, therefore regardless of whether or not i live in a society that says murder or rape is right i would still think it is wrong.
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
@bigboyburnsy But that is mere a subjective opionion .. you said " I would still think it is wrong" which is fine.. but that is subjective,,
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Let me rephrase that cuz i knew you would take what i would say literally. When i said i would still think it is wrong i meant my conscience would still tell me it is wrong, not that i would ponder whether it is right or wrong.
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
@bigboyburnsy wrong i meant my conscience would still tell me it is wrong"
you concscience is affected by upbringing and society and culture.. you are born knowing what is right and wrong.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 You said it correctly, we are all born knowing what is right and wrong, we come into this world knowing what is right and wrong. To prove this you can talk to a group of toddlers about the same topics we are talking about (you would just have to explain things differently to toddlers) then talk to a group of mature adults about the same topics and you'll see what i mean. Your conscience puts out what you put in.
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
@bigboyburnsy Sorry that was a typo we are NOT born know what is right and wrong -- that has to be taught.
That is because toddlers at that ages probably have picked up some of the beliefs and values of there parents
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 This is somewhat true yes, we do mirror our parents and pick up their beliefs but i'll give you an example of what i mean. My mother is Hindu and raised me to be Hindu but as i grew older i discovered that Hinduism and my mother could not answer questions that i would ask so as i searched for truth myself i came to Buddhism and from Buddhism God led me to Christianity and now i have discovered that truth comes from God's word (the bible) (cont)
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
@badpanda84 (cont) So your statement that culture and parents and our society, environment etc shape our belief and value system is somewhat true but ultimately truth comes from God and from his word which is the Bible, the Bible and the LORD answered all the major questions i had about life and how to live life with true purpose.
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
@bigboyburnsy LOL you honestly think morals come from the bible.... maybe you should actually re read it --- granted there are some good things in the bible but you have to cherrypick..
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 I honestly believe good morals come from the Bible. Stealing, committing adultery, mudering, coveting are some of the things God tells us to stay clear from in the Bible, and rightly so. Jesus Christ tells us to love one another, to help each other out and to have patience, self-control and to be forgiving, and rightly so, there is no cherrypicking here, all of God's word is good.
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
@bigboyburnsy yes but what about the rest of the bible... like the book of leviticus for example..
And what about all the killing the the old testament.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 The killing and bloodshed in the Old Testament was caused by people who turned their backs on God, God gave them what their hardened hearts desired. Believe it or not there are still people being killed in 2011.
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
@bigboyburnsy lol you really didnt read the bible then ..
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84 Then tell me why there was so much bloodshed in the Old Testament and why there continues to be bloodshed in this world till today.
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
@badpanda84 There cannot be remission of sins without bloodshed. Thats the reason there was so much bloodshed in the Old Testament and in Leviticus (sacrificing/slaughtering choice animals for the LORD) to teach Israel and ALL mankind ultimately how awful SIN is, it was NOT PLEASANT to slaughter animals, but it taught us that blood was required to pay for sin.
Then the blood of Christ was spilled on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice, thus we are now living sacrifices....
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
@bigboyburnsy "There cannot be remission of sins without bloodshed"
What kind fo stupid God came up with that system... that is pretty fucked up
badpanda84 6 months ago
@badpanda84 It's called a blood covenant, the promise is sealed with the blood of God's Son Jesus Christ which was shed for all our sins. The best example i can use to explain this is a couple who have stayed virgins till marriage then after they are married the couple make love for the first time and the woman's hymen breaks and she bleeds, the man and the woman are now one flesh, sealed by the womans blood, through the act of making love with one another for the first time.
bigboyburnsy 6 months ago
@bigboyburnsy Ok but us human beings can and are expect to forgive each other without the need for bloodshed.
For example if you offended ( or sinned) agaist me I dont demand that you sacrifice a goat before I forgive you.
why is it that we can forgive others without bloodshed yet and all mighty god cant
badpanda84 6 months ago
@badpanda84 Ok but us human beings can and are expect to forgive each other without the need for bloodshed.
Yet there are many that don't forgive and are burdened their whole lives because of unforgiveness. I KNOW i am forgiven for my sins because Jesus Christ paid the ransom for me.
"why is it that we can forgive others without bloodshed yet and all mighty god cant"
It's not only forgiveness, he also wipes our guilt away, something we can't do on our own. We may forgive but guilt remains.
bigboyburnsy 6 months ago
@badpanda84 ......and there is no need to sacrifice animals anymore as the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the cross has been fulfilled, so I must be a living sacrifice to the LORD just like Christ was a living sacrifice for me.
bigboyburnsy 1 year ago
Truth is word that can only be used on things that can be proven or applied. Many people believing god is real doesnt make it true where as gravity or maths are true so sprituall things cannot be proven to be true therefore cannot be called true. this doesn't mean tehy are untrue just unproven
DinaanBumm 1 year ago
I like your video and the way you exposed. Its a great idea continue doing it. By the way i am watching at this video form Mexico
lestersalle 1 year ago
:22 He said you will die, and that was an absolute truth...by why is he alive at the end? Apparently another failed example of absolute truth. 1:23 he has risen!
brimmster 1 year ago
@brimmster must be a jesus!! than can be no other explanation the mesiah has risen
DinaanBumm 1 year ago
That which is relative is not at all.
1971SuperLead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1971SuperLead,
"That which is relative is not at all. "
You are not very logical. If it is relative, it is something, and therefore existent.
All truths are relative to a system of proof, or nothing makes them true. Your fantasy truths are not true.
gklr 1 year ago
hahaha wow
imfreeatlass 1 year ago
The answer is unless you can back your "truth" up with evidence then its just opinion.
badpanda84 1 year ago
@badpanda84,
Assumption, opinion and myth are the 3 belief types.
gklr 1 year ago
How can you relate gravity to religion? I get the point they are trying to make but but when you compare science and religion religion always fails since one can be tested and the other can not.
On a second note Truth has been proven to be relative to the observer. It was proven with a very famous test known as "The Double Slit Test."
fellums 2 years ago
@fellums The double slit test was improved. We now have the "delayed choice test" of 2007. Just Google "after a short delay quantum" in quotes and read the artice about it. Scientist who want to sitll pretend they know anything dismiss the results as merely "counterintuitive" but this is an A-bomb that just destroyed everything we think we know, for science more tha religion, since religion says we see what we believe instead of we only believe what we see. But look it up...well worth it.
Cashify 2 years ago
But don't get me wrong. Objectivists, like people who believe in fixed static truths, catholics for example, are just too stupid to understand relativity.
Cashify 2 years ago
Did I say stupid? Man, that was rude and inappropriate sorry.
I forgot how upset people who believe in and defend a belief system they were born into (cuz their parents indocrinated them into it,) can get when you point out how little they can think for themselves.
Cashify 2 years ago
if u lived on the moon, would u know gravity?
vacationboyvideos 2 years ago
good point but yeah, the gravitation pull would be less apparent then ours on earth, but it would still be existent.
artistchick91 2 years ago
(The point is, that whatever you'd like to call it, a thing exists, regardless if it's been proven and before it's proven.)
Yes, it exists based on belief alone. You believe it exists. And what is the problem here? What is wrong with that? Why are u associating belief with some kind of sin?
There is nothing wrong with belief as all of us have belief in things where we don't have any truth statements that are proven to be true.
It's a no brainer!
ronjer1 2 years ago 5
" it's because He is in existance, regardless of proof"
So if you believe that something exists without proof, then please go into your bank and tell them that you would like to withdraw your $75 Billion from your savings account. And of course, you or they shouldn't need to prove that you actually have that money because it EXISTS in your account WITHOUT PROOF!
Tell me how it works out for you .....LOL!
ronjer1 2 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
@ronjer1 "And of course, you or they shouldn't need to prove that you actually have that money because it EXISTS in your account WITHOUT PROOF!"
I know its a bit off topic but its funny how you mention the banks because went they loan out money they actually loan out money they dont have.
Went you get a mortage asked them to show you that they phiyscally have the cash ( and not just a number on the screen)
badpanda84 1 year ago
Comment removed
badpanda84 1 year ago
No. Reality is what is, though we are interaction with it in the sense of our knowing it. But it exists outside of our mind and perception....objectively.
And that same reality is there regardless if a human being is there to know it and prove it.
And since the reality is that there IS an Eternal Mind. That makes you incorrect regardless if anyone proves it.
So the true disagreement here is not "is there objective truth" but "Is there a God".
EWTNfan 2 years ago
.....I meant to say absolute truth not objective truth.
EWTNfan 2 years ago
NO!
Reality is what WE perceive. Actuality is what is actual, outside our human perception. For example, we cannot perceive molecules, atoms, quantum matter etc. But we have developed instruments that can detect their presence; hence actuality - not reality.
ronjer1 2 years ago
The reality is that an eternal mind is a belief that YOU have; unless of course you can prove it. And that is what is actually "correct".
Talk to the science department of the Catholic Church in Rome. They will tell you that an eternal mind is based on belief only. They have made their position on these matters very clear - in that you must have faith.
ronjer1 2 years ago 9
Look sweetheart,
I'll call it whatever you want...truth, reality actuality. My point is there are things that are, independent of proof or knowlege of it.
If you say something is based on belief, that belief is either correct or incorrect based on "actuality" and not proof.
And when you caps words and put exclamation points it implies yelling. I'm not sure if you intend to come off that way but it's rude.
EWTNfan 2 years ago
Ok, I'm just responding to your statements. I'm not yelling at you or trying to be rude. You shouldn't feel being attacked by someone who disagrees with you.
And the sweetheart comment doesn't bother me; it's a bit odd, but I won't lose sleep over it.
Anyway, belief is correct or incorrect when it is proven to be so; otherwise it is accepted as belief or not accepted at all.
Actuality is what is proved - just like we recently proved quantum particles exist. Understand now?
ronjer1 2 years ago 2
I didn't feel attacked at all. I was just letting you know internet courtesy.
I understand all the definitions you have given to the different terms we've been discussing. I understand what you're saying. The point is, that whatever you'd like to call it, a thing exists, regardless if it's been proven and before it's proven.
EWTNfan 2 years ago
When the Church asks us to have faith,
it's not because it's not proven and we are believing something that's not 'in existance', it's because He is in existance, regardless of proof.
And maybe you've spent a little too much time in the classroom to realise I was poking a little fun (sweetheart....lol). Perhaps you thought you were speaking with a man??
EWTNfan 2 years ago
" it's because He is in existance, regardless of proof"
No, the Catholic Church in Rome does not talk about proof. Their faith is only based on belief and not proof. You have stated your subjective opinion on this matter. I suggest you call the science department of the chruch in Rome and have a discussion with them. You will be surprised what their position is on this matter.
ronjer1 2 years ago 7
You have belief, not truth or proof in any form. And there is nothing wrong with that. You keep shying away from belief and faith - why is that? Why are u scared of faith alone? Your ideology goes against the Catholic church, but I'm sorry to say that it is perfectly in-line with the Protestatant, and in particular, the Pentacostal Chruch.
No I didn't think I was talking to a man or a woman or a neither. My belief is that I don't know. So calling someone you don't know sweetheart, is odd!
ronjer1 2 years ago 4
(The point is, that whatever you'd like to call it, a thing exists, regardless if it's been proven and before it's proven.)
By definition of "existence", something exists only when you can give 1 truth statement about it. And the statement requires it to be proven true. Once true, the object of the statement in question exists.
If you have a more consistent definition for "exists" that applies to all existence, then please provide it.
ronjer1 2 years ago 6
Remember: reality isn't true, objects aren't true, existence isn't true, etc....Only statements about them can be proven to be either true or false. And statements require a mind and a language.
Without a mind and a language there is no statements and no truth and no belief - there is only is.
ronjer1 2 years ago 4
So.....when you're saying there is no absolute truth, you don't mean there is no absolute reality. You mean that there is no absolutely true statement?
EWTNfan 2 years ago
Yes, there is no statement that can be conceived by a human mind that can be ascertained to be of absolute truth. Why? Because absolute truth is by definition, eternal truth; hence requiring an eternal mind to conceive such statements.
Once we can prove the existence of an eternal mind, and a statement conceived by it, and a resulting truth; then we have proven absolute truth.
Reality is obviously what it is because we are in constant interaction with it - it is what we perceive.
ronjer1 2 years ago
"do you beleive there are absolutes in the physical world, such as gravity?"
It doesn't matter what I or you believe. something that can be proven to be either true or false, is what it is nomatter what anybody believes.
you cannot claim gravity is an absolute unless you can prove that it is. And nobody can, because we cannot prove that gravity always existed.
So if there is a possibility that gravity didn't always exist, then what makes it absolute?
ronjer1 2 years ago
The point is not that gravity is absolute.
It's that truth is absolute. Gravity either exists or doesn't.
EWTNfan 2 years ago
You haven't proven your bald assertion that truth is absolute. Since by definition, truth only applies to statements that are proven to be true, absolute truth is defeated and is only a fallacy.
This is why absolute truth can only be based on belief, just like invisible pink unicorns are.
ronjer1 2 years ago
truth is not relative and not absolute.
truth only applies to statements or propositions.
and truth is only truth when it is proven to be so.
you can make whatever claim you want and if you can't prove it then it can only be taken as belief - not truth.
there are truths and beliefs - nothing else!
if you disagree, then please demonstrate how you can defend your position.
ronjer1 2 years ago 8
ronjer1,
This vidoe is demonstrating the physical truth of gravity is an absolute whether we believe it or not. If you look at science, science is studing the physical truths that already exist.
So my question to you is, do you beleive there are absolutes in the physical world, such as gravity?
adfly7 2 years ago
"This vidoe is demonstrating the physical truth of gravity is an absolute"
Gravity is not truth. only statements about gravity can either be true or false.
"science is studing the physical truths that already exist."
No! Science is studying the physical cosmos and makes statements that are either: hypotheses, theories, or truths.
truths do not already exist - they never have. We humans make statements that can be proven true or false.
ronjer1 2 years ago 2
Truth is absolute. It does not exist merely based on proof. It exists for you to prove it and discover it.
For example, If I see a tree far in the distance with flecks of red...suppose I say it is an apple tree. I have not examined the tree and am not close enough to see it clearly. But it is an absolute truth that the tree exists for me to either correctly or incorrectly identify.
Truth comes before proof not the other way around.
EWTNfan 2 years ago
Truth does not exist. If you say it does, then please demonstrate how it exists; in physical form or in supernatural form?
If you say "that tree is an apple tree", then your statement is false if later you proved it was not. When you examine the tree, it is at that time when you have empirically proven to be an apple tree or not.
Before that time, your statement about the tree can only be taken as belief and nothing else.
ronjer1 2 years ago
you haven't demonstrated how truth comes before proof. By definition, truth only applies to statements that are proven to be true, otherwise it is only belief.
BTW, it is ok for you to believe that truth comes before proof or whatever you want to believe in, as people believe in many things. Proving them, is another story!
ronjer1 2 years ago
Truth does not only refer to statements....it refers to reality. Statements are only expression of that.
EWTNfan 2 years ago
(Truth....it refers to reality)
WRONG!
Truth is a concept that is used to signify the validity of statements. Once a statement is proposed, then reality is used to verify or prove that statement true or false.
Truth is a concept and has nothing to do with reality because it is used to label a statement as being true or false.
The propositional statement in question has to do with reality because it is making a proposition about reality.
ronjer1 2 years ago 3
Right....my statement would be belief. But the point was that the tree is what it is regardless of what I call it or whether I prove it to be. It is there for me to prove in the first place......A truth of reality not of statement.
EWTNfan 2 years ago
.......do you think the tree would only begin to truely exist once I proved it?
EWTNfan 2 years ago
(...do you think ...)
You are confusing existence with truth - the 2 are very different and not related in any way.
No statement is true about any object without first proving that the statement is true. Once proven, it is truth - otherwise, the statement can only be taken as belief.
ronjer1 2 years ago
The tree is what it is when a mind identifies it to be what it is commonly known to be in a specific language, like English for example.
Without a mind to assess the tree, nobody can make any statements about it that can be of truth, and hence no truth can be ascertained about that object unless it is first proven. Without a mind, no truth exists - why? Because truth is a concept and concepts are of the mind.
ronjer1 2 years ago
Sounds like what you're saying is "truth" is objective when yours is in the consideration but relative when it comes to others. Isn't this world a wonderful circle of contradiction and irony!
KhmerTruth 2 years ago 16
@KhmerTruth,
All truths are both objective and relative. If you think there is any conflict in saying so, then you misunderstand either "relative" or "objective", or possibly both.
gklr 1 year ago 2
@KhmerTruth "Sounds like what you're saying is "truth" is objective when yours is in the consideration but relative when it comes to others. Isn't this world a wonderful circle of contradiction and irony!"
Not really, because no one is born a christian, no one is born into Truth. So everyone has to discover it. Truth is always objective to everyone. I was not born as a christian, i became one through revelation and objective truth already there beforehand
joorailkken 1 year ago
@joorailkken Truth is always objective to everyone."
LOL Exactly .. everyone will say the have the objective truth because to each person usually thinks they are correct ( why believe in something you know is wrong).
OF course every religion claims to have the objective truth ( why follow a religion if you know its false).
badpanda84 1 year ago
@joorailkken, no one is born a Buddhist or Muslim, etc... either. They have to discover it. Truth is objective to everyone who subscribes to that notion of the truth. Buddhist believes their notion of the truth to be objective, Muslims believe the Islam notion of truth to be objective, Christians believe Christianity notion of truth to be objective. Your truth isn't necessarily the same thing for other people. That's all I'm saying.
KhmerTruth 7 months ago
There were comments that were censored and deleted from this video after being here for many weeks.
youngcatholic, please explain yourself. This is not something that a Christian should be doing. Why don't you have peaceful and rational discussion instead of deleting people's comments which were not offensive in any way?
If you think you are right, then please talk about it youngchristian.
Thanks
tsixles 2 years ago 2
LOL I love how he sees his friend almost die by jumping off the bridge and insted of going for help he explains to us the things of god.This comment isnt sposed to be satircal but i just found the situation funny
musichalloffame 3 years ago
Wouldn't it be true to say that anyone who believes ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE should have no problem with this video and only have positive comments because this is how the "young youtube producer" views reality. How can a relativist put down a non-relativist. Doesn't a relativist endorse an "anyone can believe what they want" attitude?
To point out error in an absolutist's views, you assume that objective truth exists.
If you correct me, u must assume error exists, which then assumes truth exists
videosearch4321 3 years ago 4
Man, truth and relativity is a tough one to tackle in only 100 seconds. Props for the attempt. Remember though, the Pope tried it at Regensberg in less than 4000 words and half the world was calling for his head...good job! Keep it up!
rmnorrell 3 years ago
The stuff Hitler did was not immoral because of some magical/spiritual mumbo jumbo, it was evil because of the people who thought/think it was evil. Right and wrong can only be relative, even if there is a god!!! God, try to think a little bit before you post a video! I do not mean to be a son of a bitch here, but please think!
Anarkokommunist 3 years ago
so you're saying that you don't think what Hitler did was evil? Sounds like you could use some thinking. Or at least studying. Try thinking before you post a comment
pilo0024 3 years ago
I have never said anythibng like that. I am saying that things are evil because we think they are evil, but things can at the same time be good as long as people think they are good. I think on regular basis! ;) If moral is objective give some evidence or proof!
Anarkokommunist 3 years ago
Well, I know I wouldn't feel good if I were stuck in an oven or gas chamber. But that's just my opinion. Obviously, if I change my thinking, it will be morally just. In fact, why don't I break into your house and stick you in a gas chamber. Just try not to think of it as evil, but good.
TomQuoVadis 3 years ago
1. I can not change my thinking, but try with another guy.
2. What is your point?
Anarkokommunist 3 years ago
My point is that you should watch the video and this time, LISTEN TO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING!!
If there were no laws, then why should we have emotions? Why should we feel guilt at doing something wrong, or joy at doing something right? Not because we're told what is right or wrong, but because it is part of our humanity.
TomQuoVadis 3 years ago
Maybe you should listen to what they are saying? What do you mean? Explain the first question a little bit more please! It is true that feeling things like "right" and "wrong" is something that is universal, but that does not mean that right and wrong are absolute. Right and wrong are values, and values come from the minds of thinking creatures.
Anarkokommunist 3 years ago
I heard you guys on Lino at Large. It's good to see other young Catholics out there who aren't afraid to be open with their faith. Keep up the good work!
reykng 3 years ago