This hits the nail right on the head. The truth of the matter is that Christians only follow a moral code, for the superstitious fear of divine retribution. I follow a moral code, for fear of the more tangible, and provable, legal retribution.
0:04 – 0:10 — Here’s how much of a “moral guide” the Christian Bible is: Quote from Deuteronomy 22: 13-21, from the Bible: “If a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, you must take her to her father’s doorstep and stone her to death.”
There is no universal morality. Morality is subjective. Whatever a particular society generally seems as moral or immoral establishes morality. This is why marriage to one person and no other is a moral endeavor in some places, whereas marriage to only one person in others is a sign of weakness, character flaws, or poverty in others.
I can give many other examples, but the point is there is no such thing as universal morality. Not from the bible, nor anywhere else.
@malignantpoodle I think there IS indeed an objective moral code in the same way that there IS objective truth/logic/knowledge. The reason I believe that is cuz I think that morality is based on intelligence. The more or better facts we have about a situation, the better/more accurate our solution will be. Morality is a value system ranking certain actions based on their effect on people and societal survival. Truly, we have varying moral values but that's due to varying levels of knowledge.
That's factually incorrect. What you're saying is that morality is based on level of intelligence. But we can see that's not the case. People with the same level of intelligence have different moral values. Morality is only determined by a group consensus of what is moral. Within that group are people of varying intelligence levels. Morality comes down to a matter of opinion on what is moral, and cannot be compared to objective, empirical evidence which is not open to opinion
@malignantpoodle R our values different than what they were when we were cavemen? If so, why? Sure, morality to some degree is subjective but not in the way beauty is....Beauty is in the eye of the beholder whereas morality is best decided using facts. We try to use logic when we decide what IS and is NOT moral, do we not? in other words it's subjective only until there is no more growing we can do morally. There IS a right and wrong simply becuz logic is objective.
@malignantpoodle It's ALWAYS logical 2 use intelligence 2 decide morality. Examples of intelligent advancements are not always morality based, I never said that. If we decide society needs 2 create a law saying killing is wrong cuz, people will PROBABLY do this 2 each other, what am I using 2 make that decision? Knowledge of people and from past experience? If our morals are NOT based on facts we do things like burning innocent women cuz we BELIEVE they're witches! Would u say that was moral?
What moral values are based upon facts? Can you give examples?
Killing people is not necessarily wrong. It depends upon the circumstance, and people of all societies have different ideas about that. Some saying during war, some say for crimes, some say only in defense, some say never in any circumstance whatsoever.
Your initial statement when you came here was that you believe there is an objective morality. Care to explain what that is?
@malignantpoodle I already gave u examples of moral codes that were NOT based on facts. This alone should answer the question for you. Nonetheless, how about the Constitution...sepearation between church and state..right to freedom, equality, happiness for ALL...Isn't that what makes America one of the freest and best countries to live in? Of course, religious folks will claim that there was religious influence and there may have been but what we adopted was not based on superstition but facts.
Ok, so if you gave me examples of moral codes not based on facts, then again your statement that morality is objective is wrong.
America is the freest? LOL
America has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. We lock up a higher percentage of our people than even North Korea does of theirs. I love when I hear this, "land of the free" garbage where people ignore the fact that 10% of their population faces incarceration.
@malignantpoodle Ok, but nonetheless, there are still many who will die trying to get here to flee their country. And giving u examples of moral codes NOT based on facts DOES show that facts are necessary for accurate morals.
@malignantpoodle It's a fact that if I say that it's ok for a society to kill people that I, too, will be in danger of death. It's a fact that if I allow stealing that, I, too will be in danger of being stole from. And it's a fact that a society is better with THESE types of moral codes than without them. We know this to be true when looking at other less advanced cultures and seeing how their lives are harder or less due to lacks of certain moral codes.
The only fact here is that a large group of people will live better if they agree upon a certain moral code. The point however, is that whatever that code tends to be is subjective in nature. It is not an objective fact that stealing, murder, or any other type of behavior is inherently right or wrong.
@malignantpoodle Well, I suppose it comes down to how we define morality. What is morality? Is it based solely on beliefs or is it a survival mechanism.....which in my opinion it's the ladder.
@malignantpoodle I never said killing was ALWAYS wrong but I think the only time it's ok is in self defense. Yes, many cultures have different opinions but IN MY OPINION there is a right and a wrong answer! Again, u would have to investigate the reasons behind these choices to see that some are based on accurate information while others are not and it's ALMOST ALWAYS based on that particular cultures level of advancement. I think I HAVE been trying to explain this,,,haven't I?
right, so even something like killing is not universally immoral. Again, this goes back to contradicting your original point; that morality is objective just like facts and logic. The atomic weight of cobalt is 58.9 that is an objective fact. Taking life under any circumstance is open to debate and is subjective, which means the moral question with regard to killing, or anything else for that matter, is subjective.
@malignantpoodle I understand what you're saying but I still think that there IS a right and wrong. People subjectively decide what their morals are or will be but there is, imho, a correct or objective right answer.
I don't disagree that there is a right and wrong. What I'm saying is that what is considered right or wrong is subject to interpretation. What's right is what we say is right. What's wrong is what we say is wrong.
the color of the sky will always be regardless of what we decide about it. the boiling point of water will be 212 regardless of whether we choose to believe it or not. Morals do not work this way. They are not intrinsic, they are invented.
@malignantpoodle Well, it's just a theory of mine but u must ask yourself what the reasons r for some cultures to see marriage to one person as weak? Is it due to religious superstition which maybe has yet to be revealed, through knowledge, for what it really is OR is it due to tradition? Our values, are changing regarding marriage between a man n woman being the only option and now gays can marry....so what was once valued 4 religious reasons is now, due 2 enlightment, thrown out.
Well, first you give several contributing factors to morality other than intelligence (contradicting your previous assertion), and then you cite religious reasons for monogamy and polygamy, both which are sometimes based on religious reasons.
Monogamous and polygamous societies often cite the status quo based on religion. Again this just further underscores my point that morality is subjective.
@malignantpoodle I guess my point is...the more intelligent we become the less religion and fear based biases we use in making decisions. Again, this is my opinion! I believe that the less one uses beliefs to make decisions EVEN REGARDING morality...the better and even more accurate those decisions will be.
@malignantpoodle I think it has A LOT to do with morality. Religious people feel that without religion there would be no morals and this is untrue. The so-called morals we've based on religious beliefs have not ALL been good or accurate BECUZ they were using beliefs over knowledge or true facts. For example, burning girls who, out of their superstitions/religions, seemed to be witches.
right but again, burning people suspected of witchcraft is only immoral when a society decides that it is. There are no objective facts that show this to be wrong. Again, morality is subjective. To the people doing the burning, they're doing god's work.
If you want to argue that society is more socially advanced when knowledge is obtained, I agree. But you're confusing issues such as law and civility with morality and they are not the same things.
@malignantpoodle So, in your opinion, BECUZ people thought burning women who they suspected of witchcraft was morally acceptable then it WAS morally acceptable? No objective facts to show that THAT was wrong? Seriously? It's objective FACT that there are no such thing as witches! And, I could go further to say that no where, even in their doctrine, does it say for THEM to judge and then burn people!!! Law and civility are directly linked to morality....how do u figure they're not?
Correct. because morality is defined by a group consensus, those in line with the group consensus are acting morally.
The validity or "right or wrong" of what that consensus is doesn't factor into things. Morals are not inherently right or wrong, they are just a commonly accepted standards.
Actually, everywhere in their doctrine it talks about stoning, burning people, etc. The bible is full of examples... some involve killing disobedient children.
Again, that objective fact stands that there are no witches has no bearing on morality. Morality is not objective. You and I can agree that believing in witches or even worse, killing people of suspect is wrong. That does not mean that there does not exist a moral code to do otherwise.
Morality is a standard of right and wrong. What you can't seem to grasp is that that standard is defined by group consensus (not facts) and varies wildly among people. Ergo, not objective
Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships... Religious faggots will never admit this...
@SirWinstonChurchill All moral questions deal with interactions between humans and the consequences and assumed motivations behind them, considered within the framework of human nature/needs. All such issues are available to empirical study and reasoning. Given that, it's just absurd to say that presupposing invisible men will somehow add to the discussion.
Even if what you were describing was true, all you'd end up with is divinely sanctioned slavery. Not morality.
Your morals, your code is a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. You're only as good as the world allows you to be... They'll show you, when the chips are down, these civilized people, they'll eat each other...
You see, I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve. You have all these rules and you think they'll save you. The only way sensible way to live in this world is without rules...
I already told you, I'm not here to save anybody... I'm an agent of chaos.
Nature is pure war with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep peace; so man is civilized only by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.
-
Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
The people in the OT were not saved by rituals, they were saved by their belief in the Living God. They knew that Jesus Christ was to come, because He told them! Any sacrifice made was in atonement for sins committed over a short period, usually one year. Now, we ask God for forgiveness, with Jesus as the intermediary through His blood.
Morality is not the ultimate objective of the Bible - it is the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, saving us from sin, it's effects and eternal death. Good moral behaviour is a by product of our following the ways of Jesus, living as He lives. So of course the Bible does not hold a monopoly in moral matters, as we all have been created with a conscience, and can discern good from evil as we grow up. It is what we CHOOSE to do that counts.
Everything from lifestyle, to the wages of sin being death, to the cause for a sacrificial lamb... these are all issues that are a direct result of moral teachings and "lack" of morality in the bible.
Contrary to what you're saying, the bible's message is built upon morality as the biggest factor to its existence. Otherwise, you don't need Jesus. Morality (subjective, remember) is not a byproduct of biblical teaching, it is the meat and potatoes of the whole thing.
Actually, the central theme of the Bible is about our relationship with the Living God. Morality can be good or bad. Our relationship with Him determines the kind of morality we have. Jesus Christ bridges the gap that opened up between us and God Almighty as a result of sin. That is why I said the Bible aims to reveal Jesus Christ for who He is: The Lord and Saviour of mankind.
You claimed morality was a byproduct. I pointed out that it was the central theme of the bible.
Then you respond with, "The Living God" and "The Lord and Saviour of mankind". Makes ya feel warm and fuzzy huh? Makes you forget about talking stupid for awhile too eh?
The message has begun to hit home, I see. The "stupid" word is out! When the Bible is read in totality, it becomes evident that it is all about restoration of the broken relationship between God and mankind as a result of sin. When this is restored, we actually actively seek to live a life of good moral values, out of love and gratitude for what Jesus has done for us - saving us from eternal death.
Suffice it to say, that Jesus saved the animals? I mean, salvation was already possible. All Jesus really did was make it so that we didn't have to sacrifice livestock to get the exact same thing.
The sacrifice of animals is not an everlasting solution. The sacrifice of Jesus however is eternal, because He is without sin and will never sin - He is one with God.
Please explain to me the difference between someone who went to heaven for sacrificing a lamb, and one that went to heaven for believing in Jesus. BOTH go to heaven.
My point, which you willfully ignore, is the fact that Jesus didn't provide anything that wasn't already there. People already got saved through animals. Unless of course, you're going to argue that everyone before Jesus went to hell (including Moses).
People were not saved by animals. Animals were used for atonement for sins they had committed. Jesus Christ however does more - He restores the broken relatioship between us and God forever. People in the Old Testament like Moses and Abraham had a personal relationship with God, thus knew Jesus (called the Lord in the OT). He even used to visit them. Jesus has always been available to those who seek Him - even before He came to Earth for us all.
So, what you're saying is that people before Jesus could be saved by faith rather than works?
Please show me in the old testament where it says this. Please show me the specific scripture where it says that people were saved by faith in Jesus rather than animal sacrifice.
The answer to your question can be seen in various books in the OT,but the apostle Paul has given an inspired answer in Hebrews 11 in the New Testament, listing and explaining examples from the Old Testament like Enoch, Noah, Abraham and so on. All these people were saved by faith in God, not works. "Good "character did not save them. Works are a result of faith in God.
I think you misunderstand me. Jesus has always been in existence! He is God, who took on flesh and became man. The Gospel according to John begins"In the beginning was the Word..... Jesus is also known as the Word of God. People in the OT like David and Abraham knew God,, so they knew Jesus also and accepted Him as Lord and Saviour. In Genesis, it is recorded that the Lord (Jesus) used to visit Abraham. Jesus came to earh for all those who choose to believe He is their Lord and Saviour.
Your welcome! Jesus has ALWAYS been in existence! The Gospel according to John begins " In the beginning was the Word..... The Word of God is Jesus Christ. God and Jesus are one and the same. Jesus became a man in order for ALL of mankind to be exposed to the knowledge of Jesus as Lord and Saviour. People in the OT like Abraham knew Jesus (the Lord in Genesis) because He used to visit them.
Whether Jesus has always been or not is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the path of salvation CHANGED with the new testament. If it CHANGED, this means that JESUS' SACRIFICE has NOT always been. Therefore, you should answer the question instead of figuring out complicated dodges;
what did Jesus enable us to do that the people of the OT weren't able to do in regard to salvation?
Salvation has always been. Jesus did not bring salvation, he brought a new way to salvation. Fail.
I'm asking what Jesus brought through his sacrifice that was not available to us before.
As you've outlined, people BEFORE JESUS DIED got to heaven. Given that, and given that there is a way to heaven before Jesus' sacrifice, what did he really contribute?
Actually, everyone who worshipped the Living God and died before Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead KNEW and BELIEVED that He was their Lord and Saviour. This is clearly stated in Hebrews 11.
In Hebrews 11 verse 10, it mentions that Abraham was "looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God"
God and Jesus Christ are one and the same. Jesus Christ IS the architect and builder mentioned. He (Abraham) looked forward in history and saw and knew about the sacrifice of Jesus to come, and also believed in the saving Grace of this sacrifice. Other ancients in the Bible believed the same, they did not have different beliefs from Abraham.
Heb 11:10 mentions nothing about Christ's sacrifice. You're adding your own words in. It says that he was looking forward to a city with foundations built by God. That has NOTHING to do with Christ's sacrifice. There is not one mention whatsoever of anyone being saved by Christ's sacrifice ANYWHERE in the OT. So either Jesus sacrifice was not needed, or everyone before Christ went to hell.
The people who worshipped God in the OT knew that Jesus Christ was to come because that was the promise. In Genesis 3 God said it, in Isaiah 28:16, He is described as "the precious cornerstone for a sure foundation"", in Psalm 118, He is called the" rejected capstone (cornerstone)". There are other examples apart fom these in the OT. Jesus Christ described himself as the rejected capstone. So what city was it that Abraham, Isaiah and King David knew about?
Again, there is no mention of Christ or the sacrifice of him. Your argument is that people before Christ's sacrifice were saved by Christ's sacrifice. This presents 2 problems.
One is that Christ hadn't been sacrificed yet and people were still saved. To that again I ask, what did Jesus do?
The second is that there is no mention of the sacrifice. You're referencing scriptures which mention "rejected capstone", which reveals absolutely nothing about the crucifixion.
The blood of Jesus is so powerful that it can save people who died believing in Him, even though He was yet to die (Old Testament folk). That is why the Bible says" He is the same yesterday, today and forever". His Blood saves yesterday, today and forever - not just spiritually, but physically.
There are numerous mentions of being saved by faith in God in the OT, starting from Genesis. The Bible however is a whole book, and is interwoven and inter related. The OT cannot stand on its own (and vice versa for the NT).
I repeat, people did not sacrifice animals for salvation. They sacrificed them for atonement for sins committed over a period (usually a year). Jesus Christ however sacrificed Himself for salvation, as well as PERMANENT forgiveness of sins. Whether people died before or after this sacrifice is irrelevant. The only requirement is faith in His finished work. The people in the OT believed in the sacrifice of Jesus. The book of Hebrews as a whole deals with this in depth.
Yes, atonement of sins was required to be saved. Same thing.
People did not have faith in Jesus' finished work in the OT. Not Abraham, not Moses, and certainly not the common believer in God. These people all did things to atone for their sins. They were saved by works, and nowhere do they cite faith in God's sacrifice as the reason they are saved.
Jesus sacrifice brings about salvation for people born before He died, after He died and forever. God foreknew we would sin, yet still created us. Why? It is because of the love He has for all of us. He sent His Son Lord Jesus as our scapegoat.
Actually, salvation in the OT was based upon works, not faith in Jesus dying on the cross.
Please show me where it says in the bible that salvation came through faith in Christ on the cross, in the OT.
I know you're going to keep talking in circles, but I also feel that you understand what I'm saying. You know it to be a terrible flaw in the bible, but you're going to try to figure it out anyway. Please, go ahead. But if you cite scripture, make sure it answers what I'm asking
Here Abram is saved by a covenant he makes with god, at the cost of a few animals.
No mention about faith, no mention about Christ, no mention of any other sacrifice; simply God's word that he will bless Abram in exchange for the animals.
In Genesis 15:6 it says "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness." From Abrams descendants came Jesus Christ. That is faith, not works. However, the sacrifice was to seal the promise that God had given the land of Canaan to Abram and his descendants, as can be understood when the rest of Gen 15 is read. Nothing to do with salvation at all.
But Abram had to perform works. True, he had faith, but obviously faith wasn't enough if God wanted animals in exchange.
I'm not arguing that the people before Christ didn't have faith. I'm arguing that faith wasn't enough, which is supported by the fact that God wanted works and rituals for atonement.
In John 3:16 Jesus Christ says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." That says WHOEVER, which includes people who died BEFORE, DURING and AFTER His death and resurrection. It does not say whoever after or whoever before just WHOEVER - EVERYONE who believes. The ancients in the OT knew and looked forward to salvation through Jesus, beacause it was part of the covenant, indeed the major part.
You have to show that the people of the OT had faith in Jesus dying on the cross. WHOSOEVER is just fine. I give you that. But the fact that the people of the OT were preoccupied with law, animal sacrifice, and the like, and the fact that there is no mention of Jesus in the OT makes, "WHOSOEVER" irrelevant in regard to the people of the OT.
Yes, the people of the OT could be saved through the crucifixion. Now all you have to do is show where they believed in it.
In Psalm 68: 20 King David says " Our God is a God who saves; from the Sovereign LORD comes escape from death. " That is faith! Death here is both physical and spiritual death. Jesus IS God. He is also called Emmanuel (God with us). He is the LORD and Saviour - past, present and future. Yes the OT folk sacrificed and had the law, but these do not provide LASTING redemption. Only faith in Jesus Christ and His Blood to save can.
In Isaiah 25:9 - In that day they will say, "Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation" Another person (Isaiah)in the OT who knew and believed in the salvation from God, who is Jesus Christ. Not just for himself, but for ALL who believe, past present and future.
Isaiah 45:22 - Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other." This ancient knew all about the saving Grace of God, and believed.
The salvation is the most important point. Salvation comes from not just from believing that Jesus died on the cross, but also that He rose from the dead on the third day, thus saving us from eternal death. The faith of the OT people was such that they believed that God would save them forever, as I have shown.
There is no mention of the resurrection in the OT. Abraham, Moses, Joel, none of these people were saved by believing in Christ's sacrifice and resurrection.
You do realize that by claiming what you are, that would mean that Orthodox Jews are saved Christians. Since they're following Mosaic Law, as the people in the OT which you claim were saved, then they're no different.
Not all Orthodox Jews believed in salvation through Jesus Christ, as is attested through the conflict recorded between Jesus and the established Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, the Pharisees and Sadducees (who did not believe in resurrection, period.) in the Gospels. Some however, did and formed the basis for early Christianity. But do not forget that the early disciples attended synagouges and regarded themselves as Orthodox Jews. Even Jesus observed all the Laws and went to the synagouges.
Right, the people of the OT didn't believe in salvation through Christ either. They didn't know anything about it.
My point is that if people in the OT were saved in the same manner that Orthodox Jews are today. You're basically saying that people saved through Christ's crucifixion in the OT are the same as Orthodox Jews saved through faith in Christ today. Which is absurd.
Absurd or not, that is EXACTLY the point! Nothing has changed since God pronounced judgement on the serpent (satan) in the Garden of Eden. Faith in the saving work of Christ is the requirement. God never changes or goes back on His Word.
Yes, He changes His mind, however the effects of His spoken Word do not. His Word once spoken never returns to Him void without accomplishing it's objective
Really? Then how do you explain the following; Isaiah 17:1 Damascus is a city of over a million Isaiah 19:18 Caananite language is extinct and never spoken in Egypt Isaiah 52:1 Uncircumcised people live there today Ezekiel 29:10-11 Egypt was never uninhabited for 40 years. Amos 9:15 Jews still fight for their land.
Uh, the context was saying that god never changed his mind. I provided examples of God changing his mind, and instead of pointing out how he didn't, you went on about irrelevant things.
His changes His mind, but the EFFECT of His Word occurs. What He has uttered takes effect. The effect can be discountinued, but only through His pronouncement, which is what I described before.
The Bible,even though it is divided into various sections, is actually one holistic book compiled by God inspired authors over an extended period. Just like any other book, it is needs to be studied, absorbed, thought about, discussed and (in the Bible's case) prayed about for Holy Spirit input. I am satisfied that through these processes that there were folk in the OT who knew about the salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Micah 5:2 - "But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, you are little to be among the clans of Judah; [yet] out of you shall One come forth for Me Who is to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth have been from of old, from ancient days (eternity). "The only person that description fits is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ, whose "crime" was confirming Himself as King of the Jews.
This talks about a right ruler of Israel. It says nothing about curcifixion, the son of god, or salvation through sacrifice.
Many cultures claim of an up and coming new leader. This is nothing special or new. Again, you must provide scripture which proves people like Moses were saved by belief in Christ's crucifixion. Vague prophecies about a new leader aren't even in the same ball park, sorry.
Just show me where the people of the OT believed in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. That's all you have to do.
"Rejected capstone" will not work. You need to show something where people in the OT put their faith on Christ's execution to be saved to substantiate your point.
Joel 2:32 - And EVERYONE who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said, among the survivors whom the LORD calls. Another OT person, Joel.
Works are a RESULTof faith. Faith in God is the foundation. No faith, no works. If Abraham had not believed, he would have done nothing. In Hebrews 11;6, Paul says "Without faith it is impossible to please God......."
What I mean by that is fruitful works that are done as a result of the saving Grace of Jesus Christ. Counting rosaries, making pilgrimages or or other rituals do not count. Doing what Jesus does and what He has asked us to do does - after His salvation.
This video really confirms my beliefs in the bible. How many false inferences the author of this video made I truely see how blind Atheists are in understanding the Word of God.
1 John 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1)I had confirmed belief in the bible AFTER I read it and after I went to all of those contradictions websites to see if they were really contradictions I found out they were all really lies. Then my belief in the bible was super confirmed. Your lies just show me even more how desperate people who hate are willing to make things up.
2)I am not debating something, people on my profile are telling me about there imaginary theories which have no documentation.
You're full of shit. I was a Christian for 20 years and it was not only the contradictions I found, but the way people like you acted when confronted with the questions that turned me away.
Nobody who doesn't already believe looks at atheist sites and goes, "wow, Jesus is real!"
If that's really the case, why come here and debate? Because obviously us atheists are turning people over to god by the millions. Moron.
Actually the only moron here is you. You were not a christian for 20 years you were a Moron for 20 years a brainwashed idiot who never thought about his beliefs you just blindly believed what you were told and when you actually began to think for yourself your simple mind kicked into "rebellion" mode your like a childish little kid who wants a chocolate ice cream cone. Jesus is real. Why come here and debate? Not debate simply state your a liar and why.
Your simpleton answer to everyone that doesn't agree with you is, "you're a liar". Here you are, passing judgment on someone of whose history you have no clue about; which is just more evidence of you talking out of your ass about things you know nothing about.
I didn't "rebel". Deconversion took a very long period of time and it boiled down to not putting up a mental block everytime there was something I didn't want to hear. Maybe you'll grow out of that, maybe you won't.
morales come from living & working together in a society. science only improves our morales. our belief in superstitions & lack of knowledge has caused the most immorale crimes in the history of our existence. religion has caused more deaths & war than anything else. just a few hundred years ago we were still burning witches. while science has saved countless lives with the discovery of vaccines,& the advance in medical technology alone.
Im sure most wars that were called religious wars were not actually based on religious reasons but that was the venue to dupe the masses in beleiving the war
What you described is a social system. The law for example is not morality (otherwise any law would be moral...even Nazi laws).
Morality is really a dogmatic claim. It can not be established using science. I do not accept dogmatic claims though so I agree that Christians do not have an advantage.
The conclusion should be that we and them both don't have morality. That morality is really an illusion.
Hmm. I think you missed the point on the law. I wasn't saying that the law was moral, but I was pointing out that which can be viewed as moral behavior can occur as a byproduct of following law, instead of religion.
For example; let's say one were to consider murder as immoral (even though you and I agree that morality is subjective or an illusion). The person in question may cite God as the reason for abstaining from murder, therefore their moral conduct is a result of the bible, or so they say.
But the fact that we have examples of people that fear law more than the bible, or atheists that wouldn't commit murder, means that this moral behavior is not based upon religious teachings or God.
All people are sinful or immoral . All laws come from God. The bible is God's Word. God's word is above every one else's word. Basic instructions before leaving earth.Bible
Great video MP. I agree with you on the idea that the bible does not have a monopoly on morality, however I think it is worth mentioning that the concept of God has what provided each civilization their own morale code. Like you mention with human sacrifice and the Aztec, that was in part of God. As communication has spread, civilizations are less isolated so morales interact, where it can't be denied, that common moral ideals coming from a higher power have taken precedence on the moral list
Thanks, however I'll disagree with the notion that God is the source of moral code.
I mean, for example, what doctrinal difference are protestants and catholics killing each other over, and how are the moral values different on religions that use the same source for morality?
Not so much doctrinal differences as opposed to different interpretation of the doctrines.
I guess I should of made myself clear earlier. You are right in the law does have a big influence on morals in society, but I am willing to go a step further back and say that society based those laws to begin with on the concept of God.
Why we still have so many of those outdated Sunday laws throughout America.
Familiar with Kohlberg's stage of moral development? Most people top out at the authority and social obedience stage. So in that sense, yes, the law is the source of morals.
But you have to ask yourself, where is the law getting their morals from? Your theory on tradition and personal experience is not valid when it comes to things such as murder, theft, etc.
"Your theory on tradition and personal experience is not valid when it comes to things such as murder, theft, etc."
I agree, for specific criminal activity tradition doesn't play much, if any of a role. However, other moral standards are derived through it. Foul mouthed parents usually have foul mouthed kids. That someone would refrain, for example, from using profanity in public whilst being inclined to can certainly be attributed to upbringing and example.
"Not so much doctrinal differences as opposed to different interpretation of the doctrines."
And there you have it, that Christians themselves cannot agree is further evidence that morality does not come from the bible, and even if it did that's irrelevant because of subjective interpretation.
As far as laws go, some are based religiously, for sure. But the majority are not. Constitutional rights such as freedom of religion is definitely not doctrinal based, for example.
I wouldn't say it is irrelevant. It still provided the foundation for their actions.
I'll give you the Bill of Rights are mostly subject to Personal Experience. I am tending to argue though this is because of their placement on Kohlberg's Develop of Moral Theory. It is a safe assumption these framers of the Constitution had made it past the 4th stage that most people usually don't.
The 4th stage is law and obedience. You argue man decided these laws on a secular idea for the better advancement of society, I am wanting to argue the concept of God and what he wants provided the foundation for the majority of morals in society.
Only question is who is right, me, you, or a mix of both.
I would contend that the dynamics behind which the US constitution was formed had more to do with subjective circumstance than biblical justifications. The freedom of religion is a shining example of this. I doubt there is anywhere in the bible where a safehouse is provided for people other than Christians. A right to a trial by peers is also counter-Christianity, or at very best, not biblically rooted. The fact that rebels in Uganda use the same book to justify killing kids for God
as the book used by Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland to kill each other, means that even if the bible were a source of morality, it makes little difference in that it does not result in the interpretation of a universal moral standard.
All other religions do not serve God only Christians serve the true and living God, who is revealed in Jesus his Son.Who is equal to God.He is the standard for all humans no matter what age or culture you live in.You have to accept that there is a God in the first place, in order to come to him. So make that first leap and ask him for more wisdom and understanding. The bible is your starting place.
The fact that Christians themselves cannot agree on what the bible says blows the notion of the bible as a standard of anything completely out of the water.
Seems as if you have it all figured out. I guess we do not have much else to discuss. When reading the bible you have to come with the premise that an all powerful,all knowing,and ever present God inspired it and that it claims to be the words of this God.I believe he is more than able to keep it true and accurate for the last 2000 years or so. No matter what flawed human he used to print it.So again I tell you you must put your faith in Christ and ask him for understanding.
"When reading the bible you have to come with the premise that an all powerful,all knowing,and ever present God inspired it and that it claims to be the words of this God."
Why? Because we know the work is flawed, why would we come to the conclusion that some all powerful god was behind it?
See, the problem with people like you is that you NEED to believe. You're driven by need, not reality.
I agree, I do need God, You need him too. You will die in your sin, unless you accept what he has gracously given in his Son, Christ. Repent and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Let God be true, and EVERY man a lier. God is consistently righteous, in all of His ways. No matter how often mankind may fail in his own ideology, whether he/she be Christian or any other way of belief.
Actually god is not consistently righteous. Changes his mind all the time, plays favorites, is sometimes just but sometimes merciful (those contradict each other by the way), etc.
To malignantpoodle: Please give me, if you will, examples of God not being, consistently righteous, and how He changes His mind all the time, or plays favorites, and is sometimes merciful. I would prefer your examples to come from the Bible, being that it contains, "God's Holy Word". Thank you, for your time here. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Just see my video "The bible doesn't contradict itself?" for some examples of this. Or you can just reconcile the well established notion among Christians that the Jews are God's chosen people. Or you can start by showing how Enoch didn't get special treatment... I'm spoiled for choice in examples of how god is not consistent and does play favorites.
I was under notion that you were an atheist. I see now that you are just angry with God. Why? Go to him in prayer and tell him. he will listen. He is patient with us and he does not give us what we deserve.He is a merciful God.Now is the time MP.
===
trophymercier 6 months ago
This hits the nail right on the head. The truth of the matter is that Christians only follow a moral code, for the superstitious fear of divine retribution. I follow a moral code, for fear of the more tangible, and provable, legal retribution.
clemstevenson 1 year ago
0:04 – 0:10 — Here’s how much of a “moral guide” the Christian Bible is: Quote from Deuteronomy 22: 13-21, from the Bible: “If a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, you must take her to her father’s doorstep and stone her to death.”
MarvelsofaLifetime 1 year ago
Yes, It is ours to learn morality from.
HedeenJeff 1 year ago
@HedeenJeff
There is no universal morality. Morality is subjective. Whatever a particular society generally seems as moral or immoral establishes morality. This is why marriage to one person and no other is a moral endeavor in some places, whereas marriage to only one person in others is a sign of weakness, character flaws, or poverty in others.
I can give many other examples, but the point is there is no such thing as universal morality. Not from the bible, nor anywhere else.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle I think there IS indeed an objective moral code in the same way that there IS objective truth/logic/knowledge. The reason I believe that is cuz I think that morality is based on intelligence. The more or better facts we have about a situation, the better/more accurate our solution will be. Morality is a value system ranking certain actions based on their effect on people and societal survival. Truly, we have varying moral values but that's due to varying levels of knowledge.
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
That's factually incorrect. What you're saying is that morality is based on level of intelligence. But we can see that's not the case. People with the same level of intelligence have different moral values. Morality is only determined by a group consensus of what is moral. Within that group are people of varying intelligence levels. Morality comes down to a matter of opinion on what is moral, and cannot be compared to objective, empirical evidence which is not open to opinion
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle R our values different than what they were when we were cavemen? If so, why? Sure, morality to some degree is subjective but not in the way beauty is....Beauty is in the eye of the beholder whereas morality is best decided using facts. We try to use logic when we decide what IS and is NOT moral, do we not? in other words it's subjective only until there is no more growing we can do morally. There IS a right and wrong simply becuz logic is objective.
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
Intelligence only contributes to morality when it's logical to do so. This does not mean that examples of intelligent advancements are morality based.
Morality is not decided using facts. Where one makes a moral decision based on facts, it's a logical decision, not a moral one.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle It's ALWAYS logical 2 use intelligence 2 decide morality. Examples of intelligent advancements are not always morality based, I never said that. If we decide society needs 2 create a law saying killing is wrong cuz, people will PROBABLY do this 2 each other, what am I using 2 make that decision? Knowledge of people and from past experience? If our morals are NOT based on facts we do things like burning innocent women cuz we BELIEVE they're witches! Would u say that was moral?
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
What moral values are based upon facts? Can you give examples?
Killing people is not necessarily wrong. It depends upon the circumstance, and people of all societies have different ideas about that. Some saying during war, some say for crimes, some say only in defense, some say never in any circumstance whatsoever.
Your initial statement when you came here was that you believe there is an objective morality. Care to explain what that is?
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle I already gave u examples of moral codes that were NOT based on facts. This alone should answer the question for you. Nonetheless, how about the Constitution...sepearation between church and state..right to freedom, equality, happiness for ALL...Isn't that what makes America one of the freest and best countries to live in? Of course, religious folks will claim that there was religious influence and there may have been but what we adopted was not based on superstition but facts.
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
Ok, so if you gave me examples of moral codes not based on facts, then again your statement that morality is objective is wrong.
America is the freest? LOL
America has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. We lock up a higher percentage of our people than even North Korea does of theirs. I love when I hear this, "land of the free" garbage where people ignore the fact that 10% of their population faces incarceration.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle Ok, but nonetheless, there are still many who will die trying to get here to flee their country. And giving u examples of moral codes NOT based on facts DOES show that facts are necessary for accurate morals.
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
right, and in Europe they thought that in America the streets were paved with gold too.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle It's a fact that if I say that it's ok for a society to kill people that I, too, will be in danger of death. It's a fact that if I allow stealing that, I, too will be in danger of being stole from. And it's a fact that a society is better with THESE types of moral codes than without them. We know this to be true when looking at other less advanced cultures and seeing how their lives are harder or less due to lacks of certain moral codes.
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
The only fact here is that a large group of people will live better if they agree upon a certain moral code. The point however, is that whatever that code tends to be is subjective in nature. It is not an objective fact that stealing, murder, or any other type of behavior is inherently right or wrong.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle Well, I suppose it comes down to how we define morality. What is morality? Is it based solely on beliefs or is it a survival mechanism.....which in my opinion it's the ladder.
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
I can give many examples of where morality trumps survival mechanisms, and you have already done so as well. So you're contradicting yourself.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle I never said killing was ALWAYS wrong but I think the only time it's ok is in self defense. Yes, many cultures have different opinions but IN MY OPINION there is a right and a wrong answer! Again, u would have to investigate the reasons behind these choices to see that some are based on accurate information while others are not and it's ALMOST ALWAYS based on that particular cultures level of advancement. I think I HAVE been trying to explain this,,,haven't I?
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
right, so even something like killing is not universally immoral. Again, this goes back to contradicting your original point; that morality is objective just like facts and logic. The atomic weight of cobalt is 58.9 that is an objective fact. Taking life under any circumstance is open to debate and is subjective, which means the moral question with regard to killing, or anything else for that matter, is subjective.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle I understand what you're saying but I still think that there IS a right and wrong. People subjectively decide what their morals are or will be but there is, imho, a correct or objective right answer.
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
I don't disagree that there is a right and wrong. What I'm saying is that what is considered right or wrong is subject to interpretation. What's right is what we say is right. What's wrong is what we say is wrong.
the color of the sky will always be regardless of what we decide about it. the boiling point of water will be 212 regardless of whether we choose to believe it or not. Morals do not work this way. They are not intrinsic, they are invented.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle Well, it's just a theory of mine but u must ask yourself what the reasons r for some cultures to see marriage to one person as weak? Is it due to religious superstition which maybe has yet to be revealed, through knowledge, for what it really is OR is it due to tradition? Our values, are changing regarding marriage between a man n woman being the only option and now gays can marry....so what was once valued 4 religious reasons is now, due 2 enlightment, thrown out.
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
Well, first you give several contributing factors to morality other than intelligence (contradicting your previous assertion), and then you cite religious reasons for monogamy and polygamy, both which are sometimes based on religious reasons.
Monogamous and polygamous societies often cite the status quo based on religion. Again this just further underscores my point that morality is subjective.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle I guess my point is...the more intelligent we become the less religion and fear based biases we use in making decisions. Again, this is my opinion! I believe that the less one uses beliefs to make decisions EVEN REGARDING morality...the better and even more accurate those decisions will be.
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
I don't disagree that the more intelligent we are the less religion and fear based bias we have.
This still has nothing to do with morality.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle I think it has A LOT to do with morality. Religious people feel that without religion there would be no morals and this is untrue. The so-called morals we've based on religious beliefs have not ALL been good or accurate BECUZ they were using beliefs over knowledge or true facts. For example, burning girls who, out of their superstitions/religions, seemed to be witches.
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
right but again, burning people suspected of witchcraft is only immoral when a society decides that it is. There are no objective facts that show this to be wrong. Again, morality is subjective. To the people doing the burning, they're doing god's work.
If you want to argue that society is more socially advanced when knowledge is obtained, I agree. But you're confusing issues such as law and civility with morality and they are not the same things.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@malignantpoodle So, in your opinion, BECUZ people thought burning women who they suspected of witchcraft was morally acceptable then it WAS morally acceptable? No objective facts to show that THAT was wrong? Seriously? It's objective FACT that there are no such thing as witches! And, I could go further to say that no where, even in their doctrine, does it say for THEM to judge and then burn people!!! Law and civility are directly linked to morality....how do u figure they're not?
julzabro 1 year ago
@julzabro
Correct. because morality is defined by a group consensus, those in line with the group consensus are acting morally.
The validity or "right or wrong" of what that consensus is doesn't factor into things. Morals are not inherently right or wrong, they are just a commonly accepted standards.
Actually, everywhere in their doctrine it talks about stoning, burning people, etc. The bible is full of examples... some involve killing disobedient children.
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
@julzabro
Again, that objective fact stands that there are no witches has no bearing on morality. Morality is not objective. You and I can agree that believing in witches or even worse, killing people of suspect is wrong. That does not mean that there does not exist a moral code to do otherwise.
Morality is a standard of right and wrong. What you can't seem to grasp is that that standard is defined by group consensus (not facts) and varies wildly among people. Ergo, not objective
malignantpoodle 1 year ago
Morality and religion belong to a realm of false causes.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Evolution is only possible with HETEROSEXUAL relationships... Religious faggots will never admit this...
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
@SirWinstonChurchill All moral questions deal with interactions between humans and the consequences and assumed motivations behind them, considered within the framework of human nature/needs. All such issues are available to empirical study and reasoning. Given that, it's just absurd to say that presupposing invisible men will somehow add to the discussion.
Even if what you were describing was true, all you'd end up with is divinely sanctioned slavery. Not morality.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@Gnomefro
Your morals, your code is a bad joke, dropped at the first sign of trouble. You're only as good as the world allows you to be... They'll show you, when the chips are down, these civilized people, they'll eat each other...
You see, I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve. You have all these rules and you think they'll save you. The only way sensible way to live in this world is without rules...
I already told you, I'm not here to save anybody... I'm an agent of chaos.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nature is pure war with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep peace; so man is civilized only by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor.
-
Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
SirWinstonChurchill 1 year ago
Jesus came to " be a ransom for many" as is recorded in the Gospels.
historian186 2 years ago
You still aren't answering the question.
What did the sacrifice bring, in regard to salvation, that the people of the OT didn't have?
The people of the OT got saved through rituals. What did Jesus bring that they didn't have then?
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
The people in the OT were not saved by rituals, they were saved by their belief in the Living God. They knew that Jesus Christ was to come, because He told them! Any sacrifice made was in atonement for sins committed over a short period, usually one year. Now, we ask God for forgiveness, with Jesus as the intermediary through His blood.
historian186 2 years ago
So you admit then that people before Christ died on the cross went to heaven.
I'm still asking, and you're still ignoring; what then did Jesus do to save us?
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Morality is not the ultimate objective of the Bible - it is the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour, saving us from sin, it's effects and eternal death. Good moral behaviour is a by product of our following the ways of Jesus, living as He lives. So of course the Bible does not hold a monopoly in moral matters, as we all have been created with a conscience, and can discern good from evil as we grow up. It is what we CHOOSE to do that counts.
historian186 2 years ago
Everything from lifestyle, to the wages of sin being death, to the cause for a sacrificial lamb... these are all issues that are a direct result of moral teachings and "lack" of morality in the bible.
Contrary to what you're saying, the bible's message is built upon morality as the biggest factor to its existence. Otherwise, you don't need Jesus. Morality (subjective, remember) is not a byproduct of biblical teaching, it is the meat and potatoes of the whole thing.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Actually, the central theme of the Bible is about our relationship with the Living God. Morality can be good or bad. Our relationship with Him determines the kind of morality we have. Jesus Christ bridges the gap that opened up between us and God Almighty as a result of sin. That is why I said the Bible aims to reveal Jesus Christ for who He is: The Lord and Saviour of mankind.
historian186 2 years ago
Blah blah blah blah.
You claimed morality was a byproduct. I pointed out that it was the central theme of the bible.
Then you respond with, "The Living God" and "The Lord and Saviour of mankind". Makes ya feel warm and fuzzy huh? Makes you forget about talking stupid for awhile too eh?
I know, I've been there.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
The message has begun to hit home, I see. The "stupid" word is out! When the Bible is read in totality, it becomes evident that it is all about restoration of the broken relationship between God and mankind as a result of sin. When this is restored, we actually actively seek to live a life of good moral values, out of love and gratitude for what Jesus has done for us - saving us from eternal death.
historian186 2 years ago
But animals saved man before Jesus was around.
Suffice it to say, that Jesus saved the animals? I mean, salvation was already possible. All Jesus really did was make it so that we didn't have to sacrifice livestock to get the exact same thing.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
The sacrifice of animals is not an everlasting solution. The sacrifice of Jesus however is eternal, because He is without sin and will never sin - He is one with God.
historian186 2 years ago
Please explain to me the difference between someone who went to heaven for sacrificing a lamb, and one that went to heaven for believing in Jesus. BOTH go to heaven.
My point, which you willfully ignore, is the fact that Jesus didn't provide anything that wasn't already there. People already got saved through animals. Unless of course, you're going to argue that everyone before Jesus went to hell (including Moses).
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
People were not saved by animals. Animals were used for atonement for sins they had committed. Jesus Christ however does more - He restores the broken relatioship between us and God forever. People in the Old Testament like Moses and Abraham had a personal relationship with God, thus knew Jesus (called the Lord in the OT). He even used to visit them. Jesus has always been available to those who seek Him - even before He came to Earth for us all.
historian186 2 years ago
So, what you're saying is that people before Jesus could be saved by faith rather than works?
Please show me in the old testament where it says this. Please show me the specific scripture where it says that people were saved by faith in Jesus rather than animal sacrifice.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
The answer to your question can be seen in various books in the OT,but the apostle Paul has given an inspired answer in Hebrews 11 in the New Testament, listing and explaining examples from the Old Testament like Enoch, Noah, Abraham and so on. All these people were saved by faith in God, not works. "Good "character did not save them. Works are a result of faith in God.
historian186 2 years ago
So you've outlined that there are ways, other than belief that Jesus died for our sins, to be saved.
Ok.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
So since you agree that people BEFORE Jesus were saved, would you care to enlighten us as to what Jesus did for us that we didn't already have?
Thanks in advance.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I think you misunderstand me. Jesus has always been in existence! He is God, who took on flesh and became man. The Gospel according to John begins"In the beginning was the Word..... Jesus is also known as the Word of God. People in the OT like David and Abraham knew God,, so they knew Jesus also and accepted Him as Lord and Saviour. In Genesis, it is recorded that the Lord (Jesus) used to visit Abraham. Jesus came to earh for all those who choose to believe He is their Lord and Saviour.
historian186 2 years ago
comment removed by author. That's 3 times now.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I removed it for purely typographical reasons
historian186 2 years ago
And 2/3 you never replaced.
Please answer the question.
If people went to heaven before the SACRIFICE, what then did Jesus really do to save us.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
All were typographical errors, the messages were the same, and have been posted!
historian186 2 years ago
Please answer the question.
What did the sacrifice do to save us, in light of the fact that people were saved before the sacrifice?
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Your welcome! Jesus has ALWAYS been in existence! The Gospel according to John begins " In the beginning was the Word..... The Word of God is Jesus Christ. God and Jesus are one and the same. Jesus became a man in order for ALL of mankind to be exposed to the knowledge of Jesus as Lord and Saviour. People in the OT like Abraham knew Jesus (the Lord in Genesis) because He used to visit them.
historian186 2 years ago
Whether Jesus has always been or not is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the path of salvation CHANGED with the new testament. If it CHANGED, this means that JESUS' SACRIFICE has NOT always been. Therefore, you should answer the question instead of figuring out complicated dodges;
what did Jesus enable us to do that the people of the OT weren't able to do in regard to salvation?
Salvation has always been. Jesus did not bring salvation, he brought a new way to salvation. Fail.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
You just don't get it do you?
I'm asking what Jesus brought through his sacrifice that was not available to us before.
As you've outlined, people BEFORE JESUS DIED got to heaven. Given that, and given that there is a way to heaven before Jesus' sacrifice, what did he really contribute?
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
People are NEVER saved by works, ALWAYS by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and His finshed work on the cross.
historian186 2 years ago
So then, everyone before Jesus died on the cross went to hell?
Ok.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Actually, everyone who worshipped the Living God and died before Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead KNEW and BELIEVED that He was their Lord and Saviour. This is clearly stated in Hebrews 11.
historian186 2 years ago
So why then did people sacrifice animals for salvation?
If people were saved by faith rather than animal sacrifice in the old testament, why is there no mention of this in the OT?
Hebrews 11? Can you be more specific? I couldn't find ANYTHING there that said people were saved by faith completed by Christ's sacrifice.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
In Hebrews 11 verse 10, it mentions that Abraham was "looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God"
God and Jesus Christ are one and the same. Jesus Christ IS the architect and builder mentioned. He (Abraham) looked forward in history and saw and knew about the sacrifice of Jesus to come, and also believed in the saving Grace of this sacrifice. Other ancients in the Bible believed the same, they did not have different beliefs from Abraham.
historian186 2 years ago
Heb 11:10 mentions nothing about Christ's sacrifice. You're adding your own words in. It says that he was looking forward to a city with foundations built by God. That has NOTHING to do with Christ's sacrifice. There is not one mention whatsoever of anyone being saved by Christ's sacrifice ANYWHERE in the OT. So either Jesus sacrifice was not needed, or everyone before Christ went to hell.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
The people who worshipped God in the OT knew that Jesus Christ was to come because that was the promise. In Genesis 3 God said it, in Isaiah 28:16, He is described as "the precious cornerstone for a sure foundation"", in Psalm 118, He is called the" rejected capstone (cornerstone)". There are other examples apart fom these in the OT. Jesus Christ described himself as the rejected capstone. So what city was it that Abraham, Isaiah and King David knew about?
historian186 2 years ago
Again, there is no mention of Christ or the sacrifice of him. Your argument is that people before Christ's sacrifice were saved by Christ's sacrifice. This presents 2 problems.
One is that Christ hadn't been sacrificed yet and people were still saved. To that again I ask, what did Jesus do?
The second is that there is no mention of the sacrifice. You're referencing scriptures which mention "rejected capstone", which reveals absolutely nothing about the crucifixion.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
The blood of Jesus is so powerful that it can save people who died believing in Him, even though He was yet to die (Old Testament folk). That is why the Bible says" He is the same yesterday, today and forever". His Blood saves yesterday, today and forever - not just spiritually, but physically.
historian186 2 years ago
hehe i think it's funny that his "proof" of Jesus to die on the cross is something saying, "rejected capstone".
How weak
sproutness 2 years ago
There are numerous mentions of being saved by faith in God in the OT, starting from Genesis. The Bible however is a whole book, and is interwoven and inter related. The OT cannot stand on its own (and vice versa for the NT).
historian186 2 years ago
If people were saved by faith in the OT, then there was no need for Christ's sacrifice.
Since people were already saved by faith, then answer my question; what did Jesus really accomplish then?
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I repeat, people did not sacrifice animals for salvation. They sacrificed them for atonement for sins committed over a period (usually a year). Jesus Christ however sacrificed Himself for salvation, as well as PERMANENT forgiveness of sins. Whether people died before or after this sacrifice is irrelevant. The only requirement is faith in His finished work. The people in the OT believed in the sacrifice of Jesus. The book of Hebrews as a whole deals with this in depth.
historian186 2 years ago
Yes, atonement of sins was required to be saved. Same thing.
People did not have faith in Jesus' finished work in the OT. Not Abraham, not Moses, and certainly not the common believer in God. These people all did things to atone for their sins. They were saved by works, and nowhere do they cite faith in God's sacrifice as the reason they are saved.
A lot of wishful thinking on your part.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
How nice of your God to send Moses and Enoch to hell (despite the fact that Enoch didn't even have to die to go to heaven).
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
It is not recorded anywhere that Enoch or Moses went to hell, rather it is recorded in the Bible they went to Heaven.
historian186 2 years ago
Exactly. They went to heaven. BEFORE the sacrifice. You said that it is Jesus' FINISHED WORKED ON THE CROSS that saved people.
And now you're giving me OT examples of people going to heaven BEFORE that finished work.
Thanks.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Jesus sacrifice brings about salvation for people born before He died, after He died and forever. God foreknew we would sin, yet still created us. Why? It is because of the love He has for all of us. He sent His Son Lord Jesus as our scapegoat.
historian186 2 years ago
Actually, salvation in the OT was based upon works, not faith in Jesus dying on the cross.
Please show me where it says in the bible that salvation came through faith in Christ on the cross, in the OT.
I know you're going to keep talking in circles, but I also feel that you understand what I'm saying. You know it to be a terrible flaw in the bible, but you're going to try to figure it out anyway. Please, go ahead. But if you cite scripture, make sure it answers what I'm asking
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
You should check out Gen 15:6-21
Here Abram is saved by a covenant he makes with god, at the cost of a few animals.
No mention about faith, no mention about Christ, no mention of any other sacrifice; simply God's word that he will bless Abram in exchange for the animals.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
In Genesis 15:6 it says "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness." From Abrams descendants came Jesus Christ. That is faith, not works. However, the sacrifice was to seal the promise that God had given the land of Canaan to Abram and his descendants, as can be understood when the rest of Gen 15 is read. Nothing to do with salvation at all.
historian186 2 years ago
But Abram had to perform works. True, he had faith, but obviously faith wasn't enough if God wanted animals in exchange.
I'm not arguing that the people before Christ didn't have faith. I'm arguing that faith wasn't enough, which is supported by the fact that God wanted works and rituals for atonement.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
In John 3:16 Jesus Christ says "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." That says WHOEVER, which includes people who died BEFORE, DURING and AFTER His death and resurrection. It does not say whoever after or whoever before just WHOEVER - EVERYONE who believes. The ancients in the OT knew and looked forward to salvation through Jesus, beacause it was part of the covenant, indeed the major part.
historian186 2 years ago
That hardly matters.
You have to show that the people of the OT had faith in Jesus dying on the cross. WHOSOEVER is just fine. I give you that. But the fact that the people of the OT were preoccupied with law, animal sacrifice, and the like, and the fact that there is no mention of Jesus in the OT makes, "WHOSOEVER" irrelevant in regard to the people of the OT.
Yes, the people of the OT could be saved through the crucifixion. Now all you have to do is show where they believed in it.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
In Psalm 68: 20 King David says " Our God is a God who saves; from the Sovereign LORD comes escape from death. " That is faith! Death here is both physical and spiritual death. Jesus IS God. He is also called Emmanuel (God with us). He is the LORD and Saviour - past, present and future. Yes the OT folk sacrificed and had the law, but these do not provide LASTING redemption. Only faith in Jesus Christ and His Blood to save can.
historian186 2 years ago
In Isaiah 25:9 - In that day they will say, "Surely this is our God; we trusted in him, and he saved us. This is the LORD, we trusted in him; let us rejoice and be glad in his salvation" Another person (Isaiah)in the OT who knew and believed in the salvation from God, who is Jesus Christ. Not just for himself, but for ALL who believe, past present and future.
historian186 2 years ago
Isaiah 45:22 - Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other." This ancient knew all about the saving Grace of God, and believed.
historian186 2 years ago
You gave 6 responses.
Not a SINGLE ONE mentions the crucifixion. WHERE IS THE CRUCIFIXION MENTIONED IN THE OT.
That's nine times now I've asked you.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
The salvation is the most important point. Salvation comes from not just from believing that Jesus died on the cross, but also that He rose from the dead on the third day, thus saving us from eternal death. The faith of the OT people was such that they believed that God would save them forever, as I have shown.
historian186 2 years ago
There is no mention of the resurrection in the OT. Abraham, Moses, Joel, none of these people were saved by believing in Christ's sacrifice and resurrection.
You do realize that by claiming what you are, that would mean that Orthodox Jews are saved Christians. Since they're following Mosaic Law, as the people in the OT which you claim were saved, then they're no different.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Not all Orthodox Jews believed in salvation through Jesus Christ, as is attested through the conflict recorded between Jesus and the established Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, the Pharisees and Sadducees (who did not believe in resurrection, period.) in the Gospels. Some however, did and formed the basis for early Christianity. But do not forget that the early disciples attended synagouges and regarded themselves as Orthodox Jews. Even Jesus observed all the Laws and went to the synagouges.
historian186 2 years ago
Right, the people of the OT didn't believe in salvation through Christ either. They didn't know anything about it.
My point is that if people in the OT were saved in the same manner that Orthodox Jews are today. You're basically saying that people saved through Christ's crucifixion in the OT are the same as Orthodox Jews saved through faith in Christ today. Which is absurd.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Absurd or not, that is EXACTLY the point! Nothing has changed since God pronounced judgement on the serpent (satan) in the Garden of Eden. Faith in the saving work of Christ is the requirement. God never changes or goes back on His Word.
historian186 2 years ago
Actually, I can give many examples of God changing his mind;
Genesis 6:6-7
Exodus 32:9-14
1 samuel 15:35
I have many, many more examples.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Yes, He changes His mind, however the effects of His spoken Word do not. His Word once spoken never returns to Him void without accomplishing it's objective
historian186 2 years ago
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Isaiah 17:1 - does not say FOREVER.
Isaiah 19:8 - Do you have concrete, documented proof of your assertion?
Isaiah 52:1 - Unfortunately, the Jews kept up their cycle of rebellion - and got punished again and again.
Ezekiel 29:10-11 - Again, please provide documented proof. Famines have abounded in that region.
Amos 9:15 - Nothing about not fighting, just about not being uprooted.
historian186 2 years ago
Uh, the context was saying that god never changed his mind. I provided examples of God changing his mind, and instead of pointing out how he didn't, you went on about irrelevant things.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
I have already agreed that God changes His mind.
historian186 2 years ago
Ok then, we agree that your statement, "God never changes or goes back on His Word. "
... was a little premature. Let's move on.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
His changes His mind, but the EFFECT of His Word occurs. What He has uttered takes effect. The effect can be discountinued, but only through His pronouncement, which is what I described before.
historian186 2 years ago
This is a fancy way to say the same thing I just did.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
The Bible,even though it is divided into various sections, is actually one holistic book compiled by God inspired authors over an extended period. Just like any other book, it is needs to be studied, absorbed, thought about, discussed and (in the Bible's case) prayed about for Holy Spirit input. I am satisfied that through these processes that there were folk in the OT who knew about the salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
historian186 2 years ago
Yet you cannot give one example of how anyone in the OT knew anything about the sacrifice of Christ.
You provided several scriptures, but none that validate these assertions.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Micah 5:2 - "But you, Bethlehem Ephratah, you are little to be among the clans of Judah; [yet] out of you shall One come forth for Me Who is to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth have been from of old, from ancient days (eternity). "The only person that description fits is the eternal Lord Jesus Christ, whose "crime" was confirming Himself as King of the Jews.
historian186 2 years ago
This talks about a right ruler of Israel. It says nothing about curcifixion, the son of god, or salvation through sacrifice.
Many cultures claim of an up and coming new leader. This is nothing special or new. Again, you must provide scripture which proves people like Moses were saved by belief in Christ's crucifixion. Vague prophecies about a new leader aren't even in the same ball park, sorry.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Just show me where the people of the OT believed in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. That's all you have to do.
"Rejected capstone" will not work. You need to show something where people in the OT put their faith on Christ's execution to be saved to substantiate your point.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Joel 2:32 - And EVERYONE who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said, among the survivors whom the LORD calls. Another OT person, Joel.
historian186 2 years ago
Works are a RESULTof faith. Faith in God is the foundation. No faith, no works. If Abraham had not believed, he would have done nothing. In Hebrews 11;6, Paul says "Without faith it is impossible to please God......."
historian186 2 years ago
"Works are a RESULT of faith".
That's not entirely true. Do you know how many people go to church, count rosaries, make a pilgrimage, or otherwise that have absolutely no faith?
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
What I mean by that is fruitful works that are done as a result of the saving Grace of Jesus Christ. Counting rosaries, making pilgrimages or or other rituals do not count. Doing what Jesus does and what He has asked us to do does - after His salvation.
historian186 2 years ago
This video really confirms my beliefs in the bible. How many false inferences the author of this video made I truely see how blind Atheists are in understanding the Word of God.
1 John 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Romans 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
1 John 3:5
And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
So you mean to say, you didn't have confirmed belief in the bible until you saw my video?
Why in the world were you debating for the bible before this then? And on your profile?
Talk about intellectual dishonesty! Well, par for the course with Christians anyway.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
To answer your questions
1)I had confirmed belief in the bible AFTER I read it and after I went to all of those contradictions websites to see if they were really contradictions I found out they were all really lies. Then my belief in the bible was super confirmed. Your lies just show me even more how desperate people who hate are willing to make things up.
2)I am not debating something, people on my profile are telling me about there imaginary theories which have no documentation.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
You're full of shit. I was a Christian for 20 years and it was not only the contradictions I found, but the way people like you acted when confronted with the questions that turned me away.
Nobody who doesn't already believe looks at atheist sites and goes, "wow, Jesus is real!"
If that's really the case, why come here and debate? Because obviously us atheists are turning people over to god by the millions. Moron.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
Actually the only moron here is you. You were not a christian for 20 years you were a Moron for 20 years a brainwashed idiot who never thought about his beliefs you just blindly believed what you were told and when you actually began to think for yourself your simple mind kicked into "rebellion" mode your like a childish little kid who wants a chocolate ice cream cone. Jesus is real. Why come here and debate? Not debate simply state your a liar and why.
LifeLibertyLove 2 years ago
Your simpleton answer to everyone that doesn't agree with you is, "you're a liar". Here you are, passing judgment on someone of whose history you have no clue about; which is just more evidence of you talking out of your ass about things you know nothing about.
I didn't "rebel". Deconversion took a very long period of time and it boiled down to not putting up a mental block everytime there was something I didn't want to hear. Maybe you'll grow out of that, maybe you won't.
malignantpoodle 2 years ago
where can i buy the anarchist cookbook?
FusionNinjin 2 years ago
Hmm... Looks like you got vote-botted!
Captain42x 2 years ago
I really enjoyed watching this video, very well argued.
Thumbs up.
frostyuk2007 3 years ago
morales come from living & working together in a society. science only improves our morales. our belief in superstitions & lack of knowledge has caused the most immorale crimes in the history of our existence. religion has caused more deaths & war than anything else. just a few hundred years ago we were still burning witches. while science has saved countless lives with the discovery of vaccines,& the advance in medical technology alone.
shehenazi 3 years ago 2
Im sure most wars that were called religious wars were not actually based on religious reasons but that was the venue to dupe the masses in beleiving the war
TonsOfFunJ1790 2 years ago
What you described is a social system. The law for example is not morality (otherwise any law would be moral...even Nazi laws).
Morality is really a dogmatic claim. It can not be established using science. I do not accept dogmatic claims though so I agree that Christians do not have an advantage.
The conclusion should be that we and them both don't have morality. That morality is really an illusion.
FatGermanBastard 3 years ago
Hmm. I think you missed the point on the law. I wasn't saying that the law was moral, but I was pointing out that which can be viewed as moral behavior can occur as a byproduct of following law, instead of religion.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
For example; let's say one were to consider murder as immoral (even though you and I agree that morality is subjective or an illusion). The person in question may cite God as the reason for abstaining from murder, therefore their moral conduct is a result of the bible, or so they say.
But the fact that we have examples of people that fear law more than the bible, or atheists that wouldn't commit murder, means that this moral behavior is not based upon religious teachings or God.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
I do not subscribe to moral relativism any sooner than divine moral theory.
Certian terms like justice and civilization are voided by moral relativism.
mtheoryrules 3 years ago
great vid! 5 stars!
exracon 3 years ago
hey malignan! I saw someone post a message about you on thunderfoots video So i thought id check you out.
AMAZING vids dude. You do such a good job def 5 star I put you up ther with the best of them now :) Keep makin awsome vids.
PiNGGTGTGTG 3 years ago
Ah, thanks a lot! I'll definitely be making more soon :)
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
"Where there is no law there is no punishment."
(Romans 4:15)
Enayze 3 years ago
...and?
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
All people are sinful or immoral . All laws come from God. The bible is God's Word. God's word is above every one else's word. Basic instructions before leaving earth.Bible
yoyo7107 3 years ago
And yet, you were given examples of laws and morality that do not have anything to do with a bible or god, but rather a societal interest.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
Great video MP. I agree with you on the idea that the bible does not have a monopoly on morality, however I think it is worth mentioning that the concept of God has what provided each civilization their own morale code. Like you mention with human sacrifice and the Aztec, that was in part of God. As communication has spread, civilizations are less isolated so morales interact, where it can't be denied, that common moral ideals coming from a higher power have taken precedence on the moral list
grubbs0621 3 years ago
Thanks, however I'll disagree with the notion that God is the source of moral code.
I mean, for example, what doctrinal difference are protestants and catholics killing each other over, and how are the moral values different on religions that use the same source for morality?
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
Not so much doctrinal differences as opposed to different interpretation of the doctrines.
I guess I should of made myself clear earlier. You are right in the law does have a big influence on morals in society, but I am willing to go a step further back and say that society based those laws to begin with on the concept of God.
Why we still have so many of those outdated Sunday laws throughout America.
grubbs0621 3 years ago
Familiar with Kohlberg's stage of moral development? Most people top out at the authority and social obedience stage. So in that sense, yes, the law is the source of morals.
But you have to ask yourself, where is the law getting their morals from? Your theory on tradition and personal experience is not valid when it comes to things such as murder, theft, etc.
grubbs0621 3 years ago
"Your theory on tradition and personal experience is not valid when it comes to things such as murder, theft, etc."
I agree, for specific criminal activity tradition doesn't play much, if any of a role. However, other moral standards are derived through it. Foul mouthed parents usually have foul mouthed kids. That someone would refrain, for example, from using profanity in public whilst being inclined to can certainly be attributed to upbringing and example.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
"Not so much doctrinal differences as opposed to different interpretation of the doctrines."
And there you have it, that Christians themselves cannot agree is further evidence that morality does not come from the bible, and even if it did that's irrelevant because of subjective interpretation.
As far as laws go, some are based religiously, for sure. But the majority are not. Constitutional rights such as freedom of religion is definitely not doctrinal based, for example.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
I wouldn't say it is irrelevant. It still provided the foundation for their actions.
I'll give you the Bill of Rights are mostly subject to Personal Experience. I am tending to argue though this is because of their placement on Kohlberg's Develop of Moral Theory. It is a safe assumption these framers of the Constitution had made it past the 4th stage that most people usually don't.
grubbs0621 3 years ago
The 4th stage is law and obedience. You argue man decided these laws on a secular idea for the better advancement of society, I am wanting to argue the concept of God and what he wants provided the foundation for the majority of morals in society.
Only question is who is right, me, you, or a mix of both.
grubbs0621 3 years ago
I would contend that the dynamics behind which the US constitution was formed had more to do with subjective circumstance than biblical justifications. The freedom of religion is a shining example of this. I doubt there is anywhere in the bible where a safehouse is provided for people other than Christians. A right to a trial by peers is also counter-Christianity, or at very best, not biblically rooted. The fact that rebels in Uganda use the same book to justify killing kids for God
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
as the book used by Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland to kill each other, means that even if the bible were a source of morality, it makes little difference in that it does not result in the interpretation of a universal moral standard.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
I think you misunderstood me above.
"I'll give you the Bills of Rights are mostly subject to Personal Experience"
grubbs0621 3 years ago
My mistake, you were clear and I misread.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
Heh. It happens, I am sure I am bound to do the same to some of your future videos.
grubbs0621 3 years ago
All other religions do not serve God only Christians serve the true and living God, who is revealed in Jesus his Son.Who is equal to God.He is the standard for all humans no matter what age or culture you live in.You have to accept that there is a God in the first place, in order to come to him. So make that first leap and ask him for more wisdom and understanding. The bible is your starting place.
yoyo7107 3 years ago
The fact that Christians themselves cannot agree on what the bible says blows the notion of the bible as a standard of anything completely out of the water.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
We Christians all agree on one thing, the God the bible reveals in Jesus Christ the Son.He is perfect.
yoyo7107 3 years ago
yadda yadda, dogma. You all agree he's perfect, and get your information from the most flawed and contradictory pieces of literature known to man.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
Seems as if you have it all figured out. I guess we do not have much else to discuss. When reading the bible you have to come with the premise that an all powerful,all knowing,and ever present God inspired it and that it claims to be the words of this God.I believe he is more than able to keep it true and accurate for the last 2000 years or so. No matter what flawed human he used to print it.So again I tell you you must put your faith in Christ and ask him for understanding.
yoyo7107 3 years ago
"When reading the bible you have to come with the premise that an all powerful,all knowing,and ever present God inspired it and that it claims to be the words of this God."
Why? Because we know the work is flawed, why would we come to the conclusion that some all powerful god was behind it?
See, the problem with people like you is that you NEED to believe. You're driven by need, not reality.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
I agree, I do need God, You need him too. You will die in your sin, unless you accept what he has gracously given in his Son, Christ. Repent and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
yoyo7107 3 years ago
I'll pass, thanks.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
Let God be true, and EVERY man a lier. God is consistently righteous, in all of His ways. No matter how often mankind may fail in his own ideology, whether he/she be Christian or any other way of belief.
valambiguous 3 years ago
Actually god is not consistently righteous. Changes his mind all the time, plays favorites, is sometimes just but sometimes merciful (those contradict each other by the way), etc.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
To malignantpoodle: Please give me, if you will, examples of God not being, consistently righteous, and how He changes His mind all the time, or plays favorites, and is sometimes merciful. I would prefer your examples to come from the Bible, being that it contains, "God's Holy Word". Thank you, for your time here. Looking forward to hearing from you.
valambiguous 3 years ago
Just see my video "The bible doesn't contradict itself?" for some examples of this. Or you can just reconcile the well established notion among Christians that the Jews are God's chosen people. Or you can start by showing how Enoch didn't get special treatment... I'm spoiled for choice in examples of how god is not consistent and does play favorites.
malignantpoodle 3 years ago
I was under notion that you were an atheist. I see now that you are just angry with God. Why? Go to him in prayer and tell him. he will listen. He is patient with us and he does not give us what we deserve.He is a merciful God.Now is the time MP.
yoyo7107 3 years ago
You do not know what righteousness is.By whose standard are you holding God too.
yoyo7107 3 years ago
I am an atheist. Did you really think otherwise, or was this just an attempt for you to sound off in a self-righteous way?
malignantpoodle 3 years ago