I think maybe he's confusing morals with ethics. If I'm understanding right, ethics would be shared morals, while morals are based on values, and very subjective. For example: many people think smoking cannabis is wrong, but many more people think that it's perfectly moral, in other words it doesn't conflict with their values. I believe the book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, covers this.
If you can't think of any reason why you shouldn't murder, rape and steal without the explicit instruction of a god to tell you otherwise then you are a sociopath...
I'm not beng dramatic, by definition you are a sociopath.
"a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."
Morality without God is no morality at all. It's just degrees of opinion about what is right and wrong from one or more atheist(s) placed over others. Without absolute authority, no atheist can ever justify their moral compass over that of everyone else.
I really like your way of thinking KT45, and I think they are fundamentally right. However, I feel that with our way of living today, it seems that morality is becoming irrelevant. Non religious people criticize religious morality because they believe God breaks His own commandments. They fail to realize that the commandments are not for God, but for human kind only. God's world couldn't function if He followed the commandments of mankind.
And by the way, this is an excellent conversation. :)
I hope, at the very least, that I'm explaining this matter well enough for you to see what I'm getting at. Conventional Christians are so attached to the idea of Hell (due to their culture), it's incredible. When shown that Hell is not explicitly stated in the Bible (in fact, it's spoken against), some people would rather find a new religion that INCLUDES HELL.
Why the deep desire to know that people who disagree will be tortured?
"They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." One only pays close attention to this ch. and you will see that Jesus in verse 42 is actually "explaining" what the parable means in ch. 13. As it is written in ch 13 verse 36: "and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare to us the parable of the tares of the field. "
"I hope that is sarcasm because I know it better then you do if you think Jesus isn't talking about the old law in Matthew 5:18-19 and Romans 3:31" no its really is not sarcasm i'm afraid it is truth. If you know better than i do,you would know that Paul wrote Romans and was not quoting Jesus. you would also know that the commandments are part of the laws of Moses. You would also know that because of new covenant full filled by Jesus on the cross many of these laws are no longer necessary....
@ardeasofdentarg, "it is a done deal" This proves my point: you can sin all you want after you are saved. Have you stopped sinning since you were saved? No? You just proved my point again, thanks.
@ndyt , "it is a done deal" This proves my point: you can sin all you want after you are saved." actually this dose not prove your point at all. Once you are saved you no longer have to ask for it again. but Like i told you before God judges the heart. what we do dose not matter so much as why we do it. If you seek salvation just so you can sin all you want God will wee right through that you will have a real bad day before the judgment seat.
@ndyt "Have you stopped sinning since you were saved?" For the most part yes I have. There are many things i no longer do. Some i gave up on my own but most all desire has gone away and i no longer want to. I try to live as close to Gods standard as i can but no one is perfect. after all if would could live perfectly with out sin why would we need a savior in the first place? No we all miss the mark sometimes and anyone who says otherwise is just foolish. However....
@ndyt ... Going on sinning as much as you want is a whole other story. surely you know what intent is right? So i don't have to explain the difference in a making mistake and intentionally committing a sin. You may think you can fool God and use his forgiveness to do as you please But as i have told you a couple times already God knows and judges your heart. It is not so much what you do but why you do it. No one can repeatedly sin intentionally thinking they will just ask for forgiveness later
We wouldn't rape, steal and murder indiscriminately because we are highly social animals and those behaviors are completely dysfunctional within the in-group.This would break down cohesive social life,cooperation would deteriorate,and we would create a living hell.This would be insane and maladaptive.We spent most of our existence as highly cooperative, egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes, where cooperation and social norms,or morality,was our safety net,and the difference between life and death
good points. Even transcultural taboos were once commonly practiced. Cannibalism, incest and such died off because the practice either destroyed those societies or they were absorbed into more productive societies that had the taboo in place. In theory, mankind becomes progessively more "moral" in society
Morality is NOT blind obedience to a series of inexplicable commandments handed down by an unproven supernatural entity. A truly moral person knows and understands what is moral and why. Morality is for thinking, rational beings. Morality is NOT a product of faith or abject submission to authority.
If you are moral simply to gain rewards or avoid punishment, congratulations; yours is the morality of a Border Collie.
Unlike animals who live by pure instinct humans live by thought and planning. Morality is nothing more than a human construct that we use to achieve a purpose. That purpose is survival, co-existence and happiness.
morality is made up by individuals, people can decide their own moral code and they can do whatever they want. they do it all the time. thats why we have a society that makes consequences for certain actions.
CREATION (Genesis) => Meaning of Life, Standards, Marriage, Laws, Absolute Truth, Absolute Logic, Orphanages, Hospitals, Gospel, God's Word
EVOLUTION => Abortion, School Violence, Communism, Humanism, Nazism, Racism, Rejection of Israel as God's chosen country [since there is no God], Secular Lifestyle, Secular Media, Premarital Sex, Pornography, Homosexual Behavior, Lawlessness, Man's Opinion
Creation - Christianity = persecution of non-christians, Jews, Muslims, gypsies, blacks, natives, looting and genocide conquested peoples, burn innocent people at stakes. Commit atrocities in the name of your imaginary god. Inflict sufferings on others using your cruel biblcal laws. You christians will all go to hell to join the bible writers. Sicko Chriskos!
How can you justify telling someone that they should follow your logic? By what authority does someone say that the morals according to logic are true and everything else is not? God would have absolute 100% authority, with man, their authority is only limited. So who is one man to tell another what to do without absolute authority?
It is true, everyone has there own subjective moral rules that they can follow. So what is the tie breaker between choosing between two men's moral framework? I can best answer this with an analogy. Suppose two farmers are growing corn but they each have a different method. Each thinks everyone should follow their method but which one is right. Well the one that yeilds the best crops win. See even though the choice is subjective the objectiveness is based on the results (cont)
I'll argue for this more in a future video but I believe that by observing what moral framework produces the best results (reduced suffering improving happiness) is the one that should be followed. So someone could follow whatever moral framework they want but the one that works the best is not dependent upon subjective individuals but instead objective results produced by reality.
In reality, many a mafia man has died a ripe old age a thousand or even millionaire. So their moral framework worked out for them. Is organized crime then justifiable?
I believe mafia men engaged in risky behavior. Basically their way of life constantly put them in danger as well as there friends and loved ones in danger. Also a mafia man's life is filled with a never ending cycle of revenge for fallen friends and loved ones. I don't see how this framework is the best framework for reducing suffering and improving happiness.
Well, you could just insert "Law Enforcement Officers" instead of "Mafia men", and those men face the same circumstances for completely opposite reason's. Yet, whose then to say which is justifiable seeing as they both have potential to die wealthy, with family, regardless of the danger. Somebody could then say Law Enforcement for the individual isn't the best framework for reducing suffering and improving happiness due to the risk and danger.
A law enforcement officers duty is the reduce crime in the nation which improves happiness and reduces suffering. The mafia man isn't trying to reduce suffering. One is inherently better.
What if someone wants to use their method regardless of the results? Their method may be easier for the individual's, they might just like doing it this way. Happens all the time.
But morality is different then methods of crop production.
What if the farmer chooses to use their method regardless of the results? Well his buisness will fail. What if someone wants to follow a moral framework that increasing suffering and reduces happiness? Well they will be suffering and less happy. Now of course their is a difference between producing crops and morality but the similarity is that each produces either desired or undesirable consequences. And these consequences are not dependent on the individual but instead on results from reality.
But there are different methods due to different climate, and soil composition. There just isn't one way to grow a corn row. But if that applies to morality, then telling a lie, cheating and stealing is justifiable.
No this is not so. If Bob gave you a book on how to grow corn yearly and Steve gave you a book on how to grown corn yearly which do you follow? Well you follow what gives you the best results. Now within each book there will be different problems a farmer has to deal with for how to grow the crop but the method is the whole book. In morality there are different problems as well. Should I lie/steal etc. Each is a different problem. The best method for dealing with each one is what one ought to do
Also I could ask you the same question. What if someone wants to use their method instead of God's method regardless of the results? Well in a christian's worldview they will go to hell. There is a similarity to what I'm saying as well. If someone doesn't want to follow a moral framework that has the best chance of yeilding the best results, then their is a higher likelyhood that they will not be happy and suffer more just like the christian believes a person who is a sinner will suffer in hell
Because it's as you said a higher "likelihood", but that higher likelihood isn't absolute, nor can anybody accurately put a percentage to it and many a times people can get away with it.
Just to clarify, without God their is only chance or "likelihood" of suffering under a different moral framework. With God who has absolute 100% authority, there is no chance of not suffering if you don't follow the Biblical morals and trust in Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins. Many time's people can get away with not paying consequences when they don't follow man's law. God says 'vengeance is mine' so there will be a judgment day in which all are held accountable who don't follow Jesus.
Not necessarily. Suppose a murder/rapist a week before death row feels deep down that they need forgiveness. A pastor gives them their prays the prayer of salvation and they pray sincerely to god to forgive him of his transgressions. All his sins will be washed away and he will not suffer. However if a heathen born in sin nature gives to the poor, helps his friends and makes peace with his enemies and dies he will suffer unlimited torment. cont.
(cont) Remember the prisoner at Jesus' side on the cross? He was a sinner but despite his immoral life god let him into heaven for just believing. The point is that there is a strong chance under the christian framework that if you don't follow biblical morals but later in life trust in jesus to forgive your sins then you are not punished. Accountability is then underminded for you are not held accountable for how moral you are but instead what you believe in your heart when you die.
KT45--Nobody is perfect. Without the heart change that can only come from accepting Jesus Christ as Savior, not your good works. Only Jesus Christ fulfilled all that God requires in every way possible, so that trusting in Jesus to forgive you is what is required for salvation to enter Heaven, and then your good works that follow glorify him, because faith without works is dead being alone and it's not a license to sin.
JCD, I'm not saying being a christian is a license to sin. I am saying that you have no idea if someone will be punished for their wrongdoings. Do you know for a fact that Hitler will get punished for what he did? You cannot give a definite yes or no. All you can give is a hypotheical. If hitler recognized he was a sinner and accepted Jesus and asked for forgiveness before he died then he won't get punished. If not he is in hell. In my opinion this underminds accountability.
I'd also like to note that your argument about accountability says nothing about the epistemology of moral facts. Something can be right or wrong despite whether or not someone catches you. Its like a child doing math homework that doesn't have to be turned in and saying that all of my answers are right because no one is going to grade my paper. What is important is showing an objective, normative moral framework.
@KT45 But the child doesn't have to turn in their homework, so why would the kid mention anything about their answers being right? Also, answer to homework being right, doesn't have the least bit to do with morality, since their homework doesn't have to be turned-in in the first place.
@KT45 Who says there is any moral facts anyway? To you maybe, not to someone else. And of course, no one is going to grade the childs' paper, because as in your own scenario: It doesn't have to be turned in.
@KT45 According to a materialist, once you die, it is as it were before you were born. That's zero accountability. But yet they don't know either, so that's their hypothetical. "If not 'he is in hell'" Being in hell is accountability.
There's Sheol (the grave), and Gehenna (the "Valley of Hinnon", which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem). It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there was always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation were thrown there to be destroyed. It was a real place, for bodies.
That's about it. Hell was made up by the Church. Forget about it.
You've got it backwards. Look up some info on Gehenna (for example).
All of the passages that are thought by modern fanatics to refer to hell are in fact just poorly-translated references to the grave, corpse pires, and death.
There is no explicitly stated Hell in the Bible. It was created centuries later by fanatics who were influenced by Hades (from another religion), and as it caught on translations began to imply it.
According to true, accurate Christianity, there is no Hell.
I majored in Exegesis (interpretive study of the Bible), and I noticed this exact same thing! All of the original Scripture says nothing about a fiery afterlife. In fact, all of the places in Scripture that today are read as 'Hell' were originally about death, annihilation, and basically the passing away of the soul.
While the Bible does teach us the path to eternal life, it does not tell us that the alternative is Hell. It teaches us that the alternative is, well, nothing at all.
That's a parable, written by a Greek-speaking Syrian who was culturally steeped in the Greek mythological Hades. In fact, most translations of those verses say 'Hades'. Not hell, not afterlife, but Hades. It's a story with a lesson, steeped in non-Christian cultural myths.
@taicleis True Christianity is Jewish. Jesus is Jewish. I'm a Jew who believes in Jesus, There is no explicitly stated hell. Read Luke 16:20-25 there is indeed a place of torment. My Bible is from Ben Chayyim > Daniel Bomberg. Also read: Psalm 9:17, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 55:15.
The Luke verse is a parable, written by a Greek-speaking Syrian who was culturally steeped in the Greek mythological Hades. In fact, most translations of those verses say 'Hades'. Not hell, not afterlife, but Hades. It's a story with a lesson, steeped in non-Christian cultural myths.
And all of the Psalms you mentioned reference death and the grave, not Hell.
Hell was introduced by the Greeks; it is based on Hades.
@TheJeiss I could say the same about you. The problem is Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
@TheJeiss It's not a parable. Nobody uses fire to represent death, much less a death of nothing. So how are you going to try and explain away Revelation 21:8
Yes, we do use fire to represent death. We use it to represent destruction, and permanent annihilation. It represents being utterly removed from existence. Ashes to ashes. Burning books. Incineration.
Gehenna, a valley where the dead were burned (cremation), was often used to represent death and annihilation. The fires were kept perpetually burning.
Cremation. Even your earthly remains will be destroyed. A second death.
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched: the pires at Gehenna were kept constantly burning. It was also a garbage heap.
The literal translation of this verse comes out more as "In that place, worms never die, and the fire is never put out." The worm, that devours (and therefore destroys) is also a reference to the putrid, worm-infested grave of Gehenna.
@TheJeiss 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary: GEHEN'NA,n. [Heb. ge-hinom, the valley of Hinom, in which was Tophet, where the Israelites sacrificed their children to Moloch. 2 Kings 23.10.] This word has been used by the Jews as equivalent to hell, place of fire or torment and punishment, and the Greek word is rendered by our translators by hell and hell-fire. Matt.18.9. 23.15.
@timcp1 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary: 2. The place of the dead, or of souls after death; the lower regions, or the grave; called in Hebrew, sheol, and by the Greeks, hades. Ps. 16. Jon.2.
This is kind of my point. It's just a translation choice. the word originated not as a place of eternal torment, but a sacrificial and burning site, for the salvationless. It only became understood as 'Hell' at a later time, after the influence of the idea of Hades.
@TheJeiss There is no way that Lazarus being in a place of comfort while the rich man was in torment is a parable about nothing after life though. The guy not only wanted something to drink, but also wanted his brothers to know about the place so they wouldn't go there too. That's the exact opposite of nothing after death.
It's a parable - poetic, symbolic and influenced by the author's Syrian-Greek culture. It has a deep, meaningful message - but it's not a factual account of someone going to Hell. That would really be an odd thing to write, if you think about it.
And it's interesting how such a huge part of the modern Christian religion is based on a bad interpretation of a few lines tucked away in such a big book. If we were going to Hell, there would be a LOT more about it in there, one would think.
@TheJeiss But it's your assertion that there is nothing after you die. If this were true, then there is no reason to give a parable about someone actually being in hell.
Hell is mentioned at least 23 times throughout the New Testament not just in the book of Luke.
MOST of those mentionings are very, very clearly mistranslations of the grave annihilation, or other such symbolic references to eternal death. The remainder are somewhat less clear, but once put into a cultural and literary context they, too, cease to point to a place of eternal torment when properly translated.
And that's where Hell came from. People who already had a 'hell' (Hades) when they converted assumed that these references to the grave were about their mythical underworld.
@TheJeiss Well, that's what it comes down to then is your source. If you bring up mistranslation, that's a bit harder to prove. Since the originals aren't readily available for comparison. The sources I read from the Bible come primarily from this line Antioch>Ben Chayyim>Daniel Bomberg
Well, it's really less about translation than it is the gradual shift away from the intended, original meaning. Here I quote another scholar on the subject:
"The ancient Hebrews had no idea of an immortal soul living a full and vital life beyond death, nor of any resurrection or return from death. Human beings, like the beasts of the field, are made of "dust of the earth," and at death they return to that dust (Gen. 2:7; 3:19)."
(continued) "The Hebrew word nephesh, traditionally translated "living soul" but more properly understood as "living creature," is the same word used for all breathing creatures and refers to nothing immortal...All the dead go down to Sheol, and there they lie in sleep together — whether good or evil (Job 3:11-19).
In fact, the concept of Hell descends from the Hades, which the Greeks substituted for 'Sheol'. They changed it from 'nothingness' into 'the underworld'.
It actually translates to 'Higher than the heavens and deeper than the grave." in Hebrew. The heavens refers to the endless, infinite sky. The Hebrew here for 'Hell', once again, was changed from 'Sheol'.
Again, the original Bible does not have Hell. It doesn't even really have a Heaven per se, but at a later point after Christ promised a better world for those who lived the way he proposed, it was interpreted as such.
Of course, anyone can call anything - I could call a red apple blue... but it's clearly red.
What I'm talking about is a clear, obvious error. The meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek is not in any way ambiguous. I'm not 'calling' it a mistranslation. It is one.
Translating Sheol as Hell, and translating 'the heavens' as 'Heaven' are just wrong. It's plain as day.
It's like saying that a cemetery is filled with 'Hells', and that NASA explores the 'Kingdom of Heaven'. Wrong.
@TheJeiss But the Bible I use goes through this line: Antioch>Ben Chayyim>Daniel Bomberg. In which case it is translated Hell. Your sources obviously does not, and I think those translators are far more expert than you and whoever or whomever you're referring to. I think your understanding of exactly what goes on in hell is due to your mistranslation.
No, the Antioch translation has the exact same problem as the Alexandria one, for the exact same reason.
I don't have an understanding of 'what goes on in Hell', because I understand that there isn't one. Not according to the original Scripture, anyway. It just doesn't fit. For instance, "If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there" (Psalm 139:8) doesn't really make a lot of sense if we define 'Sheol' as 'Hell'. Yet they did so in many places, for their own Hellenistic reasons.
@TheJeiss You might if you don't confess Jesus as Messiah the Son of God. I'm a Jew who believes Jesus is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God. So I won't go down to Sheol.
Oh, and regarding my 'source'... I don't have any one source. I look at all lineages and give them all equal consideration based on whence they came. For instance, one would think a modern, direct translation from an original Hebrew scripture would be a little closer to the intended meaning than, say, something translated to Greek first - especially by such politically motivated people as those who did. And don't forget that the Greeks already HAD their ideas about the afterlife first.
@TheJeiss I believe the Hebrews existed before the Greeks. That's found plainly in the Bible. The way a Hebrew would understand something and the way someone would understand the Hebrew in English are two different things, that's why you must be an expert in both. Noah Webster understood over 12 languages including the Hebrew and Greek, he made not only his own Dictionary but also translated scripture and his Bible isn't any different from what is found in a King James Bible. Now he's an expert.
Look, it's really really simple. There is no disagreement over this, really - the decision to interpret these passages as being about Hell wasn't made by people who knew their original meaning. It was made quietly, in the early stages of what became the Church, and nobody knew better.
Today, it's been that way for so long that few people realize it's all based on a Greek myth. But it is. They even wrote it as HADES in some texts!
@TheJeiss You don't think he had access to the same documents as the translators of the King James Bible? Sheol, Hell, the pit, it's all the same words that describe the same meaning. God has the ability even in the OT to "save" the pious out of Sheol, not leave them there. That's who Jesus went and spoke to when after he was crucified and went into the center of the earth for three days. Those who were there during the time Noah was preparing the ark, the disobedient ones (1 Peter 3:18-22)
@TheJeiss You don't think he had access to the same documents as the translators of the King James Bible? Sheol, Hell, the pit, it's all the same words that describe the same meaning. God has the ability even in the OT to "save" the pious out of Sheol, not leave them there. That's who Jesus went and spoke to when after he was crucified and went into the center of the earth for three days. Those who were there during the time Noah was preparing the ark, the disobedient ones (1 Peter 3:18-22)
It doesn't matter if he did or didn't. his intention wasn't to rewrite. It was to revise the KJB as a literary work.
Hell and Sheol only have the same meaning in the sense that when you see 'Hell' in today's Bible, you can know that it used to only refer to Sheol or Gehenna. So basically, NOT an eternal torture chamber.
I searched youtube for a short video to sum some of this up. This one isn't bad:
@TheJeiss Look up the word: "Sheol" in the Jewish encyclopedia, it is written, that God has the power to save the pious from Sheol. So obviously, the non-pious then would not be saved.
That's a different matter entirely! But to be brief:
The literal meaning of this is that God has the power to save people from the grave, or death. In other words, to give eternal life (eg. Jesus).
The important point that I am making with all of this is that clearly, the typical "Churchianity" Hell does not exist, according to the Bible. There is no indication whatsoever of a fiery place of torment after death. It's just not there.
We can discuss eternal life, sure. But Hell is out.
@TheJeiss How would one determine what is literal and what is parable? When neither the word literal or parable is never mentioned? In which scriptures are you using that you can assert that hell does not exist?
Well, for instance - how all people regardless of righteousness (Job 3:11-19) pass into Sheol, which is described as near-nothingness, in which only a shadow of one's former self remains (Ps. 88:10).
In the third chapter of Job, Sheol is even seen as a welcome ESCAPE from pain and suffering. If Sheol were Hell, this wouldn't be.
There was no Hell to speak of until ANOTHER religion added it in when they assimilated. They added 'Hades' - a corruption, not in God's true word.
@TheJeiss You mentioned Jesus though 3 days ago, and that's what Jesus said in Matthew 13. If you're saying it was added, how would you know? Going by what?
It wasn't 'added' that Jesus said such things; what was 'added' was the currently understood meaning.
The Greeks understood what Jesus said in Matthew 13 as a reference to Hades, but it wasn't. Firstly, it was a parable, and secondly, the references to throwing people into a blazing furnace are about Gehenna - a reminder to Jews about sacrificing their children with fire. It illustrates a vivid point he was trying to make about the Jew's understanding of righteousness and punishment.
So again, when I say 'added', for the most part I mean 'altered'. Jesus did talk about people being cast into a fire.
This was to evoke the disgust and fear that they knew all to well at the hands of Molech at Gehinnom, when they had begun to idolize the Law. It was a blatant reference, a slap in the face if you will.
It could be likened to telling Islamic extremists that one day they will all be thrown into an exploding skyscraper if they keep up their ways.
@TheJeiss And Yeshua saying: There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth? Just what? Poetry? Imagery? All of the above? Anything to explain away the reality of an afterlife of torment and separation before G-d?
@KT45 A materialist will often announce as was mentioned before that once you die, "it is as it were before you were born." That's zero accountability. But yet they don't know either if death will be that way, so that's their hypothetical. "If not 'he is in hell'" Being in hell is far more accountability then experiencing nothing upon death. That's your hypothetical too to say that "If Hitler recognized he was a sinner" since he committed suicide instead.
@KT45 What you believe in your heart is seen as morally acceptable. As a new believer you just repented of every wrong doing in your life and were given forgiveness. Otherwise, the ultimate accountability is death and hell.
@KT45 The prisoner at Jesus side still had to die the death of those being crucified though. The heathen born with a sin nature who gives to the poor, helps his friends and makes peace with his enemies does so because it is God who wrote it on his heart. The fact the guy isn't perfect and doesn't repent will lead him to reject God. But if he does what is in Romans 10:9 and turns from those imperfection ways and acknowledges it is God alone who is just, he will be saved.
JCDBenjamin, believers can just do what they want and then ask forgiveness. Also, they can martyr themselves thinking they will have a special place in heaven. An atheist would not give up their one shot at life to kill other people. An atheist will not screw up they relationships with the people around them just to steal something. It is the promise of an afterlife that makes believers do evil things that an atheist would never do.
ndyt, "believers can just do what they want and then ask for forgiveness." Isn't Biblical, you can't find that being condoned by Jesus Christ anywhere in the Bible.
JCDBenjamin, the bible says that Jesus forgives all sins without conditions, doesn't it? That means you can do what you want and Jesus will forgive you.
JCD, and here is a quote that backs up my claim: And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man (aka, Jesus) will be forgiven. (Matthew 12:31-32)
Of course the bible is so contradictory that a quote can be found to back up just about any motive, which is a good reason to throw it in the trash.
Even if it didn't say that exactly, that is what is taught by "Christian authorities"
So you are 100% right in your observation.
Religion is a tool used to bypass and replace evolutionary conditioning enabling religious (and political) leaders to order self sacrifice for the glory of God!
Not something that evolution would ever have created as it goes against survival.
@ndyt That's not true, "believers can just do what they want and then ask for forgiveness" is using Jesus as a license to sin, as it is written: Do not to use Jesus as a shield for sin.
@timcp1, show me where the bible says you can't sin all you want and then ask Jesus for forgiveness. Show me where the bible says there are circumstances where Jesus will refuse to forgive someone.
@timcp1, and what is it you think these quotes mean? I don't get much meaning from them. "if any man draw back" Does that mean if you sin you can't ask for forgiveness again? Forgiveness only works once? Is that what you are trying to tell me these quotes mean?
@ndyt To draw back is it to fall back into sin again and if that continues then the Holy Spirit of God will have no pleasure to be in such a person. Romans 6:15 is very specific when Paul asks: Should we sin because we are no longer under the law (which God gave to Moses) but are under grace (grace is through his Son Jesus Christ)? God forbid. So we aren't to be hypocritical in thinking "well I'm forgiven so I'll sin it up".
@ndyt Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
@ndyt Galatians 5:13 For, brothers, you have been called to liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
@ndyt "show me where the bible says you can't sin all you want and then ask Jesus for forgiveness."
Romans 3:31 Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.
@ardeasofdentarg, "the law" here refers to "the old law" which is the old testament laws, the Jewish laws, which most christians don't follow, even though Jesus says, over and over, including this very quote, that the old law must be obeyed. Here is a clearer quote: Matthew 5:18-19
@ardeasofdentarg, I hope that is sarcasm because I know it better then you do if you think Jesus isn't talking about the old law in Matthew 5:18-19 and Romans 3:31
@ndyt You would also know circumcision is one of these laws. Paul spends some time on this subject in Romans because some of the Jewish Christians were telling the gentiles that they needed to be circumcised. You would also know in Chapter 3 Paul is talking about sin and forgiveness of sin by Faith in Christ. Paul closes this chapter with v.31 explaining even though we are forgiven by faith we still must keep Gods commands. in fact was can only do this by faith.
i'm sick of this bullshit false dichotomy. morality derrived from god or nihilism. what people don't realize about it, whatever side they take, is that they both make a case against morality because they both take for granted that morality is beyond our rational understanding.
Intellectual power is what a Lawyer has over you in the court room; its what a Judge has when he gives a sentence. Its what Politicians have when they write the laws that people must follow.
An ant colony works together to a greater goal without having to be told to do so by a higher power. Do you think the ants avoid killing their fellow drones because Jesus told them its wrong? No, its cause they innately know though evolution, that in order to survive as a species they have to work together. In the bible itself, jews climbing Mt. Sinai somehow knew not to kill eachother BEFORE encountering jesus. How could that be if jesus is the root of morals? Simple: morality is innate.
God is the root of morals, Jesus is the son of God. God wrote morality in the hearts of man. I go by what I know, I don't know if ants have free will, but I do know humans have free will. And that is what morality pertains to is between humans.
"God is the root of morals" well he's not very good at showing, he makes hitler look like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi according to your old testament. if you get your moral compass from the Bible, you are lacking important components in your brain that produce feelings of empathy and remorse. You might be a sociopath, I would have someone do some tests, you could end up being very harmful to society.
Some ant colonies enslave other ants, and yet atheist's always try to say that it is condoned in the Bible. So if ants do it, does that justify enforced slavery as just? You can't always learn from the animal world, they don't call it survival of the fittest for nothing, and refer to mother nature in documentaries as "unforgiving", glory to God that Jesus is.
"atheist's always try to say that it is condoned in the Bible" a fool can see is does
"So if ants do it, does that justify enforced slavery as just?" so wait, ur saying if the bible isn't real, we need to behave like ants?, y not go all the way & start shitting everywhere
i was giving an example of how morality doesn't require the bible & shown all over nature, our minds are better (certain aspects) then other animals, we should behave as such
Morality requires a God, otherwise any action is justifiable. And the day you tell someone a one action is moral or right over another, you've made yourself a hypocrite, because God does the same thing in the Bible and yet you act like you're a moral compass. God is the creator of morality itself.
No we don't behave like ants if the Bible isn't real, if the Bible isn't real, and there is no absolute morality, then each individual can justify any action.
"Morality requires a God" read my 2 comment and it proves you wrong.
"otherwise any action is justifiable." the bible/quran justify genocide i think i need say no more. "And the day you tell someone a one action is moral or right over another you've made yourself a hypocrite" no, because we each have moral standards, even though you only follow yours out of fear from a spectral tyrant, and to buy your way into his happy land.
What Biblical ch. verse specifically for genocide?
So if everyone has their own moral standards and genocide being one of them, then genocide would be just? You're making yourself a hypocrite by saying no. Because others could say the same about your moral standards.
In the end, in reality, it is might equals right. It's that simple. That is why there is a God, because no group of people can do their will without exerting their might over others for their will to be done.
And who, or what gives you the authority to say which type is fallacious or non-fallacious? Who says you're a moral compass, when you condone prostitution and many such things that currently go against American law? That's really the point, you say that your logic is right, so does the Judicial system about theirs? What is the tiebreaker? The force that is able to make their logic law over yours. That's just reality.
There seems like there is a lot you don't understand about logic. Saying things like force determines who is right shows your reasoning is fallacious (Argumentum ad baculum) Asking what authority lets me say what is fallacious shows a misunderstanding with fallacies. A while back you said "A=A, Might=right" showing misunderstanding in the law of identity. But hey it's okay I'm still learning as well
A good book to start with is "Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking" by D.Q. Mci
o.o 0:45 Must Pet Buff Squirrel.
sproff77 6 months ago
I think maybe he's confusing morals with ethics. If I'm understanding right, ethics would be shared morals, while morals are based on values, and very subjective. For example: many people think smoking cannabis is wrong, but many more people think that it's perfectly moral, in other words it doesn't conflict with their values. I believe the book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, covers this.
nemogabe 7 months ago
@jshowa2 well yeah the cultures that have the taboo survived, while the cultures that didn't have the taboo died for that very reason.
Coquipirate 10 months ago
If you can't think of any reason why you shouldn't murder, rape and steal without the explicit instruction of a god to tell you otherwise then you are a sociopath...
I'm not beng dramatic, by definition you are a sociopath.
"a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience."
Amarkcalledme 10 months ago
@Amarkcalledme A sociopath or... a moral nihilist.
painkillerzman 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Morality without God is no morality at all. It's just degrees of opinion about what is right and wrong from one or more atheist(s) placed over others. Without absolute authority, no atheist can ever justify their moral compass over that of everyone else.
timcp1 11 months ago
Religion may provide an advantage.
Piddyx 1 year ago
I really like your way of thinking KT45, and I think they are fundamentally right. However, I feel that with our way of living today, it seems that morality is becoming irrelevant. Non religious people criticize religious morality because they believe God breaks His own commandments. They fail to realize that the commandments are not for God, but for human kind only. God's world couldn't function if He followed the commandments of mankind.
KerouacandRimbaud 1 year ago
jupiter is watching you! when rome turned away from jupiter he destroyed them, and he will destroy you too!
vengencefrom1979 1 year ago
Pro-Israel Biased Media Is a Threat to Our Security
watch?v=em22GzVK8MM
ndyt 1 year ago
@timcp1
And by the way, this is an excellent conversation. :)
I hope, at the very least, that I'm explaining this matter well enough for you to see what I'm getting at. Conventional Christians are so attached to the idea of Hell (due to their culture), it's incredible. When shown that Hell is not explicitly stated in the Bible (in fact, it's spoken against), some people would rather find a new religion that INCLUDES HELL.
Why the deep desire to know that people who disagree will be tortured?
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss I'm glad you're enjoying the conversation. I find it interesting as well.
Matthew 13:42
"They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." One only pays close attention to this ch. and you will see that Jesus in verse 42 is actually "explaining" what the parable means in ch. 13. As it is written in ch 13 verse 36: "and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare to us the parable of the tares of the field. "
timcp1 1 year ago
"I hope that is sarcasm because I know it better then you do if you think Jesus isn't talking about the old law in Matthew 5:18-19 and Romans 3:31" no its really is not sarcasm i'm afraid it is truth. If you know better than i do,you would know that Paul wrote Romans and was not quoting Jesus. you would also know that the commandments are part of the laws of Moses. You would also know that because of new covenant full filled by Jesus on the cross many of these laws are no longer necessary....
ardeasofdentarg 1 year ago
@ardeasofdentarg, Does salvation only work once or will Jesus forgive you if you sin again?
ndyt 1 year ago
Comment removed
ardeasofdentarg 1 year ago
@ardeasofdentarg, "it is a done deal" This proves my point: you can sin all you want after you are saved. Have you stopped sinning since you were saved? No? You just proved my point again, thanks.
ndyt 1 year ago
@ndyt , "it is a done deal" This proves my point: you can sin all you want after you are saved." actually this dose not prove your point at all. Once you are saved you no longer have to ask for it again. but Like i told you before God judges the heart. what we do dose not matter so much as why we do it. If you seek salvation just so you can sin all you want God will wee right through that you will have a real bad day before the judgment seat.
ardeasofdentarg 1 year ago
@ndyt "Have you stopped sinning since you were saved?" For the most part yes I have. There are many things i no longer do. Some i gave up on my own but most all desire has gone away and i no longer want to. I try to live as close to Gods standard as i can but no one is perfect. after all if would could live perfectly with out sin why would we need a savior in the first place? No we all miss the mark sometimes and anyone who says otherwise is just foolish. However....
ardeasofdentarg 1 year ago
@ndyt ... Going on sinning as much as you want is a whole other story. surely you know what intent is right? So i don't have to explain the difference in a making mistake and intentionally committing a sin. You may think you can fool God and use his forgiveness to do as you please But as i have told you a couple times already God knows and judges your heart. It is not so much what you do but why you do it. No one can repeatedly sin intentionally thinking they will just ask for forgiveness later
ardeasofdentarg 1 year ago
We wouldn't rape, steal and murder indiscriminately because we are highly social animals and those behaviors are completely dysfunctional within the in-group.This would break down cohesive social life,cooperation would deteriorate,and we would create a living hell.This would be insane and maladaptive.We spent most of our existence as highly cooperative, egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribes, where cooperation and social norms,or morality,was our safety net,and the difference between life and death
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
good points. Even transcultural taboos were once commonly practiced. Cannibalism, incest and such died off because the practice either destroyed those societies or they were absorbed into more productive societies that had the taboo in place. In theory, mankind becomes progessively more "moral" in society
Coquipirate 1 year ago 5
@Coquipirate True that. Anyone who thinks we were more "moral" in the past really needs to crack a history text or two.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
The Bible was written by the same people who thought the world was flat.
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
google Doe's Account, its mindblowing.
Yellowwatts 1 year ago
christianity doesnt make morality its naturally within us.
the law stops most of us killing each other
teedonster 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support your particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That just might explain a hell of a lot.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
If your neighbours work on Saturday, kill them.
If your child throws oatmeal at you, kill him.
If your mom plants corn and pumpkins in the same field, kill her.
If your sister has premarital sex, kill her
(but don't think twice about her sex partner).
If the folks in the next town aren't Christians,
kill them all and take their baby girls home for sex slaves.
It's all there, advice for a perfect life.
Just read the Bible!
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Your morality is dictated by the way you were brought up and social pressures.
Fir3guy13 2 years ago
Morality is NOT blind obedience to a series of inexplicable commandments handed down by an unproven supernatural entity. A truly moral person knows and understands what is moral and why. Morality is for thinking, rational beings. Morality is NOT a product of faith or abject submission to authority.
If you are moral simply to gain rewards or avoid punishment, congratulations; yours is the morality of a Border Collie.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago 8
Unlike animals who live by pure instinct humans live by thought and planning. Morality is nothing more than a human construct that we use to achieve a purpose. That purpose is survival, co-existence and happiness.
sweetsweatyfeet 2 years ago
You did a good job of simplyfying the explanation for morality. The only reason that science is ever rejected is because people don't understand it.
The only thing that bothered me was that you kept calling it "survival of the fittest" instead of natural selection.
JMSofSweden 2 years ago
Don't be modest, you're absolutely correct!
ManofManyPasswords 2 years ago
morality is made up by individuals, people can decide their own moral code and they can do whatever they want. they do it all the time. thats why we have a society that makes consequences for certain actions.
errskin 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Different education:
CREATION (Genesis) => Meaning of Life, Standards, Marriage, Laws, Absolute Truth, Absolute Logic, Orphanages, Hospitals, Gospel, God's Word
EVOLUTION => Abortion, School Violence, Communism, Humanism, Nazism, Racism, Rejection of Israel as God's chosen country [since there is no God], Secular Lifestyle, Secular Media, Premarital Sex, Pornography, Homosexual Behavior, Lawlessness, Man's Opinion
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Creation - Christianity = persecution of non-christians, Jews, Muslims, gypsies, blacks, natives, looting and genocide conquested peoples, burn innocent people at stakes. Commit atrocities in the name of your imaginary god. Inflict sufferings on others using your cruel biblcal laws. You christians will all go to hell to join the bible writers. Sicko Chriskos!
FyFhFr25 2 years ago 2
You dont need a god or religion to be moral.
Man created god in order to control the masses.
roac7777 2 years ago 8
How can you justify telling someone that they should follow your logic? By what authority does someone say that the morals according to logic are true and everything else is not? God would have absolute 100% authority, with man, their authority is only limited. So who is one man to tell another what to do without absolute authority?
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
It is true, everyone has there own subjective moral rules that they can follow. So what is the tie breaker between choosing between two men's moral framework? I can best answer this with an analogy. Suppose two farmers are growing corn but they each have a different method. Each thinks everyone should follow their method but which one is right. Well the one that yeilds the best crops win. See even though the choice is subjective the objectiveness is based on the results (cont)
KT45 2 years ago
I'll argue for this more in a future video but I believe that by observing what moral framework produces the best results (reduced suffering improving happiness) is the one that should be followed. So someone could follow whatever moral framework they want but the one that works the best is not dependent upon subjective individuals but instead objective results produced by reality.
KT45 2 years ago
In reality, many a mafia man has died a ripe old age a thousand or even millionaire. So their moral framework worked out for them. Is organized crime then justifiable?
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
I believe mafia men engaged in risky behavior. Basically their way of life constantly put them in danger as well as there friends and loved ones in danger. Also a mafia man's life is filled with a never ending cycle of revenge for fallen friends and loved ones. I don't see how this framework is the best framework for reducing suffering and improving happiness.
KT45 2 years ago
Well, you could just insert "Law Enforcement Officers" instead of "Mafia men", and those men face the same circumstances for completely opposite reason's. Yet, whose then to say which is justifiable seeing as they both have potential to die wealthy, with family, regardless of the danger. Somebody could then say Law Enforcement for the individual isn't the best framework for reducing suffering and improving happiness due to the risk and danger.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
A law enforcement officers duty is the reduce crime in the nation which improves happiness and reduces suffering. The mafia man isn't trying to reduce suffering. One is inherently better.
KT45 2 years ago
He reduces suffering for his family and those associated with him prosper.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
The mafia man reduces suffering through revenge. Revenge only begets more revenge therefore endangering his loved one and those associated with.
KT45 2 years ago
What if someone wants to use their method regardless of the results? Their method may be easier for the individual's, they might just like doing it this way. Happens all the time.
But morality is different then methods of crop production.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
What if the farmer chooses to use their method regardless of the results? Well his buisness will fail. What if someone wants to follow a moral framework that increasing suffering and reduces happiness? Well they will be suffering and less happy. Now of course their is a difference between producing crops and morality but the similarity is that each produces either desired or undesirable consequences. And these consequences are not dependent on the individual but instead on results from reality.
KT45 2 years ago
But there are different methods due to different climate, and soil composition. There just isn't one way to grow a corn row. But if that applies to morality, then telling a lie, cheating and stealing is justifiable.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
No this is not so. If Bob gave you a book on how to grow corn yearly and Steve gave you a book on how to grown corn yearly which do you follow? Well you follow what gives you the best results. Now within each book there will be different problems a farmer has to deal with for how to grow the crop but the method is the whole book. In morality there are different problems as well. Should I lie/steal etc. Each is a different problem. The best method for dealing with each one is what one ought to do
KT45 2 years ago
Also I could ask you the same question. What if someone wants to use their method instead of God's method regardless of the results? Well in a christian's worldview they will go to hell. There is a similarity to what I'm saying as well. If someone doesn't want to follow a moral framework that has the best chance of yeilding the best results, then their is a higher likelyhood that they will not be happy and suffer more just like the christian believes a person who is a sinner will suffer in hell
KT45 2 years ago
Because it's as you said a higher "likelihood", but that higher likelihood isn't absolute, nor can anybody accurately put a percentage to it and many a times people can get away with it.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
Just to clarify, without God their is only chance or "likelihood" of suffering under a different moral framework. With God who has absolute 100% authority, there is no chance of not suffering if you don't follow the Biblical morals and trust in Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins. Many time's people can get away with not paying consequences when they don't follow man's law. God says 'vengeance is mine' so there will be a judgment day in which all are held accountable who don't follow Jesus.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
Not necessarily. Suppose a murder/rapist a week before death row feels deep down that they need forgiveness. A pastor gives them their prays the prayer of salvation and they pray sincerely to god to forgive him of his transgressions. All his sins will be washed away and he will not suffer. However if a heathen born in sin nature gives to the poor, helps his friends and makes peace with his enemies and dies he will suffer unlimited torment. cont.
KT45 2 years ago
(cont) Remember the prisoner at Jesus' side on the cross? He was a sinner but despite his immoral life god let him into heaven for just believing. The point is that there is a strong chance under the christian framework that if you don't follow biblical morals but later in life trust in jesus to forgive your sins then you are not punished. Accountability is then underminded for you are not held accountable for how moral you are but instead what you believe in your heart when you die.
KT45 2 years ago
KT45--Nobody is perfect. Without the heart change that can only come from accepting Jesus Christ as Savior, not your good works. Only Jesus Christ fulfilled all that God requires in every way possible, so that trusting in Jesus to forgive you is what is required for salvation to enter Heaven, and then your good works that follow glorify him, because faith without works is dead being alone and it's not a license to sin.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
JCD, I'm not saying being a christian is a license to sin. I am saying that you have no idea if someone will be punished for their wrongdoings. Do you know for a fact that Hitler will get punished for what he did? You cannot give a definite yes or no. All you can give is a hypotheical. If hitler recognized he was a sinner and accepted Jesus and asked for forgiveness before he died then he won't get punished. If not he is in hell. In my opinion this underminds accountability.
KT45 2 years ago
I'd also like to note that your argument about accountability says nothing about the epistemology of moral facts. Something can be right or wrong despite whether or not someone catches you. Its like a child doing math homework that doesn't have to be turned in and saying that all of my answers are right because no one is going to grade my paper. What is important is showing an objective, normative moral framework.
KT45 2 years ago
@KT45 But the child doesn't have to turn in their homework, so why would the kid mention anything about their answers being right? Also, answer to homework being right, doesn't have the least bit to do with morality, since their homework doesn't have to be turned-in in the first place.
timcp1 1 year ago
@KT45 Who says there is any moral facts anyway? To you maybe, not to someone else. And of course, no one is going to grade the childs' paper, because as in your own scenario: It doesn't have to be turned in.
JCDBenjamin 1 year ago
@KT45 According to a materialist, once you die, it is as it were before you were born. That's zero accountability. But yet they don't know either, so that's their hypothetical. "If not 'he is in hell'" Being in hell is accountability.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
Well, the Bible makes no mention of Hell anyway.
There's Sheol (the grave), and Gehenna (the "Valley of Hinnon", which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem). It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there was always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation were thrown there to be destroyed. It was a real place, for bodies.
That's about it. Hell was made up by the Church. Forget about it.
taicleis 1 year ago
@taicleis Numbers 16:33
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
So they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into Sheol: and the earth closed on them, and they perished from among the assembly.
Refers to death. Not hell.
taicleis 1 year ago
@taicleis And the earth closed in on them. Hell is always referenced to being in the center of the earth, the pit.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
You've got it backwards. Look up some info on Gehenna (for example).
All of the passages that are thought by modern fanatics to refer to hell are in fact just poorly-translated references to the grave, corpse pires, and death.
There is no explicitly stated Hell in the Bible. It was created centuries later by fanatics who were influenced by Hades (from another religion), and as it caught on translations began to imply it.
According to true, accurate Christianity, there is no Hell.
taicleis 1 year ago
@taicleis
I majored in Exegesis (interpretive study of the Bible), and I noticed this exact same thing! All of the original Scripture says nothing about a fiery afterlife. In fact, all of the places in Scripture that today are read as 'Hell' were originally about death, annihilation, and basically the passing away of the soul.
While the Bible does teach us the path to eternal life, it does not tell us that the alternative is Hell. It teaches us that the alternative is, well, nothing at all.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss Read Luke 16:20-25
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
That's a parable, written by a Greek-speaking Syrian who was culturally steeped in the Greek mythological Hades. In fact, most translations of those verses say 'Hades'. Not hell, not afterlife, but Hades. It's a story with a lesson, steeped in non-Christian cultural myths.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@taicleis True Christianity is Jewish. Jesus is Jewish. I'm a Jew who believes in Jesus, There is no explicitly stated hell. Read Luke 16:20-25 there is indeed a place of torment. My Bible is from Ben Chayyim > Daniel Bomberg. Also read: Psalm 9:17, Psalm 16:10, Psalm 55:15.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
The Luke verse is a parable, written by a Greek-speaking Syrian who was culturally steeped in the Greek mythological Hades. In fact, most translations of those verses say 'Hades'. Not hell, not afterlife, but Hades. It's a story with a lesson, steeped in non-Christian cultural myths.
And all of the Psalms you mentioned reference death and the grave, not Hell.
Hell was introduced by the Greeks; it is based on Hades.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheJeiss I could say the same about you. The problem is Revelation 21:8
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
timcp1 1 year ago
@TheJeiss It's not a parable. Nobody uses fire to represent death, much less a death of nothing. So how are you going to try and explain away Revelation 21:8
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
Yes, we do use fire to represent death. We use it to represent destruction, and permanent annihilation. It represents being utterly removed from existence. Ashes to ashes. Burning books. Incineration.
Gehenna, a valley where the dead were burned (cremation), was often used to represent death and annihilation. The fires were kept perpetually burning.
Cremation. Even your earthly remains will be destroyed. A second death.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
Comment removed
timcp1 1 year ago
@TheJeiss Not with regard to eternity. Wailing and gnashing of teeth isn't due to annihilation. Mark 9:44
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched: the pires at Gehenna were kept constantly burning. It was also a garbage heap.
The literal translation of this verse comes out more as "In that place, worms never die, and the fire is never put out." The worm, that devours (and therefore destroys) is also a reference to the putrid, worm-infested grave of Gehenna.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary: GEHEN'NA,n. [Heb. ge-hinom, the valley of Hinom, in which was Tophet, where the Israelites sacrificed their children to Moloch. 2 Kings 23.10.] This word has been used by the Jews as equivalent to hell, place of fire or torment and punishment, and the Greek word is rendered by our translators by hell and hell-fire. Matt.18.9. 23.15.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary: 2. The place of the dead, or of souls after death; the lower regions, or the grave; called in Hebrew, sheol, and by the Greeks, hades. Ps. 16. Jon.2.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
See my below comment, and note the 'Hades' part. Hades existed long before Hell was invented. It is not the original meaning of this word.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@timcp1
This is kind of my point. It's just a translation choice. the word originated not as a place of eternal torment, but a sacrificial and burning site, for the salvationless. It only became understood as 'Hell' at a later time, after the influence of the idea of Hades.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss There is no way that Lazarus being in a place of comfort while the rich man was in torment is a parable about nothing after life though. The guy not only wanted something to drink, but also wanted his brothers to know about the place so they wouldn't go there too. That's the exact opposite of nothing after death.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp
It's a parable - poetic, symbolic and influenced by the author's Syrian-Greek culture. It has a deep, meaningful message - but it's not a factual account of someone going to Hell. That would really be an odd thing to write, if you think about it.
And it's interesting how such a huge part of the modern Christian religion is based on a bad interpretation of a few lines tucked away in such a big book. If we were going to Hell, there would be a LOT more about it in there, one would think.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss But it's your assertion that there is nothing after you die. If this were true, then there is no reason to give a parable about someone actually being in hell.
Hell is mentioned at least 23 times throughout the New Testament not just in the book of Luke.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
MOST of those mentionings are very, very clearly mistranslations of the grave annihilation, or other such symbolic references to eternal death. The remainder are somewhat less clear, but once put into a cultural and literary context they, too, cease to point to a place of eternal torment when properly translated.
And that's where Hell came from. People who already had a 'hell' (Hades) when they converted assumed that these references to the grave were about their mythical underworld.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss Well, that's what it comes down to then is your source. If you bring up mistranslation, that's a bit harder to prove. Since the originals aren't readily available for comparison. The sources I read from the Bible come primarily from this line Antioch>Ben Chayyim>Daniel Bomberg
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
Well, it's really less about translation than it is the gradual shift away from the intended, original meaning. Here I quote another scholar on the subject:
"The ancient Hebrews had no idea of an immortal soul living a full and vital life beyond death, nor of any resurrection or return from death. Human beings, like the beasts of the field, are made of "dust of the earth," and at death they return to that dust (Gen. 2:7; 3:19)."
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@timcp1
(continued) "The Hebrew word nephesh, traditionally translated "living soul" but more properly understood as "living creature," is the same word used for all breathing creatures and refers to nothing immortal...All the dead go down to Sheol, and there they lie in sleep together — whether good or evil (Job 3:11-19).
In fact, the concept of Hell descends from the Hades, which the Greeks substituted for 'Sheol'. They changed it from 'nothingness' into 'the underworld'.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss Job 11:8
It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
It actually translates to 'Higher than the heavens and deeper than the grave." in Hebrew. The heavens refers to the endless, infinite sky. The Hebrew here for 'Hell', once again, was changed from 'Sheol'.
Again, the original Bible does not have Hell. It doesn't even really have a Heaven per se, but at a later point after Christ promised a better world for those who lived the way he proposed, it was interpreted as such.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss Anyone can call mistranslation.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
Of course, anyone can call anything - I could call a red apple blue... but it's clearly red.
What I'm talking about is a clear, obvious error. The meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek is not in any way ambiguous. I'm not 'calling' it a mistranslation. It is one.
Translating Sheol as Hell, and translating 'the heavens' as 'Heaven' are just wrong. It's plain as day.
It's like saying that a cemetery is filled with 'Hells', and that NASA explores the 'Kingdom of Heaven'. Wrong.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss But the Bible I use goes through this line: Antioch>Ben Chayyim>Daniel Bomberg. In which case it is translated Hell. Your sources obviously does not, and I think those translators are far more expert than you and whoever or whomever you're referring to. I think your understanding of exactly what goes on in hell is due to your mistranslation.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
No, the Antioch translation has the exact same problem as the Alexandria one, for the exact same reason.
I don't have an understanding of 'what goes on in Hell', because I understand that there isn't one. Not according to the original Scripture, anyway. It just doesn't fit. For instance, "If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there" (Psalm 139:8) doesn't really make a lot of sense if we define 'Sheol' as 'Hell'. Yet they did so in many places, for their own Hellenistic reasons.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss It makes perfect sense, you do not want your soul to go to Sheol, read Psalm 16.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
But the Bible tells us that all people go to Sheol. Good, bad, all of us. And that Sheol has God's presence in it, every bit as much as the heavens.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss You might if you don't confess Jesus as Messiah the Son of God. I'm a Jew who believes Jesus is indeed the Messiah, the Son of God. So I won't go down to Sheol.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
Oh, and regarding my 'source'... I don't have any one source. I look at all lineages and give them all equal consideration based on whence they came. For instance, one would think a modern, direct translation from an original Hebrew scripture would be a little closer to the intended meaning than, say, something translated to Greek first - especially by such politically motivated people as those who did. And don't forget that the Greeks already HAD their ideas about the afterlife first.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss I believe the Hebrews existed before the Greeks. That's found plainly in the Bible. The way a Hebrew would understand something and the way someone would understand the Hebrew in English are two different things, that's why you must be an expert in both. Noah Webster understood over 12 languages including the Hebrew and Greek, he made not only his own Dictionary but also translated scripture and his Bible isn't any different from what is found in a King James Bible. Now he's an expert.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
His Bible was a REVISION OF the King James Bible.
Look, it's really really simple. There is no disagreement over this, really - the decision to interpret these passages as being about Hell wasn't made by people who knew their original meaning. It was made quietly, in the early stages of what became the Church, and nobody knew better.
Today, it's been that way for so long that few people realize it's all based on a Greek myth. But it is. They even wrote it as HADES in some texts!
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss You don't think he had access to the same documents as the translators of the King James Bible? Sheol, Hell, the pit, it's all the same words that describe the same meaning. God has the ability even in the OT to "save" the pious out of Sheol, not leave them there. That's who Jesus went and spoke to when after he was crucified and went into the center of the earth for three days. Those who were there during the time Noah was preparing the ark, the disobedient ones (1 Peter 3:18-22)
timcp1 1 year ago
@TheJeiss You don't think he had access to the same documents as the translators of the King James Bible? Sheol, Hell, the pit, it's all the same words that describe the same meaning. God has the ability even in the OT to "save" the pious out of Sheol, not leave them there. That's who Jesus went and spoke to when after he was crucified and went into the center of the earth for three days. Those who were there during the time Noah was preparing the ark, the disobedient ones (1 Peter 3:18-22)
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
It doesn't matter if he did or didn't. his intention wasn't to rewrite. It was to revise the KJB as a literary work.
Hell and Sheol only have the same meaning in the sense that when you see 'Hell' in today's Bible, you can know that it used to only refer to Sheol or Gehenna. So basically, NOT an eternal torture chamber.
I searched youtube for a short video to sum some of this up. This one isn't bad:
watch?v=X4y6hpC1hgA
Just paste that after youtube.com
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss Look up the word: "Sheol" in the Jewish encyclopedia, it is written, that God has the power to save the pious from Sheol. So obviously, the non-pious then would not be saved.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
That's a different matter entirely! But to be brief:
The literal meaning of this is that God has the power to save people from the grave, or death. In other words, to give eternal life (eg. Jesus).
The important point that I am making with all of this is that clearly, the typical "Churchianity" Hell does not exist, according to the Bible. There is no indication whatsoever of a fiery place of torment after death. It's just not there.
We can discuss eternal life, sure. But Hell is out.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss How would one determine what is literal and what is parable? When neither the word literal or parable is never mentioned? In which scriptures are you using that you can assert that hell does not exist?
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
Well, for instance - how all people regardless of righteousness (Job 3:11-19) pass into Sheol, which is described as near-nothingness, in which only a shadow of one's former self remains (Ps. 88:10).
In the third chapter of Job, Sheol is even seen as a welcome ESCAPE from pain and suffering. If Sheol were Hell, this wouldn't be.
There was no Hell to speak of until ANOTHER religion added it in when they assimilated. They added 'Hades' - a corruption, not in God's true word.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss You mentioned Jesus though 3 days ago, and that's what Jesus said in Matthew 13. If you're saying it was added, how would you know? Going by what?
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1
It wasn't 'added' that Jesus said such things; what was 'added' was the currently understood meaning.
The Greeks understood what Jesus said in Matthew 13 as a reference to Hades, but it wasn't. Firstly, it was a parable, and secondly, the references to throwing people into a blazing furnace are about Gehenna - a reminder to Jews about sacrificing their children with fire. It illustrates a vivid point he was trying to make about the Jew's understanding of righteousness and punishment.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@timcp1
So again, when I say 'added', for the most part I mean 'altered'. Jesus did talk about people being cast into a fire.
This was to evoke the disgust and fear that they knew all to well at the hands of Molech at Gehinnom, when they had begun to idolize the Law. It was a blatant reference, a slap in the face if you will.
It could be likened to telling Islamic extremists that one day they will all be thrown into an exploding skyscraper if they keep up their ways.
TheJeiss 1 year ago
@TheJeiss And Yeshua saying: There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth? Just what? Poetry? Imagery? All of the above? Anything to explain away the reality of an afterlife of torment and separation before G-d?
timcp1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KT45 A materialist will often announce as was mentioned before that once you die, "it is as it were before you were born." That's zero accountability. But yet they don't know either if death will be that way, so that's their hypothetical. "If not 'he is in hell'" Being in hell is far more accountability then experiencing nothing upon death. That's your hypothetical too to say that "If Hitler recognized he was a sinner" since he committed suicide instead.
JCDBenjamin 1 year ago
@KT45 What you believe in your heart is seen as morally acceptable. As a new believer you just repented of every wrong doing in your life and were given forgiveness. Otherwise, the ultimate accountability is death and hell.
timcp1 1 year ago
@KT45 The prisoner at Jesus side still had to die the death of those being crucified though. The heathen born with a sin nature who gives to the poor, helps his friends and makes peace with his enemies does so because it is God who wrote it on his heart. The fact the guy isn't perfect and doesn't repent will lead him to reject God. But if he does what is in Romans 10:9 and turns from those imperfection ways and acknowledges it is God alone who is just, he will be saved.
JCDBenjamin 1 year ago
Comment removed
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
JCDBenjamin, believers can just do what they want and then ask forgiveness. Also, they can martyr themselves thinking they will have a special place in heaven. An atheist would not give up their one shot at life to kill other people. An atheist will not screw up they relationships with the people around them just to steal something. It is the promise of an afterlife that makes believers do evil things that an atheist would never do.
ndyt 2 years ago 4
ndyt, "believers can just do what they want and then ask for forgiveness." Isn't Biblical, you can't find that being condoned by Jesus Christ anywhere in the Bible.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
JCDBenjamin, the bible says that Jesus forgives all sins without conditions, doesn't it? That means you can do what you want and Jesus will forgive you.
ndyt 2 years ago
This is from the King James Bible
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
From Matthew ch. 24 v. 45-51
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
JCD, and here is a quote that backs up my claim: And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man (aka, Jesus) will be forgiven. (Matthew 12:31-32)
Of course the bible is so contradictory that a quote can be found to back up just about any motive, which is a good reason to throw it in the trash.
ndyt 2 years ago
Even if it didn't say that exactly, that is what is taught by "Christian authorities"
So you are 100% right in your observation.
Religion is a tool used to bypass and replace evolutionary conditioning enabling religious (and political) leaders to order self sacrifice for the glory of God!
Not something that evolution would ever have created as it goes against survival.
believerornot 2 years ago
@ndyt That's not true, "believers can just do what they want and then ask for forgiveness" is using Jesus as a license to sin, as it is written: Do not to use Jesus as a shield for sin.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1, show me where the bible says you can't sin all you want and then ask Jesus for forgiveness. Show me where the bible says there are circumstances where Jesus will refuse to forgive someone.
ndyt 1 year ago
@ndyt Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer in it?
Romans 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Hebrews 10:38
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Hebrews 10:39
But we are not of them who draw back to perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
timcp1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timcp1 Galatians 5:13
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
timcp1 1 year ago
@timcp1, and what is it you think these quotes mean? I don't get much meaning from them. "if any man draw back" Does that mean if you sin you can't ask for forgiveness again? Forgiveness only works once? Is that what you are trying to tell me these quotes mean?
ndyt 1 year ago
@ndyt To draw back is it to fall back into sin again and if that continues then the Holy Spirit of God will have no pleasure to be in such a person. Romans 6:15 is very specific when Paul asks: Should we sin because we are no longer under the law (which God gave to Moses) but are under grace (grace is through his Son Jesus Christ)? God forbid. So we aren't to be hypocritical in thinking "well I'm forgiven so I'll sin it up".
timcp1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndyt Galatians 5:13
For, brethren, you have been called to liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
timcp1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndyt Galatians 5:13
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
timcp1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndyt Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
timcp1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndyt Galatians 5:13 For, brothers, you have been called to liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
timcp1 1 year ago
@ndyt "show me where the bible says you can't sin all you want and then ask Jesus for forgiveness."
Romans 3:31 Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law.
ardeasofdentarg 1 year ago
@ardeasofdentarg, "the law" here refers to "the old law" which is the old testament laws, the Jewish laws, which most christians don't follow, even though Jesus says, over and over, including this very quote, that the old law must be obeyed. Here is a clearer quote: Matthew 5:18-19
ndyt 1 year ago
@ndyt lol you dont know the bible very well do you?
ardeasofdentarg 1 year ago
@ardeasofdentarg, I hope that is sarcasm because I know it better then you do if you think Jesus isn't talking about the old law in Matthew 5:18-19 and Romans 3:31
ndyt 1 year ago
@ndyt You would also know circumcision is one of these laws. Paul spends some time on this subject in Romans because some of the Jewish Christians were telling the gentiles that they needed to be circumcised. You would also know in Chapter 3 Paul is talking about sin and forgiveness of sin by Faith in Christ. Paul closes this chapter with v.31 explaining even though we are forgiven by faith we still must keep Gods commands. in fact was can only do this by faith.
ardeasofdentarg 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndyt Galatians 5:13
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
timcp1 1 year ago
KT45,
Good video: Nice, simple, and it eloquently describes the origins of morality.
harris3810 2 years ago
great video.
gskowal 2 years ago
Saying what's on every intelligent atheist's mind. Excellent!
caligulaincarnate 2 years ago 3
morality come from bananas...
Nades129 2 years ago 2
If there were no bananas would there be no morality? What if they didn't have a pull tab...
MelvinScout 2 years ago
I couldnt see a world with morality and without bananas. Its just not that possible
Nades129 2 years ago
Indeed... the real atheist nightmare = no bananas
daddyleon 2 years ago
great vid
LBTennis 2 years ago
That is a very good analogy and theory, it makes a lot of sense. Trust me man don't regret posting this.
nathanomgnathan 2 years ago 3
i haven't found holes.
except the complexity of morality and differences in cultural perceptions of morality may bring about problems in your theory.
other than that this is basically what makes sense to me too.
good vid! great etiquette!
DanEVonDoom 2 years ago
Wow....that made a hell of a lot of sense...I never really thought about it that way.
1awesomemans1 2 years ago 5
i'm sick of this bullshit false dichotomy. morality derrived from god or nihilism. what people don't realize about it, whatever side they take, is that they both make a case against morality because they both take for granted that morality is beyond our rational understanding.
fede2 2 years ago
5 stars, nice video... keep it up dude!
chandmusic 2 years ago
Intellectual power is what a Lawyer has over you in the court room; its what a Judge has when he gives a sentence. Its what Politicians have when they write the laws that people must follow.
JCDBenjamin 2 years ago
Ummm, nope. No Gods. It's not that hard to grasp.
4me2cclearly 3 years ago
An ant colony works together to a greater goal without having to be told to do so by a higher power. Do you think the ants avoid killing their fellow drones because Jesus told them its wrong? No, its cause they innately know though evolution, that in order to survive as a species they have to work together. In the bible itself, jews climbing Mt. Sinai somehow knew not to kill eachother BEFORE encountering jesus. How could that be if jesus is the root of morals? Simple: morality is innate.
manhunt48 3 years ago
God is the root of morals, Jesus is the son of God. God wrote morality in the hearts of man. I go by what I know, I don't know if ants have free will, but I do know humans have free will. And that is what morality pertains to is between humans.
timcp1 3 years ago
"God is the root of morals" well he's not very good at showing, he makes hitler look like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi according to your old testament. if you get your moral compass from the Bible, you are lacking important components in your brain that produce feelings of empathy and remorse. You might be a sociopath, I would have someone do some tests, you could end up being very harmful to society.
manhunt48 3 years ago
Some ant colonies enslave other ants, and yet atheist's always try to say that it is condoned in the Bible. So if ants do it, does that justify enforced slavery as just? You can't always learn from the animal world, they don't call it survival of the fittest for nothing, and refer to mother nature in documentaries as "unforgiving", glory to God that Jesus is.
timcp1 3 years ago
"Some ant colonies enslave other ants" yes so?
"atheist's always try to say that it is condoned in the Bible" a fool can see is does
"So if ants do it, does that justify enforced slavery as just?" so wait, ur saying if the bible isn't real, we need to behave like ants?, y not go all the way & start shitting everywhere
i was giving an example of how morality doesn't require the bible & shown all over nature, our minds are better (certain aspects) then other animals, we should behave as such
manhunt48 3 years ago
Morality requires a God, otherwise any action is justifiable. And the day you tell someone a one action is moral or right over another, you've made yourself a hypocrite, because God does the same thing in the Bible and yet you act like you're a moral compass. God is the creator of morality itself.
No we don't behave like ants if the Bible isn't real, if the Bible isn't real, and there is no absolute morality, then each individual can justify any action.
timcp1 3 years ago
"Morality requires a God" read my 2 comment and it proves you wrong.
"otherwise any action is justifiable." the bible/quran justify genocide i think i need say no more. "And the day you tell someone a one action is moral or right over another you've made yourself a hypocrite" no, because we each have moral standards, even though you only follow yours out of fear from a spectral tyrant, and to buy your way into his happy land.
manhunt48 3 years ago
What Biblical ch. verse specifically for genocide?
So if everyone has their own moral standards and genocide being one of them, then genocide would be just? You're making yourself a hypocrite by saying no. Because others could say the same about your moral standards.
In the end, in reality, it is might equals right. It's that simple. That is why there is a God, because no group of people can do their will without exerting their might over others for their will to be done.
timcp1 3 years ago
Argumentum ad baculum
KT45 3 years ago
And who, or what gives you the authority to say which type is fallacious or non-fallacious? Who says you're a moral compass, when you condone prostitution and many such things that currently go against American law? That's really the point, you say that your logic is right, so does the Judicial system about theirs? What is the tiebreaker? The force that is able to make their logic law over yours. That's just reality.
timcp1 3 years ago
There seems like there is a lot you don't understand about logic. Saying things like force determines who is right shows your reasoning is fallacious (Argumentum ad baculum) Asking what authority lets me say what is fallacious shows a misunderstanding with fallacies. A while back you said "A=A, Might=right" showing misunderstanding in the law of identity. But hey it's okay I'm still learning as well
A good book to start with is "Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking" by D.Q. Mci