I love it when you HitchSlap dem' christians wit' there own book.-
The three tennents of religion are: Submit. Obey. Do Not Question. Easy to prove. Look at the stupid responses from the faithful. "Faith is the surrender of reason". -Hitchens.
remember how you don't like how people judge you about being, whatever the fuck you are?? but your always so willing to judge other people in ALL of your videos?.... doesn't make sense to me
Zinnia now that you are adding background music and fashion to your videos, any chance you could treat us with a baddass leather jacket? Just a humble request.
only flaw i see in this logic is that the bible says that god never changes. god only kills people over sins because the wages of sin is death. Adam and Eve died spiritually not physically which that verse might be talking about (physically) though i don't know as i have never read the verse and the serpentine lied because he said eating of the tree would make them equal to God but in actuality it made them less then they had started out. even if they do know more.
I'm a Christian & agree with most of what you said. James 14:7 says, "To him who knows what is right and does not do it, to him it is sin." If you dont truly believe what youre doing is wrong, then youre not sinning, but if youre convicted by your conscience that your not doing whats right, then it would be sin for you. As long as you have a clear conscience when you die you'll go to heaven, but you must repent for anything you did even though you believed it might not be right, or hell awaits.
@ConfederatePatriot Go ahead and kill homosexuals and people who work on saturday. It is a commandment of your god, and it must be followed, as it is still valid, since god never changes his mind.
@camilocuesta Every persons judgement will come after they die. Life on earth is just the test. Until then we are to love everyone as a person. (Their choices are another story)
@ConfederatePatriot Exactly, god is testing you. You are not obeying god's commandment to kill homosexuals. You must do it no matter what other people will think, because it is on the bible.
@ConfederatePatriot Everything in the bible is specifically assigned for the government of the tribe of Israel in the bronze age. None of that nonses aplies to us, in the xxi century.
2. You don't seem to understand God's justice. The reason people were executed in the Old Testament is because they had committed sin (which is the embodiment of imperfection, corruption, and plenty of other icky sounding nouns) and that, as it says in Romans, the wages of sin is death. Therefore by commanding the Israelites to kill offenders, He was simply delivering His justice. If anyone killed someone else for their reasons, they wouldn't be as just.
@johnt3hbaptist that's a terrible argument. Why did he not just cleanse the world of sin? So I guess the next time you sin, I'm going to come to your house and smash you in the head wih a baseball bat.
But when Moses makes war on the Midianites (EXACTLY as commanded by God) he slaughtered them first in battle (OK) and then as helpless Prisoners.(NOT OK) Then Moses killed all the wives (WTF?- as God commanded), but decided it would be OK to keep the VIRGINS for Himself..!.(once again, as GOD commanded)
If God tells you who to kill, isn't he the 1 that knows everything? Therefore they aren't innocent - OR - he knows what happens after death. Did you forget about heaven?
Not all atheists are idiotic, but most of the 'objections' are. If God is God, then God is totally God. He knows who deserves what, & what waits after death.
The 'challenge' only makes sense if you found out God was just a really old man with no knowledge of heaven or judgment of souls
For your sake, I hope droll sarcasm isn't one of the new deadly sins. Well, if you can characterize anything negatively, then I guess we just need to accept your imagination - I guess - but why exactly? I forgot why your hubris is now the standard for judging morality of all creation(?) hmmm. Back to the drawing board for you I think.
"For your sake, I hope droll sarcasm isn't one of the new deadly sins"
I'm happy you found it droll, but sarcasm ISN'T one of the seven cardinal sins.
BUT If only Moses had shown more of the 'SEVEN CARDINAL VIRTUES'! In slaughtering the Midianites, he sure showed DILLIGENCE (Virtue #4) by killing so many defenceless men women and kids. But if only he'd shown a more PATIENCE (#.5) KINDNESS (#.6) CHARITY (#.3) or HUMILITY (#.7) then the killing could have been avoided.!
@AsDeadAsDillinger "BUT If only Moses had shown more of the 'SEVEN CARDINAL VIRTUES'! In slaughtering the Midianites, he sure showed DILLIGENCE (Virtue #4) by killing so many defenceless men women and kids. But if only he'd shown a more PATIENCE (#.5) KINDNESS (#.6) CHARITY (#.3) or HUMILITY (#.7) then the killing could have been avoided.!"
You are simply an idiot that amuses himself by inferring incorrectly what people try to teach you, though many of them are also stupid, and therefore what do you expect? Seems like you belong together with those you claim to hate.
@constructivereconcil Not sure how this: "and yet polemics seems to lock the major factions in to selfish pursuit of their own pet projects rather than trying to live up to their stated values."
is being lived up to by this: "You are simply an idiot that amuses himself by inferring incorrectly what people try to teach you, though many of them are also stupid, and therefore what do you expect? Seems like you belong together with those you claim to hate."
@moopism "Is there a requirement that I question you, or am I allowed to just comment to the public on your hypocritical bullshit?"
Requirement? The requirement is clarity if you expect any clarity from others. That is my suggestion. Why would you interpret that as a requirement? You didn't. You use brainless tactics of inferring ideas that you originate. You confuse yourself in the conversation while blaming others for it.
@moopism I forgot to say "thanks" because I would have otherwise forgotten about this trivial conversation and the fun it can be. I appreciate you reminding me to take time out from my hectic schedule of "great thinking."
Try not to show your being intimidated so easily when you grow up.
i dont understand why you waist your time putting up videos like this... I guess its just to get pissy reactions out of christians. but if all your doing is to try to provoke conflict out of another person, and this gives you a thrill then u should probably find something to do....because it looks like you havnt been out of the house in about 10 years
But can God be partly to blame for the David and Bathsheba story too? If God actually said he was ok with people sleeping around and didn't insist on marriage would that have even been an issue? Kind of a long shot but thought I'd put it out there anyways lol...
I've heard preachers like John Hagee state that don't kill, and don't murder are not the same. Killing in war is obviously sometimes neccesary to overcome stubbornly evil people like terrorists, otherwise we end up surrendering to their evil demands. But murder is when you kill someone for a sinful reason such as jealous coveteousness. Like the story of David and Bathsheba. David made sure her husband died in battle so he could sleep with her and not get found out.
@spook79 I would have to slightly disagree with you on this. I believe that if your life is being threatened, and you no other options, then killing is necessary. However, when you speak of terrorists, you didn't mention one important thing. Terrorists are following their deity. This is what this video talked about. In this video, ZJemptv talked about how many Christians believed that they were moral, when in reality they were just following their deity out of blind faith. See the resemblance?
Typically these days, you are probably correct but this is not the only definition of terror as a tactic. Terror is a feature of "total war" meaning that anything goes. At the root of the definition, is that fear is being used to attempt to influence the decisions of the target.
The only reason Western politicians use "terror" in their rhetoric is to make clear that the gloves are off in terms of response. Don't expect diplomacy.
@spook79 *continued from previous post* So what if Christians *god* told them to be terrorists, and if they did, they would reach eternal happiness? All of a sudden there becomes a conflict between your diety and your moral. In many cases, i belive the deity would win. Of course i can't speak for all christians, but I know many who would follow the path of obedience over moral...
@ian082jc I think that people sometimes just have to use common sense and the golden rule to determine what is moral and what isn't. People down here on earth can actually be accountable to one another and to society as a whole, unlike God who has no accountability since he isn't here physically. If the muslim God truly thinks that terrorism is an acceptable way of life: then that God is clearly a violent, immoral pain in the arse to society and should be treated as such.
@spook79 "I've heard preachers like John Hagee state that don't kill, and don't murder are not the same."
I don't speak for him, but if that is what he says, he certainly has a point. When a convict is put to death after trial, that is not called murder unless the trial was unjust somehow.
It sounds like he was making that point that God's commandments are about justice, not a superficial appearance of being totally beyond criticism, no matter how irrational that criticism is.
Yeah I have absolutely no faith left in the bible at all, and I never had or will have any in the quran, ever. Because they are hypocritical books just like stated in this video. How can the bible tell us to live by the golden rule and then also tell us to condemn gays for being different through no fault of their own? What if most of the world was gay, and straight people were considered as social aliens? I don't get it. One must discard the bible to be able to care about gay people properly.
Incorrect, Juvenile means activities of the young and/or childlike . If you had spent anytime reading religious texts you would know that these books quite obviously use abstraction. Children in general aren't to great at abstract thought. the ones who are tend to be considered precocious, or highly mature for their age; i.e. not juvenile. there for that is not a "FACT" because it is blatantly incorrect.
@timverma ahaha obviously its an exaggeration.....it would have served you better to critisize the other parts of my comments rather than focusing on the hyberbole i finished it with---its called going out with a bang ahaha...although the concept of religion is juvenile----the "red team blue team" essence of it---i believe this because its been told to me---the epitome of juvenility...
its also ironic that GOD himself actually orders moses to not let anyone touch the foot of Mount Sinai or they "SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH" specifically by arrow and stoning---so God decided to force his followers to break his own commandment before he even bestowed it upon them!!!!
funny how one of the commandment is "thou shall not kill" but you turn the page and moses orders his follower to slaughter their own brothers in the name of God (which BTW taking the lords name in honor of slaughter is vanity in its purest form--the ultimite way to "take the lords name in vain") so it sickens me how the the next couple of pages after the commandments in the bible have moses directly shitting all over his own gods commandments
God is really just another being from a type 3 or type 4 civilization doing mind fvcks to primitive humanoids.lol. Kinda like a science project. I do believe that there are advanced civilizations millions of years, if not, billions of years ahead of us and themselves could be playing "GOD"to insignificant "type 0" civilization like ours. Until I see them present themselves willingly to us, then I refuse to believe that they are playing the role of "god". Intelligent beings don't do stupid things
If God is infallible, then it doesn't matter how God changes his/her/its mind, as long as it's God, then it would be objective as soon as he/she/it deems it so.
I'm not a bible-humper, but I would suggest you should've at least answered the question instead of turning into a, "FUCK YOU! YOU'RE STUPID!" response.
Start a religion of your own. You think you're a god, you love to preach, and you could use the money. Bonus for us, make it homo, then you'll all die off in one generation and the world will be better off!! I bet if you ate a fruit from the tree of good and evil, you would deep throat a bananananana
2) …The analogy in the moral sphere would be the re-examining of a moral problem a number of times before arriving at a conclusion, entailing the sum of right plus wrong, divided by the square root of two. But we all know “the sum of right plus wrong, divided by the square root of two” has no meaning. So therefore the moral high ground that Christians take is non-existent.
1) Christians are flawed in their embracing of absolute morality. Their assertion that there are unquestionable moral laws unconsciously relies on Quantum Mechanics’ Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which stipulates that the more one knows of a particle’s position, the less one knows of its momentum, & vice-versa. This encapsulates for our time the loss of a moral compass, the difficulty of absolute judgments…
Christianity : The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree.
While I generally agree with the points in this video, you use fallacious reasoning near the beginning. A christian would have no qualms with the fact that Islam has their own morality. They would say that morality IS objective. The difference is, however, that they would simply say that it was the wrong one. Theists claim that atheists have no objective foundation. They would be happy to acknowledge that other theists do, even though they might disagree as to what that objective says.
I like to think that God is the founder of morality and not the developer of morality. If God had been the creator of morality then that would make him imperfect, since he would have chosen actions before they had any meaning to them. This would have made him a random God. It's only by him looking at an already formed moral system with reasons why certain things are morally wrong that we keep God's perfection. Overall, God is then morally perfect, so anything he states will be morally correct.
And things that don't line up with our morality we tend to say ''God is just a blood thirsty tyrant''. If his actions aren't up to his/her standards they call him evil.
I love your arguments. This god's thoughts and opinions about an issue is just as subjective as mine or yours. What makes this god's opinions objectively true? Being smarter or more powerful doesn't make a thing objectively true.
It's amazing how some people can't shut-up on subjects they know nothing about. The Bible doesn't say not to kill it says do not spill innocent blood, she it even shows the word murder.God did not promise to never again cleanse the earth ,He said He would not use water to do it Gen9:11. Am I to understand that Adam and Eve are still alive, my Bibles say he diedGen5:5. What I see is some nut telling me I must follow its beliefs or I'm wrong ,HYPOCRITE.
@daddyg321 The Moabites and medianites were innocent but God sanctioned and commanded Moses to kill them. Also the original translation for 'rasah' is kill, but a few ppl think its should be 'murder'. But if even ZJ is wrong about the translation all that proves is that the commandement itself is 'objectionable' because the bible sanctions spilling innocent blood regardless of what the word means. And if this doesnt fit its definition of murder thats just all the more disturbing
@1982mockingbird1982 I am constantly ORDERED by atheists to prove my claim,it seems it's your turn, prove those groups were innocent. As soon as I read of any other subject I will consider it a forfeit, I will read and reply no more. Then we can discuss your research on murder-kill, mine says different.
@daddyg321 I cant go thru them all but Ill stick to the Medianites. The reason they were targeted is bcoz they practiced their own religeous practices such as idolatry, all of which didnt infringe on anyones rights. Also the isralites from Moses's tribe were having sex with them apparently, again all of this was consensual so no-ones rights were infringed upon. Despite the fact these acts werent actually wrong, outside Gods standard of morality, they were the basis given in the Bible for....
@daddyg321 U sure it doesnt prove anything? Ur assertion was that the bible says not to spill innocent blood, numbers 31 proves the Bible, God and Moses(ironically the guy who recieved the 10 commandaments including thou shall not kill) not only endorsed but commited acts invovling spilling innocent blood. Why were the Medianites innocent? Bcoz religeous and sexual freedom are rights not sins and thus they did nothing wrong to provoke Moses slaughtering them. Now if you want to tell....
@daddyg321 Actually ignoring the proof Ive very explicitly presented, and trying to incinuate that I failed to present it, 'inidicates desperation' as well as dishonesty 'on your part'. You asserted the Bible says 'do not spill innocent blood' and the PROOF that ur sttmnt is incorrect is in Numbers 31 where God and Moses murder an entire community of innocent ppl called Medianites. Point blank. Is there sum confusion here as to what constitutes proof?
@1982mockingbird1982 Oh and I should correct myself. Im not denying outright that the Bible says 'do not spill innocent blood' Im just trying to prove that it condones and sanctions the spilling of innocent blood regardless of what it says in other passages.
@1982mockingbird1982 You have stated several things, but your stating is not proof, any more than me calling the grass pink would make it so. STILL NO PROOF,still on point one.
@daddyg321 Those 'things' are proof bcoz: Im trying to DISPROVE an assertion you made about WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. To do that all I need is content from the Bible that contradicts this assertion. Ive done this sucsesfully bcoz God Mosses slaugtering innocent Medianites DISPROVES your assertion that the Bible says 'do not spill innocent blood'. Its not my saying this that 'makes it so' its what the Bible itself says that makes it so.....
@daddyg321 I do not need to prove these events actually occured to disprove your claim because your claim is about what the 'Bible says' not what actually happened. So until u raise a point about my interpretation of the Bible or the term 'innocent' my proof is adequete. In this case you would be the one saying the grass is pink and Im not only saying its green, but Im also telling where you can find green grass to verify my claim yet you refuse to look and accuse me of not providing evidence
@daddyg321 Bcoz if they actually did something wrong, the Bible would have said so. The Bible did claim they commited sins, but these sins were that ppl in the community practiced idolatry or allowed Israelites to have sex with them. I dont consider excersing a right to religeous & sexual freedom a 'sin' just bcoz the Bible does as none of these infringe on anyones rights and therefore practing these things didnt render them guilty so they remained inncocent when Moses slautered them.
@daddyg321 (Read initial comment 1st...)I already exaplained all this b4. Now theres no no way for me 2 objectively prove my moral code is the right 1 and therfore my claim of them being innocent is correct however, I think there certain universal principles we share that may make it possible to resolve this. So if u state that u dont recognize a right to religeous and sexual freedom then Ill admit we are at an impass otherwise my 'proof' stands
@1982mockingbird1982 So if Christians make a claim they can't prove TO YOUR STANDARDS its false but atheists can say what ever they want and no proof is needed. That is all me and any undecided people need ed to be told .Thanks for the info. GOODBYE
@daddyg321Nice try, but sorry disorting logic wont work here. The standard is the same if not more lenient towards Christians. We just dont accept 'bcoz the Bible says so' as definative proof but with issues such as morality where there is no objective truth your stipulations about whats right and wrong are equally as valid as ours and its just a matter of agreeing on certain fundamental principles and using them as a mutually recognized base for deciding whats right and wrong
@1982mockingbird1982 You made a claim can you back it as you demand from Christians or are you a joke to be dismissed. By the way even other atheists would rather hear "because God said so" than" because the birdbrain said so". Proof it's what you demand, your standard.
@daddyg321 Thanx for conitinuing to respond. The truth is we never expect christians to provide OBJECTIVE proof to substantiate any assertions they make about morality bcoz we no this is not possible 4 either side. If u claim otherwise uv misunderstood the standard. We only moral assertions to be backed up by principles which can be debated and scrutinized on their own merit and thats what Im trying 2 do here(continue to next comment).
@daddyg321 (Read initial comment) So you are free to question the validity of my princple that 'consensual sexual activity and religeous expression are rights not sins' and if you dont disagree then my proof meets both our standards of what constitutes innocence as the 'sins' they were being slaugtered 4 didnt actually render them guilty. An athiest expects no higher standard from u PS Im not Athiest. The only time we expect objective proof is for issues like creation not issues of morality
@daddyg321 (Read previous 2 comments) Sorry to have to keep adding comment but r u asking me to prove that freedom of religeon and consensual sexual activity is a right?
@1982mockingbird1982 I'm asking for an atheist to hold himself to the standards he holds Christians. Are you telling us all Christians are held to an impossible standard, or that atheist are totally incompetent?
@daddyg321 I hope u read my previous 2 comments b4 posting this bcoz in them I made said that I think Im holding both to the same standard. No one has ever asked Christians to prove their morality is objectively correct bcoz we all acknowlege this is impossible as theres no objective truth to morality. The only time we expect objectivity is when discussing origins of humans or existence of God bcoz there is an objective truth to these matters. Hwvr ur question was regarding morality so I feel...
@daddyg321 ...the response Ive given has met the same standard I would expect u 2 meet. So 4 the last time, NO ONE IS HOLDING YOU TO A HIGHER STANDARD, at least not on this forum. Furthermore nothing in my previous comments indicates otherwise so I dont know where u got the idea that theres any double standard. If anything Im being held to higher standard now as Ive assumed the burden of proof 4 no reason and instead of invalidating my claims ur bringing more unfounded accusations
@daddyg321 So if you want to question the validity of my 'innocence' claim all u hav2do is state 'No ppl dont have a right to religeous freedom and consensual sexual activity' or bring new facts to the table. However if u dont dis-agree, then I have all the justification I need to say the basis on which these ppl were slaugtered was wrong and therefore 'innocent' ppl were killed. Also the standard you spoke of relates more to matters like 'creation vs evolution' not morality
It's interesting that you are buddhist, what made you go down that route? Just curious, what were you speaking with daddyg321 about? The Moabites right?
@Dunnization Axualy we were talking more about Medianites and that discussion's gone 4 like 60 comments:} As for my conversion, its a long story but 1 of the many reasons B & J's morality and worldviews appealed to me was that I felt they werent shaped by, or intended to further, human/self-interest. I also feel a relatively high concern for suffering is evident in the theologies and princples of B & J. Both these qualities appeal 2me bcoz Im concerned with issues such as wars and genocides
@daddyg321 ...me that apparently their practicing religeous and sexual freedom did justify the attack, or that Ive overlooked something else, then maybe ur assertion that Moses killing these ppl doesnt 'prove' ur statement the 'Bible says do not spill innocent blood' is incorrect has sum validity. Otherwise I think I have proven its an inccorect stmnt. PS sorry for constantly using multiple comments to respond its just difficult to convey all this within the word limit
@1982mockingbird1982 ....Moses to indistcriminately kill every man, woman and child(except for some virgin females) all of whom couldnt possibly have been guilty even by Gods standards(bcoz not all of them would have been having inter-ethnic sexual relations or practicing idolatry). I say these ppl are inncocent bcoz no-ones rights were infringed upon thru idolatry or consensual inter-ethnic sex, and I dont consider Gods oppinion and demands as overiding what I consider universal truths
@1982mockingbird1982 Still only your word as to every thing whole tribes did thousands of years ago,STILL NOT PROOF. At least Christians use texts that are supported by other texts and artifacts. Still no comment until then.
@daddyg321 You said 'At least Christians use texts that are supported by other texts and artifacts. ' Really? What other texts??? What other artifacts?? As an historian nothing in the bible can be verified by other civilisations, writings, or evidence. In fact not only is it unverifiable, archeology shows bible stories like jericho etc are totally false.
@daddyg321 Weve already been thru this. 1stly its not on my word, its on the Bibles word and apparently thats all I need bcoz as I said Im not trying to prove these events actually happened, but rather the Bible would condone them. I have researched the Medianites but it would be unfair on God and Christians 4 me 2 try and transmute that into the 'word of God' and its unnessary bcz ur assertion related only to what the Bible said, not what actually happened. I made this abundantly clear b4 &....
@daddyg321 ....Now Im concerned that I explicitly mentioned this b4 and u acknowleged that u didnt expect me to 'prove they happened' and yet u would raise this issue again without adding any new responses to counter my original assertions on the issue. Also im more concerned everytime I present counter arguments u change the subject without responding 2 or acknowleging them. Furthermore I would prefer that if u make any claims u would afford me the same courtesy of supporting them
@daddyg321 What r u waiting 4? Ur claim was the Bible 'doesnt condone spilling innocent blood so unless you can tell me what the Medianites were guilty of when their blood was spilled by God and Moses in Number 31, Ive countered that assertions sucsesuly. Like I said I dont need to prove these events actually occuredbcoz ur assertion was about what the bible says, not what actually happened and unless u counter my claim that the Bible was wrong to assign them guilt for practicing religeous &....
@daddyg321...sexual freedom, then my claim of them being innocnet at the time their blood was spilled stands. Disorting logic and pretending I havent done all this isnt going to help you
@1982mockingbird1982 So since it appears you claim to know what these people did and did not do thousands of miles away, thousands of years ago you should have no problem telling us all what we did this morning. Or not and prove you are a know nothing trying to build an ego from lines of typed self promotion.
@daddyg321 I dont no what these ppl did but I dont need to bcoz your claim, the claim I was trying to disprove, was about WHAT THE BIBLE SAID. All I need to show is that the Bible condones spilling innocent blood, not that ppl actually did it
Do not bother responding without answering the following question:
Was your initial assertion about what actually happened, or what is stated in the Bible?
PS Even tho ur ignoring previous posts, i apreciate that uv finally made ur critisms more specific
@daddyg321 You didnt answer my Question. As 4 urs Ill say it again, Medianites, Numbers 31, cant prove it happened but can prove the Bible said it did, my claim can fail if practicing 1's own faith and consensual sex is a crime. Since Ive repeatedly answered your questions and uve ignored every answer Id like u 2 answer the following question and if you fail to do so, as u did in the last comment, I will make that abundantly clear. Plz read my next comment for the questions...
Was your initial assertion sumthing like; 'The bible doesnt condone the spilling of innocent blood?'
Do you disagree that in Numbers 31 Moses, under Gods instruction, kills every living thing, except for virgin females, in Median bcoz few of them practiced 'idolatry' and let Israelites have sex with them
Do you think these ppl were guilty and innocent at the time? And why?
I have more followup questions but answer these 1st and well take it from there
@daddyg321 Thats funny...I came to the same conclusion based on your silence. I already answered your last question and I left you sum question to answer and Ive just been awaiting your reply all this time. Also I made it clear that if you failed to answer them in your next comment i would take it as an indication you realise there is something flawed in you argument so i guess this means u really cant defend your position. Ill repeat them fr you anyway in the next comment...
@daddyg321 Was your initial assertion that the bible does not condone spilling innocent blood?
In Numbers 25 and 31 did God and Moses spill the blood of the Medianites and Moabites?
Were the Moabites and Medianites innocent or guilty? And why?
This probably seems like daming evidence to you but its not, it is very possible to construct an argument they were guilty. & if u ignore these question for the 3rd time in row but ill take it as just another nail in the coffin of your argument.
@daddyg321 Ok this is the 3rd time in row uv failed to answer the questions I left! Are you not able to find them?
To repeat my answer to your question, their is no objective standard by which I can determine they were innocent but my belief is consensual sex,and idolatry arent crimes(unless they sacrificed sentient beings). Also its unlikely all the children and animals killed participated in sum alleged conspiracy or curse against the Israelites...(Im not finshed, read the next comment).
@daddyg321 So at the time their 'blood was spilled' by Moses, at the very least, most of them had done nothing wrong to be guilty of and were therefore innocent.
Now if there is sum part of this you disagree with then explain why it invalidates my 'proof' instead of simply accusing me of 'not proving they are innocent' and giving no exaplanation beyond that. Bcoz alot of this involves subjective moral reasoning you can challenge the idea's about guilt' and 'innocence' Ive presented..(Read on)
@daddyg321 ...Ive acknowleged my concept innocence is subjective, but you cant say it renders my 'proof' inadequete just bcoz of that. Its up to you to either challenge it or accept it for the sake of argument. This is the same fair and impartial standard most Athiests and normal ppl use. So dont tell me the proof Ive presented is inadequete without exaplaining why. And dont change the subective without 1st countering what Ive said in this comment. And answer the questions!
@1982mockingbird1982 "innocence is subjective" is that P.C. code for your full of it. you made a claim of innocence they are or aren't, you're full of it or you're not. You have offer nothing but the word of an egotist from thousnds of years and miles from the incident as support. AGAIN I WILL NOT MOVE TO ANOTHER POINT UNTIL PROOF IS SHOWN.
@daddyg321 The only part of my 'proof' thats objectively verifiable is that the Bible explicitly sanctions killing ppl for no other reason than members of their community practiced idolatry, inter-ethinic sex and allegedly cursed or conspired against his ppl. The only parts thats subjective is whether these acts actually rendered them guilty and thats for both of us to verify. So if you state that religeous freedom, consensual sex or guilt by association are crimes then we are at an impass....
@daddyg321 Otherwise you have no basis for saying what Ive presented is invalid. And we could easily have determined if they were innocent or guilty by now if YOUD ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS! But youve ignored them for the 4th time in a row.
So do you think inter-ethnic consensual sex or idolatry are crimes? Do you believe in guilt by association? If your answer to both of these is no then, in the absence of any other factors, youve agreed most of the ppl killed were innocent
@Dunnization I cant find the orignal comment I was responding to so I dont remeber exactly what I said. Im actually friends with Shock 2, believe it or not, and tho I suspect he may be a little dishonest when engaging in the discussions, I still think he's a nice guy. And Im actually not Athiest, Im an ex-Catholic who's now Jain & Buddist(i no its weird). I just happen to agree with Athiests on alot of issues :)
If you know it's weird being a Buddhist then why are you one? No offense but Buddhism doesn't stand up so well to scrutiny than christianity. Even Buddah didn't want to be worshipped, he knew he was no God. There are more manuscripts for Jesus Christ than any other person who has ever existed and history backs up his claims because they happened. If anyone altered the truth about the ressurection the apostles and other eye witnesses would have corrected it.
@Dunnization. I meant I expected u to find it weird I follow 2 religeons, Jainism and Buddism(B&J). I think they stand up quite well bcoz even if they arent in line with moral norms of a time, they never seem to cross the boundaries of whats considered moraly acceptable. Also they dont seem 2 contradict science 4 the most part. Buddha being humble and not elevating himself to the status of a God is more of a pro than a con 4 me. I havent responded to either comment in great detail but I can
What was your refute about the Moabites is what I wanted to know. How do you know these religions are the way to salvation or eternal life and how do you know you are right. Just because your religion or mine aren't always scientifically sound doesn't mean they are wrong. The only thing you need to ask yourself is, is it credible and am I right? It's not about what you or I believe but what is right.
@Dunnization I dont feel god or Moses had adequete justification for the 'genocide' against Moab, I can go into more detail. I dont care how well any of the religeons withstand scientific scrutiny, u actually inquired about that I was just answering. Axualy B & J can be far less 'rational' than Christianity in many ways. But as u said 'its about' 'what is right' which is why I chose them(They feel 'right' to me). Define 'credible'? I dont find them difficult to believe if thats what u mean
Semantics can be used to twist anything into what one "wants to hear" Charlatans, lobbyists, career politicians, and even lawyers have for hundreds of years used the means of Latin based languages, especially of the Anglo-Saxions, otherwise know as the English, to select what they want to interpret from anothers' testimony of a social matter.. Thus, WORDS CAN HAVE MANY MEANINGS.. SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND... whatever Delusion your looking for...
ZJ, your mental faculties do not fail you in creating interesting, albeit, strung together theories on theology. I believe you would be best served by studying the Bible more in depth. I don't say this in an attempt to persuade you to accept what is in the Bible as truth, but only to be able to understand that everything must be taken in context. Many interesting arguments can be whittled out of the loose piecing-together of text or spoken word. A degree in theology would make you dangerous!
@afbr2002 Finally, somone from the other team makes a good point! I agree ZJ we should be fair to the other side by making an effort to consider context and also avoid even leading others to generalise against and mischaracterize the whole group.
Still Ive read the most recent & politicaly corect editions of the Bible and Ive found its mostly this kind of disturbing, incriminating content. I feel popular Christianity cherrypicks the most redeeming things in there and puts it out of context
@1982mockingbird1982 Recent and PC translations, and/or transliterations, of the Bible are not going to be your best source for Biblical reference. The Bible was not meant to be PC. Any attempts to make it so, would fail; but discussions on the gathering together of ancient text to create a “complete” tome could start a different thread altogether. My main point is that, although it is understandably difficult to study the Bible when it is believed to be false or fiction, the type...
@1982mockingbird1982 of context needed in order to discuss the validity and truthfulness of the Bible can only come from years of personal research. Reading the opinion of another and then basing thoughts and beliefs on that opinion is merely selling yourself short. Like I said in my initial comment, many interesting theories can be created by loosely tying together bits of text out of context. The Bible is made up of multiple books that must be considered within the entire context....
@1982mockingbird1982 of the Bible as a whole. Consideration of the relationship of books from the Old Testament with those from the New Testament is a MUST. In order to fairly, and more importantly, properly discuss the Bible, research and context must be paramount.
@afbr2002 These r excellent points aand one thing thing I didnt factor into my assesment was detailed historical research. So u r 100% correct but my other point, which wasnt relevant to ur initial assertion, is that the body of beliefs and ideas constituting 'popular Christianity' is more biased and unobjective than anything ZJ asserts bcoz while ZJ is quoting directly from the Bible and interpreting the material as any reasonable person would, popular christianity cherry picks the....
@afbr2002 ...most redeeming parts possible(which are few and far in between) and takes them further out of context and interprets them in the most favourable way possible to create theology which isnt 'authentic' or at least may not reflect the true nature of the scource material. Still I no the content in the New Testament probably should have more wight than that in the Old Testament which means I could be wrong about this.
@1982mockingbird1982 This is going to sound like a sarcastic question, but honestly, it’s not. If “Popular Christianity”(PC) cherry picks, then what is the “unpopular Christianity”(uPC) doing? (To have one (PC) I assume there must be the other (uPC).) If PC’s goal is to promote its form of religious expression through favorable teaching, then I must assume that uPC’s goal is to denigrate or lessen its own credibility. By “Popular” do you mean “most recent forms of”, or are there measures by..
@afbr2002 Hehe, your right there is no standard by which 2 define PC, Im just refering to the most politicaly correct form that most ppl I no practice now. Just bcoz PC allegedly promotes the most attractive interpretaion to legitimise its belief system doesnt mean uPC is trying to the opposite. UPC could prioritise authenticity over political correctness. And Im not even saying thats the goal of PC, they could be picking the cherries they r most comfortable with rather than what others will lik
@1982mockingbird1982 which certain forms of Christianity are graded as socially acceptable/unacceptable? On the innocence of the people mentioned in Numbers, again context is extremely important. The determination of innocence is dependent upon WHO has set the rules of innocence and guilt. Within the context of the Bible that person would be God. The first four commandments given to Moses were directly related to the relationship between God and his creation. . More precisely, how His...
@afbr2002 When I said innocent I didnt mean by modern standards, I meant by my own. I acknowlege my moral standard may not be objective but no-ones is and part of this debate involves me trying to persuade others mine is 'right'. So I dont have to accept the rules of God for the purpose of discussion as its the very thing Im trying to scrutinise. This discussion wasnt about trying to prove Biblical morality doesnt comply with modern standards
@1982mockingbird1982 the only reason I continue to come back to context. I don’t mean to interject my personal beliefs into the discussion, or brow-beat anyone into changing their own opinion. Disproving something as grounded as the Bible is, would be difficult to do without taking bits of it out of context, as the “Numbers 31” theory does. When taken within the context of the Ten Commandments you see the guilt of the Midianites. I understand that the purpose of the discussion was....
@afbr2002 I agree that the Midianites, if they were present in our current society, would be allowed to express spiritualism/sexuality however they saw fit. But they were not. You recently directed a comment towards daddyg321 that read, “…the claim I was trying to disprove, was about WHAT THE BIBLE SAID.” In order to disprove anything, especially something as comprehensive as the Bible, you have to understand how everything within that subject works together. That’s really...
@afbr2002 I wasnt trying to prove the Medianites actions were acceptable by modern standards, I was only trying to suggest they were fundamental freedoms transcending any standard of morality using my only own oppinions as basis. I was suggesting the very standard, adopted within the context of the Bible was wrong, again this is something I cant objectively prove. To daddy321 I was asserting the Bible definition of innocence was wrong this can be done without considering context
@1982mockingbird1982 To clarify, God says no idol worshiping, M’s worship idols, God demands their destruction. Their guilt is predicated upon worshiping idols. It seems that our discussion has been about whether biblical morality is true or not. I think you would agree with me that this is a question with no concrete answer. Personal morality is just that, personal. If the decision of morality is based upon personal experiences or faith in a system greater than ourselves,....
@afbr2002 Yes I agree theres no such thing as objective morality but that doesnt mean we cant compare and discuss personal beliefs to see if we can agree on whether something in the Bible is moral or imoral. For example if we both agree that are entileded to religeous and sexual freedom regardless of the time and place in which they live, then we can agree God was wrong in the matter, otherwise we can continue debating why are viewpoints on such matter are correct
@1982mockingbird1982 We afford ourselves the freedoms you spoke of. The Israelites were governed by God himself, hence the Theocracy they ascribed to and the laws that governed said Theocracy.
@afbr2002 I personally dont believe its sumting we afford ourselves, I think these are inherent rights we are entitled to by default(this is subjective). Furthermore, only the I's were governed by God, the M's didnt sign up for such a theocracy so its no different from the Nazi's saying 'well we were governed by Hitler'. What characteristic of God renders his will more morally imperative than hitlers, is it the creation thing? Also, why havent u brought up the curses and conspiracies by the M's?
@afbr2002 Ok Ill agree without within the context of Bible and when adoting its standard of morality the Israelites and Gods actions are more than justified but when I look at this in context I still cant c the M's guilt, I can only see guilt on the part of god and Moses. Does looking at this in context mean I should also adopt any biases the Bible has that favor its concept of morality and justice? And the purpose of this discussion wasnt to prove God wrong by existing standards
@1982mockingbird1982 then one can be no more “right” than the other. I think you had it right when you said an attempt to disprove the Bible would have to be done with facts and in this case the facts don’t add up. Also your analogies get weaker and weaker as we go, comparing your parents to God and then Christianity to National Socialism falls into the “apples and oranges” category. LOL
@afbr2002 True, we will never no which standard is correct, but the purpose of the discussion is to agree on one or justify our own and this is very possible. If ur talking about the exchange between daddy and I then all the facts relating to what the bible said could be objectively proven but what it says is right or wrong needed to be debated
Morality has no value in christianity since their god died for their sins .
lahoucine66 2 weeks ago
Z.J Rocks!
I love it when you HitchSlap dem' christians wit' there own book.-
The three tennents of religion are: Submit. Obey. Do Not Question. Easy to prove. Look at the stupid responses from the faithful. "Faith is the surrender of reason". -Hitchens.
davian3 1 month ago
Great video. Faith is not a pathway to truth.
dkthg 1 month ago
wtf are you?
HeroicLegend9 1 month ago
@HeroicLegend9 wtf are you?
GuitarNoob101 1 month ago in playlist Religion
@HeroicLegend9 Zinna is an atheist.
That's all you need to know.
Chayraz2 4 weeks ago
remember how you don't like how people judge you about being, whatever the fuck you are?? but your always so willing to judge other people in ALL of your videos?.... doesn't make sense to me
PazDaMello 1 month ago
You all are coming from ignorance. Faith alone will tell you the truth when you all leave this earth.
johnny1973 2 months ago
I FUCKING LOVE YOU
MsAnna00 2 months ago 9
@MsAnna00
Eww...
MrExCon 1 month ago
Zinnia now that you are adding background music and fashion to your videos, any chance you could treat us with a baddass leather jacket? Just a humble request.
PlatypuSPawn 6 months ago
only flaw i see in this logic is that the bible says that god never changes. god only kills people over sins because the wages of sin is death. Adam and Eve died spiritually not physically which that verse might be talking about (physically) though i don't know as i have never read the verse and the serpentine lied because he said eating of the tree would make them equal to God but in actuality it made them less then they had started out. even if they do know more.
TheeCheeseBurgerBob 6 months ago
I'm a Christian & agree with most of what you said. James 14:7 says, "To him who knows what is right and does not do it, to him it is sin." If you dont truly believe what youre doing is wrong, then youre not sinning, but if youre convicted by your conscience that your not doing whats right, then it would be sin for you. As long as you have a clear conscience when you die you'll go to heaven, but you must repent for anything you did even though you believed it might not be right, or hell awaits.
ConfederatePatriot 6 months ago
@ConfederatePatriot Go ahead and kill homosexuals and people who work on saturday. It is a commandment of your god, and it must be followed, as it is still valid, since god never changes his mind.
camilocuesta 5 months ago
@camilocuesta Every persons judgement will come after they die. Life on earth is just the test. Until then we are to love everyone as a person. (Their choices are another story)
ConfederatePatriot 5 months ago
@ConfederatePatriot Exactly, god is testing you. You are not obeying god's commandment to kill homosexuals. You must do it no matter what other people will think, because it is on the bible.
camilocuesta 5 months ago
@camilocuesta That is not God's commandent. Thou shalt not murder is.
What you are referring to was specifically assigned for the government of Israel.
Though if our government made the punishment for homosexuality, death, people would choose to act in the ways that they were created for more easily.
ConfederatePatriot 5 months ago
@ConfederatePatriot Everything in the bible is specifically assigned for the government of the tribe of Israel in the bronze age. None of that nonses aplies to us, in the xxi century.
camilocuesta 4 months ago
@ConfederatePatriot God ordered the murder on hundreds of thousands of people in the bible, this god is really laughable .
camilocuesta 4 months ago
@camilocuesta dude god didn't wright it Jesus wrote it
newvagasbaby2 4 months ago
@newvagasbaby2 Aren't jesus and god the same person? The correct spelling is "write", not "wright" .
camilocuesta 4 months ago
1. You look very stylish, props.
2. You don't seem to understand God's justice. The reason people were executed in the Old Testament is because they had committed sin (which is the embodiment of imperfection, corruption, and plenty of other icky sounding nouns) and that, as it says in Romans, the wages of sin is death. Therefore by commanding the Israelites to kill offenders, He was simply delivering His justice. If anyone killed someone else for their reasons, they wouldn't be as just.
johnt3hbaptist 7 months ago
@johnt3hbaptist that's a terrible argument. Why did he not just cleanse the world of sin? So I guess the next time you sin, I'm going to come to your house and smash you in the head wih a baseball bat.
JRC3034 7 months ago
"Well, One day God says 'Thou Shalt NOT KILL"
Have you ever heard of due process? Don't kill anyone that doesn't need killing. Come on. You can't actually be serious about this question, are you?
It has always been about due process and justice. ALWAYS!
I'm just flabbergasted at how much mileage people get from this stupidity.
constructivereconcil 7 months ago
Well, One day God says 'Thou Shalt NOT KILL'
But when Moses makes war on the Midianites (EXACTLY as commanded by God) he slaughtered them first in battle (OK) and then as helpless Prisoners.(NOT OK) Then Moses killed all the wives (WTF?- as God commanded), but decided it would be OK to keep the VIRGINS for Himself..!.(once again, as GOD commanded)
He sounds like a real nice guy doesn't he.?
AsDeadAsDillinger 8 months ago
@AsDeadAsDillinger And also remember:
If God tells you who to kill, isn't he the 1 that knows everything? Therefore they aren't innocent - OR - he knows what happens after death. Did you forget about heaven?
Not all atheists are idiotic, but most of the 'objections' are. If God is God, then God is totally God. He knows who deserves what, & what waits after death.
The 'challenge' only makes sense if you found out God was just a really old man with no knowledge of heaven or judgment of souls
constructivereconcil 7 months ago
@AsDeadAsDillinger "He sounds like a real nice guy doesn't he.?"
For your sake, I hope droll sarcasm isn't one of the new deadly sins. Well, if you can characterize anything negatively, then I guess we just need to accept your imagination - I guess - but why exactly? I forgot why your hubris is now the standard for judging morality of all creation(?) hmmm. Back to the drawing board for you I think.
constructivereconcil 7 months ago
@constructivereconcil
"For your sake, I hope droll sarcasm isn't one of the new deadly sins"
I'm happy you found it droll, but sarcasm ISN'T one of the seven cardinal sins.
BUT If only Moses had shown more of the 'SEVEN CARDINAL VIRTUES'! In slaughtering the Midianites, he sure showed DILLIGENCE (Virtue #4) by killing so many defenceless men women and kids. But if only he'd shown a more PATIENCE (#.5) KINDNESS (#.6) CHARITY (#.3) or HUMILITY (#.7) then the killing could have been avoided.!
AsDeadAsDillinger 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AsDeadAsDillinger "BUT If only Moses had shown more of the 'SEVEN CARDINAL VIRTUES'! In slaughtering the Midianites, he sure showed DILLIGENCE (Virtue #4) by killing so many defenceless men women and kids. But if only he'd shown a more PATIENCE (#.5) KINDNESS (#.6) CHARITY (#.3) or HUMILITY (#.7) then the killing could have been avoided.!"
Were you there?
constructivereconcil 7 months ago
What whims?
Oh brother.
constructivereconcil 8 months ago in playlist Religion
Are you pre-op?
constructivereconcil 8 months ago in playlist Religion
You are simply an idiot that amuses himself by inferring incorrectly what people try to teach you, though many of them are also stupid, and therefore what do you expect? Seems like you belong together with those you claim to hate.
Or, get a life maybe?
constructivereconcil 8 months ago in playlist Religion
@constructivereconcil Not sure how this: "and yet polemics seems to lock the major factions in to selfish pursuit of their own pet projects rather than trying to live up to their stated values."
is being lived up to by this: "You are simply an idiot that amuses himself by inferring incorrectly what people try to teach you, though many of them are also stupid, and therefore what do you expect? Seems like you belong together with those you claim to hate."
Seems contradictory to me.
moopism 7 months ago
@moopism "Seems contradictory to me"
Is there a question you would like to ask?
constructivereconcil 7 months ago
@constructivereconcil Is there a requirement that I question you, or am I allowed to just comment to the public on your hypocritical bullshit?
MY point is that you CLAIM to be about civil discourse, but you fail to communicate in a civil manner.
All you came here to do was try to self aggrandize as some sort of "great" thinker by taking a shit on someone else's video.
No question necessary- you are quite apparent.
moopism 7 months ago
@moopism "Is there a requirement that I question you, or am I allowed to just comment to the public on your hypocritical bullshit?"
Requirement? The requirement is clarity if you expect any clarity from others. That is my suggestion. Why would you interpret that as a requirement? You didn't. You use brainless tactics of inferring ideas that you originate. You confuse yourself in the conversation while blaming others for it.
constructivereconcil 7 months ago
@moopism "MY point is that you CLAIM to be about civil discourse, but you fail to communicate in a civil manner"
You are certainly entitled to that opinion.
"All you came here to do was try to self aggrandize as some sort of "great" thinker by taking a shit on someone else's video."
You understand me better than anyone, including me? Who's this "great thinker?" It must be you, being clairvoyant and all.
"No question necessary- you are quite apparent."
Great.
constructivereconcil 7 months ago
@moopism I forgot to say "thanks" because I would have otherwise forgotten about this trivial conversation and the fun it can be. I appreciate you reminding me to take time out from my hectic schedule of "great thinking."
Try not to show your being intimidated so easily when you grow up.
constructivereconcil 7 months ago
@constructivereconcil "Try not to show your being intimidated so easily when you grow up."
You're just full of assumptions and ready to jump to conclusions aren't you?
Not much of a great thinker, if you ask me.
moopism 7 months ago
i dont understand why you waist your time putting up videos like this... I guess its just to get pissy reactions out of christians. but if all your doing is to try to provoke conflict out of another person, and this gives you a thrill then u should probably find something to do....because it looks like you havnt been out of the house in about 10 years
clooney101 9 months ago
Too many long posts for me to argue.
ilikepie544 9 months ago
But can God be partly to blame for the David and Bathsheba story too? If God actually said he was ok with people sleeping around and didn't insist on marriage would that have even been an issue? Kind of a long shot but thought I'd put it out there anyways lol...
spook79 10 months ago
I've heard preachers like John Hagee state that don't kill, and don't murder are not the same. Killing in war is obviously sometimes neccesary to overcome stubbornly evil people like terrorists, otherwise we end up surrendering to their evil demands. But murder is when you kill someone for a sinful reason such as jealous coveteousness. Like the story of David and Bathsheba. David made sure her husband died in battle so he could sleep with her and not get found out.
spook79 10 months ago
@spook79 I would have to slightly disagree with you on this. I believe that if your life is being threatened, and you no other options, then killing is necessary. However, when you speak of terrorists, you didn't mention one important thing. Terrorists are following their deity. This is what this video talked about. In this video, ZJemptv talked about how many Christians believed that they were moral, when in reality they were just following their deity out of blind faith. See the resemblance?
ian082jc 9 months ago
@ian082jc "Terrorists are following their deity."
Typically these days, you are probably correct but this is not the only definition of terror as a tactic. Terror is a feature of "total war" meaning that anything goes. At the root of the definition, is that fear is being used to attempt to influence the decisions of the target.
The only reason Western politicians use "terror" in their rhetoric is to make clear that the gloves are off in terms of response. Don't expect diplomacy.
constructivereconcil 7 months ago
@spook79 *continued from previous post* So what if Christians *god* told them to be terrorists, and if they did, they would reach eternal happiness? All of a sudden there becomes a conflict between your diety and your moral. In many cases, i belive the deity would win. Of course i can't speak for all christians, but I know many who would follow the path of obedience over moral...
ian082jc 9 months ago
@ian082jc I think that people sometimes just have to use common sense and the golden rule to determine what is moral and what isn't. People down here on earth can actually be accountable to one another and to society as a whole, unlike God who has no accountability since he isn't here physically. If the muslim God truly thinks that terrorism is an acceptable way of life: then that God is clearly a violent, immoral pain in the arse to society and should be treated as such.
spook79 9 months ago
@spook79 "I've heard preachers like John Hagee state that don't kill, and don't murder are not the same."
I don't speak for him, but if that is what he says, he certainly has a point. When a convict is put to death after trial, that is not called murder unless the trial was unjust somehow.
It sounds like he was making that point that God's commandments are about justice, not a superficial appearance of being totally beyond criticism, no matter how irrational that criticism is.
constructivereconcil 7 months ago
Yeah I have absolutely no faith left in the bible at all, and I never had or will have any in the quran, ever. Because they are hypocritical books just like stated in this video. How can the bible tell us to live by the golden rule and then also tell us to condemn gays for being different through no fault of their own? What if most of the world was gay, and straight people were considered as social aliens? I don't get it. One must discard the bible to be able to care about gay people properly.
spook79 10 months ago
This whole politically correct shit is sooooo lame
TheGreatDeciever55 10 months ago
Comment removed
TheGreatDeciever55 10 months ago
religion is juvenile---there is no decent argument against this FACT---quote me
TheGreatDeciever55 11 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55
Incorrect, Juvenile means activities of the young and/or childlike . If you had spent anytime reading religious texts you would know that these books quite obviously use abstraction. Children in general aren't to great at abstract thought. the ones who are tend to be considered precocious, or highly mature for their age; i.e. not juvenile. there for that is not a "FACT" because it is blatantly incorrect.
timverma 10 months ago
@timverma ahaha obviously its an exaggeration.....it would have served you better to critisize the other parts of my comments rather than focusing on the hyberbole i finished it with---its called going out with a bang ahaha...although the concept of religion is juvenile----the "red team blue team" essence of it---i believe this because its been told to me---the epitome of juvenility...
TheGreatDeciever55 10 months ago
its also ironic that GOD himself actually orders moses to not let anyone touch the foot of Mount Sinai or they "SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH" specifically by arrow and stoning---so God decided to force his followers to break his own commandment before he even bestowed it upon them!!!!
TheGreatDeciever55 11 months ago
@TheGreatDeciever55 Also do you know what happened to the Medianites in Nubers 31? Even more ironic
1982mockingbird1982 10 months ago
funny how one of the commandment is "thou shall not kill" but you turn the page and moses orders his follower to slaughter their own brothers in the name of God (which BTW taking the lords name in honor of slaughter is vanity in its purest form--the ultimite way to "take the lords name in vain") so it sickens me how the the next couple of pages after the commandments in the bible have moses directly shitting all over his own gods commandments
TheGreatDeciever55 11 months ago
Excelent.
sadrequiem 1 year ago 2
You nailed it. I was just thinking about this the other day.
hutprancer 1 year ago
well if you feel this way, tell God, not strangers on Youtube.
Set God straight.
rickster348 1 year ago
@rickster348 Talking to non-existent beings is stupid. I sense from this guy's video that he is not stupid.
hutprancer 1 year ago
@rickster348
Ernie Chambers tried to sue Him, but He didn't show up in court. Bastard is afraid of us.
gguilford72 11 months ago
God is really just another being from a type 3 or type 4 civilization doing mind fvcks to primitive humanoids.lol. Kinda like a science project. I do believe that there are advanced civilizations millions of years, if not, billions of years ahead of us and themselves could be playing "GOD"to insignificant "type 0" civilization like ours. Until I see them present themselves willingly to us, then I refuse to believe that they are playing the role of "god". Intelligent beings don't do stupid things
tkathryyn 1 year ago
If God is infallible, then it doesn't matter how God changes his/her/its mind, as long as it's God, then it would be objective as soon as he/she/it deems it so.
I'm not a bible-humper, but I would suggest you should've at least answered the question instead of turning into a, "FUCK YOU! YOU'RE STUPID!" response.
trivium666fan 1 year ago
Adam and eve obviously are not alive with us today.
Daghead 1 year ago
Start a religion of your own. You think you're a god, you love to preach, and you could use the money. Bonus for us, make it homo, then you'll all die off in one generation and the world will be better off!! I bet if you ate a fruit from the tree of good and evil, you would deep throat a bananananana
TheSwagzter 1 year ago
2) …The analogy in the moral sphere would be the re-examining of a moral problem a number of times before arriving at a conclusion, entailing the sum of right plus wrong, divided by the square root of two. But we all know “the sum of right plus wrong, divided by the square root of two” has no meaning. So therefore the moral high ground that Christians take is non-existent.
muIhoIIanddose 1 year ago
1) Christians are flawed in their embracing of absolute morality. Their assertion that there are unquestionable moral laws unconsciously relies on Quantum Mechanics’ Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which stipulates that the more one knows of a particle’s position, the less one knows of its momentum, & vice-versa. This encapsulates for our time the loss of a moral compass, the difficulty of absolute judgments…
muIhoIIanddose 1 year ago
Isn't *everything* relative, though ....?
Nautilus1972 1 year ago
@Nautilus1972
You must have missed the first thirty seconds.
yermomsboxx 1 year ago
I like this one :
Christianity : The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree.
Nautilus1972 1 year ago 2
God is eternal, outside of time, therefore not subject to change.
lchiddle 1 year ago
@lchiddle And yet, changes with the views of mere mortals..
KillermaTV 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are so ugly. Get a life...and a job.
TheKrissyboucata 1 year ago
While I generally agree with the points in this video, you use fallacious reasoning near the beginning. A christian would have no qualms with the fact that Islam has their own morality. They would say that morality IS objective. The difference is, however, that they would simply say that it was the wrong one. Theists claim that atheists have no objective foundation. They would be happy to acknowledge that other theists do, even though they might disagree as to what that objective says.
Tohnrenable 1 year ago
Great video with great points. Keep up the good work!
JabborWacky 1 year ago
You are beautiful ZJ ;)
colombus66 1 year ago
Very well put, as usual.
Largo64 1 year ago
Who is this idiot? Looks like a lesbian who thrives in comfort in atheism and cultural relativism ...
alecrebel 1 year ago
@alecrebel If you think ZJ is a lesbian, I think it's easy to see who the idiot is here.
ScrewFoxNews 1 year ago
I like to think that God is the founder of morality and not the developer of morality. If God had been the creator of morality then that would make him imperfect, since he would have chosen actions before they had any meaning to them. This would have made him a random God. It's only by him looking at an already formed moral system with reasons why certain things are morally wrong that we keep God's perfection. Overall, God is then morally perfect, so anything he states will be morally correct.
RockyBalboa211 1 year ago
@RockyBalboa211
And things that don't line up with our morality we tend to say ''God is just a blood thirsty tyrant''. If his actions aren't up to his/her standards they call him evil.
Dunnization 1 year ago
I love your arguments. This god's thoughts and opinions about an issue is just as subjective as mine or yours. What makes this god's opinions objectively true? Being smarter or more powerful doesn't make a thing objectively true.
danielkyleh 1 year ago
It's amazing how some people can't shut-up on subjects they know nothing about. The Bible doesn't say not to kill it says do not spill innocent blood, she it even shows the word murder.God did not promise to never again cleanse the earth ,He said He would not use water to do it Gen9:11. Am I to understand that Adam and Eve are still alive, my Bibles say he diedGen5:5. What I see is some nut telling me I must follow its beliefs or I'm wrong ,HYPOCRITE.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 The Moabites and medianites were innocent but God sanctioned and commanded Moses to kill them. Also the original translation for 'rasah' is kill, but a few ppl think its should be 'murder'. But if even ZJ is wrong about the translation all that proves is that the commandement itself is 'objectionable' because the bible sanctions spilling innocent blood regardless of what the word means. And if this doesnt fit its definition of murder thats just all the more disturbing
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 I am constantly ORDERED by atheists to prove my claim,it seems it's your turn, prove those groups were innocent. As soon as I read of any other subject I will consider it a forfeit, I will read and reply no more. Then we can discuss your research on murder-kill, mine says different.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 I cant go thru them all but Ill stick to the Medianites. The reason they were targeted is bcoz they practiced their own religeous practices such as idolatry, all of which didnt infringe on anyones rights. Also the isralites from Moses's tribe were having sex with them apparently, again all of this was consensual so no-ones rights were infringed upon. Despite the fact these acts werent actually wrong, outside Gods standard of morality, they were the basis given in the Bible for....
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 Still doesn't prove any thing, keep trying. Demanding proof is the atheists rule.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 U sure it doesnt prove anything? Ur assertion was that the bible says not to spill innocent blood, numbers 31 proves the Bible, God and Moses(ironically the guy who recieved the 10 commandaments including thou shall not kill) not only endorsed but commited acts invovling spilling innocent blood. Why were the Medianites innocent? Bcoz religeous and sexual freedom are rights not sins and thus they did nothing wrong to provoke Moses slaughtering them. Now if you want to tell....
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 Still no proof, and jumping around to diffrent "cases" only proves desperation on your part.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Actually ignoring the proof Ive very explicitly presented, and trying to incinuate that I failed to present it, 'inidicates desperation' as well as dishonesty 'on your part'. You asserted the Bible says 'do not spill innocent blood' and the PROOF that ur sttmnt is incorrect is in Numbers 31 where God and Moses murder an entire community of innocent ppl called Medianites. Point blank. Is there sum confusion here as to what constitutes proof?
Its now ur turn to discredit my evidence
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 Oh and I should correct myself. Im not denying outright that the Bible says 'do not spill innocent blood' Im just trying to prove that it condones and sanctions the spilling of innocent blood regardless of what it says in other passages.
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 You have stated several things, but your stating is not proof, any more than me calling the grass pink would make it so. STILL NO PROOF,still on point one.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Those 'things' are proof bcoz: Im trying to DISPROVE an assertion you made about WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. To do that all I need is content from the Bible that contradicts this assertion. Ive done this sucsesfully bcoz God Mosses slaugtering innocent Medianites DISPROVES your assertion that the Bible says 'do not spill innocent blood'. Its not my saying this that 'makes it so' its what the Bible itself says that makes it so.....
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321 I do not need to prove these events actually occured to disprove your claim because your claim is about what the 'Bible says' not what actually happened. So until u raise a point about my interpretation of the Bible or the term 'innocent' my proof is adequete. In this case you would be the one saying the grass is pink and Im not only saying its green, but Im also telling where you can find green grass to verify my claim yet you refuse to look and accuse me of not providing evidence
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 I'm not asking you prove they happened, you claimed they were innocent now it falls on you to prove your claim.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Bcoz if they actually did something wrong, the Bible would have said so. The Bible did claim they commited sins, but these sins were that ppl in the community practiced idolatry or allowed Israelites to have sex with them. I dont consider excersing a right to religeous & sexual freedom a 'sin' just bcoz the Bible does as none of these infringe on anyones rights and therefore practing these things didnt render them guilty so they remained inncocent when Moses slautered them.
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321 (Read initial comment 1st...)I already exaplained all this b4. Now theres no no way for me 2 objectively prove my moral code is the right 1 and therfore my claim of them being innocent is correct however, I think there certain universal principles we share that may make it possible to resolve this. So if u state that u dont recognize a right to religeous and sexual freedom then Ill admit we are at an impass otherwise my 'proof' stands
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 So if Christians make a claim they can't prove TO YOUR STANDARDS its false but atheists can say what ever they want and no proof is needed. That is all me and any undecided people need ed to be told .Thanks for the info. GOODBYE
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321Nice try, but sorry disorting logic wont work here. The standard is the same if not more lenient towards Christians. We just dont accept 'bcoz the Bible says so' as definative proof but with issues such as morality where there is no objective truth your stipulations about whats right and wrong are equally as valid as ours and its just a matter of agreeing on certain fundamental principles and using them as a mutually recognized base for deciding whats right and wrong
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 You made a claim can you back it as you demand from Christians or are you a joke to be dismissed. By the way even other atheists would rather hear "because God said so" than" because the birdbrain said so". Proof it's what you demand, your standard.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Thanx for conitinuing to respond. The truth is we never expect christians to provide OBJECTIVE proof to substantiate any assertions they make about morality bcoz we no this is not possible 4 either side. If u claim otherwise uv misunderstood the standard. We only moral assertions to be backed up by principles which can be debated and scrutinized on their own merit and thats what Im trying 2 do here(continue to next comment).
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321 (Read initial comment) So you are free to question the validity of my princple that 'consensual sexual activity and religeous expression are rights not sins' and if you dont disagree then my proof meets both our standards of what constitutes innocence as the 'sins' they were being slaugtered 4 didnt actually render them guilty. An athiest expects no higher standard from u PS Im not Athiest. The only time we expect objective proof is for issues like creation not issues of morality
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321 (Read previous 2 comments) Sorry to have to keep adding comment but r u asking me to prove that freedom of religeon and consensual sexual activity is a right?
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 I'm asking for an atheist to hold himself to the standards he holds Christians. Are you telling us all Christians are held to an impossible standard, or that atheist are totally incompetent?
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 I hope u read my previous 2 comments b4 posting this bcoz in them I made said that I think Im holding both to the same standard. No one has ever asked Christians to prove their morality is objectively correct bcoz we all acknowlege this is impossible as theres no objective truth to morality. The only time we expect objectivity is when discussing origins of humans or existence of God bcoz there is an objective truth to these matters. Hwvr ur question was regarding morality so I feel...
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321 ...the response Ive given has met the same standard I would expect u 2 meet. So 4 the last time, NO ONE IS HOLDING YOU TO A HIGHER STANDARD, at least not on this forum. Furthermore nothing in my previous comments indicates otherwise so I dont know where u got the idea that theres any double standard. If anything Im being held to higher standard now as Ive assumed the burden of proof 4 no reason and instead of invalidating my claims ur bringing more unfounded accusations
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321 So if you want to question the validity of my 'innocence' claim all u hav2do is state 'No ppl dont have a right to religeous freedom and consensual sexual activity' or bring new facts to the table. However if u dont dis-agree, then I have all the justification I need to say the basis on which these ppl were slaugtered was wrong and therefore 'innocent' ppl were killed. Also the standard you spoke of relates more to matters like 'creation vs evolution' not morality
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982
It's interesting that you are buddhist, what made you go down that route? Just curious, what were you speaking with daddyg321 about? The Moabites right?
Dunnization 1 year ago
@Dunnization Axualy we were talking more about Medianites and that discussion's gone 4 like 60 comments:} As for my conversion, its a long story but 1 of the many reasons B & J's morality and worldviews appealed to me was that I felt they werent shaped by, or intended to further, human/self-interest. I also feel a relatively high concern for suffering is evident in the theologies and princples of B & J. Both these qualities appeal 2me bcoz Im concerned with issues such as wars and genocides
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321 ...me that apparently their practicing religeous and sexual freedom did justify the attack, or that Ive overlooked something else, then maybe ur assertion that Moses killing these ppl doesnt 'prove' ur statement the 'Bible says do not spill innocent blood' is incorrect has sum validity. Otherwise I think I have proven its an inccorect stmnt. PS sorry for constantly using multiple comments to respond its just difficult to convey all this within the word limit
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 ....Moses to indistcriminately kill every man, woman and child(except for some virgin females) all of whom couldnt possibly have been guilty even by Gods standards(bcoz not all of them would have been having inter-ethnic sexual relations or practicing idolatry). I say these ppl are inncocent bcoz no-ones rights were infringed upon thru idolatry or consensual inter-ethnic sex, and I dont consider Gods oppinion and demands as overiding what I consider universal truths
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 Still only your word as to every thing whole tribes did thousands of years ago,STILL NOT PROOF. At least Christians use texts that are supported by other texts and artifacts. Still no comment until then.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 You said 'At least Christians use texts that are supported by other texts and artifacts. ' Really? What other texts??? What other artifacts?? As an historian nothing in the bible can be verified by other civilisations, writings, or evidence. In fact not only is it unverifiable, archeology shows bible stories like jericho etc are totally false.
MikeWhiskyTango 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Weve already been thru this. 1stly its not on my word, its on the Bibles word and apparently thats all I need bcoz as I said Im not trying to prove these events actually happened, but rather the Bible would condone them. I have researched the Medianites but it would be unfair on God and Christians 4 me 2 try and transmute that into the 'word of God' and its unnessary bcz ur assertion related only to what the Bible said, not what actually happened. I made this abundantly clear b4 &....
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321 ....Now Im concerned that I explicitly mentioned this b4 and u acknowleged that u didnt expect me to 'prove they happened' and yet u would raise this issue again without adding any new responses to counter my original assertions on the issue. Also im more concerned everytime I present counter arguments u change the subject without responding 2 or acknowleging them. Furthermore I would prefer that if u make any claims u would afford me the same courtesy of supporting them
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 Still waiting.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 What r u waiting 4? Ur claim was the Bible 'doesnt condone spilling innocent blood so unless you can tell me what the Medianites were guilty of when their blood was spilled by God and Moses in Number 31, Ive countered that assertions sucsesuly. Like I said I dont need to prove these events actually occuredbcoz ur assertion was about what the bible says, not what actually happened and unless u counter my claim that the Bible was wrong to assign them guilt for practicing religeous &....
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321...sexual freedom, then my claim of them being innocnet at the time their blood was spilled stands. Disorting logic and pretending I havent done all this isnt going to help you
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 So since it appears you claim to know what these people did and did not do thousands of miles away, thousands of years ago you should have no problem telling us all what we did this morning. Or not and prove you are a know nothing trying to build an ego from lines of typed self promotion.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 I dont no what these ppl did but I dont need to bcoz your claim, the claim I was trying to disprove, was about WHAT THE BIBLE SAID. All I need to show is that the Bible condones spilling innocent blood, not that ppl actually did it
Do not bother responding without answering the following question:
Was your initial assertion about what actually happened, or what is stated in the Bible?
PS Even tho ur ignoring previous posts, i apreciate that uv finally made ur critisms more specific
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 You have not shown anything except that you will say anything. What innocent people were killed and how can you prove yor claim.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 You didnt answer my Question. As 4 urs Ill say it again, Medianites, Numbers 31, cant prove it happened but can prove the Bible said it did, my claim can fail if practicing 1's own faith and consensual sex is a crime. Since Ive repeatedly answered your questions and uve ignored every answer Id like u 2 answer the following question and if you fail to do so, as u did in the last comment, I will make that abundantly clear. Plz read my next comment for the questions...
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321
Was your initial assertion sumthing like; 'The bible doesnt condone the spilling of innocent blood?'
Do you disagree that in Numbers 31 Moses, under Gods instruction, kills every living thing, except for virgin females, in Median bcoz few of them practiced 'idolatry' and let Israelites have sex with them
Do you think these ppl were guilty and innocent at the time? And why?
I have more followup questions but answer these 1st and well take it from there
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1982mockingbird1982 Still waiting for proof, not just your claim repeated.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 I take your silence a admission you can't prove you line of B.S..
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Thats funny...I came to the same conclusion based on your silence. I already answered your last question and I left you sum question to answer and Ive just been awaiting your reply all this time. Also I made it clear that if you failed to answer them in your next comment i would take it as an indication you realise there is something flawed in you argument so i guess this means u really cant defend your position. Ill repeat them fr you anyway in the next comment...
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Was your initial assertion that the bible does not condone spilling innocent blood?
In Numbers 25 and 31 did God and Moses spill the blood of the Medianites and Moabites?
Were the Moabites and Medianites innocent or guilty? And why?
This probably seems like daming evidence to you but its not, it is very possible to construct an argument they were guilty. & if u ignore these question for the 3rd time in row but ill take it as just another nail in the coffin of your argument.
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 You said these people were innocent, I'm waiting for proof. I should have known better than to think you got smart.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Ok this is the 3rd time in row uv failed to answer the questions I left! Are you not able to find them?
To repeat my answer to your question, their is no objective standard by which I can determine they were innocent but my belief is consensual sex,and idolatry arent crimes(unless they sacrificed sentient beings). Also its unlikely all the children and animals killed participated in sum alleged conspiracy or curse against the Israelites...(Im not finshed, read the next comment).
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321 So at the time their 'blood was spilled' by Moses, at the very least, most of them had done nothing wrong to be guilty of and were therefore innocent.
Now if there is sum part of this you disagree with then explain why it invalidates my 'proof' instead of simply accusing me of 'not proving they are innocent' and giving no exaplanation beyond that. Bcoz alot of this involves subjective moral reasoning you can challenge the idea's about guilt' and 'innocence' Ive presented..(Read on)
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321 ...Ive acknowleged my concept innocence is subjective, but you cant say it renders my 'proof' inadequete just bcoz of that. Its up to you to either challenge it or accept it for the sake of argument. This is the same fair and impartial standard most Athiests and normal ppl use. So dont tell me the proof Ive presented is inadequete without exaplaining why. And dont change the subective without 1st countering what Ive said in this comment. And answer the questions!
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 "innocence is subjective" is that P.C. code for your full of it. you made a claim of innocence they are or aren't, you're full of it or you're not. You have offer nothing but the word of an egotist from thousnds of years and miles from the incident as support. AGAIN I WILL NOT MOVE TO ANOTHER POINT UNTIL PROOF IS SHOWN.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@daddyg321 The only part of my 'proof' thats objectively verifiable is that the Bible explicitly sanctions killing ppl for no other reason than members of their community practiced idolatry, inter-ethinic sex and allegedly cursed or conspired against his ppl. The only parts thats subjective is whether these acts actually rendered them guilty and thats for both of us to verify. So if you state that religeous freedom, consensual sex or guilt by association are crimes then we are at an impass....
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321 Otherwise you have no basis for saying what Ive presented is invalid. And we could easily have determined if they were innocent or guilty by now if YOUD ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS! But youve ignored them for the 4th time in a row.
So do you think inter-ethnic consensual sex or idolatry are crimes? Do you believe in guilt by association? If your answer to both of these is no then, in the absence of any other factors, youve agreed most of the ppl killed were innocent
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1982mockingbird1982 So YOU ARE CLAIMING TO KNOW EVERY THING THESE PEOPLE DID THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY.
daddyg321 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982
Hahah, funny you say that because of I'm friends with Shock on YouTube. So why are you an atheist?
Dunnization 1 year ago
@Dunnization I cant find the orignal comment I was responding to so I dont remeber exactly what I said. Im actually friends with Shock 2, believe it or not, and tho I suspect he may be a little dishonest when engaging in the discussions, I still think he's a nice guy. And Im actually not Athiest, Im an ex-Catholic who's now Jain & Buddist(i no its weird). I just happen to agree with Athiests on alot of issues :)
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982
If you know it's weird being a Buddhist then why are you one? No offense but Buddhism doesn't stand up so well to scrutiny than christianity. Even Buddah didn't want to be worshipped, he knew he was no God. There are more manuscripts for Jesus Christ than any other person who has ever existed and history backs up his claims because they happened. If anyone altered the truth about the ressurection the apostles and other eye witnesses would have corrected it.
Dunnization 1 year ago
@Dunnization. I meant I expected u to find it weird I follow 2 religeons, Jainism and Buddism(B&J). I think they stand up quite well bcoz even if they arent in line with moral norms of a time, they never seem to cross the boundaries of whats considered moraly acceptable. Also they dont seem 2 contradict science 4 the most part. Buddha being humble and not elevating himself to the status of a God is more of a pro than a con 4 me. I havent responded to either comment in great detail but I can
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982
What was your refute about the Moabites is what I wanted to know. How do you know these religions are the way to salvation or eternal life and how do you know you are right. Just because your religion or mine aren't always scientifically sound doesn't mean they are wrong. The only thing you need to ask yourself is, is it credible and am I right? It's not about what you or I believe but what is right.
Dunnization 1 year ago
@Dunnization I dont feel god or Moses had adequete justification for the 'genocide' against Moab, I can go into more detail. I dont care how well any of the religeons withstand scientific scrutiny, u actually inquired about that I was just answering. Axualy B & J can be far less 'rational' than Christianity in many ways. But as u said 'its about' 'what is right' which is why I chose them(They feel 'right' to me). Define 'credible'? I dont find them difficult to believe if thats what u mean
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@daddyg321
Adam spiritually died not physically.
Dunnization 1 year ago
@Dunnization What is his address, we can ask him what really happened?
daddyg321 1 year ago
Semantics can be used to twist anything into what one "wants to hear" Charlatans, lobbyists, career politicians, and even lawyers have for hundreds of years used the means of Latin based languages, especially of the Anglo-Saxions, otherwise know as the English, to select what they want to interpret from anothers' testimony of a social matter.. Thus, WORDS CAN HAVE MANY MEANINGS.. SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND... whatever Delusion your looking for...
rockstar89 1 year ago
ZJ, your mental faculties do not fail you in creating interesting, albeit, strung together theories on theology. I believe you would be best served by studying the Bible more in depth. I don't say this in an attempt to persuade you to accept what is in the Bible as truth, but only to be able to understand that everything must be taken in context. Many interesting arguments can be whittled out of the loose piecing-together of text or spoken word. A degree in theology would make you dangerous!
afbr2002 1 year ago
@afbr2002 Finally, somone from the other team makes a good point! I agree ZJ we should be fair to the other side by making an effort to consider context and also avoid even leading others to generalise against and mischaracterize the whole group.
Still Ive read the most recent & politicaly corect editions of the Bible and Ive found its mostly this kind of disturbing, incriminating content. I feel popular Christianity cherrypicks the most redeeming things in there and puts it out of context
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 Recent and PC translations, and/or transliterations, of the Bible are not going to be your best source for Biblical reference. The Bible was not meant to be PC. Any attempts to make it so, would fail; but discussions on the gathering together of ancient text to create a “complete” tome could start a different thread altogether. My main point is that, although it is understandably difficult to study the Bible when it is believed to be false or fiction, the type...
afbr2002 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 of context needed in order to discuss the validity and truthfulness of the Bible can only come from years of personal research. Reading the opinion of another and then basing thoughts and beliefs on that opinion is merely selling yourself short. Like I said in my initial comment, many interesting theories can be created by loosely tying together bits of text out of context. The Bible is made up of multiple books that must be considered within the entire context....
afbr2002 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 of the Bible as a whole. Consideration of the relationship of books from the Old Testament with those from the New Testament is a MUST. In order to fairly, and more importantly, properly discuss the Bible, research and context must be paramount.
afbr2002 1 year ago
@afbr2002 These r excellent points aand one thing thing I didnt factor into my assesment was detailed historical research. So u r 100% correct but my other point, which wasnt relevant to ur initial assertion, is that the body of beliefs and ideas constituting 'popular Christianity' is more biased and unobjective than anything ZJ asserts bcoz while ZJ is quoting directly from the Bible and interpreting the material as any reasonable person would, popular christianity cherry picks the....
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@afbr2002 ...most redeeming parts possible(which are few and far in between) and takes them further out of context and interprets them in the most favourable way possible to create theology which isnt 'authentic' or at least may not reflect the true nature of the scource material. Still I no the content in the New Testament probably should have more wight than that in the Old Testament which means I could be wrong about this.
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 This is going to sound like a sarcastic question, but honestly, it’s not. If “Popular Christianity”(PC) cherry picks, then what is the “unpopular Christianity”(uPC) doing? (To have one (PC) I assume there must be the other (uPC).) If PC’s goal is to promote its form of religious expression through favorable teaching, then I must assume that uPC’s goal is to denigrate or lessen its own credibility. By “Popular” do you mean “most recent forms of”, or are there measures by..
afbr2002 1 year ago
@afbr2002 Hehe, your right there is no standard by which 2 define PC, Im just refering to the most politicaly correct form that most ppl I no practice now. Just bcoz PC allegedly promotes the most attractive interpretaion to legitimise its belief system doesnt mean uPC is trying to the opposite. UPC could prioritise authenticity over political correctness. And Im not even saying thats the goal of PC, they could be picking the cherries they r most comfortable with rather than what others will lik
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 which certain forms of Christianity are graded as socially acceptable/unacceptable? On the innocence of the people mentioned in Numbers, again context is extremely important. The determination of innocence is dependent upon WHO has set the rules of innocence and guilt. Within the context of the Bible that person would be God. The first four commandments given to Moses were directly related to the relationship between God and his creation. . More precisely, how His...
afbr2002 1 year ago
@afbr2002 When I said innocent I didnt mean by modern standards, I meant by my own. I acknowlege my moral standard may not be objective but no-ones is and part of this debate involves me trying to persuade others mine is 'right'. So I dont have to accept the rules of God for the purpose of discussion as its the very thing Im trying to scrutinise. This discussion wasnt about trying to prove Biblical morality doesnt comply with modern standards
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 the only reason I continue to come back to context. I don’t mean to interject my personal beliefs into the discussion, or brow-beat anyone into changing their own opinion. Disproving something as grounded as the Bible is, would be difficult to do without taking bits of it out of context, as the “Numbers 31” theory does. When taken within the context of the Ten Commandments you see the guilt of the Midianites. I understand that the purpose of the discussion was....
afbr2002 1 year ago
@afbr2002 I agree that the Midianites, if they were present in our current society, would be allowed to express spiritualism/sexuality however they saw fit. But they were not. You recently directed a comment towards daddyg321 that read, “…the claim I was trying to disprove, was about WHAT THE BIBLE SAID.” In order to disprove anything, especially something as comprehensive as the Bible, you have to understand how everything within that subject works together. That’s really...
afbr2002 1 year ago
@afbr2002 I wasnt trying to prove the Medianites actions were acceptable by modern standards, I was only trying to suggest they were fundamental freedoms transcending any standard of morality using my only own oppinions as basis. I was suggesting the very standard, adopted within the context of the Bible was wrong, again this is something I cant objectively prove. To daddy321 I was asserting the Bible definition of innocence was wrong this can be done without considering context
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
Comment removed
afbr2002 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 To clarify, God says no idol worshiping, M’s worship idols, God demands their destruction. Their guilt is predicated upon worshiping idols. It seems that our discussion has been about whether biblical morality is true or not. I think you would agree with me that this is a question with no concrete answer. Personal morality is just that, personal. If the decision of morality is based upon personal experiences or faith in a system greater than ourselves,....
afbr2002 1 year ago
@afbr2002 Yes I agree theres no such thing as objective morality but that doesnt mean we cant compare and discuss personal beliefs to see if we can agree on whether something in the Bible is moral or imoral. For example if we both agree that are entileded to religeous and sexual freedom regardless of the time and place in which they live, then we can agree God was wrong in the matter, otherwise we can continue debating why are viewpoints on such matter are correct
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 We afford ourselves the freedoms you spoke of. The Israelites were governed by God himself, hence the Theocracy they ascribed to and the laws that governed said Theocracy.
afbr2002 1 year ago
@afbr2002 I personally dont believe its sumting we afford ourselves, I think these are inherent rights we are entitled to by default(this is subjective). Furthermore, only the I's were governed by God, the M's didnt sign up for such a theocracy so its no different from the Nazi's saying 'well we were governed by Hitler'. What characteristic of God renders his will more morally imperative than hitlers, is it the creation thing? Also, why havent u brought up the curses and conspiracies by the M's?
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@afbr2002 Ok Ill agree without within the context of Bible and when adoting its standard of morality the Israelites and Gods actions are more than justified but when I look at this in context I still cant c the M's guilt, I can only see guilt on the part of god and Moses. Does looking at this in context mean I should also adopt any biases the Bible has that favor its concept of morality and justice? And the purpose of this discussion wasnt to prove God wrong by existing standards
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago
@1982mockingbird1982 then one can be no more “right” than the other. I think you had it right when you said an attempt to disprove the Bible would have to be done with facts and in this case the facts don’t add up. Also your analogies get weaker and weaker as we go, comparing your parents to God and then Christianity to National Socialism falls into the “apples and oranges” category. LOL
afbr2002 1 year ago
@afbr2002 True, we will never no which standard is correct, but the purpose of the discussion is to agree on one or justify our own and this is very possible. If ur talking about the exchange between daddy and I then all the facts relating to what the bible said could be objectively proven but what it says is right or wrong needed to be debated
1982mockingbird1982 1 year ago