It was more of the idea the violence breeds more violence which you can find examples of, Ghandi and MLK also believed this. Turning the other cheek didn't mean not to be just. It did not mean to be ok with genocide. It meant stand hold to your convictions but dont let that violence and anger corrupt you, make you hate. And you know... its possible to forgive crimes. I was raped, I am hurt and still struggling and I dont say its ok. Its wrong. But I dont let that make me hate.
Many people on earth think that they actually understand Christ and his teachings, but I say people who really understand his teachings and him will never raise question in his mind in fact it will change his life forever
awesome video my friend. my concern is that you're preaching to the converted, and probably that those who believe in Christianity,etc., won't be convinced by your video... despite the clarity and validity of the points you raise. I hope it helps someone anyway, and if not, you still did a good job in my opinion. :)
@wowlightshadow How is it biased? The man isn't misrepresenting what Jesus taught. He is merely demonstrating how absurd it would be to take his teachings to it's logical conclusion. If we strictly followed Jesus' "ethics", notions of Justice, the Law, etc would be impossible to have.
@Drgamedood Actually, he is misrepresenting Jesus's teachings. First of all, he selects verses and intentional omits context. Second, he twists those verses to draw misleading and even down-right false conclusions. Third, he misinterprets/misunderstands basic christian practices and beliefs, presents his interpretation as fact, and proceeds to point out logical flaws that aren't really there. Fourth, he presents his opinions on ethics/morality as scientific fact.
@50crowley First, his quotations of verses are all sufficiently contexted to know what Jesus was saying. Second, he didn't twist anything, he merely took the verses to their logical conclusions. Third, what Christian practices or beliefs did he even talk about? He only talked about what the Bible said about Jesus. Fourth, well, I agree with you there. I also agree with him; when he says things regarding morality like it's wrong to not violently resist the Nazis, I agree. Do you disagree?
@Hooya2 1) We had a week long discussion regarding context in which we both used multiple verses from the bible to make our points. If nothing else, I think we have determined that verses cannot be read and completely understood independent of one another. 2) He took a pacifistic phrase and turned it into a pro-genocide/holocaust one. How is that not a twist? 3) Sinning and praying for forgiveness. 4) I was referring more to the whole casual sex/homosexuality/etc bit toward the end
@50crowley 1) No, I disagree. Many verses, including Mat 5:39, can be read out of context and interpreted accurately. 2) You're the one twisting words now; he never said it was pro-genocide, merely that it meant not resisting genocide--which is true. 3) Fair enough; how do you think he distorted that? Believing you can absolve your guilt by being forgiven by God is a belief of Christianity. 4) Harmless sexual acts between consenting adults? I think that's perfectly moral. You don't?
@Hooya2 I won't address 1&2 due to lack of room/time.
3)He misunderstands the christian notion of forgiveness. He believes that Christians can walk around committing heinous deeds and then superficially pray for forgiveness and be absolved. This is simply not true.
4)In many cases, yes. "Adults" often drunkenly have casual sex, which is not moral because they are using each other as sexual objects and degrading their bodies. Also, consenting adults cheat on their spouses, which isn't moral.
@50crowley You've made 50+ comments over 3 weeks, suddenly you're out of room/time? BS
3) What part assumes the criminals are being superficial? It's immoral for God to forgive someone if he isn't the victim of the crime, whether they genuinely repent or not.
4) If a willing person doesn't mind being treated as a sexual object, how is that immoral? And in what sense are they 'degrading' their bodies? We're not talking about adultery, which involves breaking a promise to someone else.
@Hooya2 I had somewhere I needed to be when I wrote my last comments. Sue me, lol.
3) The video implies superficiality but does not state it directly. I still disagree with you, but we've already debated the whole forgiveness thing.
4) Humans are biologically intended/inclined to be monogamous. I'm not saying marriage is a biological requirement for sex, but emotion is. When people sleep around, they are rejecting their very nature. Emotionless/casual sex is not natural and thus, is not moral.
@50crowley Then address them now. 1) Plenty of verses can be understood with only themselves for context. 2) He never said pacificism was pro-genocide. 3) The argument doesn't require superficiality to work. 4) That's ludicrous. It is the nature of all adult humans to want to have sex with attractive people, even if they have no personal connections. Of course people also desire deep emotional connections, but it's a cultural belief, not our nature, that ties sex and love together.
@Hooya2 1) That depends on how you look at it. A fundamentalist may agree with you, but I believe the only way to truly understand the bible and its messages is to take the big picture into account.
2) True, he did not directly say that. However, he was implying that pacifism allows for genocide because for some reason people cannot defend themselves, which is not true. Even a pacifist will pick up a gun if if they are pushed hard enough or if their life/family is threatened.
@Hooya2 3) It does if you believe God has the power to forgive. If God does NOT have the power to forgive then yes, superficiality is irrelevant, but that is not what we are debating.
4) Neurochemistry and evolutionary psychology have shown that the emotion "love" is a series of chemical reactions evolved by humans because rearing a child was significantly easier as a couple. Every time you have sex, your body releases chemicals and you fall deeper in love. Its biology. Its in our blood.
@50crowley LOL. Wow, so many things wrong with your statement. So let me get this straight, Jesus didn't preach turning the other cheek and loving your enemy? He doesn't misrepresent the teachings at all. He just shows how stupid it would be to carry out Jesus' ethics strictly.
Here are some other words from C.S Lewis. This great man once derisively described himself in his Atheist days as being " in that state of mind in which a boy thinks it extremely telling to call God Javeh and Jesus Yeshua." Learn well, Peter, and be careful what you read - it is extremely easy to find God wherever you least it expect it.
There's a lot of "straw manning" going on here, that is, in your effort to persuade, you put forth a very weak representation of the opposing viewpoint and then knock it down. The "resist no evil" part can just as easily be interpreted as non-violent resistence, which as been successful in many social movements.
@pheeel17 I think you're right that Jesus meant non-violent resistance--that matches how he acted. And you're also right in saying that often works. But put that kind of reasoning in the video's example; would passive resistance have stopped the Nazi extermination of the Jewish people? The idea is absurd.
I don't think this video strawmanned anything. Jesus' preaching is wrong, whether he meant total compliance or merely passive resistance. Some evils must be resisted with force.
this movie is bullshit. my god did this friggin guy know anything about sociologogy, anthropology, biblical scolarship, history, metaethics, or anything else he pontificates about? 100% idiot.
Every point this video makes is completely false. The creators clearly lack any understanding of Christianity, its beliefs, and its morals.
I can successfully argue every point this video makes and am willing to do so for anyone who may be confused or persuaded by the incredibly weak and shallow arguments that have been made. Message me.
Monogamy is wrong? Try telling your wife that. Idiot.
1) Jesus never claimed to be the first teacher of the golden rule.
2) Rules are made to work within pre-existing social structures. They do not necessarily apply to people who fall outside of that social/value system. There are exceptions to every rule, but exceptions do not void rules entirely.
3) So... Martin Luther King Jr. was a terrible teacher? He taught that violence only leads to more violence. The BEST (not only) way to settle dispute is through communication and understanding.
@50crowley This video is intended for people who don't believe in the supernatural aspects of Jesus but still think the's a respectable teacher. Trying to rebut the arguments in this video with discussion of supernatural causes misses the point. 1) Jesus never claimed it, but Christians attribute it to him as if he came up with it. 3) Resist is not equal to violence. Jesus didn't teach conflict resolution, he suggested that when one does evil to you, that you be a willing doormat and invite more
@Arkalius80 So if you do not believe in the supernatural aspects of Jesus, how can you expect him to possess knowledge of antibiotics and advanced technology? That voids the argument entirely.
For the record, I have not used "supernatural causes" in any of my rebuttals except where the supernatural had already been implied.
1) So people have a bad understanding of history. Is that news to you?
2?)
3) Wrong. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek and be the bigger man. He never said "be a doormat"
@50crowley Fair point on the special knowledge. I didn't make this video though. But, your responses to points 4 and 5 (which I didn't address directly) implied an acceptance of the supernatural aspects of Jesus by invoking God and Jesus' Biblical purpose. 1) No, but the video didn't state that the Bible claims Jesus originated the golden rule, it was only addressing the fact that many people believe that. 3) To "turn the other cheek" is essentially to be a willing victim, aka a doormat.
@Arkalius80 Point 4 was in regard to who had the ultimate right to forgive: the victim, or God. How is is possible to argue the latter without accepting God as a reality?
Point 5 was in regard to Jesus's ability to help mankind. Again, you cannot expect him to possess supernatural knowledge without accepting the supernatural.
1) ok, but that does not reflect on the nature of Jesus as a moral teacher.
@50crowley 1) So you admit that the video's point WAS correct.
2) Again, you are admitting the point.
3) Dr. King's form of passive resistance was brilliant, but only in a specific context--trying to change the mind of the general public through compassion. Passive resistance would never stop a rapist or a murderer, nor would it have stopped the Nazis invading Britain. Sometimes, violence is not just the best, but the ONLY viable response to evil.
4) To sin is to reject God. To repent is to accept Him. Those who accept God DO NOT SIN. You cannot rob somebody and then run back to church to ask for forgiveness. The fact that you committed a crime shows that you are not interested in forgiveness.
5) Jesus did not come to earth to make life easy or convenient. He knew that mankind would eventually invent medicine, so why spend his time rushing the process? He came for spiritual, not physical, salvation.
@50crowley 4) Huh? What you just said is so sharply in contrast with mainstream Christianity that I'm just left confounded. So once someone accepts God they never sin again? Since you've accepted God, you've *never* sinned?
5) So Jesus wasn't incompetent, he just didn't care about all the massive suffering and death people would suffer from? Because he thought he could save more souls by NOT performing scientific miracles that would make Christians the healthiest people on the planet?
@50crowley 1) The point here is, to paraphrase, that Jesus taught only unoriginal or immoral ideas. If you agree the golden rule wasn't original, then you're accepting one of their points is true. Of course no one teaches 100% original ideas, but how does that save your case?
2) No, the only way for there to not be exceptions to this rule is if there is no situation where it's wrong to do onto others as you would have them do onto you. That is not the case, so the rule isn't universal.
1) Ok, if you feel the video's point was only to show that some of Jesus's teaching were unoriginal, I will accept that. However, I feel the video makes further implications than that.
2) My point is there is no such thing as a "universal rule". All rules have exceptions.
3) Jesus never said to "allow murder". All human beings have a right to live. A more accurate interpretation of Jesus's teaching would be "Answering aggression with aggression never solves anything."
@50crowley 1) The point is that ALL of Jesus teachings are unoriginal or immoral, and the Golden Rule is one of the unoriginal ones. That's not what I feel, it's what they say at 1:30. I'm glad you acknowledge the GR is unoriginal though.
2) Why do you think that is a valid or meaningful defense? Who cares if 'all rules have exceptions', how does that justify this exception? And you're not even right; plenty of moral rules DON'T have exceptions.
@50crowley 3) His exact words (translated) are "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil". Let me ask you this; how can you stop a murderer who's killing someone in front of your eyes without violating Jesus' teaching?
4) Whether or not a criminal feels guilty has no bearing on if he/she actually is. Psychopaths feel no guilt, does that mean they're morally faultless? It's the same, reversed, for people who have been forgiven but still feel guilty.
@50crowley 3) Yes, because people have violent desires. Opposing murderers won't prevent all murders. But allowing murders will not only not prevent future murders, it will encourage them. Jesus' 'resist not evil' teaching is dangerous, dumb, and immoral.
4) So you admit Christians sin, and I presume you also realize they pray for forgiveness. In that case, can you really claim that no Christians commit vicious crimes, repent, and pray to God for forgiveness without asking the victim?
4) Who said the victim has the ultimate right to forgive? There are people who have been forgiven for their offenses but have never forgiven themselves. Are they truly forgiven?
Catholics believe that when you die, you become one with God. The victim, the offender, everyone. Therefore, God/you have the final say on if you are forgiven.
5) Again, that was not his purpose. You know how when you are given money it isn't as special as when you earn it? Same idea, bigger picture.
@50crowley Where did you hear that Catholics believe people become one with God after they die? The idea that humans can become God is heretical to the Catholic church.
5) 'Isn't as special'? Jesus let millions die gruesome deaths from treatable illnesses, because if he told us the secret, Pasteur wouldn't get to feel clever when he figured it out? I doubt even you believe this; stop typing dumb answers and THINK. Only respond when you have a defense that you're confident makes sense.
@Hooya2 2) name one moral rule with no exceptions.
3) That was the Anglican translation. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church you are allowed to defend yourself & others from evil.
4) Psychopaths also feel no sorrow. You need to be truly sorry to be forgiven.
5) Benjamin Franklin puts it best when he said "God helps those who help themselves". Why is it God's fault that Humans didn't invent what was possible all along sooner? Death and suffering is a part of life. Deal with it.
@50crowley 2) It's wrong to torture people for your own amusement.
3) Every translation says the same thing. Which translation do you accept? Maybe you prefer the Catholic Douay-Rheims version? It says "But I say to you not to resist evil." Or maybe the NIV? "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person." Perhaps the RSV? "But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil." The Catechism contradicts Jesus' teachings by allowing self-defense..
3) Catholics usually don't use a literal translation (like the King James or Douay-Rheims). Most prefer a more interpreted version in their own language. I prefer the English Revised Version: "but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil." This suggests that evil as a noun CAN be resisted, while evil as an adjective should be taken in stride.
Who gave you the religious authority to say the Catholic church isn't allowed to interpret?
@50crowley 2) So you're saying morality is subjective, and the morality of a psychopath is equivalent to yours?
3) The Douay-Rheims is widely used by Catholics.
"This suggests that evil as a noun CAN be resisted..."
The verse specifically says 'resist not him that is evil'. Jesus clarifies his meaning later on; if someone hits you, turn the other cheek, if they sue you, give them everything (Matthew 5:39-40). How can you resist any evil when you can't resist any evil actors?
@50crowley 3) This isn't a statement I'm making from religious authority, it's just a common-sense statement of fact. 'Do not resist evil' contradicts 'it's OK to defend yourself from evil'. The Church violates Jesus' teachings when they say self-defense is permissible.
4) No, no one but the victim has that right. If a criminal goes out and rapes someone, he has no right to forgive himself, even if he feels sorry. Neither does anyone else, because they weren't the ones who were wronged.
@Hooya2 Are you at all capable of abstract thought? An analogy is, by definition, not to be taken literally. If you cannot understand this literary concept, I see no way for you to begin to grasp the abstract concepts that religion and spirituality address.
2) Yes, morality is subjective, thus proving my original point that rules are made to uphold and function within a pre-existing set of social norms. When these conditions are true, the Golden rule is moral.
@50crowley Apparently, you're confusing 'abstract' with 'irrational'. I used your own analogy to point out that a parent behaving like God would seem like a monster, and now suddenly you don't like it any more? Fine, point out to me where the analogy fails to fit. Jesus didn't reveal medical information that could have saved the lives of hundreds of millions of his children; how is he NOT a terrible father?
@Hooya2 Child is to Parent as Humanity is to God. This is about as basic as analogies get. You’ll find them on the SAT and the GRE.
In addition to not being able to recognize an analogy, you failed to analyze it correctly. If your version were correct, all of humanity should be dead. The humans that died because they lacked access to vaccines are like (here comes another analogy) a teenager getting sick because they stayed up too late playing video games and didn’t get enough rest.
@50crowley Oh, I see now; you're right that I mistook your analogy, but only because it was so breath-takingly insane. You're lumping all humans into one thing--humanity--and saying that is God's child, not (as I thought) saying that God has 6 billion or so children. In your analogy, individual children dying of smallpox are, what, skin cells falling off?
I think you've proven my point; if God sees dying children like this, then he's a psychopath.
@Hooya2 What you are suggesting is a logical fallacy. If God had given us antibiotics, he would have been morally obligated to give us brain surgery, painkillers, and every medical advancement humanity has and ever will make. Failure to do so would result in us having the same conversation we are now.
Humans are incredibly arrogant. We think the world revolves around us and the loss of a human life is somehow more significant than anything else. In a cosmic sense, we are no better than dust.
@50crowley You didn't say brain surgery and antibiotics, you said cars and the internet. I agree that God is morally obligated to give us all medical science, but not luxury items. Don't twist my words.
"We think... the loss of a human life is somehow more significant than anything else."
Are you saying it's morally OK for God to let children suffer because humans are insignificant? Well, that answers one question; you're just as psychopathic as the God you believe in. Fuck you.
@Hooya2 I was making a point, lol. I’m sorry that I couldn’t type every invention/advancement humanity has ever made into a single youtube comment.
If it isn’t morally ok for God, how is it for you? By your logic, shouldn’t you be in Africa feeding starving children right now? Life isn’t fair. It’s not supposed to be fair. Some people suffer and that is an unfortunate reality of existence.
No need for hostile words, my friend. We are having a discussion. It's nothing to get worked up over.
@50crowley I'm not angry that you didn't list every invention/achievement of mankind, I'm angry that you ignored my distinction between life-saving advances like antibiotics and 'luxuries'.
I'm not perfect; I agree that I have an obligation, and the fact that I don't fulfill it (beyond donating when I can) is a result of my selfishness. My only defense is that I have little power, and even if I donated everything I have it wouldn't be enough. I can't end all disease overnight.
@Hooya2 There is something special about life that Jesus and most Christians recognize. Life is not intended to be perfect. It is HOW we live our lives that really matters. Even a world where nobody gets sick or dies is a terrible place to live if it is devoid of love. I would rather live a single day in a world with love than 100 years in one without.
Life is a journey and what we do along the way is up to us. If God had interfered, everything we do and have done would have no meaning.
@50crowley Would Jesus teaching us vaccines remove love from the world? It seems to me it would have simply allowed parents to keep the children they love alive. It would certainly have took away a lot of suffering.
How would God's interference make our actions meaningless? That's like saying parents should let their sick children treat themselves, because if they save the children 'everything they do and have done would have no meaning'. Completely senseless.
@Hooya2 Humanity shares a very important ability with God: creation. Both man and God have an inherent ability to create that which did not exist before. As I have already pointed out, had Jesus given us antibiotics, he would have been morally obligated to give us everything else. This would have destroyed our ability to create because we wouldn’t have to. Humans create due to necessity. If you remove the need, Humans no longer create. We would lose a HUGE part of our humanity.
@50crowley Jesus either is obligated to give us life-saving medicine, or he isn't. This 'if Jesus did X, he would be obligated to do Y' is simply wrong.
You've gone from saying that our lives would be meaningless to saying we would only lose a huge part of our humanity. I disagree even with that; construction workers don't invent any new technologies, they just deal with the plans they're given. Does that mean they're lacking in humanity? No.
@Hooya2 I was referring to humanity as a collective, not individuals. The Architect who devised the plans to give to the construction workers cannot create the building on his own. Construction workers are an integral part of the creative process even though they do not contribute to the design. That being said, humanity was not intended to be God’s construction crew. Humanity would not be the same if it consisted solely of construction workers. We need thinkers and doers to be creative.
@Hooya2 I don't see how a line can be drawn when it comes to technology and scientific advancement.
You are right, our lives would be no less meaningless than the life of a dog or a snail. We would be automatons driven primarily by instinct. However, I like to believe humanity has evolved to a point where we are no longer bound by our animalistic nature. This is due, in part, to our never ending pursuit of knowledge and creation. If you took the "pursuit" out, humanity would have no drive.
@50crowley Do construction workers have lives as meaningful as animals because they're not inventors?
The pursuit of knowledge is good, but it isn't the most important part of humanity. Human love, happiness, and well-being are far more important. Imagine if today a researcher, after years of work, discovered a cure for cancer. Then, he destroyed his research, on the grounds that he wanted other people to find meaning in rediscovering it. Would such a person be moral, or a monster?
@Hooya2 What I meant was that construction workers and architects have an equal share in the creation of a building. Neither is more important than the other.
The researcher is PART of humanity. Contrary to popular belief, his discovery is not (ethically) his to do as he pleases with. Humanity had a collective effort in the discovery because it took hundreds of years of scientific advancement and thousands of hours of education to give the researcher the necessary tools to make such a discovery.
@Hooya2 God, on the other hand, has no ethical obligation to help humanity. In fact, he would be doing us a disservice by helping because he would be robbing us of the opportunity to prove to ourselves what we are capable of.
Imagine a friend of yours enters a tennis tournament under your name. Your friend ends up winning and you get a big trophy. The trophy would have very little meaning to you because you did not earn it.
The friend is God. The contest is life. The trophy is human achievement.
@50crowley How can someone not have a moral obligation to save suffering innocents? That's the most basic of moral obligations.
Would you refuse to give medical care to infants? They certainly haven't done anything to earn it. Would you turn down medical care yourself? I doubt you contributed to the invention of vaccines or modern surgery.
Of course not. Good health is not a reward for winning a contest. It's a basic human right, and so is access to medicine.
@Hooya2 Good health and medicine are basic human rights? Humans have been around for 200,000 years, but modern medicine is less than 200 years old. Even today people in third world countries lack access to medicine due to economic reasons. Medicine is a perk of living in a developed nation, not a "right".
Good health is not a guarantee or a right either. Some people get cancer, others dont. Cancer patients do not lack rights. They are merely unlucky, or biologically predisposed to getting cancer
@50crowley Good medical care isn't a right? So dying children don't deserve medical treatment? Seriously, you sound like a psychopath. And to support this absurdity, you cite the fact that people didn't have it in the past? So? Women used to be treated like chattel, does that mean that equality is just a perk of modern society?
Good health isn't guaranteed because God either doesn't exist or isn't moral. He either isn't protecting the rights of his creatures or he doesn't exist.
@Hooya2 Your logic is exemplary of how secular society, in its narcissism, cannot perceive of a world that operates according to a different set of values.
Medical care is not a "right". Neither is equality. I'm not saying people don't deserve either of those things, but to think that we are somehow born with the right of equality is to undermine and disregard all of the effort that went into the civil rights movement.
Good health is not guaranteed because life isn't supposed to be perfect.
@50crowley I can perceive the world you're describing, where it's morally OK to let a child die of preventable illness. The problem is, that world is the world of a psychopath, not the world of a good person.
How can you say you're 'not saying people don't deserve' medical care? Your argument hinges on the assumption that Jesus wasn't wrong for not giving humans medical technology. If people deserve medical care, then was not God obliged to give us the necessary tools for it?
@Hooya2 What I am saying is that God has already given us all of the tools we need. In that sense, Humanity has been given the freedom to reap what we sow. People deserve access to the fruits of their labor, both in an individual and collective sense. However, neither life nor God are required to give out “freebies”. Isn't that fact that it is by God's will that we even EXIST enough to be thankful for?
@50crowley But God didn't give mankind all the tools needed to prevent disease; why make such a blatant lie? Of course, giving humans the freedom to let their children die is morally atrocious, even if you believe that silly fib.
Everyone is morally obliged to save innocent people from pointless suffering when possible; to say otherwise is psychopathic. We wouldn't say that a mother has no obligation to give her son medical treatment just because she gave birth to him, would we?
@Hooya2 Explain how God did not give us the tools to prevent disease? We have created vaccines for many diseases and even erased some diseases completely! How could we have done this if we did not have the tools?
...but God isn't "someone", he's God. I agree, it is righteous for Humans to help one another. Perhaps that is why other humans exist!
Life, although filled with pain, is beautiful if you take a step back and look at it in a cosmic sense. The imperfect parts create a perfect whole!
@50crowley I already explained it; God didn't give us the germ theory of disease, or any of the other tools required to create vaccines. He gave us raw materials, and WE made the tools.
Yeah, I know God is God. He's a conscious agent with power; that's why he has moral responsibility, just like humans.
How do dying children make life perfect? That is one imperfect part that contributes NOTHING GOOD. Claiming it makes life perfect is just another of your shallow psychopathic idiocies.
@Hooya2 Our brains are the tools I speak of. Without them, we wouldn't have the germ theory, scientific method, vaccines, or any other advances.
In our eyes, death is terrible, but life wouldn't exist without it. Things need to die for others to take their place.
A tree gets hit by lightning, dies, and falls over. Insects devour it's pulp and use it as a breeding ground. Worms and bacteria finish the process and excrete fresh soil. A seedling takes root and the cycle continues.
@50crowley Brains are only ONE of the tools needed to prevent disease; without physical tools, and without a theory of disease, brains aren't enough. It's just a simple fact that God didn't give us everything needed to prevent disease.
Let's pretend for an instant that an omnipotent being actually requires death for life to exist--stupid as the idea is. So? I'm not just talking about death; I'm talking about agonizing, lingering deaths of innocent children. Is that necessary for life?
@Hooya2 But those physical tools and theories were also created by the brain, thus, the brain is all we needed. You cannot isolate one scientific advance from all others. Knowledge builds on itself and is dependent on every step of the way.
Chimps (our closest relatives) do not possess the tools to cure disease. Even if you gave them science labs, they couldn't do it. If humanity, in its earliest stages, did not possess everything it needed to cure diseases, then it never would have. Case closed
@50crowley While we developed those theories and tools, millions of people died and we were powerless to stop them. God didn't give us the tools needed to prevent disease. What you're saying is different; you're saying God gave us the tools needed to make the tools needed to prevent disease.
Your interpretation doesn't harmonize with Matthew 5:39, because Jesus says 'resist not evil', he doesn't say 'resist not evil unless it threatens innocents'.
Yes, millions died, and millions more will die from diseases we have not yet cured. To think that humanity can solve all of its problems in a single generation is pretty ridiculous.
Yes, that is what I am saying. My exact words were “God has…given us all of the tools we need”. Even if we possess only the capability of creating the tools necessary for ‘X’, we still have all we NEED.
@50crowley What is the point of saying God gave us the tools to prevent disease, if you acknowledge that we couldn't use those tools in time to save millions? That is the core of my argument, that God didn't prevent suffering that only he could have prevented.
Nothing in the context of 5:39 relegates it to only minor insult; in fact, the context of 5:38 shows it's a correction to the 'eye for an eye' adage in 5:38, so it seems safe to say it's supposed to apply to serious assault as well.
@Hooya2 The fatal flaw of your argument is that you assume if God removed suffering from life, that it would still be considered life. Life and suffering exist hand in hand. The most basic kind of suffering is death, and life cannot be life without death. God did make a place without suffering. It’s called heaven.
@50crowley OK, so when mankind ended smallpox our lives became something less than life? Wtf? Of course not. I'm not going to touch your claim that life requires suffering, but we both know for a fact that life does not require the suffering caused by disease. That is just pointless evil.
"The fact that suffering exists only makes those pleasures all the sweeter."
The fact that children are dying of tuberculosis in Africa makes you enjoy your life more? How? Explain to me the logic.
@Hooya2 No, because suffering is still present in life. The day we end ALL suffering is the day we can no longer consider ourselves "alive" in the traditional sense. Keep in mind, suffering is not limited to disease. There is emotional suffering too.
As nature has shown, nothing is pointless. Furthermore, if you apply Aristotelian logic, you would understand that there is no such thing as absolute evil. Disease is neither evil nor pointless, it's nature. Only humans are capable of pointless evil
@50crowley I'm not talking about ALL suffering, I'm talking about the deaths of innocents to disease. Nature has shown nothing is pointless? When?
The things that I enjoy most--good music, games, good food, and esp being with those I love--are all things that lots of people have. These things are fun *because they're fun*, not because they're rare. When I get sick and then get better, I appreciate it--but that's it. Recovering from suffering isn't the foundation of all joy in my life.
@Hooya2 At what point is suffering tolerable? If disease is non-existent, something else will take its place. Its like when a child gets a small cut. To you, the cut is nothing, but to the child it may be much more significant because they have yet to experience greater suffering. Suffering is relative.
Would you still enjoy music if you had to listen to it non-stop? Would you enjoy your favorite food if you had to eat it constantly?
@50crowley Personally I think all suffering should be ended wherever possible. But that's beside the point; the question here is, how can you justify Jesus not acting to end the most extreme cases of suffering?
I do listen to music constantly, but again this question is beside the point. Even if I have to stop listening to music sometimes in order to enjoy it more when I do listen, I'm not suffering when I stop listening. Even then, suffering is not required for my enjoyment.
@Hooya2 I agree, but I think that is a human responsibility/endeavor.
Jesus understood that suffering is both a part of life and is relative to the individual. Besides, his purpose was to teach us how to love. No amount of time or scientific research can teach you that.
Humans have a desire to love and be good, but sometimes we forget HOW to love/be good.
I highly doubt you listen to music constantly. Constant exposure to music is a psychological torture technique intended to induce insanity.
@50crowley What makes us morally responsible is the combination of knowledge and ability; God has both in spades, so he therefor shares moral responsibility.
Humans knew how to love long before Jesus; he didn't teach us anything new there. To say 'suffering is a part of life' when you have the power to stop it is just an attempt to dodge responsibility.
Who uses music to torture people? My office and the local Applebees must be torture chambers, because they have music playing all the time.
@Hooya2 I would argue that our responsibility is more out of self interest than anything else.
Some people knew how to love, but most people were bigoted, hateful, and quick to jump to conclusions. It was commonly accepted that if your wife did not bleed on your wedding night, she was a whore and would be stoned. That is not love. Jesus was largely responsible for re-teaching love's most important aspect: forgiveness.
@50crowley It isn't the music that's painful, it's playing it extremely loudly to induce sleep-deprivation. Do you really think that's comparable to playing the radio?
Jesus' teaching 'forgiveness' didn't stop the Crusades, slavery, the restricted rights of women, racism, the violent collapse of the Roman empire... He teachings didn't somehow make everyone loving or forgiving. He should have done something that actually helped mankind--like make vaccines.
@Hooya2 Volume does play a big part, but I listened to music for 36hrs straight once while in college and I was forced to take my headphones off because I was starting to see things. Over stimulation of pretty much any sense will yield unfavorable results.
All of those atrocities occurred due to the interests of man (which often do not factor in love/forgiveness). I think Jesus's teachings did have a positive impact on the world. Those who truly live in his image are amazingly kind individuals.
@50crowley I've been listening to music for the past 3 days with no break, unless you count brief meal breaks and the times when I'm walking to and from the car. Did you like, not sleep during that 36 hrs?
W/e, this is beside the point. My point was that the happiness people derive from music doesn't require suffering. The same is true of being with the people you love or playing games. Happiness doesn't need suffering. So, why didn't Jesus help to end suffering?
Yes, I did not sleep in that particular instance, however, I was accustomed to going long periods without rest due to the workload required by my major (architecture). The longest I have ever been awake was 72hrs straight. I experienced similar effects, but only in the last 6hrs or so. Music, in my experience, accelerated the process dramatically.
I agree, suffering is not NECESSARY, but it will result from too much of a good thing.
@50crowley Suffering is not necessary? I thought one of the points you were trying to make is that we couldn't be happy without suffering.
I agreed with the analogy, but I noted something; to Jesus, this world is the toy. Your soul is the child. Parents don't want their children risking their health over toys; in the same way, Jesus, who believed in an afterlife, didn't want his 'children' risking their souls trying to save this world.
@Hooya2 What I am saying is that we find pleasure in a limited portion of the spectrum. Too little food: you starve. Too much food: you get sick. Just the right amount, and you are satisfied.
Therefore, suffering and pleasure coexist hand in hand and we walk a fine line between the two.
It even extends to love! Girls'/Guys' nights exist because people feel a need to separate from their partner every once in a while. Inversely, the expression "absence makes the heart grow fonder" is equally true
@50crowley Is it possible for everyone to be fed sufficiently, with no one starving and no one being overfed? Yes, of course, though it seems unlikely in our lifetime. Is it possible for everyone to spend enough time with their loved ones to be happy, without getting fed up with them? Again, yes.
Your argument doesn't show that happiness and suffering must coexist; it just shows that the things that make you happy, done wrong, can make you suffer. This isn't the same.
@Hooya2 No, I'm saying happiness and suffering are often two sides of the same coin. The same things that make you happy can also cause suffering and vice versa. Therefore it is impossible to simply remove suffering without making life perfect, in which case, I argue that you couldn't really consider it "life" in a traditional sense.
I disagree with the notion of our bodies as toys/vehicles for our souls. They are both inseparable parts of who we are. You cannot be considered human without both
@50crowley OK, and why can't God make life perfect, in the sense of removing all suffering? If that 'isn't life', then fine, but how is this life better than that life?
Jesus repeatedly warns people against worrying about this world, precisely because our lives are short. Luke 12:16-21 is just one example. Even if you think your body is important, Jesus seemed to think otherwise.
@Hooya2 Its not "better", its just different. It is reality and I don't think criticizing/complaining about the nature of our existence is any more productive than criticizing/complaining about our parents. Nothing we say or reason will change reality.
I think Jesus was attempting to point out the fact that our time on earth is not the extent of existence. Considering Jesus questioned God the night before he was crucified shows that he had a lot more invested in his physical life than you say.
@50crowley Have you forgotten the point of this? I'm not complaining just to complain, I'm saying that Jesus could have made the world a far better place but didn't.
I don't blame you for forgetting though; we've been through so many excuses from you. Jesus had no moral responsibility, curing disease for ourselves feels more rewarding, we can't be happy without suffering. Each of them equally shallow and stupid. It grows tiresome.
@Hooya2 I apologize if this is frustrating, but nobody is forcing you to continue. Just so you know, I'm not trying to convert you, and I think it would be foolish for you to expect differently. The reason I argue is because I enjoy a good debate with coherent individuals such as yourself, and having my beliefs challenged forces me to really think and reflect on them.
If you do not desire to continue our conversation, we can simply agree to disagree and leave it at that. No hard feelings.
@Hooya2 However, it seems that whenever we come to a standstill where a clear counter argument isn't possible, you revert to petty insults and name calling. You say I'm shallow, stupid, and psychopathic; but if you really thought those things then why are we talking!? People will always be wrong on the internet, so unless you are getting something from our discourse, why continue it?
You know full well those are corruptions of my arguments and that my real points are neither shallow nor stupid.
@50crowley But I have given you clear counterarguments. God is morally responsible, because he shares the same attributes that make humans morally responsible. The 'do-it-yourself' morality would imply that we shouldn't save children, but let them help themselves. We don't draw our happiness from suffering, so we don't need it to be happy.
What frustrates me isn't that there's no clear-cut counterarguments, it's the fact that every time I raise one you change your argument to something else.
@Hooya2 I went back and reviewed some of my older comments and I think I can safely say that I have not changed my arguments. I have changed my wording and attempted to explain them differently, but I consistently return to making the same point. My main points have been: 1)Matt 5:39 is in regard to aggression, not violence, 2)Suffering/death are inseparable parts of life, and 3)God/Jesus is not responsible for assisting Humanity's physical endeavors.
@50crowley You've repeatedly changed your defense. Take 'resist not evil'; your first argument was that it was translated incorrectly--false. Your second argument was that Jesus meant 'don't seek retribution'--but that isn't what he said. Next was the argument from the buying swords--which, by your interpretation, causes a contradiction. Finally, you're using analogies to something else--fallacious analogies.
That's four shallow excuses to ignore what Jesus plainly told you to do.
@Hooya2 I said I did not agree with the KJV version, not that it was translated incorrectly.
Jesus' message was to resist aggression and/or retribution is the point I have made all along and I stand by it now. The swords reference contradicts YOUR interpretation but supports mine. I am using analogies to better explain my point. That isn't the same as "changing" my argument.
How are my analogies fallacious? You can't just say that and not support your statement.
@50crowley You don't understand my point do you? You started with one reason to reject a plain reading of the text, then you switched to another when I pointed out the flaws, then another and another. You're just making up different reasons as you go along.
Let me ask you this; what is the REAL reason you think Jesus didn't ban self-defense? I mean the reason you came here with, not the ones you've come up with over the span of this discussion.
@Hooya2 So your point is that I should make an argument and do nothing to support it? Of course I am going to bring up new points to refute the points you make. That is how a debate works! One side makes a point to support their argument and the other counters with their own point that supports an alternative argument.
How can you expect a debate to work if one or both sides are not allowed to bring evidence to the table? I haven't "changed" my argument, I supported it!
@50crowley No, my point is, I feel you're not really being honest with why you believe Jesus allowed for self-defense. You're presenting your arguments as to convince me, but they aren't what convinced you.
Let me ask you this; before we had this debate, had you personally asked yourself if Jesus had allowed for self-defense? Had you read that passage about buying swords and interpreted it that way previously, or was that an argument for self-defense you looked up on Google to counter me?
@Hooya2 Had I read the passage about buying the swords? Of course! Catholics make a big deal of the immediate events leading up to Jesus' crucifixion every year on Good Friday.
Had I thought about it as a defense for "resisting evil", no, but to think that I could have thought of every argument regarding biblical passages and have a prepared counter is rather preposterous. Having said that, I assure you my beliefs concerning self defense have not changed as a result of this discussion.
@50crowley OK, so I can say with certainty that the sword verse was not why you had believed that Jesus' teachings allowed for self-defense. Then what did?
1) Then it's appropriate to quote some verses alone, so long as they on their own provide enough meaning to be understood, correct?
2) Nonetheless, strict pacifism does allow for include not resisting genocide. Mat 5:39, interpreted on it's face, implies not resisting genocide.
@Hooya2 Well, I cannot say exactly, but it is something that the church taught and, obviously, I agreed with. Though I usually like to be the originator of my own beliefs, I will admit that I am very affected by church teaching/opinion.
1) haha, that depends less on the quote and more on the interpreted meaning lol. For example, If I quoted Luke 22:36 and then used it in an argument that portrays Jesus as an advocate of the NRA, I would be misleading my target audience.
@Hooya2 2) Agreed, pacifism (if treated as black and white) implies not resisting genocide. However, I do not believe in a black and white mentality. Yes, on its face, Matt 5:39 implies strict pacifism (which can then be logically stretched to not resisting genocide). However, I feel the true meaning/lesson is somewhat deeper than what is presented at face value.
@50crowley 1) We're not talking about the Bible, we're talking about individual verses within it. Are there individual verses which make points on their own, that can be largely understood without context?
2) Not picking up a gun, even when threatened, is the definition of what pacificism is about. Did Ghandi pick up a gun when he was beaten and imprisoned? Did MLK throw rocks when police whipped out the riot hoses on his friends?
@Hooya2 1) Yes, some verses can be LARGELY understood on their own, but none can be completely.
2) Ok, you are right and I agree with you. But Gandhi, MLK, Jesus, etc all stood for something larger than themselves. They used their lives as case studies to teach the rest of the world. The average pacifist would be less likely to uphold such stringent ideals. Furthermore, Gandhi/MLK were never faced with a situation involving large scale death/genocide, only equality and civil rights.
@50crowley Yes, Jesus was pointing out that time on earth was not the extent of existence--in order to make the point that people needed to worry about the next life more.
How is Jesus asking God to 'let the cup pass away from him' inconsistent with the idea that Jesus saw this life as a toy? Calling it a toy doesn't mean it's totally worthless, just that his eternal life is far more important. And in case you're forgetting, Jesus did supposedly accept his fate and decide to be crucified.
@Hooya2 Agreed, but that does not mean our physical lives aren't important at all.
It shows that Jesus was truly human and that he momentarily considered his physical life to be worth saving over all of humanity's souls. I think calling life a toy in comparison to our spiritual lives is not doing it enough justice. Also, some people believe the two are intertwined, and that perhaps our physical lives have an affect on our souls, and might even be a sort of spiritual gateway/transition.
@50crowley If you don't like toy, what do you prefer? It has to be something a child values and may get in a fight over, but which isn't worth their life. Toy seems the best fit, but if you've got something better, say it.
If you don't like the analogy, then we can drop it. The point is that Jesus told us to value our souls more than our body, and he lived that teaching as well. Why do you think that Jesus would want us to risk our eternal souls fighting to protect our physical bodies?
@Hooya2 Perhaps dropping the analogy is best, because I see nothing wrong with the child's life representing life.
The point of the analogy is not to prove that Jesus wanted us to value our souls more than life. When I made the original analogy I was showing that it is possible to teach something that is not universally true. Jesus' and the parent's teaching INDIRECTLY address aggression by forbidding physical resistance, but there are exceptions where resistance is permissible.
@Hooya2 What is the moral lesson in having the privaledge of being born into a different belief system, where you are then tortured for all eternity for it. It is an oxymoron with an omniscient creator god. In essence an omniscient creator god would have preknowledge of the outcome of its actions. It therefor, deliberately sets people up to fail.
@Hooya2 In a way, yes, but I was more referring to personal suffering. If everyone were perfectly healthy all the time, how could they appreciate good health? Like everything in life, you only appreciate the rarities/finer things. Nobody really appreciates air until they are drowning. People do not appreciate water until they are thirsty.
If everyone drove around in a Ferrari, nobody would appreciate them because they would be a common resource.
@Hooya2 Ok, I’m glad we are beginning to include context. In Matt 5:38, Jesus refers to Hammurabi’s code, which was created to ensure fair punishment/revenge. In Matt 5:39-42, Jesus is essentially telling his disciples not to seek retribution. Revenge is not the same as self defense. “Do not seek revenge” is just another way of saying “Return not aggression with aggression”.
@50crowley Now that I've shown that the context doesn't fit minor insults, you immediately jump to claiming it meant retribution instead, without even admitting that your interpretation was wrong. OK, fine.
Retribution doesn't work either. The word Jesus used for 'resist' is 'anthistēmi', which literally means 'stand against'. This word does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean 'retaliate' or 'revenge'.
@Hooya2 No, Hammurabi's code addressed retribution, but Jesus is teaching "return not aggression with aggression". He is disagreeing with the code, but he never actually says "retribution".
You have not only twisted my words, but you have yet to show the context pertaining to the defense of life.
"anthistēmi" is a Greek word. Jesus spoke Hebrew.
Besides, to interpret implies that you find meaning beyond the literal wording. What I am offering is a different way of looking at Jesus's teaching.
@50crowley The word used doesn't mean retribution, it means resist. Jesus is not saying 'don't retatalitate against evil', he's saying 'don't resist evil. That's my point. You're correct, Jesus spoke Hebrew; but the Gospels accounts, in the original Greek, having him saying anthistemi. If the Gospels are an accurate representation of what he said, then that's that.
Even a non-literal interpretation has to be consistent with the text to be valid. Yours isn't, and is thus invalid.
@Hooya2 Actually, much of the New Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and later translated into Greek and consolidated between 50-100AD into what we now call "The Bible". Excerpts from Matt, written in Aramaic, have been found and estimated to have been written between 30-60AD.
The Greek translation is a tertiary source at best. Nobody knows EXACTLY what Jesus said, but we can seek meaning/intention by interpreting.
How can a non-literal interpretation be consistent with literal text?
@50crowley The Gospels were written in Greek. The Bible was consolidated in the 4th century. The oldest manuscripts of the Gospels date from after 100 AD.
Consistency is so simple a child could understand it. If Jesus calls the Pharisees 'vipers', a consistent interpretation is that they're cold-blooded and poisonous, because that is what snakes, as a symbol, represent. If someone instead says he meant they were kind and friendly, then they're ignoring the text. Much like you are doing.
It wasn't CALLED the bible until the 4th century, but the texts existed beforehand. Its a common misconception. (en,wikipedia,org/wiki/Bible_translations)
Note: replace (,)'s with (.)'s
But you are arguing in favor of a literal interpretation. From your example, you would say the Pharisees are literally "vipers", whereas I am arguing that they are not. HOW you interpret the word "viper" is debatable, just like Matt 5:39.
@50crowley No, I'm well aware that the texts existed beforehand; however, they weren't compiled until the 4th century. While most scholars believe the Gospels were written pre-100 AD, this is from clues in the text; there is no surviving manuscript that old.
To say that an interpretation is debatable requires that there be more than one consistent way to interpret it. You haven't put forward an alternate interpretation that is consistent with the text, so where is the debate?
@Hooya2 Nothing complete, but they have found fragments on tablets.
If a man on the street came up to you and said something like "Should a man slap you, do not resist his slap. Violence will only escalate conflict.", would you then jump to the conclusion that this man does not believe in the defense of life?
Of course not! The video has twisted Jesus's teaching in order to draw a false conclusion that presents a moral dilemma. There are many passages from the bible that support my claim.
@50crowley But that isn't what Jesus said; he said, 'don't resist evil. If someone slaps you, let them do it again.' Stop replacing 'do not resist evil' with 'violence will only escalate conflict'. They aren't the same.
Neither of us is twisting Jesus' words. I'm quoting what he said at you; you're replacing it with what you want to hear, and claiming it's an 'interpretation', even though it's impossible to reach that interpretation from Jesus' words.
@Hooya2 All I'm saying is that perhaps "do not resist and evil person" could mean something other than what it literally says. After reading the bible and taking everything into account, I believe that "violence will only escalate conflict" is not a far-fetched interpretation.
As a child, your parents/teachers probably told you not to fight with other kids. This was because they knew there were better ways of settling disagreements, not because they thought violence was completely unjustifiable.
@50crowley You've given no reason to think your interpretation is true, you just keep making comparisons to *different* situations*. Why apply a non-literal interpretation to Mat 5:39?
The parent-child thing is a perfect analogy. Parents don't want their children to get injured over toys, and God doesn't want souls damaged over this world. Therefore, don't defend yourself. It works well with passages like John 18:36. So, why do you think God is wrong and self-defense is OK?
@Hooya2 I'm actually quite glad we agree on the parent-child analogy.
Now, if a child began beating another child completely unprovoked, would the same parents/teachers who previously said "do not fight other children" object to the victimized child's attempts to defend his or herself? Probably not
I think Jesus would agree that violence is justifiable in situations where you find yourself up against a wall with no alternative to violence. Jesus, therefore, would be an advocate of non-aggression
But if you read Matt 5:39 in context, it is clear that “resist not an evil person” is in reference to a minor insult. This can easily be interpreted as “Return not aggression with aggression”. This interpretation allows for self defense in some situations, and harmonizes the entire bible.
I pointed out the hole in your logic when I asked why Jesus would have told his disciples to buy swords instead of getting one himself, to which you admitted didn’t make much sense.
@Hooya2 What about parasitic worms? They exist in every species and can burrow into your skin, eat away at your brain, or latch on to your intestines. They can cause you to die a slow and painful death as you literally watch yourself vomit and excrete your organs.
The very existence of these creatures is dependent on the suffering of a human. We are not unlike other animals. We do not supersede the laws of nature. We die so that others might live.
@Hooya2 2) Close, but not quite. I am saying that in the psychopath’s eyes, he sees no evil in his actions; thus, in his mind, he is not bound by the moral laws society has imposed on itself. Ultimately, the only moral law that has no exceptions belongs to God. However, God’s morals are not bound by the constraints of language. In humanity’s feeble attempt to put morality into writing, we create opportunities for exceptions to exist.
@50crowley 2) "In humanity’s feeble attempt to put morality into writing, we create opportunities for exceptions to exist."
I'm facepalming so hard right now... After wasting my time with 10 posts saying 'all moral laws have exceptions' you've now gone back and admitted that you think some laws don't have exceptions. And you blame the exceptions we find in some moral statements on mankind--but it was Jesus' poor phrasing that let there be an exception in the Golden Rule!
@Hooya2 Ok, fine. Allow me to amend my previous statement: All *human* moral laws have exceptions. It’s not that Jesus couldn’t phrase his words correctly. It’s that true morality cannot be described with words because it is based on Love. Words cannot accurately define something as complex as love, much less morality.
@50crowley But I just gave you a human moral law that has no exceptions--'it is wrong to torture others for your own amusement'. Or are you still going to claim that psychopaths are immune to that?
Even with the Golden Rule, there are ways to phrase it that don't contain the sadomasochist exemptions: 'Treat others with love, compassion, and understanding' or 'Treat others as they want to be treated'.
@Hooya2 No, I agree that torturing others is wrong, but a psychopath would disagree with us. Thus, our moral rules do not apply to him in his mind.
Treating others with love, compassion, and understanding is what Jesus was all about! Almost all of his teachings revolve around this. Matt 5:39 was intended to make it clear that the same mindset should be applied to your enemies as well. This was counter intuitive and nearly unthinkable at that time and place. His exact wording is not important.
@Hooya2 If Jesus had simply given us antibiotics, humans would never have invented the scientific method. As a result, we would likely have very few of the technological benefits that we have today. So now you are faced with a moral dilemma: where do you draw the line? If Jesus gave antibiotics, why not give us cars, the internet, and nanotechnology. The fact of the matter is that the world wasn’t ready for it. These things are revealed in time through the natural talents that God has given us.
@50crowley So many arguments, so little reason. If Jesus wanted the scientific method, he could have just taught us that too. If Jesus didn't want to give us luxuries, he could have drawn the line at preventing needless suffering by saving children from disease. I can't even imagine what rationale you use to conclude that 'the world wasn't ready'; if I as a 10-year-old could understand the germ theory of disease, mankind could have handled it 2000 years ago.
@Hooya2 3) “…Resist not HIM that is evil.” The word “him” makes a big difference because it implies an embodied state. Resisting evil (as a noun) is not addressed in this passage, but it is a main theme in the bible. Jesus actually advises his disciples to arm themselves for defensive purposes in Luke 22:36-38. In this example Jesus knows HE is going to be captured and executed, but he makes it clear to his disciples that they have a right to defend themselves should their lives be threatened.
@50crowley 3) Why does that 'him' make any difference at all? Hitler was evil; so are rapists and murderers. That phrasing condemns self-defense too. Jesus is condemning self-defense.
If you can't explain Mat 5:39 on it's own, then finding verses which support self-defense is evidence of contradiction. Luke 22:36 doesn't help, even if it implies self-defense--but it DOESN'T; Jesus had them buy swords so he could be considered a transgressor (22:37), which is why only 2 was enough (22:38).
@Hooya2 Haha, what?! That is a ridiculous statement! Because a book cannot completely define itself in one sentence means that it contradicts itself?
Furthermore, your reading of Luke 22:37 is incorrect. Jesus informs his disciples that he will be counted as a transgressor, which is why he has them arm themselves. If he needed the swords to get arrested, why would he give them to his disciples and not simply take one himself?
You are still reading the bible literally. Interpretation is required.
@50crowley Jesus gave a clear commandment in Matthew 5--do not resist him that is evil--and he explained it with specific examples. If he later told his people to resist evil people, then that's a contradiction.
My reading of Luke 22 is the only one that doesn't contradict with Jesus' pacifist doctrine--but you're right that it has holes in it. Yours seems more plausible. I'll grant that it is likely a contradiction. So? How does that make his teachings on the Mount less immoral?
@Hooya2 Being a pacifist isn't about renouncing violence, its about renouncing aggression. This is the message Jesus was trying to portray in his teachings. I agree, if you read Mat 5:39 literally, it SEEMS to suggest that one should renounce violence all together, even when used in self defense. This specific teaching was intended to be shocking because that's what the people needed at the time. That being said, the bible must be understood in its entirety in order to be interpreted correctly.
@50crowley I'm glad you can admit the obvious, that my interpretation of Mat 5:39 is the most obvious one. But why do you think that the literal meaning isn't right? Are you saying that Jesus exaggerated in order to shock people? You think Jesus was just trolling his disciples?
I don't think the purpose of the verse was to say you should love your enemies--he says that in 5:44.
@Hooya2 Haha, no, Jesus wasn't "trolling" his disciples. "Love your enemies" was a central theme of the bible. Although Matt 5:39 does not directly address it, the theme is still present. Often times, petty disputes are settled with unnecessary violence. Jesus is presenting an alternate approach called conflict de-escalation.
The literal meaning of the bible isn't correct because Jesus often taught using allegories and metaphors. Also, exact wording differs according to translation.
@50crowley But this isn't an allegory or a metaphor. Jesus isn't making some vague abstraction; he's giving direct instructions on how to live.
If you can interpret that so loosely, what is to keep us from interpreting ANY of his commandments as we please? His direct commandment to 'love thy enemies' is presented identically--the same chapter, the same phrasing, even the same 'but I say unto you' preface. Maybe that's a metaphor/allegory, and he really meant 'love only those who love you'?
It was more of the idea the violence breeds more violence which you can find examples of, Ghandi and MLK also believed this. Turning the other cheek didn't mean not to be just. It did not mean to be ok with genocide. It meant stand hold to your convictions but dont let that violence and anger corrupt you, make you hate. And you know... its possible to forgive crimes. I was raped, I am hurt and still struggling and I dont say its ok. Its wrong. But I dont let that make me hate.
DeviantSongstress 2 weeks ago
Many people on earth think that they actually understand Christ and his teachings, but I say people who really understand his teachings and him will never raise question in his mind in fact it will change his life forever
sujitanthonygomes123 1 month ago
half way through the video....AMAZING!
MisadventureFilms 4 months ago 2
awesome video my friend. my concern is that you're preaching to the converted, and probably that those who believe in Christianity,etc., won't be convinced by your video... despite the clarity and validity of the points you raise. I hope it helps someone anyway, and if not, you still did a good job in my opinion. :)
rwtj01 6 months ago
"This video has been age-restricted based on our Community Guidelines"
What?
kaa3164 6 months ago
fucking jesus i have had enough of him
FreeeeS 6 months ago
Great short film.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
Everything said in this video, is biased, is totally utterly so wrong. I cannot believe, that people actually have a view of morals like this...
wowlightshadow 6 months ago
@wowlightshadow How is it biased? The man isn't misrepresenting what Jesus taught. He is merely demonstrating how absurd it would be to take his teachings to it's logical conclusion. If we strictly followed Jesus' "ethics", notions of Justice, the Law, etc would be impossible to have.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@Drgamedood Actually, he is misrepresenting Jesus's teachings. First of all, he selects verses and intentional omits context. Second, he twists those verses to draw misleading and even down-right false conclusions. Third, he misinterprets/misunderstands basic christian practices and beliefs, presents his interpretation as fact, and proceeds to point out logical flaws that aren't really there. Fourth, he presents his opinions on ethics/morality as scientific fact.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley First, his quotations of verses are all sufficiently contexted to know what Jesus was saying. Second, he didn't twist anything, he merely took the verses to their logical conclusions. Third, what Christian practices or beliefs did he even talk about? He only talked about what the Bible said about Jesus. Fourth, well, I agree with you there. I also agree with him; when he says things regarding morality like it's wrong to not violently resist the Nazis, I agree. Do you disagree?
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 1) We had a week long discussion regarding context in which we both used multiple verses from the bible to make our points. If nothing else, I think we have determined that verses cannot be read and completely understood independent of one another. 2) He took a pacifistic phrase and turned it into a pro-genocide/holocaust one. How is that not a twist? 3) Sinning and praying for forgiveness. 4) I was referring more to the whole casual sex/homosexuality/etc bit toward the end
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley 1) No, I disagree. Many verses, including Mat 5:39, can be read out of context and interpreted accurately. 2) You're the one twisting words now; he never said it was pro-genocide, merely that it meant not resisting genocide--which is true. 3) Fair enough; how do you think he distorted that? Believing you can absolve your guilt by being forgiven by God is a belief of Christianity. 4) Harmless sexual acts between consenting adults? I think that's perfectly moral. You don't?
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 I won't address 1&2 due to lack of room/time.
3)He misunderstands the christian notion of forgiveness. He believes that Christians can walk around committing heinous deeds and then superficially pray for forgiveness and be absolved. This is simply not true.
4)In many cases, yes. "Adults" often drunkenly have casual sex, which is not moral because they are using each other as sexual objects and degrading their bodies. Also, consenting adults cheat on their spouses, which isn't moral.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley You've made 50+ comments over 3 weeks, suddenly you're out of room/time? BS
3) What part assumes the criminals are being superficial? It's immoral for God to forgive someone if he isn't the victim of the crime, whether they genuinely repent or not.
4) If a willing person doesn't mind being treated as a sexual object, how is that immoral? And in what sense are they 'degrading' their bodies? We're not talking about adultery, which involves breaking a promise to someone else.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 I had somewhere I needed to be when I wrote my last comments. Sue me, lol.
3) The video implies superficiality but does not state it directly. I still disagree with you, but we've already debated the whole forgiveness thing.
4) Humans are biologically intended/inclined to be monogamous. I'm not saying marriage is a biological requirement for sex, but emotion is. When people sleep around, they are rejecting their very nature. Emotionless/casual sex is not natural and thus, is not moral.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley Then address them now. 1) Plenty of verses can be understood with only themselves for context. 2) He never said pacificism was pro-genocide. 3) The argument doesn't require superficiality to work. 4) That's ludicrous. It is the nature of all adult humans to want to have sex with attractive people, even if they have no personal connections. Of course people also desire deep emotional connections, but it's a cultural belief, not our nature, that ties sex and love together.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 1) That depends on how you look at it. A fundamentalist may agree with you, but I believe the only way to truly understand the bible and its messages is to take the big picture into account.
2) True, he did not directly say that. However, he was implying that pacifism allows for genocide because for some reason people cannot defend themselves, which is not true. Even a pacifist will pick up a gun if if they are pushed hard enough or if their life/family is threatened.
50crowley 6 months ago
@Hooya2 3) It does if you believe God has the power to forgive. If God does NOT have the power to forgive then yes, superficiality is irrelevant, but that is not what we are debating.
4) Neurochemistry and evolutionary psychology have shown that the emotion "love" is a series of chemical reactions evolved by humans because rearing a child was significantly easier as a couple. Every time you have sex, your body releases chemicals and you fall deeper in love. Its biology. Its in our blood.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley LOL. Wow, so many things wrong with your statement. So let me get this straight, Jesus didn't preach turning the other cheek and loving your enemy? He doesn't misrepresent the teachings at all. He just shows how stupid it would be to carry out Jesus' ethics strictly.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
Here are some other words from C.S Lewis. This great man once derisively described himself in his Atheist days as being " in that state of mind in which a boy thinks it extremely telling to call God Javeh and Jesus Yeshua." Learn well, Peter, and be careful what you read - it is extremely easy to find God wherever you least it expect it.
Moshe2032 7 months ago
There's a lot of "straw manning" going on here, that is, in your effort to persuade, you put forth a very weak representation of the opposing viewpoint and then knock it down. The "resist no evil" part can just as easily be interpreted as non-violent resistence, which as been successful in many social movements.
pheeel17 7 months ago
@pheeel17 I think you're right that Jesus meant non-violent resistance--that matches how he acted. And you're also right in saying that often works. But put that kind of reasoning in the video's example; would passive resistance have stopped the Nazi extermination of the Jewish people? The idea is absurd.
I don't think this video strawmanned anything. Jesus' preaching is wrong, whether he meant total compliance or merely passive resistance. Some evils must be resisted with force.
Hooya2 7 months ago
AWESOME
DJzSith 7 months ago
Outstanding Film!
kugelblitz2001 7 months ago
this movie is bullshit. my god did this friggin guy know anything about sociologogy, anthropology, biblical scolarship, history, metaethics, or anything else he pontificates about? 100% idiot.
MWM958 7 months ago
This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever witnessed
1980Hamster 7 months ago 2
Every point this video makes is completely false. The creators clearly lack any understanding of Christianity, its beliefs, and its morals.
I can successfully argue every point this video makes and am willing to do so for anyone who may be confused or persuaded by the incredibly weak and shallow arguments that have been made. Message me.
Monogamy is wrong? Try telling your wife that. Idiot.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley
Point 1: jesus was not the first person to teach the golden rule (true)
Point 2: there are exceptions to the golden rule (lol trivially true)
Point 3: 'don't resist evil' is a terrible teaching (true)
Point 4: the idea of a person other than the victim forgiving sins is vile (true)
Point 5: Jesus could have vastly improved the well-being of mankind, but didn't (true)
I bet you can't argue any of these points successfully.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2
1) Jesus never claimed to be the first teacher of the golden rule.
2) Rules are made to work within pre-existing social structures. They do not necessarily apply to people who fall outside of that social/value system. There are exceptions to every rule, but exceptions do not void rules entirely.
3) So... Martin Luther King Jr. was a terrible teacher? He taught that violence only leads to more violence. The BEST (not only) way to settle dispute is through communication and understanding.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley This video is intended for people who don't believe in the supernatural aspects of Jesus but still think the's a respectable teacher. Trying to rebut the arguments in this video with discussion of supernatural causes misses the point. 1) Jesus never claimed it, but Christians attribute it to him as if he came up with it. 3) Resist is not equal to violence. Jesus didn't teach conflict resolution, he suggested that when one does evil to you, that you be a willing doormat and invite more
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 So if you do not believe in the supernatural aspects of Jesus, how can you expect him to possess knowledge of antibiotics and advanced technology? That voids the argument entirely.
For the record, I have not used "supernatural causes" in any of my rebuttals except where the supernatural had already been implied.
1) So people have a bad understanding of history. Is that news to you?
2?)
3) Wrong. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek and be the bigger man. He never said "be a doormat"
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley Fair point on the special knowledge. I didn't make this video though. But, your responses to points 4 and 5 (which I didn't address directly) implied an acceptance of the supernatural aspects of Jesus by invoking God and Jesus' Biblical purpose. 1) No, but the video didn't state that the Bible claims Jesus originated the golden rule, it was only addressing the fact that many people believe that. 3) To "turn the other cheek" is essentially to be a willing victim, aka a doormat.
Arkalius80 7 months ago
@Arkalius80 Point 4 was in regard to who had the ultimate right to forgive: the victim, or God. How is is possible to argue the latter without accepting God as a reality?
Point 5 was in regard to Jesus's ability to help mankind. Again, you cannot expect him to possess supernatural knowledge without accepting the supernatural.
1) ok, but that does not reflect on the nature of Jesus as a moral teacher.
3) See my response to Hooya2. (2 comments ago)
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley 1) So you admit that the video's point WAS correct.
2) Again, you are admitting the point.
3) Dr. King's form of passive resistance was brilliant, but only in a specific context--trying to change the mind of the general public through compassion. Passive resistance would never stop a rapist or a murderer, nor would it have stopped the Nazis invading Britain. Sometimes, violence is not just the best, but the ONLY viable response to evil.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2
4) To sin is to reject God. To repent is to accept Him. Those who accept God DO NOT SIN. You cannot rob somebody and then run back to church to ask for forgiveness. The fact that you committed a crime shows that you are not interested in forgiveness.
5) Jesus did not come to earth to make life easy or convenient. He knew that mankind would eventually invent medicine, so why spend his time rushing the process? He came for spiritual, not physical, salvation.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley 4) Huh? What you just said is so sharply in contrast with mainstream Christianity that I'm just left confounded. So once someone accepts God they never sin again? Since you've accepted God, you've *never* sinned?
5) So Jesus wasn't incompetent, he just didn't care about all the massive suffering and death people would suffer from? Because he thought he could save more souls by NOT performing scientific miracles that would make Christians the healthiest people on the planet?
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2
1) Name one person who taught ONLY 100% original ideas.
2) So the only way for there to not be exceptions to the rule is for rules to not exist at all? That's retarded.
3) Mankind has been using violence to solve problems for 200,000 years. We still fight each other.
4) Christians are always striving to be more like God. However, it is impossible to COMPLETELY accept God. To do so, is to be God.
5) Jesus's time on earth was like a youtube comment. He only had so many characters.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley 1) The point here is, to paraphrase, that Jesus taught only unoriginal or immoral ideas. If you agree the golden rule wasn't original, then you're accepting one of their points is true. Of course no one teaches 100% original ideas, but how does that save your case?
2) No, the only way for there to not be exceptions to this rule is if there is no situation where it's wrong to do onto others as you would have them do onto you. That is not the case, so the rule isn't universal.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2
1) Ok, if you feel the video's point was only to show that some of Jesus's teaching were unoriginal, I will accept that. However, I feel the video makes further implications than that.
2) My point is there is no such thing as a "universal rule". All rules have exceptions.
3) Jesus never said to "allow murder". All human beings have a right to live. A more accurate interpretation of Jesus's teaching would be "Answering aggression with aggression never solves anything."
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley 1) The point is that ALL of Jesus teachings are unoriginal or immoral, and the Golden Rule is one of the unoriginal ones. That's not what I feel, it's what they say at 1:30. I'm glad you acknowledge the GR is unoriginal though.
2) Why do you think that is a valid or meaningful defense? Who cares if 'all rules have exceptions', how does that justify this exception? And you're not even right; plenty of moral rules DON'T have exceptions.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@50crowley 3) His exact words (translated) are "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil". Let me ask you this; how can you stop a murderer who's killing someone in front of your eyes without violating Jesus' teaching?
4) Whether or not a criminal feels guilty has no bearing on if he/she actually is. Psychopaths feel no guilt, does that mean they're morally faultless? It's the same, reversed, for people who have been forgiven but still feel guilty.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@50crowley 3) Yes, because people have violent desires. Opposing murderers won't prevent all murders. But allowing murders will not only not prevent future murders, it will encourage them. Jesus' 'resist not evil' teaching is dangerous, dumb, and immoral.
4) So you admit Christians sin, and I presume you also realize they pray for forgiveness. In that case, can you really claim that no Christians commit vicious crimes, repent, and pray to God for forgiveness without asking the victim?
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2
4) Who said the victim has the ultimate right to forgive? There are people who have been forgiven for their offenses but have never forgiven themselves. Are they truly forgiven?
Catholics believe that when you die, you become one with God. The victim, the offender, everyone. Therefore, God/you have the final say on if you are forgiven.
5) Again, that was not his purpose. You know how when you are given money it isn't as special as when you earn it? Same idea, bigger picture.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley Where did you hear that Catholics believe people become one with God after they die? The idea that humans can become God is heretical to the Catholic church.
5) 'Isn't as special'? Jesus let millions die gruesome deaths from treatable illnesses, because if he told us the secret, Pasteur wouldn't get to feel clever when he figured it out? I doubt even you believe this; stop typing dumb answers and THINK. Only respond when you have a defense that you're confident makes sense.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 2) name one moral rule with no exceptions.
3) That was the Anglican translation. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church you are allowed to defend yourself & others from evil.
4) Psychopaths also feel no sorrow. You need to be truly sorry to be forgiven.
5) Benjamin Franklin puts it best when he said "God helps those who help themselves". Why is it God's fault that Humans didn't invent what was possible all along sooner? Death and suffering is a part of life. Deal with it.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley 2) It's wrong to torture people for your own amusement.
3) Every translation says the same thing. Which translation do you accept? Maybe you prefer the Catholic Douay-Rheims version? It says "But I say to you not to resist evil." Or maybe the NIV? "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person." Perhaps the RSV? "But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil." The Catechism contradicts Jesus' teachings by allowing self-defense..
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2
2) not in the eyes of a psychopath or sadist.
3) Catholics usually don't use a literal translation (like the King James or Douay-Rheims). Most prefer a more interpreted version in their own language. I prefer the English Revised Version: "but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil." This suggests that evil as a noun CAN be resisted, while evil as an adjective should be taken in stride.
Who gave you the religious authority to say the Catholic church isn't allowed to interpret?
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley 2) So you're saying morality is subjective, and the morality of a psychopath is equivalent to yours?
3) The Douay-Rheims is widely used by Catholics.
"This suggests that evil as a noun CAN be resisted..."
The verse specifically says 'resist not him that is evil'. Jesus clarifies his meaning later on; if someone hits you, turn the other cheek, if they sue you, give them everything (Matthew 5:39-40). How can you resist any evil when you can't resist any evil actors?
Hooya2 7 months ago
@50crowley 3) This isn't a statement I'm making from religious authority, it's just a common-sense statement of fact. 'Do not resist evil' contradicts 'it's OK to defend yourself from evil'. The Church violates Jesus' teachings when they say self-defense is permissible.
4) No, no one but the victim has that right. If a criminal goes out and rapes someone, he has no right to forgive himself, even if he feels sorry. Neither does anyone else, because they weren't the ones who were wronged.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Are you at all capable of abstract thought? An analogy is, by definition, not to be taken literally. If you cannot understand this literary concept, I see no way for you to begin to grasp the abstract concepts that religion and spirituality address.
2) Yes, morality is subjective, thus proving my original point that rules are made to uphold and function within a pre-existing set of social norms. When these conditions are true, the Golden rule is moral.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley Apparently, you're confusing 'abstract' with 'irrational'. I used your own analogy to point out that a parent behaving like God would seem like a monster, and now suddenly you don't like it any more? Fine, point out to me where the analogy fails to fit. Jesus didn't reveal medical information that could have saved the lives of hundreds of millions of his children; how is he NOT a terrible father?
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Child is to Parent as Humanity is to God. This is about as basic as analogies get. You’ll find them on the SAT and the GRE.
In addition to not being able to recognize an analogy, you failed to analyze it correctly. If your version were correct, all of humanity should be dead. The humans that died because they lacked access to vaccines are like (here comes another analogy) a teenager getting sick because they stayed up too late playing video games and didn’t get enough rest.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley Oh, I see now; you're right that I mistook your analogy, but only because it was so breath-takingly insane. You're lumping all humans into one thing--humanity--and saying that is God's child, not (as I thought) saying that God has 6 billion or so children. In your analogy, individual children dying of smallpox are, what, skin cells falling off?
I think you've proven my point; if God sees dying children like this, then he's a psychopath.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 What you are suggesting is a logical fallacy. If God had given us antibiotics, he would have been morally obligated to give us brain surgery, painkillers, and every medical advancement humanity has and ever will make. Failure to do so would result in us having the same conversation we are now.
Humans are incredibly arrogant. We think the world revolves around us and the loss of a human life is somehow more significant than anything else. In a cosmic sense, we are no better than dust.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley You didn't say brain surgery and antibiotics, you said cars and the internet. I agree that God is morally obligated to give us all medical science, but not luxury items. Don't twist my words.
"We think... the loss of a human life is somehow more significant than anything else."
Are you saying it's morally OK for God to let children suffer because humans are insignificant? Well, that answers one question; you're just as psychopathic as the God you believe in. Fuck you.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 I was making a point, lol. I’m sorry that I couldn’t type every invention/advancement humanity has ever made into a single youtube comment.
If it isn’t morally ok for God, how is it for you? By your logic, shouldn’t you be in Africa feeding starving children right now? Life isn’t fair. It’s not supposed to be fair. Some people suffer and that is an unfortunate reality of existence.
No need for hostile words, my friend. We are having a discussion. It's nothing to get worked up over.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley I'm not angry that you didn't list every invention/achievement of mankind, I'm angry that you ignored my distinction between life-saving advances like antibiotics and 'luxuries'.
I'm not perfect; I agree that I have an obligation, and the fact that I don't fulfill it (beyond donating when I can) is a result of my selfishness. My only defense is that I have little power, and even if I donated everything I have it wouldn't be enough. I can't end all disease overnight.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 There is something special about life that Jesus and most Christians recognize. Life is not intended to be perfect. It is HOW we live our lives that really matters. Even a world where nobody gets sick or dies is a terrible place to live if it is devoid of love. I would rather live a single day in a world with love than 100 years in one without.
Life is a journey and what we do along the way is up to us. If God had interfered, everything we do and have done would have no meaning.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley Would Jesus teaching us vaccines remove love from the world? It seems to me it would have simply allowed parents to keep the children they love alive. It would certainly have took away a lot of suffering.
How would God's interference make our actions meaningless? That's like saying parents should let their sick children treat themselves, because if they save the children 'everything they do and have done would have no meaning'. Completely senseless.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Humanity shares a very important ability with God: creation. Both man and God have an inherent ability to create that which did not exist before. As I have already pointed out, had Jesus given us antibiotics, he would have been morally obligated to give us everything else. This would have destroyed our ability to create because we wouldn’t have to. Humans create due to necessity. If you remove the need, Humans no longer create. We would lose a HUGE part of our humanity.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley Jesus either is obligated to give us life-saving medicine, or he isn't. This 'if Jesus did X, he would be obligated to do Y' is simply wrong.
You've gone from saying that our lives would be meaningless to saying we would only lose a huge part of our humanity. I disagree even with that; construction workers don't invent any new technologies, they just deal with the plans they're given. Does that mean they're lacking in humanity? No.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 I was referring to humanity as a collective, not individuals. The Architect who devised the plans to give to the construction workers cannot create the building on his own. Construction workers are an integral part of the creative process even though they do not contribute to the design. That being said, humanity was not intended to be God’s construction crew. Humanity would not be the same if it consisted solely of construction workers. We need thinkers and doers to be creative.
50crowley 7 months ago
@Hooya2 I don't see how a line can be drawn when it comes to technology and scientific advancement.
You are right, our lives would be no less meaningless than the life of a dog or a snail. We would be automatons driven primarily by instinct. However, I like to believe humanity has evolved to a point where we are no longer bound by our animalistic nature. This is due, in part, to our never ending pursuit of knowledge and creation. If you took the "pursuit" out, humanity would have no drive.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley Do construction workers have lives as meaningful as animals because they're not inventors?
The pursuit of knowledge is good, but it isn't the most important part of humanity. Human love, happiness, and well-being are far more important. Imagine if today a researcher, after years of work, discovered a cure for cancer. Then, he destroyed his research, on the grounds that he wanted other people to find meaning in rediscovering it. Would such a person be moral, or a monster?
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 What I meant was that construction workers and architects have an equal share in the creation of a building. Neither is more important than the other.
The researcher is PART of humanity. Contrary to popular belief, his discovery is not (ethically) his to do as he pleases with. Humanity had a collective effort in the discovery because it took hundreds of years of scientific advancement and thousands of hours of education to give the researcher the necessary tools to make such a discovery.
50crowley 7 months ago
@Hooya2 God, on the other hand, has no ethical obligation to help humanity. In fact, he would be doing us a disservice by helping because he would be robbing us of the opportunity to prove to ourselves what we are capable of.
Imagine a friend of yours enters a tennis tournament under your name. Your friend ends up winning and you get a big trophy. The trophy would have very little meaning to you because you did not earn it.
The friend is God. The contest is life. The trophy is human achievement.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley How can someone not have a moral obligation to save suffering innocents? That's the most basic of moral obligations.
Would you refuse to give medical care to infants? They certainly haven't done anything to earn it. Would you turn down medical care yourself? I doubt you contributed to the invention of vaccines or modern surgery.
Of course not. Good health is not a reward for winning a contest. It's a basic human right, and so is access to medicine.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Good health and medicine are basic human rights? Humans have been around for 200,000 years, but modern medicine is less than 200 years old. Even today people in third world countries lack access to medicine due to economic reasons. Medicine is a perk of living in a developed nation, not a "right".
Good health is not a guarantee or a right either. Some people get cancer, others dont. Cancer patients do not lack rights. They are merely unlucky, or biologically predisposed to getting cancer
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley Good medical care isn't a right? So dying children don't deserve medical treatment? Seriously, you sound like a psychopath. And to support this absurdity, you cite the fact that people didn't have it in the past? So? Women used to be treated like chattel, does that mean that equality is just a perk of modern society?
Good health isn't guaranteed because God either doesn't exist or isn't moral. He either isn't protecting the rights of his creatures or he doesn't exist.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Your logic is exemplary of how secular society, in its narcissism, cannot perceive of a world that operates according to a different set of values.
Medical care is not a "right". Neither is equality. I'm not saying people don't deserve either of those things, but to think that we are somehow born with the right of equality is to undermine and disregard all of the effort that went into the civil rights movement.
Good health is not guaranteed because life isn't supposed to be perfect.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley I can perceive the world you're describing, where it's morally OK to let a child die of preventable illness. The problem is, that world is the world of a psychopath, not the world of a good person.
How can you say you're 'not saying people don't deserve' medical care? Your argument hinges on the assumption that Jesus wasn't wrong for not giving humans medical technology. If people deserve medical care, then was not God obliged to give us the necessary tools for it?
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 What I am saying is that God has already given us all of the tools we need. In that sense, Humanity has been given the freedom to reap what we sow. People deserve access to the fruits of their labor, both in an individual and collective sense. However, neither life nor God are required to give out “freebies”. Isn't that fact that it is by God's will that we even EXIST enough to be thankful for?
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley But God didn't give mankind all the tools needed to prevent disease; why make such a blatant lie? Of course, giving humans the freedom to let their children die is morally atrocious, even if you believe that silly fib.
Everyone is morally obliged to save innocent people from pointless suffering when possible; to say otherwise is psychopathic. We wouldn't say that a mother has no obligation to give her son medical treatment just because she gave birth to him, would we?
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Explain how God did not give us the tools to prevent disease? We have created vaccines for many diseases and even erased some diseases completely! How could we have done this if we did not have the tools?
...but God isn't "someone", he's God. I agree, it is righteous for Humans to help one another. Perhaps that is why other humans exist!
Life, although filled with pain, is beautiful if you take a step back and look at it in a cosmic sense. The imperfect parts create a perfect whole!
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley I already explained it; God didn't give us the germ theory of disease, or any of the other tools required to create vaccines. He gave us raw materials, and WE made the tools.
Yeah, I know God is God. He's a conscious agent with power; that's why he has moral responsibility, just like humans.
How do dying children make life perfect? That is one imperfect part that contributes NOTHING GOOD. Claiming it makes life perfect is just another of your shallow psychopathic idiocies.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Our brains are the tools I speak of. Without them, we wouldn't have the germ theory, scientific method, vaccines, or any other advances.
In our eyes, death is terrible, but life wouldn't exist without it. Things need to die for others to take their place.
A tree gets hit by lightning, dies, and falls over. Insects devour it's pulp and use it as a breeding ground. Worms and bacteria finish the process and excrete fresh soil. A seedling takes root and the cycle continues.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley Brains are only ONE of the tools needed to prevent disease; without physical tools, and without a theory of disease, brains aren't enough. It's just a simple fact that God didn't give us everything needed to prevent disease.
Let's pretend for an instant that an omnipotent being actually requires death for life to exist--stupid as the idea is. So? I'm not just talking about death; I'm talking about agonizing, lingering deaths of innocent children. Is that necessary for life?
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 But those physical tools and theories were also created by the brain, thus, the brain is all we needed. You cannot isolate one scientific advance from all others. Knowledge builds on itself and is dependent on every step of the way.
Chimps (our closest relatives) do not possess the tools to cure disease. Even if you gave them science labs, they couldn't do it. If humanity, in its earliest stages, did not possess everything it needed to cure diseases, then it never would have. Case closed
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley While we developed those theories and tools, millions of people died and we were powerless to stop them. God didn't give us the tools needed to prevent disease. What you're saying is different; you're saying God gave us the tools needed to make the tools needed to prevent disease.
Your interpretation doesn't harmonize with Matthew 5:39, because Jesus says 'resist not evil', he doesn't say 'resist not evil unless it threatens innocents'.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2
Yes, millions died, and millions more will die from diseases we have not yet cured. To think that humanity can solve all of its problems in a single generation is pretty ridiculous.
Yes, that is what I am saying. My exact words were “God has…given us all of the tools we need”. Even if we possess only the capability of creating the tools necessary for ‘X’, we still have all we NEED.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley What is the point of saying God gave us the tools to prevent disease, if you acknowledge that we couldn't use those tools in time to save millions? That is the core of my argument, that God didn't prevent suffering that only he could have prevented.
Nothing in the context of 5:39 relegates it to only minor insult; in fact, the context of 5:38 shows it's a correction to the 'eye for an eye' adage in 5:38, so it seems safe to say it's supposed to apply to serious assault as well.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 The fatal flaw of your argument is that you assume if God removed suffering from life, that it would still be considered life. Life and suffering exist hand in hand. The most basic kind of suffering is death, and life cannot be life without death. God did make a place without suffering. It’s called heaven.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley OK, so when mankind ended smallpox our lives became something less than life? Wtf? Of course not. I'm not going to touch your claim that life requires suffering, but we both know for a fact that life does not require the suffering caused by disease. That is just pointless evil.
"The fact that suffering exists only makes those pleasures all the sweeter."
The fact that children are dying of tuberculosis in Africa makes you enjoy your life more? How? Explain to me the logic.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 No, because suffering is still present in life. The day we end ALL suffering is the day we can no longer consider ourselves "alive" in the traditional sense. Keep in mind, suffering is not limited to disease. There is emotional suffering too.
As nature has shown, nothing is pointless. Furthermore, if you apply Aristotelian logic, you would understand that there is no such thing as absolute evil. Disease is neither evil nor pointless, it's nature. Only humans are capable of pointless evil
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley I'm not talking about ALL suffering, I'm talking about the deaths of innocents to disease. Nature has shown nothing is pointless? When?
The things that I enjoy most--good music, games, good food, and esp being with those I love--are all things that lots of people have. These things are fun *because they're fun*, not because they're rare. When I get sick and then get better, I appreciate it--but that's it. Recovering from suffering isn't the foundation of all joy in my life.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 At what point is suffering tolerable? If disease is non-existent, something else will take its place. Its like when a child gets a small cut. To you, the cut is nothing, but to the child it may be much more significant because they have yet to experience greater suffering. Suffering is relative.
Would you still enjoy music if you had to listen to it non-stop? Would you enjoy your favorite food if you had to eat it constantly?
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley Personally I think all suffering should be ended wherever possible. But that's beside the point; the question here is, how can you justify Jesus not acting to end the most extreme cases of suffering?
I do listen to music constantly, but again this question is beside the point. Even if I have to stop listening to music sometimes in order to enjoy it more when I do listen, I'm not suffering when I stop listening. Even then, suffering is not required for my enjoyment.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 I agree, but I think that is a human responsibility/endeavor.
Jesus understood that suffering is both a part of life and is relative to the individual. Besides, his purpose was to teach us how to love. No amount of time or scientific research can teach you that.
Humans have a desire to love and be good, but sometimes we forget HOW to love/be good.
I highly doubt you listen to music constantly. Constant exposure to music is a psychological torture technique intended to induce insanity.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley What makes us morally responsible is the combination of knowledge and ability; God has both in spades, so he therefor shares moral responsibility.
Humans knew how to love long before Jesus; he didn't teach us anything new there. To say 'suffering is a part of life' when you have the power to stop it is just an attempt to dodge responsibility.
Who uses music to torture people? My office and the local Applebees must be torture chambers, because they have music playing all the time.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 I would argue that our responsibility is more out of self interest than anything else.
Some people knew how to love, but most people were bigoted, hateful, and quick to jump to conclusions. It was commonly accepted that if your wife did not bleed on your wedding night, she was a whore and would be stoned. That is not love. Jesus was largely responsible for re-teaching love's most important aspect: forgiveness.
sibetrans,com/trans/a152/music-as-torture-music-as-weapon
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley It isn't the music that's painful, it's playing it extremely loudly to induce sleep-deprivation. Do you really think that's comparable to playing the radio?
Jesus' teaching 'forgiveness' didn't stop the Crusades, slavery, the restricted rights of women, racism, the violent collapse of the Roman empire... He teachings didn't somehow make everyone loving or forgiving. He should have done something that actually helped mankind--like make vaccines.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 Volume does play a big part, but I listened to music for 36hrs straight once while in college and I was forced to take my headphones off because I was starting to see things. Over stimulation of pretty much any sense will yield unfavorable results.
All of those atrocities occurred due to the interests of man (which often do not factor in love/forgiveness). I think Jesus's teachings did have a positive impact on the world. Those who truly live in his image are amazingly kind individuals.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley I've been listening to music for the past 3 days with no break, unless you count brief meal breaks and the times when I'm walking to and from the car. Did you like, not sleep during that 36 hrs?
W/e, this is beside the point. My point was that the happiness people derive from music doesn't require suffering. The same is true of being with the people you love or playing games. Happiness doesn't need suffering. So, why didn't Jesus help to end suffering?
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 I do count meals/sleep/travel as breaks.
Yes, I did not sleep in that particular instance, however, I was accustomed to going long periods without rest due to the workload required by my major (architecture). The longest I have ever been awake was 72hrs straight. I experienced similar effects, but only in the last 6hrs or so. Music, in my experience, accelerated the process dramatically.
I agree, suffering is not NECESSARY, but it will result from too much of a good thing.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley Suffering is not necessary? I thought one of the points you were trying to make is that we couldn't be happy without suffering.
I agreed with the analogy, but I noted something; to Jesus, this world is the toy. Your soul is the child. Parents don't want their children risking their health over toys; in the same way, Jesus, who believed in an afterlife, didn't want his 'children' risking their souls trying to save this world.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 What I am saying is that we find pleasure in a limited portion of the spectrum. Too little food: you starve. Too much food: you get sick. Just the right amount, and you are satisfied.
Therefore, suffering and pleasure coexist hand in hand and we walk a fine line between the two.
It even extends to love! Girls'/Guys' nights exist because people feel a need to separate from their partner every once in a while. Inversely, the expression "absence makes the heart grow fonder" is equally true
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley Is it possible for everyone to be fed sufficiently, with no one starving and no one being overfed? Yes, of course, though it seems unlikely in our lifetime. Is it possible for everyone to spend enough time with their loved ones to be happy, without getting fed up with them? Again, yes.
Your argument doesn't show that happiness and suffering must coexist; it just shows that the things that make you happy, done wrong, can make you suffer. This isn't the same.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 No, I'm saying happiness and suffering are often two sides of the same coin. The same things that make you happy can also cause suffering and vice versa. Therefore it is impossible to simply remove suffering without making life perfect, in which case, I argue that you couldn't really consider it "life" in a traditional sense.
I disagree with the notion of our bodies as toys/vehicles for our souls. They are both inseparable parts of who we are. You cannot be considered human without both
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley OK, and why can't God make life perfect, in the sense of removing all suffering? If that 'isn't life', then fine, but how is this life better than that life?
Jesus repeatedly warns people against worrying about this world, precisely because our lives are short. Luke 12:16-21 is just one example. Even if you think your body is important, Jesus seemed to think otherwise.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 Its not "better", its just different. It is reality and I don't think criticizing/complaining about the nature of our existence is any more productive than criticizing/complaining about our parents. Nothing we say or reason will change reality.
I think Jesus was attempting to point out the fact that our time on earth is not the extent of existence. Considering Jesus questioned God the night before he was crucified shows that he had a lot more invested in his physical life than you say.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley Have you forgotten the point of this? I'm not complaining just to complain, I'm saying that Jesus could have made the world a far better place but didn't.
I don't blame you for forgetting though; we've been through so many excuses from you. Jesus had no moral responsibility, curing disease for ourselves feels more rewarding, we can't be happy without suffering. Each of them equally shallow and stupid. It grows tiresome.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 I apologize if this is frustrating, but nobody is forcing you to continue. Just so you know, I'm not trying to convert you, and I think it would be foolish for you to expect differently. The reason I argue is because I enjoy a good debate with coherent individuals such as yourself, and having my beliefs challenged forces me to really think and reflect on them.
If you do not desire to continue our conversation, we can simply agree to disagree and leave it at that. No hard feelings.
50crowley 6 months ago
@Hooya2 However, it seems that whenever we come to a standstill where a clear counter argument isn't possible, you revert to petty insults and name calling. You say I'm shallow, stupid, and psychopathic; but if you really thought those things then why are we talking!? People will always be wrong on the internet, so unless you are getting something from our discourse, why continue it?
You know full well those are corruptions of my arguments and that my real points are neither shallow nor stupid.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley But I have given you clear counterarguments. God is morally responsible, because he shares the same attributes that make humans morally responsible. The 'do-it-yourself' morality would imply that we shouldn't save children, but let them help themselves. We don't draw our happiness from suffering, so we don't need it to be happy.
What frustrates me isn't that there's no clear-cut counterarguments, it's the fact that every time I raise one you change your argument to something else.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 I went back and reviewed some of my older comments and I think I can safely say that I have not changed my arguments. I have changed my wording and attempted to explain them differently, but I consistently return to making the same point. My main points have been: 1)Matt 5:39 is in regard to aggression, not violence, 2)Suffering/death are inseparable parts of life, and 3)God/Jesus is not responsible for assisting Humanity's physical endeavors.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley You've repeatedly changed your defense. Take 'resist not evil'; your first argument was that it was translated incorrectly--false. Your second argument was that Jesus meant 'don't seek retribution'--but that isn't what he said. Next was the argument from the buying swords--which, by your interpretation, causes a contradiction. Finally, you're using analogies to something else--fallacious analogies.
That's four shallow excuses to ignore what Jesus plainly told you to do.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 I said I did not agree with the KJV version, not that it was translated incorrectly.
Jesus' message was to resist aggression and/or retribution is the point I have made all along and I stand by it now. The swords reference contradicts YOUR interpretation but supports mine. I am using analogies to better explain my point. That isn't the same as "changing" my argument.
How are my analogies fallacious? You can't just say that and not support your statement.
(Sorry I posted out of order).
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley You don't understand my point do you? You started with one reason to reject a plain reading of the text, then you switched to another when I pointed out the flaws, then another and another. You're just making up different reasons as you go along.
Let me ask you this; what is the REAL reason you think Jesus didn't ban self-defense? I mean the reason you came here with, not the ones you've come up with over the span of this discussion.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 So your point is that I should make an argument and do nothing to support it? Of course I am going to bring up new points to refute the points you make. That is how a debate works! One side makes a point to support their argument and the other counters with their own point that supports an alternative argument.
How can you expect a debate to work if one or both sides are not allowed to bring evidence to the table? I haven't "changed" my argument, I supported it!
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley No, my point is, I feel you're not really being honest with why you believe Jesus allowed for self-defense. You're presenting your arguments as to convince me, but they aren't what convinced you.
Let me ask you this; before we had this debate, had you personally asked yourself if Jesus had allowed for self-defense? Had you read that passage about buying swords and interpreted it that way previously, or was that an argument for self-defense you looked up on Google to counter me?
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 Had I read the passage about buying the swords? Of course! Catholics make a big deal of the immediate events leading up to Jesus' crucifixion every year on Good Friday.
Had I thought about it as a defense for "resisting evil", no, but to think that I could have thought of every argument regarding biblical passages and have a prepared counter is rather preposterous. Having said that, I assure you my beliefs concerning self defense have not changed as a result of this discussion.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley OK, so I can say with certainty that the sword verse was not why you had believed that Jesus' teachings allowed for self-defense. Then what did?
1) Then it's appropriate to quote some verses alone, so long as they on their own provide enough meaning to be understood, correct?
2) Nonetheless, strict pacifism does allow for include not resisting genocide. Mat 5:39, interpreted on it's face, implies not resisting genocide.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 Well, I cannot say exactly, but it is something that the church taught and, obviously, I agreed with. Though I usually like to be the originator of my own beliefs, I will admit that I am very affected by church teaching/opinion.
1) haha, that depends less on the quote and more on the interpreted meaning lol. For example, If I quoted Luke 22:36 and then used it in an argument that portrays Jesus as an advocate of the NRA, I would be misleading my target audience.
50crowley 6 months ago
@Hooya2 2) Agreed, pacifism (if treated as black and white) implies not resisting genocide. However, I do not believe in a black and white mentality. Yes, on its face, Matt 5:39 implies strict pacifism (which can then be logically stretched to not resisting genocide). However, I feel the true meaning/lesson is somewhat deeper than what is presented at face value.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley 1) We're not talking about the Bible, we're talking about individual verses within it. Are there individual verses which make points on their own, that can be largely understood without context?
2) Not picking up a gun, even when threatened, is the definition of what pacificism is about. Did Ghandi pick up a gun when he was beaten and imprisoned? Did MLK throw rocks when police whipped out the riot hoses on his friends?
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 1) Yes, some verses can be LARGELY understood on their own, but none can be completely.
2) Ok, you are right and I agree with you. But Gandhi, MLK, Jesus, etc all stood for something larger than themselves. They used their lives as case studies to teach the rest of the world. The average pacifist would be less likely to uphold such stringent ideals. Furthermore, Gandhi/MLK were never faced with a situation involving large scale death/genocide, only equality and civil rights.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley Yes, Jesus was pointing out that time on earth was not the extent of existence--in order to make the point that people needed to worry about the next life more.
How is Jesus asking God to 'let the cup pass away from him' inconsistent with the idea that Jesus saw this life as a toy? Calling it a toy doesn't mean it's totally worthless, just that his eternal life is far more important. And in case you're forgetting, Jesus did supposedly accept his fate and decide to be crucified.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 Agreed, but that does not mean our physical lives aren't important at all.
It shows that Jesus was truly human and that he momentarily considered his physical life to be worth saving over all of humanity's souls. I think calling life a toy in comparison to our spiritual lives is not doing it enough justice. Also, some people believe the two are intertwined, and that perhaps our physical lives have an affect on our souls, and might even be a sort of spiritual gateway/transition.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley If you don't like toy, what do you prefer? It has to be something a child values and may get in a fight over, but which isn't worth their life. Toy seems the best fit, but if you've got something better, say it.
If you don't like the analogy, then we can drop it. The point is that Jesus told us to value our souls more than our body, and he lived that teaching as well. Why do you think that Jesus would want us to risk our eternal souls fighting to protect our physical bodies?
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 Perhaps dropping the analogy is best, because I see nothing wrong with the child's life representing life.
The point of the analogy is not to prove that Jesus wanted us to value our souls more than life. When I made the original analogy I was showing that it is possible to teach something that is not universally true. Jesus' and the parent's teaching INDIRECTLY address aggression by forbidding physical resistance, but there are exceptions where resistance is permissible.
50crowley 6 months ago
@Hooya2 What is the moral lesson in having the privaledge of being born into a different belief system, where you are then tortured for all eternity for it. It is an oxymoron with an omniscient creator god. In essence an omniscient creator god would have preknowledge of the outcome of its actions. It therefor, deliberately sets people up to fail.
Valthepixie 6 months ago in playlist Madman or Something Worse
@Hooya2 In a way, yes, but I was more referring to personal suffering. If everyone were perfectly healthy all the time, how could they appreciate good health? Like everything in life, you only appreciate the rarities/finer things. Nobody really appreciates air until they are drowning. People do not appreciate water until they are thirsty.
If everyone drove around in a Ferrari, nobody would appreciate them because they would be a common resource.
50crowley 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Ok, I’m glad we are beginning to include context. In Matt 5:38, Jesus refers to Hammurabi’s code, which was created to ensure fair punishment/revenge. In Matt 5:39-42, Jesus is essentially telling his disciples not to seek retribution. Revenge is not the same as self defense. “Do not seek revenge” is just another way of saying “Return not aggression with aggression”.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley Now that I've shown that the context doesn't fit minor insults, you immediately jump to claiming it meant retribution instead, without even admitting that your interpretation was wrong. OK, fine.
Retribution doesn't work either. The word Jesus used for 'resist' is 'anthistēmi', which literally means 'stand against'. This word does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean 'retaliate' or 'revenge'.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 No, Hammurabi's code addressed retribution, but Jesus is teaching "return not aggression with aggression". He is disagreeing with the code, but he never actually says "retribution".
You have not only twisted my words, but you have yet to show the context pertaining to the defense of life.
"anthistēmi" is a Greek word. Jesus spoke Hebrew.
Besides, to interpret implies that you find meaning beyond the literal wording. What I am offering is a different way of looking at Jesus's teaching.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley The word used doesn't mean retribution, it means resist. Jesus is not saying 'don't retatalitate against evil', he's saying 'don't resist evil. That's my point. You're correct, Jesus spoke Hebrew; but the Gospels accounts, in the original Greek, having him saying anthistemi. If the Gospels are an accurate representation of what he said, then that's that.
Even a non-literal interpretation has to be consistent with the text to be valid. Yours isn't, and is thus invalid.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Actually, much of the New Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and later translated into Greek and consolidated between 50-100AD into what we now call "The Bible". Excerpts from Matt, written in Aramaic, have been found and estimated to have been written between 30-60AD.
The Greek translation is a tertiary source at best. Nobody knows EXACTLY what Jesus said, but we can seek meaning/intention by interpreting.
How can a non-literal interpretation be consistent with literal text?
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley The Gospels were written in Greek. The Bible was consolidated in the 4th century. The oldest manuscripts of the Gospels date from after 100 AD.
Consistency is so simple a child could understand it. If Jesus calls the Pharisees 'vipers', a consistent interpretation is that they're cold-blooded and poisonous, because that is what snakes, as a symbol, represent. If someone instead says he meant they were kind and friendly, then they're ignoring the text. Much like you are doing.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 (carm,org/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it)
It wasn't CALLED the bible until the 4th century, but the texts existed beforehand. Its a common misconception. (en,wikipedia,org/wiki/Bible_translations)
Note: replace (,)'s with (.)'s
But you are arguing in favor of a literal interpretation. From your example, you would say the Pharisees are literally "vipers", whereas I am arguing that they are not. HOW you interpret the word "viper" is debatable, just like Matt 5:39.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley No, I'm well aware that the texts existed beforehand; however, they weren't compiled until the 4th century. While most scholars believe the Gospels were written pre-100 AD, this is from clues in the text; there is no surviving manuscript that old.
To say that an interpretation is debatable requires that there be more than one consistent way to interpret it. You haven't put forward an alternate interpretation that is consistent with the text, so where is the debate?
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 Nothing complete, but they have found fragments on tablets.
If a man on the street came up to you and said something like "Should a man slap you, do not resist his slap. Violence will only escalate conflict.", would you then jump to the conclusion that this man does not believe in the defense of life?
Of course not! The video has twisted Jesus's teaching in order to draw a false conclusion that presents a moral dilemma. There are many passages from the bible that support my claim.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley But that isn't what Jesus said; he said, 'don't resist evil. If someone slaps you, let them do it again.' Stop replacing 'do not resist evil' with 'violence will only escalate conflict'. They aren't the same.
Neither of us is twisting Jesus' words. I'm quoting what he said at you; you're replacing it with what you want to hear, and claiming it's an 'interpretation', even though it's impossible to reach that interpretation from Jesus' words.
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 All I'm saying is that perhaps "do not resist and evil person" could mean something other than what it literally says. After reading the bible and taking everything into account, I believe that "violence will only escalate conflict" is not a far-fetched interpretation.
As a child, your parents/teachers probably told you not to fight with other kids. This was because they knew there were better ways of settling disagreements, not because they thought violence was completely unjustifiable.
50crowley 6 months ago
@50crowley You've given no reason to think your interpretation is true, you just keep making comparisons to *different* situations*. Why apply a non-literal interpretation to Mat 5:39?
The parent-child thing is a perfect analogy. Parents don't want their children to get injured over toys, and God doesn't want souls damaged over this world. Therefore, don't defend yourself. It works well with passages like John 18:36. So, why do you think God is wrong and self-defense is OK?
Hooya2 6 months ago
@Hooya2 I'm actually quite glad we agree on the parent-child analogy.
Now, if a child began beating another child completely unprovoked, would the same parents/teachers who previously said "do not fight other children" object to the victimized child's attempts to defend his or herself? Probably not
I think Jesus would agree that violence is justifiable in situations where you find yourself up against a wall with no alternative to violence. Jesus, therefore, would be an advocate of non-aggression
50crowley 6 months ago
@Hooya2
But if you read Matt 5:39 in context, it is clear that “resist not an evil person” is in reference to a minor insult. This can easily be interpreted as “Return not aggression with aggression”. This interpretation allows for self defense in some situations, and harmonizes the entire bible.
I pointed out the hole in your logic when I asked why Jesus would have told his disciples to buy swords instead of getting one himself, to which you admitted didn’t make much sense.
50crowley 7 months ago
@Hooya2 What about parasitic worms? They exist in every species and can burrow into your skin, eat away at your brain, or latch on to your intestines. They can cause you to die a slow and painful death as you literally watch yourself vomit and excrete your organs.
The very existence of these creatures is dependent on the suffering of a human. We are not unlike other animals. We do not supersede the laws of nature. We die so that others might live.
50crowley 7 months ago
@Hooya2 2) Close, but not quite. I am saying that in the psychopath’s eyes, he sees no evil in his actions; thus, in his mind, he is not bound by the moral laws society has imposed on itself. Ultimately, the only moral law that has no exceptions belongs to God. However, God’s morals are not bound by the constraints of language. In humanity’s feeble attempt to put morality into writing, we create opportunities for exceptions to exist.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley 2) "In humanity’s feeble attempt to put morality into writing, we create opportunities for exceptions to exist."
I'm facepalming so hard right now... After wasting my time with 10 posts saying 'all moral laws have exceptions' you've now gone back and admitted that you think some laws don't have exceptions. And you blame the exceptions we find in some moral statements on mankind--but it was Jesus' poor phrasing that let there be an exception in the Golden Rule!
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Ok, fine. Allow me to amend my previous statement: All *human* moral laws have exceptions. It’s not that Jesus couldn’t phrase his words correctly. It’s that true morality cannot be described with words because it is based on Love. Words cannot accurately define something as complex as love, much less morality.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley But I just gave you a human moral law that has no exceptions--'it is wrong to torture others for your own amusement'. Or are you still going to claim that psychopaths are immune to that?
Even with the Golden Rule, there are ways to phrase it that don't contain the sadomasochist exemptions: 'Treat others with love, compassion, and understanding' or 'Treat others as they want to be treated'.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 No, I agree that torturing others is wrong, but a psychopath would disagree with us. Thus, our moral rules do not apply to him in his mind.
Treating others with love, compassion, and understanding is what Jesus was all about! Almost all of his teachings revolve around this. Matt 5:39 was intended to make it clear that the same mindset should be applied to your enemies as well. This was counter intuitive and nearly unthinkable at that time and place. His exact wording is not important.
50crowley 7 months ago
@Hooya2 If Jesus had simply given us antibiotics, humans would never have invented the scientific method. As a result, we would likely have very few of the technological benefits that we have today. So now you are faced with a moral dilemma: where do you draw the line? If Jesus gave antibiotics, why not give us cars, the internet, and nanotechnology. The fact of the matter is that the world wasn’t ready for it. These things are revealed in time through the natural talents that God has given us.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley So many arguments, so little reason. If Jesus wanted the scientific method, he could have just taught us that too. If Jesus didn't want to give us luxuries, he could have drawn the line at preventing needless suffering by saving children from disease. I can't even imagine what rationale you use to conclude that 'the world wasn't ready'; if I as a 10-year-old could understand the germ theory of disease, mankind could have handled it 2000 years ago.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 3) “…Resist not HIM that is evil.” The word “him” makes a big difference because it implies an embodied state. Resisting evil (as a noun) is not addressed in this passage, but it is a main theme in the bible. Jesus actually advises his disciples to arm themselves for defensive purposes in Luke 22:36-38. In this example Jesus knows HE is going to be captured and executed, but he makes it clear to his disciples that they have a right to defend themselves should their lives be threatened.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley 3) Why does that 'him' make any difference at all? Hitler was evil; so are rapists and murderers. That phrasing condemns self-defense too. Jesus is condemning self-defense.
If you can't explain Mat 5:39 on it's own, then finding verses which support self-defense is evidence of contradiction. Luke 22:36 doesn't help, even if it implies self-defense--but it DOESN'T; Jesus had them buy swords so he could be considered a transgressor (22:37), which is why only 2 was enough (22:38).
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Haha, what?! That is a ridiculous statement! Because a book cannot completely define itself in one sentence means that it contradicts itself?
Furthermore, your reading of Luke 22:37 is incorrect. Jesus informs his disciples that he will be counted as a transgressor, which is why he has them arm themselves. If he needed the swords to get arrested, why would he give them to his disciples and not simply take one himself?
You are still reading the bible literally. Interpretation is required.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley Jesus gave a clear commandment in Matthew 5--do not resist him that is evil--and he explained it with specific examples. If he later told his people to resist evil people, then that's a contradiction.
My reading of Luke 22 is the only one that doesn't contradict with Jesus' pacifist doctrine--but you're right that it has holes in it. Yours seems more plausible. I'll grant that it is likely a contradiction. So? How does that make his teachings on the Mount less immoral?
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Being a pacifist isn't about renouncing violence, its about renouncing aggression. This is the message Jesus was trying to portray in his teachings. I agree, if you read Mat 5:39 literally, it SEEMS to suggest that one should renounce violence all together, even when used in self defense. This specific teaching was intended to be shocking because that's what the people needed at the time. That being said, the bible must be understood in its entirety in order to be interpreted correctly.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley I'm glad you can admit the obvious, that my interpretation of Mat 5:39 is the most obvious one. But why do you think that the literal meaning isn't right? Are you saying that Jesus exaggerated in order to shock people? You think Jesus was just trolling his disciples?
I don't think the purpose of the verse was to say you should love your enemies--he says that in 5:44.
Hooya2 7 months ago
@Hooya2 Haha, no, Jesus wasn't "trolling" his disciples. "Love your enemies" was a central theme of the bible. Although Matt 5:39 does not directly address it, the theme is still present. Often times, petty disputes are settled with unnecessary violence. Jesus is presenting an alternate approach called conflict de-escalation.
The literal meaning of the bible isn't correct because Jesus often taught using allegories and metaphors. Also, exact wording differs according to translation.
50crowley 7 months ago
@50crowley But this isn't an allegory or a metaphor. Jesus isn't making some vague abstraction; he's giving direct instructions on how to live.
If you can interpret that so loosely, what is to keep us from interpreting ANY of his commandments as we please? His direct commandment to 'love thy enemies' is presented identically--the same chapter, the same phrasing, even the same 'but I say unto you' preface. Maybe that's a metaphor/allegory, and he really meant 'love only those who love you'?
Hooya2 7 months ago