I can only speak for Islam and Christianity that the rules don't matter so much as the god. I would humbly argue that it is no small difference as the difference between me and another being is very great. Absolute. Its only a small difference if one thinks they both don't exist. If someone sent my bills to some other person and said "close enough" ... lol. I dont want to come across as condescending. anyway. Are you buddhist? I have a cursory knowledge of zen buddhism.
@doxprodigy I agree with some basic Buddhist concepts. Not sure if that qualifies me as a Buddhist or not. I don't like the 'bickering' that goes on between different Christian denominations of what salvation or atonement is and I especially don't like the weird part...... people claiming to speak in tongues or baptized in the Holy Spirit. I find this is a very delusional concept. I think these people are just sheep who long to be a part of something.
@doxprodigy I agree with Buddhism b/c you don't get just one chance. It's not a better get it right in this life or there will be hell to pay proposition.
Buddhism ( which you prob know) is about reaching that goal of Nirvana and you keep working at it until you get it right with no eternal consequences. Do I believe in reincarnation, IDK, but the concept makes a heck of a lot more sense than the Christian doctrine which states we all fall short and better repent in this life or else.
wrong remedies. One isn't punished for seeking refuge in Islam. People are punished for sin. There is a way to avoid this, it requires atonement and satisfaction of debt. I assume you are already familiar with these things. The debt doesn't just go away becaue G-d has been appeased by acts of piety of humility, Jesus' sacrifice is imputed and the old creature is destroyed. A new one survives in its place. One will see many "christians" not having a good afterlife and it is unfortunate.
@doxprodigy 'One will see many "christians" not having a good afterlife and it is unfortunate.'
Do you belong to this category of one? Which is the unfortunate part, the "ones" who see christians not having a good afterlife or the christians not having a good afterlife.
Why should someone be punished for sin. I don't grasp this concept. If the after life is an eternity, then this life is but a puff of smoke, a drop in the bucket, why hold someone accountable for something they may not have even wanted in the first place.
Sin is defined as what? Actions not pleasing to God? If we have this unreachable standard called God, why punish everyone for not living up to it, or why make some rule allowing us to skate around it
I think there will be hell to pay. Unfortunately I think that makes some "christians" happy. Its a difficult subject to discuss even within the church because adherents need it to exist. And it does exist, but there should be no psychological need for it to exist. I think that by most people's standard of being reasonably happy, yes, atheists and buddhists can live what most people reasonably believe to be a happy life. The christian tradition does not maintain that people go to hell for
in order to say that absolute morality isn't right for me, one must first cross the line into objectivity and at that point it become self-defeating.If I were to ignore logic, and just wanted to get on reasonably well, its possible. But I am very oriented to logic. I can say this not just from the perspective of an apologetic. As an atheist I thought atheists who believed in anything but a merely functional "morality" were sentimental and self-decieved. I hope that sheds light on what i believe.
@doxprodigy All in all you 'make sense'. My video is for those who feel somewhat the same way you do but reject the Christian religion and it's teachings and believe in another (God) with similar but different rules.
It seems some religions have one main theme in common (except Buddhism) and that is we are right and you are wrong and there will be hell to pay for not being on our side.
Do you believe one can live a fulfilled life as say ...an Atheist or Buddhist and yet have a good afterlife?
false, and I have no real reason to believe that morality exists, and no obligation even to reason, for all obligations are "oughts" and morals, there is nothing but the desire not to feel pain and to get on reasonably well to keep me "inside the lines". Again, why should I feel guilt.. or be compelled by someone else's subjective morality that i cannot embrace subjective morality? Perhaps subjective morality is right for someone else and absolute morals are right for me.
as to the second question, its a hard hypothetical for me because I have to assume a lot. I will try. In such a world where there is no supernatural Ruler or Father, assuming morals were absolute their woud be a reason.. an obligation to reason to acknowledge and joyfully pursue some kind of objectively true joy and love and companionship with other people. Without absolute morals, private morality becomes a way of coping with a world which is at best illusory. If the moral law within me is
christians who aren't "winding up" so to speak. They perhaps do not exemplify great character. The bible is pretty stern about this and says quite frankly that they aren't christians. To quote someone else, the social impact of a movement says nothing of its legitimacy. Not necessarily, in the strict logical use of the word "necessarily".
human will. The flesh itself is not sentient, but possesses a sort of almost functional sentience. It has no mind but it affects the mind, because honestly the "machinery" we are using is also made of this earth-stuff that is... well, of the earth. So the long way home teaches that no, every action is not governed. Another way to put it is that the law comes from within, not without. It become an unconscious source of action instead of an indictment. You will doubtless say that you know
The laws of G-d do not judge christians, because christians cannot help but to exemplify G-d's own character which is the basis for the Law. The reason they cannot help but to do so is because that is their new nature. The "rebirth" as taught in christianity is believed to be literal. The identity one has fundamentally changes and only the "flesh" is left to subvert it. I'm leaving tons out, but the idea is that some desires which are actually of the body will fight for sovereignty over
And perhaps you are already aware of this next bit. The newest "rule" is that there isn't any rules. It would be oh so very hard to do this topic justice in a few concise sentences but I will try. The law as written in Torah is not binding anymore. This is spoken ad nauseum in the NT. The very boiled down explanation is that the "Law" that flows from G-d's own being now flows from ours. Meaning very simply that christians aren't the same creatures they once were.
lol ok then more litter. Yes to the "every action" question. But not in the ordinary sense, every act of will. The minutia falls under the general mandate to love G-d. People can do this, according to the christian tradition, by living fulfilled lives. I can brush my teeth to the glory of G-d, to the extent that I am exercising good judgement over what is trusted to me. It isn't necessary to consciously self-check every instant. Once you know the "rules" you know the rules.
Hmm. I don't want to continue littering your page here. To me it is self evident. Personal morality is self defeating. One could not argue it is "right' for me to believe in it because that would be crossing into objectivity. That is a serious consideration. Either all morality is beyond my control, or I end up in Nietzsche's "there is nothing, it sucks, and the suck and the nothing is the noblest part" spiral of self-indulgent chaos.
@doxprodigy "there is nothing, it sucks, and the suck and the nothing is the noblest part" spiral of self-indulgent chaos"
I guess if you view this life as a waste or puff of smoke b/c there may not be anything after , then that statement makes sense. There are some who think this life is it and cherish it even more and find life does not really suck at all.
I'm not sure I understand why you think life would suck if there weren't any absolute ruler to judge over mankind......explain why?
I agree that they are absolute or that we can make them up. I disagree that it could be the latter. Is it possible that i could make up an unethical ethic?
@doxprodigy You agree morals are absolute, and so you believe every action that has a direct link or indirect link to a moral action is bound by these laws? That would include every action and every thought that has ever happened. You believe there is some Intelligent being who takes in and holds those accountable for all actions and thoughts that are not morally sound?
I cannot ,for the life of me , think that this is how our universe is ruled.
For it to be morality, it must be absolute. I would define that as being eternal and outside of man's influence. I won't have difficulty with the minutia because christianity comes with its own list of prohibiitions. I dont see what you mean about like/dislike. Perhpas you could explain?
@doxprodigy I thought you were contrasting the term like/ dislike to absolute morality. I was simply borrowing your phrase.
Either morals are absolute or they don't exist and are up to us to determine what is wrong/right. hence the term like dislike. It then becomes a personal choice.
IMO either everything, even the most trivial actions belong in the absolute category (for it to make sense) or nothing does.
I don't see the necessity for an absolute authority to judge over every trivial action
"so I can't be to blame" which is usually another way to say "I started out wanting to help but then I became selfish/I hoped that my selfishness might still be helpful"... something like that. Those good intentions have bad intentions built in. But if you kill someone to prevent that person from pull the trigger on someone else, well there you have intent qualifying your action. Intent. Intention is the only qualifier of moral action. Its easy to use same word to mean somthing different tho
@doxprodigy I think INTENTION is the one thing that breaks down the whole absolute morals argument.
If there are "laws" in place then intention is the loop hole to skate around it.
Intention is a dilemma. If we are talking about an all knowing entity, then he must know intentions and if an intention violates an action or law then what? Which overrides the broken law or the intention
In the real world intention doesn't work. If you break the law with good intentions you still pay the penalty.
I was arguing the necessity of absolute morality. You can like or didslike something absolute. It wounds like you are saying that things that are not grievous in nature are debatable? If they were then they wouldn't be morals, because you would have people defining their own morality, which undermines the "incorruptible" nature I mentioned. In terms of intention, I agree 100 percent provided that intention has a strict definition. There's the "well my intentions were good"
And most would say "no". The standard must necessarily reside beyond the reach of man, or he will corrupt it. Hitchens said that one could very well be indulging an illusion of morals in the absence of god, and the fulfillment one gets from life would primarily consist of solidarity with others. So that is how I see it. Either right and wrong are out of reach... that is to say "absolute" or they do not exist. There is no other way to arrive at "should"
@doxprodigy Absolute morals leaves it wide open for the like/dislike instead of the true/false. For the easy ones like murder and rape yes , it's easy to think absolute.
But when we start getting 'nit picky',... smoking, drinking, inventing, talking, thinking (bad thoughts),.... Where does absolute end and like/dislike take over?
Every single action we do must now fall into the absolute category and it's not the action but the INTENTION. If we murder and our intention is good...is it OK?
How short is too short? In the face of eternity, any finite amount of time is too short. Without G-d, the highest standard for morality is abstraction, or man. I have no commitment to either. If the standard of right and wrong resides within the realm of man, then I can make any action I like wrong or right and that invalidates the whole purpose of it. If the collective will of man makes up right and wrong, then one asks if whole socities mandate murder and pillaging is it ok?
This became immediately apparent to me shortly after becoming an atheist when I was much younger. If I define right and wrong, it doesn't mean anything. "right" is only valuable if it doesn't change. If all is "right" then there is no "right". If someone were to tell me we can just make it up as we go along.. I would say "why"? where does the "should" come from? The idea is not comforting, but that's the order it gets worked out. True/False, then like/dislike.
This became immediately apparent to me shortly after becoming an atheist when I was much younger. If I define right and wrong, it doesn't mean anything. "right" is only valuable if it doesn't change. If all is "right" then there is no "right". If someone were to tell me we can just make it up as we go along.. I would say "why"? where does the "should" come from? The idea is not comforting, but that's the order it gets worked out. True/False, then like/dislike.
I am willing to believe in something even if I find it uncomfortable. At least that is what I tell myself. I used to be an atheist and a moral nihilist. So it is true that I believe there is no basis for right and wrong outside of the existence of a omnipotent transcendant moral being. And were my faith to somehow crumble, that is what I would revert to. I would not take pleasure in it as an intellectual arrogance, but it would be an uncomfortable belief that I would have to accept.
As a believer in a Christian God, and a follower of Christ. I really like this video. It's unfortunate that many Christians, or even people of other religions, give up their rationality and reason while following a book such as the Bible blindly. It makes no sense in my mind, that God would alienate anybody, because really when it comes down to it, you can choose to learn what you will from any religion. Love isn't different because it's taught by a certain religion, nor is hate.
@xTashiTashimaru wWellspoken. but I have one thought, do you believe all men are born to suffer an eternal fate in hell an that Jesus is the only way out or do you view Jesus more as a teacher or mentor.
Is the concept of salvation necessary for the soul to enter an afterlife or is salvation a concept to help the weak get thru this life. Ithink the latter.
@NoProofOfHell I have seen things which are hard to explain to people. These things, though have shaped my beliefs. I have no knowledge of the existance of what Christians call 'hell', but I can see where the concept came from: There are planes of existance between the world as we see it and heaven. I believe in something similar to reincarnation as a means of working towards enlightenment so a person can move onto heaven.
@xTashiTashimaru These things that you have seen, was it something that you had a vision of inside your head or in a subconscious state or was it a material thing that others could witness and verify?
Visions are very powerful and can really make things confusing, but to equate a vision with a material object is disingenuous.
I would be interested in hearing some details about these hard to explain things b4 I jump to any more conclusions.
@NoProofOfHell I have practiced mental expansion liberation through astral projection. To those who havn't experienced it themselves it sounds like being in a confused mental state. For those who have experienced it, you know there is nothing more real. For the most part I am able to when I want to. I've seen what happens after a person dies and I have reason to believe in some things about God and heaven.
@NoProofOfHell As for Christ. I do believe he is God in the flesh but I do not believe a person needs to have faith that he is in order to be saved. Or even have faith in the Christian God or any other god for that matter. I believe a person can attain spiritual enlightenment and salvation with, or without the belief of any gods/godesses/deities.
@xTashiTashimaru Do you attend any particular denomination of church and would the congregation agree with your view?
you are a minority in the Christian sect when it comes to what you believe. I think your view is much more healthy , logical, and allows for a world to coexist in a peaceful manner
@tool1995 I dont respect you or your beliefs, there is no proof in the old book. only folly, I guess your parents started you on this imaginary friend nonsense, child abuse, get em young and scare them, same thing you will do to your kids. stop the abuse, let them decide when they are old enough to understand.
@rweerakkody4565 Thanks for your comment, many people would disagree with you and I claiming their God is the only true deity to believe in , worship, etc.
@T00L1995 Thanks for your input... but why is it stupid? I don't mind you stating it's stupid but it would at least show you have some intellect if you could demonstrate why the video is stupid.
Show me you are able to go beyond 3 word comments and give me something more
its just, im a christian and I believe there is a God, there is proof in the Bible, prophesies, philosophers of that time, story's, christian scientists, flaws in evolution, and also flaws in the big band theory, note, its a theory. Thank you for your respect. Good day.
@T00L1995 I respect your belief. As do I respect beliefs of most religions as long as it's done in a peaceful manner. We could go into a huge debate about some of the proofs you mentioned, but I will just say that my video demonstrates the concept that people can have a different view of God, (w/ or w/ out Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc) and as long as it's done in a peaceful manner it should be just as tolerable as Christianity.
Do people really deserve hell for believing differently?
@NoProofOfHell the orthodox position (in the words of great writers, not the inexact mushy washy at a local church) is that people do not "get" hell for believing differently. Belief is the antidote.
Most belief systems are contradictory. So by necessity if one is right, the others are wrong. If buddhism is "right" then christianity is wrong.
The orthodox position is that people deserve hell for innate rebellion, not for seeking the wrong cure.
@doxprodigy Define innate rebellion (presuming you take the ortodox position).
Is innate rebellion lack of belief as some would suggest or is it your actions that define innate rebellion.
I don't claim Buddhism to be right or wrong but rather try to show how a belief in any religion is irrelevant. IMO the only thing relevant is what makes you a better person in this life. God and religion are irrelevant but doing things for the benefit of man is.
@NoProofOfHell Innate rebellion is both, causing harm to others is rebellion against G-d, and unbelief too. The first question really is whether G-d exists or not, because then it doesn't really matter if He is relevant. If He didn't exist and He were relevant, then relevance still wouldn't matter to me because im not after an empty solution...
Jesus did not ask us to stop at religion.. most religious acts are acts of kindness toward other people.
@NoProofOfHell Yes, arriving at a god does not solve the problem of Who. Sure, all choice is personal. Do not rely on another's coscience, mine.. anybody's.. you alone will suffer (in Solomon's more immediate sense) (or not, from the perspective of being wrong). Some do not choose religion... sure. The ethics you promote are a minimalist religion unto itself... It would be limiting to say that I think that is a sign of innate rebellion. I think almost all behavior is a sign of innate
@NoProofOfHell rebellion. That's another flavor, sure. Do I think it is good to help others, and not hurt them? of course. I'm not saying that's bad. What people do and what they believe really has no bearing on right or wrong unless you first establish right and wrong. Which goes back to G-d's existence. I cannot really judge your approach on a premise that I believe to be false. If G-d doesn't exist, then you can do whatever you want. I would. Define things as you wish.
@doxprodigy I don't think there is any disagreement between us when it comes to helping others, doing good things etc. It seems you think there can't be any right or wrong unless there is some final authority to establish right or wrong?
I like where this is going but want to make sure I am on the same scope as you are.
IMO right and wrong only exist as the society dictates it to exist. It's in our instincts. a self destructive society as a whole would have died out long ago.
@NoProofOfHell I'm also not asking you to believe differently. I'm not so condescending to believe that random comments on youtube will do anything virtuous. I am not an expert on what you believe, but I am knowledgeable about what christians have usually believed, and something you wrote seemed not to reflect what I have always understood to be general knowledge or orthodoxy, granted it is a strong part of my culture.
@doxprodigy To sum up my "beliefs"....I really don't have any. if anything , I take a neutral stance. Science has shown us a lot lately and proposed some good ideas about our material world and this life. As for an afterlife, I think this life should have no say so in any way as to the outcome of a possible afterlife. This life is way too short to be held accountable for an eternity.
Will we even recall this life in the afterlife? does a butterfly remember being a caterpillar?
I can only speak for Islam and Christianity that the rules don't matter so much as the god. I would humbly argue that it is no small difference as the difference between me and another being is very great. Absolute. Its only a small difference if one thinks they both don't exist. If someone sent my bills to some other person and said "close enough" ... lol. I dont want to come across as condescending. anyway. Are you buddhist? I have a cursory knowledge of zen buddhism.
doxprodigy 17 hours ago
@doxprodigy I agree with some basic Buddhist concepts. Not sure if that qualifies me as a Buddhist or not. I don't like the 'bickering' that goes on between different Christian denominations of what salvation or atonement is and I especially don't like the weird part...... people claiming to speak in tongues or baptized in the Holy Spirit. I find this is a very delusional concept. I think these people are just sheep who long to be a part of something.
U prob know more than I about Buddhism
NoProofOfHell 8 hours ago
@doxprodigy I agree with Buddhism b/c you don't get just one chance. It's not a better get it right in this life or there will be hell to pay proposition.
Buddhism ( which you prob know) is about reaching that goal of Nirvana and you keep working at it until you get it right with no eternal consequences. Do I believe in reincarnation, IDK, but the concept makes a heck of a lot more sense than the Christian doctrine which states we all fall short and better repent in this life or else.
NoProofOfHell 51 minutes ago
wrong remedies. One isn't punished for seeking refuge in Islam. People are punished for sin. There is a way to avoid this, it requires atonement and satisfaction of debt. I assume you are already familiar with these things. The debt doesn't just go away becaue G-d has been appeased by acts of piety of humility, Jesus' sacrifice is imputed and the old creature is destroyed. A new one survives in its place. One will see many "christians" not having a good afterlife and it is unfortunate.
doxprodigy 17 hours ago
@doxprodigy 'One will see many "christians" not having a good afterlife and it is unfortunate.'
Do you belong to this category of one? Which is the unfortunate part, the "ones" who see christians not having a good afterlife or the christians not having a good afterlife.
NoProofOfHell 8 hours ago
@doxprodigy" People are punished for sin."
Why should someone be punished for sin. I don't grasp this concept. If the after life is an eternity, then this life is but a puff of smoke, a drop in the bucket, why hold someone accountable for something they may not have even wanted in the first place.
Sin is defined as what? Actions not pleasing to God? If we have this unreachable standard called God, why punish everyone for not living up to it, or why make some rule allowing us to skate around it
NoProofOfHell 8 hours ago
I think there will be hell to pay. Unfortunately I think that makes some "christians" happy. Its a difficult subject to discuss even within the church because adherents need it to exist. And it does exist, but there should be no psychological need for it to exist. I think that by most people's standard of being reasonably happy, yes, atheists and buddhists can live what most people reasonably believe to be a happy life. The christian tradition does not maintain that people go to hell for
doxprodigy 17 hours ago
in order to say that absolute morality isn't right for me, one must first cross the line into objectivity and at that point it become self-defeating.If I were to ignore logic, and just wanted to get on reasonably well, its possible. But I am very oriented to logic. I can say this not just from the perspective of an apologetic. As an atheist I thought atheists who believed in anything but a merely functional "morality" were sentimental and self-decieved. I hope that sheds light on what i believe.
doxprodigy 1 day ago
@doxprodigy All in all you 'make sense'. My video is for those who feel somewhat the same way you do but reject the Christian religion and it's teachings and believe in another (God) with similar but different rules.
It seems some religions have one main theme in common (except Buddhism) and that is we are right and you are wrong and there will be hell to pay for not being on our side.
Do you believe one can live a fulfilled life as say ...an Atheist or Buddhist and yet have a good afterlife?
NoProofOfHell 21 hours ago
false, and I have no real reason to believe that morality exists, and no obligation even to reason, for all obligations are "oughts" and morals, there is nothing but the desire not to feel pain and to get on reasonably well to keep me "inside the lines". Again, why should I feel guilt.. or be compelled by someone else's subjective morality that i cannot embrace subjective morality? Perhaps subjective morality is right for someone else and absolute morals are right for me.
doxprodigy 1 day ago
as to the second question, its a hard hypothetical for me because I have to assume a lot. I will try. In such a world where there is no supernatural Ruler or Father, assuming morals were absolute their woud be a reason.. an obligation to reason to acknowledge and joyfully pursue some kind of objectively true joy and love and companionship with other people. Without absolute morals, private morality becomes a way of coping with a world which is at best illusory. If the moral law within me is
doxprodigy 1 day ago
christians who aren't "winding up" so to speak. They perhaps do not exemplify great character. The bible is pretty stern about this and says quite frankly that they aren't christians. To quote someone else, the social impact of a movement says nothing of its legitimacy. Not necessarily, in the strict logical use of the word "necessarily".
doxprodigy 1 day ago
human will. The flesh itself is not sentient, but possesses a sort of almost functional sentience. It has no mind but it affects the mind, because honestly the "machinery" we are using is also made of this earth-stuff that is... well, of the earth. So the long way home teaches that no, every action is not governed. Another way to put it is that the law comes from within, not without. It become an unconscious source of action instead of an indictment. You will doubtless say that you know
doxprodigy 1 day ago
The laws of G-d do not judge christians, because christians cannot help but to exemplify G-d's own character which is the basis for the Law. The reason they cannot help but to do so is because that is their new nature. The "rebirth" as taught in christianity is believed to be literal. The identity one has fundamentally changes and only the "flesh" is left to subvert it. I'm leaving tons out, but the idea is that some desires which are actually of the body will fight for sovereignty over
doxprodigy 1 day ago
And perhaps you are already aware of this next bit. The newest "rule" is that there isn't any rules. It would be oh so very hard to do this topic justice in a few concise sentences but I will try. The law as written in Torah is not binding anymore. This is spoken ad nauseum in the NT. The very boiled down explanation is that the "Law" that flows from G-d's own being now flows from ours. Meaning very simply that christians aren't the same creatures they once were.
doxprodigy 1 day ago
lol ok then more litter. Yes to the "every action" question. But not in the ordinary sense, every act of will. The minutia falls under the general mandate to love G-d. People can do this, according to the christian tradition, by living fulfilled lives. I can brush my teeth to the glory of G-d, to the extent that I am exercising good judgement over what is trusted to me. It isn't necessary to consciously self-check every instant. Once you know the "rules" you know the rules.
doxprodigy 1 day ago
Hmm. I don't want to continue littering your page here. To me it is self evident. Personal morality is self defeating. One could not argue it is "right' for me to believe in it because that would be crossing into objectivity. That is a serious consideration. Either all morality is beyond my control, or I end up in Nietzsche's "there is nothing, it sucks, and the suck and the nothing is the noblest part" spiral of self-indulgent chaos.
doxprodigy 2 days ago
@doxprodigy "there is nothing, it sucks, and the suck and the nothing is the noblest part" spiral of self-indulgent chaos"
I guess if you view this life as a waste or puff of smoke b/c there may not be anything after , then that statement makes sense. There are some who think this life is it and cherish it even more and find life does not really suck at all.
I'm not sure I understand why you think life would suck if there weren't any absolute ruler to judge over mankind......explain why?
NoProofOfHell 1 day ago
Comment removed
doxprodigy 2 days ago
Comment removed
doxprodigy 2 days ago
Comment removed
doxprodigy 2 days ago
I agree that they are absolute or that we can make them up. I disagree that it could be the latter. Is it possible that i could make up an unethical ethic?
doxprodigy 2 days ago
@doxprodigy You agree morals are absolute, and so you believe every action that has a direct link or indirect link to a moral action is bound by these laws? That would include every action and every thought that has ever happened. You believe there is some Intelligent being who takes in and holds those accountable for all actions and thoughts that are not morally sound?
I cannot ,for the life of me , think that this is how our universe is ruled.
I like comments, so please, litter away.
NoProofOfHell 1 day ago
For it to be morality, it must be absolute. I would define that as being eternal and outside of man's influence. I won't have difficulty with the minutia because christianity comes with its own list of prohibiitions. I dont see what you mean about like/dislike. Perhpas you could explain?
doxprodigy 2 days ago
@doxprodigy I thought you were contrasting the term like/ dislike to absolute morality. I was simply borrowing your phrase.
Either morals are absolute or they don't exist and are up to us to determine what is wrong/right. hence the term like dislike. It then becomes a personal choice.
IMO either everything, even the most trivial actions belong in the absolute category (for it to make sense) or nothing does.
I don't see the necessity for an absolute authority to judge over every trivial action
NoProofOfHell 2 days ago
"so I can't be to blame" which is usually another way to say "I started out wanting to help but then I became selfish/I hoped that my selfishness might still be helpful"... something like that. Those good intentions have bad intentions built in. But if you kill someone to prevent that person from pull the trigger on someone else, well there you have intent qualifying your action. Intent. Intention is the only qualifier of moral action. Its easy to use same word to mean somthing different tho
doxprodigy 2 days ago
@doxprodigy I think INTENTION is the one thing that breaks down the whole absolute morals argument.
If there are "laws" in place then intention is the loop hole to skate around it.
Intention is a dilemma. If we are talking about an all knowing entity, then he must know intentions and if an intention violates an action or law then what? Which overrides the broken law or the intention
In the real world intention doesn't work. If you break the law with good intentions you still pay the penalty.
NoProofOfHell 2 days ago
I was arguing the necessity of absolute morality. You can like or didslike something absolute. It wounds like you are saying that things that are not grievous in nature are debatable? If they were then they wouldn't be morals, because you would have people defining their own morality, which undermines the "incorruptible" nature I mentioned. In terms of intention, I agree 100 percent provided that intention has a strict definition. There's the "well my intentions were good"
doxprodigy 2 days ago
And most would say "no". The standard must necessarily reside beyond the reach of man, or he will corrupt it. Hitchens said that one could very well be indulging an illusion of morals in the absence of god, and the fulfillment one gets from life would primarily consist of solidarity with others. So that is how I see it. Either right and wrong are out of reach... that is to say "absolute" or they do not exist. There is no other way to arrive at "should"
doxprodigy 6 days ago
@doxprodigy Absolute morals leaves it wide open for the like/dislike instead of the true/false. For the easy ones like murder and rape yes , it's easy to think absolute.
But when we start getting 'nit picky',... smoking, drinking, inventing, talking, thinking (bad thoughts),.... Where does absolute end and like/dislike take over?
Every single action we do must now fall into the absolute category and it's not the action but the INTENTION. If we murder and our intention is good...is it OK?
NoProofOfHell 2 days ago
How short is too short? In the face of eternity, any finite amount of time is too short. Without G-d, the highest standard for morality is abstraction, or man. I have no commitment to either. If the standard of right and wrong resides within the realm of man, then I can make any action I like wrong or right and that invalidates the whole purpose of it. If the collective will of man makes up right and wrong, then one asks if whole socities mandate murder and pillaging is it ok?
doxprodigy 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This became immediately apparent to me shortly after becoming an atheist when I was much younger. If I define right and wrong, it doesn't mean anything. "right" is only valuable if it doesn't change. If all is "right" then there is no "right". If someone were to tell me we can just make it up as we go along.. I would say "why"? where does the "should" come from? The idea is not comforting, but that's the order it gets worked out. True/False, then like/dislike.
doxprodigy 6 days ago
This became immediately apparent to me shortly after becoming an atheist when I was much younger. If I define right and wrong, it doesn't mean anything. "right" is only valuable if it doesn't change. If all is "right" then there is no "right". If someone were to tell me we can just make it up as we go along.. I would say "why"? where does the "should" come from? The idea is not comforting, but that's the order it gets worked out. True/False, then like/dislike.
doxprodigy 6 days ago
I am willing to believe in something even if I find it uncomfortable. At least that is what I tell myself. I used to be an atheist and a moral nihilist. So it is true that I believe there is no basis for right and wrong outside of the existence of a omnipotent transcendant moral being. And were my faith to somehow crumble, that is what I would revert to. I would not take pleasure in it as an intellectual arrogance, but it would be an uncomfortable belief that I would have to accept.
doxprodigy 6 days ago
As a believer in a Christian God, and a follower of Christ. I really like this video. It's unfortunate that many Christians, or even people of other religions, give up their rationality and reason while following a book such as the Bible blindly. It makes no sense in my mind, that God would alienate anybody, because really when it comes down to it, you can choose to learn what you will from any religion. Love isn't different because it's taught by a certain religion, nor is hate.
xTashiTashimaru 1 week ago
@xTashiTashimaru wWellspoken. but I have one thought, do you believe all men are born to suffer an eternal fate in hell an that Jesus is the only way out or do you view Jesus more as a teacher or mentor.
Is the concept of salvation necessary for the soul to enter an afterlife or is salvation a concept to help the weak get thru this life. Ithink the latter.
Nice comment hope to hear more from you.
NoProofOfHell 1 week ago
@NoProofOfHell I have seen things which are hard to explain to people. These things, though have shaped my beliefs. I have no knowledge of the existance of what Christians call 'hell', but I can see where the concept came from: There are planes of existance between the world as we see it and heaven. I believe in something similar to reincarnation as a means of working towards enlightenment so a person can move onto heaven.
xTashiTashimaru 1 week ago
@xTashiTashimaru These things that you have seen, was it something that you had a vision of inside your head or in a subconscious state or was it a material thing that others could witness and verify?
Visions are very powerful and can really make things confusing, but to equate a vision with a material object is disingenuous.
I would be interested in hearing some details about these hard to explain things b4 I jump to any more conclusions.
NoProofOfHell 1 week ago
@NoProofOfHell I have practiced mental expansion liberation through astral projection. To those who havn't experienced it themselves it sounds like being in a confused mental state. For those who have experienced it, you know there is nothing more real. For the most part I am able to when I want to. I've seen what happens after a person dies and I have reason to believe in some things about God and heaven.
xTashiTashimaru 6 days ago
@NoProofOfHell As for Christ. I do believe he is God in the flesh but I do not believe a person needs to have faith that he is in order to be saved. Or even have faith in the Christian God or any other god for that matter. I believe a person can attain spiritual enlightenment and salvation with, or without the belief of any gods/godesses/deities.
xTashiTashimaru 1 week ago
@xTashiTashimaru Do you attend any particular denomination of church and would the congregation agree with your view?
you are a minority in the Christian sect when it comes to what you believe. I think your view is much more healthy , logical, and allows for a world to coexist in a peaceful manner
NoProofOfHell 1 week ago
@tool1995 I dont respect you or your beliefs, there is no proof in the old book. only folly, I guess your parents started you on this imaginary friend nonsense, child abuse, get em young and scare them, same thing you will do to your kids. stop the abuse, let them decide when they are old enough to understand.
MrDarceb 1 month ago
Very good video! Very good insight.
rweerakkody4565 1 month ago
@rweerakkody4565 Thanks for your comment, many people would disagree with you and I claiming their God is the only true deity to believe in , worship, etc.
NoProofOfHell 1 month ago
This is stupid...
T00L1995 3 months ago
@T00L1995 Thanks for your input... but why is it stupid? I don't mind you stating it's stupid but it would at least show you have some intellect if you could demonstrate why the video is stupid.
Show me you are able to go beyond 3 word comments and give me something more
NoProofOfHell 2 months ago
@NoProofOfHell
Thank you for respecting my opinion.
its just, im a christian and I believe there is a God, there is proof in the Bible, prophesies, philosophers of that time, story's, christian scientists, flaws in evolution, and also flaws in the big band theory, note, its a theory. Thank you for your respect. Good day.
T00L1995 2 months ago
@T00L1995 I respect your belief. As do I respect beliefs of most religions as long as it's done in a peaceful manner. We could go into a huge debate about some of the proofs you mentioned, but I will just say that my video demonstrates the concept that people can have a different view of God, (w/ or w/ out Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc) and as long as it's done in a peaceful manner it should be just as tolerable as Christianity.
Do people really deserve hell for believing differently?
NoProofOfHell 2 months ago
@NoProofOfHell the orthodox position (in the words of great writers, not the inexact mushy washy at a local church) is that people do not "get" hell for believing differently. Belief is the antidote.
Most belief systems are contradictory. So by necessity if one is right, the others are wrong. If buddhism is "right" then christianity is wrong.
The orthodox position is that people deserve hell for innate rebellion, not for seeking the wrong cure.
doxprodigy 1 week ago
@doxprodigy Define innate rebellion (presuming you take the ortodox position).
Is innate rebellion lack of belief as some would suggest or is it your actions that define innate rebellion.
I don't claim Buddhism to be right or wrong but rather try to show how a belief in any religion is irrelevant. IMO the only thing relevant is what makes you a better person in this life. God and religion are irrelevant but doing things for the benefit of man is.
NoProofOfHell 1 week ago
@NoProofOfHell Innate rebellion is both, causing harm to others is rebellion against G-d, and unbelief too. The first question really is whether G-d exists or not, because then it doesn't really matter if He is relevant. If He didn't exist and He were relevant, then relevance still wouldn't matter to me because im not after an empty solution...
Jesus did not ask us to stop at religion.. most religious acts are acts of kindness toward other people.
I am close minded in an open minded way lol
doxprodigy 1 week ago
@doxprodigy If we establish that a god exists defining this god would still be an issue.
Jesus didnt ask us to stop at religion....and my parents didn't ask me to stop at community college.
How far we go is really up to us.The advice we take from others (Jesus, parents , etc) into consideration is a personal choice.
Some choose to not even start at religion and that is not wrong IMO if they are living lives that don't hurt others.
But to you that would be a sign of innate rebellion?
NoProofOfHell 1 week ago
@NoProofOfHell Yes, arriving at a god does not solve the problem of Who. Sure, all choice is personal. Do not rely on another's coscience, mine.. anybody's.. you alone will suffer (in Solomon's more immediate sense) (or not, from the perspective of being wrong). Some do not choose religion... sure. The ethics you promote are a minimalist religion unto itself... It would be limiting to say that I think that is a sign of innate rebellion. I think almost all behavior is a sign of innate
doxprodigy 1 week ago
@NoProofOfHell rebellion. That's another flavor, sure. Do I think it is good to help others, and not hurt them? of course. I'm not saying that's bad. What people do and what they believe really has no bearing on right or wrong unless you first establish right and wrong. Which goes back to G-d's existence. I cannot really judge your approach on a premise that I believe to be false. If G-d doesn't exist, then you can do whatever you want. I would. Define things as you wish.
doxprodigy 1 week ago
@doxprodigy I don't think there is any disagreement between us when it comes to helping others, doing good things etc. It seems you think there can't be any right or wrong unless there is some final authority to establish right or wrong?
I like where this is going but want to make sure I am on the same scope as you are.
IMO right and wrong only exist as the society dictates it to exist. It's in our instincts. a self destructive society as a whole would have died out long ago.
NoProofOfHell 1 week ago
@NoProofOfHell I'm also not asking you to believe differently. I'm not so condescending to believe that random comments on youtube will do anything virtuous. I am not an expert on what you believe, but I am knowledgeable about what christians have usually believed, and something you wrote seemed not to reflect what I have always understood to be general knowledge or orthodoxy, granted it is a strong part of my culture.
doxprodigy 1 week ago
@doxprodigy To sum up my "beliefs"....I really don't have any. if anything , I take a neutral stance. Science has shown us a lot lately and proposed some good ideas about our material world and this life. As for an afterlife, I think this life should have no say so in any way as to the outcome of a possible afterlife. This life is way too short to be held accountable for an eternity.
Will we even recall this life in the afterlife? does a butterfly remember being a caterpillar?
NoProofOfHell 1 week ago
@NoProofOfHell When I say "you alone will suffer" I mean "you are accountable for you", not that I coldly have no care for your outcome.
doxprodigy 1 week ago
LOL....for a moment, that video seemed so real, it was scary
MrZebos 4 months ago