Minor correction. Abortion is mentioned a bit in the bible. Hosea, an "inspired prophet of god" begs god to abort the fetuses of Ephraim's women for not paying his god enough attention (HOS 9:11-16). And in case you suspect one of your wives of adultery, the Law allows you to force her to drink "cursed" water to abort the fetus if it isn't from your seed (NUM 5:11-28).
The bible itself is subjective, since it's written by people and there is no proof it is 'the word of god'. So this is a very weak argument from christians that can be refuted rather easily. Morals/ethics are just based on human ideology, we need them to be able to sustain a livable society. Even christians have to respect the laws of society, not the laws of their 'holy book'. VenomFang needs to do some studying because he clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about. He spreads BS.
So I'm wondering about this objective morality through, for example, RP. How does this answer situations like the Trolley Problem? Doesn't any set of moral rules - when assumed to be objective - become a bit arbitrary?
i think one of the best ways to achieve as objective a morality we can get, is benevolent reciprocity, by treating others as we would want to be treated. of course there will still be bit of subjectivity,but i think most people wold agree they want peace and happiness in there life.
doing something to take this away from another, contradicts that reciprocity. there really is no reason for dogma based ethics. even the bible almost got this right w/the golden rule, but then contradicts itself.
In any caring relationship you are going to pay attention to the other individuals desires. It would make no logical sense to listen to them speak their 1st words, and then ignore anything further spoken.
In the bible it is obvious that God changes his actions, so we should pay attention to his last instructions because as you stated, 'the bible does not address some modern moral issues'
Fell free to challenge me if I have overlooked something.
@preachinshawn how can an all knowing being fail to see future issue of morality?
and if god changes his actions, why is the bible not updated with new scriptures? surely it would be a simple task for an omnipotent being to address these issues.
@preachinshaw ...any religious zealot can interpret gods silence as an excuse to go to war and commit genocide and other atrocities, "well i asked god if i should attack these people and he didn't say anything, so it must be ok".
it doesn't take a historian to realize how much death and destruction over the millennia, have been caused in the name of god. the bible would have done much better if had put more emphasis on the golden rule than persecuting other religions or lack their of.
@preachinshawnthe mere fact that a being that supposedly knows the future, but doesn't plan for future contingencies, either, a) isn't omniscient b) just doesn't care enough to give better advice to his "children" or c) does not exist.
if ever the bible needed an update, that would be now. the potential for humans to destroy each other has increased many orders of magnitude since the times of the bible, yet still no update. and as far as the personal preference issue...
@preachinshawn ... how do you reconcile that with the following contradictory passages: Isaiah 13:13-15 "Therefore I will make the heavens tremble;and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the LORD Almighty,in the day of his burning anger.Like a hunted gazelle,like sheep without a shepherd,each will return to his own people,each will flee to his native land.Whoever is captured will be thrust through;all who are caught will fall by the sword." also...
@preachinshawn i appreciate that you took the time to send me a p.m. but i feel that others may benefit from this discussion.you quoted the following passages: "He has shown all you people what is good. And what does YHVH require of you?To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6;8 "Love the Lord yourGod with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and,Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
@preachinshawn ...Isaiah 13:15-18"Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.See,I will stir up against them the Medes,who do not care for silverand have no delight in gold.heir bows will strike down the young men;they will have no mercy on infants,nor will they look with compassion on children." now i'm not trying to be a jerk here,you seem like a cool guy,i'm merely pointing out, that the bible not totally moral.
"Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?" - Ezekiel 18:25
If you believe what God said you can obviously trust his actions. If you do not trust God than you will be your own standard of morality that may change over time.
For me as a man to say I know better than an all knowing being is obviously illogical.
It is a false dilemma, I agree. From one of many approaches to explaining why, we have the fact there are certain universal, pan-human aspects of morality, such as the taboo of incest, but culturally the specifics of it are relative. In some ways I think the language metaphor works in that regard. We have evolved 'prosocial emotions' and predispositions to react to perceived unfairness, but what we regard as truly unfair and how to react are very much inculcated.
A friend whom he and I are in the midst of a little debate used the dead sea scrolls just recently. I'll have to share this bit of information with him.
The Bible was written long time ago so definitely some modern aspects are not obviously included. The Bible wasn't written by God himself. The writers were just inspired to write. Now, we have what we call edition in any literary work so we could edit the Bible as long as we wouldn't change the concept. Infact, the Bible has gone throughmany editions. But somehow, this is a good point of issues concerning the Bible. .... post more......
i think it's ridiculous to assume that morality can change, or can be based on different things. it should always be based on first of all, who you're hurting, for what reason, and to what extent in relation to both need and offence. it should always be based on both damage caused and intent. becasue otherwise there's no point for the word.
Regarding "abortion", the only passage that comes to mind is the one about a man hitting a woman that miscarriages as a result. Her husband, rather than herself is supposed to formulate the penalty for that person. It's clear that god of the OT didn't consider unborn children as fully human.
If the husband let it go, the "abortionist" got away with it :) So much for the "value of the unborn life" haha
@armelix73 Numbers 5:11-29 describes a process that can be interpreted as abortion. In this case, if the husband suspects his wife of adultery, he can have the priest force her to drink "bitter water that brings "the curse"". Reading it through, the results of the curse sound awful, but if she was pregnant, it certainly would abort the foetus.
I'm sure there are several verses to be found in the OT, alluding to the issue of abortion. One thing, however, is clear, that Yahwe didn't consider unborn fetuses as fully human. If he did, than the death of an unborn would be met with the death penalty...
I appreciate that you are willing to calmly refute VFX's arguments. You are much much more collected addressing this petty turd than I could hope to be.
Rationalists need somebody who can convey ideas without being overly caustic.
I've never really studied ethics. Reason, critical thinking & compassion seem to be in a nutshell the why we do the right thing. Fear of punishment from an external agency isn't necessary for more mature individuals. This is a 'node' in the "God Concept' that most christians really haven't looked at carefully, or challenged. Tom
well the torah were laws given to the Isrealite people in that specific time period. It was never meant for all people or for us today. I agree that the way people cherry pick verses from there for their own gain is wrong, As for your "thou shalt not kill" contradiction...I think we all know the difference between murder and war-related/punishable/self-defensive killing. Our own government today punishes for killing and then kills in return. It's no contradiction though because its on diff terms
As far as the Bible not covering every modern issue....morality was never the top concern in the NT and one can argue the same for the OT as well. Christ cared more about how we treat each other rather than how we follow the rules or what choices we choose. And theres always room for human subjectivity because we are imperfect beings. Even Paul discusses how we should be careful of other people's convictions so we dont lead them into temptation. In short, the NT goes as follow: grace,love,morals
When I deconverted it was after taking a Philosophy of Moral Ethics course. The obective standard or morality I embraced was Consequentialism (a form of Utilitarianism) (providing a Moral Definition - what is right / wrong?) and Enlightened Self-Interest (providing Moral Motivation - answering - why should I care / why should I be good?)
The other essential "node" in my God concept I needed resolved was related to living a deeply meaningful / purposeful life.
Morality in the end is purely conceptual, it ceases to exist if we're not around to talk about them. However, I don't want to say that all morality is subjective or objective even in conception. Evil for me is pretty simple, it's when some one directly weakens another in order to strengthen themselves, e.g. cutting the legs off your your competition for the upcoming track tournament or allowing free speech only for certain groups so the "other" group can't start problems for the elite.
Personally, I base it on natural rights (right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, free association, to be free from outside harm, etc). Your rights end only where another's rights begin.
"Good" is any action which seeks to expand or maximize the rights of others.
"Evil" is any action which knowingly infringes on the rights of another (usually through force or fraud).
Everything else within your own rights, or within the rights of consenting parties, is morally neutral.
I don't know what PCS is talking about - he doesn't believe in objective morality. Most religions are about as far from objectivity as you can get.
Even the alternatives you've presented have their shortcomings (although I'm not overly familiar with #2). You might find the morality of Objectivism better, although I understand it's not particularly popular in academia and what I've posted about it so far is a little patchy.
the bible is was created politically to keep people under control. now its used to keep antiquated ideas in to keep people from progressing knowledgeably. the more dumb down America is the easier it is to control them. if we are distracted by gay's and violence it makes it easy to get away with political war and murder. its designed to separate. not unite.
Ok for one your totally taking the bible out of context. It is not lawful anymore to kill someone for not observing the sabbath nor is it lawful to kill anyone for anything. The reason they did that was because Jesus had not came to die for these sins or "take our place" and so the punishment was death. These rules were written for a number of reasons. I cant explain that in text right now. The rules of the bible to follow are NT and the purpose of the OT was Genealogical and Rules for THEN.
So you are saying it is okay to be homosexual then? (If the OT doesn't apply)
Even if you try to take this position (the OT is obsolete), other Christians are going to disagree with you based on other Bible verses (which I pointed out in problem 2).
Are you sure you watched the whole video? Or did you just stop it and start posting a comment right after listening to problem 1?
Nope as I said every law that was important was rewrote in the new testament. That includes homosexuality. So fail on that one. That is what most Christians believe. The OT is not obsolete I actually said that I couldn't explain the reason why in one text comment in my last response so way to nit pick. If what you said is true then why arent Christians trying to get slaves and kill Wal mart for working on the sabbath. Most of the OT laws are obsolete. If you really want me to explain why I can.
Okay. I looked up the verses against homosexuality in the NT. You were right on that one.
However, the main problem here (problem 2) still stands: you are inventing an arbitrary rule to resolve the contradictions between verses. That rule is: "every law that was important was rewrote in the new testament".
I mean sure, it appears to get rid of the inconsistencies in this situation. But you just arbitrarily made it up and it contradicts Matt 5:17-19.
I didnt arbitrarily make it up. Jesus meant in that verse that he is the Fulfillment of the old law. It says i didnt come to abolish them but to fulfill them. So what he is saying is he is just not coming to earth to get rid of the rules and die of old age. He is saying that because of his death the OT will be accomplished. Then In John 13:31 Jesus states that if we Love one another as loved us and you serve God then you will follow his new commandments.
He never said: "every law that was important was rewrote in the new testament".
You may think this rule is *compatible* with the NT, but that doesn't change the fact that you (or some other Christian before you) made it up, independent of the Bible.
Jesus never said this rule. If anything, Matt 5:17-19 contradicts it. He never says anything in John 13:31 about the OT rules not applying unless they are in the NT.
No he said every law that was wrote was FULFILLED in the NT. This means that the sacrifices, killings for not obeying the sabbath, Do not need to be followed anymore. And to your second rebuttal the NT was written after Christs death by his disciples not the church. And Jesus preached from the old testament. Further More Matt 5-7 is the beatitudes. The beatitudes were all of the new laws that the church should follow lol. So it does not at all contradict John 13:31.
So John 13:31 says A NEW COMMANDMENT i give you this means NEW not OLD lol. So according to Matt. 5 - 7 and According to John 13:31 God Has given us new commandments that we now follow and the purpose for the OT was History and to show the Genealogy of Christ, and where we came from. So again we dont use the OT for laws anymore. The only thing I agree with you on is that Christians shouldn't take the old laws out of context and make them as their own.
For example: if a man kills someone, a Christian like VFX may jump out of their seat and say "though shalt not kill! He must be punished or we are in moral relativism!".
But the circumstance matters. If the man kills someone in cold blood to get their wallet, yes, he is punishable, clearly.
However, if the man kills someone who is *trying* to kill him and his 12-year-old son, that is a different situation altogether. He shouldn't be punished at all.
The people in the Bible couldn't predict stem cell research along with any other, because they couldn't even invent a printing press system to mass produce the teaches of their savior.
evid, while Categorical Imperative systems may be reason based, it is elitist and classicist in nature. Alienating the majority of people from the "morally reasonable" and discouraging people without ability to reason at higher levels from following a moral code or conduct. Because what makes an act moral is not a person ability to perform it but the ability of that person to reason over that act. Here is a systems that actually discourages the majority of people from being moral! good indeed!
evid, Respect for Persons might be one of the most permissive or restrictive ethical system there is. Although based on a biblical axiom, it focuses only in the human desires and likes, removing God from the equation. So if a person likes to inflict himself pain, it is totally moral for that person to inflict pain to other because he "is treating others as he likes to be treated". is this better than biblical ethics????!!!!
evid, your lack of profound analysis is evident. All moral systems lack complete integrity and are not flawless. Utilitarianism, or usefulness, or the grater good for the grater number, is an old ethical value systems that has proven to be hedonistic (self-pleasure), leading to unethical "end justifies the means" philosophy and sacrificing minorities right in behalf of the grater good/numbers. Predicting results of an action in most cases is impossible so trial and error becomes the rule.
A note to people leaving positive comments: please make sure to give the video a positive rating too.
I get the feeling that many theists will watch this video and give it a bad rating simply because they don't like the consequences it has for their beliefs (not because it was poorly argued).
I just want to make sure it has visibility to people like yourselves who enjoy it and people who are on the fence for whom the argument may be influential.
Seems venomfang loves setting up false dilemmas in an attempt to trap people. I'm glad others have spotted this and thanks for making up a video about it.
Minor correction. Abortion is mentioned a bit in the bible. Hosea, an "inspired prophet of god" begs god to abort the fetuses of Ephraim's women for not paying his god enough attention (HOS 9:11-16). And in case you suspect one of your wives of adultery, the Law allows you to force her to drink "cursed" water to abort the fetus if it isn't from your seed (NUM 5:11-28).
myerssa7 10 months ago 2
The bible itself is subjective, since it's written by people and there is no proof it is 'the word of god'. So this is a very weak argument from christians that can be refuted rather easily. Morals/ethics are just based on human ideology, we need them to be able to sustain a livable society. Even christians have to respect the laws of society, not the laws of their 'holy book'. VenomFang needs to do some studying because he clearly doesn't understand what he's talking about. He spreads BS.
dutchbb1979 1 year ago
So I'm wondering about this objective morality through, for example, RP. How does this answer situations like the Trolley Problem? Doesn't any set of moral rules - when assumed to be objective - become a bit arbitrary?
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
i think one of the best ways to achieve as objective a morality we can get, is benevolent reciprocity, by treating others as we would want to be treated. of course there will still be bit of subjectivity,but i think most people wold agree they want peace and happiness in there life.
doing something to take this away from another, contradicts that reciprocity. there really is no reason for dogma based ethics. even the bible almost got this right w/the golden rule, but then contradicts itself.
lunarelf 1 year ago
Consider this:
In any caring relationship you are going to pay attention to the other individuals desires. It would make no logical sense to listen to them speak their 1st words, and then ignore anything further spoken.
In the bible it is obvious that God changes his actions, so we should pay attention to his last instructions because as you stated, 'the bible does not address some modern moral issues'
Fell free to challenge me if I have overlooked something.
preachinshawn 1 year ago
@preachinshawn how can an all knowing being fail to see future issue of morality?
and if god changes his actions, why is the bible not updated with new scriptures? surely it would be a simple task for an omnipotent being to address these issues.
lunarelf 1 year ago
lunarelf
I did not say "an all knowing being fail[s] to see future issue of morality".
Surely Yahovah God of the bible can see the future, or he would have no business giving prophecies.
I believe God does update his scriptures when it is necessary.
Quite simply if God is silent on an issue, than it's up to our own personal preference.
preachinshawn 1 year ago
@preachinshaw ...any religious zealot can interpret gods silence as an excuse to go to war and commit genocide and other atrocities, "well i asked god if i should attack these people and he didn't say anything, so it must be ok".
it doesn't take a historian to realize how much death and destruction over the millennia, have been caused in the name of god. the bible would have done much better if had put more emphasis on the golden rule than persecuting other religions or lack their of.
lunarelf 1 year ago 2
@preachinshawnthe mere fact that a being that supposedly knows the future, but doesn't plan for future contingencies, either, a) isn't omniscient b) just doesn't care enough to give better advice to his "children" or c) does not exist.
if ever the bible needed an update, that would be now. the potential for humans to destroy each other has increased many orders of magnitude since the times of the bible, yet still no update. and as far as the personal preference issue...
lunarelf 1 year ago
@preachinshawn ... how do you reconcile that with the following contradictory passages: Isaiah 13:13-15 "Therefore I will make the heavens tremble;and the earth will shake from its place at the wrath of the LORD Almighty,in the day of his burning anger.Like a hunted gazelle,like sheep without a shepherd,each will return to his own people,each will flee to his native land.Whoever is captured will be thrust through;all who are caught will fall by the sword." also...
lunarelf 1 year ago
@preachinshawn i appreciate that you took the time to send me a p.m. but i feel that others may benefit from this discussion.you quoted the following passages: "He has shown all you people what is good. And what does YHVH require of you?To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6;8 "Love the Lord yourGod with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and,Love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Luke 10;27"sounds good but
lunarelf 1 year ago
@preachinshawn ...Isaiah 13:15-18"Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes;their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.See,I will stir up against them the Medes,who do not care for silverand have no delight in gold.heir bows will strike down the young men;they will have no mercy on infants,nor will they look with compassion on children." now i'm not trying to be a jerk here,you seem like a cool guy,i'm merely pointing out, that the bible not totally moral.
lunarelf 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cont...
We should not find it surprising that fallible and infallible beings should differ on methods of morality as God has said:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares YHVH." - Isaiah 55:8
preachinshawn 1 year ago
lunarelf
It all comes down to trust. YHVH God said:
"Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?" - Ezekiel 18:25
If you believe what God said you can obviously trust his actions. If you do not trust God than you will be your own standard of morality that may change over time.
For me as a man to say I know better than an all knowing being is obviously illogical.
cont...
preachinshawn 1 year ago
It is a false dilemma, I agree. From one of many approaches to explaining why, we have the fact there are certain universal, pan-human aspects of morality, such as the taboo of incest, but culturally the specifics of it are relative. In some ways I think the language metaphor works in that regard. We have evolved 'prosocial emotions' and predispositions to react to perceived unfairness, but what we regard as truly unfair and how to react are very much inculcated.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
here's a third pt of view. I'm not religious yet Hitler was indeed evil.
stickinup2188 1 year ago
A friend whom he and I are in the midst of a little debate used the dead sea scrolls just recently. I'll have to share this bit of information with him.
Thanks.
black487 1 year ago
The Bible was written long time ago so definitely some modern aspects are not obviously included. The Bible wasn't written by God himself. The writers were just inspired to write. Now, we have what we call edition in any literary work so we could edit the Bible as long as we wouldn't change the concept. Infact, the Bible has gone throughmany editions. But somehow, this is a good point of issues concerning the Bible. .... post more......
thecordilleran 1 year ago
i think it's ridiculous to assume that morality can change, or can be based on different things. it should always be based on first of all, who you're hurting, for what reason, and to what extent in relation to both need and offence. it should always be based on both damage caused and intent. becasue otherwise there's no point for the word.
mikese93 1 year ago
Evolution supplies all that is needed for the development
of codes of conduct that preserve and facilitate
survival and co-operation,
which is precisely what these "laws" do.
Such sensitivities in no way support your particular god.
In fact, as Christians believe that their most heinous acts
will be magically vanished and forgotten via human sacrifice,
they actually have very little incentive to act in a moral manner.
Hmmm..
That just might explain a hell of a lot.
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
Regarding "abortion", the only passage that comes to mind is the one about a man hitting a woman that miscarriages as a result. Her husband, rather than herself is supposed to formulate the penalty for that person. It's clear that god of the OT didn't consider unborn children as fully human.
If the husband let it go, the "abortionist" got away with it :) So much for the "value of the unborn life" haha
armelix73 1 year ago
@armelix73 Numbers 5:11-29 describes a process that can be interpreted as abortion. In this case, if the husband suspects his wife of adultery, he can have the priest force her to drink "bitter water that brings "the curse"". Reading it through, the results of the curse sound awful, but if she was pregnant, it certainly would abort the foetus.
Soulus101 1 year ago
@Soulus101
I'm sure there are several verses to be found in the OT, alluding to the issue of abortion. One thing, however, is clear, that Yahwe didn't consider unborn fetuses as fully human. If he did, than the death of an unborn would be met with the death penalty...
armelix73 1 year ago
I appreciate that you are willing to calmly refute VFX's arguments. You are much much more collected addressing this petty turd than I could hope to be.
Rationalists need somebody who can convey ideas without being overly caustic.
CookyCorvid 2 years ago
I was really hoping you would have listed Objectivism at the end there, but that's okay. Great vid anyways.
El3ctricPenguin 2 years ago
I absolutely LOVE your videos, please keep making them!
simsi1616 2 years ago
I've never really studied ethics. Reason, critical thinking & compassion seem to be in a nutshell the why we do the right thing. Fear of punishment from an external agency isn't necessary for more mature individuals. This is a 'node' in the "God Concept' that most christians really haven't looked at carefully, or challenged. Tom
NeoPsiTom 2 years ago 2
I completely agree.
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
well the torah were laws given to the Isrealite people in that specific time period. It was never meant for all people or for us today. I agree that the way people cherry pick verses from there for their own gain is wrong, As for your "thou shalt not kill" contradiction...I think we all know the difference between murder and war-related/punishable/self-defensive killing. Our own government today punishes for killing and then kills in return. It's no contradiction though because its on diff terms
Guffguy 2 years ago
As far as the Bible not covering every modern issue....morality was never the top concern in the NT and one can argue the same for the OT as well. Christ cared more about how we treat each other rather than how we follow the rules or what choices we choose. And theres always room for human subjectivity because we are imperfect beings. Even Paul discusses how we should be careful of other people's convictions so we dont lead them into temptation. In short, the NT goes as follow: grace,love,morals
Guffguy 2 years ago
When I deconverted it was after taking a Philosophy of Moral Ethics course. The obective standard or morality I embraced was Consequentialism (a form of Utilitarianism) (providing a Moral Definition - what is right / wrong?) and Enlightened Self-Interest (providing Moral Motivation - answering - why should I care / why should I be good?)
The other essential "node" in my God concept I needed resolved was related to living a deeply meaningful / purposeful life.
myintellectualjourny 2 years ago
Great video. 5'd 'n fav'd 'n sub'd.
ozmoroid 2 years ago 3
Nothing to do with false DMCAs... hahahaha... freaking brilliant.
adamredwine 2 years ago 7
Morality in the end is purely conceptual, it ceases to exist if we're not around to talk about them. However, I don't want to say that all morality is subjective or objective even in conception. Evil for me is pretty simple, it's when some one directly weakens another in order to strengthen themselves, e.g. cutting the legs off your your competition for the upcoming track tournament or allowing free speech only for certain groups so the "other" group can't start problems for the elite.
dichotomyofone 2 years ago
i would say that an act of good is something that is done for benefit beyond your own
and evil is an act that is purely for personal gain at the expense of others
obviously its not as black and white as that but thats the basis i see
DeemotheAthiest 2 years ago
Personally, I base it on natural rights (right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, free association, to be free from outside harm, etc). Your rights end only where another's rights begin.
"Good" is any action which seeks to expand or maximize the rights of others.
"Evil" is any action which knowingly infringes on the rights of another (usually through force or fraud).
Everything else within your own rights, or within the rights of consenting parties, is morally neutral.
NekoMouser 2 years ago
i do like yours but i thnk the grey areas between the two are much greater in practice
DeemotheAtheist 2 years ago
I don't know what PCS is talking about - he doesn't believe in objective morality. Most religions are about as far from objectivity as you can get.
Even the alternatives you've presented have their shortcomings (although I'm not overly familiar with #2). You might find the morality of Objectivism better, although I understand it's not particularly popular in academia and what I've posted about it so far is a little patchy.
Guncriminal 2 years ago
the bible is was created politically to keep people under control. now its used to keep antiquated ideas in to keep people from progressing knowledgeably. the more dumb down America is the easier it is to control them. if we are distracted by gay's and violence it makes it easy to get away with political war and murder. its designed to separate. not unite.
hellsingorg2 2 years ago 3
Modern moral issues are only old issues with fancier toys.
mackdan7 2 years ago
Ok for one your totally taking the bible out of context. It is not lawful anymore to kill someone for not observing the sabbath nor is it lawful to kill anyone for anything. The reason they did that was because Jesus had not came to die for these sins or "take our place" and so the punishment was death. These rules were written for a number of reasons. I cant explain that in text right now. The rules of the bible to follow are NT and the purpose of the OT was Genealogical and Rules for THEN.
tbarker77 2 years ago
So you are saying it is okay to be homosexual then? (If the OT doesn't apply)
Even if you try to take this position (the OT is obsolete), other Christians are going to disagree with you based on other Bible verses (which I pointed out in problem 2).
Are you sure you watched the whole video? Or did you just stop it and start posting a comment right after listening to problem 1?
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
Nope as I said every law that was important was rewrote in the new testament. That includes homosexuality. So fail on that one. That is what most Christians believe. The OT is not obsolete I actually said that I couldn't explain the reason why in one text comment in my last response so way to nit pick. If what you said is true then why arent Christians trying to get slaves and kill Wal mart for working on the sabbath. Most of the OT laws are obsolete. If you really want me to explain why I can.
tbarker77 2 years ago
Okay. I looked up the verses against homosexuality in the NT. You were right on that one.
However, the main problem here (problem 2) still stands: you are inventing an arbitrary rule to resolve the contradictions between verses. That rule is: "every law that was important was rewrote in the new testament".
I mean sure, it appears to get rid of the inconsistencies in this situation. But you just arbitrarily made it up and it contradicts Matt 5:17-19.
Arbitrary rules reduce to relativism.
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
I didnt arbitrarily make it up. Jesus meant in that verse that he is the Fulfillment of the old law. It says i didnt come to abolish them but to fulfill them. So what he is saying is he is just not coming to earth to get rid of the rules and die of old age. He is saying that because of his death the OT will be accomplished. Then In John 13:31 Jesus states that if we Love one another as loved us and you serve God then you will follow his new commandments.
tbarker77 2 years ago
He never said: "every law that was important was rewrote in the new testament".
You may think this rule is *compatible* with the NT, but that doesn't change the fact that you (or some other Christian before you) made it up, independent of the Bible.
Jesus never said this rule. If anything, Matt 5:17-19 contradicts it. He never says anything in John 13:31 about the OT rules not applying unless they are in the NT.
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
No he said every law that was wrote was FULFILLED in the NT. This means that the sacrifices, killings for not obeying the sabbath, Do not need to be followed anymore. And to your second rebuttal the NT was written after Christs death by his disciples not the church. And Jesus preached from the old testament. Further More Matt 5-7 is the beatitudes. The beatitudes were all of the new laws that the church should follow lol. So it does not at all contradict John 13:31.
tbarker77 2 years ago
In fact, Jesus never refers to the concepts of OT and NT at all. Those were created by the Christian church after he died.
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
So John 13:31 says A NEW COMMANDMENT i give you this means NEW not OLD lol. So according to Matt. 5 - 7 and According to John 13:31 God Has given us new commandments that we now follow and the purpose for the OT was History and to show the Genealogy of Christ, and where we came from. So again we dont use the OT for laws anymore. The only thing I agree with you on is that Christians shouldn't take the old laws out of context and make them as their own.
tbarker77 2 years ago
I was teaching my kid of this yesterday
morals depend on the situation
GodKillerAtheist 2 years ago 11
"morals depend on the situation"
Definitely.
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
And to clarify this to people who were thumbs-downing your comment, I want to demonstrate how this is not moral relativism:
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
For example: if a man kills someone, a Christian like VFX may jump out of their seat and say "though shalt not kill! He must be punished or we are in moral relativism!".
But the circumstance matters. If the man kills someone in cold blood to get their wallet, yes, he is punishable, clearly.
However, if the man kills someone who is *trying* to kill him and his 12-year-old son, that is a different situation altogether. He shouldn't be punished at all.
Evid3nc3 2 years ago 6
Ummm..the LAWS OF THE LAND??!!
warwithangels 2 years ago
The people in the Bible couldn't predict stem cell research along with any other, because they couldn't even invent a printing press system to mass produce the teaches of their savior.
Stickyboogarz 2 years ago
evid, while Categorical Imperative systems may be reason based, it is elitist and classicist in nature. Alienating the majority of people from the "morally reasonable" and discouraging people without ability to reason at higher levels from following a moral code or conduct. Because what makes an act moral is not a person ability to perform it but the ability of that person to reason over that act. Here is a systems that actually discourages the majority of people from being moral! good indeed!
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
evid, Respect for Persons might be one of the most permissive or restrictive ethical system there is. Although based on a biblical axiom, it focuses only in the human desires and likes, removing God from the equation. So if a person likes to inflict himself pain, it is totally moral for that person to inflict pain to other because he "is treating others as he likes to be treated". is this better than biblical ethics????!!!!
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
evid, your lack of profound analysis is evident. All moral systems lack complete integrity and are not flawless. Utilitarianism, or usefulness, or the grater good for the grater number, is an old ethical value systems that has proven to be hedonistic (self-pleasure), leading to unethical "end justifies the means" philosophy and sacrificing minorities right in behalf of the grater good/numbers. Predicting results of an action in most cases is impossible so trial and error becomes the rule.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
"Utilitarianism has been proven to be hedonistic"
This is a Strawman Argument. Your commenting style is Proof by Verbosity. (look them up if you don't know the terms).
I'm not going to be able to respond to all of your Proof by Verbosity comments. Look up the term and you will understand why.
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
That's "argument verbosium" in the Wikipedia article.
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
A note to people leaving positive comments: please make sure to give the video a positive rating too.
I get the feeling that many theists will watch this video and give it a bad rating simply because they don't like the consequences it has for their beliefs (not because it was poorly argued).
I just want to make sure it has visibility to people like yourselves who enjoy it and people who are on the fence for whom the argument may be influential.
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
Now that was an "adult' argument compared to Venomfags child like ,fantasy land argument.
acadiantunes 2 years ago
Thank you very much :)
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
cool video! i enjoyed your expression of intellectual clarity.
excalibur9 2 years ago
Thank you!
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
I don't know: either excellent or fatality....
lets ask an absolute authority.
ContinuumXT 2 years ago
Thanks :)
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
You do have a point
I mean im 15
years old and im a Christian.
But the bible does do that
and sometimes it seems like the bible
itself is evil.
chrissyHAVEHEART 2 years ago
I was a Christian at 15 too and remember feeling the same way. Thanks for your comment.
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
Seems venomfang loves setting up false dilemmas in an attempt to trap people. I'm glad others have spotted this and thanks for making up a video about it.
againsttherage 2 years ago
I'm glad to see other people are spotting it also.
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
Totally spot on. Much calmer in contrast to VenomFang X's spastic car salesman delivery.
weatherkop 2 years ago
Thanks! :)
Evid3nc3 2 years ago
Comment removed
knightbrock77 2 years ago
Nice, clear response; good video.
bornagainst777 2 years ago
Thanks!
Evid3nc3 2 years ago