Additionally, original sin or at least the Calvinistic total inability interpretation of it nullifies morality completely as well as the concept of justice because people are unable to choose right if it is true and thus they are judged by choices they cannot control
I really enjoy your videos. I am not a Christian myself, however I am not an atheist. Many of these arguments can be applied to my religion as well.
However, I would like to point out that towards the end of this video you made a slight error in describing Christian feelings on homosexuality. While you may respectfully disagree with homosexuals' decisions purely based on your objective standard, this is not the case with many other Christians. Christians are portrayed as "bigoted"
@Aeoryth or "anti-gay" because many of them truely are that way. Many Christians are not properly using their "objective standard", but are merely hiding behind it as a means to project hate on a culture that they don't agree with. I'm not saying that you yourself do these things, but there are many Christians you do. Unfortunately, many of us judge the whole carton based on the bad eggs.
An interesting discussion here. But when you state that Christians follow an objective standard, this is not true.
Christians "BELIEVE" on "FAITH" that they follow an objective standard; this is all assuming that "God" exists, that the bible is true, and is an accurate representation of the nature and will of said God.
In my opinion, this is obviously not the case.
It seems that Christians do follow an objective standard, but only in their subjective opinions.
@mcpencil *Sigh* Shaun clearly stated that he provided no argument that the Bible IS the objective standard. He says it at 3:22, see for yourself. He said he'd save it for another video, if you want justification for the Bible, Shaun's channel is replete with information in his youtube videos and favorites, that's of course given that you go to it with an ear that not just hears, but actually listens and doesn't terribly distort what's being said as it usually is.
No matter how well he thinks he justifies the bible, christians STILL don't follow an objective standard. The morals derived from the bible are extremely open to interpretation. That's why there are so many denominations. There are an absolute boatload of contradictions in the bible if one is prepared to look at it critically. Even if the bible only had one interpretation, it still would not be an objective standard, only the subjective assumption of an objective standard.
@mcpencil *Sigh* No one ever said Christians dont misinterpret the Bible; again why are you looking to PEOPLE for an objective standard. Watch this video closely at 6:22, Shaun addresses youre point specifically. You're basically making the exact same arguments she made in this video, you should listen closely if you're actually serious. I'm not going to go in to this Bible contradiction nonsense, they seem contradictory because you read them with the presupposition that they are, end of.
I would argue that the Bible DOESN'T seem contradictory to you, because you read it with the pre-formed conclusion that it's true, that Yahweh exists, and that Jesus actually died and was resurrected to pay for our "sins". If a 40 year old man had never heard of the Bible, and picked it up in a bookstore, there would be no way he would mistake the contents for a reasonable approximation of reality. The only reason people believe, is because the culture indoctrinates them while young.
There is no objective standard of morality in the universe. If you think the Bible is the objective standard of morality, then the same argument could be made from the Quran... the Quran claims to be the final version of God's message. Just because a document makes a claim, does not make it so. It is ridiculous to claim that secular people knowingly violate objective moral law, because there is no such thing outside of the opinions of religious people.
I am extremely open minded to there being a higher consciousness. In fact, that is where I'm leaning. However, the bible is obvious fiction and the Yahweh character presented in it has all the hallmarks of an egotistical and ethnocentric creation of man. The bible makes incredible claims and does not provide incredible evidence. It's all blind faith. And accepting the bible in a full and literal sense, would mean denying many branches of science, including biology and astronomy.
@mcpencil As Shaun said, he made no argument for the Bible, he said so at 3:22 he simply was supposing what would be the case IF it were the case, and again like I said, if you want good reasons, there are plenty of good videos on Shaun's channel and my channel as well if you go to them with an open ear and an open mind, but honestly I seriously doubt that will be the case given this vicious circle of reasoning you just did, so no vicious circle for you Mr. Atheist. Repent, and trust in Jesus.
If by "open ear and open mind" you mean completely suspending my critical faculties and just accepting what is presented to me... you're out of your mind. I already am open minded enough to concede that a higher consciousness is more likely than not. But if it does exist, then it exists in the taoist/panentheist/eastern religion sense, not as a personal deity which picks one nation over another and carries out willful genocide by interfering with the course of nature.
@mcpencil No, by all means keep your critical faculties when listening to videos by all means if there's a line of reasoning you're not following, ask questions. Just don't go in to them with the presupposition that they can't be answered.
@mcpencil Also, examine your world view, you've already conceded that a higher being is more probable than not, yet you claim there is no objective morality, this is a contradiction as objective morality itself must be derived from this mind as the summom bonum or "greatest good" otherwise you're left with relativism, personal preference and, emotivism (as Shaun stated) if that's the case your opinion is no more valid than a rapist, again take a look at a lot of the videos we favorite :).
@igotJesus88- as shown in chapter two, the writer of the book of James is obviously addressing "believers in jesus christ". And the first chapter tells us theses believes "in jesus" are also Jewish, scattered abroad beyond the land of Palestine (“the twelve tribes in Dispersion").
@igotJesus88- by quoting a passage in Isaiah, 'who are you, man, to talk back to god?'. Instead he goes on to say god creates some people for one purpose, and some for other use, according to Romans 9. If you're not lucky enough to be chosen for a noble purpose, then you are for common use, relegated to hell and torment. So here, even Paul found the issue puzzling, yet accepts that it doesn't matter,(perhaps because he assumes he is included for noble use). Shatters the view of a just noble god.
@igotJesus88- therefore the teachings of jesus are irrelevant. Telling someone to believe in him is irrelevant. Is God in the biblical text just & fair? How can a just God predetermine people to sin and then judge those people for that predetermination that was beyond their control?? None of these are answered by Paul's quotes in Romans. Instead he goes on to affirm that free will does not affect our fate, then he asks directly how can god blame us for such actions. And his answer? Tough!
@igotJesus88- Chapter two goes on to validate this, that god prepared in ADVANCE, for them to do. Romans 8 too validate it, saying not only god foreknew but predestined them to be conformed. So they are only called and justified if they were predestined. It is not that these people accepted god on their own, they were chosen before they existed. If your choices determine if you go to Heaven, then the Bible is constantly saying that such choices were chosen by God. There is no justification.
@igotJesus88- and yes the biblical doctrines of christianity denies free will and affirms predeterminism. The first chapter of Ephesians clearly says christians were chosen before creation and they were predestined to be adopted as god's children according to god's will, not their own. You can only have Jesus if God has chosen you as one of those who is "blessed with Jesus". And they are chosen before time began to conform to jesus, automatically destined to "do good works".
@igotJesus88- according to the new testament, nearly all the early christians were jews. And the jews, like the gentiles, have to accept that Jesus is the son of god to then become christians. Now actual history according to historic evidence, tells us there were many divisions and sects among the emerging christian groups, because of conflicting doctrine. And the bible itself clearly depict many conflicting doctrines to this day, the reason for so many denominations.
@igotJesus88- you have simply applied your own reasoning to the texts. No where does the text imply nor say faith without works does not apply to the "church". The book of James is addressed specifically to those who are already professing Christians, to the scattered Jewish christians throughout the Roman Empire as is stated in the first chapter. I don't believe the biblical texts. I study them, as I study ancient religions. God in not said to work with people differently.
The atraction for the same sex is not what God condemns, becouse that is not the sin! We don't sin becouse of this feelings, we sin when we give ourselfes to this desires, wether by deed or just in thoughts! ... It's true that some people have this tendences, and others don't....but those feelings are just a product of our own sinfull nature that we inherit from Adam!
Even when Jesus saves us, people may stil have this tendences for the rest of theyr lives, but now, instead of giving in, we have the power to fight against those sins that bring condemnation from the Lord! And this spiritual battel extends to all other areas and thoughts in our lives, not just the same sex atraction! God Bless you all!
@DiscipleOfOne1- yet it also says you cannot be saved by faith alone. A jumble full of contradictions. It also advocate no free will since god predestined Christians for salvation before creation began. It was already decided they would "accept his forgiveness" before they supposedly came into existence. Jesus reaffirms this by saying only "those drawn to him by his father" can come to him, not because of their own doing. Such is the logic of the bible.
@rooio3 the bible does not teach that your not saved by faith alone... it actually teaches the opposite... Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast ... God works with people differently there are Jews, Gentiles and the Church if you are saved today you are part of the church.. you cannot take the entire bible and apply it to you.. 2 timothy 2:15 says to rightly divide the word of truth..
@rooio3 also when it says in the book of James that faith without works is dead that doesnt apply to the church and if it did yes, it would be a contradiction.. the book of James is written to the 12 tribes of Israel.. who lives in Israel? Jews.. so again you cant take the bible as a whole and apply everything to you.. thats not how it works.. i hope this explains a little... Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Hey venom. How's that Charity Scam working? Or those false DMCA claims? Or calling dprjones a pedophile? or the murder from Tony48219 (your fan)? Didn't your mommy and daddy tell you to get your ass off youtube? We know your address and home number. Shall I give them a call? Seriously venom. After Thunderf00t, dprjones, even joneowens, etc. Helped you out, you still treat them like trash. How many of your christian friends helped you out? you even talked shit against togetherforpeace. copypaste
Good thinking, I agree on this objective morality issue, what i disagree on (that has nothing to do with this video) is the christian way of thinking that if you don't worship christ you are going to hell; woshiping christ is following gods law, a buddist can do that without knowing about jesus and he might still live an eternal life saying he won't is just illogical, as a person of humilty i think jesus does not care if he's recognized as a deity but he cares if we follow what he said...
Responding to the comment in your description box: I disagree. Objective morality has nothing to do with whether or not it sustains (human) life. You and I find value in human life because in our subjective experience the more human life the better. What about rocks or bacteria at the bottom of the sea? It likely finds no value in human life. You need to prove the objective value of human life to say that sustaining it is objectively moral. Plus you need to prove that sustaining something cont.
@rolexxx11 objectively valuable is in fact objectively moral. Simply because something has value doesn't mean that by injuring it or changing it more value might not be produced. You make a boat load of unsubstantiated assumptions, but I would be interested to hear how you work them in.
You're so close. The problem is that we don't need to refute objective morals. You need to prove them. The default position is there are no objective morals. You are making a positive statement. It's not that the Enlightenment project, as you call it, has failed. Religion has.
Meh, non-religious morality is as much based on personal preference as religious morality. The preference in the latter is "I'd rather go to heaven than hell" (your justification), and the preference in the former varies from philosophy to philosophy.
The thing with subjective and objectve morality is this: For an Objective morality to work, for it to be beneficial to society, it needs to be perfect. Perfect means that everybody agrees with it, that everybody who reads it will go and say "Hey you know what, this is right, these are moral laws i can live by."
Christianity offers no such perfect moral, thus it is subjective, like all other morality. Moral is basicly the most basic of laws, these things make society move forward (More will come)
(Continue) Lets take murder for an example. before, slaying other tribes may have been needed for your tribe to live on, for various reasons. Thus it was ok. To slay another in your own tribe only hampered, thus it was wrong. Why was it okay to slay other tribes for your tribe to live on? Because we humans are pack animals, we value our pack above other packs. But then we evolved, our society became more complex, more complicated laws was needed (More to come)
(Continue) As our tribes grew they became stronger, obviously. Stronger tribes attracts weaker tribes, they merge, become allies or are taken over by the bigger tribe. Thus its a bad thing if a person from tribe A attacked the stronger Tribe B out of fear of retaliation. Tribe B still didnt care if someone slaughtered a few of A, because they werent a threat. Then Tribe A joins forces with C, D, and E, thus becoming a potencial threat, thus it is suddenly wrong for B to hack up some A
Hoping you don't censor the comments this time. Here goes;
A reason that more homosexual couples contract STD's is that the main use of condoms is seen as a contraceptive measure - to stop pregnancies, obviously, homosexual couples cannot become pregnant without some more technical method. So, the use of condom's is reduced to stopping the transmission of STD's. Obviously, still a big part, but the main goal of a contraceptive is to stop conception.
@VenomFangX Based on the evidence at hand it is completely valid to assume that morality is not objective. In Fact it is reasonable to assume that morality is a human construct. Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that Morality comes from a source that is not human which (correct me if I am wrong) is without proof). But if you can bring evidence of Objective morality then the assumption can be challenged.
@NightHawkBomber001 Exactly! Further though, VFX repeatedly says you cannot look to people to discern any aspect of objective morality. Where, then, can this standard be found? If it is not disseminated by people then each of us should be personally visited by God with his To-Do list. If it is disseminated by people, then the entire argument is flawed. Basically the entire point is "I declare there is a magical objective standard somewhere, but you can never know what it is! ha ha!"
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as additions of material, centuries after the gospel was written. These are called interpolations. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses, words and phrases being left out or marked as not original.
The manuscripts also lacked word spacing, so words, sentences, and paragraphs would be a continuous string of letters, often with line breaks in the middle of words. The original New Testament books did not have titles, section headings, or verse and chapter divisions. These were developed over the years as "helps for readers". Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries.
were discovered in Albania. When comparing one manuscript to another, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two copies agree completely throughout. Some variations involve apparently intentional changes, which often make more difficult a determination of whether they were corrections from better exemplars, harmonizations between readings, or ideologically motivated. The earliest manuscripts had hardly, if any, punctuation or breathing marks.
There are no original copies of biblical text, only copies of copies. The dead sea scrolls only contain the oldest known surviving copies of text from the Hebrew bible and other documents. The new testament have dates that are determined by scholars, but only preserved fragments of the texts exist, not the original texts. Every year, several New Testament manuscripts handwritten in the original Greek format are discovered,the latest substantial find was in 2008, when 47 new manuscripts
Ok, long video, so I'll keep the question short. The bible has been written by many people, translated, and rewritten for 2000 years. How does anyone know what the bible really said about things like homosexuality since it was only mentioned twice in two different sections. It could have been added or changed by someone who simple was against it for whatever reason.
@skywize Rewritten is an incorrect word to use. All manuscripts and copies are crosschecked and the originals identified. The book of Isaiah, which was located within the last hundred years or so helped fix any wording errors directly that the Bible may have had in the past. The Torah and the Letters of Paul have been cross checked vividly. All hebrew and Latin variations are checked for any error, and historically, one error = redo page in BC to 1st century time, or in King James time, death.
@skywize That is very understandable. Skepticism is natural, though it is best to look it up through Christian based organizations such as CARM for example who may have the processes used and other evidence on file that would help the best. Most people who look at secular sites often say that the Bible has no evidence or it couldn't be without error, even though the evidence is documented thoroughly. The don't take word alone, look it up approach is always the best way to go.
If you make the clame that bible is the only objective standard of morality, you or the one who has to prove it. if you can't come with any valid reason to accept biblical morality while refusing an other, than it means it is, by deffinition, subjective.
@XHAWK77X Graduation you just falled to make a point. My grammar doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote about and you didn't say what was wrong with my logic or my conclusion.
Please shut up if you don't have anything usefull to say. It's completely useless to say someone else is wrong if you don't say why.
@Tamizushi The ten commandments were slated as the moral code that progresses all other laws in Humanity. Honor parents (do better than them), don't murder, don't steal, don't covet, don't lie to prosecute another. Before those, numerically, were the ones dealing with God. Trends show that society is worse off and more confused when God is not in society. Tuscon shooting as an example. That said, the evidence for Biblical morality not being subjective... To be continued on next post...
@RMBVP Continued... are, in fact, archeological evidence to pose as the accuracy of the lineage of the Hebrew line from Adam to Jesus. The Sumerian Weld Prism is one of the findings I am speaking of. The Bible is objective as the basis of each and every law is something that humanity knows is wrong because it is a violation against another person's rights and can lead to such. The Laws though, can only be objective as long as there is an entity that directs that law.
@feedtherich The point on stereotypes. I am one of those emotional guys. The difference between guys and girls is that our brains work differently. Women have at most 100 different thoughts going on in their mind at one moment, men have barely one thought per moment. This is so women can run multiple tasks at one time and men can focus greatly on a single task ahead or important matters. Important matters for women are based down to the percent it is in all of their thoughts.
@RMBVP continued 1... Women are setup to do jobs that consist of high amounts of multitasking. Men are setup to do jobs that have a base focus. Mixing the two change things and either the main focus is lost, or the many other focuses are lost. The psychological effects on both are substantiated to decay to the point of confusion and role decadence. 1 provides, the other takes care of the provisions. When the roles are deluted, anger and spite, and eventually total failure is the effect.
This is all still assuming that the objective morality you're concerned about is from the Christian god, not, say, Allah, or Ahura Mazda, or any other religions claiming to be the one true religion; that the words in the bible, written hundreds of years after Jesus' death, translated and edited a hundred times over, are 100% accurate; and that the people who "talked" to god to write the various texts understood the message. Even if one of these is true, we couldn't possibly know which it is.
@Guardian0487 Point 1: The Bible is 66 books, the old testament was written over a period of 2,000 years or more, give or take. The New testament was written within the first 50 years A.D. Christ, being an actual figure, as All credible historians claim, who are in the majority on the planet, lived to the age of 30, was crucified, and caused Christianity to occur 3 days after his death, which was cited as his resurrection. Then they were massacred for saying they saw him alive after his demise.
@RMBVP It may be true that the bible as it was FOUND was written 50 years A.D., but the bible as it is read today was absolutely not. Were written the day after his death, it still begs the question of the events being described being interpreted by man, who is fallible, being written by man, who is fallible, being translated by man, who is fallible, being edited by man, who is fallible, and being re-interpreted by man, who is fallible. Nor is there any way of knowing which text is "right."
@Guardian0487 I agree that it can be hard to find things preferable if those who are working on something are fallible, however, those who follow infallible instructions can essentially keep their mistakes corrected by the instructions. The Bible has preset points that say whether someone is being cohesive to the Bible or going against it in the writings. The copies of the original texts are cross referenced with the 25 thousand other original copies to make sure everything is the same.
@RMBVP I'm glad you are comforted by that, but to me, there is too much that must be lost in translation. And as I've said several times (a point which has been ignored) there is simply no way to discern which text that claims to talk of the "one true religion" is the "real" text. There are certainly others, and many. And the bible is not the oldest. How do you justify dismissing all of those other religions which claim themselves to be true?
@Guardian0487 I was listening to AFR earlier today that brought this topic up, stating that there are too many manuscripts and the history and the times dismount any claims of change or error. One change or error on a piece or papyrus and the whole page had to be burnt and rewritten in the old testament. One change or error in the New Testament had similar scrutiny. There are an overwhelming amount of manuscripts that would make any secular writing be instant fact by historians.
This kind of reminds me of the constitution debate. People often think they can eliminate our rights with a majority vote. But our rights are inherent to our nature so it doesn't matter if it's popular or not!
@VenomFangX But surely this possibility merely kicks the can further down the chain of responsibility... Even such divine dictation would need to survive the subjectivity of scribes, translators, anthologists, and, ultimately, interpretation by end reader. How can I determine that subjectivism indeed plays a role? This is ultimately evident by the plethora of bible versions, biblical canons, and christian sects.
wait... wait... is that a copy of continuum shift I see in the background? OMG Venom, I would love to verse you!!! My PSN is the same as my Youtube username :D
Emotivism is the position that moral statements are reducible or are primarily expressions of feeling. That is, moral claims such as 'Rape is wrong' would really be just to say, 'Boo! Rape. Boo!' You should notice that these sort of expressions have no truth value. You should also notice that this expression is not reducible to claims such as 'I feel rape is wrong.'
The Truth shall set you free. We as Christrians have a command to speak the truth. Now if a person choose to accept or deny that, then its there problem but we have a mandated mission to speak the truth at all times. Happy to see you back Shawn!
@az111709 When did you choose not to be a rapist/pedophile/insert rejected behavior? If people are born homosexuals then they are born rapists and pedophiles.
@az111709 Because it's healthier, like chocolate milk lol. Seriously though, homosexuality is no more than another form of crystal meth if you get the analogy. You can choose what you do. If you cheat on your wife or gf, that's not how you were born, it's a choice too. Just because you want to do something or someone doesn't mean do it. Having sex with the same sex, or even kids is a choice, and one already is illegal. Get the concept of the difference between love and sex. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
@RMBVP Having sex with another consenting adult is not the same as having sex with a kid. One is illegal because it hurts someone. The other isn't, because it doesn't.
@feedtherich And if the kid were to say yes it would still be illegal. Consent matters by age only? In homosexual males, anal sex is as deadly as crystal meth if you get the analogy. In females, there is no sex, only foreplay. In either case, sexual interaction does not work, as there are only two parts made for each other. All Else is a lie.
@RMBVP Yes consent matters by age only, a child does not have a mature enough mind to make that kind of decision, which is also why children do not fight in wars, vote, drive, or drink alcohol (legally). Why is this so hard for you? In case you were unaware, many heterosexuals have anal sex, and many homosexuals do not have anal sex. Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol, even driving SOBER are all more deadly than anal sex. Do you want to make all those things illegal? Ever heard of freedom?
@feedtherich Anal sex in general is unethical and stupid. "ANAL SEEPAGE, that doesn't even sound funny." (From the blue collar comedy tour thing.) Sperm act against antibodies, plus anal tearing causes immunodeficiency where STDs can easily come in to play. Yes, pun intended and it was a good one lol. Also, children are able to decide what they do after age 6. Also, the act itself is actively harmful, unlike driving sober. Drunk driving and texting while driving is already illegal.
@RMBVP At worst, you could say anal sex is unhealthy. Having a poor diet and not exercising are also unhealthy, but I don't see you on a crusade to regulate those things in our society. You have absolute zero to say about lesbian sex being bad in any way other than 'the bible' so you can't judge homosexual men who choose NOT to have anal sex. You just don't like the idea of same-sex couples, don't pretend it has anything to do with medical issues.
@feedtherich On both homosexual groups, even moreso on females, the mental trauma caused normally causes things to go ary as the minds are incompatible with each other for a surviving partition. Male minds are in logos, and female minds are in pathos. Both are needed to co exist or the survival of any couple is a failure from the beginning. For h-men, physical trauma is the problem, for h-women, psychological trauma is the problem.
Also your logos/pathos argument is completely ridiculous, clearly you have observed the common stereotypes of ''fem' and 'butch' in the gay community, and while I don't resort to abusing stereotypes to judge people, it is foolish to argue against the fact that some men are way more emotional than other men, and some women are way more logical than other women. OK, the end.
@RMBVP Only your RELIGION says 'it is a lie' but homosexuality has occurred in nature (animals) since the beginning of sex and it still does. The rest of the world doesn't follow your fairy tale book. If you want to believe it, go ahead, but don't try to push it on the rest of us, because it has no merit in the functioning of the real world. You say "there are only two parts made for each other." Do you believe our fingers were made to use a keyboard? No, but that doesn't mean typing is bad.
@feedtherich Actually, it is a fact that the female reproductive part is made specifically for the male reproductive part. Plus, the "homosexual" tendancies in animals are only developed when the animal is unable to mate with the female, so it tries to establish some type of dominance. My friends have 6 dogs, three female, three male. All but 1 are toy poodles. By the way, the keyboard analogy doesn't work, the keyboard is specifically designed for the fingers.
@RMBVP Ok so let's take oral sex between men and women. The genitalia were not designed to go into/on the mouth. In fact your religion may consider oral sex sodomy. So all those couples out there having oral sex are just as bad as homosexuals. You see your argument gives you no basis to judge based on the genders involved, because your weak justification of 'health reasons' is too specific and isn't even exclusive to homosexuals.
@feedtherich There is nothing against oral sex between a man and a woman biblically nor healthwise. However, anal sex is a prohibited both biblically and due to the health reasons as you already restated, which needs the same warning labels that are going on cigarette cartons now a days, lol. That is the point on homosexualing males.
@nikkatnight Neither is anger, happiness, laughter, sadness, fear, nor other emotions. A person can train or desensitize ones self and go into different things merely by doing it once, like meth or cocaine. Attraction is meaningless without a reasonable objective. Science dictates that Homosexuality is useless and that genetic points concerning it are void. Just because your parents may have tried something and changed their genes, doesn't mean you should repeat their actions seven fold.
@RMBVP Scientific study of actions altering genes, like stealing a pencil causes an offspring to have a stronger urge to do so or worse. Actions are not discriminatory factors. Sexual interaction, fighting, lying, killing, theft, disobedience, and other actions are choices. A girl I know used the term straight and lesbian like a job title, not an ethnic background. Hmsx is what a person does, NOT who one is.
@RMBVP homosexuality is not wrong. look up donexodus2's video on the evolution of homosexuality. being attracted to the same sex is NOT a choice. you can't choose your emotions. people like you only pick on homosexuals because they are an easy target, then you turn around and ignore all sorts of other commandments and such in the bible.
@nikkatnight Did you not read my other points? I agreed with you on the points of feelings and emotions. I, however, stated that the actions ARE a choice, like murdering someone you are pissed at. The anger didn't make u murder, just like attraction didn't make you have sexual relations. Did you misread my arguments in the last comments? Also, I don't discount anything else in the Bible, I just argue different points on different days.
You know I didn't catch this in your first video, but you did say "Enlightenment project". That would mean that the book you were drawing this information from is factually incorrect.
Enlightenment thinkers may have rejected biblical sources for morality, but most still adhered to the idea that objective standards existed in some way. It's not until the late 19th century with thinkers like Nietzsche that the idea of objective moral standards starts being thrown out altogether.
morality is subjective, your logic is completely flawed because you firstly come out as ambiguous then think it's something out of our reach. As you know, in science intelligent has nothing to do with morality, someone could be evil like intelligent aliens etc.. in parallel universes morality does not apply to our ultimate survival.. you can basically do whatever the f*ck you want etc etc etc..
Your criticisms of her argument were well-founded, however, there are issues:
Thing is, just because a moral is subjective doesn't mean that the moral isn't always valued. You seem to think it does mean that.
Reality exists regardless of humans, but does morality exist without humans? It'd be hard to assert anything other than "no" -- unless you can explain what morality would mean in a world without humans. If morality is contingent upon our existence, morality itself cannot be objective.
Arguing for and against relative conceptual objectivism is an an exercise in futility. It has been argued for and against by some of the greatest minds of the last 3000 years. (Only 3000 years after the Earth was created). I do so love how "easy" it is, to pick apart the ridiculous notion that god's morales are anything but temporally and culturally subjective.
Altruistic behavior is seen in many animals, and in humans obviously, and it arose because social animals have a better chance of survival if they work together. Thus evolution has selected for certain behavioral traits which would maximize social cohesion. (no killing, stealing, etc.)
Religion has, for the most part, hijacked morality and has claimed morality as its own invention. This is a ridiculous notion.
"my emotions, my subjective feelings are not what determine right and wrong"
venom
his proof of his "objective morals" is that they haven't been disproved
this is great proof of what the great steven weinberg said, a bad person will do bad no matter what his faith is, to make a good person do bad it takes religion.
@flyingturtle22 Steven Weinberg sums you up perfectly with your strawman. Thats not his proof at all, that is usually the atheist who says something then says prove me wrong. You need to leave your religion of atheism, it makes you do bad.
oh and that is his proof, he claims a couple of times in the video that the opposing view hasn't been able to disprove objective morality of god ever since the renaissance and goes claiming stuff based on this. did you not watch the video?
you've been saturating the comment section of this video so it wouldn't be too much to ask to back up the claims you do,
or don't, that way you'll illustrate my point and ridiculize yours.
so like I said, I'm looking for some back up of : "is usually the atheist who says something then says prove me wrong" and if not, thanks for further illustrating my point.
...there is no mention of "butt sex" in the new covenant that Jesus established to replace the covenant God made with the Israelites of the Old Testament. Now if you are a practicing Jew, Orthodox or otherwise, you might have some biblical legal precedent to condemn "butt sex," but I fear you might be forced to condemn a great many other things if you are going to adhere to the Torah and all its laws. Generally, it would be quite helpful to cure AIDS, whether you have "butt sex" or vaginal sex.
...covenant that God made with Moses and his people and replaces it with a new covenant; indeed, it is this new and everlasting covenant to which Christians of today are bound, put in place when Christ suffered, died, and was buried for the sins of mankind, rising on the third day and ascending into heaven, leaving the business of his earthly church with his disciples. When Jesus nullified the covenant of the Old Testament with that of the New, out went the old laws. I assure you that...
...new sterilization mandates were put into place by law, all illicit intravenous drug users, and of course all those lazy and irresponsible heterosexuals who find the use of a condom to be too burdensome in the throes of getting their freak on with their unsuspecting partners. Oh, heterosexuals have "butt sex" too I am told. When I was a seminarian, we never got the memo from God about all of the aforementioned. The Old Testament of the Bible mentions sodomy, but then Christ repeals the old...
What an ignorant comment. It might be a surprise to you, but AIDS does not discriminate against those who choose to have "butt sex." Surely you would not condemn those people to die from AIDS who did not have "butt sex.” So if we follow your rationale, we would need to account for the times that God has spoken against hemophilia, people who received blood transfusions prior to 1987, countless tens of millions of rape victims in Africa, people who got a tattoo from an unclean facility before...
@southdakotagirl30 Fair enough, to me it sounds like you are moving the goal posts on the definition of the word murder but that's my opinion (which is fairly subjective). That's interesting how you resolve that perceived conflict. As for explaining how some non believers have better morals I think we do have an inherent, built-in morality complex. Unlike you however I would attribute it, not to a soul, but as the result of psychological and social evolution and altruistic behavior.
@southdakotagirl30 That doesnt really make sense. The Bible isn't the source of all morals? What is? What you feel is right? How do you know what you feel from your soul is right? If you feel like stealing something does that make it right? Of course not, the revelation from God through the Bible explains what is right. Whether or not atheists behave "better" is irrelevant and only shows how sinful man is. I also like to know how you can back that assertion up.
@MatteoLouter I could care less what a person calls me especially you introducing a red herring and insulting me, I only care about what God calls me. You dont even know me. When I said the Bible isn't absolute in this case I meant it as when I said: "only when you straw-man the position intentionally or accidentally with "killing"". Taking the Bible the way it should be as I have explained with it meaning murder not killing, it is absolute along with everything else in it.
Every organism with a brain is equipped with instincts. It's just the way things are, inarguably. We have them, too. Sympathy is part of our chain of emotions that each of us is born with. Guidelines like sympathy (and emotions generally) allow us to survive socially without anyone telling us how. Like a mother will protect her child regardless of circumstance, we are coded to protect each other. Biblical morals are just glorified forms of this.
@PoliticalHell Remember we are not talking about what morality is or how it comes to be, we are talking about what morality ought to or should be. If rape is part of our chain of emotions that each of us is born with, does that make it right?
@JesusforLife2 Well that's where culture kicks in. In ours, rape is a no-no. Throughout history, rape, or similar sexual force, was acceptable. In some countries, men can still rape women legally. To them, it's okay, because their culture allows it. What "should" it be? Well, that depends on how you perceive it. We might think that rape is obnoxious and absolutely wrong, while a guy across the world may think we're nuts and say it's perfectly fine.
I'm SO glad you're back! Silly me is getting old and forgetful, and I just found you again here in YouTube. Good luck and GOD HELP YOU in your search for a Christian woman. If you can find one who doesn't want to just argue with you, that would be refreshing, wouldn't it? (lol) Be careful! (remember my warnings about all the psychos before the first YouTube disaster) God Bless You in the New Year!
@southdakotagirl30 sorry for not responding more promptly, I don't get email updates so i have to check the comments manually. I appreciate your discourse.
@southdakotagirl30 interesting... "I would take Hitler out if it was the only way. I would still do it even if it risked my salvation." why would you think that it would risk your salvation if it was the right thing to do? doesn't the bible say that killing is immoral absolutely and all the time? and if the bible is the source of all morals then how have you come up with the moral action of killing Osama to prevent 9/11? could maybe the bible not be absolutely correct all the time?
@Matteo Even if it was possible to lose your salvation, that is a foolish comment by dakotagirl. God's glory and commands take priority over everything in any situation. Of course we still stumble and choose wrong at times. The Hebrew word used defines murder as immoral absolutely all the time. It would be foolish for God to say thou shall not kill, yet he kills people daily. The Bible is not absolute in this case only when you straw-man the position intentionally or accidentally with "killing".
@JesusforLife2 ok, so if the bible is not 100% true, ex "The Bible is not absolute in this case...", how do you decide what other parts are true and not true.
Gay Bowel Syndrome. Not sure where you dug up this reference, circa 1976, long before you were even a spermatozoa. In an effort to keep from pissing off people who are keen on science as it relates to medicine, unless you plan to give God the reigns to our progress in medicine, you should try to stick with relevant and timely data. Moreover, your CDC data is grossly outdated and inaccurate. If you want to derive stats on AIDS, might try a philanthropic agency funding research for cures.
What happens with individual relative morality is that societies put these together to make a societal moral code that is not from a single subjective viewpoint, but from many put together and some coming to prevalence. So in essence we actually get a common standard without the need for living by the subjective Morality of one powerful being. I recommend reading Euthyphro & having a bit of a think about it.
@OlympicRudi So when another mass get-together forms a common subjective moral code, which group of people is right and which group is wrong? We are also not arguing what is morality or how it comes to be, but what it ought or should be. God's morality isn't subjective and arbitrary, its part of his eternal nature.
There is no right & wrong. In simplistic terms, the individual morals from both groups will get together & eventually make modified Moral Codes for society. It's just a bigger society.
Also if you are talking about what Morality should be, then you better have a decent idea of what it is in the first place. As for God's Morality being part of his eternal nature. God would either be making up Morality Subjectively, or it is Objective & nothing to do with him.
True, but I was kind of assuming there was at least some dialogue between them(especially given the character limit) & that you'd know that was a common thing throughout history of religions. Optimistically I'm hoping we're mostly past all that now. Though I suppose even in cases where one culture conquers another, there is still an element of cultural mixing, over time, creating new societal moral codes.
@OlympicRudi Actually its more prevalent in atheistic regimes such as Stalin, Mal, and Pol-pot to list a few of the great many. Resulting in 100+ million deaths in the 20th century alone, more than every religion combined. But who cares right, there is no right or wrong.
Actually if your comparing death tolls, you would be right. However you ignore that those are recent events & hence since populations are much, much greater than before the industrial revolution. Before then religions had free reign in killing far more people % of population wise.
Also you ignore that those listed were actually more religious in nature than not. The leaders were seen more like Gods and there was the same blind following you get in religions.
Additionally, original sin or at least the Calvinistic total inability interpretation of it nullifies morality completely as well as the concept of justice because people are unable to choose right if it is true and thus they are judged by choices they cannot control
bobfromtheparty 4 months ago
Love that background you use! That thing is epic!
cubeus19 9 months ago
I really enjoy your videos. I am not a Christian myself, however I am not an atheist. Many of these arguments can be applied to my religion as well.
However, I would like to point out that towards the end of this video you made a slight error in describing Christian feelings on homosexuality. While you may respectfully disagree with homosexuals' decisions purely based on your objective standard, this is not the case with many other Christians. Christians are portrayed as "bigoted"
Aeoryth 9 months ago
@Aeoryth or "anti-gay" because many of them truely are that way. Many Christians are not properly using their "objective standard", but are merely hiding behind it as a means to project hate on a culture that they don't agree with. I'm not saying that you yourself do these things, but there are many Christians you do. Unfortunately, many of us judge the whole carton based on the bad eggs.
Thanks for reading.
Aeoryth 9 months ago
An interesting discussion here. But when you state that Christians follow an objective standard, this is not true.
Christians "BELIEVE" on "FAITH" that they follow an objective standard; this is all assuming that "God" exists, that the bible is true, and is an accurate representation of the nature and will of said God.
In my opinion, this is obviously not the case.
It seems that Christians do follow an objective standard, but only in their subjective opinions.
mcpencil 9 months ago
@mcpencil *Sigh* Shaun clearly stated that he provided no argument that the Bible IS the objective standard. He says it at 3:22, see for yourself. He said he'd save it for another video, if you want justification for the Bible, Shaun's channel is replete with information in his youtube videos and favorites, that's of course given that you go to it with an ear that not just hears, but actually listens and doesn't terribly distort what's being said as it usually is.
Bigjon145 7 months ago
@Bigjon145
No matter how well he thinks he justifies the bible, christians STILL don't follow an objective standard. The morals derived from the bible are extremely open to interpretation. That's why there are so many denominations. There are an absolute boatload of contradictions in the bible if one is prepared to look at it critically. Even if the bible only had one interpretation, it still would not be an objective standard, only the subjective assumption of an objective standard.
mcpencil 7 months ago
Comment removed
Bigjon145 7 months ago
@mcpencil *Sigh* No one ever said Christians dont misinterpret the Bible; again why are you looking to PEOPLE for an objective standard. Watch this video closely at 6:22, Shaun addresses youre point specifically. You're basically making the exact same arguments she made in this video, you should listen closely if you're actually serious. I'm not going to go in to this Bible contradiction nonsense, they seem contradictory because you read them with the presupposition that they are, end of.
Bigjon145 7 months ago
@Bigjon145
I would argue that the Bible DOESN'T seem contradictory to you, because you read it with the pre-formed conclusion that it's true, that Yahweh exists, and that Jesus actually died and was resurrected to pay for our "sins". If a 40 year old man had never heard of the Bible, and picked it up in a bookstore, there would be no way he would mistake the contents for a reasonable approximation of reality. The only reason people believe, is because the culture indoctrinates them while young.
mcpencil 7 months ago
@Bigjon145
There is no objective standard of morality in the universe. If you think the Bible is the objective standard of morality, then the same argument could be made from the Quran... the Quran claims to be the final version of God's message. Just because a document makes a claim, does not make it so. It is ridiculous to claim that secular people knowingly violate objective moral law, because there is no such thing outside of the opinions of religious people.
mcpencil 7 months ago
Comment removed
Bigjon145 7 months ago
@Bigjon145
I am extremely open minded to there being a higher consciousness. In fact, that is where I'm leaning. However, the bible is obvious fiction and the Yahweh character presented in it has all the hallmarks of an egotistical and ethnocentric creation of man. The bible makes incredible claims and does not provide incredible evidence. It's all blind faith. And accepting the bible in a full and literal sense, would mean denying many branches of science, including biology and astronomy.
mcpencil 7 months ago
@mcpencil As Shaun said, he made no argument for the Bible, he said so at 3:22 he simply was supposing what would be the case IF it were the case, and again like I said, if you want good reasons, there are plenty of good videos on Shaun's channel and my channel as well if you go to them with an open ear and an open mind, but honestly I seriously doubt that will be the case given this vicious circle of reasoning you just did, so no vicious circle for you Mr. Atheist. Repent, and trust in Jesus.
Bigjon145 7 months ago
@Bigjon145
If by "open ear and open mind" you mean completely suspending my critical faculties and just accepting what is presented to me... you're out of your mind. I already am open minded enough to concede that a higher consciousness is more likely than not. But if it does exist, then it exists in the taoist/panentheist/eastern religion sense, not as a personal deity which picks one nation over another and carries out willful genocide by interfering with the course of nature.
mcpencil 7 months ago
@mcpencil No, by all means keep your critical faculties when listening to videos by all means if there's a line of reasoning you're not following, ask questions. Just don't go in to them with the presupposition that they can't be answered.
Bigjon145 7 months ago
@mcpencil Also, examine your world view, you've already conceded that a higher being is more probable than not, yet you claim there is no objective morality, this is a contradiction as objective morality itself must be derived from this mind as the summom bonum or "greatest good" otherwise you're left with relativism, personal preference and, emotivism (as Shaun stated) if that's the case your opinion is no more valid than a rapist, again take a look at a lot of the videos we favorite :).
Bigjon145 7 months ago
Hahahaha "Lady In Red" classic lol
faydel1 9 months ago
Get em Shawn
plhearn 9 months ago
@igotJesus88- as shown in chapter two, the writer of the book of James is obviously addressing "believers in jesus christ". And the first chapter tells us theses believes "in jesus" are also Jewish, scattered abroad beyond the land of Palestine (“the twelve tribes in Dispersion").
rooio3 9 months ago
@rooio3 ok, thank you.. i will be checking this out..
igotJesus88 9 months ago
@igotJesus88- by quoting a passage in Isaiah, 'who are you, man, to talk back to god?'. Instead he goes on to say god creates some people for one purpose, and some for other use, according to Romans 9. If you're not lucky enough to be chosen for a noble purpose, then you are for common use, relegated to hell and torment. So here, even Paul found the issue puzzling, yet accepts that it doesn't matter,(perhaps because he assumes he is included for noble use). Shatters the view of a just noble god.
rooio3 9 months ago
@igotJesus88- therefore the teachings of jesus are irrelevant. Telling someone to believe in him is irrelevant. Is God in the biblical text just & fair? How can a just God predetermine people to sin and then judge those people for that predetermination that was beyond their control?? None of these are answered by Paul's quotes in Romans. Instead he goes on to affirm that free will does not affect our fate, then he asks directly how can god blame us for such actions. And his answer? Tough!
rooio3 9 months ago
@rooio3 where does it say that the Jews in the book of James where christians??
igotJesus88 9 months ago
@igotJesus88- Chapter two goes on to validate this, that god prepared in ADVANCE, for them to do. Romans 8 too validate it, saying not only god foreknew but predestined them to be conformed. So they are only called and justified if they were predestined. It is not that these people accepted god on their own, they were chosen before they existed. If your choices determine if you go to Heaven, then the Bible is constantly saying that such choices were chosen by God. There is no justification.
rooio3 9 months ago
@igotJesus88- and yes the biblical doctrines of christianity denies free will and affirms predeterminism. The first chapter of Ephesians clearly says christians were chosen before creation and they were predestined to be adopted as god's children according to god's will, not their own. You can only have Jesus if God has chosen you as one of those who is "blessed with Jesus". And they are chosen before time began to conform to jesus, automatically destined to "do good works".
rooio3 9 months ago
@igotJesus88- according to the new testament, nearly all the early christians were jews. And the jews, like the gentiles, have to accept that Jesus is the son of god to then become christians. Now actual history according to historic evidence, tells us there were many divisions and sects among the emerging christian groups, because of conflicting doctrine. And the bible itself clearly depict many conflicting doctrines to this day, the reason for so many denominations.
rooio3 9 months ago
@igotJesus88- you have simply applied your own reasoning to the texts. No where does the text imply nor say faith without works does not apply to the "church". The book of James is addressed specifically to those who are already professing Christians, to the scattered Jewish christians throughout the Roman Empire as is stated in the first chapter. I don't believe the biblical texts. I study them, as I study ancient religions. God in not said to work with people differently.
rooio3 9 months ago
The atraction for the same sex is not what God condemns, becouse that is not the sin! We don't sin becouse of this feelings, we sin when we give ourselfes to this desires, wether by deed or just in thoughts! ... It's true that some people have this tendences, and others don't....but those feelings are just a product of our own sinfull nature that we inherit from Adam!
BeautifulllColours 10 months ago
Even when Jesus saves us, people may stil have this tendences for the rest of theyr lives, but now, instead of giving in, we have the power to fight against those sins that bring condemnation from the Lord! And this spiritual battel extends to all other areas and thoughts in our lives, not just the same sex atraction! God Bless you all!
BeautifulllColours 10 months ago
@DiscipleOfOne1- yet it also says you cannot be saved by faith alone. A jumble full of contradictions. It also advocate no free will since god predestined Christians for salvation before creation began. It was already decided they would "accept his forgiveness" before they supposedly came into existence. Jesus reaffirms this by saying only "those drawn to him by his father" can come to him, not because of their own doing. Such is the logic of the bible.
rooio3 10 months ago
@rooio3 the bible does not teach that your not saved by faith alone... it actually teaches the opposite... Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast ... God works with people differently there are Jews, Gentiles and the Church if you are saved today you are part of the church.. you cannot take the entire bible and apply it to you.. 2 timothy 2:15 says to rightly divide the word of truth..
igotJesus88 9 months ago
@rooio3 also when it says in the book of James that faith without works is dead that doesnt apply to the church and if it did yes, it would be a contradiction.. the book of James is written to the 12 tribes of Israel.. who lives in Israel? Jews.. so again you cant take the bible as a whole and apply everything to you.. thats not how it works.. i hope this explains a little... Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
igotJesus88 9 months ago
Comment removed
igotJesus88 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey venom. How's that Charity Scam working? Or those false DMCA claims? Or calling dprjones a pedophile? or the murder from Tony48219 (your fan)? Didn't your mommy and daddy tell you to get your ass off youtube? We know your address and home number. Shall I give them a call? Seriously venom. After Thunderf00t, dprjones, even joneowens, etc. Helped you out, you still treat them like trash. How many of your christian friends helped you out? you even talked shit against togetherforpeace. copypaste
fnjanitor 11 months ago
hey cool no censorship rock on \m/
<(^-:D
emoticon muhammad is most pleased
johnnythesailorman 11 months ago
testing for censorship 1. 2. 3.
johnnythesailorman 11 months ago
Awesome video brother Shawn! I learned a lot from it.
humkina 11 months ago
Good thinking, I agree on this objective morality issue, what i disagree on (that has nothing to do with this video) is the christian way of thinking that if you don't worship christ you are going to hell; woshiping christ is following gods law, a buddist can do that without knowing about jesus and he might still live an eternal life saying he won't is just illogical, as a person of humilty i think jesus does not care if he's recognized as a deity but he cares if we follow what he said...
FlaiteOne 1 year ago
the problem w/ any site ~ R ~ the trollrs ~ esp. w/ the free-b sites ~
stick w/ common values n' interest (shown via action) ~1 may have 2 pay 2 get this ~
but ~ beats wasting time, emotion, & possible money ~ w/ come-on trolls ~
TJae1 1 year ago
I "feel ya" dude ~ if she's in luv ~ I guarantee ~ she'll understand & completely apply the lesson of love (rite n' wrong)
TJae1 1 year ago
I wish the dramtica ppl would post videos of themselves ~
they may enjoy grazin' for the purple haze ~ wasted talent ~ none the less ~
& Just say no
TJae1 1 year ago
The final argument of this lady about the truthfulness of the Bible is absolutely hilarious, and based solely on a presumption.
fakirJ 1 year ago
Comment removed
DD7100 1 year ago
Comment removed
BaceMD 1 year ago
Responding to the comment in your description box: I disagree. Objective morality has nothing to do with whether or not it sustains (human) life. You and I find value in human life because in our subjective experience the more human life the better. What about rocks or bacteria at the bottom of the sea? It likely finds no value in human life. You need to prove the objective value of human life to say that sustaining it is objectively moral. Plus you need to prove that sustaining something cont.
rolexxx11 1 year ago
@rolexxx11 objectively valuable is in fact objectively moral. Simply because something has value doesn't mean that by injuring it or changing it more value might not be produced. You make a boat load of unsubstantiated assumptions, but I would be interested to hear how you work them in.
rolexxx11 1 year ago
You're so close. The problem is that we don't need to refute objective morals. You need to prove them. The default position is there are no objective morals. You are making a positive statement. It's not that the Enlightenment project, as you call it, has failed. Religion has.
rolexxx11 1 year ago
Meh, non-religious morality is as much based on personal preference as religious morality. The preference in the latter is "I'd rather go to heaven than hell" (your justification), and the preference in the former varies from philosophy to philosophy.
Yamikaiba123 1 year ago
Great video, you really cleared things up for me, and even made me chuckle a few times.
Hope you get better with the women! lol
mattcanskate 1 year ago
The thing with subjective and objectve morality is this: For an Objective morality to work, for it to be beneficial to society, it needs to be perfect. Perfect means that everybody agrees with it, that everybody who reads it will go and say "Hey you know what, this is right, these are moral laws i can live by."
Christianity offers no such perfect moral, thus it is subjective, like all other morality. Moral is basicly the most basic of laws, these things make society move forward (More will come)
KamiRecca 1 year ago
@KamiRecca
(Continue) Lets take murder for an example. before, slaying other tribes may have been needed for your tribe to live on, for various reasons. Thus it was ok. To slay another in your own tribe only hampered, thus it was wrong. Why was it okay to slay other tribes for your tribe to live on? Because we humans are pack animals, we value our pack above other packs. But then we evolved, our society became more complex, more complicated laws was needed (More to come)
KamiRecca 1 year ago
@KamiRecca
(Continue) As our tribes grew they became stronger, obviously. Stronger tribes attracts weaker tribes, they merge, become allies or are taken over by the bigger tribe. Thus its a bad thing if a person from tribe A attacked the stronger Tribe B out of fear of retaliation. Tribe B still didnt care if someone slaughtered a few of A, because they werent a threat. Then Tribe A joins forces with C, D, and E, thus becoming a potencial threat, thus it is suddenly wrong for B to hack up some A
KamiRecca 1 year ago
Hoping you don't censor the comments this time. Here goes;
A reason that more homosexual couples contract STD's is that the main use of condoms is seen as a contraceptive measure - to stop pregnancies, obviously, homosexual couples cannot become pregnant without some more technical method. So, the use of condom's is reduced to stopping the transmission of STD's. Obviously, still a big part, but the main goal of a contraceptive is to stop conception.
Samuelwhatshisface 1 year ago
@VenomFangX Based on the evidence at hand it is completely valid to assume that morality is not objective. In Fact it is reasonable to assume that morality is a human construct. Your argument seems to hinge on the notion that Morality comes from a source that is not human which (correct me if I am wrong) is without proof). But if you can bring evidence of Objective morality then the assumption can be challenged.
NightHawkBomber001 1 year ago
@NightHawkBomber001 Exactly! Further though, VFX repeatedly says you cannot look to people to discern any aspect of objective morality. Where, then, can this standard be found? If it is not disseminated by people then each of us should be personally visited by God with his To-Do list. If it is disseminated by people, then the entire argument is flawed. Basically the entire point is "I declare there is a magical objective standard somewhere, but you can never know what it is! ha ha!"
symsee 1 year ago
In attempting to determine the original text of the New Testament books, some modern textual critics have identified sections as additions of material, centuries after the gospel was written. These are called interpolations. In modern translations of the Bible, the results of textual criticism have led to certain verses, words and phrases being left out or marked as not original.
rooio3 1 year ago
The manuscripts also lacked word spacing, so words, sentences, and paragraphs would be a continuous string of letters, often with line breaks in the middle of words. The original New Testament books did not have titles, section headings, or verse and chapter divisions. These were developed over the years as "helps for readers". Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large church council meetings, but rather developed over many centuries.
rooio3 1 year ago
were discovered in Albania. When comparing one manuscript to another, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two copies agree completely throughout. Some variations involve apparently intentional changes, which often make more difficult a determination of whether they were corrections from better exemplars, harmonizations between readings, or ideologically motivated. The earliest manuscripts had hardly, if any, punctuation or breathing marks.
rooio3 1 year ago
There are no original copies of biblical text, only copies of copies. The dead sea scrolls only contain the oldest known surviving copies of text from the Hebrew bible and other documents. The new testament have dates that are determined by scholars, but only preserved fragments of the texts exist, not the original texts. Every year, several New Testament manuscripts handwritten in the original Greek format are discovered,the latest substantial find was in 2008, when 47 new manuscripts
rooio3 1 year ago
"Objective morals... exist forever and are unchanging." No. Objectivity as a measure has nothing to do with time.
klutterkicker 1 year ago
Ok, long video, so I'll keep the question short. The bible has been written by many people, translated, and rewritten for 2000 years. How does anyone know what the bible really said about things like homosexuality since it was only mentioned twice in two different sections. It could have been added or changed by someone who simple was against it for whatever reason.
skywize 1 year ago
@skywize Rewritten is an incorrect word to use. All manuscripts and copies are crosschecked and the originals identified. The book of Isaiah, which was located within the last hundred years or so helped fix any wording errors directly that the Bible may have had in the past. The Torah and the Letters of Paul have been cross checked vividly. All hebrew and Latin variations are checked for any error, and historically, one error = redo page in BC to 1st century time, or in King James time, death.
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP What your saying may very well be true, but I cannot imagine after two thousand years not a thing has been changed or lost in translation.
skywize 1 year ago
@skywize That is very understandable. Skepticism is natural, though it is best to look it up through Christian based organizations such as CARM for example who may have the processes used and other evidence on file that would help the best. Most people who look at secular sites often say that the Bible has no evidence or it couldn't be without error, even though the evidence is documented thoroughly. The don't take word alone, look it up approach is always the best way to go.
RMBVP 1 year ago
Go Shawn! Go Shawn! it's your birthday! Its Your Birthday! God Bless you!
codechrist 1 year ago
bravo!
davesajerk 1 year ago
If you make the clame that bible is the only objective standard of morality, you or the one who has to prove it. if you can't come with any valid reason to accept biblical morality while refusing an other, than it means it is, by deffinition, subjective.
Tamizushi 1 year ago
@Tamizushi That was the worst Logic, Grammar, and Conclusion Ever.
XHAWK77X 1 year ago
@XHAWK77X Graduation you just falled to make a point. My grammar doesn't have anything to do with what I wrote about and you didn't say what was wrong with my logic or my conclusion.
Please shut up if you don't have anything usefull to say. It's completely useless to say someone else is wrong if you don't say why.
Tamizushi 1 year ago
@Tamizushi The ten commandments were slated as the moral code that progresses all other laws in Humanity. Honor parents (do better than them), don't murder, don't steal, don't covet, don't lie to prosecute another. Before those, numerically, were the ones dealing with God. Trends show that society is worse off and more confused when God is not in society. Tuscon shooting as an example. That said, the evidence for Biblical morality not being subjective... To be continued on next post...
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP Continued... are, in fact, archeological evidence to pose as the accuracy of the lineage of the Hebrew line from Adam to Jesus. The Sumerian Weld Prism is one of the findings I am speaking of. The Bible is objective as the basis of each and every law is something that humanity knows is wrong because it is a violation against another person's rights and can lead to such. The Laws though, can only be objective as long as there is an entity that directs that law.
RMBVP 1 year ago
@feedtherich The point on stereotypes. I am one of those emotional guys. The difference between guys and girls is that our brains work differently. Women have at most 100 different thoughts going on in their mind at one moment, men have barely one thought per moment. This is so women can run multiple tasks at one time and men can focus greatly on a single task ahead or important matters. Important matters for women are based down to the percent it is in all of their thoughts.
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP continued 1... Women are setup to do jobs that consist of high amounts of multitasking. Men are setup to do jobs that have a base focus. Mixing the two change things and either the main focus is lost, or the many other focuses are lost. The psychological effects on both are substantiated to decay to the point of confusion and role decadence. 1 provides, the other takes care of the provisions. When the roles are deluted, anger and spite, and eventually total failure is the effect.
RMBVP 1 year ago
This is all still assuming that the objective morality you're concerned about is from the Christian god, not, say, Allah, or Ahura Mazda, or any other religions claiming to be the one true religion; that the words in the bible, written hundreds of years after Jesus' death, translated and edited a hundred times over, are 100% accurate; and that the people who "talked" to god to write the various texts understood the message. Even if one of these is true, we couldn't possibly know which it is.
Guardian0487 1 year ago
@Guardian0487 Point 1: The Bible is 66 books, the old testament was written over a period of 2,000 years or more, give or take. The New testament was written within the first 50 years A.D. Christ, being an actual figure, as All credible historians claim, who are in the majority on the planet, lived to the age of 30, was crucified, and caused Christianity to occur 3 days after his death, which was cited as his resurrection. Then they were massacred for saying they saw him alive after his demise.
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP It may be true that the bible as it was FOUND was written 50 years A.D., but the bible as it is read today was absolutely not. Were written the day after his death, it still begs the question of the events being described being interpreted by man, who is fallible, being written by man, who is fallible, being translated by man, who is fallible, being edited by man, who is fallible, and being re-interpreted by man, who is fallible. Nor is there any way of knowing which text is "right."
Guardian0487 1 year ago
@Guardian0487 I agree that it can be hard to find things preferable if those who are working on something are fallible, however, those who follow infallible instructions can essentially keep their mistakes corrected by the instructions. The Bible has preset points that say whether someone is being cohesive to the Bible or going against it in the writings. The copies of the original texts are cross referenced with the 25 thousand other original copies to make sure everything is the same.
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP I'm glad you are comforted by that, but to me, there is too much that must be lost in translation. And as I've said several times (a point which has been ignored) there is simply no way to discern which text that claims to talk of the "one true religion" is the "real" text. There are certainly others, and many. And the bible is not the oldest. How do you justify dismissing all of those other religions which claim themselves to be true?
Guardian0487 1 year ago
@Guardian0487 I was listening to AFR earlier today that brought this topic up, stating that there are too many manuscripts and the history and the times dismount any claims of change or error. One change or error on a piece or papyrus and the whole page had to be burnt and rewritten in the old testament. One change or error in the New Testament had similar scrutiny. There are an overwhelming amount of manuscripts that would make any secular writing be instant fact by historians.
RMBVP 1 year ago
This kind of reminds me of the constitution debate. People often think they can eliminate our rights with a majority vote. But our rights are inherent to our nature so it doesn't matter if it's popular or not!
Bristecom 1 year ago
awesome video, man keep it up
aiG0oChamNa 1 year ago
GREAT VIDEO!!!!!!!!!!!
JudeCJV 1 year ago
@VenomFangX But surely this possibility merely kicks the can further down the chain of responsibility... Even such divine dictation would need to survive the subjectivity of scribes, translators, anthologists, and, ultimately, interpretation by end reader. How can I determine that subjectivism indeed plays a role? This is ultimately evident by the plethora of bible versions, biblical canons, and christian sects.
pmf8 1 year ago
wait... wait... is that a copy of continuum shift I see in the background? OMG Venom, I would love to verse you!!! My PSN is the same as my Youtube username :D
berserkchip 1 year ago
shawn,
Emotivism is the position that moral statements are reducible or are primarily expressions of feeling. That is, moral claims such as 'Rape is wrong' would really be just to say, 'Boo! Rape. Boo!' You should notice that these sort of expressions have no truth value. You should also notice that this expression is not reducible to claims such as 'I feel rape is wrong.'
SaintMikhal 1 year ago
The Truth shall set you free. We as Christrians have a command to speak the truth. Now if a person choose to accept or deny that, then its there problem but we have a mandated mission to speak the truth at all times. Happy to see you back Shawn!
Jpain720 1 year ago
@Nanachchbaubau Doesnt mean there isn't a right answer.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
Homosexuality is a choice. People should stop trying to argue against that. Behavior is a choice.
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP If sexual orientation is a choice, when did you choose to be heterosexual?
az111709 1 year ago
@az111709 When did you choose not to be a rapist/pedophile/insert rejected behavior? If people are born homosexuals then they are born rapists and pedophiles.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@az111709 Because you were born that way?
RationalTheism 1 year ago
@az111709 Because it's healthier, like chocolate milk lol. Seriously though, homosexuality is no more than another form of crystal meth if you get the analogy. You can choose what you do. If you cheat on your wife or gf, that's not how you were born, it's a choice too. Just because you want to do something or someone doesn't mean do it. Having sex with the same sex, or even kids is a choice, and one already is illegal. Get the concept of the difference between love and sex. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP Having sex with another consenting adult is not the same as having sex with a kid. One is illegal because it hurts someone. The other isn't, because it doesn't.
feedtherich 1 year ago
@feedtherich And if the kid were to say yes it would still be illegal. Consent matters by age only? In homosexual males, anal sex is as deadly as crystal meth if you get the analogy. In females, there is no sex, only foreplay. In either case, sexual interaction does not work, as there are only two parts made for each other. All Else is a lie.
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP Yes consent matters by age only, a child does not have a mature enough mind to make that kind of decision, which is also why children do not fight in wars, vote, drive, or drink alcohol (legally). Why is this so hard for you? In case you were unaware, many heterosexuals have anal sex, and many homosexuals do not have anal sex. Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol, even driving SOBER are all more deadly than anal sex. Do you want to make all those things illegal? Ever heard of freedom?
feedtherich 1 year ago
@feedtherich Anal sex in general is unethical and stupid. "ANAL SEEPAGE, that doesn't even sound funny." (From the blue collar comedy tour thing.) Sperm act against antibodies, plus anal tearing causes immunodeficiency where STDs can easily come in to play. Yes, pun intended and it was a good one lol. Also, children are able to decide what they do after age 6. Also, the act itself is actively harmful, unlike driving sober. Drunk driving and texting while driving is already illegal.
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP And what the hell are you saying about children, that it's ok to have sex with them at age six????
feedtherich 1 year ago
@feedtherich I did not say anything about sex at age six. I said they can make choices after age six. Just to clarify, sorry if that was unclear.
RMBVP 1 year ago
Comment removed
feedtherich 1 year ago
@RMBVP At worst, you could say anal sex is unhealthy. Having a poor diet and not exercising are also unhealthy, but I don't see you on a crusade to regulate those things in our society. You have absolute zero to say about lesbian sex being bad in any way other than 'the bible' so you can't judge homosexual men who choose NOT to have anal sex. You just don't like the idea of same-sex couples, don't pretend it has anything to do with medical issues.
feedtherich 1 year ago
@feedtherich On both homosexual groups, even moreso on females, the mental trauma caused normally causes things to go ary as the minds are incompatible with each other for a surviving partition. Male minds are in logos, and female minds are in pathos. Both are needed to co exist or the survival of any couple is a failure from the beginning. For h-men, physical trauma is the problem, for h-women, psychological trauma is the problem.
RMBVP 1 year ago
Comment removed
feedtherich 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Also your logos/pathos argument is completely ridiculous, clearly you have observed the common stereotypes of ''fem' and 'butch' in the gay community, and while I don't resort to abusing stereotypes to judge people, it is foolish to argue against the fact that some men are way more emotional than other men, and some women are way more logical than other women. OK, the end.
feedtherich 1 year ago
@RMBVP Only your RELIGION says 'it is a lie' but homosexuality has occurred in nature (animals) since the beginning of sex and it still does. The rest of the world doesn't follow your fairy tale book. If you want to believe it, go ahead, but don't try to push it on the rest of us, because it has no merit in the functioning of the real world. You say "there are only two parts made for each other." Do you believe our fingers were made to use a keyboard? No, but that doesn't mean typing is bad.
feedtherich 1 year ago
@feedtherich Actually, it is a fact that the female reproductive part is made specifically for the male reproductive part. Plus, the "homosexual" tendancies in animals are only developed when the animal is unable to mate with the female, so it tries to establish some type of dominance. My friends have 6 dogs, three female, three male. All but 1 are toy poodles. By the way, the keyboard analogy doesn't work, the keyboard is specifically designed for the fingers.
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP Ok so let's take oral sex between men and women. The genitalia were not designed to go into/on the mouth. In fact your religion may consider oral sex sodomy. So all those couples out there having oral sex are just as bad as homosexuals. You see your argument gives you no basis to judge based on the genders involved, because your weak justification of 'health reasons' is too specific and isn't even exclusive to homosexuals.
feedtherich 1 year ago
@feedtherich There is nothing against oral sex between a man and a woman biblically nor healthwise. However, anal sex is a prohibited both biblically and due to the health reasons as you already restated, which needs the same warning labels that are going on cigarette cartons now a days, lol. That is the point on homosexualing males.
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP So how is there anything wrong with oral sex between the same gender, health-wise? There isn't.
feedtherich 1 year ago
@RMBVP When did you decide to be straight?
superbwlthirty1 1 year ago
@RMBVP Attraction IS NOT a choice,
nikkatnight 1 year ago
@nikkatnight Neither is anger, happiness, laughter, sadness, fear, nor other emotions. A person can train or desensitize ones self and go into different things merely by doing it once, like meth or cocaine. Attraction is meaningless without a reasonable objective. Science dictates that Homosexuality is useless and that genetic points concerning it are void. Just because your parents may have tried something and changed their genes, doesn't mean you should repeat their actions seven fold.
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP Scientific study of actions altering genes, like stealing a pencil causes an offspring to have a stronger urge to do so or worse. Actions are not discriminatory factors. Sexual interaction, fighting, lying, killing, theft, disobedience, and other actions are choices. A girl I know used the term straight and lesbian like a job title, not an ethnic background. Hmsx is what a person does, NOT who one is.
RMBVP 1 year ago
@RMBVP homosexuality is not wrong. look up donexodus2's video on the evolution of homosexuality. being attracted to the same sex is NOT a choice. you can't choose your emotions. people like you only pick on homosexuals because they are an easy target, then you turn around and ignore all sorts of other commandments and such in the bible.
nikkatnight 1 year ago
@nikkatnight Did you not read my other points? I agreed with you on the points of feelings and emotions. I, however, stated that the actions ARE a choice, like murdering someone you are pissed at. The anger didn't make u murder, just like attraction didn't make you have sexual relations. Did you misread my arguments in the last comments? Also, I don't discount anything else in the Bible, I just argue different points on different days.
RMBVP 1 year ago
"I can't believe I'm doing this again!"
What? Re-hashing old philosophical debates that typically end with one or both sides simply remaining stubborn in their own resolves?
We can believe it, Shawn. It's what you do.
Funny video, though...but that might not be the objective opinion of all who view it.
TheApatheticGuy 1 year ago
You know I didn't catch this in your first video, but you did say "Enlightenment project". That would mean that the book you were drawing this information from is factually incorrect.
Enlightenment thinkers may have rejected biblical sources for morality, but most still adhered to the idea that objective standards existed in some way. It's not until the late 19th century with thinkers like Nietzsche that the idea of objective moral standards starts being thrown out altogether.
HighestReason 1 year ago
You're amazing, VenomFang :).
DaMagiCraven 1 year ago
morality is subjective, your logic is completely flawed because you firstly come out as ambiguous then think it's something out of our reach. As you know, in science intelligent has nothing to do with morality, someone could be evil like intelligent aliens etc.. in parallel universes morality does not apply to our ultimate survival.. you can basically do whatever the f*ck you want etc etc etc..
mrstrawman100 1 year ago
@mrstrawman100 Morality is not subjective in the same way God is not subjective; it does not exist.
watch?v=DIhY43RFrbg
trentmanslow 1 year ago
Shawn made me chuckle...whats up with that
Darkblade528 1 year ago
I've got a bone to pick with you............where did you get that jacket? :)
deokuso 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
✫HAPPY
..✫. `⋎´ ✫ ✫
(⁀‵⁀) ✫ ✫ ✫NEW YEAR
.`⋎´✫¸.•°*"˜˜"*°• ....✫
......✫¸.•°*"˜˜"*°•.✫ ✫ I WISH YOU A NEW YEAR FULL OF ALL YOU WANT..
irisphloxe 1 year ago
Your criticisms of her argument were well-founded, however, there are issues:
Thing is, just because a moral is subjective doesn't mean that the moral isn't always valued. You seem to think it does mean that.
Reality exists regardless of humans, but does morality exist without humans? It'd be hard to assert anything other than "no" -- unless you can explain what morality would mean in a world without humans. If morality is contingent upon our existence, morality itself cannot be objective.
jaykgrey 1 year ago
First time I've actually watched VFX, despite not agreeing with him, he's actually a pretty funny guy.
Bretski17 1 year ago
Do I detect musings of epistemological reasoning?
Arguing for and against relative conceptual objectivism is an an exercise in futility. It has been argued for and against by some of the greatest minds of the last 3000 years. (Only 3000 years after the Earth was created). I do so love how "easy" it is, to pick apart the ridiculous notion that god's morales are anything but temporally and culturally subjective.
lacerta999 1 year ago
Altruistic behavior is seen in many animals, and in humans obviously, and it arose because social animals have a better chance of survival if they work together. Thus evolution has selected for certain behavioral traits which would maximize social cohesion. (no killing, stealing, etc.)
Religion has, for the most part, hijacked morality and has claimed morality as its own invention. This is a ridiculous notion.
lacerta999 1 year ago
"my emotions, my subjective feelings are not what determine right and wrong"
venom
his proof of his "objective morals" is that they haven't been disproved
this is great proof of what the great steven weinberg said, a bad person will do bad no matter what his faith is, to make a good person do bad it takes religion.
flyingturtle22 1 year ago
@flyingturtle22 Steven Weinberg sums you up perfectly with your strawman. Thats not his proof at all, that is usually the atheist who says something then says prove me wrong. You need to leave your religion of atheism, it makes you do bad.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesusforLife2
alirght, I shouldn't have said proof but evidence if I wanted to be scientific about it.
"is usually the atheist who says something then says prove me wrong"
rolf
I bet you cant give me one good example of this
flyingturtle22 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2
oh and that is his proof, he claims a couple of times in the video that the opposing view hasn't been able to disprove objective morality of god ever since the renaissance and goes claiming stuff based on this. did you not watch the video?
flyingturtle22 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesusforLife2
you've been saturating the comment section of this video so it wouldn't be too much to ask to back up the claims you do,
or don't, that way you'll illustrate my point and ridiculize yours.
so like I said, I'm looking for some back up of : "is usually the atheist who says something then says prove me wrong" and if not, thanks for further illustrating my point.
flyingturtle22 1 year ago
...there is no mention of "butt sex" in the new covenant that Jesus established to replace the covenant God made with the Israelites of the Old Testament. Now if you are a practicing Jew, Orthodox or otherwise, you might have some biblical legal precedent to condemn "butt sex," but I fear you might be forced to condemn a great many other things if you are going to adhere to the Torah and all its laws. Generally, it would be quite helpful to cure AIDS, whether you have "butt sex" or vaginal sex.
MageSutek 1 year ago
...covenant that God made with Moses and his people and replaces it with a new covenant; indeed, it is this new and everlasting covenant to which Christians of today are bound, put in place when Christ suffered, died, and was buried for the sins of mankind, rising on the third day and ascending into heaven, leaving the business of his earthly church with his disciples. When Jesus nullified the covenant of the Old Testament with that of the New, out went the old laws. I assure you that...
MageSutek 1 year ago
...new sterilization mandates were put into place by law, all illicit intravenous drug users, and of course all those lazy and irresponsible heterosexuals who find the use of a condom to be too burdensome in the throes of getting their freak on with their unsuspecting partners. Oh, heterosexuals have "butt sex" too I am told. When I was a seminarian, we never got the memo from God about all of the aforementioned. The Old Testament of the Bible mentions sodomy, but then Christ repeals the old...
MageSutek 1 year ago
What an ignorant comment. It might be a surprise to you, but AIDS does not discriminate against those who choose to have "butt sex." Surely you would not condemn those people to die from AIDS who did not have "butt sex.” So if we follow your rationale, we would need to account for the times that God has spoken against hemophilia, people who received blood transfusions prior to 1987, countless tens of millions of rape victims in Africa, people who got a tattoo from an unclean facility before...
MageSutek 1 year ago
well, excellent videos. glad you're back, what a privilege to listen to since I wasn't here before you left... God bless
MissQwertyPie 1 year ago
@southdakotagirl30 Fair enough, to me it sounds like you are moving the goal posts on the definition of the word murder but that's my opinion (which is fairly subjective). That's interesting how you resolve that perceived conflict. As for explaining how some non believers have better morals I think we do have an inherent, built-in morality complex. Unlike you however I would attribute it, not to a soul, but as the result of psychological and social evolution and altruistic behavior.
MatteoLouter 1 year ago
@southdakotagirl30 That doesnt really make sense. The Bible isn't the source of all morals? What is? What you feel is right? How do you know what you feel from your soul is right? If you feel like stealing something does that make it right? Of course not, the revelation from God through the Bible explains what is right. Whether or not atheists behave "better" is irrelevant and only shows how sinful man is. I also like to know how you can back that assertion up.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 I think by "religious zealots" she meant you...
MatteoLouter 1 year ago
@MatteoLouter I could care less what a person calls me especially you introducing a red herring and insulting me, I only care about what God calls me. You dont even know me. When I said the Bible isn't absolute in this case I meant it as when I said: "only when you straw-man the position intentionally or accidentally with "killing"". Taking the Bible the way it should be as I have explained with it meaning murder not killing, it is absolute along with everything else in it.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 so you are saying that murder is not the same as killing? I thought they where the exact same thing...
MatteoLouter 1 year ago
@MatteoLouter
Murder: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.
Kill: to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
Hope that helped :)
PoliticalHell 1 year ago
@MatteoLouter They aren't.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Sorry to butt in, I just had to :P
Every organism with a brain is equipped with instincts. It's just the way things are, inarguably. We have them, too. Sympathy is part of our chain of emotions that each of us is born with. Guidelines like sympathy (and emotions generally) allow us to survive socially without anyone telling us how. Like a mother will protect her child regardless of circumstance, we are coded to protect each other. Biblical morals are just glorified forms of this.
PoliticalHell 1 year ago
@PoliticalHell Remember we are not talking about what morality is or how it comes to be, we are talking about what morality ought to or should be. If rape is part of our chain of emotions that each of us is born with, does that make it right?
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Well that's where culture kicks in. In ours, rape is a no-no. Throughout history, rape, or similar sexual force, was acceptable. In some countries, men can still rape women legally. To them, it's okay, because their culture allows it. What "should" it be? Well, that depends on how you perceive it. We might think that rape is obnoxious and absolutely wrong, while a guy across the world may think we're nuts and say it's perfectly fine.
PoliticalHell 1 year ago
I'm SO glad you're back! Silly me is getting old and forgetful, and I just found you again here in YouTube. Good luck and GOD HELP YOU in your search for a Christian woman. If you can find one who doesn't want to just argue with you, that would be refreshing, wouldn't it? (lol) Be careful! (remember my warnings about all the psychos before the first YouTube disaster) God Bless You in the New Year!
MiMi56J 1 year ago
@southdakotagirl30 sorry for not responding more promptly, I don't get email updates so i have to check the comments manually. I appreciate your discourse.
MatteoLouter 1 year ago
@southdakotagirl30 interesting... "I would take Hitler out if it was the only way. I would still do it even if it risked my salvation." why would you think that it would risk your salvation if it was the right thing to do? doesn't the bible say that killing is immoral absolutely and all the time? and if the bible is the source of all morals then how have you come up with the moral action of killing Osama to prevent 9/11? could maybe the bible not be absolutely correct all the time?
MatteoLouter 1 year ago
@Matteo Even if it was possible to lose your salvation, that is a foolish comment by dakotagirl. God's glory and commands take priority over everything in any situation. Of course we still stumble and choose wrong at times. The Hebrew word used defines murder as immoral absolutely all the time. It would be foolish for God to say thou shall not kill, yet he kills people daily. The Bible is not absolute in this case only when you straw-man the position intentionally or accidentally with "killing".
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 ok, so if the bible is not 100% true, ex "The Bible is not absolute in this case...", how do you decide what other parts are true and not true.
MatteoLouter 1 year ago
Gay Bowel Syndrome. Not sure where you dug up this reference, circa 1976, long before you were even a spermatozoa. In an effort to keep from pissing off people who are keen on science as it relates to medicine, unless you plan to give God the reigns to our progress in medicine, you should try to stick with relevant and timely data. Moreover, your CDC data is grossly outdated and inaccurate. If you want to derive stats on AIDS, might try a philanthropic agency funding research for cures.
MageSutek 1 year ago
You make some good points, peace!
MrWisePete 1 year ago
@MrWisePete God bless :)
VenomFangX 1 year ago
What happens with individual relative morality is that societies put these together to make a societal moral code that is not from a single subjective viewpoint, but from many put together and some coming to prevalence. So in essence we actually get a common standard without the need for living by the subjective Morality of one powerful being. I recommend reading Euthyphro & having a bit of a think about it.
OlympicRudi 1 year ago
@OlympicRudi So when another mass get-together forms a common subjective moral code, which group of people is right and which group is wrong? We are also not arguing what is morality or how it comes to be, but what it ought or should be. God's morality isn't subjective and arbitrary, its part of his eternal nature.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2
Isn't it obvious?
There is no right & wrong. In simplistic terms, the individual morals from both groups will get together & eventually make modified Moral Codes for society. It's just a bigger society.
Also if you are talking about what Morality should be, then you better have a decent idea of what it is in the first place. As for God's Morality being part of his eternal nature. God would either be making up Morality Subjectively, or it is Objective & nothing to do with him.
OlympicRudi 1 year ago
@OlympicRudi Or they just might kill each other until they can force it upon the weaker group aka war. There is no right or wrong? Ok.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2
True, but I was kind of assuming there was at least some dialogue between them(especially given the character limit) & that you'd know that was a common thing throughout history of religions. Optimistically I'm hoping we're mostly past all that now. Though I suppose even in cases where one culture conquers another, there is still an element of cultural mixing, over time, creating new societal moral codes.
OlympicRudi 1 year ago
@OlympicRudi Actually its more prevalent in atheistic regimes such as Stalin, Mal, and Pol-pot to list a few of the great many. Resulting in 100+ million deaths in the 20th century alone, more than every religion combined. But who cares right, there is no right or wrong.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2
Actually if your comparing death tolls, you would be right. However you ignore that those are recent events & hence since populations are much, much greater than before the industrial revolution. Before then religions had free reign in killing far more people % of population wise.
Also you ignore that those listed were actually more religious in nature than not. The leaders were seen more like Gods and there was the same blind following you get in religions.
OlympicRudi