Carrier's suggestion that "Barabbas" was a fake name used to invent a myth can be demonstrated to be wrong.
I'm using the statistics that has been compiled in Ilan, Lexicon.
Of the 99 most popular male names among Jewish Palestinians, "Barabbas," which can be translated "Abba," was the 21rst "most common" name among Jewish men.
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there was a criminal named Barabbas that was released in order that Pilate may silence the crowds.
@illini554 Barabbas being a fairly common name at that place and time does make likely that their was a prisoner named Barabbas. Him being a known murderer and yet released as a crowd pleaser in times before modern democracy where the crowd had little if any say is another matter.
If I were to construct a fiction about modern America today, I would be more inclined to name the protagonist Mike or Philip opposed to say AliBaba due to Mike being more popular and thus more believable.
@Blastodermic Ethics seeks to find the truth and the truth is about order. When we intentionally disrupt that order, we call such actions wrong. Eating is ordered toward nourishment; when it leads toward disnourishment - immoral. Talking is ordered toward communication; when it leads toward discommunication - immoral. Resting is ordered toward regenerating energy for other tasks; when it leads to laziness - immoral. Sex is ordered toward love and procreation; when not ordered this way...
@frostyigloos natural law theory fails. and so do your examples, and u know it. that's why u tried to sneak in "love" with sex. to be consistent, one who supports natural law would say sex is for procreation therefore having sex for any other reason is immoral.
neway, u still must deal with hume's objection, that u can't derive an "ought" from an "is".
@mebe84 this should be good. LOL What an idiot I am - trying to sneak in love with sex? How irrational of me. Every interaction with any person must be governed by love, sex is no different. Don't tell me what a natural law supporter must believe in especially when you are wrong. Sex without love and procreation is identical to lying.
@mebe84 Also brush up on your philosophy my man. Hume said ought's and is's weren't the same thing and failed to find the link, which is so very common sensical. He never said you CAN'T derive one from the other. Learn to read. We find in life that moral agents (humans) are imperfect. We find that perfection is more desirable than imperfection. We therefore discover what makes a man perfect and we thus pursue this perfection. What we find as man's perfection is character.
@mebe84 Character is the collection of all the virtues that govern man's actions. One such virtue is justice. Justice seeks to preserve or to restore the nature of a thing. Justice in sex would preserve the nature of sex as both procreative and amorous. Injust sexual intentions or any injust intentions are character traits that are less perfect, in other words evil.
@mebe84 Now you are right, sex is primarily procreative in the same way that talking is primarily communicative. If you are intentionally not communicating things when talking, we say that's bad talking. If you are not open to procreation when having sex, we say that's bad sex. However, as I said love governs everything. If you are communicating things perfectly, but are doing it hatefully, we say that's bad talking. If you are open to procreation, but do it hatefully, we say that's bad sex
@mebe84 So, perfect character must contain perfect justice - it must respect the nature of everything and consequently because we are things, everyone. Sex is an action that is performed with a counterpart. We must respect the action and the counterpart if we are to obtain sexual justice. As this has no holes, you're only response can be that you don't give a fuck about being perfect, but just wanna have some sex, to which I respond, you can do whatever you want.
@mebe84 Of course I don't need to tell you to do whatever you want because of course I'm not you. But as there arise problems on this planet when everybody does whatever they want, society only exists if every societal member is striving for perfection and not imperfection. In fact, if you are not striving for perfection, you should get on the nearest space ship and get the fuck off this rock, because you are ruining society at everybody else's expense.
@mebe84 Also, I would love to be enlightened if I am living in the matrix and these truths that I know are really fantasy in which case it doesn't matter if I'm wrong, I'm fucked anyway. So, please tell me where on God's green earth you derive your "oughts". Is it from your ass? Or do you believe that there are no oughts? No perfection? No legitimate morality? No need for society? "yea fuck the system man" No point to life? "Neway", whatever the fuck that is, lesson for today is done.
@frostyigloos i see your views are more complex, and u r more arrogant, than i gave u credit for. sorry(kinda). i'm sure i still dont understand your view completely. but so far, i don't see how it jives with any kind of "objective morality" of the type bill craig speaks of. actually all i see are assumptions and undefined terms that until they are adequtaly defined render your argument mostly meaningless.
@mebe84 God you are clueless. Every moral system has assumptions, no one has infused knowledge. If you have a term you want me to define, I will define it. But, if you want to define every term I use like "the" and "is" I might as well log off and simply write a book instead. It becomes necessary in conversation that the two parties have a general sense of the terms they use in argument or else every single conversation would take years. But if the two disagree on a term than they ask
@mebe84 questions about the differences. No one says so mindlessly that "you haven't defined your terms" or else they are poor communicators. I don't give two shits about this bill craig. My argument is not only not meaningless but conveys a reality that you must understand.
@frostyigloos all this talk of truth,perfection,character,justice, order(which u seem to use into mean purpose or function),or that virtues are what govern character. and then to attempt to claim that there is no such thing as sex without love; is that what u r doing?can u define love?u seem to think that your desire for perfection and the perfect society is the moral foundation. why? why is that the ultimate value?what makes this the "truth"?
@mebe84 There is such thing as sex without love in the same way that there is speaking without telling the truth. I will not define love as that will take a book, however you have to be a moron not to know generally what it is. If there is no desire for perfection than the following happens. Society arbitrarily determines an imperfect threshold that it attempts achieve and necessarily prohibits the achieving of some goods - this society I would run far far away from.
@mebe84 truth is perfection; a truth cannot be partly true - for that is a cut and dry case of a contradiction. If a thing is true than it is perfectly true. Free choice however is a power such that an agent can allow falsity to exist. Falsity is the absence of truth; it is a truth that is the absence of truth; it simply put is the matrix. This matrix is something that I would love to avoid; I however strive to live in truth - and truth is perfect
@frostyigloos why does your perfect society get preference over all other desires and values?how do u know a perfect society is compatible with a perfect idividual? what is society ordered to? u haven't taught a lesson, you've simply begged the questions. neway, i don't see why u being wrong in this regard(whether u really are or not) translates 'no point to life"
@mebe84 Why does perfection get preference over imperfection? I don't know Einstein you tell me. "How do I know a perfect society is compatible with a perfect individual"? Don't ask idiotic questions that have the appearance of looking intelligent and that are self-evident. Society is ordered toward perfection; everything is ordered toward perfection.
@mebe84 Of course my model should beg questions but that does not mean I haven't answered some as well. In fact if you had no questions to ask than you'd be an idiot. However, ask and you shall have your answer. Telling the truth is like painting, you start with the broad strokes and than you work on the detail, but just because I have laid my first broad stroke doesn't mean you can call my painting poor, because I haven't finished the painting yet.
@mebe84 And so far, I have laid the proper broad strokes and your only response to my broad strokes is that you haven't worked on the detail yet. Well thank you Captain Obvious I just fucking started. It's like complaining that Michael Jordan hasn't scored 50 points yet and its only the first quarter. Be realistic man. If I'm wrong that my life is not ordered toward perfection than I am living in a matrix where no truth can be legitimately ascertained and therefore is no point to that life
@frostyigloos i think it is very important to define terms. and until u do so, or until i read that book u didn't write, your arguments will continue to sound vague,esoteric,and at worst non-sensical. for instance,"But as there arise problems on this planet when everybody does whatever they want... society only exists if every societal member is striving for perfection and not imperfection".not all problems in "the world",
@frostyigloos which i guess u mean to say society, "arise" from humans not striving for perfection.and fortunately societies DO exist whether or not every member strives for perfection, since obviously not everyone is, and yet society has existed for thousands of years. also, since u couldn't answer any of my other questions, perhaps u could focus on just one please.i would love to know more about this term"ordered? towards perfection".
@frostyigloos doesn't sound the same as desire or preference for perfection. how do u know when something is ordered toward perfection?one more: man should strive for perfection=character=virtues=factors governing actions. do u mean to say we should strive for perfect character,which is achieved IF the virtues govern your actions?
@mebe84 OK, finally some intelligence on your end. Of course, society can exist with imperfection, I was wrong. And of course there are a large number of imperfections that society must allow in terms of law. But law isn't the best determiner of individual action, culture is. And a culture that values imperfection, is one that is a road block for its individuals' quest for perfection. Why should culture prevent individuals from becoming their best selves?
@mebe84 Something is ordered toward perfection by the simple fact that it exists, for nothing exists so that it loses its existence. Truth doesn't exist so that it can become falsity; good doesn't exist so that it can be evil. We come into existence and we are ordered toward perfect truth and goodness, not toward falsity and evil. This is not some feeling we have, this is in our nature as things that exist. And if we forget our nature and strive for imperfection, we become less human
@frostyigloos well, i've gone back and read some of your other posts, and seen u r really hostile to others as well. but that doesn't matter much. the real problem is that u still give no real basis for your assumptions, and u still don't explain your terms in a way that would show how they relate to reality in a practical way. " for nothing exists so that it loses its existence." well thanks captain obvious(plz don't take offense,just a little harmless humor), now what does that prove?
@mebe84 Idiocy, my friend, is hostile. LOL "u still give no real basis for your assumptions" I'll just say the same thing to you, it gets us FUCKING NOWHERE. Oh did you hear about a legitimate moral system today? Fuck it, just say vague and undefined critiques against it and call it a day. If nothing exists so that it loses its existence and existence is perfect, than nothing exists so that it becomes imperfect. QED mudda fucka
@frostyigloos certaintly doesn't prove or even support the idea that " Something is ordered toward perfection by the simple fact that it exists". i really want to write much more about other flaws i think u made, but u always give way too much info(ur comments are all over the place), so maybe if i leave it at this u can respond to this one particular critique.
@mebe84 LOL this is so funny, at one point you say, wheres your proof? wheres your proof? this is incomplete. And now you say I am writing too much. LOLOLOL make up your fucking mind... do you want thoroughness or brevity? If something exists, it has something perfect about it, namely existence. But if it contains imperfections than it contains unexistence. And as you said was obvious that nothing exists so that it loses its existence...
@mebe84 ... and because unexistence is the same thing as imperfection, we have just discovered what? That nothing existence so that it contains imperfections. Q fucking ED. Welcome to the truth my man. I'll be serving up non stop servings of truth.
once again, how does one discern that humans are "ordered toward perfection". if it is an unfounded assumption then just 'fess up and say so. it's ok. as u said, all moral systems involve at least one asumption.(of course the p.o.c. would be that it's unfounded however
@mebe84 One discovers it with their fucking intelligent brains. How do YOU discern that when you shit, you might need to wipe afterward? Any fucking person can get up on their high ass horse and say that any assumption is unfounded. It's very easy... step 1: hear an assumption; step 2: blindly say its unfounded. Done. However as my process above showed that it wasn't an assumption but was built off other truths, you CAN NO LONGER call it an assumption now can you?
@frostyigloos so this is natural law theory?just covered with a bunch of cryptic nonsense.yur backwards logic is evident with a few simple question. do u exist? yes are u perfect? no so u exist, and u somehow "contain unexistence" at the same time.?this is nothing more than cryptic nonsense that would be more at home in theology rather than philosophy. so do i exist and not exist at same time?lol
can u still really call existence perfect if that is the case?
@mebe84@mebe84 I have already shown this paradox. Yes, insofar as you have imperfections, you have an absence of existence. If you tell a lie, you have brought into existence absence of existence. This is called a paradox that only free choice can bring about. Evil is one giant paradox, it is the existence of imperfection, it is the existence of an absence. However good is very simple, it is perfect, it is existence.
@mebe84 If you say that evil is purely unexistence, than evil wouldn't be anywhere - which is false. If you say that evil is purely existence, than what distinguishes evil from good. However, you discover what evil is when you recognize that it is the existence of unexistence.
@frostyigloos sorry to inform u but imperfection does exist. it is a reality.so either existence does not mean perfection(in your ethical sense neway)or what man considers imperfection is actually perfect. so ur argument is cryptic and nonsensical. when u say existence is perfect, u r abstracting it from reality, because in the real world nothing that exists is perfect in man's view(or in some men's views it is all perfect,either way doesn't help u).
@mebe84 ALREADY SAID IMPERFECTION EXISTS, thanks though. Please stop considering what man would think about things, please attempt some objectivity please. Imperfections exist in the same way black holes exist, both are absences. Not cryptic or nonsensical.
existence" does not exist by itself, apart from man or nature or the universe,ect.this is the same fallacy i've seen some objectivist christians make regarding goodness;that it exists somewhere out there apart from a subject. that is the only sense in which u could claim it's perfect,
@mebe84 Please type better, I can't tell what the fuck you are saying. However, I am not talking about where, when, how, or why a thing exists. I am simply explaining existence, stay on point please. I know other candy in the candy in the candy shop looks more appealing, but right now we are buying some licorice.
@frostyigloos apart from all experience and reality as we know it.and it seems to me that "truth" should at the least bear some relation to reality.lol so "unexistence is the same thing as imperfection" if this were true then imperfection would not exist!lol and yet it does. cryptic.vague.nonsense.u seem to be a
@mebe84 define for me a few words please and we'll see who the cryptic vague and nonsensical bastard is... weakness, darkness, and unintelligence. Have a stab at that.
@frostyigloos yes i would like to know if this is something u got from aristotle, though that certaintly doesn't mean i would believe it, and i'm shocked u would even attempt to throw in that poor argument from authority, however flippant. and stop lying, u can understand what i'm writing just fine."you have brought into existence absence of existence" lol so that's not cryptic vague nonsense?
@mebe84 LOL Why don't you just follow my argument and stop trying so hard at finding out where I'm getting my views from. They are my own, so just read my words numb nuts. Again, and this time I'll simplify your homework assignment, define darkness for me.
@frostyigloos oh, and black holes are most likely not "absences" or paradoxical at all, but it doesn't really matter since our knowledge of them is so limited, it's mostly conjecture. so that gets u nowhere. i don't see how gravity,singularities,or wormholes would validate your "paradox" anyway. "that it is the existence of unexistence."lol so this sounds rational to u?
"cause it sounds like something that an eastern mystic or a western "new age" crazy person would say to me. has absolutely no basis in reality. unless maybe u want to bring in some crazy quantum physics "new age" mess. hmm i wonder if the so called virtual particles are "purely existence" or "purely unexistence" lol and with the exception of said particles, isn't saying "pure existence" kinda redundant? idk lol
@frostyigloos dark is a word used to describe the state of something that exists without light. the word darkness is an abstracted concept meaning without light. yes one could also use the term the absence of light, and although u think your clever,this does not help your point. so the defenition of darkness could be absence of light, the defenition of naked could be the absence of clothes,and empty could be the absence of anything(other than the thing that is empty).these defenitions are (con
@frostyigloos con) similar to your phrase "the absence of existence" in that there is no contradiction in terms. notice however that when u say "brought into existence the absence of existence",this is a very clear contradiction in terms,as is "unexistance is the same thing as imperfection...already said imperfection exists". (cont
@frostyigloos cont)therefore i don't see how the defenition of darkness helps your argument. even if darkness was some kind of real world example of a paradox(which it is not), i still don't see how it would support your particular ethical view anyway.
@frostyigloos here is another whopper of a contradiction for u." If something exists, it has something perfect about it, namely existence" along with the above qoute that imperfections do in fact exist. so this means that the unexistence of imperfection exists perfectly!lol i wanted another reference for these kind of views is there are so many problems with it that need to be addressed that it would take way too long to do it like this on youtube.this little paradox issue is one among many
thnx for letting the crazy out and sharing your views, i would still love to know if there is something u could refer me to that would give insight into this type of ethics.
@frostyigloos if u click on the video (as opposed to see all comments) and scroll down past the top comments u can see all new comments in the order they were posted. makes it less confusing
@mebe84 And honestly learn the rules of punctuation and try to inform me as to when two of the posts are apart of the same argument, because It's undecipherable bullshit. But at least you're making me work.
@frostyigloos triggerhappy little young gun who took a few philosophy courses so now u think ur hot shit, and all the mysteries of existence are laid bare before u. u got it all figured out huh? maybe if u have a reference to an essay or something that would better explain ur views(since u make such obvius errors as above, u must simply be doing a bad job of explaining urself,or u r a fanatic), or if u ever write that book, i'd be glad to check it out, so let me know
@mebe84 Just stop, relax, find a brown paper bag, insert mouth and breathe. My man, you are the cookie cutter, close minded, New Age, anything goes, fuck the system, no morality, fanatic, same old, same old, no original thinking, bull shit I see everyday. Just gag me already. I don't need to quote anybody, these things I'm talking about are very obvious. Do you want me to put quote marks around the things I say followed by Aristotle for you to finally believe them or are you more mature?
@mebe84 Again, this is the paradox of free choice. It can create other things, it can change things. But, we don't applaud when free choice is exercised, this is silly. We applaud when an agent even when faced with the choice of evil and self-profit, chooses the good.
@mebe84 Perfection for man is not found in anything else other than his/her character, which is a collection of every virtue (major 4 being prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance). There is no "if" virtues govern your actions, they just do. The better one's virtues (the more prudent, the more just, the more fortitudinous, the more temperate), the better the character and therefore the closer to perfection one is. Now how does this model of the individual relate to society?
@mebe84 Society has both a cultural aspect and a legal aspect. Its culture should promote all these virtues and if it does not than its members should change the culture. The law end of it is way more tricky because making a law, even though it maybe a good law, that is not grounded in the culture of the time, is worthless. Law don't promote anything, they prohibit. Now there are some things that are evil that should not be prohibited by law. Why?
@mebe84 Because to enforce such a law would create an intolerable government. It is this toleration that should determine whether any law gets passed. But, culture should always promote every good act no matter what, and of course law should never pass a bad law. Culture promotes the good life, Law should prevent the worst forms of life (and should tolerate the less evil forms of life). Culture is therefore more important than Law
@Blastodermic Whoever said that right and wrong had anything to do with pain. OK now we get down to your ethics, if its determined by the majority. The majority elected Adolph Hitler, sport. The act of genital stimulation is only a reproductive function, you can say that it is simply a pleasurable activity and only that, but that is a lie. If you stimulate your genitals while intentionally closing procreative capability (and if it is not given in love to another) then that is immoral.
@Blastodermic I don't know why I'm doing this, but I am. It is readily evident that when you hear that someone is a Christian, you immediately tag them with a host of views. DO NOT DO THIS. Christians are people too actually, so open up your mind and ask them what they think on issues instead of automatically assuming. Only use what they say. It looks incredibly immature when you start tagging someone with views they don't hold, not only immature but it is also shows no respect or quality
@Blastodermic You are a total idiot. Crossing an imaginary line? are talking about having sex? Not very imaginative at all. In fact, very real, and very immoral. If you can't have sex with someone then you obviously can't "love them as a sexual partner", but you can still love them. NONE OF MY ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN BASED ON FAITH, please, for the love of God, stop saying this. But even if they were, it does not matter where the truth comes from as long as its the truth
@Blastodermic No, you idiot - learn to differentiate between my subjective feelings and an objective ethical system, learn it please. Because sex outside of procreation is a contradiction, like saying I'm going to walk without using my legs, or I'm going to read a book without using my eyes.
By the way, you are also using your naturalistic fallacy. It is natural for us to avoid pain therefore we should have a rule barring pain. So please, shut the fuck up about the damn naturalistic fallacy.
@Blastodermic YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I CARE ABOUT. Any form of immorality is extremely harmful and must be corrected. That being said, Christianity is merciful at its heart and accepts the seriousness of suffering.
Literally, you are seriously stupid. I am not even going to dignify that load of shit with a response. I think you know how seriously misguided this is. The Church allows you to love anybody and everybody. But they also accept the limits of sexual interaction, not a hard concept
@Blastodermic cornerstone of the most dangerously flawed ethical systems. You see emotions and feelings have nothing to do with action - which is what concerns ethics. Putting a grenade in your mouth is wrong not because it hurts but because you are misusing the grenade and misusing the function of eating. Sex IS an expression of love and an opportunity for procreation, nobody can deny this. Sex is a function just like any other and can be used appropriately or not - Ethics 101
@Blastodermic So simple minded. Christianity never condoned murder of any kind. It accepts all people regardless of circumstance, condition, or situation. But, it does challenge us to overcome our circumstances, conditions, and situations. I have many predispositions toward immorality that I give in to frequently, and I am wrong for doing so. People that give in to their homosexual predispositions are no different in their wrongdoing. At the end of the day, we all have our battles to fight
@Blastodermic I haven't the foggiest as to how this is so unclear to you. For the twentieth time, sex is an expression of love and an opportunity for procreation. Once again, it is immoral if the man intentionally ejaculates outside of the woman's vagina as this is an intentional closing of the opportunity for procreation. Please, please, please, please, please, pretty please read my comments before responding. Chill out with the radically absurd questions over there
@Blastodermic Sweet, got some horrendous logic here, let me show you. So... you get to have unprovable premises but I do not. You also get to make premises that have nothing to do with ethics and I do not. Moreover, if suffering is bad, then people who accidentally hurt themselves are in some kind of moral wrong doing in your eyes. People who get old are living immorally. People with natural defects are living immorally. My friend, pain has nothing to do with ethics
@Blastodermic Opportunity for procreation... It is ethically wrong to intentionally close this opportunity. Is it an intentional closing if you biologically cannot produce sperm? no. Intentional if you do not have a womb? no. Intentional if you are pregnant? no. Intentional if a man intentionally ejaculates anywhere outside a vagina? Absolutely. Intentional with a condom on? Absolutely. Intentional if two dudes or two women do it? Absolutely. Fill in the blanks for any other scenario.
@Blastodermic I finally now know how utterly incapable you are of reading and understanding another persons arguments. You sir are extremely close minded, not open to foreign views, and deeply, deeply entrenched in whatever you are doing. ANY person who has been reading this stream would know that I have been saying that sex is an expression of love an opportunity for procreation, simply because that is what sex is. Ethically, it is immoral to use a thing, which has limits, outside said limits
@Blastodermic Please be aware of what I have already condemned, sir, and stop returning to the "I only condemn homosexuals" argument that I have time and again said that it is not the case, as I condemn anything I see that is wrong
@Blastodermic I ALREADY HAVE CONDEMNED EVERY SINGLE SEXUAL ACT THAT OCCURS WITHOUT PROCREATION IN MIND. You are irritatingly incapable of reading words. "Of course, you just attack homosexuals?" You, my friend, need to stop assuming things. I do not, nor never have attacked homosexuals. I am firmly against homosexual activity, I am also against heterosexual activity without procreation in mind. In fact, I have only actually attacked my heterosexual friends for contracepting. Nice try though
@Blastodermic Procreation is always possible with a sperm and an egg. Men carry sperm and women carry eggs therefore procreation is only possible with men and women. Now there may be some defects that alter production of these things but they are secondary. Why should procreation matter? Because that is the end goal of sex my friend. Babies with surrogates? Are you that blitheringly stupid? One of the men is simply unrelated to the child. WHY is adoption now in this?????
@Blastodermic I never condemn love because it is a good thing. But if you are going to express love sexually then you and your partner must be expressing love and attempting to procreate. What this entails necessarily is condemning homosexual activity, as well as heterosexual activity that is not both based on these things. Surely you don't call me bigoted for condemning heterosexual activity because you cannot think outside the boundaries of today's culture who are telling you what to think
@Blastodermic ONCE AGAIN, "Infertile" heterosexual couples will always have the opportunity, however small, for procreation. ONCE AGAIN, sex must involve an honest attempt at procreation, if it does not it is immoral because it is a misuse of it. Is this FINALLY clear to you? Don't EVER assume you know WHAT I am basing my views on, when I base them on biology, ethics, philosophy, sociology, as well as faith.
@Blastodermic Simple analogy: Eating has guidelines just like sex. You would not feed your baby live hand grenades, because eating is used to increase the overall health of the body. Similarly, you cannot have two same sexed persons engaging in intercourse because sex is for love AND procreation. Surely you would not call me a bigot for condemning feeding infants live hand grenades. Surely my irrational, illogical faith is not wrong here. Things have natural properties, go learn them.
@Blastodermic ONCE AGAIN. Sex = Love + Procreation. Procreation is never possible with two men or two women in the sexual act. If two men or two women have sex they are grossly misusing it, by leaving out half of the equation. Tell me where any bigotry, any mention of faith, any of what you mentioned is and I will happily concede. You are a textbook, open shut case of an irritated modernist, nothing refreshing or insightful, just beat me over the head with the same failed bull shit.
@Blastodermic I have most assuredly read more books and attended more lectures taught by far better professors than you on the subject. So far you keep repeating the same bull shit that I have responded to time and again. I HAVE provided you with THE ethical reason for the immorality of homosexual acts. Not only this but I have done this minus prejudice, in fact I do it in friendship (you probably don't even personally know a gay person) and minus ANY theological arguments. Do a bit better kid.
@Blastodermic OK first please mature a little bit intellectually and start thinking for yourself, not what modern culture has been blasting in your face. I never used the damn Bible for ANY of my arguments against homosexuality. Please since you are throwing around the term ethical, tell me your definition of ethics. Ethics concern fulfilling the natures of agents. That is THE definition. Please learn the nuances between nature and how you use natural. One involves being, the other emotion
@Blastodermic You are so utterly locked in on this extremely misplaced counterargument. I am saying that it is natural for man to follow his wishes, uninhibited. The naturalistic fallacy would be to say that you can do anything you want. I am laying a very old groundwork for recognizing the bounds of sex that I have drawn from what sex is and what therefore is acceptable accordingly. If you cannot lay a basis for laws in nature, then the laws cannot possibly apply to nature dwelling creatures
Craig, with all of his words is basically saying that the bodily resurrection of Christ happened because it says it in the bible and the bible is completely reliable. Wow! A great way to make something incredible (like a miracle) completely credible and plausible.
Are the gospels historically accurate? Not very. Did Jesus exist? probably. Did he perform miracles? Probably not. Did he rise from the dead? Probably not. Can historians prove that it is plausible that Jesus rose from the dead? No!
Craig is brilliant. His arguments sound perfectly valid if you don't think about it too much, which most people obviously won't. Anyone smart enough to recognize that his arguments are fucking terrible already disagrees with him anyway.
I love how WLC in debates always claims that his opponent "did nothing to challenge my argument of ________." As if the only job of a debating opponent is to pander to WLC's proposed arguments and play counter-punch with Craig. Has Craig ever considered that people have arguments OF THEIR OWN that are not related to his, and stand quite well on their own?
@Blastodermic "naturalistic fallacy" is not a damn law, in fact it is incorrect. The point of morality is to bridge the gap between man as he is now with man as he should be. Man as he should be is one that is at one with his sexuality. Because sex = love + procreation, Catholic sexuality morality is the only means to achieving the state of man as he should be. An "ought" must always be derived from an "is"
@Blastodermic I am not saying natural because that is a term loaded with extra meaning. It is evident that human morality is based on achieving the end or telos of what human nature provides. The ultimate ends of human sexuality are the expression of love AND the openness to procreation at the same time. That human sexuality is pleasing is secondary and cannot be considered as the proximate motive. This is all encompassed in the "nature" (different meaning) of human sexuality.
@Blastodermic Nazism is clear in its racial policies, no doubt about it. The Church is clear in its openness to all peoples, no doubt about it. Fact, deal.
@Blastodermic Absolutely ignorant to think that a theory should be thrown away because some deem it impractical. You are Mr. Morals over there. Are morals based on practicality? No. Why is it hilarious to condemn murder and also to condemn the destruction of the sexual act? Why is it hilarious to promote a coherent and non-contradictory morality? People engage in illicit sex because it is pleasing, people also engage in stealing because it is pleasing. Does pleasure determine morality? No
@Blastodermic I would have thought the atheist would be all about biology. I do not ignore the issue of infertile couples as I have solved it above. Morals, as you should know, are based on who we are as rational animals. Sex is not an end, it is a means of expressing deep love for your partner that produces offspring. Marriage is the only way to confirm this deep love. So therefore only married couples with an acceptance of the possibility of procreation can have sex.
@Blastodermic Its not ignorant, its biology, take a class. Like I said (read) "intent to procreate". There is always a chance that there will be pregnancy, so the "infertile" couple can have sex. Couples who have sex must open to the possibility of a child, if the couple has sex and upon discovering the pregnancy kill the child they have committed a grave moral evil. Again, sex = love + procreation. Dont insult my intelligence.
Politely I will inform you that you have no clue what they do.
@Blastodermic Sex has two necessary parts: love for your partner and intent to procreate. If you have one and not the other or you have neither, then sex is an immoral act.
@Blastodermic I do not find it acceptable. Like I said the statistics are the same for secular schools and religious schools, so the 4% applies equally to the secular schools. I do not know how the Church should relate to secular authorities, but rest assured those priests do not go unpunished, which is all you want to see anyway. It doesnt matter who punishes them, as long as they are.
@Blastodermic None of it is moral. Homosexual acts or pedophilic acts. Its not corrupt, when it punishes the offenders and forgives them after their punishment is met. And if secular authorities punish them its their right, but no matter what secular authorities have no more right to punish the priest than do religious. And you have no idea what the extent of their punishments are so do not act like you do.
@Blastodermic History shows Christians doing horrible antisemitic things. History also shows Christians working against antisemitism. People that are Christians never told you anything definitive about Christianity itself. I assume you are atheist. Instead of using another monotheistic religion to defend your arguments, use something a little less contradictory. It only increases my suspicion that you are not really atheist but simply hate Christianity and nothing else
@Blastodermic Again, it was people in the Catholic Church that were anti-semitic, not the institution itself. The same applies for pedophilia, which is a misnomer, a majority of those cases do not involve legally-defined children, it should be homosexual problem. But again the number of cases like this in the US is around 4% and it is the same number for priests in the Church. So instead of inflating an issue and saying that they "get away" with something check facts.
@Blastodermic Please refrain from making generalities about a person you do not know, it can make you look ignorant. Jews and Romans were blamed for killing Christ because they did this is not anti-semitic. They were not blaming all jews because if they were then all jews would include Christ, which is pure nonsense. My religion never condoned the killing of any innocent persons thank you very much. Islam is pretty clear in what it allows, but again I have much respect for Islam.
@Blastodermic I'm Catholic dude, Martin Luther means just about as much to me as Adolph Hitler. I will rephrase then, Catholicism never accepted anti-Semitism. Is this a no true scotsman? My argument is A (Catholicism) can never include B (anti-Semitism). To say that one who is A but is also B is an automatic contradiction because of the initial premise. This is different from the no true scotsman
@Blastodermic If you cannot point to one tenet of Christianity that is inherently anti-Semitic than we are done. If you are saying that some people used Christianity for the wrong reasons I would agree with you. But, if the conversation continues like this then I am done.
@Blastodermic aside from the proof that many external sources to the Bible can support? Especially Jewish sources who call Christ's work "witchcraft"?
@Blastodermic If you can give me one instance of Christianity being inherently anti-Semitism instead of assuming it, it would actually look like you know what you are talking about. You have no idea as to a person's motivations so please see the error of your argument. There is nothing that is anti-Semitic about Christianity
@Blastodermic If there are supposed witnesses then you just have to start comparing the religions. The miracle argument that I provide below should suffice
@Blastodermic Whatever Christianity that you think would lead to murder is simply a false one. Do you realize that the Catholic Church is the single largest institution that protected Jews during the Holocaust, Pope Pius saved around 750,000 Jews.
@Blastodermic Christianity cannot motivate one to murder. It is their own sinfulness, and not Christianity that is the motivator. Freedom of speech is generally a good thing
@Panosl Dont be ignorant. People have been critical and flat out denied Christianity since Christ. I dont deny that some Christians did horrible things. A nice elementary logic class would tell you that this fact would not deny the validity of the religion itself. If I said a knife is made primarily to cut things, and somebody used the knife to wipe their ass, does that mean that the knife must not have been primarily made to cut things? Go ahead say no.
It is interesting to note that the risen Christ, in the Gospels, reveals Himself to a crowd of hundreds. Throughout His entire life, He works miracles in the presence of many. No other religious figure ever claims such openness. Just look at Muhammad and Joseph Smith and many more, all private revelations. But if the Gospels claim that many saw the risen Christ, then either it's true or ridiculously false. And if ridiculously false, then why did it take 2000 years for man to finally see it.
Google Sathya Sai Baba. Further, lots of Christian saints over the last 2 thousand years have claimed all sorts of magic powers. The last church I belonged to had the priest claiming their super monks could levitate, teleport, and be in two places at once.
I have not seen one definitive public miracle on this guy. Its also apparent you dont have any sense of logic. You are saying because you had one whack job priest that the religion itself is wrong. Use basic common sense. The fact that LOTS of Christian saints over the last 2000 year (and still as we speak) have done many inexplicable things should be an indicator. Compare one Sathya Sai Baba operating under his own tradition, to the thousands of saints operating under one single tradition
Can Science really answer whether there is a God? If we should love each other? What the right religion is? No, it cannot, it never can, so we are still in the same position that 'primitive people' were
@frostyigloos It's neither the first nor last ridiculously false story to take root.
Your gospels didn't begin to be written until several decades after the purported events, and were not settled on as a canon until the 4th century at the Nicence Council.
@punnet2 so in order for the gospels to be valid they must have been written during the events as if the writers could predict what they were writing would be important - nonsense. After christ and before the writing of the gospels there was still spoken tradition that was divinely inspired.
@frostyigloos To think that the lord of the universe jumped down onto earth, crawled out of a virgin, walked on water, raised dead bodies, then died himself and came back to life....and noone bothered to write about it until 40 years later?
What is your standard of accuracy for spoken tradition? Claiming it was divinely inspired is a circular argument.
@punnet2 what is the best way to spread this good news, by writing it on a paper you hope will reach your audience or by actually going and speaking to your audience. Come on man, think.
@frostyigloos So if you heard from someone, who heard from someone, who heard from someone [....continue back 40+ years...] that someone saw an empty tomb and concluded the body must have risen from the dead, would you believe it?
Have you ever played the game telephone? How accurately do you think a game of telephone played across 40 years would preserve the original story, if there was even any truth to the original?
@punnet2 40+ years for that time is pretty quick when considering the flow of information. they traveled all over the known world to tell the people and still forty years later started to write the events. Id say they were pretty damn busy. How the Apostles spread the Good News tells nothing about the Good News itself, whether it took them 4 minutes to write the events or forty, it does not change a thing.
@frostyigloos What you seem not to realize: Paul's letters precede the first gospel, and he make no mention of the birth stories, the miracles, the parables or the empty tomb. So you have to believe that Paul stringently ignored these details when writing about jesus, and then after Paul someone accurately recalled all these details; and that noone else outside the disciples saw fit to record these events.
Josephus wrote extensively about Herod, but never mentioned the massacre, for example.
@punnet2 you seem not to realize that Paul was not writing to set all the facts straight. He was writing to believers who already knew the whole story, and he just wanted to clarify the implications of Jesus' story.
God's revelation works through humans so therefore it takes time for it to fully unfold.
@frostyigloos You seem not to realize you're using backwards logic, to make excuses for the lack of credibility in the scriptures. Which is more likely: 1) Paul corresponded with multiple christian communities over several years without once mentioning events from jesus' life and then these events are credibly recorded 40+ years after they supposedly occurred; or 2) The gospels are an embellishment of a simpler jesus story?
@punnet2 we do not have all of Paul's correspondence with Christian communities so you cannot say accurately that he never discussed these things. Again, he related the events of Christs life when he physically visited the communities.
How can you trust a history book that discusses Greek history when the events they narrate happened 2500+ years after the fact. Give me a time period between any historical event and the recording of this event on paper that would be credible.
@frostyigloos It is more likely that Washington is historical (not sure what "outstanding" has to do with it). There are myths attached to George Washington -- like the story of the cherry tree -- but were we to treat Washington entirely as a myth, we would be left with gaping holes in history: Who won the Revolutionary War? Who was the 1st President? No such holes are created by treating jesus as a myth; the events to which he is attached are only found (with embellishments) in the gospels.
@punnet2 Treating jesus as a myth leaves the biggest hole of all: is there really a god who is all-caring or not? (But of course this means little to you) So how do we know which elements of Washington's story are myth or not? You will never have visual proof. You can only have faith. You are doing the same thing I am doing except you end up rejecting Him based on the time period it took to write a book about Him way after His departure
@frostyigloos Yes. god means nothing to me, without evidence. With Washington we have multiple independent accounts corroborating the events of his life -- and certainly no supernatural claims, as with jesus. The evidence for supernatural claims must necessarily be greater. The Revolutionary War and the Presidency (and with them, Washington) are significant to the historical timeline. Jesus and his miracles are not; they are significant to noone but christians.
@punnet2 the bible contains many independent sources. And there are numerous independent sources outside the bible. The fact that the risen Christ appeared to thousands after his resurrection and has not been disproven by any source of that time is proof enough. How can you say that the fact that God made man curing the sick miraculously would only be significant to Christians. Whether you believe in Christ or not, it is significant to all man. Washington is only significant to Americans
@frostyigloos There are not independent sources. If you're thinking of Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus, those are references to christians, and not jesus. The Josephus reference in particular is generally accepted as a forgery, presumably by Eusebius. Once again, Josephus did not record the Herodian massacre, nor did anyone else outside of Matthew (not even the other gospels).
It is not anyone's task to disprove the post-resurrection appearances, it is your task to prove them.
@punnet2 just wikipedia search historicity of jesus. It is proven by the writings in the Gospels. OK, then you must prove that the Roman Empire existed, which you cannot do with 100% certainty unless you can time travel.
@frostyigloos How do the gospels prove jesus any more than than the Iliad proves Achilles? We have archaeological evidence of the Roman Empire from Britain to Africa. And again, the history of the Roman Empire entails no supernatural claims.
History will necessarily have gaps and uncertainties, but we can attempt assessment based on available evidence (and modify our assessments should we find new evidence). There is however no credible evidence whatsoever for jesus.
@punnet2 you cannot disregard something because it entails something supernatural - this would merely show your close mindedness. The Gospels prove Jesus because it was written and because of its truth people believe in it today. Even Christianity's worst opponents in the beginning did not refute Christ's existence because they knew He did. You clearly do not know all the extra Scriptural evidence for Christ.
@frostyigloos I am not disregarding it as you say -- but the burden of proof for supernatural claims is necessarily greater than for natural ones. If that burden is not met, it is not close-minded to reject the claim. Once again, saying the gospels prove jesus is circular. They no more prove jesus than the Iliad proves Achilles.
You clearly do not know the extra scriptural evidence for christ, or you would have provided it by now, instead of running in circles as you've been doing.
@punnet2 ok here is the list... the 12 apostles, other disciples, other forgers that wrote synoptic gospels that Christian roundly rejected but still they attest to Christs existence, dead sea scrolls, early Church fathers, josephus, pliny, tacitus, suetonius, mara bar sarapion, thallus, lucian, celsus, and even the talmud
1. Um, how are the apostles/disciples external to scripture?
2. It took until the 4th century for christians to decide which to keep and reject, by popular vote. The four they decided to keep still contradict each other.
3. The dead sea scrolls do not attest to jesus. In fact, since they date to the time and place that jesus supposedly lived in, their lack of mention casts further doubt on his existence.
4. The remaining ones are simply evidence of christianity, not christ.
@punnet2 Why is it an issue that they would sort out the forgers and liars from the truth in the 4th century. The fact that they are contradictory in the minor things (miracles and not Christs death and resurrection) shows that they were recounting things and not corroborating a lie (they did not make them together, they made them on their own). From the Talmud: "It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu" Simply put, you are in a small minority if you believe Christ did not exist
@frostyigloos It is an issue because: It took them 3 centuries to figure out some of the gospels -- and the beliefs attached to them -- were wrong? And they settled the matter by popular vote -- as if 3 centuries later, the majority somehow "knew" which gospels were correct?
The gospels do not differ in merely minor details. Luke has jesus born during the governorship of Quirinius, 9 years after Herod's reign. Matthew is the only one who remembered the massacre and earthquakes (not minor)
@punnet2 the Apostles who wrote the Gospels were not expert historians, most of them were not even educated. They were fishermen. Only after researching something thoroughly can you decide the authenticity of something, you should be all for this. So you are using the fact of forgeries that mention the existence of Christ as a proof of the non-existence of Christ. Dont switch your argument from the existence of Christ to the authenticity of the Gospels, please
@frostyigloos If you're admitting the gospels (in their current form) contain inauthentic content (not to mention translation and clerical errors over centuries of copying), by what criteria do you determine what the authentic content is? Why do you assume the earliest gospel is free of inauthentic details, written 40 years after the supposed events?
You are using the gospels to affirm the existence of christ. So if the authenticity of the gospels are in question, so is his existence.
@punnet2 Christianity's biggest opponent in its inception was Judaism. It would make sense that if Christ never existed then Christianity's nemesis would easily call them out on it and be done with it. But because Christ was in the public arena and extremely popular for three years, the Talmud even accepts His existence. Case closed, Christ existed
@frostyigloos First of all: When is the Talmud dated to?
Secondly: The accounts are incongruous: The Talmud mentions stoning, a herald calling for 40 days and the execution of 5 disciples -- none of these details are in the gospel accounts (or Paul).
Josephus was Jewish, and writes nothing oppositional to christianity in his histories.
@punnet2 Absolutely ludicrous to think that the Jews would somehow forget that Christ never existed only 200 years after the start of a mass Jewish exodus to Christianity, and accidentally say that He did. The Gospels tell us that Jesus was very popular in the public sphere. So if this is a lie, the Jews have the easiest job imaginable, just tell people this guy never existed. They did not do this because that would be like telling your friend that Barack Obama doesnt exist. Case closed
@frostyigloos Absolutely ludicrous to think Jews living contemporary to jesus would not record the aforementioned events (especially Josephus, a historian, who wrote explicitly about Herod's reign). You seem not to want to face this.
Thank you for posting this, tkovrtwrld.
writersblock26 2 weeks ago
i can barely hear Richard after listening to the annoying christian forever..........ha ha
heathsawyer 3 months ago
Carrier's suggestion that "Barabbas" was a fake name used to invent a myth can be demonstrated to be wrong.
I'm using the statistics that has been compiled in Ilan, Lexicon.
Of the 99 most popular male names among Jewish Palestinians, "Barabbas," which can be translated "Abba," was the 21rst "most common" name among Jewish men.
Therefore, it is hardly surprising that there was a criminal named Barabbas that was released in order that Pilate may silence the crowds.
illini554 1 year ago 2
@illini554 Barabbas being a fairly common name at that place and time does make likely that their was a prisoner named Barabbas. Him being a known murderer and yet released as a crowd pleaser in times before modern democracy where the crowd had little if any say is another matter.
If I were to construct a fiction about modern America today, I would be more inclined to name the protagonist Mike or Philip opposed to say AliBaba due to Mike being more popular and thus more believable.
PeacefulAtheist1 10 months ago
@illini554 you perhaps need to see Carriers answer to that question in the question period.
adstanra 2 months ago
1:53-2:03 : 10 seconds of undeserved applause.
dhaddox 1 year ago 4
@dhaddox Now, that's a little snarky, don't you think? ;-)
PikemannUrge 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Ethics seeks to find the truth and the truth is about order. When we intentionally disrupt that order, we call such actions wrong. Eating is ordered toward nourishment; when it leads toward disnourishment - immoral. Talking is ordered toward communication; when it leads toward discommunication - immoral. Resting is ordered toward regenerating energy for other tasks; when it leads to laziness - immoral. Sex is ordered toward love and procreation; when not ordered this way...
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos natural law theory fails. and so do your examples, and u know it. that's why u tried to sneak in "love" with sex. to be consistent, one who supports natural law would say sex is for procreation therefore having sex for any other reason is immoral.
neway, u still must deal with hume's objection, that u can't derive an "ought" from an "is".
mebe84 7 months ago
@mebe84 this should be good. LOL What an idiot I am - trying to sneak in love with sex? How irrational of me. Every interaction with any person must be governed by love, sex is no different. Don't tell me what a natural law supporter must believe in especially when you are wrong. Sex without love and procreation is identical to lying.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 Also brush up on your philosophy my man. Hume said ought's and is's weren't the same thing and failed to find the link, which is so very common sensical. He never said you CAN'T derive one from the other. Learn to read. We find in life that moral agents (humans) are imperfect. We find that perfection is more desirable than imperfection. We therefore discover what makes a man perfect and we thus pursue this perfection. What we find as man's perfection is character.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 Character is the collection of all the virtues that govern man's actions. One such virtue is justice. Justice seeks to preserve or to restore the nature of a thing. Justice in sex would preserve the nature of sex as both procreative and amorous. Injust sexual intentions or any injust intentions are character traits that are less perfect, in other words evil.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 Now you are right, sex is primarily procreative in the same way that talking is primarily communicative. If you are intentionally not communicating things when talking, we say that's bad talking. If you are not open to procreation when having sex, we say that's bad sex. However, as I said love governs everything. If you are communicating things perfectly, but are doing it hatefully, we say that's bad talking. If you are open to procreation, but do it hatefully, we say that's bad sex
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 So, perfect character must contain perfect justice - it must respect the nature of everything and consequently because we are things, everyone. Sex is an action that is performed with a counterpart. We must respect the action and the counterpart if we are to obtain sexual justice. As this has no holes, you're only response can be that you don't give a fuck about being perfect, but just wanna have some sex, to which I respond, you can do whatever you want.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 Of course I don't need to tell you to do whatever you want because of course I'm not you. But as there arise problems on this planet when everybody does whatever they want, society only exists if every societal member is striving for perfection and not imperfection. In fact, if you are not striving for perfection, you should get on the nearest space ship and get the fuck off this rock, because you are ruining society at everybody else's expense.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 Also, I would love to be enlightened if I am living in the matrix and these truths that I know are really fantasy in which case it doesn't matter if I'm wrong, I'm fucked anyway. So, please tell me where on God's green earth you derive your "oughts". Is it from your ass? Or do you believe that there are no oughts? No perfection? No legitimate morality? No need for society? "yea fuck the system man" No point to life? "Neway", whatever the fuck that is, lesson for today is done.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@frostyigloos i see your views are more complex, and u r more arrogant, than i gave u credit for. sorry(kinda). i'm sure i still dont understand your view completely. but so far, i don't see how it jives with any kind of "objective morality" of the type bill craig speaks of. actually all i see are assumptions and undefined terms that until they are adequtaly defined render your argument mostly meaningless.
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 God you are clueless. Every moral system has assumptions, no one has infused knowledge. If you have a term you want me to define, I will define it. But, if you want to define every term I use like "the" and "is" I might as well log off and simply write a book instead. It becomes necessary in conversation that the two parties have a general sense of the terms they use in argument or else every single conversation would take years. But if the two disagree on a term than they ask
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 questions about the differences. No one says so mindlessly that "you haven't defined your terms" or else they are poor communicators. I don't give two shits about this bill craig. My argument is not only not meaningless but conveys a reality that you must understand.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@frostyigloos all this talk of truth,perfection,character,justice, order(which u seem to use into mean purpose or function),or that virtues are what govern character. and then to attempt to claim that there is no such thing as sex without love; is that what u r doing?can u define love?u seem to think that your desire for perfection and the perfect society is the moral foundation. why? why is that the ultimate value?what makes this the "truth"?
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 There is such thing as sex without love in the same way that there is speaking without telling the truth. I will not define love as that will take a book, however you have to be a moron not to know generally what it is. If there is no desire for perfection than the following happens. Society arbitrarily determines an imperfect threshold that it attempts achieve and necessarily prohibits the achieving of some goods - this society I would run far far away from.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 truth is perfection; a truth cannot be partly true - for that is a cut and dry case of a contradiction. If a thing is true than it is perfectly true. Free choice however is a power such that an agent can allow falsity to exist. Falsity is the absence of truth; it is a truth that is the absence of truth; it simply put is the matrix. This matrix is something that I would love to avoid; I however strive to live in truth - and truth is perfect
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@frostyigloos why does your perfect society get preference over all other desires and values?how do u know a perfect society is compatible with a perfect idividual? what is society ordered to? u haven't taught a lesson, you've simply begged the questions. neway, i don't see why u being wrong in this regard(whether u really are or not) translates 'no point to life"
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 Why does perfection get preference over imperfection? I don't know Einstein you tell me. "How do I know a perfect society is compatible with a perfect individual"? Don't ask idiotic questions that have the appearance of looking intelligent and that are self-evident. Society is ordered toward perfection; everything is ordered toward perfection.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 Of course my model should beg questions but that does not mean I haven't answered some as well. In fact if you had no questions to ask than you'd be an idiot. However, ask and you shall have your answer. Telling the truth is like painting, you start with the broad strokes and than you work on the detail, but just because I have laid my first broad stroke doesn't mean you can call my painting poor, because I haven't finished the painting yet.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 And so far, I have laid the proper broad strokes and your only response to my broad strokes is that you haven't worked on the detail yet. Well thank you Captain Obvious I just fucking started. It's like complaining that Michael Jordan hasn't scored 50 points yet and its only the first quarter. Be realistic man. If I'm wrong that my life is not ordered toward perfection than I am living in a matrix where no truth can be legitimately ascertained and therefore is no point to that life
frostyigloos 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frostyigloos i think it is very important to define terms. and until u do so, or until i read that book u didn't write, your arguments will continue to sound vague,esoteric,and at worst non-sensical. for instance,"But as there arise problems on this planet when everybody does whatever they want... society only exists if every societal member is striving for perfection and not imperfection".not all problems in "the world",
mebe84 6 months ago
@frostyigloos which i guess u mean to say society, "arise" from humans not striving for perfection.and fortunately societies DO exist whether or not every member strives for perfection, since obviously not everyone is, and yet society has existed for thousands of years. also, since u couldn't answer any of my other questions, perhaps u could focus on just one please.i would love to know more about this term"ordered? towards perfection".
mebe84 6 months ago
@frostyigloos doesn't sound the same as desire or preference for perfection. how do u know when something is ordered toward perfection?one more: man should strive for perfection=character=virtues=factors governing actions. do u mean to say we should strive for perfect character,which is achieved IF the virtues govern your actions?
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 OK, finally some intelligence on your end. Of course, society can exist with imperfection, I was wrong. And of course there are a large number of imperfections that society must allow in terms of law. But law isn't the best determiner of individual action, culture is. And a culture that values imperfection, is one that is a road block for its individuals' quest for perfection. Why should culture prevent individuals from becoming their best selves?
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 Something is ordered toward perfection by the simple fact that it exists, for nothing exists so that it loses its existence. Truth doesn't exist so that it can become falsity; good doesn't exist so that it can be evil. We come into existence and we are ordered toward perfect truth and goodness, not toward falsity and evil. This is not some feeling we have, this is in our nature as things that exist. And if we forget our nature and strive for imperfection, we become less human
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@frostyigloos well, i've gone back and read some of your other posts, and seen u r really hostile to others as well. but that doesn't matter much. the real problem is that u still give no real basis for your assumptions, and u still don't explain your terms in a way that would show how they relate to reality in a practical way. " for nothing exists so that it loses its existence." well thanks captain obvious(plz don't take offense,just a little harmless humor), now what does that prove?
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 Idiocy, my friend, is hostile. LOL "u still give no real basis for your assumptions" I'll just say the same thing to you, it gets us FUCKING NOWHERE. Oh did you hear about a legitimate moral system today? Fuck it, just say vague and undefined critiques against it and call it a day. If nothing exists so that it loses its existence and existence is perfect, than nothing exists so that it becomes imperfect. QED mudda fucka
frostyigloos 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@frostyigloos certaintly doesn't prove or even support the idea that " Something is ordered toward perfection by the simple fact that it exists". i really want to write much more about other flaws i think u made, but u always give way too much info(ur comments are all over the place), so maybe if i leave it at this u can respond to this one particular critique.
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 LOL this is so funny, at one point you say, wheres your proof? wheres your proof? this is incomplete. And now you say I am writing too much. LOLOLOL make up your fucking mind... do you want thoroughness or brevity? If something exists, it has something perfect about it, namely existence. But if it contains imperfections than it contains unexistence. And as you said was obvious that nothing exists so that it loses its existence...
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 ... and because unexistence is the same thing as imperfection, we have just discovered what? That nothing existence so that it contains imperfections. Q fucking ED. Welcome to the truth my man. I'll be serving up non stop servings of truth.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
once again, how does one discern that humans are "ordered toward perfection". if it is an unfounded assumption then just 'fess up and say so. it's ok. as u said, all moral systems involve at least one asumption.(of course the p.o.c. would be that it's unfounded however
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 One discovers it with their fucking intelligent brains. How do YOU discern that when you shit, you might need to wipe afterward? Any fucking person can get up on their high ass horse and say that any assumption is unfounded. It's very easy... step 1: hear an assumption; step 2: blindly say its unfounded. Done. However as my process above showed that it wasn't an assumption but was built off other truths, you CAN NO LONGER call it an assumption now can you?
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@frostyigloos so this is natural law theory?just covered with a bunch of cryptic nonsense.yur backwards logic is evident with a few simple question. do u exist? yes are u perfect? no so u exist, and u somehow "contain unexistence" at the same time.?this is nothing more than cryptic nonsense that would be more at home in theology rather than philosophy. so do i exist and not exist at same time?lol
can u still really call existence perfect if that is the case?
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 @mebe84 I have already shown this paradox. Yes, insofar as you have imperfections, you have an absence of existence. If you tell a lie, you have brought into existence absence of existence. This is called a paradox that only free choice can bring about. Evil is one giant paradox, it is the existence of imperfection, it is the existence of an absence. However good is very simple, it is perfect, it is existence.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 If you say that evil is purely unexistence, than evil wouldn't be anywhere - which is false. If you say that evil is purely existence, than what distinguishes evil from good. However, you discover what evil is when you recognize that it is the existence of unexistence.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@frostyigloos sorry to inform u but imperfection does exist. it is a reality.so either existence does not mean perfection(in your ethical sense neway)or what man considers imperfection is actually perfect. so ur argument is cryptic and nonsensical. when u say existence is perfect, u r abstracting it from reality, because in the real world nothing that exists is perfect in man's view(or in some men's views it is all perfect,either way doesn't help u).
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 ALREADY SAID IMPERFECTION EXISTS, thanks though. Please stop considering what man would think about things, please attempt some objectivity please. Imperfections exist in the same way black holes exist, both are absences. Not cryptic or nonsensical.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
existence" does not exist by itself, apart from man or nature or the universe,ect.this is the same fallacy i've seen some objectivist christians make regarding goodness;that it exists somewhere out there apart from a subject. that is the only sense in which u could claim it's perfect,
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 Please type better, I can't tell what the fuck you are saying. However, I am not talking about where, when, how, or why a thing exists. I am simply explaining existence, stay on point please. I know other candy in the candy in the candy shop looks more appealing, but right now we are buying some licorice.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@frostyigloos apart from all experience and reality as we know it.and it seems to me that "truth" should at the least bear some relation to reality.lol so "unexistence is the same thing as imperfection" if this were true then imperfection would not exist!lol and yet it does. cryptic.vague.nonsense.u seem to be a
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 define for me a few words please and we'll see who the cryptic vague and nonsensical bastard is... weakness, darkness, and unintelligence. Have a stab at that.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@frostyigloos yes i would like to know if this is something u got from aristotle, though that certaintly doesn't mean i would believe it, and i'm shocked u would even attempt to throw in that poor argument from authority, however flippant. and stop lying, u can understand what i'm writing just fine."you have brought into existence absence of existence" lol so that's not cryptic vague nonsense?
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 LOL Why don't you just follow my argument and stop trying so hard at finding out where I'm getting my views from. They are my own, so just read my words numb nuts. Again, and this time I'll simplify your homework assignment, define darkness for me.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@frostyigloos oh, and black holes are most likely not "absences" or paradoxical at all, but it doesn't really matter since our knowledge of them is so limited, it's mostly conjecture. so that gets u nowhere. i don't see how gravity,singularities,or wormholes would validate your "paradox" anyway. "that it is the existence of unexistence."lol so this sounds rational to u?
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 Define darkness right now
frostyigloos 6 months ago
"cause it sounds like something that an eastern mystic or a western "new age" crazy person would say to me. has absolutely no basis in reality. unless maybe u want to bring in some crazy quantum physics "new age" mess. hmm i wonder if the so called virtual particles are "purely existence" or "purely unexistence" lol and with the exception of said particles, isn't saying "pure existence" kinda redundant? idk lol
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 Define darkness
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@frostyigloos dark is a word used to describe the state of something that exists without light. the word darkness is an abstracted concept meaning without light. yes one could also use the term the absence of light, and although u think your clever,this does not help your point. so the defenition of darkness could be absence of light, the defenition of naked could be the absence of clothes,and empty could be the absence of anything(other than the thing that is empty).these defenitions are (con
mebe84 6 months ago
@frostyigloos con) similar to your phrase "the absence of existence" in that there is no contradiction in terms. notice however that when u say "brought into existence the absence of existence",this is a very clear contradiction in terms,as is "unexistance is the same thing as imperfection...already said imperfection exists". (cont
mebe84 6 months ago
@frostyigloos cont)therefore i don't see how the defenition of darkness helps your argument. even if darkness was some kind of real world example of a paradox(which it is not), i still don't see how it would support your particular ethical view anyway.
mebe84 6 months ago
@frostyigloos here is another whopper of a contradiction for u." If something exists, it has something perfect about it, namely existence" along with the above qoute that imperfections do in fact exist. so this means that the unexistence of imperfection exists perfectly!lol i wanted another reference for these kind of views is there are so many problems with it that need to be addressed that it would take way too long to do it like this on youtube.this little paradox issue is one among many
mebe84 6 months ago
@frostyigloos mebe ftw! lol
silence= concession?
mebe84 5 months ago
thnx for letting the crazy out and sharing your views, i would still love to know if there is something u could refer me to that would give insight into this type of ethics.
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 The truth is a crazy thing my friend, nothing more to be said about it. To exist, that is a crazy thing. But, you seem to not understand.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@frostyigloos if u click on the video (as opposed to see all comments) and scroll down past the top comments u can see all new comments in the order they were posted. makes it less confusing
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 And honestly learn the rules of punctuation and try to inform me as to when two of the posts are apart of the same argument, because It's undecipherable bullshit. But at least you're making me work.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@frostyigloos triggerhappy little young gun who took a few philosophy courses so now u think ur hot shit, and all the mysteries of existence are laid bare before u. u got it all figured out huh? maybe if u have a reference to an essay or something that would better explain ur views(since u make such obvius errors as above, u must simply be doing a bad job of explaining urself,or u r a fanatic), or if u ever write that book, i'd be glad to check it out, so let me know
mebe84 6 months ago
@mebe84 Just stop, relax, find a brown paper bag, insert mouth and breathe. My man, you are the cookie cutter, close minded, New Age, anything goes, fuck the system, no morality, fanatic, same old, same old, no original thinking, bull shit I see everyday. Just gag me already. I don't need to quote anybody, these things I'm talking about are very obvious. Do you want me to put quote marks around the things I say followed by Aristotle for you to finally believe them or are you more mature?
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 Again, this is the paradox of free choice. It can create other things, it can change things. But, we don't applaud when free choice is exercised, this is silly. We applaud when an agent even when faced with the choice of evil and self-profit, chooses the good.
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 Perfection for man is not found in anything else other than his/her character, which is a collection of every virtue (major 4 being prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance). There is no "if" virtues govern your actions, they just do. The better one's virtues (the more prudent, the more just, the more fortitudinous, the more temperate), the better the character and therefore the closer to perfection one is. Now how does this model of the individual relate to society?
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 Society has both a cultural aspect and a legal aspect. Its culture should promote all these virtues and if it does not than its members should change the culture. The law end of it is way more tricky because making a law, even though it maybe a good law, that is not grounded in the culture of the time, is worthless. Law don't promote anything, they prohibit. Now there are some things that are evil that should not be prohibited by law. Why?
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@mebe84 Because to enforce such a law would create an intolerable government. It is this toleration that should determine whether any law gets passed. But, culture should always promote every good act no matter what, and of course law should never pass a bad law. Culture promotes the good life, Law should prevent the worst forms of life (and should tolerate the less evil forms of life). Culture is therefore more important than Law
frostyigloos 6 months ago
@Blastodermic Whoever said that right and wrong had anything to do with pain. OK now we get down to your ethics, if its determined by the majority. The majority elected Adolph Hitler, sport. The act of genital stimulation is only a reproductive function, you can say that it is simply a pleasurable activity and only that, but that is a lie. If you stimulate your genitals while intentionally closing procreative capability (and if it is not given in love to another) then that is immoral.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic I don't know why I'm doing this, but I am. It is readily evident that when you hear that someone is a Christian, you immediately tag them with a host of views. DO NOT DO THIS. Christians are people too actually, so open up your mind and ask them what they think on issues instead of automatically assuming. Only use what they say. It looks incredibly immature when you start tagging someone with views they don't hold, not only immature but it is also shows no respect or quality
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic You are a total idiot. Crossing an imaginary line? are talking about having sex? Not very imaginative at all. In fact, very real, and very immoral. If you can't have sex with someone then you obviously can't "love them as a sexual partner", but you can still love them. NONE OF MY ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN BASED ON FAITH, please, for the love of God, stop saying this. But even if they were, it does not matter where the truth comes from as long as its the truth
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic No, you idiot - learn to differentiate between my subjective feelings and an objective ethical system, learn it please. Because sex outside of procreation is a contradiction, like saying I'm going to walk without using my legs, or I'm going to read a book without using my eyes.
By the way, you are also using your naturalistic fallacy. It is natural for us to avoid pain therefore we should have a rule barring pain. So please, shut the fuck up about the damn naturalistic fallacy.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I CARE ABOUT. Any form of immorality is extremely harmful and must be corrected. That being said, Christianity is merciful at its heart and accepts the seriousness of suffering.
Literally, you are seriously stupid. I am not even going to dignify that load of shit with a response. I think you know how seriously misguided this is. The Church allows you to love anybody and everybody. But they also accept the limits of sexual interaction, not a hard concept
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic cornerstone of the most dangerously flawed ethical systems. You see emotions and feelings have nothing to do with action - which is what concerns ethics. Putting a grenade in your mouth is wrong not because it hurts but because you are misusing the grenade and misusing the function of eating. Sex IS an expression of love and an opportunity for procreation, nobody can deny this. Sex is a function just like any other and can be used appropriately or not - Ethics 101
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic So simple minded. Christianity never condoned murder of any kind. It accepts all people regardless of circumstance, condition, or situation. But, it does challenge us to overcome our circumstances, conditions, and situations. I have many predispositions toward immorality that I give in to frequently, and I am wrong for doing so. People that give in to their homosexual predispositions are no different in their wrongdoing. At the end of the day, we all have our battles to fight
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic I haven't the foggiest as to how this is so unclear to you. For the twentieth time, sex is an expression of love and an opportunity for procreation. Once again, it is immoral if the man intentionally ejaculates outside of the woman's vagina as this is an intentional closing of the opportunity for procreation. Please, please, please, please, please, pretty please read my comments before responding. Chill out with the radically absurd questions over there
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Sweet, got some horrendous logic here, let me show you. So... you get to have unprovable premises but I do not. You also get to make premises that have nothing to do with ethics and I do not. Moreover, if suffering is bad, then people who accidentally hurt themselves are in some kind of moral wrong doing in your eyes. People who get old are living immorally. People with natural defects are living immorally. My friend, pain has nothing to do with ethics
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Opportunity for procreation... It is ethically wrong to intentionally close this opportunity. Is it an intentional closing if you biologically cannot produce sperm? no. Intentional if you do not have a womb? no. Intentional if you are pregnant? no. Intentional if a man intentionally ejaculates anywhere outside a vagina? Absolutely. Intentional with a condom on? Absolutely. Intentional if two dudes or two women do it? Absolutely. Fill in the blanks for any other scenario.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic I finally now know how utterly incapable you are of reading and understanding another persons arguments. You sir are extremely close minded, not open to foreign views, and deeply, deeply entrenched in whatever you are doing. ANY person who has been reading this stream would know that I have been saying that sex is an expression of love an opportunity for procreation, simply because that is what sex is. Ethically, it is immoral to use a thing, which has limits, outside said limits
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Please, you are dull. What do you define as harmless? physically harmless? emotionally? intellectually?.
I am basing mine on a wholistic view of nature, while you are not. Do you see how two can play your game?
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Just as a test, give me an ethical reason as to why swallowing live grenades is wrong
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Please be aware that I have already condemned said things
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Please be aware of what I have already condemned, sir, and stop returning to the "I only condemn homosexuals" argument that I have time and again said that it is not the case, as I condemn anything I see that is wrong
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic I ALREADY HAVE CONDEMNED EVERY SINGLE SEXUAL ACT THAT OCCURS WITHOUT PROCREATION IN MIND. You are irritatingly incapable of reading words. "Of course, you just attack homosexuals?" You, my friend, need to stop assuming things. I do not, nor never have attacked homosexuals. I am firmly against homosexual activity, I am also against heterosexual activity without procreation in mind. In fact, I have only actually attacked my heterosexual friends for contracepting. Nice try though
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Procreation is always possible with a sperm and an egg. Men carry sperm and women carry eggs therefore procreation is only possible with men and women. Now there may be some defects that alter production of these things but they are secondary. Why should procreation matter? Because that is the end goal of sex my friend. Babies with surrogates? Are you that blitheringly stupid? One of the men is simply unrelated to the child. WHY is adoption now in this?????
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic I never condemn love because it is a good thing. But if you are going to express love sexually then you and your partner must be expressing love and attempting to procreate. What this entails necessarily is condemning homosexual activity, as well as heterosexual activity that is not both based on these things. Surely you don't call me bigoted for condemning heterosexual activity because you cannot think outside the boundaries of today's culture who are telling you what to think
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic ONCE AGAIN, "Infertile" heterosexual couples will always have the opportunity, however small, for procreation. ONCE AGAIN, sex must involve an honest attempt at procreation, if it does not it is immoral because it is a misuse of it. Is this FINALLY clear to you? Don't EVER assume you know WHAT I am basing my views on, when I base them on biology, ethics, philosophy, sociology, as well as faith.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Simple analogy: Eating has guidelines just like sex. You would not feed your baby live hand grenades, because eating is used to increase the overall health of the body. Similarly, you cannot have two same sexed persons engaging in intercourse because sex is for love AND procreation. Surely you would not call me a bigot for condemning feeding infants live hand grenades. Surely my irrational, illogical faith is not wrong here. Things have natural properties, go learn them.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic ONCE AGAIN. Sex = Love + Procreation. Procreation is never possible with two men or two women in the sexual act. If two men or two women have sex they are grossly misusing it, by leaving out half of the equation. Tell me where any bigotry, any mention of faith, any of what you mentioned is and I will happily concede. You are a textbook, open shut case of an irritated modernist, nothing refreshing or insightful, just beat me over the head with the same failed bull shit.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic I have most assuredly read more books and attended more lectures taught by far better professors than you on the subject. So far you keep repeating the same bull shit that I have responded to time and again. I HAVE provided you with THE ethical reason for the immorality of homosexual acts. Not only this but I have done this minus prejudice, in fact I do it in friendship (you probably don't even personally know a gay person) and minus ANY theological arguments. Do a bit better kid.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic OK first please mature a little bit intellectually and start thinking for yourself, not what modern culture has been blasting in your face. I never used the damn Bible for ANY of my arguments against homosexuality. Please since you are throwing around the term ethical, tell me your definition of ethics. Ethics concern fulfilling the natures of agents. That is THE definition. Please learn the nuances between nature and how you use natural. One involves being, the other emotion
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic You are so utterly locked in on this extremely misplaced counterargument. I am saying that it is natural for man to follow his wishes, uninhibited. The naturalistic fallacy would be to say that you can do anything you want. I am laying a very old groundwork for recognizing the bounds of sex that I have drawn from what sex is and what therefore is acceptable accordingly. If you cannot lay a basis for laws in nature, then the laws cannot possibly apply to nature dwelling creatures
frostyigloos 1 year ago
Craig, with all of his words is basically saying that the bodily resurrection of Christ happened because it says it in the bible and the bible is completely reliable. Wow! A great way to make something incredible (like a miracle) completely credible and plausible.
Are the gospels historically accurate? Not very. Did Jesus exist? probably. Did he perform miracles? Probably not. Did he rise from the dead? Probably not. Can historians prove that it is plausible that Jesus rose from the dead? No!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Craig is brilliant. His arguments sound perfectly valid if you don't think about it too much, which most people obviously won't. Anyone smart enough to recognize that his arguments are fucking terrible already disagrees with him anyway.
GBart 1 year ago
I love how WLC in debates always claims that his opponent "did nothing to challenge my argument of ________." As if the only job of a debating opponent is to pander to WLC's proposed arguments and play counter-punch with Craig. Has Craig ever considered that people have arguments OF THEIR OWN that are not related to his, and stand quite well on their own?
capoman1 1 year ago
@Blastodermic "naturalistic fallacy" is not a damn law, in fact it is incorrect. The point of morality is to bridge the gap between man as he is now with man as he should be. Man as he should be is one that is at one with his sexuality. Because sex = love + procreation, Catholic sexuality morality is the only means to achieving the state of man as he should be. An "ought" must always be derived from an "is"
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic I am not saying natural because that is a term loaded with extra meaning. It is evident that human morality is based on achieving the end or telos of what human nature provides. The ultimate ends of human sexuality are the expression of love AND the openness to procreation at the same time. That human sexuality is pleasing is secondary and cannot be considered as the proximate motive. This is all encompassed in the "nature" (different meaning) of human sexuality.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Nazism is clear in its racial policies, no doubt about it. The Church is clear in its openness to all peoples, no doubt about it. Fact, deal.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Absolutely ignorant to think that a theory should be thrown away because some deem it impractical. You are Mr. Morals over there. Are morals based on practicality? No. Why is it hilarious to condemn murder and also to condemn the destruction of the sexual act? Why is it hilarious to promote a coherent and non-contradictory morality? People engage in illicit sex because it is pleasing, people also engage in stealing because it is pleasing. Does pleasure determine morality? No
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic I would have thought the atheist would be all about biology. I do not ignore the issue of infertile couples as I have solved it above. Morals, as you should know, are based on who we are as rational animals. Sex is not an end, it is a means of expressing deep love for your partner that produces offspring. Marriage is the only way to confirm this deep love. So therefore only married couples with an acceptance of the possibility of procreation can have sex.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Its not ignorant, its biology, take a class. Like I said (read) "intent to procreate". There is always a chance that there will be pregnancy, so the "infertile" couple can have sex. Couples who have sex must open to the possibility of a child, if the couple has sex and upon discovering the pregnancy kill the child they have committed a grave moral evil. Again, sex = love + procreation. Dont insult my intelligence.
Politely I will inform you that you have no clue what they do.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Sex has two necessary parts: love for your partner and intent to procreate. If you have one and not the other or you have neither, then sex is an immoral act.
Clearly, you have no idea what the Church does
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic I do not find it acceptable. Like I said the statistics are the same for secular schools and religious schools, so the 4% applies equally to the secular schools. I do not know how the Church should relate to secular authorities, but rest assured those priests do not go unpunished, which is all you want to see anyway. It doesnt matter who punishes them, as long as they are.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic None of it is moral. Homosexual acts or pedophilic acts. Its not corrupt, when it punishes the offenders and forgives them after their punishment is met. And if secular authorities punish them its their right, but no matter what secular authorities have no more right to punish the priest than do religious. And you have no idea what the extent of their punishments are so do not act like you do.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic History shows Christians doing horrible antisemitic things. History also shows Christians working against antisemitism. People that are Christians never told you anything definitive about Christianity itself. I assume you are atheist. Instead of using another monotheistic religion to defend your arguments, use something a little less contradictory. It only increases my suspicion that you are not really atheist but simply hate Christianity and nothing else
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Again, it was people in the Catholic Church that were anti-semitic, not the institution itself. The same applies for pedophilia, which is a misnomer, a majority of those cases do not involve legally-defined children, it should be homosexual problem. But again the number of cases like this in the US is around 4% and it is the same number for priests in the Church. So instead of inflating an issue and saying that they "get away" with something check facts.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Please refrain from making generalities about a person you do not know, it can make you look ignorant. Jews and Romans were blamed for killing Christ because they did this is not anti-semitic. They were not blaming all jews because if they were then all jews would include Christ, which is pure nonsense. My religion never condoned the killing of any innocent persons thank you very much. Islam is pretty clear in what it allows, but again I have much respect for Islam.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic I'm Catholic dude, Martin Luther means just about as much to me as Adolph Hitler. I will rephrase then, Catholicism never accepted anti-Semitism. Is this a no true scotsman? My argument is A (Catholicism) can never include B (anti-Semitism). To say that one who is A but is also B is an automatic contradiction because of the initial premise. This is different from the no true scotsman
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic If you cannot point to one tenet of Christianity that is inherently anti-Semitic than we are done. If you are saying that some people used Christianity for the wrong reasons I would agree with you. But, if the conversation continues like this then I am done.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic aside from the proof that many external sources to the Bible can support? Especially Jewish sources who call Christ's work "witchcraft"?
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic below
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic If you can give me one instance of Christianity being inherently anti-Semitism instead of assuming it, it would actually look like you know what you are talking about. You have no idea as to a person's motivations so please see the error of your argument. There is nothing that is anti-Semitic about Christianity
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic If there are supposed witnesses then you just have to start comparing the religions. The miracle argument that I provide below should suffice
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Whatever Christianity that you think would lead to murder is simply a false one. Do you realize that the Catholic Church is the single largest institution that protected Jews during the Holocaust, Pope Pius saved around 750,000 Jews.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Blastodermic Christianity cannot motivate one to murder. It is their own sinfulness, and not Christianity that is the motivator. Freedom of speech is generally a good thing
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Panosl What would those witnesses be?
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@Panosl Dont be ignorant. People have been critical and flat out denied Christianity since Christ. I dont deny that some Christians did horrible things. A nice elementary logic class would tell you that this fact would not deny the validity of the religion itself. If I said a knife is made primarily to cut things, and somebody used the knife to wipe their ass, does that mean that the knife must not have been primarily made to cut things? Go ahead say no.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
It is interesting to note that the risen Christ, in the Gospels, reveals Himself to a crowd of hundreds. Throughout His entire life, He works miracles in the presence of many. No other religious figure ever claims such openness. Just look at Muhammad and Joseph Smith and many more, all private revelations. But if the Gospels claim that many saw the risen Christ, then either it's true or ridiculously false. And if ridiculously false, then why did it take 2000 years for man to finally see it.
frostyigloos 2 years ago
Google Sathya Sai Baba. Further, lots of Christian saints over the last 2 thousand years have claimed all sorts of magic powers. The last church I belonged to had the priest claiming their super monks could levitate, teleport, and be in two places at once.
tkovrtwrld 2 years ago
I have not seen one definitive public miracle on this guy. Its also apparent you dont have any sense of logic. You are saying because you had one whack job priest that the religion itself is wrong. Use basic common sense. The fact that LOTS of Christian saints over the last 2000 year (and still as we speak) have done many inexplicable things should be an indicator. Compare one Sathya Sai Baba operating under his own tradition, to the thousands of saints operating under one single tradition
frostyigloos 2 years ago
Because primtive people believe anything they hear without question.
Ilikejpgs 2 years ago
What makes you think that I don't question the Church?
frostyigloos 2 years ago
I meant primitive people. Several hundred or several thousand years ago.
Ilikejpgs 2 years ago
What makes you think that they didnt either?
frostyigloos 2 years ago
Because they didn't have modern science to fill in the questions like we have today.
Ilikejpgs 2 years ago
Can Science really answer whether there is a God? If we should love each other? What the right religion is? No, it cannot, it never can, so we are still in the same position that 'primitive people' were
frostyigloos 2 years ago
Science can't answer all those question but it can answer other ones that primtive people could not.
Ilikejpgs 2 years ago
And I agree with you
frostyigloos 2 years ago
@frostyigloos It's neither the first nor last ridiculously false story to take root.
Your gospels didn't begin to be written until several decades after the purported events, and were not settled on as a canon until the 4th century at the Nicence Council.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 so in order for the gospels to be valid they must have been written during the events as if the writers could predict what they were writing would be important - nonsense. After christ and before the writing of the gospels there was still spoken tradition that was divinely inspired.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos To think that the lord of the universe jumped down onto earth, crawled out of a virgin, walked on water, raised dead bodies, then died himself and came back to life....and noone bothered to write about it until 40 years later?
What is your standard of accuracy for spoken tradition? Claiming it was divinely inspired is a circular argument.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 what is the best way to spread this good news, by writing it on a paper you hope will reach your audience or by actually going and speaking to your audience. Come on man, think.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos So if you heard from someone, who heard from someone, who heard from someone [....continue back 40+ years...] that someone saw an empty tomb and concluded the body must have risen from the dead, would you believe it?
Have you ever played the game telephone? How accurately do you think a game of telephone played across 40 years would preserve the original story, if there was even any truth to the original?
Come on man, think.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 40+ years for that time is pretty quick when considering the flow of information. they traveled all over the known world to tell the people and still forty years later started to write the events. Id say they were pretty damn busy. How the Apostles spread the Good News tells nothing about the Good News itself, whether it took them 4 minutes to write the events or forty, it does not change a thing.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos What you seem not to realize: Paul's letters precede the first gospel, and he make no mention of the birth stories, the miracles, the parables or the empty tomb. So you have to believe that Paul stringently ignored these details when writing about jesus, and then after Paul someone accurately recalled all these details; and that noone else outside the disciples saw fit to record these events.
Josephus wrote extensively about Herod, but never mentioned the massacre, for example.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 you seem not to realize that Paul was not writing to set all the facts straight. He was writing to believers who already knew the whole story, and he just wanted to clarify the implications of Jesus' story.
God's revelation works through humans so therefore it takes time for it to fully unfold.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos You seem not to realize you're using backwards logic, to make excuses for the lack of credibility in the scriptures. Which is more likely: 1) Paul corresponded with multiple christian communities over several years without once mentioning events from jesus' life and then these events are credibly recorded 40+ years after they supposedly occurred; or 2) The gospels are an embellishment of a simpler jesus story?
Appealing to revelation is circular.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 we do not have all of Paul's correspondence with Christian communities so you cannot say accurately that he never discussed these things. Again, he related the events of Christs life when he physically visited the communities.
How can you trust a history book that discusses Greek history when the events they narrate happened 2500+ years after the fact. Give me a time period between any historical event and the recording of this event on paper that would be credible.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@punnet2 Which is more likely: George Washington was a truly outstanding man or someone made him up?
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos It is more likely that Washington is historical (not sure what "outstanding" has to do with it). There are myths attached to George Washington -- like the story of the cherry tree -- but were we to treat Washington entirely as a myth, we would be left with gaping holes in history: Who won the Revolutionary War? Who was the 1st President? No such holes are created by treating jesus as a myth; the events to which he is attached are only found (with embellishments) in the gospels.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 Treating jesus as a myth leaves the biggest hole of all: is there really a god who is all-caring or not? (But of course this means little to you) So how do we know which elements of Washington's story are myth or not? You will never have visual proof. You can only have faith. You are doing the same thing I am doing except you end up rejecting Him based on the time period it took to write a book about Him way after His departure
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos Yes. god means nothing to me, without evidence. With Washington we have multiple independent accounts corroborating the events of his life -- and certainly no supernatural claims, as with jesus. The evidence for supernatural claims must necessarily be greater. The Revolutionary War and the Presidency (and with them, Washington) are significant to the historical timeline. Jesus and his miracles are not; they are significant to noone but christians.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 the bible contains many independent sources. And there are numerous independent sources outside the bible. The fact that the risen Christ appeared to thousands after his resurrection and has not been disproven by any source of that time is proof enough. How can you say that the fact that God made man curing the sick miraculously would only be significant to Christians. Whether you believe in Christ or not, it is significant to all man. Washington is only significant to Americans
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos There are not independent sources. If you're thinking of Josephus, Suetonius and Tacitus, those are references to christians, and not jesus. The Josephus reference in particular is generally accepted as a forgery, presumably by Eusebius. Once again, Josephus did not record the Herodian massacre, nor did anyone else outside of Matthew (not even the other gospels).
It is not anyone's task to disprove the post-resurrection appearances, it is your task to prove them.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 just wikipedia search historicity of jesus. It is proven by the writings in the Gospels. OK, then you must prove that the Roman Empire existed, which you cannot do with 100% certainty unless you can time travel.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos How do the gospels prove jesus any more than than the Iliad proves Achilles? We have archaeological evidence of the Roman Empire from Britain to Africa. And again, the history of the Roman Empire entails no supernatural claims.
History will necessarily have gaps and uncertainties, but we can attempt assessment based on available evidence (and modify our assessments should we find new evidence). There is however no credible evidence whatsoever for jesus.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 you cannot disregard something because it entails something supernatural - this would merely show your close mindedness. The Gospels prove Jesus because it was written and because of its truth people believe in it today. Even Christianity's worst opponents in the beginning did not refute Christ's existence because they knew He did. You clearly do not know all the extra Scriptural evidence for Christ.
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos I am not disregarding it as you say -- but the burden of proof for supernatural claims is necessarily greater than for natural ones. If that burden is not met, it is not close-minded to reject the claim. Once again, saying the gospels prove jesus is circular. They no more prove jesus than the Iliad proves Achilles.
You clearly do not know the extra scriptural evidence for christ, or you would have provided it by now, instead of running in circles as you've been doing.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 ok here is the list... the 12 apostles, other disciples, other forgers that wrote synoptic gospels that Christian roundly rejected but still they attest to Christs existence, dead sea scrolls, early Church fathers, josephus, pliny, tacitus, suetonius, mara bar sarapion, thallus, lucian, celsus, and even the talmud
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos
1. Um, how are the apostles/disciples external to scripture?
2. It took until the 4th century for christians to decide which to keep and reject, by popular vote. The four they decided to keep still contradict each other.
3. The dead sea scrolls do not attest to jesus. In fact, since they date to the time and place that jesus supposedly lived in, their lack of mention casts further doubt on his existence.
4. The remaining ones are simply evidence of christianity, not christ.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 Why is it an issue that they would sort out the forgers and liars from the truth in the 4th century. The fact that they are contradictory in the minor things (miracles and not Christs death and resurrection) shows that they were recounting things and not corroborating a lie (they did not make them together, they made them on their own). From the Talmud: "It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu" Simply put, you are in a small minority if you believe Christ did not exist
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos It is an issue because: It took them 3 centuries to figure out some of the gospels -- and the beliefs attached to them -- were wrong? And they settled the matter by popular vote -- as if 3 centuries later, the majority somehow "knew" which gospels were correct?
The gospels do not differ in merely minor details. Luke has jesus born during the governorship of Quirinius, 9 years after Herod's reign. Matthew is the only one who remembered the massacre and earthquakes (not minor)
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 the Apostles who wrote the Gospels were not expert historians, most of them were not even educated. They were fishermen. Only after researching something thoroughly can you decide the authenticity of something, you should be all for this. So you are using the fact of forgeries that mention the existence of Christ as a proof of the non-existence of Christ. Dont switch your argument from the existence of Christ to the authenticity of the Gospels, please
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos If you're admitting the gospels (in their current form) contain inauthentic content (not to mention translation and clerical errors over centuries of copying), by what criteria do you determine what the authentic content is? Why do you assume the earliest gospel is free of inauthentic details, written 40 years after the supposed events?
You are using the gospels to affirm the existence of christ. So if the authenticity of the gospels are in question, so is his existence.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 Christianity's biggest opponent in its inception was Judaism. It would make sense that if Christ never existed then Christianity's nemesis would easily call them out on it and be done with it. But because Christ was in the public arena and extremely popular for three years, the Talmud even accepts His existence. Case closed, Christ existed
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos First of all: When is the Talmud dated to?
Secondly: The accounts are incongruous: The Talmud mentions stoning, a herald calling for 40 days and the execution of 5 disciples -- none of these details are in the gospel accounts (or Paul).
Josephus was Jewish, and writes nothing oppositional to christianity in his histories.
Case not closed. No case to being with.
punnet2 1 year ago
@punnet2 Absolutely ludicrous to think that the Jews would somehow forget that Christ never existed only 200 years after the start of a mass Jewish exodus to Christianity, and accidentally say that He did. The Gospels tell us that Jesus was very popular in the public sphere. So if this is a lie, the Jews have the easiest job imaginable, just tell people this guy never existed. They did not do this because that would be like telling your friend that Barack Obama doesnt exist. Case closed
frostyigloos 1 year ago
@frostyigloos Absolutely ludicrous to think Jews living contemporary to jesus would not record the aforementioned events (especially Josephus, a historian, who wrote explicitly about Herod's reign). You seem not to want to face this.
punnet2 1 year ago