Who are these people to judge? Keep in mind the bible (just as all holy books) has been changed for someone's benefit (take King James). All we can really do is follow the golden rule of any faith: do unto others as you would want them to do for you. I'm not that much into religion, but I'm pretty sure a mass murderer won't go to a better place just because he places his or her faith in a belief.
@honeyblossom17 Adam fell to sin, and ever since every single human that's been born is lacking the Love of God by nature, becoming corrupt and ''evil'', because of Adam's fall to sin. He wants to forgive us for our wrongdoings, and so He sent his Son, so that whoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting Life.
This video reeks of mind controlling content designed to scare the crap out of people into accepting a fictional messiah. Wise up everyone for once in your lives! There is no such thing. Religion is nothing more than an age old scam playing on the fears of good people. Whenever you disect religion, the whole concept begins to fall apart. This is because it was written by ignorant people in a time where they didn;t no any better. Smarten up and get with the times!!
Hi. Religion is rubbish. There is no heaven to be accepted into. God isn't real so there is no love or hate beyond this physical existence. Just like before you were born, nothing existed to you because you didn't exist and nothing will once again after your body ceases to function. Evverything you were ever taught about any religion is nothing but man made tripe. The human ego is too fragile to accept there IS and end to our existence. Quit worrying about it and go live before it's too la
This video is so beyond hate, wicked and evil, it's a shame that this person does not know it! It saids that no matter the good works that a person does it is nothing but like a ''fitthy rag'', how can a ''good'' and ''loving'' god THINK THIS!? And how is this message in ANY WAY of love!?
@sonofcohen "As a christian" i find it odd you would be against a video that preaches the Gospel message because of carnal reasons. I never said I was an expert video maker or knew how to do crazy effects. Nor was it my purpose to entertain people.
@JesusforLife2 - why is it the people who worship the God of crativity are so uncreative. Who is your target audience that youa re trying to reach with this? The lost? You think arguing using a bible they don't believe in is a good place to start? Here is my point. There a million "christian" videos on youtube, what you are trying to say has already been said...many times. And if you can't do it better or with more love, then you are just adding to the noise. I know you think your helping but...
@sonofcohen That statement makes zero sense, I don't understand how following God should equal us being able to please everyone carnally. Not only the lost, but Christians who are in error concerning this topic. So Im not allowed to preach the Gospel unless I out-do those who allready preach? I think i'll stick to what the Bible says when it says "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature". And yes arguing anything that doesnt involve the Bible is pointless.
@JesusforLife2 if you were a preacher in the pulpit, but it was obvious to everyone else that your gift was not in preaching but in something else, would you still argue that you should be in the pulpit, my point is...some people are gifted by God to communicate, you don't seem to be one of them. We have to first lead people lovingly to understand the validity of the Bible, thumping them on the head probably doesn't work to well. Some people are addicted to the argument..might you be one of them
@sonofcohen this vid is only the cold hard truth. no one comes to the father unless he comes to me,jesus is the only way, no short cuts no quick fix. just jesus follow him all you days let him be your light. and then you will find peace. amen
@tomato6999 I never opposed the content, just the presentation. I would argue that the true however isn't cold, this video is, but the truth isn't. Jesus told the truth with creativity love and warmth. The music is so annoying in this video that I couldn't even watch the whole thing.
The baseline is that there is no way to actually prove there's a god, so you have faith. Faith in yourself that you believe without seeing with your own eyes. And honestly, that's not good enough for me.
Personally, I'd like to go on with more questions if you don't mind.
@MrTheAlexLand If your definition of proof is 5 sense verification, then yes I can't prove God exists. I find it odd that you find it not good enough to believe in for that reason yet you believe God doesnt exist without 5 sense verification which contradicts yourself. There are many things you take on with faith in your life. Your whole premise of empiricism is self-refuting anyway, you cant empirically prove empiricism. You have constructed a worldview based on an irrational frame of thought.
@JesusforLife2 So you're saying that's you can't prove god with concreate evidence, but have faith and my view is self-refuting, etc. Ok, so basically you believe in god because that's what the bible tells you. Perfectly fine. But you if really examine the book, you'll find loads of stuff then it says for you to, but you don't. Why? Because we're civilize. If you my post below you'll see there's many wicked things said it the bible. How can you accept the bible?
So you believe in god because of the bible and you accept it as truth. How can you believe in a god where "his" book is full of evil things? Since the only connection to god is through bible. And I'm not saying the bible isn't filled with good things too, it's just that I thought god was suppose to be completely righteous. You say he is righteous when the only connection to him has evil inside. That's the contradiction. Please explain.
utter poppycock mate,turn or burn is false teaching,no1 is sent into eternal punishment for all eternity.....i commend your zeal but ye have zeal without knowledge
"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8). "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46).
Jesus taught turn or burn my friend: "I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." - Luke 13:3.
@JesusforLife2 the translation of these words from the greek and hebrew are innacurate,especially when you say eternal,do your homework my friend,study to show thyself approved,....1corinthians15;22,for as in adam all die,even so in christ shall ALL be made alive.....all means all,God does not lie.1tim4;10for therefore we both labour and suffer reproach,because we trust in the living God,who is the saviour of ALL men,specially of those that believe(not exclusively of those who believe!)
the silence is deafening,whats wrong cant you find scripture that contradicts this?......didnt think so because it doesnt exsist,these and literally dozens of other scriptures blow the eternal punishment doctrine clean out of the water,you either believe that Jesus came to save the whole world and suceeded(like scripture CLEARLY states)or you can quite frankly throw your bible in the garbage.i am not against you,i know how you think as ive been there myself...
@david1611kjv I assume you're talking tome, so I'll reply. Scripture that contradicts? Well, where to start. Imagine if christianity used its ancient principles like islam does today.(next post for this.) And you think you've thought like me? You have not. I live with reason. I question everything. My mind is free. If I don't know something I strive to figure it out. With chirstianity, it's "Oh, god did it." It's a cage. If you have once thought like me then you wouldn't still be trapped
@MrTheAlexLand no i wasnt asking you,it is directed at jesusforlife2 who posted these videos.lol....seems to not have much response to me....see the whole comments it might let you in on my way of thinking...:¬)
@david1611kjv I tend not to respond to people who get ridiculously emotional like yourself and especially atheists who takes things on a personal level, niether am I interested in argueing with someone who is allready saved. Read this article for my position on it:
Google search first link: carm helleternal
Especially the part under "Is "forever and ever" without end?
@JesusforLife2 if you wish to give your side please do it with scripture as i have and dont refer me to the pathetic c.a.r.m website,they allow every other viewpoint on there except that of universal salvationists like myself.the reason they do not allow open debate on this subject is because they have no answers to our strong scriptural base of belief...and neither do you my friend,ponder those scriptures and start spreading the real good news,not the most burn in hell story coz thats bad news
matt slick of the c.a.r.m website knows finewell his site would be a sham if he allowed christian universalists onto it,although he will freely allow people from all religions and denominations to post and share opinion...gotta ask yourself why my friend????? il tell you why its because he has the most browsed`christian`site on this planet and doesnt want to lose face by not providing solid scripural evidence in favour of his beliefs
@david1611kjv Genesis chapter 19, verse 30-38, Lot's daughter get him drunk and sleep with him. They have their father's baby. That's incest. Do we still use this today? No. Exodus chapter 21, this whole chapter, deicated to slavery. How long to have them. It says the slave's own child goes to the master. Terrible. Do we still use slavery today? No. Deuteronmony chapter 21, verse 28-31, it says that is a child is stubborn and doesn't follow the rules, stone him to death. Today? Not a chance.
I'm sure this is just comedy, because you can't be serious. If it's not then I honestly feel sorry for you. Completely brainwashed into this religious bs. If you read, reply back. I'll be happy to ask you numerous questions that you won't be able to answer. Why? Because there is no god.
@JesusforLife2 Alright, first of all, I'm terribly sorry how that last message came out, I just had an absolutely awful day and I'm very sorry. Even though I'm completely athiest, that doesn't mean people can't believe what they want, and I have nothing against people with different ways of thinking than I do.
I know for a fact that Catholics know exactly how to get to Heaven. I have been to Catholic Church and schools and I know we know how to get into Heaven. They never said acts get us to Heaven. Faith, Repentance, and Grace do. Saying that other forms of Christianity are going to Hell are narrow minded thoughts, and sinful. I don't think you really know what Catholic teachings are. They teach that no one deserves Heaven. I need to get that out because Catholics are always being bad mouthed.
@StormBlac Then you are decieved my friend if you believe its a fact. According to the Roman Catholic church you must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc. Not to mention the list on unbiblical beliefs such as purgatory and praying to saints who cant hear you anyway. Its Jesus Christ ALONE for salvation.
@JesusforLife2 I Believe in Jesus Christ. I am Baptized. I receive Eucharist and other Sacraments. But the Catholic Church does not act like a dictatorship. It does say that we should perform good deeds and live righteous lives. Catholics don't say you must be sinless. Purgatory is a Catholic theory for Old Testament people like Abraham who never received Jesus until he was born, so they didn't go to Hell. God probably gave saints the power to bless not save. Only God can save. Saints can hear.
@Quitarstudent Exactly, atheists dont care about truth. All they want to do is live life their way and be god of their own life. They suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. The sad thing is you have no freedom, you are a slave to sin in bondage. You are controlled by your father Satan. God loves you and desires you not to perish but have everlasting life. Jesus willingly shed his bood for you on the cross. All he requires is your repentance and faith. You're not ready to die sinner.
@JesusforLife2 1. I like to live my way ,cuz god isnt living my life 2. I have more freedom and free time than u spending hours of prayring and thinking about "God"
3. Yes im totally controled by my father satan xD \m/
@Qui Thats the problem, you arent living your life for God who created you and sustains your very existence. Your "free" time consists of searching for that next "feel good" sensation which only comes by repeating an act of sin. The sad reality being you are never fulfilled or satisfied and only are destroying yourself diving into sin. I have been freed from the bondage you are in and dont have to repeat an act for the Love of Jesus Christ is true fulfillment. I can only pray he did die for you.
@gerardpieisyummy Its another false religion such as Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses who slap the "christian" label on them, but they all are not Christian and will be sent to hell on judgment day.
@JesusforLife2 Wait what. Catholicism is one of the original branches of Christianity, if not THE original Christian religion, which turns out to be a cheap rip off of Juadism. Also on top of that all Christian religions are all pretty much the same thing anyway. So, Christians who all believe in the same god (who also happens to be the same one the Jews believe in) are all going to hell even though the pray and worship the same person which ever branch you belong to does?
@gerardpieisyumm Roman Catholicism was formed with Constantine who tried to incorporate all religious practices into one. Thats why they have many unbiblical practices. Judaism turned into Christianity with Jesus Christ. There was no "rip-off". Thats why Jews will be going to hell unless they have Jesus Christ as their saviour/messiah that they reject. They do not worship the same God thats why they are not Christian. Islam denies trinity and Jesus' divinity. Mormons say Jesus was "created" etc.
Thank you for making a video which so clearly exemplifies the immoral, irrational, and just plain stupid tenets of Christianity.
If there is a heaven - IT SHOULD HAVE TO BE EARNED. Belief does not make someone a better person, or make the world a better place - ACTIONS do. Feeding the homeless, giving to charity, taking care of the poor and sick and needy THESE THINGS HELP OTHERS AND CREATE CHANGE. Belief DOES NOT. And there is NO PROOF that Jesus was the Son of God, or for his resurrection.
Your name explains you perfectly. Only someone full of foolish pride believes one can "earn" the favor of a perfectly sinless and just God. The only way to earn favor is by living a sinless life, only Jesus accomplished that and he did it because he loves you and desires you not to get what you deserve for sin which is eternal torment in hell. The only thing that needs to change is your wicked heart of disbelief sinner. Jesus offers you eternal life through repentance and faith.
You did not respond to my points. Belief does not make someone a better person, or help others, or help the world. Yet your evil God puts 100% emphasis on belief instead of actions? That is IMMORAL. "wicked heart of disbelief" - so anyone who does not believe in your God is wicked? That's why Christianity is also irrational, thanks for showing it brilliantly. God has provided NO PROOF Jesus died for our sins, resurrected, or that he was God's son, but we are "required" to believe? NO WAY.
You are a very religious atheist who knows how to glorify your father Satan. The sad part is you are just a puppet being controlled and are a slave to sin. Only Jesus can deliver you form the bondage of sin. God loves you and desires you not to perish, but have everlasting life. Jesus willingly shed his blood as a payment for your sins. All he requires is your repentance and faith. You need to humble yourself sinner and drop your foolish pride before he drags you deep into the lake of fire.
thanks once again for not responding to any of my points....
You're completely stupid. You don't respond because you know you can't. One can not be all-loving and throw his creations into a lake of fire - another total contradiction, and you're too deluded to see it. By the way, YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN. That is quite obvious. You're about as full of Christ's characteristics as my toilet seat. You love the idea of your "enemies" burning in hell. You're full of hate and hypocrisy.
I don't respond because arguing with a carnal mind is a waste of time. I could go on the fact you have no justification for absolute morality as you keep appealing to it saying God is "evil". God is all-loving and all-just letting no sin go unpunished. He is more then justified for sending us all to hell for breaking his law, but in his perfect mercy he offers us a way out through Jesus Christ. It saddens me to see people choose hell not bring me joy. This is love by me warning you of your fate.
Your God is not just, and your God is not sinless. He killed the entire world, including children and babies, but tells us not to kill - THAT IS NOT SINLESS. He requires our belief in something he provided NO EVIDENCE for or we are 'eternally tormented in hell" - THAT IS NOT JUST.
The only thing that needs to change is religious fundamentalist freaks like yourself who pollute our otherwise rational planet with your ridiculous stone-age beliefs.
@1ProudFemaleAtheist My father has every right to murder whom he wishes, you don't decide what is sinful and wants not, and who is sinful and who isn't. An ant does not yell at you when you step on its home, so you shouldn't yell at our God, whom is my father. When you think your right.
I'm not yelling at God because I do not think God exists. You believe in a murdering bastard of a "father" and that's your problem. Actually, I DO get to decide what I think is sinful and not; it's called using my brain to do my own logical thinking. And that is something you clearly don't understand.
The Bible God: A Loving God. Our Heavenly Father...wait
Just one question, do you have kids? If they decided to stop loving you, or disobeyed you, do you think you would be justified by throwing them in the basement, which is also an oven, and torturing them for all eternity because they disobeyed you? And if so, would you still consider yourself a loving parent? I wouldn't. I would consider you a psychopathic lunatic if you ever did something like that. But thats what you think god is gonna do
@djUndertow Terrible analogy. Im not sinless or perfectly Just. God is perfectly sinless and Just and lets no sin go unpunished. You continue to display your lack of knowledge of basic Christian theology. God would be justified in zapping every human for breaking his Moral Law. Instead, out of his perfect love and mercy he gives us a way out of our punishment by sacrificing Jesus for us. Its also a non-sequitur for an atheist to bring up a moral argument since they don't have a justification.
@JesusforLife2 Haha, atheists can explain morality better than you. Our moral code comes from a culmination of all our past experiences(everything we've read, seen, been told, experienced, etc. all of it),reinforced by positive and negative reinforcement, how we have interpreted them, and our attempts to apply logic and reason to them. Christians cannot explain morals because there explanation is just one being judging us by its standard, we already have that now with government laws imposed.
@djU So whose "past experience" is right? Why is your past experience better than a rapist's? You are begging the question by saying your opinion of morality trumps everyone elses opinion. Absolute morality doesn't exist if it isn't grounded in a transcendental entity. What you seem to not understand is Im not asking you what morality is, how it came to be, how it is formed etc... Im asking you what morality should be. The parents aren't the creator of the universe, morality existed before them.
@JesusforLife2 Okay, you seem to assume objective morality. I am not convinced of objective morality, I have not heard a good argument for it. Also, I would argue that if objective (absolute) morality exists, it does so independently of a god, because with a god, all we have is one more set of laws imposed on us by another being, that doesn't equal objective morality. Morality is a value system we place on certain actions. Example, some people think its wrong to say "shit", others don't.
@djUndertow Absolute/Objective Morality - True for all people at all times independent of emotions or if you believe it or not etc... Subjective morality is an irrational stance that is impossible to live out constantly. To destroy your argument all I have to ask you is child rape objectively wrong? Are you willing to save your atheism by comprising a sick belief? This "being" is omniscient/omnipotent and absolute, its foolish to claim he can't be an absolute standard for morality.
@JesusforLife2 I would judge it as wrong based on my moral code, and I would take actions to make sure the society I lived in didn't permit such a thing, because I believe it is wrong. What you have done here is an appeal to emotion, you have failed to provide a logical argument, and in your failure, you have not destroyed any other argument. Try again. Also, just because this "being" is powerful doesn't mean he is right. Might doesn't make right. He wouldn't be an absolute standard.
@djUndertow Oh so child rape is objectively wrong, thank you for refuting yourself. So what if you believe its wrong, who are you to tell child rapists they are wrong as if morality was objective? I accomplished my logical argument by your own self-contradictory beliefs as I said were impossible to live out consistently. Try again. God is by nature righteous and pure. Don't straw man me by claiming I said might makes right, thats an atheist belief.
@JesusforLife2 Lol, can you even hear yourself speak. YET AGAIN, you are saying I said something which I didn't say. I judge things like child rape as wrong by my standard, and I hold everyone to this standard, but it is still subjective. I cannot convince the child rapist to change their own moral code, but held to my standard, they are in the wrong, which is the standard I use. And we punish them because we have agreed as a society to live by a set of rules, and punish when people break those
When you say someone is wrong you are making your morality objective. Holding people to your subjective opinion begs the question and makes your morality a universal moral truth aka objective. You still fail to stay consistent with your irrational moral subjectivity by claiming child rape is objectively wrong. This is my proof of objective morality, you and every foolish moral subjectivist who can't stay consistent with his beliefs. Oh so society determines morality? I thought it was subjective?
@JesusforLife2 WRONG AGAIN. When you say something is a good song, you are judging it by your own taste, your OWN standard, and it is NOT objective. When I saw something is good or bad morally, it is judging by my OWN standard, and is not an objective statement. There are other standards to go by, everyone has their own moral code and standard, and everyone judges actions by that standard. You STILL haven't provided an argument for objective morality LOL. Come on, hurry up. I'm waiting.
@djUndertow When you force your opinion of morality on people it becomes objective when you say their opinion is wrong and yours is right. You still prove my point along with your self-refuting comment of society determining morality.
@JesusforLife2 Okay, I never forced my opinion of morality on anyone, in the same way that I don't force my opinion on musical taste on people when I claim something is a good song. I never said society determines morality. I said we come together to make laws to live by for the good of society. Your "point" still has yet to be proved. I am STILL waiting for you to provide an argument for objective morality, you still haven't done it yet! hahaha
@djUndertow Yet you claim God and child rape is objectively wrong. Another self-refuting comment. Society coming together and making laws to live by. Thats the exact deifnition of society determining morality. Of course this morality being objective once again refuting yourself. You continue to prove my point in every post your make. I am still waiting for you not to be inconsistent with your subjective morality. Its always easy when an atheist destroys himself.
@JesusforLife2 "Yet you claim/..." ANOTHER STRAW MAN! When did I claim this? I said child rape is wrong by my standard. Saying something is wrong by my standard is subjective (key words MY STANDARD) You are arguing against straw men you invent, you have not refuted ANY of my statements yet, and you have not provided an argument for objective morality.
@JesusforLife2 Society coming together and making laws is NOT the definition of objective morality. Morality has to do with what is right and wrong. Societal laws have to do with what is beneficial to society, something can be beneficial and considered by some to be wrong. Something can be non-harmful, and still be considered wrong by some. Society rules exist to keep order and protect the people, it has to do with what is beneficial, not what is right or wrong.
@JesusforLife2 Every single post you have made has been a straw man, and every single post I make are pointing out these straw men. You have not ONCE addressed the point you were supposed to do, which is to demonstrate that objective morality exists. Do that. I am still waiting, you haven't done it yet.
@djUndertow Every single post you make is a straw-man of saying im straw-manning you. If you haven't noticed people can read your posts and see im copying what you said. I have addressed it many times using you as a prime example. Im still waiting for you to stop being a religious atheist and using pathetic tactics to hold on to your irrationality when cornered, you haven't done it yet.
@JesusforLife2 WRong. You asserted "you said [x] was objectively wrong" and I didn't. Straw man. You asserted "you said society determines morality", and I didn't (in fact, you said that.) Another straw man from you. I am waiting for you to make an argument for objective morality. Go ahead and give your argument. List your premises and draw your conclusion like this:
(1)Premise 1
(2)Premise 2
...
(x) Conclusion
If the premises are true, then [(x) conclusion] should be true. Go ahead, I'm waiting
@JesusforLife2 Haha, that is not a logical argument. You will have to show where I have been inconsistent, and so far, the only inconsistencies you have pointed out are straw men, and not my actual arguments. You keep asserting that I have said something is objectively wrong, which I have never said. You are setting up straw men, and your argument is based on straw men. Try again. Just prove objective morality exists, go on. I'm still waiting.
@djUndertow Pretty much every post you make shows your inconsistency and how you straw-man me and play word games. I keep proving you believe in objective morality by your own posts. Try again. Just try to be consistent with subjective morality, go on. I'm still waiting.
@JesusforLife2 No you don't. Point to one thing I said was objectively wrong. I have only said things were wrong by my own standard, which is subjective. You even argue that society forming laws=objective morality. I disagree with that. Society forming laws isn't objective morality. Make your argument that Objective Morality exists. Not once have you done it in all these posts.
@JesusforLife2 You don't keep proving I believe in objective morality, because every single one of your premises has been a misunderstanding of my position, or a blantant, dishonest straw man.
@JesusforLife2 I havne't played any word games, and you are the one being irrational. Just because you are to thick to understand a post doesn't mean it contains word games. (I call you thick because you believe I am asserting objective morality, which I am not. And every post you make asserting I do is a straw man.)
@JesusforLife2 Also, I NEVER said that society determines morality. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS HAHAHA. I said that we, as a society, agree on rules to live by and hold each other by for the benefit of society. We have to live with each other, and this is necessary for a succesful society. Laws do not equal morality, but they stem from the collective morality of the people, and can be used to help shape peoples moral code as well if they agree with the laws.
@djUndertow So the "benefit of society" is objective morality. Another self-refuting comment. I thought it was subjective? Hitler and many mass murdering nations believe they were benefiting society, but of course you will refute yourself once again and say they were wrong. Once again you beg the question and swerve off to what morality is not what it should be. Still waiting for you to be consistent with your irrationality. I wont hold my breath.
@JesusforLife2 NO! STRAW MAN! Benefit of society is not objective morality. They are just rules we set for ourselves to keep some sort of order, which is necessary to live together (without them we would have people running around stealing things and the like.) Laws don't determine morality, they stem from the collective morality of the people (in a democracy) or those in charge. I have been 100% consistent so far, and you have had a straw man in EVERY SINGLE one of your posts so far today.
@djUndertow Who says order and survival is the standard for morality? I thought morality is subjective? Another self-refuting comment. Who cares if we don't survive, people steal, etc.. You act as if its objective wrong to harm survival. You continue to beg the question and refute yourself. Now you are going off to how morality is determined when Im talking about what morality should be. More inconsistencies in every post you make. Can't wait for more.
@JesusforLife2 Another straw man. I NEVER SAID ORDER AND SURVIVAL IS THE STANDARD FOR MORALITY. This renders your whole post invalid, because it is, in fact, a straw man.
Order and survival are beneficial, and something being beneficial does no necessarily=moral.
More straw men in every post you make. Just try making ONE post that isn't a straw man, and actually does what you are supposed to do, which is demonstrate objective morality exists. Prove it to me, go ahead, I'm still waiting.
@djUndertow What you declare as "beneficial" does include moral acts such as not stealing, not raping, not killing. Who says if something is beneficial is the standard for morality? Who gets to define what is beneficial? I thought morality was subjective? More self-refutation. Just try making one post that is contradictory to your beliefs and prove objective morality. Go ahead, im still waiting.
@JesusforLife2 Yes, what I define as beneficial does include things like not stealing, things which I think are (by my standard) wrong. We decide as a society (in a demoncracy) what is and isn't beneficial with our vote. This is not morality, as we can decide that abortion is beneficial to help with the overpopulation problem, but that doesn't make it right or wrong, now does it? No self-refutation in my posts, try again.
@djUndertow That is morality because the society says certain moral acts are wrong forcing their opinion of morality on others who believe otherwise. So once again, who says whats "beneficial" is the standard for morality? And once again you will refute yourself by saying the society of Nazi Germany was wrong when they said it was beneficial to mass murder Jews. I thought morality was subjective anyway? Who says its wrong to overpopulate? Once again appealing to objective morality. Try again.
@JesusforLife2 Society doesn't say certain actions are wrong. Society says certain actions will not be tolerated and are punishable. There is a difference, it doesn't make moral claims. Your second question is a loaded question, as it assumes an objective standard for morality. The people decide what is beneficial by their subjective opinions, and it does not mean that the law is an objective moral standard, it just means there are a list of actions you will be punished for doing.
@djUndertow Here we go with word games. What a sad tactic to plays semantics in order to defend irrational beliefs. An action that isn't tolerated and will be punished is wrong. Good luck trying to convince anyone of your definition. I guess Logic is subjective too right? You can redefine anything you want and nothing has an absolute identity such as your definition being the exact definition for a wrong act. Talk about intellectual dishonesty, never seen such a religious atheist before.
@JesusforLife2 Your quote "An action that isn't tolerated and will be punished is wrong."
Are you aware that there are Muslim countries in which blasphemy against Allah, worshiping the Bible god, is not tolerated and is punishable by death? Praying the Yaweh is an action, and in certain lands, it isn't tolerated and is punished. ANd you are saying it is wrong, just because something is punished? NOPE, bad definition on your part. I am not redefining "wrong", you are. No word games here.
@djUndertow Well duh, the Muslim countries believe its wrong to be a Christian so they punish that action. Thats forcing morality on people who believe otherwise which is objective morality. Whats so hard to understand telling someone their opinion of morality is wrong and forcing yours over theirs makes your morality a universal moral truth aka objective morality. You know this so you have to play word games. Do continue the foolishness, self-refutation does the work for me.
@JesusforLife2 Your definition of objective morality: "True for all people at all times", then you say "Thats forcing morality on people who believe otherwise which is objective morality", and you say that Muslims forcing their belief on someone is objective morality? You just admitted that Islam is true for all people at all times! I've never met an Islamic Christian before. You have also admitted that the Nazi's were morally right too, by your definitions and reasoning.
@djUndertow To Muslims their standard for morality is Allah. Yes, by them forcing their morality on people saying Allah is right at all times for all people they are making it objective. Nice try with the red herring and straw-man because the issue is not debating whether Allah can be the transcendental foundation for objective morality or not. Replace Muslims and Allah with you. You would force your morality of child rape being "wrong" on people who believe otherwise.
@JesusforLife2 Okay, I think i see where your confusion is. You think that someone can't force their subjective morality on someone. Why can't they? Yes, I would hold everyone to MY standard, that child rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean that other peoples standards include that, and it doesn't mean that it is objective (true for everyone at all times regardless of belief, etc.)
Answer this: Do you think that one person imposing their subjective view on another makes it objective? I don't.
@djUndertow What do you think that falls under? Absolute/Objective morality - True for all people and at all times. When you hold everyone accountable to your subjective morality saying they must adopt your opinion guess what you are doing, making it objective. So yes by definition imposing your subjective view on another makes it objective regardless of whether you agree or not. Im not saying your moral system that you created is not subjective, but imposing it on others makes it objective.
@JesusforLife2 I never said that they must adopt my opinion, and even if I did, it wouldn't make it objective, because it doesn't transcend me and my belief. It is SUBJECTIVE, since it is me and my opinion. Holding someone to the standards of your moral code does not make your moral code objective. Hitler held people to the standards of his moral code, but that didn't make his views objectively right. If you say holding others accountable=objective morality, you are saying Hitlers morally right
@djUndertow Thats where your contradiction comes in, you are treating your subjective opinion as an objective truth. When you tell child rapists they are wrong and stop them from carrying out their subjective belief you are saying its objectively wrong to rape children. If you were to actually be consistent all you could say is "sir I believe you are wrong and wish you wouldnt do it". Who says Hitler's views weren't objectively right? Were they objectively wrong? Is Child rape Objectively wrong?
@JesusforLife2 And thats where your confusion is. I am not telling them they are wrong by their standards, or by a transcendent moral law. I am telling them they are wrong by MY standard, which is subjective. And when I stop them from doing it, its because I have no problem imposing my subjective opinion on another person if they are hurting others (even though my view is not objectively more or less valid than theirs is.)
@JesusforLife2 In regards to the Hitler and Child rape, no, they are not objectively right or wrong, because there is no transcendent moral code to go by. All we can go by is our own subjective codes, and my code says they are wrong, and I operate within the confines of MY moral code, as does everyone. You are saying Hitler was objectively right, because you just said that society determines morality (you said that a society making laws are objective morality, which I would disagree with.)
Wow are you serious? This atheist believes child rape, murder, etc. isn't objectively wrong. That is a sick belief to hold to. Of course I know your lying because you admitted in another post refuting yourself that you would force your morality on a child rapist. This conversation will not get past this point until you stop being illogical. You are taking your subjective opinion and making it a universal moral truth, that is Objective morality. If you disagree, we are only going to go in circles
@JesusforLife2 Look back at my previous post. When you first asked me that question, I said "it is wrong BY MY STANDARD" that is subjective. i NEVER SAID IT WAS OBJECTIVELY WRONG. If a transcendent objective moral standard doesn't exist, then something cannot be declared objectively morally right or wrong. You continue to straw man me, EVERY SINGLE POST of yours is a straw man. I never said it was objectively wrong, and you are lying if you assert that I did (Which you believe is a sin, right?)
@JesusforLife2 Also, i am not making my opinion a universal moral truth, I hold my opinion, and recognize that it is just an opinion. I never made it a universal moral truth. If I lock someone in jail, it is not because what they did is universally, cosmically, objectively wrong, it is because I don't agree with that action, and don't want people around who perform those actions, so I vote for politicians who will lock them up (like murderers and child rapists.)
@djUndertow Yes you are making it a universal moral truth because you believe and would act on it at all times against all people saying child rape is wrong. Very comical for someone to admit objective morality requires a transcendent mind and in the same post declare that he forces his subjective morality on people making it objective and his standard an objective standard.
@JesusforLife2 I never said it requires a transcendental mind, I said objective morality would have to be transcendent (meaning transcendent of ALL minds) Also, just because I act according to my code doesn't mean that it is making it a universal truth. If two people are in a car, one likes Jazz, the other likes Rap, and the guy who likes Jazz turns the other guys radio off of rap, and onto Jazz, it doesn't mean Jazz is objectively better or worse, it means he acted on his subjective opinion.
@djUndertow Yes when you do act on your code you are making it objective. And guess what happens when he switches off the rap? He is saying Jazz is objectively better by claiming your preference is wrong no matter what. Same with morality, you are claiming everyone's morality who is different than yours is wrong. Physically acting on a subjective opinion = objectivity. Simple as that.
@JesusforLife2 No, if the guy turns off the rap, he is not saying that Jazz is objectively better than rap, he is saying that he doesn't like rap and doesn't want to listen to it. That is subjective. You assert "Physically acting on a subjective opinion=objectivity" but you haven't proved that. Where is your proof? By not proving this statement, you are saying "It's true just because it is." You cannot account for it. It is YOU who is acting illogically by asserting something without an argument
@djUndertow Yes he is even if hes not literally saying it. He turning his subjective opinion into an objective belief. If any other genre of music is suggested it is rejected and forced to Jazz. That is objective. Uh the proof being what you are saying is the exact definition of objectivity, but calling it subjective. You are the on saying its subjective because it is. This all stems back to me not talking about how morality is, how it came to be, etc.. Im talking about what morality should be.
@JesusforLife2 No, you said in an earlier post objective is "True for everybody, regardless of belief, etc." meaning it transcends personal belief. The person saying "I like Jazz, I would rather not listen to anything else" is not saying that Jazz is objectively better, it is not saying that jazz is better than rap for everyone. It is saying that that person prefers a situation in which jazz is playing. That is the definition of a subjective preference.
@djUndertow Yes that person is saying that about Jazz which is fine and is subjective. That is the definition of subjectivity. Then you go on to include the act of forcing subjective beliefs on people as if they are objective as "subjective". That is redefining words to fit an irrational belief. Then he goes on to force that Jazz belief on people which appeals to objectivity. If hes not saying all genres are wrong except Jazz when he forces the dial on Jazz. What exactly is he doing?
@JesusforLife2 "What exactly is he doing" He is saying he likes Jazz, acknowledging that someone elses opinion is equally valid, but acting in reality according to his own tastes. He isn't telling the other that their opinion is objectively wrong, he is saying that he doesn't want to hear their music, and he is cutting it off. Now, we could argue about whether he has the right to do that or not, but whether he does or not, he is still not making his statement (Jazz is good) an objective truth.
@JesusforLife2 You could also argue that he is a bully for turning the other music off, but again, either way, he is not making the statement "Jazz is good" objectively true when he turns the other music off. I'll post another example of subjective preference carrying over into the world effecting others, but still not being objective...
@JesusforLife2 For my other example, lets say you are sitting in a room with the blinds closed. You decide that you would like the blinds open, that is your preference. You go and open the blind, and now they are open. It doesn't mean that it is objectively true for everyone irregardless of their beliefs that open blinds are better than closed blinds. it simply means that that person thinks blinds should be opened, and he opens them. Doesn't make it objectively better, its a personal value.
@JesusforLife2 You seem to think that someone forcing an action on someone else is an objective moral claim, which I just don't see how that can be the case. Maybe you can call the person taking or forcing that action a bully if you want, for holding others to his standard, but I don't see how you can say that his actions make his subjective value transcend his mind and become objectively true for everyone.
@djUndertow How could it not be the case? Are you not making a universal moral truth that child rape is wrong when you tell a child rapist he is wrong and force your belief on him no matter what the case? You are implying child rape should be wrong for everyone. That is the exact definition of objectivity. That is the exact question im asking you, how could you make your subjective belief objective not being a transcendent mind?
@JesusforLife2 I am not making a universal moral truth that child rape is wrong, I say its wrong by my standard (key words: my standard.) The forcing it is another issue- "Should I be able to dictate another persons actions through force based on my personal moral code?" This is also a subjective position, and I think yes, I can use force to put a child rapist in jail. It has no effect on the validity of the opinion. Let me give you another slightly different example...
@JesusforLife2 (continued)... I personally think it is morally right to drive without your seatbelt if you want to. However, I support the "click it or ticket" laws, I support punishing those who don't wear the seatbelt, because I think it is for the good of the people. This action (punishment for certain action-driving without a seatbelt) is just that, just an action, and has no bearing on objective morality, it doesn't prove objective morality exists.
@JesusforLife2 "How could you make your subjective belief objective not being a transcendent mind"
I am not saying that you can make your subjective belief objective, the belief is still subjective. I will give another analogy in a new post, So i have room for it...
@JesusforLife2 (Cont...) I think it is morally okay to wear sunglasses indoors. Lets say I walk inside, wearing sunglasses. Somebody else tells me that they personally believe sunglasses indoors is wrong and offensive, and tells me they are going to punch me in the face as a punishment if i don't take them off. Whether they punish me or not, their belief is still not objective. The physical actions they take objectively happens, but their moral claim is still subjective.
@JesusforLife2 (cont..) physical actions do not equal moral claims. You seem to think they do, and i am asking you how you can think this. Please explain this further to me.,
@djUndertow I don't think you are going to get a straight answer out of him man. You're talk goes back for pages and pages, if he hasn't grasped it yet, he probably never will lol.
@redsaint182 Yeah, I don't think he can grasp that physical action does not equal morality claim. I'll probably stop talking to him soon, since he still has yet to prove objective morality. He doesn't seem to understand that taking a physical action based on a personal moral value system doesn't mean that that value system is objectively true, it just means thats what makes sense to them, and thats how they are going to operate.
@djUndertow I can grasp that concept and it also isn't the issue, just a straw-man. The only way I haven't proved objective morality is if I accept your irrational premise that appealing to objective morality = subjective morality. You are trying to have it both ways and I would recommend you stop commenting if you are going to continue this belief because I don't accept it nor do the Laws of Logic. Yea they are operating as if their subjective belief is objective.
@redsaint182 No, he isn't going to convince me of his irrational beliefs. I will not accept appealing to objectivity being equal to subjectivity. That is a contradiction and I refuse to violate the Laws of Logic he has no problem of ignoring.
@JesusforLife2 Haha, your proving my point. I said you wouldn't accept his point because you don't understand it. And since you continue to insist that he is appealing to objectivity when he interacts with others, that shows you don't understand it. You have been asked to show how physical action (doesn't matter if it interacts with people or not) necessitates objective morality, and from what I have seen, you have simply asserted that it does. I haven't seen any argument from you.
@redsaint182 Yeah, I don't think he understands :P I suppose its a waste of my time continuing the discussion with him, I think he's to thick to realize that an assertion isn't true just because he says it is (and since he hasn't provided a logical argument, thats all it is, an assertion.) Anyways, I'll leave this one to you if you want to take over lol.. I'm tired of it and frankly I don't care what he thinks.
@djUndertow I'm not going to argue with him, hes nuts, and it would be a waste of time anyways, since you already destroyed his "arguments" anyways. I've got better things to do with my time than waste it on his bald assertions and other fallacies. And good job backing him on a corner and making him look foolish haha, grown people with imaginary friends need to be put in their place :P
@JesusforLife2 He even gave you an example of how physical action doesn't necessitate objective morality (a few of them.) A good one was the seatbelt one. He doesn't think it is wrong subjectively, and certainly doesn't think its wrong objectively, yet he still supports giving people tickets for not wearing their seatbelt, just because he deems it a beneficial action.
@JesusforLife2 And don't even start on "beneficial determines morality", because that would be a straw man. I think abortions are wrong, but I also think they are beneficial under certain circumstances. So I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't punish those that do. Whereas killing, while I think its wrong, I also think it is not beneficial, so I would punish for that. Beneficial does not equal morality. We decide what is beneficial and punishable as a society. Morality remains subjective to us.
@djUndertow I never said physical actions = moral claims. I said forcing your belief over others no matter what appeals to objective morality and isn't subjective. You keep thinking I don't understand what a subjective belief is. I know his belief of sunglasses is subjective. When he forces it on people he is appealing to objectivity saying every subjective belief is wrong except his. Making a universal moral truth that wearing glasses indoors is wrong.
@JesusforLife2 "I said forcing your belief over others no matter what appeals to objective morality"
Punishing someone for an action that I subjectively deem wrong is a physical action. It doesn't appeal to objective morality, because I don't need it to be objectively right or wrong to act on it. Yes, the child rapists opinion is-in the grand cosmic sense-equally as valid as mine, but I can still punish him for his actions, there is nothing saying I can't.
@djUndertow Punishing someone for an action that you subjectively deem wrong is appealing to objective morality. You act on it and imply child rape is wrong no matter what anyone says. I never said you can't punish him or do whatever you want. Im saying you can't live out subjective morality consistently without appealing to objectivity.
@JesusforLife2 "Punishing someone for an action that you subjectively deem wrong is appealing to objective morality"
No it isn't. There is no objective standard which says its wrong to toss a person in jail, so if they are doing something I don't like (like raping a child) I am going to throw them in jail. It has nothing to do with objective morality, I understand that the persons actions are cosmically neutral, not objectively wrong or right. But I throw them in there anyways, because I can.
@JesusforLife2 That guy may not be saying that every subjective belief is wrong expcept his. he may say "Okay, your view is equally valid, but I don't care what you think, and I don't like those sunglasses, they are coming off, now." He is admitting here that his standard is not objective, and equally valid, but he can still take physical action. Physical action, while it can be and is motivated by subjective moral code, does not determine morality, or make claims about morality.
He is acting as if its true for all people that wearing glasses indoors is wrong. If he was consistent all he could do is say "wearing glasses indoors is wrong according to me". He is forcing others to adopt his subjective beliefs. Another point you bring up is everyone's view is equally valid. So why should I care what you say about God dealing with morality when you admitted my opinion is equally valid? That makes any moral argument pointless. You appeal to objectivity and say im wrong.
@JesusforLife2 I am not appealing to objectivity. When I say God punishing people is wrong, it is by my own standard, which i realize to other people is pretty worthless, but its not worthless at all to me. If you assert that God is morally justified in his actions, that position is equally valid, because its subjective. But I would still say that by my standard, God would be in the wrong. if he is all powerful, I wouldn't be able to do anything about it, and he would get away with murder.
@JesusforLife2 "That makes any moral argument pointless"
In a sense, yes it does. However, rules set up by society stem from our subjective moral codes, so it is helpful (at least I would deem it so) to discuss moral issues because we will make laws which physically effect people (including me.) So deciding what to physically enforce is not pointless, but trying to argue that anything is objectively wrong is pointless, yes.
@JesusforLife2 So like I said, he is not making a universal moral truth that it is wrong. he is just saying that he is taking things in his own hands, everyone else is equally valid in the grand cosmic sense, but that and theres nothing really to stop him from taking a physical action preventing someone from doing something, and that he doesn't care what they believe (except maybe my moral belief that it is okay, in certain circumstances, to fight back:P)
@djUndertow He is making a universal moral truth because everyone has to take on his subjective beliefs no matter what. If everything is equally valid then who is he or you to tell anyone they are wrong? You aren't making any sense now. I never said there was "something" to stop him beside self-contradictory beliefs appealing to objectivity.
@JesusforLife2 He is making a universal moral truth because everyone has to take on his subjective beliefs no matter what"
And thats where you're wrong. No one has to take on his beliefs, and he may not even care if you take on his beliefs or not. He punishes people not necessarily to change their beliefs, but because he doesn't like the action and punishment may prevent the action from happening to him again.
@JesusforLife2 "If everything is equally valid then who is he or you to tell anyone they are wrong"
I am me. My opinion is no more valid than theirs is. But that doesn't mean I cannot enforce a set of laws through physical punishment. It seems like a Bully move, enforcing this on someone when its all cosmically equally valid, but thats the thing, I don't care, because my action (punishing) is just as valid. And I don't appeal to objectivity at all.
@JesusforLife2 So when I punish someone for an action I don't like, I am not saying "Thats objectively wrong".
I am saying "I realize that you don't think this is wrong, and your opinion is just as valid as mine, but my throwing you in jail is also just as valid an action, and thats what I'm going to do, so deal with it. It doesn't mean that what you did was objectively wrong, but I thought it was unacceptable, and to prevent it from happening again, I'm sticking you in a cell. Deal with it."
@JesusforLife2 (continued) ... Because if someone says "If you turn that to rap, I will turn your radio off", that is not a morality statement. That is a statement of "if [x] happens, [y] will happen" it isn't claiming anything is right or wrong. This is just an action which happens in objective reality, but an action which is based on subjective opinion. And the opinion stays subjective, even after the action occurs. The action doesn't make the opinion objectively true, its still an opinion.
@JesusforLife2 In addition to defining objective a certain way earlier in the discussion, you are now defining it another way, you are taking subjective statements (Jazz is good--which is an opinion and applicable only to the person making the statement) and saying that they are objective. YOU are the one thats defining subjectivity as objectivity, So you think objectivity=objectivity and subjectivity=objectivity lol, you're insane. Define subjective for me.
@JesusforLife2 OMG, you think music is objective? djU is making you look foolish here Jfl2. You think someone having an opinion makes it true for everyone? Thats insane lol. djU is right, you are defining subjective as objective. I haven't read you guys' entire talk, but I haven't seen you prove your posts yet. It seems like your arguing for subjective morality and calling it objective (if someone has an opinion, they make it true for everyone? Hows that?? lol)
@redsaint182 It was an analogy to morality. He is appealing to objective morality when he says every genre is wrong and Jazz is right no matter what. How does that not equal objectivity? Im saying when someone has an opinion and goes around forcing it on people as if it is objective is obviously appealing to objectivity. Someone who was consistent with subjectivity would say "Jazz is right and everything is wrong according to me" not going around enforcing that belief as if it is objective.
@JesusforLife2 Oh, I see what djU means by the straw mans now (though it may just be because you didn't understand what he was saying and not intentional?) He never said that the guy said every other genre is objectively wrong or worse. Personally, when I hear pop music, I turn the radio off, because i don't like it. I think (key words "I" and "think"), that blues is better, but that is my opinion. And I will turn the radio off if pop comes on, because I don't like it, which subjective.
@redsaint182 The only straw-mans are comming from him, he is just screaming straw-man ad naseum . He has straw-manned me in his last comment saying Im saying subjective opinions = objectivity. You don't have to literally say "every other genre is objectivity wrong" when you act on a belief as if every other genre is wrong when someone tells you Rap is right. Your example doesnt deal with forcing your subjective belief over someone else. If it did, that would be appealing to objectivity.
@JesusforLife2 Okay, I think you've got it a little wrong. A physical action isn't a moral claim, though they can result from moral opinions. And I have read over all the posts by now, and you have straw manned him quite a bit, and I think he might have straw manned you once or twice too. (Now, some of those from both sides may be from misunderstanding the other side, or they may be intentional, idk.)
Typical shameful christian fear mongering, doing good things is meaningless and the only way into gods favor is gullibility? Brilliant!
mehico33 5 months ago
Who are these people to judge? Keep in mind the bible (just as all holy books) has been changed for someone's benefit (take King James). All we can really do is follow the golden rule of any faith: do unto others as you would want them to do for you. I'm not that much into religion, but I'm pretty sure a mass murderer won't go to a better place just because he places his or her faith in a belief.
Flint925 5 months ago
@ele12957returns John has written that Jesus did say and mean that one should repent, although he never used the word repent/repentance.
John 8:3-11 Jesus says: Go and sin no more.
This means that the adultress must sin no more (and thus repent from her sins).
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
@honeyblossom17 Adam fell to sin, and ever since every single human that's been born is lacking the Love of God by nature, becoming corrupt and ''evil'', because of Adam's fall to sin. He wants to forgive us for our wrongdoings, and so He sent his Son, so that whoever believes in him, shall not perish, but have everlasting Life.
TheLightedDarkness 5 months ago
Trolololol.
DefendingDisbelief 6 months ago
Why would your version be right and the others be wrong, only anwser is YOUR ALL WRONG.
TriopsUKnorth 6 months ago
This video reeks of mind controlling content designed to scare the crap out of people into accepting a fictional messiah. Wise up everyone for once in your lives! There is no such thing. Religion is nothing more than an age old scam playing on the fears of good people. Whenever you disect religion, the whole concept begins to fall apart. This is because it was written by ignorant people in a time where they didn;t no any better. Smarten up and get with the times!!
RoboRocker69 6 months ago
Hi. Religion is rubbish. There is no heaven to be accepted into. God isn't real so there is no love or hate beyond this physical existence. Just like before you were born, nothing existed to you because you didn't exist and nothing will once again after your body ceases to function. Evverything you were ever taught about any religion is nothing but man made tripe. The human ego is too fragile to accept there IS and end to our existence. Quit worrying about it and go live before it's too la
RoboRocker69 6 months ago
This video is so beyond hate, wicked and evil, it's a shame that this person does not know it! It saids that no matter the good works that a person does it is nothing but like a ''fitthy rag'', how can a ''good'' and ''loving'' god THINK THIS!? And how is this message in ANY WAY of love!?
Your god is true a monster.
honeyblossom17 9 months ago 2
as a christian, I must say, that your video sucks, if you can't do it with quality then don't do it at all. What is with the music?
sonofcohen 1 year ago
@sonofcohen "As a christian" i find it odd you would be against a video that preaches the Gospel message because of carnal reasons. I never said I was an expert video maker or knew how to do crazy effects. Nor was it my purpose to entertain people.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 - why is it the people who worship the God of crativity are so uncreative. Who is your target audience that youa re trying to reach with this? The lost? You think arguing using a bible they don't believe in is a good place to start? Here is my point. There a million "christian" videos on youtube, what you are trying to say has already been said...many times. And if you can't do it better or with more love, then you are just adding to the noise. I know you think your helping but...
sonofcohen 1 year ago
@sonofcohen That statement makes zero sense, I don't understand how following God should equal us being able to please everyone carnally. Not only the lost, but Christians who are in error concerning this topic. So Im not allowed to preach the Gospel unless I out-do those who allready preach? I think i'll stick to what the Bible says when it says "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature". And yes arguing anything that doesnt involve the Bible is pointless.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 if you were a preacher in the pulpit, but it was obvious to everyone else that your gift was not in preaching but in something else, would you still argue that you should be in the pulpit, my point is...some people are gifted by God to communicate, you don't seem to be one of them. We have to first lead people lovingly to understand the validity of the Bible, thumping them on the head probably doesn't work to well. Some people are addicted to the argument..might you be one of them
sonofcohen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesusforLife2 So are you going to hell?
SGusernameofdoom 11 months ago
@sonofcohen this vid is only the cold hard truth. no one comes to the father unless he comes to me,jesus is the only way, no short cuts no quick fix. just jesus follow him all you days let him be your light. and then you will find peace. amen
tomato6999 1 year ago
@tomato6999 I never opposed the content, just the presentation. I would argue that the true however isn't cold, this video is, but the truth isn't. Jesus told the truth with creativity love and warmth. The music is so annoying in this video that I couldn't even watch the whole thing.
sonofcohen 1 year ago
CONTINUED--Ok, with your question.
The baseline is that there is no way to actually prove there's a god, so you have faith. Faith in yourself that you believe without seeing with your own eyes. And honestly, that's not good enough for me.
Personally, I'd like to go on with more questions if you don't mind.
MrTheAlexLand 1 year ago
@MrTheAlexLand If your definition of proof is 5 sense verification, then yes I can't prove God exists. I find it odd that you find it not good enough to believe in for that reason yet you believe God doesnt exist without 5 sense verification which contradicts yourself. There are many things you take on with faith in your life. Your whole premise of empiricism is self-refuting anyway, you cant empirically prove empiricism. You have constructed a worldview based on an irrational frame of thought.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 So you're saying that's you can't prove god with concreate evidence, but have faith and my view is self-refuting, etc. Ok, so basically you believe in god because that's what the bible tells you. Perfectly fine. But you if really examine the book, you'll find loads of stuff then it says for you to, but you don't. Why? Because we're civilize. If you my post below you'll see there's many wicked things said it the bible. How can you accept the bible?
MrTheAlexLand 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 CONTINUED--
So you believe in god because of the bible and you accept it as truth. How can you believe in a god where "his" book is full of evil things? Since the only connection to god is through bible. And I'm not saying the bible isn't filled with good things too, it's just that I thought god was suppose to be completely righteous. You say he is righteous when the only connection to him has evil inside. That's the contradiction. Please explain.
MrTheAlexLand 1 year ago
utter poppycock mate,turn or burn is false teaching,no1 is sent into eternal punishment for all eternity.....i commend your zeal but ye have zeal without knowledge
david1611kjv 1 year ago
@david1611kjv
"And if your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the eternal fire," (Matt. 18:8). "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46).
Jesus taught turn or burn my friend: "I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." - Luke 13:3.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 the translation of these words from the greek and hebrew are innacurate,especially when you say eternal,do your homework my friend,study to show thyself approved,....1corinthians15;22,for as in adam all die,even so in christ shall ALL be made alive.....all means all,God does not lie.1tim4;10for therefore we both labour and suffer reproach,because we trust in the living God,who is the saviour of ALL men,specially of those that believe(not exclusively of those who believe!)
david1611kjv 1 year ago
the silence is deafening,whats wrong cant you find scripture that contradicts this?......didnt think so because it doesnt exsist,these and literally dozens of other scriptures blow the eternal punishment doctrine clean out of the water,you either believe that Jesus came to save the whole world and suceeded(like scripture CLEARLY states)or you can quite frankly throw your bible in the garbage.i am not against you,i know how you think as ive been there myself...
david1611kjv 1 year ago
@david1611kjv I assume you're talking tome, so I'll reply. Scripture that contradicts? Well, where to start. Imagine if christianity used its ancient principles like islam does today.(next post for this.) And you think you've thought like me? You have not. I live with reason. I question everything. My mind is free. If I don't know something I strive to figure it out. With chirstianity, it's "Oh, god did it." It's a cage. If you have once thought like me then you wouldn't still be trapped
MrTheAlexLand 1 year ago
@MrTheAlexLand no i wasnt asking you,it is directed at jesusforlife2 who posted these videos.lol....seems to not have much response to me....see the whole comments it might let you in on my way of thinking...:¬)
david1611kjv 1 year ago
@david1611kjv I tend not to respond to people who get ridiculously emotional like yourself and especially atheists who takes things on a personal level, niether am I interested in argueing with someone who is allready saved. Read this article for my position on it:
Google search first link: carm helleternal
Especially the part under "Is "forever and ever" without end?
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 if you wish to give your side please do it with scripture as i have and dont refer me to the pathetic c.a.r.m website,they allow every other viewpoint on there except that of universal salvationists like myself.the reason they do not allow open debate on this subject is because they have no answers to our strong scriptural base of belief...and neither do you my friend,ponder those scriptures and start spreading the real good news,not the most burn in hell story coz thats bad news
david1611kjv 1 year ago
matt slick of the c.a.r.m website knows finewell his site would be a sham if he allowed christian universalists onto it,although he will freely allow people from all religions and denominations to post and share opinion...gotta ask yourself why my friend????? il tell you why its because he has the most browsed`christian`site on this planet and doesnt want to lose face by not providing solid scripural evidence in favour of his beliefs
david1611kjv 1 year ago
@david1611kjv Genesis chapter 19, verse 30-38, Lot's daughter get him drunk and sleep with him. They have their father's baby. That's incest. Do we still use this today? No. Exodus chapter 21, this whole chapter, deicated to slavery. How long to have them. It says the slave's own child goes to the master. Terrible. Do we still use slavery today? No. Deuteronmony chapter 21, verse 28-31, it says that is a child is stubborn and doesn't follow the rules, stone him to death. Today? Not a chance.
MrTheAlexLand 1 year ago
I'm sure this is just comedy, because you can't be serious. If it's not then I honestly feel sorry for you. Completely brainwashed into this religious bs. If you read, reply back. I'll be happy to ask you numerous questions that you won't be able to answer. Why? Because there is no god.
MrTheAlexLand 1 year ago
@MrTheAlexLand You can start by proving your baseless assertion that God doesnt exist.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Alright, first of all, I'm terribly sorry how that last message came out, I just had an absolutely awful day and I'm very sorry. Even though I'm completely athiest, that doesn't mean people can't believe what they want, and I have nothing against people with different ways of thinking than I do.
MrTheAlexLand 1 year ago
I know for a fact that Catholics know exactly how to get to Heaven. I have been to Catholic Church and schools and I know we know how to get into Heaven. They never said acts get us to Heaven. Faith, Repentance, and Grace do. Saying that other forms of Christianity are going to Hell are narrow minded thoughts, and sinful. I don't think you really know what Catholic teachings are. They teach that no one deserves Heaven. I need to get that out because Catholics are always being bad mouthed.
StormBlackJaguar 1 year ago
@StormBlac Then you are decieved my friend if you believe its a fact. According to the Roman Catholic church you must believe in Jesus Christ AND be baptized AND receive the Eucharist along with the other sacraments AND obey the decrees of the Roman Catholic Church AND perform meritorious works AND not die with any mortal sins AND etc., etc., etc. Not to mention the list on unbiblical beliefs such as purgatory and praying to saints who cant hear you anyway. Its Jesus Christ ALONE for salvation.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 I Believe in Jesus Christ. I am Baptized. I receive Eucharist and other Sacraments. But the Catholic Church does not act like a dictatorship. It does say that we should perform good deeds and live righteous lives. Catholics don't say you must be sinless. Purgatory is a Catholic theory for Old Testament people like Abraham who never received Jesus until he was born, so they didn't go to Hell. God probably gave saints the power to bless not save. Only God can save. Saints can hear.
StormBlackJaguar 1 year ago
lol funny bullshit
Quitarstudent 1 year ago
@Quitarstudent Prove its bs.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 man i just had to laugh when i saw that video and i rly dont care about god, believe in whatever u want man :D
Quitarstudent 1 year ago
@Quitarstudent Exactly, atheists dont care about truth. All they want to do is live life their way and be god of their own life. They suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. The sad thing is you have no freedom, you are a slave to sin in bondage. You are controlled by your father Satan. God loves you and desires you not to perish but have everlasting life. Jesus willingly shed his bood for you on the cross. All he requires is your repentance and faith. You're not ready to die sinner.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 1. I like to live my way ,cuz god isnt living my life 2. I have more freedom and free time than u spending hours of prayring and thinking about "God"
3. Yes im totally controled by my father satan xD \m/
4. He surely didnt die for me ;)
Quitarstudent 1 year ago
@Qui Thats the problem, you arent living your life for God who created you and sustains your very existence. Your "free" time consists of searching for that next "feel good" sensation which only comes by repeating an act of sin. The sad reality being you are never fulfilled or satisfied and only are destroying yourself diving into sin. I have been freed from the bondage you are in and dont have to repeat an act for the Love of Jesus Christ is true fulfillment. I can only pray he did die for you.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 what exactly u mean by this feel good?
Quitarstudent 1 year ago
Catholicism is a branch of Christianity, just putting it out there.
gerardpieisyummy 1 year ago
@gerardpieisyummy Its another false religion such as Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses who slap the "christian" label on them, but they all are not Christian and will be sent to hell on judgment day.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Wait what. Catholicism is one of the original branches of Christianity, if not THE original Christian religion, which turns out to be a cheap rip off of Juadism. Also on top of that all Christian religions are all pretty much the same thing anyway. So, Christians who all believe in the same god (who also happens to be the same one the Jews believe in) are all going to hell even though the pray and worship the same person which ever branch you belong to does?
gerardpieisyummy 1 year ago
@gerardpieisyumm Roman Catholicism was formed with Constantine who tried to incorporate all religious practices into one. Thats why they have many unbiblical practices. Judaism turned into Christianity with Jesus Christ. There was no "rip-off". Thats why Jews will be going to hell unless they have Jesus Christ as their saviour/messiah that they reject. They do not worship the same God thats why they are not Christian. Islam denies trinity and Jesus' divinity. Mormons say Jesus was "created" etc.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
Great job! My soul rejoices in the spreading of the TRUE gospel!
Domodeath 1 year ago
I think I'm going to decompose. No heaven, no hell, just nothing...
thekimchikiller 1 year ago
Thank you for making a video which so clearly exemplifies the immoral, irrational, and just plain stupid tenets of Christianity.
If there is a heaven - IT SHOULD HAVE TO BE EARNED. Belief does not make someone a better person, or make the world a better place - ACTIONS do. Feeding the homeless, giving to charity, taking care of the poor and sick and needy THESE THINGS HELP OTHERS AND CREATE CHANGE. Belief DOES NOT. And there is NO PROOF that Jesus was the Son of God, or for his resurrection.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
Your name explains you perfectly. Only someone full of foolish pride believes one can "earn" the favor of a perfectly sinless and just God. The only way to earn favor is by living a sinless life, only Jesus accomplished that and he did it because he loves you and desires you not to get what you deserve for sin which is eternal torment in hell. The only thing that needs to change is your wicked heart of disbelief sinner. Jesus offers you eternal life through repentance and faith.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
You did not respond to my points. Belief does not make someone a better person, or help others, or help the world. Yet your evil God puts 100% emphasis on belief instead of actions? That is IMMORAL. "wicked heart of disbelief" - so anyone who does not believe in your God is wicked? That's why Christianity is also irrational, thanks for showing it brilliantly. God has provided NO PROOF Jesus died for our sins, resurrected, or that he was God's son, but we are "required" to believe? NO WAY.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
You are a very religious atheist who knows how to glorify your father Satan. The sad part is you are just a puppet being controlled and are a slave to sin. Only Jesus can deliver you form the bondage of sin. God loves you and desires you not to perish, but have everlasting life. Jesus willingly shed his blood as a payment for your sins. All he requires is your repentance and faith. You need to humble yourself sinner and drop your foolish pride before he drags you deep into the lake of fire.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2
thanks once again for not responding to any of my points....
You're completely stupid. You don't respond because you know you can't. One can not be all-loving and throw his creations into a lake of fire - another total contradiction, and you're too deluded to see it. By the way, YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN. That is quite obvious. You're about as full of Christ's characteristics as my toilet seat. You love the idea of your "enemies" burning in hell. You're full of hate and hypocrisy.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
I don't respond because arguing with a carnal mind is a waste of time. I could go on the fact you have no justification for absolute morality as you keep appealing to it saying God is "evil". God is all-loving and all-just letting no sin go unpunished. He is more then justified for sending us all to hell for breaking his law, but in his perfect mercy he offers us a way out through Jesus Christ. It saddens me to see people choose hell not bring me joy. This is love by me warning you of your fate.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2
Your God is not just, and your God is not sinless. He killed the entire world, including children and babies, but tells us not to kill - THAT IS NOT SINLESS. He requires our belief in something he provided NO EVIDENCE for or we are 'eternally tormented in hell" - THAT IS NOT JUST.
The only thing that needs to change is religious fundamentalist freaks like yourself who pollute our otherwise rational planet with your ridiculous stone-age beliefs.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist My father has every right to murder whom he wishes, you don't decide what is sinful and wants not, and who is sinful and who isn't. An ant does not yell at you when you step on its home, so you shouldn't yell at our God, whom is my father. When you think your right.
Domodeath 1 year ago
@Domodeath
I'm not yelling at God because I do not think God exists. You believe in a murdering bastard of a "father" and that's your problem. Actually, I DO get to decide what I think is sinful and not; it's called using my brain to do my own logical thinking. And that is something you clearly don't understand.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
The Bible God: A Loving God. Our Heavenly Father...wait
Just one question, do you have kids? If they decided to stop loving you, or disobeyed you, do you think you would be justified by throwing them in the basement, which is also an oven, and torturing them for all eternity because they disobeyed you? And if so, would you still consider yourself a loving parent? I wouldn't. I would consider you a psychopathic lunatic if you ever did something like that. But thats what you think god is gonna do
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Terrible analogy. Im not sinless or perfectly Just. God is perfectly sinless and Just and lets no sin go unpunished. You continue to display your lack of knowledge of basic Christian theology. God would be justified in zapping every human for breaking his Moral Law. Instead, out of his perfect love and mercy he gives us a way out of our punishment by sacrificing Jesus for us. Its also a non-sequitur for an atheist to bring up a moral argument since they don't have a justification.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Haha, atheists can explain morality better than you. Our moral code comes from a culmination of all our past experiences(everything we've read, seen, been told, experienced, etc. all of it),reinforced by positive and negative reinforcement, how we have interpreted them, and our attempts to apply logic and reason to them. Christians cannot explain morals because there explanation is just one being judging us by its standard, we already have that now with government laws imposed.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djU So whose "past experience" is right? Why is your past experience better than a rapist's? You are begging the question by saying your opinion of morality trumps everyone elses opinion. Absolute morality doesn't exist if it isn't grounded in a transcendental entity. What you seem to not understand is Im not asking you what morality is, how it came to be, how it is formed etc... Im asking you what morality should be. The parents aren't the creator of the universe, morality existed before them.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Okay, you seem to assume objective morality. I am not convinced of objective morality, I have not heard a good argument for it. Also, I would argue that if objective (absolute) morality exists, it does so independently of a god, because with a god, all we have is one more set of laws imposed on us by another being, that doesn't equal objective morality. Morality is a value system we place on certain actions. Example, some people think its wrong to say "shit", others don't.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Absolute/Objective Morality - True for all people at all times independent of emotions or if you believe it or not etc... Subjective morality is an irrational stance that is impossible to live out constantly. To destroy your argument all I have to ask you is child rape objectively wrong? Are you willing to save your atheism by comprising a sick belief? This "being" is omniscient/omnipotent and absolute, its foolish to claim he can't be an absolute standard for morality.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 I would judge it as wrong based on my moral code, and I would take actions to make sure the society I lived in didn't permit such a thing, because I believe it is wrong. What you have done here is an appeal to emotion, you have failed to provide a logical argument, and in your failure, you have not destroyed any other argument. Try again. Also, just because this "being" is powerful doesn't mean he is right. Might doesn't make right. He wouldn't be an absolute standard.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Oh so child rape is objectively wrong, thank you for refuting yourself. So what if you believe its wrong, who are you to tell child rapists they are wrong as if morality was objective? I accomplished my logical argument by your own self-contradictory beliefs as I said were impossible to live out consistently. Try again. God is by nature righteous and pure. Don't straw man me by claiming I said might makes right, thats an atheist belief.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Lol, can you even hear yourself speak. YET AGAIN, you are saying I said something which I didn't say. I judge things like child rape as wrong by my standard, and I hold everyone to this standard, but it is still subjective. I cannot convince the child rapist to change their own moral code, but held to my standard, they are in the wrong, which is the standard I use. And we punish them because we have agreed as a society to live by a set of rules, and punish when people break those
djUndertow 1 year ago
When you say someone is wrong you are making your morality objective. Holding people to your subjective opinion begs the question and makes your morality a universal moral truth aka objective. You still fail to stay consistent with your irrational moral subjectivity by claiming child rape is objectively wrong. This is my proof of objective morality, you and every foolish moral subjectivist who can't stay consistent with his beliefs. Oh so society determines morality? I thought it was subjective?
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 WRONG AGAIN. When you say something is a good song, you are judging it by your own taste, your OWN standard, and it is NOT objective. When I saw something is good or bad morally, it is judging by my OWN standard, and is not an objective statement. There are other standards to go by, everyone has their own moral code and standard, and everyone judges actions by that standard. You STILL haven't provided an argument for objective morality LOL. Come on, hurry up. I'm waiting.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow When you force your opinion of morality on people it becomes objective when you say their opinion is wrong and yours is right. You still prove my point along with your self-refuting comment of society determining morality.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Okay, I never forced my opinion of morality on anyone, in the same way that I don't force my opinion on musical taste on people when I claim something is a good song. I never said society determines morality. I said we come together to make laws to live by for the good of society. Your "point" still has yet to be proved. I am STILL waiting for you to provide an argument for objective morality, you still haven't done it yet! hahaha
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Yet you claim God and child rape is objectively wrong. Another self-refuting comment. Society coming together and making laws to live by. Thats the exact deifnition of society determining morality. Of course this morality being objective once again refuting yourself. You continue to prove my point in every post your make. I am still waiting for you not to be inconsistent with your subjective morality. Its always easy when an atheist destroys himself.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 "Yet you claim/..." ANOTHER STRAW MAN! When did I claim this? I said child rape is wrong by my standard. Saying something is wrong by my standard is subjective (key words MY STANDARD) You are arguing against straw men you invent, you have not refuted ANY of my statements yet, and you have not provided an argument for objective morality.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Society coming together and making laws is NOT the definition of objective morality. Morality has to do with what is right and wrong. Societal laws have to do with what is beneficial to society, something can be beneficial and considered by some to be wrong. Something can be non-harmful, and still be considered wrong by some. Society rules exist to keep order and protect the people, it has to do with what is beneficial, not what is right or wrong.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Every single post you have made has been a straw man, and every single post I make are pointing out these straw men. You have not ONCE addressed the point you were supposed to do, which is to demonstrate that objective morality exists. Do that. I am still waiting, you haven't done it yet.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Every single post you make is a straw-man of saying im straw-manning you. If you haven't noticed people can read your posts and see im copying what you said. I have addressed it many times using you as a prime example. Im still waiting for you to stop being a religious atheist and using pathetic tactics to hold on to your irrationality when cornered, you haven't done it yet.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 WRong. You asserted "you said [x] was objectively wrong" and I didn't. Straw man. You asserted "you said society determines morality", and I didn't (in fact, you said that.) Another straw man from you. I am waiting for you to make an argument for objective morality. Go ahead and give your argument. List your premises and draw your conclusion like this:
(1)Premise 1
(2)Premise 2
...
(x) Conclusion
If the premises are true, then [(x) conclusion] should be true. Go ahead, I'm waiting
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow (1)Subjective morality is impossible to live out consistently, see djUndertow
...
(x) Objective morality exists
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Haha, that is not a logical argument. You will have to show where I have been inconsistent, and so far, the only inconsistencies you have pointed out are straw men, and not my actual arguments. You keep asserting that I have said something is objectively wrong, which I have never said. You are setting up straw men, and your argument is based on straw men. Try again. Just prove objective morality exists, go on. I'm still waiting.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Pretty much every post you make shows your inconsistency and how you straw-man me and play word games. I keep proving you believe in objective morality by your own posts. Try again. Just try to be consistent with subjective morality, go on. I'm still waiting.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 No you don't. Point to one thing I said was objectively wrong. I have only said things were wrong by my own standard, which is subjective. You even argue that society forming laws=objective morality. I disagree with that. Society forming laws isn't objective morality. Make your argument that Objective Morality exists. Not once have you done it in all these posts.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 You don't keep proving I believe in objective morality, because every single one of your premises has been a misunderstanding of my position, or a blantant, dishonest straw man.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow I do keep proving you can't be consistent with subjective morality and your response is to play word games and dive into irrationality.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 I havne't played any word games, and you are the one being irrational. Just because you are to thick to understand a post doesn't mean it contains word games. (I call you thick because you believe I am asserting objective morality, which I am not. And every post you make asserting I do is a straw man.)
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 You're the one thats cornered, you haven't made an argument yet, which is what I have been asking for this entire time.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow You have made my argument for me, thanks. When you can be consistent with subjective morality get back to me.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Also, I NEVER said that society determines morality. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS HAHAHA. I said that we, as a society, agree on rules to live by and hold each other by for the benefit of society. We have to live with each other, and this is necessary for a succesful society. Laws do not equal morality, but they stem from the collective morality of the people, and can be used to help shape peoples moral code as well if they agree with the laws.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow So the "benefit of society" is objective morality. Another self-refuting comment. I thought it was subjective? Hitler and many mass murdering nations believe they were benefiting society, but of course you will refute yourself once again and say they were wrong. Once again you beg the question and swerve off to what morality is not what it should be. Still waiting for you to be consistent with your irrationality. I wont hold my breath.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 NO! STRAW MAN! Benefit of society is not objective morality. They are just rules we set for ourselves to keep some sort of order, which is necessary to live together (without them we would have people running around stealing things and the like.) Laws don't determine morality, they stem from the collective morality of the people (in a democracy) or those in charge. I have been 100% consistent so far, and you have had a straw man in EVERY SINGLE one of your posts so far today.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Who says order and survival is the standard for morality? I thought morality is subjective? Another self-refuting comment. Who cares if we don't survive, people steal, etc.. You act as if its objective wrong to harm survival. You continue to beg the question and refute yourself. Now you are going off to how morality is determined when Im talking about what morality should be. More inconsistencies in every post you make. Can't wait for more.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Another straw man. I NEVER SAID ORDER AND SURVIVAL IS THE STANDARD FOR MORALITY. This renders your whole post invalid, because it is, in fact, a straw man.
Order and survival are beneficial, and something being beneficial does no necessarily=moral.
More straw men in every post you make. Just try making ONE post that isn't a straw man, and actually does what you are supposed to do, which is demonstrate objective morality exists. Prove it to me, go ahead, I'm still waiting.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow What you declare as "beneficial" does include moral acts such as not stealing, not raping, not killing. Who says if something is beneficial is the standard for morality? Who gets to define what is beneficial? I thought morality was subjective? More self-refutation. Just try making one post that is contradictory to your beliefs and prove objective morality. Go ahead, im still waiting.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Yes, what I define as beneficial does include things like not stealing, things which I think are (by my standard) wrong. We decide as a society (in a demoncracy) what is and isn't beneficial with our vote. This is not morality, as we can decide that abortion is beneficial to help with the overpopulation problem, but that doesn't make it right or wrong, now does it? No self-refutation in my posts, try again.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow That is morality because the society says certain moral acts are wrong forcing their opinion of morality on others who believe otherwise. So once again, who says whats "beneficial" is the standard for morality? And once again you will refute yourself by saying the society of Nazi Germany was wrong when they said it was beneficial to mass murder Jews. I thought morality was subjective anyway? Who says its wrong to overpopulate? Once again appealing to objective morality. Try again.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Society doesn't say certain actions are wrong. Society says certain actions will not be tolerated and are punishable. There is a difference, it doesn't make moral claims. Your second question is a loaded question, as it assumes an objective standard for morality. The people decide what is beneficial by their subjective opinions, and it does not mean that the law is an objective moral standard, it just means there are a list of actions you will be punished for doing.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Here we go with word games. What a sad tactic to plays semantics in order to defend irrational beliefs. An action that isn't tolerated and will be punished is wrong. Good luck trying to convince anyone of your definition. I guess Logic is subjective too right? You can redefine anything you want and nothing has an absolute identity such as your definition being the exact definition for a wrong act. Talk about intellectual dishonesty, never seen such a religious atheist before.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Your quote "An action that isn't tolerated and will be punished is wrong."
Are you aware that there are Muslim countries in which blasphemy against Allah, worshiping the Bible god, is not tolerated and is punishable by death? Praying the Yaweh is an action, and in certain lands, it isn't tolerated and is punished. ANd you are saying it is wrong, just because something is punished? NOPE, bad definition on your part. I am not redefining "wrong", you are. No word games here.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Well duh, the Muslim countries believe its wrong to be a Christian so they punish that action. Thats forcing morality on people who believe otherwise which is objective morality. Whats so hard to understand telling someone their opinion of morality is wrong and forcing yours over theirs makes your morality a universal moral truth aka objective morality. You know this so you have to play word games. Do continue the foolishness, self-refutation does the work for me.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Your definition of objective morality: "True for all people at all times", then you say "Thats forcing morality on people who believe otherwise which is objective morality", and you say that Muslims forcing their belief on someone is objective morality? You just admitted that Islam is true for all people at all times! I've never met an Islamic Christian before. You have also admitted that the Nazi's were morally right too, by your definitions and reasoning.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow To Muslims their standard for morality is Allah. Yes, by them forcing their morality on people saying Allah is right at all times for all people they are making it objective. Nice try with the red herring and straw-man because the issue is not debating whether Allah can be the transcendental foundation for objective morality or not. Replace Muslims and Allah with you. You would force your morality of child rape being "wrong" on people who believe otherwise.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Okay, I think i see where your confusion is. You think that someone can't force their subjective morality on someone. Why can't they? Yes, I would hold everyone to MY standard, that child rape is wrong, but that doesn't mean that other peoples standards include that, and it doesn't mean that it is objective (true for everyone at all times regardless of belief, etc.)
Answer this: Do you think that one person imposing their subjective view on another makes it objective? I don't.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow What do you think that falls under? Absolute/Objective morality - True for all people and at all times. When you hold everyone accountable to your subjective morality saying they must adopt your opinion guess what you are doing, making it objective. So yes by definition imposing your subjective view on another makes it objective regardless of whether you agree or not. Im not saying your moral system that you created is not subjective, but imposing it on others makes it objective.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 I never said that they must adopt my opinion, and even if I did, it wouldn't make it objective, because it doesn't transcend me and my belief. It is SUBJECTIVE, since it is me and my opinion. Holding someone to the standards of your moral code does not make your moral code objective. Hitler held people to the standards of his moral code, but that didn't make his views objectively right. If you say holding others accountable=objective morality, you are saying Hitlers morally right
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Thats where your contradiction comes in, you are treating your subjective opinion as an objective truth. When you tell child rapists they are wrong and stop them from carrying out their subjective belief you are saying its objectively wrong to rape children. If you were to actually be consistent all you could say is "sir I believe you are wrong and wish you wouldnt do it". Who says Hitler's views weren't objectively right? Were they objectively wrong? Is Child rape Objectively wrong?
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 And thats where your confusion is. I am not telling them they are wrong by their standards, or by a transcendent moral law. I am telling them they are wrong by MY standard, which is subjective. And when I stop them from doing it, its because I have no problem imposing my subjective opinion on another person if they are hurting others (even though my view is not objectively more or less valid than theirs is.)
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 In regards to the Hitler and Child rape, no, they are not objectively right or wrong, because there is no transcendent moral code to go by. All we can go by is our own subjective codes, and my code says they are wrong, and I operate within the confines of MY moral code, as does everyone. You are saying Hitler was objectively right, because you just said that society determines morality (you said that a society making laws are objective morality, which I would disagree with.)
djUndertow 1 year ago
Wow are you serious? This atheist believes child rape, murder, etc. isn't objectively wrong. That is a sick belief to hold to. Of course I know your lying because you admitted in another post refuting yourself that you would force your morality on a child rapist. This conversation will not get past this point until you stop being illogical. You are taking your subjective opinion and making it a universal moral truth, that is Objective morality. If you disagree, we are only going to go in circles
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Look back at my previous post. When you first asked me that question, I said "it is wrong BY MY STANDARD" that is subjective. i NEVER SAID IT WAS OBJECTIVELY WRONG. If a transcendent objective moral standard doesn't exist, then something cannot be declared objectively morally right or wrong. You continue to straw man me, EVERY SINGLE POST of yours is a straw man. I never said it was objectively wrong, and you are lying if you assert that I did (Which you believe is a sin, right?)
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Also, i am not making my opinion a universal moral truth, I hold my opinion, and recognize that it is just an opinion. I never made it a universal moral truth. If I lock someone in jail, it is not because what they did is universally, cosmically, objectively wrong, it is because I don't agree with that action, and don't want people around who perform those actions, so I vote for politicians who will lock them up (like murderers and child rapists.)
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Yes you are making it a universal moral truth because you believe and would act on it at all times against all people saying child rape is wrong. Very comical for someone to admit objective morality requires a transcendent mind and in the same post declare that he forces his subjective morality on people making it objective and his standard an objective standard.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 I never said it requires a transcendental mind, I said objective morality would have to be transcendent (meaning transcendent of ALL minds) Also, just because I act according to my code doesn't mean that it is making it a universal truth. If two people are in a car, one likes Jazz, the other likes Rap, and the guy who likes Jazz turns the other guys radio off of rap, and onto Jazz, it doesn't mean Jazz is objectively better or worse, it means he acted on his subjective opinion.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Yes when you do act on your code you are making it objective. And guess what happens when he switches off the rap? He is saying Jazz is objectively better by claiming your preference is wrong no matter what. Same with morality, you are claiming everyone's morality who is different than yours is wrong. Physically acting on a subjective opinion = objectivity. Simple as that.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 No, if the guy turns off the rap, he is not saying that Jazz is objectively better than rap, he is saying that he doesn't like rap and doesn't want to listen to it. That is subjective. You assert "Physically acting on a subjective opinion=objectivity" but you haven't proved that. Where is your proof? By not proving this statement, you are saying "It's true just because it is." You cannot account for it. It is YOU who is acting illogically by asserting something without an argument
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Yes he is even if hes not literally saying it. He turning his subjective opinion into an objective belief. If any other genre of music is suggested it is rejected and forced to Jazz. That is objective. Uh the proof being what you are saying is the exact definition of objectivity, but calling it subjective. You are the on saying its subjective because it is. This all stems back to me not talking about how morality is, how it came to be, etc.. Im talking about what morality should be.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 No, you said in an earlier post objective is "True for everybody, regardless of belief, etc." meaning it transcends personal belief. The person saying "I like Jazz, I would rather not listen to anything else" is not saying that Jazz is objectively better, it is not saying that jazz is better than rap for everyone. It is saying that that person prefers a situation in which jazz is playing. That is the definition of a subjective preference.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Yes that person is saying that about Jazz which is fine and is subjective. That is the definition of subjectivity. Then you go on to include the act of forcing subjective beliefs on people as if they are objective as "subjective". That is redefining words to fit an irrational belief. Then he goes on to force that Jazz belief on people which appeals to objectivity. If hes not saying all genres are wrong except Jazz when he forces the dial on Jazz. What exactly is he doing?
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 "What exactly is he doing" He is saying he likes Jazz, acknowledging that someone elses opinion is equally valid, but acting in reality according to his own tastes. He isn't telling the other that their opinion is objectively wrong, he is saying that he doesn't want to hear their music, and he is cutting it off. Now, we could argue about whether he has the right to do that or not, but whether he does or not, he is still not making his statement (Jazz is good) an objective truth.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 You could also argue that he is a bully for turning the other music off, but again, either way, he is not making the statement "Jazz is good" objectively true when he turns the other music off. I'll post another example of subjective preference carrying over into the world effecting others, but still not being objective...
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 For my other example, lets say you are sitting in a room with the blinds closed. You decide that you would like the blinds open, that is your preference. You go and open the blind, and now they are open. It doesn't mean that it is objectively true for everyone irregardless of their beliefs that open blinds are better than closed blinds. it simply means that that person thinks blinds should be opened, and he opens them. Doesn't make it objectively better, its a personal value.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 You seem to think that someone forcing an action on someone else is an objective moral claim, which I just don't see how that can be the case. Maybe you can call the person taking or forcing that action a bully if you want, for holding others to his standard, but I don't see how you can say that his actions make his subjective value transcend his mind and become objectively true for everyone.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow How could it not be the case? Are you not making a universal moral truth that child rape is wrong when you tell a child rapist he is wrong and force your belief on him no matter what the case? You are implying child rape should be wrong for everyone. That is the exact definition of objectivity. That is the exact question im asking you, how could you make your subjective belief objective not being a transcendent mind?
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 I am not making a universal moral truth that child rape is wrong, I say its wrong by my standard (key words: my standard.) The forcing it is another issue- "Should I be able to dictate another persons actions through force based on my personal moral code?" This is also a subjective position, and I think yes, I can use force to put a child rapist in jail. It has no effect on the validity of the opinion. Let me give you another slightly different example...
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 (continued)... I personally think it is morally right to drive without your seatbelt if you want to. However, I support the "click it or ticket" laws, I support punishing those who don't wear the seatbelt, because I think it is for the good of the people. This action (punishment for certain action-driving without a seatbelt) is just that, just an action, and has no bearing on objective morality, it doesn't prove objective morality exists.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 "How could you make your subjective belief objective not being a transcendent mind"
I am not saying that you can make your subjective belief objective, the belief is still subjective. I will give another analogy in a new post, So i have room for it...
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 (Cont...) I think it is morally okay to wear sunglasses indoors. Lets say I walk inside, wearing sunglasses. Somebody else tells me that they personally believe sunglasses indoors is wrong and offensive, and tells me they are going to punch me in the face as a punishment if i don't take them off. Whether they punish me or not, their belief is still not objective. The physical actions they take objectively happens, but their moral claim is still subjective.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 (cont..) physical actions do not equal moral claims. You seem to think they do, and i am asking you how you can think this. Please explain this further to me.,
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow I don't think you are going to get a straight answer out of him man. You're talk goes back for pages and pages, if he hasn't grasped it yet, he probably never will lol.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Yeah, I don't think he can grasp that physical action does not equal morality claim. I'll probably stop talking to him soon, since he still has yet to prove objective morality. He doesn't seem to understand that taking a physical action based on a personal moral value system doesn't mean that that value system is objectively true, it just means thats what makes sense to them, and thats how they are going to operate.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow I can grasp that concept and it also isn't the issue, just a straw-man. The only way I haven't proved objective morality is if I accept your irrational premise that appealing to objective morality = subjective morality. You are trying to have it both ways and I would recommend you stop commenting if you are going to continue this belief because I don't accept it nor do the Laws of Logic. Yea they are operating as if their subjective belief is objective.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@redsaint182 No, he isn't going to convince me of his irrational beliefs. I will not accept appealing to objectivity being equal to subjectivity. That is a contradiction and I refuse to violate the Laws of Logic he has no problem of ignoring.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Haha, your proving my point. I said you wouldn't accept his point because you don't understand it. And since you continue to insist that he is appealing to objectivity when he interacts with others, that shows you don't understand it. You have been asked to show how physical action (doesn't matter if it interacts with people or not) necessitates objective morality, and from what I have seen, you have simply asserted that it does. I haven't seen any argument from you.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 Yeah, I don't think he understands :P I suppose its a waste of my time continuing the discussion with him, I think he's to thick to realize that an assertion isn't true just because he says it is (and since he hasn't provided a logical argument, thats all it is, an assertion.) Anyways, I'll leave this one to you if you want to take over lol.. I'm tired of it and frankly I don't care what he thinks.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow I'm not going to argue with him, hes nuts, and it would be a waste of time anyways, since you already destroyed his "arguments" anyways. I've got better things to do with my time than waste it on his bald assertions and other fallacies. And good job backing him on a corner and making him look foolish haha, grown people with imaginary friends need to be put in their place :P
-
Later : )
redsaint182 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 He even gave you an example of how physical action doesn't necessitate objective morality (a few of them.) A good one was the seatbelt one. He doesn't think it is wrong subjectively, and certainly doesn't think its wrong objectively, yet he still supports giving people tickets for not wearing their seatbelt, just because he deems it a beneficial action.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 And don't even start on "beneficial determines morality", because that would be a straw man. I think abortions are wrong, but I also think they are beneficial under certain circumstances. So I wouldn't do it, but I wouldn't punish those that do. Whereas killing, while I think its wrong, I also think it is not beneficial, so I would punish for that. Beneficial does not equal morality. We decide what is beneficial and punishable as a society. Morality remains subjective to us.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@djUndertow I never said physical actions = moral claims. I said forcing your belief over others no matter what appeals to objective morality and isn't subjective. You keep thinking I don't understand what a subjective belief is. I know his belief of sunglasses is subjective. When he forces it on people he is appealing to objectivity saying every subjective belief is wrong except his. Making a universal moral truth that wearing glasses indoors is wrong.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 "I said forcing your belief over others no matter what appeals to objective morality"
Punishing someone for an action that I subjectively deem wrong is a physical action. It doesn't appeal to objective morality, because I don't need it to be objectively right or wrong to act on it. Yes, the child rapists opinion is-in the grand cosmic sense-equally as valid as mine, but I can still punish him for his actions, there is nothing saying I can't.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow Punishing someone for an action that you subjectively deem wrong is appealing to objective morality. You act on it and imply child rape is wrong no matter what anyone says. I never said you can't punish him or do whatever you want. Im saying you can't live out subjective morality consistently without appealing to objectivity.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 "Punishing someone for an action that you subjectively deem wrong is appealing to objective morality"
No it isn't. There is no objective standard which says its wrong to toss a person in jail, so if they are doing something I don't like (like raping a child) I am going to throw them in jail. It has nothing to do with objective morality, I understand that the persons actions are cosmically neutral, not objectively wrong or right. But I throw them in there anyways, because I can.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 That guy may not be saying that every subjective belief is wrong expcept his. he may say "Okay, your view is equally valid, but I don't care what you think, and I don't like those sunglasses, they are coming off, now." He is admitting here that his standard is not objective, and equally valid, but he can still take physical action. Physical action, while it can be and is motivated by subjective moral code, does not determine morality, or make claims about morality.
djUndertow 1 year ago
He is acting as if its true for all people that wearing glasses indoors is wrong. If he was consistent all he could do is say "wearing glasses indoors is wrong according to me". He is forcing others to adopt his subjective beliefs. Another point you bring up is everyone's view is equally valid. So why should I care what you say about God dealing with morality when you admitted my opinion is equally valid? That makes any moral argument pointless. You appeal to objectivity and say im wrong.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 I am not appealing to objectivity. When I say God punishing people is wrong, it is by my own standard, which i realize to other people is pretty worthless, but its not worthless at all to me. If you assert that God is morally justified in his actions, that position is equally valid, because its subjective. But I would still say that by my standard, God would be in the wrong. if he is all powerful, I wouldn't be able to do anything about it, and he would get away with murder.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 "That makes any moral argument pointless"
In a sense, yes it does. However, rules set up by society stem from our subjective moral codes, so it is helpful (at least I would deem it so) to discuss moral issues because we will make laws which physically effect people (including me.) So deciding what to physically enforce is not pointless, but trying to argue that anything is objectively wrong is pointless, yes.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 So like I said, he is not making a universal moral truth that it is wrong. he is just saying that he is taking things in his own hands, everyone else is equally valid in the grand cosmic sense, but that and theres nothing really to stop him from taking a physical action preventing someone from doing something, and that he doesn't care what they believe (except maybe my moral belief that it is okay, in certain circumstances, to fight back:P)
djUndertow 1 year ago
@djUndertow He is making a universal moral truth because everyone has to take on his subjective beliefs no matter what. If everything is equally valid then who is he or you to tell anyone they are wrong? You aren't making any sense now. I never said there was "something" to stop him beside self-contradictory beliefs appealing to objectivity.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 He is making a universal moral truth because everyone has to take on his subjective beliefs no matter what"
And thats where you're wrong. No one has to take on his beliefs, and he may not even care if you take on his beliefs or not. He punishes people not necessarily to change their beliefs, but because he doesn't like the action and punishment may prevent the action from happening to him again.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 "If everything is equally valid then who is he or you to tell anyone they are wrong"
I am me. My opinion is no more valid than theirs is. But that doesn't mean I cannot enforce a set of laws through physical punishment. It seems like a Bully move, enforcing this on someone when its all cosmically equally valid, but thats the thing, I don't care, because my action (punishing) is just as valid. And I don't appeal to objectivity at all.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 So when I punish someone for an action I don't like, I am not saying "Thats objectively wrong".
I am saying "I realize that you don't think this is wrong, and your opinion is just as valid as mine, but my throwing you in jail is also just as valid an action, and thats what I'm going to do, so deal with it. It doesn't mean that what you did was objectively wrong, but I thought it was unacceptable, and to prevent it from happening again, I'm sticking you in a cell. Deal with it."
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 (continued) ... Because if someone says "If you turn that to rap, I will turn your radio off", that is not a morality statement. That is a statement of "if [x] happens, [y] will happen" it isn't claiming anything is right or wrong. This is just an action which happens in objective reality, but an action which is based on subjective opinion. And the opinion stays subjective, even after the action occurs. The action doesn't make the opinion objectively true, its still an opinion.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 In addition to defining objective a certain way earlier in the discussion, you are now defining it another way, you are taking subjective statements (Jazz is good--which is an opinion and applicable only to the person making the statement) and saying that they are objective. YOU are the one thats defining subjectivity as objectivity, So you think objectivity=objectivity and subjectivity=objectivity lol, you're insane. Define subjective for me.
djUndertow 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 OMG, you think music is objective? djU is making you look foolish here Jfl2. You think someone having an opinion makes it true for everyone? Thats insane lol. djU is right, you are defining subjective as objective. I haven't read you guys' entire talk, but I haven't seen you prove your posts yet. It seems like your arguing for subjective morality and calling it objective (if someone has an opinion, they make it true for everyone? Hows that?? lol)
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 It was an analogy to morality. He is appealing to objective morality when he says every genre is wrong and Jazz is right no matter what. How does that not equal objectivity? Im saying when someone has an opinion and goes around forcing it on people as if it is objective is obviously appealing to objectivity. Someone who was consistent with subjectivity would say "Jazz is right and everything is wrong according to me" not going around enforcing that belief as if it is objective.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Oh, I see what djU means by the straw mans now (though it may just be because you didn't understand what he was saying and not intentional?) He never said that the guy said every other genre is objectively wrong or worse. Personally, when I hear pop music, I turn the radio off, because i don't like it. I think (key words "I" and "think"), that blues is better, but that is my opinion. And I will turn the radio off if pop comes on, because I don't like it, which subjective.
redsaint182 1 year ago
@redsaint182 The only straw-mans are comming from him, he is just screaming straw-man ad naseum . He has straw-manned me in his last comment saying Im saying subjective opinions = objectivity. You don't have to literally say "every other genre is objectivity wrong" when you act on a belief as if every other genre is wrong when someone tells you Rap is right. Your example doesnt deal with forcing your subjective belief over someone else. If it did, that would be appealing to objectivity.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Okay, I think you've got it a little wrong. A physical action isn't a moral claim, though they can result from moral opinions. And I have read over all the posts by now, and you have straw manned him quite a bit, and I think he might have straw manned you once or twice too. (Now, some of those from both sides may be from misunderstanding the other side, or they may be intentional, idk.)
redsaint182 1 year ago