Youtube comments of (@keitumetsemodipa3012).
-
14
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@SamsonZionist Yeah I mean we understand Christ to be the whole point of the TANAKH and so when we look at Melchizedek we see the typography of Christ, namely being the eternal priest of Most high as well as being the King of Peace as in:
Isaiah 9:6 (NKJV): 6For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
in:
Psalm 110 (NIV): Psalm 110
Of David. A psalm.
1 The LORD says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
2 The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of your enemies!”
3 Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy splendor,
your young men will come to you
like dew from the morning’s womb.
4 The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”
and
Genesis 14:17–20 (ESV): 17 After his return from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him, the king of Sodom went out to meet him at the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). 18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.) 19 And he blessed him and said,
“Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
Possessor of heaven and earth;
20 and blessed be God Most High,
who has delivered your enemies into your hand!”
And Abram gave him a tenth of everything.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
To add nuance, the term "based" warrants careful scrutiny, as it is often conflated with terms like "grounding," "proof," "logic," "justification," and "truth." These concepts are frequently left ambiguous in discourse, leading to confusion.
The core issue often lies in justification—specifically, whether we are justified in asserting that "God doesn't exist" based on argumentation and reasoning. For instance, if one claims that "human reasoning is flawed," the question shifts from "does this argument prove x?" to "how can we justify the belief that human reasoning is flawed?" Since this belief precedes reasoning itself, it must be addressed directly at the outset.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hi, I'm seeking to gain more knowledge on religion, Rabbinic Judaism seems to be a good start since it seems like the bridge between modern and ancient understandings of Judaism, but I'm getting mixed responses from Jewish communities online
I don't have access to a synagogue nearby, however I wish to go as often as I can to ask questions, on one hand I hear, don't worry about Judaism just follow the Noahide laws and you'll be fine, on the other hand, I hear don't even look into Judaism just follow the Noahide laws and that's all you're allowed to do
Problem is I'm not just a follower, I have questions, the last thing I want to do is just follow, I think great atrocities have been done because of the "just follow" mentality not to mention I believe it's dehumanizing to tell someone to suspend their reasoning since it's part of what makes one human, so what exactly to do?
Do I ask about the Oral Tradition, Exegesis, Doctrine and other parts of Tradition and scripture, do I suspend my thinking and follow the Noahide laws or is Judaism exclusively for Jews I'm so confused
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chemquests I’m sure you’ve encountered objections to Kant’s epistemology, particularly those raised by Orthodox Christianity, which has long critiqued similar epistemological frameworks within Catholicism and beyond. These objections apply broadly to most foundationalist views on knowledge.
For instance, the claim that "we cannot view reality as it is but only through our senses" is inherently circular. This critique forms a core part of my argument against naturalism: it is circular in a way that fails to resolve the fundamental epistemological problems it seeks to address.
To illustrate, consider a caveman who has never stepped outside his cave, yet insists that "all that exists is this cave." Could it not be the case that this prima facie belief is part of what sustains intriguing but ultimately restrictive worldviews such as naturalism or Platonism? The cave, in this analogy, represents the limits of sensory perception or theoretical frameworks that preclude access to transcendent realities, which Orthodox Christianity critiques as an unwarranted restriction of knowledge.
At the end of the day I would personally be on a journey to really put these beliefs in serious scrutiny:
"We cannot view reality as it is but only through our senses"
"All knowledge is contingent on what we learn next, and what we take to be knowledge today can be false tomorrow with the appropriate discovery"
"it can’t be fully justified..no claim can be."
Not in the domain of science but of reasoning, I believe that Orthodoxy doesn't have these issues but it's not why I'm Orthodox
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
My main issue with materialism is the circularity involved, exemplified by the classic claim, "unicorns don't exist." I think this is an interesting case to examine.
Too many people make such assertions without thoroughly considering the ramifications of holding these beliefs. Would one not require omniscience to justify such a claim? To assert that something definitively does not exist seems to necessitate knowing the entirety of existence—an impossible task for a finite being.
Essentially, this boils down to claims like, "There are no other minds," and, "I know that I know there aren't other minds." This sounds akin to omniscience because one is effectively asserting comprehensive knowledge of all that exists (the set of all existing things) in order to determine whether a particular thing exists or not. Furthermore, such a claim implies that this knowledge is not merely propositional but exhaustive and definitive.
It's one thing to say, "I don't think unicorns exist," just as I might say, "I don't think other minds exist." These are expressions of doubt or disbelief rather than absolute knowledge. However, knowledge claims like, "There are no other minds," or, "Unicorns don't exist," seem to be made far too casually. My question, then, is: how do you know that materialism is "true"? What justifies this claim beyond personal assumption or limited observation?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@louisesingleton5861 I always have that option, but my goal is to reduce the knowledge gap for myself and others. Recently, I've been visiting various online Jewish communities. In some, discussions stay civil, but as soon as I mention I'm Christian, things often take a turn. People stop listening, and instead, I get called names—"nothing you say makes sense," "you don’t know Hebrew," "you’re an idolater," "you murdered Jews," "you worship a man." All the common soundbites get thrown at me, and I end up learning very little about actual Jewish beliefs. I’m on the verge of stopping religious conversations with Jewish individuals altogether and sticking to discussions with atheists, Hindus, Muslims, or other Christians.
Just a few hours ago, I tried explaining to someone that Christians believe only in Hashem, and that we view Jesus as the Word of Hashem (the Memra) that the Patriarchs worshipped—believing that this same Word became flesh. But in response, I was told, “You’re an idolater; you worship a man, not God.” It left me thinking—if the Patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob worshipped the Word of the Lord, would that make them idolaters too?
Anyway, thanks for the advice. I’m still interested in learning about different religions, and I’m getting a clearer picture of Judaism. Some people are very Orthodox, while others seem to follow a more flexible approach to tradition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@glenanleitner2606 The nearest rabbi is about an hour away, so it’s a bit of a trip, but I’ll probably find a way to visit someone in that area.
The whole thing is fairly straightforward. Depending on which Jew you ask, they may believe in either one Messiah or two. Some think there’s a potential Messiah in every generation, while others say that the way the Messiah arrives depends on Israel’s state at the time. For instance, he might come lowly, riding on a donkey, or—similar to Moses—have two comings: first arriving humbly and being rejected, and later returning as a reigning king.
Muslims also recognize the Messiah, though their interpretation seems less clear. They often look to Jewish sources to understand what their prophet meant when he referred to Isa as “El Masih.” Their scholars have proposed numerous meanings for this term; I think there’s even a website dedicated to exploring its possible definitions.
And, of course, we believe that the Messiah is also the Angel of the Lord, the Memra of Hashem, and the Servant of the Lord—all united in one person. We believe that this is who Jesus is: not only a king but also prophet and priest.
It's more nuanced than this but this is the gist of what each side believes
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@here_we_go_again2571 Show them this and if they don't care then there's nothing one can do
John 8:20–24 (ESV): 20 These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple; but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come.
21 So he said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.” 22 So the Jews said, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?” 23 He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
They will die in their sins if they do not believe that Jesus is he
The Old Testament says no-one can give salvation other than God, so if they think Jesus is just a creature they aren't following Jesus and not going with Christian theology which means they aren't Christian
1
-
1
-
For the people curious about the Christian position, in order to show that The Messiah is God, I first have to show that God is Triune
(God is speaking here, saying that God sent him and his Spirit)
Isaiah 48:12–16 (ESV): 12 “Listen to me, O Jacob,
and Israel, whom I called!
I am he; I am the first,
and I am the last.
13 My hand laid the foundation of the earth,
and my right hand spread out the heavens;
when I call to them,
they stand forth together.
14 “Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him;
he shall perform his purpose on Babylon,
and his arm shall be against the Chaldeans.
15 I, even I, have spoken and called him;
I have brought him, and he will prosper in his way.
16 Draw near to me, hear this:
from the beginning I have not spoken in secret,
from the time it came to be I have been there.”
And now the Lord GOD has sent me, and his Spirit.
and Jesus said in John 8:24 (ESV): 24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
The Christian position is that God is Triune, and that the second person of God who is sent by God, came to fulfill the Law because he was the whole reason for the Law to begin with, you can see the Angel of the Lord / Word of the Lord throughout the whole Bible, we just believe that God keeps his promises and came to give us salvation by taking on a human nature in order that it may be perfected after what happened in the fall
1
-
1
-
@red---paulvanravenswaay2247 Reading Scripture alone is like shooting in the dark, but relying on Christian Tradition provides clarity. Lately, I've been studying Judaism and have noticed that many rabbis seem unfamiliar with traditional Christian teachings. They might be aware of Protestant beliefs (though Protestantism isn’t even the largest branch of Christianity), but when they discuss ideas like penal substitution, total depravity, or social trinitarianism, Catholics and Orthodox Christians often cringe. With a fuller understanding of Christian Tradition, as well as Jewish Tradition, there might be fewer misunderstandings.
Here’s a quote from a Church Father on Jesus’s teaching style, especially regarding rhetoric and hyperbole:
Jesus often employed hyperbole and vivid imagery to convey profound truths, inviting listeners to look beyond the literal to the spiritual and moral implications. For instance, when He spoke about removing the ‘plank’ from one's own eye before addressing the ‘speck’ in another’s, He used exaggeration to highlight the importance of self-reflection over judgment of others.”
– John Chrysostom in his homilies on Matthew (he's like Rambam but more authoritative on scripture interpretation)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AustenDenning I think there’s a difference in how we’re using the term “logic.” For me, logic is conceptual—it exists within the mind and doesn’t have an independent representation outside it. This seems to contrast with how you’re describing it.
What you’re outlining seems to involve two sequential events that might have a causal relationship but don’t necessarily have to. For all we know, the light turning on could be entirely unrelated to the switch. It’s possible that the light switched on spontaneously at the exact moment someone flipped the switch, with the switch itself playing no causal role. This kind of scenario reflects the broader concern of radical skepticism.
Turning to probability doesn’t fully resolve the issue either. As Hume pointed out, past events don’t justify future ones. Probability itself relies on patterns observed in the past, which doesn’t guarantee future consistency. Additionally, assigning probabilities requires a gradation between two absolutes (e.g., 0 and 1), along with a judgment to justify those gradations. But this judgment itself needs justification—a justification that skepticism challenges.
This issue of justification extends into many scientific fields, where rules of incompleteness often apply. For example, scientific theories operate within certain limits and make assumptions that can never be fully verified. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems in mathematics, for instance, demonstrate that even within a formal system, there will always be truths that cannot be proven within that system.
In summary, the concepts of causality, probability, and even scientific reasoning require presuppositions that skepticism questions. Without a way to justify these presuppositions, we can’t guarantee their reliability.
1
-
1
-
@isiahs9312 Are you referring to God by the term 'skydaddy'?
If so, your critique seems to conflate distinct cognitive categories, particularly the superset of 'thinking' and its subset, 'logic and philosophy.'
Thinking, in its most general sense, encompasses all mental activities, including reflection, imagination, intuition, and reasoning. Logic, as a subset, pertains specifically to structured principles of valid inference and rational coherence. Philosophy further applies these principles to foundational questions about existence, knowledge, and ethics.
Your claim that belief in God arises from 'a process of not thinking' is self-refuting when juxtaposed with your acknowledgment that believers argue for their position.
Do they think or do they not think, or are you using the word think in a difference sense than I outlined above?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vex1669 I agree that comment sections aren't the best platform for in-depth discussions, but I'll address your points succinctly.
First, I disagree with your characterization of "faith." It’s entirely possible to choose to trust in nothing and no one, including oneself—this is often referred to as "radical skepticism." However, where is the concept of "gradation" coming from in your argument? Gradation inherently relies on transcendentals, such as a standard and a method of delineation between extremes or absolute points. A particular mind, without reference to something beyond itself, cannot account for these transcendentals.
Second, I would argue that "radical skepticism" or nihilism is the natural conclusion of atheism, but that's another topic altogether
Third, there’s no inherent reason why one "ought" to avoid being led astray. Why is being led astray "wrong"? The term "wrong" is another transcendental category that presupposes an epistemic criterion, a method of delineation, and an absolute value judgment. If one denies these foundations, then "wrong" becomes inapplicable to any realist theory of value—particularly to questions like whether one "should" commit a crime. (I'm just pointing this out, not accusing you of saying / believing this)
Lastly, I’m unclear about what you mean by "faith in religion." It’s possible you might be committing a quantifier shift fallacy here, depending on what you mean by "in the context of religion." To align with my apophatic theology, I’ll explain what faith is not according to Orthodoxy: faith is not fideism, nor is it an obligation. Faith is an optional participation, with obligations arising only after the decision to participate has been made.
1
-
@vex1669 I think I get what you mean, this isn't the simplest topic to speak on but if the interlocutors are well versed in each other's worldviews, then the discussions tend to go pretty well.
My main goal so far is reading as much Orthodox philosophy and theology as I can and move on to Islam, I don't think people are paying enough attention to it and it's teachings which I think will hurt everybody in the end.
But from time to time I may get on atheist lives / talking circles, even though it doesn't seem like it'll be a great time, I think people get way too emotional on these topics, screaming, shouting, muting all that stuff gets way too annoying, and depending on the circles encourage a really toxic culture, I'll see a live that says "God is imaginary" and someone with any understanding of philosophy will pop up and ask some clarifying questions (What do you mean by God, what do you mean by imaginary etc) and the burden gets shifted on the guest which is odd given the live says "God is imaginary" which if I'm not mistaken means they have the burden of proof since they are making the claim, but doesn't matter anyway, it's not like crying about it moves anything forward
1
-
1
-
@vex1669 I was referring to the "God is imaginary" discussions, not specifically to you, regarding the defense of beliefs.
What do you consider to be the correct method to use, epistemically speaking?
The question of why I should be an atheist is intended to address how moral imperatives are "pre-logical and pre-philosophical." It highlights the point that engaging in logic and philosophy already assumes certain moral presuppositions— which Quine’s paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" touches on
Even if one dismisses worldview comparisons as an epistemically valid method, there remains the task of justifying moral imperatives and judgments such as:
"Worldview comparison is a 'bad' method, epistemically speaking."
"You 'shouldn't' use it—if you value sound reasoning."
"Faith, as epistemic justification, is not a 'good' method either."
"Debate strategies bordering on 'dishonest' behavior should be abandoned."
All these moral judgments and imperatives, even when expressed colloquially, still demand justification and accountability. Addressing worldview comparisons is only one aspect of presuppositional argumentation. The broader aim is to explore the preconditions for concepts like truth, moral imperatives, and moral judgments—examining how they are justified and accounted for.
Interestingly, Unsolicited Advice engages in what seems to be, a growing trend to respond with statements like, "Well, you face the same issue as we do, so there’s no real solution." Personally, I see this as more of a concession than a substantive response. For one, it seems to rely on tu quoque reasoning and ad hoc claims, while also being circular:
- We know things through the senses.
- There are certain things we cannot know.
- Through the senses, we come to realize there are certain things we cannot know.
If this circularity is not problematic—or if circular reasoning, in general, is deemed acceptable—then the discussion shifts to distinguishing between valid and invalid forms of circularity. This brings us to philosophers like Cornelius Van Til and Kant among others regarding circularity
1
-
@vex1669 I was referring to the "God is imaginary" discussions, not specifically to you, regarding the defense of beliefs.
What do you consider to be the correct method to use, epistemically speaking?
The question of why I should be an atheist is intended to address how moral imperatives are "pre-logical and pre-philosophical." It highlights the point that engaging in logic and philosophy already assumes certain moral presuppositions— which Quine’s paper "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" touches on
Even if one dismisses worldview comparisons as an epistemically valid method, there remains the task of justifying moral imperatives and judgments such as:
"Worldview comparison is a 'bad' method, epistemically speaking."
"You 'shouldn't' use it—if you value sound reasoning."
"Faith, as epistemic justification, is not a 'good' method either."
"Debate strategies bordering on 'dishonest' behavior should be abandoned."
All these moral judgments and imperatives, even when expressed colloquially, still demand justification and accountability. Addressing worldview comparisons is only one aspect of presuppositional argumentation. The broader aim is to explore the preconditions for concepts like truth, moral imperatives, and moral judgments—examining how they are justified and accounted for.
Interestingly, Unsolicited Advice engages in what seems to be, a growing trend to respond with statements like, "Well, you face the same issue as we do, so there’s no real solution." Personally, I see this as more of a concession than a substantive response. For one, it seems to rely on tu quoque reasoning and ad hoc claims, while also being circular:
- We know things through the senses.
- There are certain things we cannot know.
- Through the senses, we come to realize there are certain things we cannot know.
If this circularity is not problematic—or if circular reasoning, in general, is deemed acceptable—then the discussion shifts to distinguishing between valid and invalid forms of circularity. This brings us to philosophers like Cornelius Van Til and Kant among others regarding circularity
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheDrink69420 This question can be approached in various ways, depending on your perspective.
You might consider it from a moral imperative—that is, as a fundamental obligation to engage with philosophy—or from a more personal standpoint, which, in essence, becomes the same question: Why should one engage in philosophy? This is because any personal reason would likely be considered universally applicable if it stems from shared human experience or ethical principles.
My question arises from a curiosity about your perspective on morality. Within the framework of Orthodox Christianity, humanity's central issue is viewed as an ethical dilemma, a moral estrangement from God. Consequently, I believe that a crucial question Orthodox philosophers and apologists should address is:
"Why should one be an atheist?"
Furthermore, what foundational principles would one appeal to in order to claim that atheism is "right"? This question is particularly significant because it transcends logic and philosophy—it operates on a "pre-logical" and "pre-philosophical" level. As such, any defense of atheism that appeals to argumentation or philosophical reasoning would seem to miss the point, since the underlying challenge is about the justification of one’s foundational moral and existential commitments.
1
-
@TheDrink69420 Yeah, the answer is ok for either or both,
Your question is interesting, but from an Orthodox perspective, the proposed dilemma doesn't hold up for several reasons:
God and Truth: To assert that "God lied" is incoherent because God grounds truth itself. As the source of all truth, any contradiction between God and truth is a category error, it also doesn't work because God doesn't have propositional knowledge but that's another topic.
God as Creator: The claim that God didn’t design us also fails, as nothing that exists was created apart from Him. This is affirmed in Scripture, which states, “All things were made through Him, and without Him, nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3).
God and Existence: The suggestion that "God doesn't work" misunderstands God’s nature. God is existence in a predicative sense, not as a being among beings but as the ground of all being.
Thus, the dilemma you propose doesn’t fully account for the Orthodox understanding that God created humanity perfect and that human reasoning can still be flawed. These truths are complementary, not contradictory, within the Orthodox framework.
Moreover, the question also fails to address the nature of logic. Logic, from this perspective, is not merely an abstract system but an act of the will, performed by persons who exercise said will. However, logic is also shaped by the person’s worldview. For instance, a materialist may consistently avoid fallacies while reasoning, yet their worldview itself presents glaring problems because it cannot adequately account for transcendentals such as truth, logic, or moral imperatives.
By failing to consider both the ontological grounding of logic and the influence of worldviews, the dilemma misses the complexity of how truth, logic, and human reasoning intersect in Orthodox theology.
The difference here of course being the meaning of perfect, which I'm ok with any definition you wish to give
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1