Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Overly Sarcastic Productions"
channel.
-
45
-
tbf, the concept of separation of Church and State was meant as a one way measure, the State was suppose to be unable to touch any systems of the Church however there was still a rightful claim to justify State behavior by manners of faith and morals. (in fact that's why most of the original English law was adopted at all, aside from the fact it was so convenient to pull from) A more important point however is that morality is suppose to be found as unshaken and law is an embodiment of the rights determined by God and his morality, this is what the Bill of Rights was actually instituting, the concept of inalienable rights doesn't actually fundamentally hold up without an unchanging morality to hold it up, otherwise the belief of rights as a privilege decided to be given by humans "just for fun" is inevitably gonna happen, which in turn allows people to justify removing and infringing said rights which is happening now, and tends to happen any time something remotely gets close to rights gets established. Often times people end up stealing from that worldview so supplement their worldview and that makes it easy to corrupt the idea against the intention. If you ever read any of the founders on this subject like Madison and Jefferson, even despite all of their less then fully Trinitarian Protestant worldviews, this is something they speak to as the core of the Constitution and its function as a fundamental document of the nation state.
14
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The reason Rey sucks isn't because of anything complex, its literally only because she has shown no skill in any of the Force until when she uses it and then proceeds to ignore it again until she needs it, all while being totally untrained. Like if you want to bring up Luke, he couldn't handle a lightsaber at all in the first film, and couldn't even use the Force deliberately until the second, mostly AFTER his training began. Rey first learns about some function of the Force and within 10 minutes in the story is able to use a Jedi Mind Trick, (as a trick that canonically both in old and new canon lore is actually quite difficult to pull off for one not already experienced in the Force) even Force telekinesis is generally shown as difficult for novices when doing more then keeping something steady, Luke's training under Yoda is generally short but his time of practicing the Force and specifically with a lightsaber is three years. Luke's training is able to be rationalized (and in both canons it actually is) as something he didn't all of sudden pickup. And he had both the help of Ben and Yoda. Rey not only can do way beyond Luke in Empire at the end but also did it in a shorter time with less leeway out of nowhere with no mentors AT ALL. Nobody in canon was shown to capably learn the Force the way she does on their own without a mentor, especially in such a short time, in fact the canon practically goes explicitly against this because the closest people tend to get are called Force sensitives that don't directly impact the Force themselves, hell even Rogue One has a character that outright embodies this fact. (even though that contradicts both the Force and A New Hope since they're not bothon spies) Not even to mention that she's also given overwhelming conscious saber skill despite never being trained in any form of weaponry nor lightsaber styles. (and just lazily tossing a staff around with wide open swings does not constitute weapon training of any sort) She is even able to absolutely blast a dude trained by Luke who has been studying much of his life both in the light and dark side powers and lightsaber styles, and she is able to whip him. And the reason beyond that on why she is a Mary Sue is that everyone also likes her despite no real justification for why everyone both loves her and why she has to come upon already previous established nostalgia bait. If you care anything about Star Wars canon you would know that it is extremely rare that prolific characters in the stories will actually come across each other unless they already have good reason to meet. (which in this case there is no justification for it, they just happen to find every single character with no limits on the nostalgia bait)
1
-
1
-
To point out, a lot of the stereotypes and tropes are the result of physiology and behavior, women generally already have a difficult time actually being a leader specifically because they're not mentally designed for it, whether you take from an evolutionary perspective or a Creationist perspective, they are meant to functionally be separated from the harshness of the world physiologically, even if individually that doesn't always apply. (you can see this demographically by analyzing how many reduce or ignore major threats and their later acceptance of rule under encroaching threats afterwards, like French women under German rule or the Celtic women under Nordic rule) This alongside the more emotionalized behavior of women because physiology means women, specifically embodying feminine traits, are terrible at making leaders specifically over men. The best you can expect in that case is a women who can overcome all these systems which in essence is stripping of feminine qualities as a result, thus why they tend to become manly women. (tho tbh I see the concept of trying to force women into this masculine badass role in the first place plain, boring, and stupid because of how continuously its forced for little actual reason, I don't mind it all the time given its written well, buts its so overused these days, I don't need 50 Ripley's a month in every story I want to be interested in) Men will generally be the active head of a story because of their risk propensity, strength, and willingness and ability to face danger without breaking down over it. This is why they tend to be portrayed in this way and why even in alternative societies you will tend to not find women, specifically feminine women, going out and being a badass, leader, or being active in doing something more. (basically its not their purpose to actively go outside, their actively shaping of the world tends to come from a different place) As for why its usually white, that's because western civilization culturally and near physically conquered the world, from Rome to the modern day, the world has been managed and controlled by a hegemony of majorly white population nations. As for why straight, that's actually because most men are straight, Greece only had a higher amount of bisexualism because the people who could read and write and the people involved in that high class society were bisexual, those you surround yourself with produce your worldview of the world just as much as you create them to be your worldview. As for why, that's a question about why Greek society in the higher classes was so open to it, because of lot of the lower classes were not. (most probably because it was a decadent behavior in the lower classes that they couldn't afford to partake in, homosexual acceptance only happens in decadent, usually collapsing, societies because its not a positive production to partake in such behavior for it undermines development of the future generations)
1
-
1
-
@TheRezro First off, Catholics believe in purgatory (and some "reformed" Catholics don't still) not Christians, Protestants in fact are wholly opposed to such concepts. (we take the Bible at face value and are opposed to non-Biblical additions, everything we have faith in comes from Jesus and the Word breathed out by God, we don't speak from our own words, but His) Secondly no its not, consensus isn't a justified position, especially when contradicting the text, and in fact there are multiple verses that outright demand the Bible not be taken as only allegory.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, - 2 Timothy 3:16
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. - 2 Peter 1:16-21
As you can see it is in fact anti-Biblical to take the Bible as allegory according to Timothy and Peter. And Paul had much the same position, as did every apostle and disciple.
Simply put a consistent Christian does not conform to your belief of what a Christian thinks or believes and you neither seem to understand much about Judaism and Christian theology.
1
-
@TheRezro The belief of Protestants is defined as faith alone in Christ, (Sola fide) otherwise its not a Protestant faith, (anything else is not belief, for example anabaptism is not about faith, most doctrines and denominations on their own are about traditions and standards, not faith, its rare for different denominations to claim all other Protestant faiths are outright heresy) and most of the "non-singular beliefs" you talk about are the subject of that specific belief being infringed which means they aren't Protestant, they can't even really be considered Christians but people make up their own language so they can manipulate society. The entire point of Protestantism is that singular belief, if voided then the Reformation had no purpose and you'd need to deny any theology after the 1600s pretty much. (or honestly anything said by Peter, James, John, or Paul)
Some "Christians" do, however Christian theologians don't, most folks who think that way don't even believe in Jesus anyway and none of those people are theologically educated at all, most theological studies will result in the unavoidable fact that you can't believe in Christ and deny the Bible in any respect. Also conflating individual interpretations with theological doctrine provided beyond oneself is a rejection of arrogance and self-importance in the manner. Doing so is an intentional manipulation of what's being said and the faith being had.
As for not being taken by sane people, when you live in a relative world sanity is a matter of opinion, only a decade ago sanity was considered very much different, half a century ago it was even more distinct, there is apparently no consistent principle for sanity if you don't have a foundation for it. Which most people don't. (and in the case I don't believe you do either) Also how about you don't twist what was originally said, you said one thing about allegory being the mainstream interpretation of the Bible, which means that most of it is not laterally applicable nor does it describe historic events. You can't make the claim of the allegorical interpretation approach and then backtrack when you realize it doesn't work "in every case" as that's both hypocritical and inconsistent. You argued for allegorical interpretation, you're the one responsible for that discussing that interpretation. There is no "only allegorical" or "blindly literal" standard of the Bible, the Bible either stands as a historic document that contains moral lessons (and just gotta be clear in this case to prevent manipulation of the text, metaphors and allegory being described in speech of individuals or being used to describe something does not equate to the text being allegorical or metaphoric as that interpretation also tends to conflate) or its a totally fictional and untrustworthy book of made stories describing manners to live. The latter does not hold up to scrutiny and in fact is a functional lie, not to mention that the text also opposes such interpretations of the work.
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. - Romans 16:17-20
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. - Revelation 22:18-19
As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. - 2 Peter 3:16
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. - Galatians 1:6-9
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1
As for what you say on Timothy and Peter, you clearly don't understand the text nor its context then. First off Timothy in the text is speaking about following what has been given to the men of Christ, they are told in that text that they are to follow God's instruction for what they know as true, this means the historical account of the Old and later New Testament. Peter's text is even more direct and upright, it literally says "do not follow cunningly devised fables" which is referring to heresy and interpretations that precede the testimony as fictional or false. The text directly opposes interpretations of the Bible that do not reside it as the full truth. And private interpretation means do not prescribe interpretations of the Word that does not speak from the theology of Christ and his truth. It's pretty what it says and it repeats that message time and time again, you need to deny a lot of context and previous aspects of the text just to deny that.
You do realize flat earth theory was debunked at least 4 centuries before Jesus, (possibly even earlier, we mostly can't confirm because our texts on that subject only go back to the pre-antiquity Greeks) and that generally people already did not believe it because it didn't line up with demonstrative principles of the world. Sailors and those experienced at sea would especially deny the world being flat because it neither appeared that way nor did it act that way. Also conflating flat earth theory with Christianity is a false paradigm used mostly as a strawman to shutdown opposition. Anyhow clearly your interpretation of the Bible doesn't functionally work nor apply.
Well you're beliefs about others speaks heavily on your beliefs and your ideals. You clearly believe that Christianity is both stupid and incoherent and that anyone that opposes your worldview is absolutely fundamentally wrong and needs to be berated. (given how disrespectful you've been I can also say you have no humility and speak in arrogance) You also clearly don't mind lying and manipulating demonstrative proof and falsehoods to get your position across, so its pretty clear that in the least you're fine with attacking opponents and diffusing their statements so you can claim to strong arm them. It also seems like you have a pretty vehemently disposition towards Christianity, whether that's to religion in generally or Christianity specifically is harder to tell but its pretty clear that you either oppose spirituality or opposed Christian spirituality, so either atheist/antithiest or an agnostic that despises Christians. (though that's generally rare so probably the former)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@genericchannelname4110 I'd rather reserve the vaccines for those who will die from an infectious disease, we can already treat and cure pretty much every disease that we have a vaccine for, the only folks who need a vaccine are those at high risk who couldn't be treated by such methods without dying. That way our immune systems build up against the struggle and we don't develop autoimmune diseases or other problems. (which as an example, many heart problems seem to in the least be correlated from the chickenpox vaccine instead of dealing with the virus, and even has shown form of relation according to the few studies done) It also prevents the artificially forced evolution of infectious diseases to overcome efforts to vaccinate. Our immune systems aren't designed to deal with half-functioning diseases well, and its why most vaccines need a booster, if a vaccine was truly effective, boosters would be unnecessary. And why do we vaccinate against a disease that doesn't even kill? So many of them barely even makes us suffer.
Also the Covid "vaccines" is not a vaccine by definition, its a form of gene therapy that supposedly is designed to mitigate damage while infected, however there aren't many studies confirming its effectiveness and not many that have demonstrated lack of harm. It also was not approved for human trials in 2020 because it kept failing the rat trials, it didn't even make it to monkey trials.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Aditya Chavarkar And where do you pull that from? Christ specifically opposed political power and advocated peaceful opposition to the state in the occasion that it did not uphold righteousness and punish wickedness.
And its not blind faith, we do not worship what we do not know, unlike every other peoples, but what we are given definite evidence and knowledge for. But that evidence does not suffice those who wish in their heart it was not so, and thus they can not see such truth. Hence why we preach to the spirit, for the mind is blinded by a darkened heart. Should a blind man be shown a sight that could convince him if he could see? What use would such attempts have? If I could show you answers you could understand, I'd give them to you readily, as God would deign me to, but these answers, though they not be hidden nor reserved, (as I could speak them to you, but you would not have a heart to understand) can not be shown to you. It is in this way I can only speak unto manners for which you can understand for your sake.
1
-
@Aditya Chavarkar
"Christianity has and is ( just like any other religion) used for political power."
Has nothing to do with religion, its mankind, the nature of man is power, all men seek it cause they live in sin. Economics, politics, war, everything we do as a society is used for political power. That's a worthless complaint. You are literally conflating an issue that has nothing to do with the problem you're claiming, your personal interpretations of reality, your worldview, neither of these respect reality as it is. Its a bad anthropology you have learned.
"And let's not talk high and mighty"
Got nothing to do with being high and mighty, you are what you are, and you are blind to truth, so I can not reveal it to you if I tried. Those who can not handle truth also put themselves under others because of their shame and weakness instead of seeing that nobody is standing over you, it is yourself that is holding you down.
"seeing you believe what you believe for the heck of it rather than any notion regarding evidence."
Nope, not remotely true, I have seen the evidence and I believe because I have both proof and faith, evidence however did not give me faith, but the faith revealed to me the proof. But to those who have not the foundation are incapable of seeing the truth because the heart blinds them, and they follow the wickedness of the heart. That is your opposition, that is why you hate Him before me, and why you respond in such ways. Yet you also steal from my worldview, the bits of your worldview I see demonstrate you are not capable of founding any without Christ. If you truly were left without God, you would not care, you would not consider values or ideal, and would neither care about what I say or believe. For none of it contains value.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dr.zoidberg8666 Seems your understanding of theology of different cultures and religions is majorly flawed, by that very claim all religions should share the same ideals and values, which would basically contradict the idea of distinct religions since that's what they're so different about. A religion which argues for a state-based war cult is not worshiping the same deity as those that worship a deity of mercy. The different values by its very nature means they're attributing entirely different characteristics of the deity, even in the case you try to reject religious values in general, this isn't a valid argument simply because of religious traits. Even many pagan religions that share traits don't share the same values because they worship different things. Even if you entirely reject the deity (which tbh a regular secular person still can't) the idol worship of specific behaviors by essence makes it different. Such claims otherwise are invalid interpretations of reality at best and a gross intentional manipulation of reality at worst. Greek Pagans and Roman Pagans for example were not remotely the same despite the fact Roman Mythos is 95% Greek anyway. (this is because the worship and values of those deities were distinct by design) It also doesn't make any sense to make this claim if any religion exists which is polytheistic (or atheistic) in which case they're not making worship to a so thought single deity that is recognized alone. So all Pagans are ignored, and we don't see any Hindus existing anywhere.
This claim is just fallacious all over the place. "All people that believe have their own interpretations of what God is" This is universalism, and its a bad argument regarding it as well. It rejects distinct values of any religion simply because it can't comprehend that people could perceive reality in a way that lets them see or ignore things how they'd like to see or ignore them. We don't argue from subjective points of view of everyone sharing the same vision of reality somewhere (if you want to try to prove that, go argue reality with a schizophrenic bipolar off their meds) because it doesn't make any sense, if you're gonna go the subjective root of religion, you can't argue they're all the same entity. (especially when some religions don't even have any or have multiple or may not have the same type of recognition of a deity that could be treated such a way)
That aside as a Christian I also don't worship the same God as anyone else because everyone else's gods are liars and fakes, dragging man and trying to reach God, seeking the glory of themselves and to glorify only themselves. There is only two types of people in this world, the living and the dead, and those who aren't born again can never wake. If you reject Jesus then there is no saving you, even if you accept Jesus, but you walk in opposition to Him, you are still no a Christian, if you are not of His values you are his enemy and will be burned for eternity.
And no, the claims that Abraham or his descendants were Canaanites or of Canaanites and believed in the gods of the Canaanites is entirely developed out of many of the later Western Criticisms, as far as what is known, the God of the Bible was not among the Canaanites by the time of Abraham.
Also its funny that we can only get into rejection and criticism of Jewish/Christian documentation these days, I wonder why nobody before could so handily reject the existence of said characters. I wonder...
1
-
@dr.zoidberg8666 Ah, so you assume by trying to learn only from the people who want a faith to fail thanks to inbuilt bias, and have no experience regarding that faith, you are willing to tell me you know it better then people who spent lifetimes understanding and explaining how the faith works. Mix that with materialism and of course the only thing you can think about is a dumbed down, self-centered, pseudo-intellectual analysis of the text. It couldn't be a result of arrogance or ignorance on your part, it has to entirely be because everyone is just worshiping the same thing. They must be wrong because I can't be.
Yeah, you didn't learn jack about Christian theology in the least, and at best your Jewish theology is only weakly managed. If you did learn anything about Christian theology, you would be totally incapable of making the argument that the Trinitarian God is the same God as the Jewish or Islamic God, or is even comparable to any of the other Pagan or Eastern gods. And a formal philosophy class on religion isn't gonna help you with that, if the only history your taught is based out of those claims of philosophy and theology understanding that you showed, they don't appear to represent any form of reality. And what do you mean things you never said? You're the one that made the claim everyone worships the same deity and I countered you on that in both a rational and faith-based manner. Nothing I said was misrepresenting you, if any problem exists regarding its you explaining your OPINION badly.
1
-
@dr.zoidberg8666
1. I don't believe you when you make such irrational arguments.
2. You clearly didn't listen to anything that was being said by any decent theologians, so either you never actually met any or you're intentionally trying to manipulate or misunderstand them.
3. I don't care about religious men, a man of religion is worthless in faith, if he is not theologically grounded and founded in the truth, his words are worth nothing, they are but vain hypocrisy sprinkled to the wind. Christ does not appreciate the words of hollow and shallow men.
4. Don't try to cover your ass by claiming it was someone else that gave you these ideas, or that you have experience in something revolving faith, that's just an attempt to laud a plead to expertise where none exists. Its an excuse so you don't actually have to deal with the criticism of YOUR worldview. Its a fallacy in logical argumentation, and a red herring otherwise.
Also it appears you neither actually discussed the topic of faith, and/or have such a broad exposure to religious philosophy that you learned nothing of them. And your philosophy claims clearly never came of someone of a Christian background, I can see that claim from a secular Jew, but it requires no conviction said by anyone else.
No its not the same God, Islam believes in a God that lacks any mercy, peace, or love, the Jews believe in only the subservience of all non-Jews by God, lacking in compassion and faith, Christ does not represent what either of them seek. Christ embodied weakness because he strengthens the weak and does not fight of this world. The other religions desire restitution of this world and compared to this world. That's why they fight. But without Christ you don't get mercy and love as a strength, you don't find compassion as desirable. You don't seek forgiveness. Those traits distinguish Christ and the Father from all other religions because no other religion seeks both justice and mercy, grace and love.
As for the Mormons, you really don't understand anything about Mormonism then. They don't believe in one god, they believe in a functional infinite amount of gods and the one they claim we look at is actually just one of 'us' that became a god. They actually reject most of the Jewish and Christian documents and traditions because they conflict so heavily with Mormonism, the only thing they don't outright reject is the one thing that they can't reject. That Jesus existed. But even Buddhists and Muslims think that. Like you can't deny his existence even if you want to deny everything he said and did, simply because of all the proofs that exist of Him.
As for your claims of history, your arguments are not based in any empirical reality at least. The Muslims are a completely different branch of Abrahamic classification from Judaism and Christianity because they didn't extend from the any Abrahamic traditions or culture. They instead spawned from a rejection of Zoroastrianism by Muhammad. Christianity spawned from Judaism evolving as it did to suit the Israelites so the claim can at least be better rationalized from that, but the only reason you even try to make that claim is because most of its adoption was by semites and Muhammad claimed to be a theological descendant of Abraham. (which the only way to verify that by any measure is to analyze Abrahamic theology beforehand which Islam doesn't actually do a very well despite the fact they had a little over 5 centuries of two major theological roots to pull from excluding anything before Jesus because the destruction of the Temple soon after)
There is no record that the Israelites were Canaanites, cause I know where you're making that claim from and its rather unsubstantiated to say the least. Its really easy to see the roots of the criticisms that tend to get leveled at Christian and Jewish history and it rarely ever comes out of more then one place these days. (in fact the only other place Christian criticisms ever comes from is from a handful of post-Christ Jewish philosophers , and usually it only revolves around the rejection of something regarding Jesus)
Anyway, the Christians didn't inherit the God of the Jews, though some Jews did have a proper faith, but most of them didn't which is where the rejection of Jesus came from. If they shared the same God, they wouldn't have expected the Messiah to burn down the Roman Empire and build up a Jewish ruled planet.
And the Muslims as I said didn't inherit the Christian God. (Muhammad didn't even have much much experience with Christians at the time, he had a relative that was in a church that he probably knew, which influenced mostly his perceptions of what Jesus was but outside that his values and ideals don't line up anymore with Christ then the Jews and that can just as easily be chalked up as a semite thing)
"At no point in any of these theologies did they say "Stop worshiping the god you're worshiping! Switch over to this new guy." Jesus was all about the God of Abraham. So was Muhammad. It's only their understanding of that God that changed."
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” - John 14:6-7
Allah witnesses that there is no deity except Him, and [so do] the angels and those of knowledge - [that He is] maintaining [creation] in justice. There is no deity except Him, the Exalted in Might, the Wise. - Quran 3:18
I would say that's pretty explicitly stating in both that there is only one way. These aren't even half of what was said on the subject by either books. Jesus outright tells us only through him do we live. In the Quran it says only Allah matters, and they reject the crucifixion of Jesus and as a savior, they are mutually exclusive in every way by this simple part alone. And its not the only excerpts on the subject.
1
-
1
-
1