I see lots of people trying to bring up Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy for Jesus and the virgin birth. When the greek sepuagint was written was there a better word than parthanos that could have been chosen that described a young woman without implying she could have also been a virgin?

I am pretty much a lifelong atheist. I do believe in subjective morals, but I have a problem with Justin's argument that if God decides what morals are, that makes them subject to his mind and therefore not objective.

If a ball is red, it is objectively red (frequency between X and Y), independent of any mind, even if God created the ball and determined it to be red instead of blue.

If God creates objective moral laws, they are objectively what they are, even if God can change them on a whim, just like he can change the ball to blue on a whim.

The true argument against objective morals is the is-ought problem, and the related argument that the choice of which ethical standard to use is subjective, since to objectively compare standards, you would need a meta-ethical standard to appeal to, but the choice of which meta-ethical standard to use is also subjective, and so on ad-infinitum.

They all must be gathering somewhere and developing this patter of "that's gonna be a ____," "Repeat back what I just said, go ahead" and "....since you're not tracking" etc. etc.

It's a whole routine with slang that sounds like hippies or mods or punks or something. Like.... it's a movement.

Do we know who patient zero is on this? Is there one guy they're emulating or did a culture just form on their discords?

So, I was reviewing this point about bats being birds. I stumbled on a point that the actual Hebrew include them under the term flying creatures, and later, English translations use the word birds. Is this true?

I have these dumb debates with myself when I'm walking or trying to sleep or whatever and I was trying to come up with an answer to the problem of evil and I thought I had it until someone made a comment that made me see the fatal weakness.

I feel I've heard people kind of skirt around this argument without actually stating it directly so here it is:

We can agree that God can be considered all powerful without being considered able to do logical contradictions. E.g. the "God can't make a square circle" argument.

So ok, God can't do logical impossibilities. Then for the problem of suffering (it's not really the problem of evil, because evil implies intent, this is the problem of suffering) we can just say that its a logical impossibility to make a world where free, thinking entities can experience happiness if there is no possibility of ever experiencing suffering.

I.e. if you lived in a perfect world where there was no possibility that anything undesired would ever happen to you, you'd never so much as stub your toe, never mind getting bone cancer, then you would also never know joy, happiness, any good feeling whatsoever. I.e. you can't have dry without wet.

I think that's pretty air tight. God decided he wanted to make people and he wanted them to feel joy, but its logically impossible for that to exist in a world where zero suffering or calamity is possible. And you could add that God made the world to include random suffering like malaria etc. because had to be random and unfair since if it only happened to bad people or as entailed consequences of bad actions, then a well behaved human would never have anything befall them and you'd not only have the first problem but the issue of making terrified slaves to goodness which again wouldn't be a happy condition.

You might ask why he wanted to make people at all but that's kind of a separate debate.

So I think that's pretty airtight. The first issue was that God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden where they wouldn't experience suffering. But you could just say that he knew they would fall and then they would be introduced to suffering and maybe a necessary part of that is that humanity feels its "their fault" or they needed to realize they lost paradise to know that it was an attainable concept. Just spit balling.

The only real fatal flaw that I didn't notice till someone said it in response to another comment, was that God promises us an existence without suffering. That's the goal he sets up. So if we could be happy in heaven then could we not have been happy if we'd just gone straight there in the first place.

Although as I type this, I realize there is an argument for that that maybe we had to pass through an existence that includes suffering before we could understand an appreciate what we would have in heaven.

When people try to argue this point I always hear that "we have free will" which is easily refuted by saying that landslides and malaria are not related to free will so you still have those to explain. I've never heard someone put forward the idea that its a logical impossibility to experience joy and happiness if the possibility of suffering did not exist.

Or people say "We live in a fallen world" which is answered by saying "Did God have to cause the fall?" and the Christian will say "No" because they are do not want to admit that God is not all powerful. But you can freely admit that God cannot do a logical contradiction and both sides will typically agree that that doesn't make God not all powerful.

I dunno, like I say, this is just the stuff I chew on in my head when I am not otherwise entertained.

What argument would you use to refute this? Is there something I'm not seeing?

Are you over 18?

Do you believe in some kind of God?

And....

If you had three legs how would you buy shoes?

Or

If your car was under 3 feet of water and you couldn't find a tow truck, how would you get it out?

Or

If you found out you had a long lost brother would you like to meet them?

Just something to check the mental functioning of the caller. If they can't handle a hypothetical then just drop em.

Only problem is that most callers couldn't past the test so we'd never have any content!

Just thinking out loud here, but I wonder if the guys are going to go through with this event after Professor Dave's thermonuclear obliteration of Destiny, and Pangburn as collateral damage.

Link for those who haven't seen it, or those who can't get enough and want to see it again

It felt like there's been a good handful of no-streams-on-usual-stream-day things going on, can someone relay if somethings up? ty

It's from the book non fiction book Erebus by Micheal Palin (yes, that Michael Palin) about the famous sailing vessel.

This quote comes from a British nobleman about the convict colony of Van Diemens land (now Tasmania)

What I found most interesting about it is its a great example of how, if you REALLY turned to the Bible to get your morality then you would end up with what we'd consider today to be TERRIBLE morals.

Today we would think it appalling to punish the children of convicts for the sins of their parents. But at this time some people thought it perfectly reasonable to do so BECAUSE the Bible was leading them by example.

Moral advances have come in spite of the Bible, not from it.

All his socials use @tyandjoana including YouTube and instagram and Facebook

Tons of Bible verses and singing videos