Видео

I agree but I'm confused as to why you construe "political correctness" with neoliberalism

​@CalamityJay-ez2mq I don't see where you make that error. Neoliberalism is a system of economics governed through politics with a loosening of tariffs. Political correctness is not a result of Neoliberalism but of domestic policies and manufactured consent. An emphasis on one's human rights. Basically, I am saying we tried something to have it fail in application so we are going back to something that doesn't work either

Then people will just worship money. Wait a minute they already do.

Define political correctness? In the traditional meaning of the word. Anyone defying political correctness was challenging the status quo. One could argue that anyone challenging the neo liberal free market is politically incorrect. Blasphemers again the almighty dollar. If capitalism cannot be questioned then it is politically correct.

@MichaelDean-i2x so in Marxism, a fetish is the same as religion, and it's the way people communicate and have relationships. Is money a fetish? Maybe.

Most Western, developed nations are built on Christian values. The USA's rise to a superpower is closely intertwined with its religious background.

On what grounds? You mean the colonisation and forcing western militia and purposefully corrupting the government, funding the extremist groups like the taliban and Hamas... The problem was never religion. If that was the case, how come America and the UK thrived on Christian values? And why did it go to shit when the liberals lost their Christian values.

@@Carefreeblues may be to an extent, but after a point there’s no utility in hanging on to it.

​@@Carefreeblues I think what drove them initially was freedom to choose their branch of religion to differentiate themselves from Europe. Nowadays we don't have that conflict anymore, so they lost their purpose and are turning on their own,

Absolutely! Maybe americans are seeing this, because they are just experiencing the depression of a bad economy after a poorly handled pandemic. Once that is overcome, they won't really have a reason to stick to habits that effectively are meaningless.

And thoroughly incorrect.

And lots of people don't need religion to formulate them.

@@marknieuweboer8099 Very true, I am one of those people.

Author is really bothsiding here. The GOP is eroding all order and institutions to let their side be free to do what they want.

Fascism is bad :)

I totally agree with you, and the same can be said of Richard Dawkins and RUclipsr Alex O'Connor. They are not great thinker, it is media propaganda to promote a narrative of them being great thinkers. There is nothing great about the way they think.

Yes, in Dutch an orange is called "sinaasappel" (china's apple) and a potato "aardappel" (earth apple) and so on. What we call as apples today were just so popular of a fruit that they didn't need any other specification other than apple.

"After you're done eating, make sure to eat your dessert, and then go and play with your friends outside. Just don't drink the bleach under the sink." "But my father, I wish only to eat dessert! Why would you restrict my freedom like that? Surely you would rather I be free to choose what I wish from all these good things?" A command restricting certain actions is not necessarily oppressive, nor is requiring certain actions. It depends entirely upon what is being restricted or required. It can be very bad for you to have too much of some good things, or none of a certain good thing. Would you get pissed at God because He told you that you must socialize with your fellow man to maintain your mental health? That you must exercise moderately? That you must not obsess over one art or luxury or pleasure to the exclusion of others, though you prefer it? Free will, in regards to preference and choice of good things and deeds certainly has its place. But a sin by omission is still a sin, even if it is merely the exclusion of a good personal pleasure.

@@Digganob590 Bad analogy, the traditional interpretation is more like ''here's the buffet, you can eat whatever you want except from the bleach that will kill you'' versus the interpretation proposed in this video that is more like ''here's the buffet, I command you to try every food on it except from the bleach that will kill you''. The first one is still better because it allows people to make their own decisions and possibly skip the things they find uninteresting

@@paolamaria1992 And what if you shouldn't skip what you find uninteresting? After all, you haven't even tried it, let alone that you know what everything there tastes like, or is made of.

@@Digganob590 It's my right to chose poorly, that's the entire concept of free will

@@paolamaria1992 It sure is. Did God say "you WILL eat that fruit, whether you like it or not," or did God say "you MUST eat that fruit"? Just because you should do something, and even when you are commanded to do something, that does not mean you are forced to. God did not puppet Adam to make him eat the fruit. Adam ate as he was commanded, and did right. He could have not eaten. What is to you that God told him he should do so?

Okay, with respect, what is the proof that he is the "confirmed messenger of God"? His own testimony? Many have claimed to be messengers of God, why should anyone believe Mohammed is? And why should anyone trust a text that was written by a man who didn't know any hebrew, greek or latin, and lived centures after the originals were written? It seems completely reasonable to assume Mohammed just made his "version" of the story up to justify his hunger for power.

​@@pedrofalk Because the Qur'an doesn't contain the error the Bible did.

​@@zenalexander9278 if you are measuring accuracy by comparing to the originak Hebrew text, then the Qran is the most innacurate version of all. It alters not only small meaningless words, but changes whole stories. If the Qran held any ground as a trustworthy version of the stories in the bible, scholars would use it as so. But they never will, because it's a text written centuries later, in a different culture, by a man who didn't even speak hebrew and clearly was making it all up

@pedrofalk what is the proof of Moses, Ibrahim, David or any of the devine historic figure of the Ibrahamic religion is a prophet ? Also, why would GOD choose only Hebrews as prophets?

@@jasemali1987 friend, I understand this is your religion and I know it is hard to look at it critically. But you must think about it: unless you already believe Mohammed is a prophet, there is no reason to trust his text over the hebrew bible. Mohammed wrote his text centuries later, in a land far away, without direct knowledge of the original, and his story varies a lot in the precise ways that help serve is own purpose. You only trust the Qran pecause you believe Mohammed to be a prophet (probably because you were born in a muslim culture), but if you weren't a muslim, you would never trust the Qran over the Bible. Scholars use the bible to this day to study ancient hebrew history, but none of them has EVER used the Qran to study ancient hebrew history, because it makes no sense that it would actually be a faithful description of the story of a people who lived centuries before. Again, I know its hard to hear what I am saying, but I believe the truth is always liberating and I hope you'll see it. Mohammed was a conqueror, he killed people, he had relations with a child, he preached violence against oposers. Jesus preached love, never abused anyone and didn't hurt even the people who were killing him, instead prohibiting his followers to seek revenge against them. He embraced his own death for our salvation, including your salvation if you only open your heart. Jesus is the one who offered nothing but love and truth, he didn't take power, money, women, or any priviledges, he only served us until his death. Why trust a military conqueror who had relations with a child over Jesus Christ? I know its outside of your culture, and I promise I really don't mean to offend you, but I hope you see it. Read the New Testament with an open heart and I know you'll see it. Peace to you

I also know of zero Dutch translations that specify the fruit. And the second part, maybe the difference is insanely specific in English, but I never saw it that way. However, i do agree that every translation means that there is always some nuance and meaning lost. But that's why pastors learn Hebrew, Latin and ancient Greek right, to help those who cannot learn it.

Regarding the introduction of apple, it was traced back to the 4th century vulgate translation: www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/04/30/526069512/paradise-lost-how-the-apple-became-the-forbidden-fruit Regarding the Jewish translations, you are correct that many translate it as "you may eat." However, long before its English translation, many rabbinic commentaries, among them Rabeinu Bachye and Rabbi Elyahu of Vilna, point out that the Hebrew explicitly uses the command form.

@@menschsense1 frankly almost all translations say "may", no matter the source. Even if it didn't, it doesn't mean anything really. You are forcing you conclusions on the texts. You say that God saying that Adam must eat all fruits is a message of an obligation to enjoy earth but when the same story talks about a "fruit of knowledge of good and evil", it becomes pretty clear that these fruits weren't bananas or peaches, it is clearly a symbolic meaning. It does mean that man was free to enjoy creation, but not necessarily talking about material aspects. Moreover, this is all before the fall, before man committed the first sin, which permanently altered his relationship with creation and with God. Religion came after, and the nature of both Jewish and Christian religion is within the context of a fallen creation. You trying to interpret abrahamic religion as if the fall has never happened and as if the rules of the garden of Eden were still the current order of things is quite ignorant. Which is ok, we all make mistakes, but maybe we shouldn't all be voicing opinions on youtube trying to teach people things before thinking them through

So happy to hear this resonated!

I would love to do ten more posts on this subject! To your point, the kabbalistic tradition maintains that had Adam and Eve waited until the Sabbath (they were born on day six), they would have been permitted to eat from the Tree of Knowledge! It was never meant to be permanently forbidden.

@@menschsense1 Thanks for that. I think the interpretation put on this story has been one of the key features in Christian thought over the past two millenia, and it has not always been a beneficial interpretation, reflecting badly on both God and man. I know less, or next to nothing, about the case in Jewish culture. Yet after all that time it is begining to be re-examined, strangely at a time when many people have concluded that it's all tosh anyway.

Not sure what you mean, in Genesis 2:9 it is explicitly called the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

What's faith got to do with analytics?Linguistic pronunciation is done by A İ

Thank you, glad you're enjoying it!