The assertion that atheists "just want to sin" is pure projection on the part of Christians. Under Christianity, it is believers who are free to behave however they like, and to do so free of guilt, because their sins are forgiven *in advance*. They also feel no obligation to make amends with those whom they've actually hurt, because their god, not their fellow man, is the primary party offended by sin.
Excellent call. I completely agree with your reasoning. In the UK, a "Deeply Religious" couple refused lodging to a gay couple in their Guest House (A hotel of sorts. Think of Fawlty Towers). The couple were taken to Court. The Prosecution noted that the Landlord, despite claiming to follow Christ, was serving English Breakfasts. This meant: Bacon, Pork Sausages and Black Pudding were acceptable to the Landlord, but not the icky Gays. This a la carte approach to Christianity has always bothered me. The excuse? "Well, Paul said...". Mr Paul outranks Mr Christ in the hierarchy of Christianity now? The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost are equal, but Mr Paul is more equal somehow? Sort yourselves out first Christians, before acting holier than thou. Where exactly is this "New Contract" in the Bible?
I could imagine a scene where someone arrives in Hell, and meets Stalin, Mao. Ask one guy why he's in hell, 'Uh... I'm gay. And Jeffrey Dahmer killed, butchered and ate me. By the way... where is he?' 'Oh, he accepted Jesus... he's in heaven.' 'Where's Hitler?' 'Oh, heaven... same deal.'
I like that old story where the Priest/Rabbi/Cleric/Swami/Supreme Mugwump/Whatever explains to his congregation that the purpose of atheists is to prove to believers that you don't need to be threatened or bribed by God in order to do good.
My good friend that used to put his car in neutral and push it out of the driveway and down the road a bit, as to not wake up his wife, to go fornicate said I just wanted to sin when I told him I was an atheist. Can't make this up.
@@misterdeity Yeah, he didn't murder her family, take her as property, and wait for 30 days to mourn before busting in the room harder than Lot's wife. You know like Yahweh says you should.
I have also imagined if a Muslim walked up to a Christian saying: "You are a Christian because you don't want to put in the real effort of worshiping our creator. We pray to Mecca 5 times a day, yet you at least worship once a week. And when you pray you do not get on your hands and knees, you just clasp your hands and slightly bow your heads. You want to live your comfortable lives, in sin." Something tells me they wouldn't like to be told that.
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 , Well... I was thinking of dung beetles at first, then I remembered that there are parasitic wasps... and they implant their eggs in a living host. Now, wouldn't that be a bad experience, reincarnating into a insect/spider/bug that is used as a living food source for "baby" wasps that eat them from the inside out?
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 , And there are many other such fates. Which is why the theists argument of saying "the world is great" falls flat on the face... when parasites like that exist. There is even a type of parasite that is not fungus in Central and South America. It starts off as a symbiotic life form... living on the host tree as it attempts to grow roots tot he ground. Once those roots reach the soil... the symbiotic relationship ends, and becomes a parasite, growing quickly to smother the tree with its own branches, killing the tree that once allowed it safety to grow. Again... life is unpleasant... we're just lucky enough that there aren't as many threats to humans, these days, that we can actually enjoy ourselves (if we're lucky to live in a time/location where inter-human conflicts don't happen).
Your “Apostle Paul” graphic had me spitting coffee across the room… As I am notorious for nit picking… I submit there is no such thing as “organized religion.” All religion is organized by definition. When you codify (organize) belief and faith you create a religion. When you have belief and faith WITHOUT codification, you have just defined superstition. Since there is no “disorganized” religion (that is superstition) you can’t have an “organized” religion (it’s a redundancy). Or I’m completely wrong because I follow the apostle Paul.
Oh Brian. Not only have you hit the nail on the head (pun absolutely intended), but did it with rapid fire jokes working in tandem. I have always thought, when being accused of being an Atheist because I just "want to sin", "Hmm, if I wanted to sin and get off scott-free, wouldn't it work in my favor to be a Christian?"
After a heated debate with a friend, I got him to admit that if someone "just wanted to sin" the BEST move they could make would be to convert to Christianity so they could be forgiven of anything and everything. (Us poor atheists actually choose to be held accountable for our actions.)
@@doncamp1150 If you believe in Christianity, then you could do everything Stalin did and simply repent afterward. You'd be forgiven by God and welcomed into paradise with no consequences... That's the way the world works, according to Christianity. Maybe Stalin converted just before he died and he is now sitting on the right-hand of God? Forgiven for everything.
@@canwelook That sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Would you actually refuse God's mercy and heaven because of God's mercy toward someone you hate?
Running around diagnosing your fellow human beings with supernatural sicknesses like 'sin' has been one of humanity's favorite (and often most lucrative) pastimes.
i pointed out on paulogia's channel that if i want to sin being atheist is a silly, if i want to sin i become a christian and get forgiven, this was picked up by an "apologist" called "Truth The Objective Reality" who made a video about it that completely missed my point : @HarryNicholas Attempts To Defend @Paulogia From Me, Fails Miserably
Rephrasing @DrFrankTurek, "I don't have enough self loathing to be a Christian". The best part of becoming Atheist is no longer carrying guilt for having been born. ~ D'vivre
No one is guilty for having been born. We are guilty for what we do, and in most cases those behaviors are the sort of things that harm others. Ever done anything that harms someone else? If so, that is sin.
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 I don't know that, so how do you? There is a lot more going on in this story than you have any idea of. For one thing this happened during a time when the Canaanites regularly practiced child sacrifice. In other words, it was acceptable in that culture. What God was doing was showing Abraham that child sacrifice was not only not his way but that he would provide the necessary sacrifice, and he did. Secondly, this was before God had given any laws to Abraham or to humanity. Abraham had no real for thinking child sacrifice was wrong. What he did know was that God had promised a son through whom he would bless the nations. On the basis of that promise, Abraham reasoned that if God required the sacrifice of Isaac, God would somehow make good on his promise. (See Hebrews 11:17 and following) You make hasty judgments without knowing the context of the passage.
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 Do you have a son? If you do you surely must at times train your son in some skill or to meet some challenge. Training usually includes pain or difficulty to be overcome. A father does not do that to hurt his son. He does it because he LOVES his son and knows that the pain result in great gain. lt did for Abraham.
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 You get my point none the less. It was Abraham who was tested. He was 100 plus years old. God knew he would pass the test. But it was for Abraham's sake, anyway. It stretched his faith and he needed to understand that God would provide. Women in that culture. You probably should stay home where everything is familiar. If you travel pretty much anywhere beyond the West, you'll find customs that you won't be able to handle.
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 " Isaac was forced into being a potential sacrifice WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT. " You don't know that. Have you actually read the story in Genesis 22? Isaac was not a child. He knew, and apparently agreed to be the burnt offering. He could have refused and run away. He was old enough. He carried the wood up the hill. " what use to YOU is a God that won't bestow upon you a how to manual, and promise you immortality and the right to treat women as property?" Actually, God did provide a How to Manuel. It begins in Genesis 3 with God's meeting Adam and Eve in the garden after they have disobeyed him. He asks only that they realize and acknowledge their disobedience and give up their own attempts to cloth their guilt and allow him to provide a covering. Nothing has been added to that "How to" it has only been fleshed out in more detail in the rest of the Bible. " you insist it's Physically impossible for God to exist WITHOUT A HOLY TEXT THAT SPEAKS OF HIM. " Where do you get this stuff? There were thousands of years between God's first interaction with human beings and the first TEXT. He has interacted with people through the ages who did not have a TEXT of any kind, who were not able to read if they had one. So, where did I INSIST? Wolf, you are making things up. And you are not actually conversing, just spewing. If you wish to converse, answer my previous question.
Considering God Only shows affection to sinners, Christians are right to sin. God routinely makes it easy for sinners to get away with it (they don’t because they are incredibly stupid), then gives them incredibly light to non-existent sentences for them (David’s punishment sounds harsh, but he is clearly heartless to humans as he doesn’t cry when his son dies but does earlier to get sympathy). He is also a terrifying tyrant to the innocent. Though kind of a nice father/husband to the sinful. If you doubt me read the Bible.
Yep, I always loved the whole 'as long as you accept jesus you will be sent to heaven'. That just opens the door to all the sin you would want to do, as long as you accept jesus. They will even, with a straight face, say that as long as Hitler accepted Jesus as his saviour then he is welcome in heaven... .and they are good with that idea. Seriously, these people worship a monster.
It also means that Christianity and heaven/ hell are not any sort of 'moral sorting mechanisms' and your afterlife is just based on whether or not you perform some arbitrary actions. Despite this, it kills me they'll still argue for the necessity of 'objective morality'.
@@dougt7580 That's been a problem for the religions ever since they allowed you buy your way out of hell through donations. Europe is covered in monasteries for this reason.
@@avi8r66 Of course, tickets to the afterlife (or at least the preferred one) have always been on sale from those who claim to be the delegated go-betweens, middlemen, spokespersons, or proxies of the christian god. The marketing strategy just changes over time (sacrificing, indulgences, donations to the church, crusading, etc). Today it's mostly called tithing, at least here in the USA.
@@dougt7580 Or selling the prayers of monks (their prayers were more effective) on behalf of the sinners to absolve them of their sins. As that gained popularity the need for more monks arose. Prayer was industrialized.
Fact is, I haven't the least interest in "sinning." Since "sin" is supposedly a transgression against some deity, and since said deity can't be bothered to show itself [mostly because it doesn't exist!], the word "sin" becomes a concept without substantial referent. Now, there IS wrongdoing, and I will concern myself with that, but wrongdoing involves PEOPLE who actually EXIST ... and I would greatly prefer to deal with things and people that ARE, rather than things that ARE NOT.
Christianity is so convenient. With a holy book so vague and diverse, that it can be interpreted to justify, or condemn nearly anything. About all that's made abundantly clear is that God wants lots of praise and worship. And foreskins. Which seems quite odd for a perfect being to be so focused on. A God that does not show himself, or clearly communicate his wishes, is not worthy of belief, let alone worship. It's not even relevant until those two things are made clear.
Apparently, you can never have enough foreskin. Even when you're an all-powerful Super Being. Perhaps God is making a lamp shade the size of Saturn(?).
It isn’t even all those pesky Old Testament rules they can now ignore. There’s a whole bunch of new ones they can ignore too. After sinning, all you have to do is a bit of praying, and all is forgiven, and you can go out and sin some more.
Well, I usually ask if christians sin. They say "Of course." Then I ask why I'd have to become an atheist to sin. As you pointed out, I haven't "sinned" since I stopped being a christian. The down side is that, when I screw up, it's harder to be forgiven.
At one point when I was little I remember wanting to be a magician, but I was discouraged because magic is of the devil, but multiplying fish and bread and walking on water and necromancy isn't magic because....reasons.
The simple issue that destroys the whole "want to sin" nonsense is that if we ACTUALLY thought there was a god, and worse, HELL, as this stupid apologetic requires, we'd NEVER deny it for "sin". It is such a stupid argument that I can't believe even the most idiotic theist would ever use it.
They say I am an atheist because I want to sin? I say it is impossible for me to sin because I am an atheist. Sins are violations of religious rules. I cannot break rules of a religion I don't follow.
I have often felt similarly to the idea that Paul and some of the other apostles "just want to sin". For instance in Acts10 a starving Peter is told to kill and eat unclean animals by floating sheet for it is ok now that the lord says so in dream, as long as it happens 3 times. 😆 pretty convenient when your hungry it's ok to break kosher yet Jesus never said any of that in any of the Gospel accounts.
@@aralornwolf3140 but, wolf it was told to Peter 3 times, clearly it is from God if it was told 3 times. Couldn't have been from Satan, a demon or starvation.
First thought about 30 seconds into the video - "I see where this is going." Second thought - "How in the freakin @*##$ did I not think of this myself years ago!" Great video as always. Thank you so much.
There’s no supporting evidence for any Christian argument. How can anyone prove the existence of sin, given that it would need appropriate laws to actually exist? In the absence of conflicting evidence, any literate person can distort, or even entirely fabricate, an account that appears to support their argument.
@@aralornwolf3140 There is no evidence that the entity, who allegedly created divine law, exists. Furthermore, religious people would need to prove that this unproven entity actually did create laws.
@@clemstevenson , Fixed a mistake in my comment. I hope it makes what I was trying to communicate clear. The other problem is they also need to show a divine law actually exists.
The whole idea of "sin" (which we supposedly "just want to do") is of course a made-up concept to begin with. To say behaviors ranging from sex outside of marriage to picking up some sticks on the sabbath are "sins" is, objectively speaking, meaningless.
Sin is generally defined as disobedience to God. Let's set aside the issue of whether one can disobey a being one doesn't think exists and grant for the sake of argument that there is a God and the atheist simply expresses skepticism as to what it actually wants and therefore lives as if it does not. Having no interest in what God desires or commands doesn't TECHNICALLY mean the atheist wishes to disobey them, and any disobedience would be unintentional. It might very well be the case that, by pure coincidence, the atheist does not end up doing anything God doesn't want them to do anyway; in that sense, they have "obeyed" (though not deliberately), and it would seem they would therefore be sinless. Similarly, if free will does not exist, then even if sin is defined as disobedience to God, it is basically impossible for ANYONE to sin, because they are doing what they were predestined to do by God and must therefore be obeying his will. Of course a Christian's going to argue that not believing in or worshipping God is a sin, but if we just assume "sin = disobeying God", reasonable people can potentially disagree about what obedience, if any, God has actually demanded. Some theologians do argue that God exists AND has the authority to issue mandates of moral obligation BUT has never actually chosen to do so, and dispute any written revelation claiming he has.
@@Uryvichk It seems to me that "sin" implies something more than simple disobedience to a god who may or may not exist. If a person is driving in their car and cruises through a stop sign, they are disobeying a law which is designed for public safety. But wearing different kinds of fabrics at the same time or working on Sunday harms no one. Also, "sinning" seems to imply being spiritually dirty or tainted in a way that breaking a secular law generally does not. If one is caught running a stop sign, one may have to pay a fine, but there is no notion of having to be "cleansed".
Indeed 2AHD Cat! So how do the priests justify their sins with children? They confess to another priest and are forgiven. Consequence free sinning. In fact, that's the very point. "Everybody sins." So, conclude the Christians, I might as well get a piece of the action. Sinning is often pleasurable. Illegal and/or immoral, but fun! Guilt-free after confession. What a racket ... for the priests. They even get hints as to how to sin and get away with it from those who confess to them.
I think I was taking part in a Street Epistemology conversation once recently and my claim was that "Many atheists used to be theists and became atheists by critically examining their beliefs." My interviewer, a fellow atheist/agnostic steelman the point of view that you combatted here and I think I shot back that if people really wanted to sin they could do so as believers or something along those lines. I was internally and externally challenging a lot of the stereotypes about atheists perpetuated and parroted by people of faith.
LOL. Actually, you want one of those "saved by grace" denominations or sects. The Catholics are all about "works" and their requirements to go to Heaven are much more difficult than simply being "born again" in some fundagelical sect.
But if you die in the state of mortal sinery, no confesion and without the 9 consecutive months of 1st Friday obligations, which guarantees a chance to confess just before death, a supernatural get out of hell card if you will. You will go to hell and you best forget about the 2 hundred dollars cause that shit just ain't happening....
A theist cannot be moral, since they act according to an authority and subject to punishment in hell, it's not morality, it's cowardice! AND Theist want to sin, and be pardoned automatically, that what the christian religion do ! It doesn't require anyone to get forgiveness of their victims, or pay reparation just "believe" ...and they can sin AGAIN as long as they repents after...
“Yield not to temptation, for yielding is sin; Each vict’ry will help you some other to win; Fight manfully onward, dark passions subdue; Look ever to Jesus, He will carry you through…” 🎶🎵🎶
The whole "you just want to sin" argument never made sense to me. Why not just stay Christian and then sin? Jesus already died for the sins and they are forgiven anyway, so why should I become an atheist to sinn? Then I have to deal with my own morals and no one important is bound forgive me
While this does a lovely job, it's from the Israelite perspective. As an atheist, I'm more likely to use game theory. If I violate its directives ("sin") and don't seek atonement from the Christian god, and it exists? I go to Hell, regardless of my view on its existence. If I live a perfect and honest atheist life, and it exists? I go to Hell. (John 14:6) Thus if I want to sin limitlessly, but still go to Christian Heaven, the superior solution is to do so but confess regularly, as all sin and fall short of perfection (Romans 3:23-25) and forgiveness is given to all who confess. (John 1:7-9)
A fascinating perspective. I have long studied the beginnings of the Christian movement and what we know of the many different types of early Christianity but your idea is both amusing and, I think, relevant.
It’s not something I would seriously push. But I also suspect this has something to do with Christianity’s origins. People love easy. It’s at least a brilliant piece of marketing.
@@misterdeity Without doubt Pepsi learned their stuff from Christianity 😁 I am convinced that Paul and his contemporaries invented a new god along with their new religion. It's not just the ignoring of the old laws but the the very different relationship they have with their god compared to the Jews and the different nature of the deity. Immaterial, invisible and outside of reality (whatever that means), as opposed to the very physical descriptions and encounters in the Tanakh. The most remarkable part of their marketing was adding their collection of writings onto the Tanakh (after it had been re-arranged to enhance the brand) to gain credibility, despite promoting the pro-Roman, anti-Jew lie that caused two thousand years of antisemitism.
When I hear someone (in authority) claim that giving oneself over to sensuality entails losing sensitivity, I ask my co-sinners... erm - are we doing this right?
never thought about it like this. looking back, I think Paul brought some legalism of his own to the church, while simultaneously freeing the Gentiles from the burden of Jewish law.
simple as that...thanks for doing the work to explain it. And the last segment...twenty-three seconds or so...is perfect...the best BLT I ever had was at the Mint casino in Vegas...I was nine...peace
It's sort of how Islam came about. There was this guy named Mo who really liked to diddle little girls but even then the people frowned upon that act so he created a new religion which allowed it and put himself as the leader (naturally).
The New Testament was written in Greek. Sin is a term used by Greek archers to indicate ‘missing the target.’ I’m not aiming at the fundamentalists’ target nor are they aiming at my target. Which of us is sinning?
Could you make the case that Paul is an anti-Christ? I mean in the actual sense of the word, not the dude in Revelation. Jesus warned his disciples that "false Christs" would come after him that would try to lead people astray. And he also said that Peter was the rock upon whom he'd build his church. Shortly after Jesus left, the story goes that one of the disciples (Steven) was stoned to death, this is in the book of Acts. And Saul (who would later change his name to Paul) was there; he held the coats of those who actually did the stoning if I recall correctly. So then Saul, who was a very zealous Pharisee (remember that about the ONLY people Jesus ever spoke ill of were the religious leaders and especially the Pharisees) and a big persecutor of Christians, went out into the desert and fell off his horse and supposedly had what today we might call a near death experience. In any case he claims to have seen a sign in the sky and heard the voice of Jesus, and was struck blind for a time (I imagine falling off a horse could do that to you). So then he goes back to Jerusalem, gets prayed over by the disciples, and his sight is miraculously restored. Of course they didn't have eye doctors back then so if a man said he was blind you pretty much had to take his word for it. Next thing you know he is claiming that he is reformed, and somehow manages to convince enough of the original disciples that they appoint him as a "replacement disciple" for Stephen and forget all about the guy they had previously chosen to fill that slot. But still many of the original church were quite rightly suspicious of his tale. After all there were only a couple of witnesses to his event in the desert if I recall correctly. So after a time he starts a ministry to the Gentiles. Now (this is an important point) Jesus never intended his ministry for anyone other than the Jews. When he was once asked about the subject he said "shall the children's bread be given to the dogs?" and back in those days being called a dog was definitely not a complement (think about the wild dogs in Africa to get some idea of how that comparison went down). So it was never Jesus' intent to minister to the Gentiles, but nevertheless, Paul decides that's where his calling is and away he goes, pretty much out of reach of the original disciples and the church. And then he starts a network of churches (got to give him credit for that at least) but since there modern transportation and communications options weren't available, the only way to keep in touch was write letters back and forth. Some of those letters were saved and became what are sometimes referred to as the Pauline epistles. And if you read those epistles and compare them to what Jesus taught, you could rightfully come to the conclusion that everything he had learned as a Pharisee hadn't left him. His writings still have a very authoritarian tone, encouraging people to be submissive to the church and to each other. He also had definite opinions on various things, from how long a man's hair should be to whether women were allowed to teach in the churches to homosexuality. Any unfortunately he wrote these all down and sent them more or less as commandments to the churches he had started. On subjects that Jesus had avoided, Paul strode right in and started telling the world how he thought things should be. And is opinions on those things were very much shaped by his time as a Pharisee. And remember, Jesus hardly spoke against anyone, but he was never reluctant to say what he thought about the Pharisees ("A den of vipers") is a phrase that comes to mind. In other words the Pharisees were a group of very self-serving religious types that would take what they could from the people around them, but would not lift a finger to help any of them. They were powerful, and probably wealthy. Jesus pretty much despised them. So here is Paul, out there preaching in Jesus name, but laying this Pharisee-inspired religion on them. And it is probably fair to say that most of the people he was preaching to were ignorant of what Jesus had actually taught, or for that matter of what Paul had been like when he was Saul. There was no ABC News Nightline to do an investigation on him, Ted Koppel wouldn't even be born for another 1900 years or so! So the people out in the hinterlands that converted to his version of Christianity pretty much had to rely on what he told them and what he wrote to them. Now, again, you have to compare his preaching with what Jesus taught and preach. Paul's preaching was much sharper and more legalistic. Sure, there was that "love chapter" in Romans, but some scholars think that may have been a later addition added by someone to soften the writings of Paul a bit. The problem with it is that it doesn't sound like him. Here's this guy that's preaching all this legalism and then suddenly he slips into this short treatise on love? Either Paul got drunk or high and had a rare case of feeling love, or maybe he had just visited a church where people adored him, or maybe it was added by some scribe at a later time. We don't know, but it's not in tone with his typical writings. But here is the real problem. Paul's teachings produced a group of "Christians" who weren't following Jesus - the vast majority had never seen Jesus - they were following Paul. Can you say "cult?" And like any good cult, it stuck around long after the founder died, and its brand of Christianity more or less won out. By the time we got around to the council of Nicea, where they were deciding which books to consider canonical, the church probably pretty much consisted of non-Jewish Pharisees, only they didn't go by that name. In any case they wanted to live the good life and have control over people (again, contrast with Jesus) so when they selected the scriptures they knew they had to keep at least some of the Gospels, but right after that they included the Acts of the Apostles (which is supposed to establish Paul's validity, and might if you just accept everything at face value), and then all of Paul's epistles. And only then did they include a few books supposedly written by other disciples, including John and Peter (oh, remember him? He was the guy Jesus wanted to build his church on. Tough break his writings got relegated to the back of the book). And then they recycled the book of Revelations, which primarily described the fall of Jerusalem, but included some fantastical elements which were probably inspired by John partaking of the magic mushrooms that grew on the island of Patmos. But the guy who got top billing, at least if you go by number of books, was Paul. And that was because Paul was their guy. If you want to control people, if you want to make them fear disobeying the orders of the church, or if you wanted to make them fear death, Paul was it. Jesus was much too hippie-socialist for their tastes. No one would fight wars for them, or give of their income to the church if they only had the teachings of Jesus to go by. But Paul had a way of setting people straight. You had better do what the church tells you to do or fear the consequences! Another thing to be noted is that there were many more books the church could have chosen to include, including books that were supposedly written by the other disciples (I say "supposedly" because no one REALLY knows who wrote the four gospels that we have; they were written much later and were attributed to the named disciples but at least three of them are suspiciously alike. If I recall correctly Matthew is the only book for which there is any amount of confidence that it may have actually been written by Matthew). There was also a book supposedly written by Mary. Many of these are much more spiritual in nature than the books that came down to us in the Bible, but today the fundamentalist church tends to consider them so much garbage, or their old standby for things they REALLY don't like, "written by demons."
But gospels were written decades after Paul and disagree with each other about basically everything. Sounds more like different early christianities, and even members in same christianity, disagreed with each other and either on purpose or non-conciously put their opinions in mounth of Jebus/god.
Paul???!!! Very good. Imagine if all humans behaved like God? There'd be no one left. What, actually, is sin? Is it only a christian construct? If so, it only applies to christians and no one else. So, atheists can not sin. Simple, no?
Gospels were written decades after Paul's time, and those disagree with each other about basically everything. Jebus was in some way god's son and died on cross are almost only things those agree with.
Hate to nitpik, but @1:58 it was the road to Damascus, not Damocles which was that thing about a sword over the king's head in Syracuse. Paul just wanted to become an influencer and he saw how stupid the people who were getting sucked into the new sect were, so he played the game and played the lazy Jews who wanted pork B-B-Qs and shrimp cocktails.
@@finestPlugins No backsies! Not only did we export god botherers but we got rid of Murdoch as well if only we could get him out of our media Australia would be a better place
hey man, I really like your work; recently in my country, Brazil, there was a coup attempt, lead by the slogan of "deus, pátria e família", which means god, fatherland and family; I think it would be relevant for you to discuss, because of religious & fascist ideals we are going through a really hard time.
That Paul made me laugh while I was sitting on the John.
The assertion that atheists "just want to sin" is pure projection on the part of Christians. Under Christianity, it is believers who are free to behave however they like, and to do so free of guilt, because their sins are forgiven *in advance*. They also feel no obligation to make amends with those whom they've actually hurt, because their god, not their fellow man, is the primary party offended by sin.
Excellent call. I completely agree with your reasoning. In the UK, a "Deeply Religious" couple refused lodging to a gay couple in their Guest House (A hotel of sorts. Think of Fawlty Towers). The couple were taken to Court. The Prosecution noted that the Landlord, despite claiming to follow Christ, was serving English Breakfasts. This meant: Bacon, Pork Sausages and Black Pudding were acceptable to the Landlord, but not the icky Gays. This a la carte approach to Christianity has always bothered me. The excuse? "Well, Paul said...". Mr Paul outranks Mr Christ in the hierarchy of Christianity now? The Father, The Son, The Holy Ghost are equal, but Mr Paul is more equal somehow? Sort yourselves out first Christians, before acting holier than thou. Where exactly is this "New Contract" in the Bible?
Ah yes, Paul... the most successful used god and afterlife salesman of the first century near middle east.
That's a great way to put it!
I accept sin because I like to wear mis-matched fabrics😈
Automagically 🤣 love it 😍 🤭
Another banger. Good job
I could imagine a scene where someone arrives in Hell, and meets Stalin, Mao. Ask one guy why he's in hell, 'Uh... I'm gay. And Jeffrey Dahmer killed, butchered and ate me. By the way... where is he?' 'Oh, he accepted Jesus... he's in heaven.' 'Where's Hitler?' 'Oh, heaven... same deal.'
I like that old story where the Priest/Rabbi/Cleric/Swami/Supreme Mugwump/Whatever explains to his congregation that the purpose of atheists is to prove to believers that you don't need to be threatened or bribed by God in order to do good.
My good friend that used to put his car in neutral and push it out of the driveway and down the road a bit, as to not wake up his wife, to go fornicate said I just wanted to sin when I told him I was an atheist. Can't make this up.
That’s adultery! A top 10 sin!!!
Doesn’t sound like good friend nor decent husband...
@@misterdeity Yeah, he didn't murder her family, take her as property, and wait for 30 days to mourn before busting in the room harder than Lot's wife. You know like Yahweh says you should.
I have also imagined if a Muslim walked up to a Christian saying:
"You are a Christian because you don't want to put in the real effort of worshiping our creator. We pray to Mecca 5 times a day, yet you at least worship once a week. And when you pray you do not get on your hands and knees, you just clasp your hands and slightly bow your heads. You want to live your comfortable lives, in sin."
Something tells me they wouldn't like to be told that.
Nah, these christians just don't want to face the actual truth that they have to face Krisna and reincarnate into roaches.
@@jobdoneperfect9176 ,
Why roaches? There are some pretty nasty insects/bugs that they could reincarnate as... permanently.
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 ,
Well... I was thinking of dung beetles at first, then I remembered that there are parasitic wasps... and they implant their eggs in a living host. Now, wouldn't that be a bad experience, reincarnating into a insect/spider/bug that is used as a living food source for "baby" wasps that eat them from the inside out?
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 ,
And there are many other such fates. Which is why the theists argument of saying "the world is great" falls flat on the face... when parasites like that exist.
There is even a type of parasite that is not fungus in Central and South America. It starts off as a symbiotic life form... living on the host tree as it attempts to grow roots tot he ground. Once those roots reach the soil... the symbiotic relationship ends, and becomes a parasite, growing quickly to smother the tree with its own branches, killing the tree that once allowed it safety to grow.
Again... life is unpleasant... we're just lucky enough that there aren't as many threats to humans, these days, that we can actually enjoy ourselves (if we're lucky to live in a time/location where inter-human conflicts don't happen).
Your “Apostle Paul” graphic had me spitting coffee across the room…
As I am notorious for nit picking…
I submit there is no such thing as “organized religion.” All religion is organized by definition. When you codify (organize) belief and faith you create a religion. When you have belief and faith WITHOUT codification, you have just defined superstition. Since there is no “disorganized” religion (that is superstition) you can’t have an “organized” religion (it’s a redundancy).
Or I’m completely wrong because I follow the apostle Paul.
Oh Brian. Not only have you hit the nail on the head (pun absolutely intended), but did it with rapid fire jokes working in tandem. I have always thought, when being accused of being an Atheist because I just "want to sin", "Hmm, if I wanted to sin and get off scott-free, wouldn't it work in my favor to be a Christian?"
Yes
I LOVE this! Awesome new perspective. I'm gonna plagiarize this like a sum'bitch.
After a heated debate with a friend, I got him to admit that if someone "just wanted to sin" the BEST move they could make would be to convert to Christianity so they could be forgiven of anything and everything. (Us poor atheists actually choose to be held accountable for our actions.)
Like Stalin?
Hitler would be more analogous , gott mit uns
@@doncamp1150 If you believe in Christianity, then you could do everything Stalin did and simply repent afterward. You'd be forgiven by God and welcomed into paradise with no consequences... That's the way the world works, according to Christianity. Maybe Stalin converted just before he died and he is now sitting on the right-hand of God? Forgiven for everything.
@Superman
Converting on his deathbed, Stalin would be forgiven last. And you know what they say:
The last will be first.
@@canwelook That sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Would you actually refuse God's mercy and heaven because of God's mercy toward someone you hate?
Running around diagnosing your fellow human beings with supernatural sicknesses like 'sin' has been one of humanity's favorite (and often most lucrative) pastimes.
Like Jesus (allegedly) said - diagnose your own sickness first. They never remember that part!
i pointed out on paulogia's channel that if i want to sin being atheist is a silly, if i want to sin i become a christian and get forgiven, this was picked up by an "apologist" called "Truth The Objective Reality" who made a video about it that completely missed my point : @HarryNicholas Attempts To Defend @Paulogia From Me, Fails Miserably
Rephrasing @DrFrankTurek,
"I don't have enough self loathing to be a Christian".
The best part of becoming Atheist is no longer carrying guilt for having been born.
~ D'vivre
No one is guilty for having been born. We are guilty for what we do, and in most cases those behaviors are the sort of things that harm others. Ever done anything that harms someone else? If so, that is sin.
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 I don't know that, so how do you?
There is a lot more going on in this story than you have any idea of. For one thing this happened during a time when the Canaanites regularly practiced child sacrifice. In other words, it was acceptable in that culture. What God was doing was showing Abraham that child sacrifice was not only not his way but that he would provide the necessary sacrifice, and he did.
Secondly, this was before God had given any laws to Abraham or to humanity. Abraham had no real for thinking child sacrifice was wrong. What he did know was that God had promised a son through whom he would bless the nations.
On the basis of that promise, Abraham reasoned that if God required the sacrifice of Isaac, God would somehow make good on his promise. (See Hebrews 11:17 and following)
You make hasty judgments without knowing the context of the passage.
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 Do you have a son? If you do you surely must at times train your son in some skill or to meet some challenge. Training usually includes pain or difficulty to be overcome. A father does not do that to hurt his son. He does it because he LOVES his son and knows that the pain result in great gain. lt did for Abraham.
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 You get my point none the less.
It was Abraham who was tested. He was 100 plus years old.
God knew he would pass the test. But it was for Abraham's sake, anyway. It stretched his faith and he needed to understand that God would provide.
Women in that culture. You probably should stay home where everything is familiar. If you travel pretty much anywhere beyond the West, you'll find customs that you won't be able to handle.
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 " Isaac was forced into being a potential sacrifice WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT. "
You don't know that. Have you actually read the story in Genesis 22? Isaac was not a child. He knew, and apparently agreed to be the burnt offering. He could have refused and run away. He was old enough. He carried the wood up the hill.
" what use to YOU is a God that won't bestow upon you a how to manual, and promise you immortality and the right to treat women as property?"
Actually, God did provide a How to Manuel. It begins in Genesis 3 with God's meeting Adam and Eve in the garden after they have disobeyed him. He asks only that they realize and acknowledge their disobedience and give up their own attempts to cloth their guilt and allow him to provide a covering. Nothing has been added to that "How to" it has only been fleshed out in more detail in the rest of the Bible.
" you insist it's Physically impossible for God to exist WITHOUT A HOLY TEXT THAT SPEAKS OF HIM. "
Where do you get this stuff? There were thousands of years between God's first interaction with human beings and the first TEXT. He has interacted with people through the ages who did not have a TEXT of any kind, who were not able to read if they had one. So, where did I INSIST?
Wolf, you are making things up. And you are not actually conversing, just spewing. If you wish to converse, answer my previous question.
..."and lead us not into temptation..."
(I can get there myself)
You'll have to show me the way! 😉
I happen to like the Temptations; Ain’t too Proud to Beg, My Girl, Get Ready, etc.- all great songs.
"Automagically". LOL! Nice!
Considering God Only shows affection to sinners, Christians are right to sin.
God routinely makes it easy for sinners to get away with it (they don’t because they are incredibly stupid), then gives them incredibly light to non-existent sentences for them (David’s punishment sounds harsh, but he is clearly heartless to humans as he doesn’t cry when his son dies but does earlier to get sympathy).
He is also a terrifying tyrant to the innocent. Though kind of a nice father/husband to the sinful.
If you doubt me read the Bible.
Yep, I always loved the whole 'as long as you accept jesus you will be sent to heaven'. That just opens the door to all the sin you would want to do, as long as you accept jesus. They will even, with a straight face, say that as long as Hitler accepted Jesus as his saviour then he is welcome in heaven... .and they are good with that idea. Seriously, these people worship a monster.
It also means that Christianity and heaven/ hell are not any sort of 'moral sorting mechanisms' and your afterlife is just based on whether or not you perform some arbitrary actions. Despite this, it kills me they'll still argue for the necessity of 'objective morality'.
@@dougt7580 That's been a problem for the religions ever since they allowed you buy your way out of hell through donations. Europe is covered in monasteries for this reason.
@@avi8r66 Of course, tickets to the afterlife (or at least the preferred one) have always been on sale from those who claim to be the delegated go-betweens, middlemen, spokespersons, or proxies of the christian god. The marketing strategy just changes over time (sacrificing, indulgences, donations to the church, crusading, etc). Today it's mostly called tithing, at least here in the USA.
@@dougt7580 Or selling the prayers of monks (their prayers were more effective) on behalf of the sinners to absolve them of their sins. As that gained popularity the need for more monks arose. Prayer was industrialized.
@@avi8r66 Forgot about that one!
"...so as to indulge in every kind of impurity," Every kind! What the...
It takes all my energy just to indulge in the couple of ones I want to.
He's clearly speaking of youth. I can't get to more than a few every now and then myself.
Fact is, I haven't the least interest in "sinning." Since "sin" is supposedly a transgression against some deity, and since said deity can't be bothered to show itself [mostly because it doesn't exist!], the word "sin" becomes a concept without substantial referent.
Now, there IS wrongdoing, and I will concern myself with that, but wrongdoing involves PEOPLE who actually EXIST ... and I would greatly prefer to deal with things and people that ARE, rather than things that ARE NOT.
Christianity is so convenient. With a holy book so vague and diverse, that it can be interpreted to justify, or condemn nearly anything.
About all that's made abundantly clear is that God wants lots of praise and worship. And foreskins.
Which seems quite odd for a perfect being to be so focused on.
A God that does not show himself, or clearly communicate his wishes, is not worthy of belief, let alone worship. It's not even relevant until those two things are made clear.
Apparently, you can never have enough foreskin. Even when you're an all-powerful Super Being. Perhaps God is making a lamp shade the size of Saturn(?).
It isn’t even all those pesky Old Testament rules they can now ignore. There’s a whole bunch of new ones they can ignore too. After sinning, all you have to do is a bit of praying, and all is forgiven, and you can go out and sin some more.
@Wolf-dog Cat-dog 2.0 Also ignoring that he also said that all of the old laws still apply.
Well, I usually ask if christians sin. They say "Of course." Then I ask why I'd have to become an atheist to sin. As you pointed out, I haven't "sinned" since I stopped being a christian. The down side is that, when I screw up, it's harder to be forgiven.
Just forgive yourself. That makes it easy!
@@misterdeity ,
It depends on the severity of the "screw up"... Some actions are... unforgivable.
Thank you Mr. Quickie
Christianity; the first insurance company. “Join and pay, and Jesus will forgive your sins today.”
At one point when I was little I remember wanting to be a magician, but I was discouraged because magic is of the devil, but multiplying fish and bread and walking on water and necromancy isn't magic because....reasons.
Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll... Heaven.
I'm not much for drugs, but the others are great.
The simple issue that destroys the whole "want to sin" nonsense is that if we ACTUALLY thought there was a god, and worse, HELL, as this stupid apologetic requires, we'd NEVER deny it for "sin". It is such a stupid argument that I can't believe even the most idiotic theist would ever use it.
They say I am an atheist because I want to sin? I say it is impossible for me to sin because I am an atheist. Sins are violations of religious rules. I cannot break rules of a religion I don't follow.
3:18 Sins are automagically forgiven, indeed. 😏
Then automatically repeated, and automagically forgiven again.
I have often felt similarly to the idea that Paul and some of the other apostles "just want to sin". For instance in Acts10 a starving Peter is told to kill and eat unclean animals by floating sheet for it is ok now that the lord says so in dream, as long as it happens 3 times. 😆 pretty convenient when your hungry it's ok to break kosher yet Jesus never said any of that in any of the Gospel accounts.
Right?!!! Convenience does seem to be right up that Christian alley, doesn't it?
Are you sure he wasn't hallucinating?
@@aralornwolf3140 but, wolf it was told to Peter 3 times, clearly it is from God if it was told 3 times. Couldn't have been from Satan, a demon or starvation.
"Automagically"...very clever, I like it.
First thought about 30 seconds into the video - "I see where this is going."
Second thought - "How in the freakin @*##$ did I not think of this myself years ago!"
Great video as always. Thank you so much.
If there is no God, there is no Sin. Before you can discuss the existence of Sin, the existence of God has to be proven.
Greed is at the core of religion. Right on brother thank you for this!
I believe that when the God of Thunder throws His mighty Hammer at the Holy Trinity,
He Claps on One and Three. 🙏
There’s no supporting evidence for any Christian argument. How can anyone prove the existence of sin, given that it would need appropriate laws to actually exist? In the absence of conflicting evidence, any literate person can distort, or even entirely fabricate, an account that appears to support their argument.
Sin can be defined as "violation of divine law".... so the question becomes... does an entity who created any divine law exists?
@@aralornwolf3140 There is no evidence that the entity, who allegedly created divine law, exists. Furthermore, religious people would need to prove that this unproven entity actually did create laws.
@@clemstevenson ,
Fixed a mistake in my comment. I hope it makes what I was trying to communicate clear.
The other problem is they also need to show a divine law actually exists.
@@aralornwolf3140 Religious people only have beliefs, and beliefs aren't proven facts.
Yeah I must have heard some variant of Romans 120 thousands of time🙄🤦🏿♂️
The whole idea of "sin" (which we supposedly "just want to do") is of course a made-up concept to begin with. To say behaviors ranging from sex outside of marriage to picking up some sticks on the sabbath are "sins" is, objectively speaking, meaningless.
Sin is generally defined as disobedience to God. Let's set aside the issue of whether one can disobey a being one doesn't think exists and grant for the sake of argument that there is a God and the atheist simply expresses skepticism as to what it actually wants and therefore lives as if it does not. Having no interest in what God desires or commands doesn't TECHNICALLY mean the atheist wishes to disobey them, and any disobedience would be unintentional. It might very well be the case that, by pure coincidence, the atheist does not end up doing anything God doesn't want them to do anyway; in that sense, they have "obeyed" (though not deliberately), and it would seem they would therefore be sinless. Similarly, if free will does not exist, then even if sin is defined as disobedience to God, it is basically impossible for ANYONE to sin, because they are doing what they were predestined to do by God and must therefore be obeying his will.
Of course a Christian's going to argue that not believing in or worshipping God is a sin, but if we just assume "sin = disobeying God", reasonable people can potentially disagree about what obedience, if any, God has actually demanded. Some theologians do argue that God exists AND has the authority to issue mandates of moral obligation BUT has never actually chosen to do so, and dispute any written revelation claiming he has.
@@Uryvichk It seems to me that "sin" implies something more than simple disobedience to a god who may or may not exist. If a person is driving in their car and cruises through a stop sign, they are disobeying a law which is designed for public safety. But wearing different kinds of fabrics at the same time or working on Sunday harms no one. Also, "sinning" seems to imply being spiritually dirty or tainted in a way that breaking a secular law generally does not. If one is caught running a stop sign, one may have to pay a fine, but there is no notion of having to be "cleansed".
Indeed 2AHD Cat! So how do the priests justify their sins with children? They confess to another priest and are forgiven. Consequence free sinning. In fact, that's the very point. "Everybody sins." So, conclude the Christians, I might as well get a piece of the action. Sinning is often pleasurable. Illegal and/or immoral, but fun! Guilt-free after confession. What a racket ... for the priests. They even get hints as to how to sin and get away with it from those who confess to them.
I think I was taking part in a Street Epistemology conversation once recently and my claim was that "Many atheists used to be theists and became atheists by critically examining their beliefs." My interviewer, a fellow atheist/agnostic steelman the point of view that you combatted here and I think I shot back that if people really wanted to sin they could do so as believers or something along those lines. I was internally and externally challenging a lot of the stereotypes about atheists perpetuated and parroted by people of faith.
I think you've nailed it!
I see what you did there.
yeah, he nailed Paul to the cross.
The Paulogia reference made me laugh.
I can't sin, because I'm not a Christian or Muslim, I can only enjoy the good life.😇
Good luck with that.
Sounds to me like believers are… sin'chophants.
Christians doth protest too loudly, or however that saying goes. If I wanted to sin I'd become a Christian, but there is no such thing as sin.
I'm an atheist, so I guess I should become a Catholic. That way, I could continue to sin, but have all my sins forgiven and go to heaven.
LOL. Actually, you want one of those "saved by grace" denominations or sects. The Catholics are all about "works" and their requirements to go to Heaven are much more difficult than simply being "born again" in some fundagelical sect.
But if you die in the state of mortal sinery, no confesion and without the 9 consecutive months of 1st Friday obligations, which guarantees a chance to confess just before death, a supernatural get out of hell card if you will. You will go to hell and you best forget about the 2 hundred dollars cause that shit just ain't happening....
You need to start using the word "Grooming" children and adults into believing in nonsense
I have. And I'm working on a video on the topic.
This is a new perspective of Paul. I never heard anyone saying it this way. Interesting and entertaining. Great work Brian!
The ending is pretty satisfying but I am not sure if this quickie Mr. Diety does with Paul is a sin.
A theist cannot be moral, since they act according to an authority and subject to punishment in hell, it's not morality, it's cowardice!
AND Theist want to sin, and be pardoned automatically, that what the christian religion do ! It doesn't require anyone to get forgiveness of their victims, or pay reparation just "believe" ...and they can sin AGAIN as long as they repents after...
I feel a sin comin’ on!
Don't fight the feeling!
Me too! I'll be back in 15! 😉
“Yield not to temptation, for yielding is sin;
Each vict’ry will help you some other to win;
Fight manfully onward, dark passions subdue;
Look ever to Jesus, He will carry you through…” 🎶🎵🎶
Y’all just want a BLT!!!
Remember everyone, if you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing.
I do want to sin, but I have yet to find a real god whose rules I can break.
The whole "you just want to sin" argument never made sense to me. Why not just stay Christian and then sin? Jesus already died for the sins and they are forgiven anyway, so why should I become an atheist to sinn? Then I have to deal with my own morals and no one important is bound forgive me
While this does a lovely job, it's from the Israelite perspective. As an atheist, I'm more likely to use game theory. If I violate its directives ("sin") and don't seek atonement from the Christian god, and it exists? I go to Hell, regardless of my view on its existence. If I live a perfect and honest atheist life, and it exists? I go to Hell. (John 14:6) Thus if I want to sin limitlessly, but still go to Christian Heaven, the superior solution is to do so but confess regularly, as all sin and fall short of perfection (Romans 3:23-25) and forgiveness is given to all who confess. (John 1:7-9)
A fascinating perspective. I have long studied the beginnings of the Christian movement and what we know of the many different types of early Christianity but your idea is both amusing and, I think, relevant.
It’s not something I would seriously push. But I also suspect this has something to do with Christianity’s origins. People love easy. It’s at least a brilliant piece of marketing.
@@misterdeity Without doubt Pepsi learned their stuff from Christianity 😁
I am convinced that Paul and his contemporaries invented a new god along with their new religion. It's not just the ignoring of the old laws but the the very different relationship they have with their god compared to the Jews and the different nature of the deity. Immaterial, invisible and outside of reality (whatever that means), as opposed to the very physical descriptions and encounters in the Tanakh.
The most remarkable part of their marketing was adding their collection of writings onto the Tanakh (after it had been re-arranged to enhance the brand) to gain credibility, despite promoting the pro-Roman, anti-Jew lie that caused two thousand years of antisemitism.
When I hear someone (in authority) claim that giving oneself over to sensuality entails losing sensitivity, I ask my co-sinners... erm - are we doing this right?
Actually considering that righteous men were supposed to marry and Paul was very much against that I think you're literally correct.
never thought about it like this. looking back, I think Paul brought some legalism of his own to the church, while simultaneously freeing the Gentiles from the burden of Jewish law.
I just can’t bear pall.
simple as that...thanks for doing the work to explain it. And the last segment...twenty-three seconds or so...is perfect...the best BLT I ever had was at the Mint casino in Vegas...I was nine...peace
The best Chicken dish I ever had was at the Wolfgang Pucks in Caesar's Las Vegas. The next time I went, it was no longer on the menu. #devastating
What if I want to cos rather than to sin?
Let's not get on any tangents here.
replace those angels with angles
In order to cos, you need another person to sin with.... so, fornicate away!
H'mm... wonder how Paulogia would feel if we called him St. Paul,
Saint Paulogia!
As long as we don’t call him an apaulogist, he should be fine.
@@RustyTube Grrooooaaaaan!
People would just start lumping him in with Minneapolis, and he would lose part of his identity.
@@InigoMontoya- True. St. Paulogia sounds better.
Thanks!
👏👏👏
Thanks so much. Thoughts and prayers are headed you way. Along with multiple chances to make a first impression. My gifts to you. 😉
It's sort of how Islam came about. There was this guy named Mo who really liked to diddle little girls but even then the people frowned upon that act so he created a new religion which allowed it and put himself as the leader (naturally).
I couldn't have said it better...actually they kinda said it themselves.
Where do I write for express written permission to use "the road to Damacles" on my family and church friends?
Permission granted!
Damascus steel swords are already taken though.
Romans 7:15 and on seems to support this idea
The New Testament was written in Greek. Sin is a term used by Greek archers to indicate ‘missing the target.’ I’m not aiming at the fundamentalists’ target nor are they aiming at my target. Which of us is sinning?
Comment for the RUclips algorithm 🎉🎉🎉🎉
I refuse to leave a comment, ya can't make me! 🙃
@@DoctaOsiris ok then I refuse to reply to your non existent comment. You can’t make me!
😉😂
@@chrisgreen8803 😂 🤣
I love your take on sin
Oh, I don’t take on sin, I welcome it. 😉
Could you make the case that Paul is an anti-Christ? I mean in the actual sense of the word, not the dude in Revelation.
Jesus warned his disciples that "false Christs" would come after him that would try to lead people astray. And he also said that Peter was the rock upon whom he'd build his church. Shortly after Jesus left, the story goes that one of the disciples (Steven) was stoned to death, this is in the book of Acts. And Saul (who would later change his name to Paul) was there; he held the coats of those who actually did the stoning if I recall correctly.
So then Saul, who was a very zealous Pharisee (remember that about the ONLY people Jesus ever spoke ill of were the religious leaders and especially the Pharisees) and a big persecutor of Christians, went out into the desert and fell off his horse and supposedly had what today we might call a near death experience. In any case he claims to have seen a sign in the sky and heard the voice of Jesus, and was struck blind for a time (I imagine falling off a horse could do that to you). So then he goes back to Jerusalem, gets prayed over by the disciples, and his sight is miraculously restored. Of course they didn't have eye doctors back then so if a man said he was blind you pretty much had to take his word for it.
Next thing you know he is claiming that he is reformed, and somehow manages to convince enough of the original disciples that they appoint him as a "replacement disciple" for Stephen and forget all about the guy they had previously chosen to fill that slot. But still many of the original church were quite rightly suspicious of his tale. After all there were only a couple of witnesses to his event in the desert if I recall correctly. So after a time he starts a ministry to the Gentiles. Now (this is an important point) Jesus never intended his ministry for anyone other than the Jews. When he was once asked about the subject he said "shall the children's bread be given to the dogs?" and back in those days being called a dog was definitely not a complement (think about the wild dogs in Africa to get some idea of how that comparison went down). So it was never Jesus' intent to minister to the Gentiles, but nevertheless, Paul decides that's where his calling is and away he goes, pretty much out of reach of the original disciples and the church. And then he starts a network of churches (got to give him credit for that at least) but since there modern transportation and communications options weren't available, the only way to keep in touch was write letters back and forth.
Some of those letters were saved and became what are sometimes referred to as the Pauline epistles. And if you read those epistles and compare them to what Jesus taught, you could rightfully come to the conclusion that everything he had learned as a Pharisee hadn't left him. His writings still have a very authoritarian tone, encouraging people to be submissive to the church and to each other. He also had definite opinions on various things, from how long a man's hair should be to whether women were allowed to teach in the churches to homosexuality. Any unfortunately he wrote these all down and sent them more or less as commandments to the churches he had started. On subjects that Jesus had avoided, Paul strode right in and started telling the world how he thought things should be. And is opinions on those things were very much shaped by his time as a Pharisee. And remember, Jesus hardly spoke against anyone, but he was never reluctant to say what he thought about the Pharisees ("A den of vipers") is a phrase that comes to mind.
In other words the Pharisees were a group of very self-serving religious types that would take what they could from the people around them, but would not lift a finger to help any of them. They were powerful, and probably wealthy. Jesus pretty much despised them. So here is Paul, out there preaching in Jesus name, but laying this Pharisee-inspired religion on them. And it is probably fair to say that most of the people he was preaching to were ignorant of what Jesus had actually taught, or for that matter of what Paul had been like when he was Saul. There was no ABC News Nightline to do an investigation on him, Ted Koppel wouldn't even be born for another 1900 years or so! So the people out in the hinterlands that converted to his version of Christianity pretty much had to rely on what he told them and what he wrote to them.
Now, again, you have to compare his preaching with what Jesus taught and preach. Paul's preaching was much sharper and more legalistic. Sure, there was that "love chapter" in Romans, but some scholars think that may have been a later addition added by someone to soften the writings of Paul a bit. The problem with it is that it doesn't sound like him. Here's this guy that's preaching all this legalism and then suddenly he slips into this short treatise on love? Either Paul got drunk or high and had a rare case of feeling love, or maybe he had just visited a church where people adored him, or maybe it was added by some scribe at a later time. We don't know, but it's not in tone with his typical writings.
But here is the real problem. Paul's teachings produced a group of "Christians" who weren't following Jesus - the vast majority had never seen Jesus - they were following Paul. Can you say "cult?" And like any good cult, it stuck around long after the founder died, and its brand of Christianity more or less won out. By the time we got around to the council of Nicea, where they were deciding which books to consider canonical, the church probably pretty much consisted of non-Jewish Pharisees, only they didn't go by that name. In any case they wanted to live the good life and have control over people (again, contrast with Jesus) so when they selected the scriptures they knew they had to keep at least some of the Gospels, but right after that they included the Acts of the Apostles (which is supposed to establish Paul's validity, and might if you just accept everything at face value), and then all of Paul's epistles. And only then did they include a few books supposedly written by other disciples, including John and Peter (oh, remember him? He was the guy Jesus wanted to build his church on. Tough break his writings got relegated to the back of the book). And then they recycled the book of Revelations, which primarily described the fall of Jerusalem, but included some fantastical elements which were probably inspired by John partaking of the magic mushrooms that grew on the island of Patmos. But the guy who got top billing, at least if you go by number of books, was Paul.
And that was because Paul was their guy. If you want to control people, if you want to make them fear disobeying the orders of the church, or if you wanted to make them fear death, Paul was it. Jesus was much too hippie-socialist for their tastes. No one would fight wars for them, or give of their income to the church if they only had the teachings of Jesus to go by. But Paul had a way of setting people straight. You had better do what the church tells you to do or fear the consequences!
Another thing to be noted is that there were many more books the church could have chosen to include, including books that were supposedly written by the other disciples (I say "supposedly" because no one REALLY knows who wrote the four gospels that we have; they were written much later and were attributed to the named disciples but at least three of them are suspiciously alike. If I recall correctly Matthew is the only book for which there is any amount of confidence that it may have actually been written by Matthew). There was also a book supposedly written by Mary. Many of these are much more spiritual in nature than the books that came down to us in the Bible, but today the fundamentalist church tends to consider them so much garbage, or their old standby for things they REALLY don't like, "written by demons."
But gospels were written decades after Paul and disagree with each other about basically everything.
Sounds more like different early christianities, and even members in same christianity, disagreed with each other and either on purpose or non-conciously put their opinions in mounth of Jebus/god.
Apostle Paul(ogia). LOL
That's one hell of a burn! (pun intended)
Yeah Paul was a SPLITTER!!
Still thoroughly confuses me when I hear the stuff you should know music at the end of these. Good video though. Really good.
Still looking in on a Friend. Thank you again Brain. Your biggest fan in Paris…… TX. 😊
The lamb lied down on Broadway. Duh.
A terrific Genesis album!
@@misterdeity 👍
Next up, God just want to sin. This is gonna be interesting.
Paul???!!! Very good. Imagine if all humans behaved like God? There'd be no one left. What, actually, is sin? Is it only a christian construct? If so, it only applies to christians and no one else. So, atheists can not sin. Simple, no?
BLT FTW 😁
Didn't Cyndi Lauper do a song about this?
Did she?
@@misterdeity Girls Just Wanna Have Fun.
Yeah, I guess that wasn't as funny as I'd hoped when I posted it.
Please carry on; don't mind me.
@@mattfoley6082 D’oh!!! How did I not get that. Good one!
@@misterdeity She also did "She Bop". Remember what THAT was about? ;-)
@@mattfoley6082 For what it's worth, I thought your comment was funny.
Since "sinning" is the act of breaking god's law, atheists are incapable of committing one.
That's because the Lamb was an atheist.
No, the lion was. The lamb believed that Jesus would save it …
Thinking doesn't work with the hats. So no hats no thinking.
0:52 🤣
Damocles?
Jesus ate with Sinners. He didn't push them away. Paul is wrong.
Gospels were written decades after Paul's time, and those disagree with each other about basically everything. Jebus was in some way god's son and died on cross are almost only things those agree with.
God is only ever nice to sinners though.
When does he ever be nice to the innocent?
Wrong Paul.
Whoops!
Nope- that Paul is rarely wrong.
Hate to nitpik, but @1:58 it was the road to Damascus, not Damocles which was that thing about a sword over the king's head in Syracuse. Paul just wanted to become an influencer and he saw how stupid the people who were getting sucked into the new sect were, so he played the game and played the lazy Jews who wanted pork B-B-Qs and shrimp cocktails.
@@piratemonkeh I listened to the speech, and he definately said "Damocles".
@@wylie5525 Yes, but there was a bit of text that appeared onscreen @2:00. You missed the joke. Go ahead and read it, we'll wait.
If you’re new to the channel, misnomer and using the wrong words are part of my schtick - going on 17 years now.
@@misterdeity Thanks for that. If you had said on the road to Nardia, I would have gotten it since Paul is mostly fantasy and lust for Timothy.
🙌👍
Living a mostly Christian free lifestyle (Australian exceptionalism) this problem of Christians seems to be a particularly American problem.
You did well in exporting the most notorious subjects to the US.
@@finestPlugins No backsies! Not only did we export god botherers but we got rid of Murdoch as well if only we could get him out of our media Australia would be a better place
@@sheilbwright7649 Wasn't Murdoch revenge for getting deported in the first place?
Which makes it a world problem.
@@finestPlugins You imported him and gave him citizenship when you knew what he was.
Why is everyone going on about Final Fantasy X?
Yeah... except I never got to the point of beating off Sin... I mean... beating Sin.
hey man, I really like your work; recently in my country, Brazil, there was a coup attempt, lead by the slogan of "deus, pátria e família", which means god, fatherland and family; I think it would be relevant for you to discuss, because of religious & fascist ideals we are going through a really hard time.
I just posted a video on Christi-Fascism. Did you see it?
@@misterdeity not yet, but I sure will! looks like misterdeity was four steps ahead of me all along.