Відео

The topic is highly specific. It only concerns how having a large (and, yes, rich) institutional force confers an advantage on theists and how this institution deters crime because of its presence. And I've also pointed out massive holes in how religion as an institution operates. Nowhere did I say correlation is causation, also.

It is currently incomplete as currently presented. You are correct (this is the beginning of a series of videos). I will post all of my citations, but I did show each of the journal articles that I was referencing including the titles and authors.

This is mostly a protestant problem in Christianity, seeing as the movement was built on removing responsibility on the individual. For example, in the Cathlic, Orthodox, or Coptic parts of Christendom, confession and repentance come with the consequences of the action that was committed. You don't see that in the protestant movements.

@@Nicholaswonderwork One might argue the exact opposite, saying that confession to a priest and doing penance deters repentance; you don't need to turn away from your sin, just confess and say a few Hail Marys, and you are forgiven, after all, why would God be interested in a repentant heart if empty outward actions can mask the inward stagnation? Note that I am not saying this is necessarily the case with traditions that include non-corporate confession of sin, I am merely pointing out that the opposite conclusion can easily be drawn from the same observation. I will also add that plenty of protestant churches practice church disciple. Those churches in the reformed tradition see the application of church discipline, along with the pure preaching of the word and the right administration of the sacraments, of being the hallmarks of a true institutional ecclesia. I am saddened to say that many churches who's confessions state this does not themselves apply discipline, but then again these so-called churches also tend to not preach the word of God purely, nor administer the sacraments regularly.

@uilspieel99 Confession to an ordained priest is a sacrement due to this status a person that is outside of the church like most sacrements struggle to understand its spiritual benefit and effect like for example the Eucharist that is the literal body and blood of our Savior. Someone outside of the church would struggle to understand how it is possible and how it has the power for the remission of sins.

@@Nicholaswonderwork I realise that the following might come across as harsh, but please take it in the spirit it was intended, and hopefully we may both benefit from this exchange as iron sharpens iron. The only sacraments are those ordained by Christ, that being the Lord's Supper and Baptism. To place the works of man on the same level as the works of God is, quite frankly, blasphemous. Calling those who disagree "outside the church" does not hide the fact that equating man to God is idolatry of the worst kind, and the very reason for the fall. While your espoused theology does not outright proclaim it's idolatry, it does entail it as a logically necessary consequence. *If this is not the case, please explain how*. Thankfully, the scriptures teach us that we are not saved by theological sophistication, but by grace through faith in Christ to the glory of God alone. I am curious though, when you say that the Lord's Supper is literally the body and blood of Christ, do you mean that the physical substance (i.e. the molecular make-up of the bread and wine) are changed, or do you of the substance in some other sense, such as the substance of page filled with nonsense words being different from the substance of letter to a loved one?

@uilspieel99 before I reply with an answer are you by any chance dutch reformed? I am assuming due to your germanic sounding user name and admiration of reformed tradition?

Into hiding 🤣

I'm not gay

I don't appreciate the condescension. I paid for in person training. My line of work has to be done in person, and an instructor is needed for assistance. If I get anything less, they're robbing me of proper education - of course they can do better. No matter which side you take, Democracy is absolutely being attacked. Corporations are colluding with the Government, which is textbook economic fascism. Meanwhile, Communists are burning our flag in the streets, and calling for the burning of our constitution and liberal values, and corporations and Government is listening to them and spreading their messages. Maybe do a little research before asking if I think before I speak. Also, check out how many people died in August 2020 vs August 2019. August 2020 has less deaths - the pandemic is over.

@@theideologicalway7311 dude, we went to the same college. Same major. This major is self researched. You dont need a professor, and also you're not guaranteed a job in the field if you graduate. If you dont put in the effort and work on your own you wont get anywhere in this field. There might be less deaths but there is still a chance of catching this virus and a high death rate from it. Just because it calmed down a bit because of the high temperature doesnt mean it wont come back stronger when it gets colder. Institutions are being cautious so if it does come back people wont be infected and infecting others. Im guessing you're a conservative? Dude, pull your head out of your butt and research more before you form an opinion. Your arguments have flaws.

@@marcino2687 Duh. I don't recognize your name, but let's put it this way. You don't learn anything through Zoom calls. You can't draw a model through a grainy 480p video. I also need in-person assistance for learning via my IEP. That's not to say I'm not working on my own, I'd be foolish not to, and of course I'd recognize that I don't need the degree - that's essentially why I'm not concerned with taking the year off. If you knew anything about how Coronavirus kills, you'd know that the plurality of those who were killed were elderly and in nursing homes. There's no need to isolate the rest of us, especially since isolation from family caused a massive spike in Elderly deaths via dementia. And you're last paragraph is laughable - also rich, coming from who is very much acting like an asshole. I'm a left liberal, and I always have been. I'm just paying attention. I do more research than the "journalists" you consume your news from.

straight facts

Do I know you?

Hey, thanks bro! I'm glad you liked the video!

@@theideologicalway7311 Aww, no need to get defensive and emotional. Just because someone references something you said in a video that prompts debate doesn't mean they're taking away your free speech, don't worry, bud. The Merriam-Webster definition of "political correctness" is "agreeing with the idea that people shouldbe careful to not use language or behave in a way that could offend a particular groupof people." That's exactly what you did with the phrase people of color: whined because it offends you and explained why you think it shouldn't be used. Do basic research before trying to sound smart because you very obviously put feelings before your facts in this video. Especially considering you probably couldn't even define the word "Hispanic" accurately for me, judging on this video, but you still decided to comment on race like you're not some kid ranting about his emotions outside his mom's garage lmfao

@@theideologicalway7311 You didn't actually point out hypocrisy, though, you just complained. Your arguments were incoherent to anyone who actually knows, well, anything at all about history. And you think political correctness is good sometimes, but titled your video "political correctness is not correct" and never mention in the video what you think occasional benefits of being PC are? Wow you are so good at opposing hypocrisy, how reasonable and balanced. Considering you were throwing around heavy words like "anti-white" without any rationale beyond how the phrase "people of color" makes you feel, yes, you were offended, bud. Lastly, no one is "silencing" you lmao drama queen

​@@theideologicalway7311 First off, "Latino" doesn't work in the context you used it either, but A for effort. Second, political correctness is the same as any other political stance. It's called an opinion. Literally every single human on earth is biased in one way or another on every single political topic. Politics are defined as "a particular set of political beliefs or principles." Opinions are "a view or judgment formed about something." Both can be based in science. But they're both inherently subjective. I suggest you watch PhilosophyTube's video explaining relativism, "Jordan Peterson & the Meaning of Life," to help you better understand this concept. "Harshness" and "being a dick" are not resulting in "persecution." How sensitive do you have to be to think people complaining about something on the internet is synonymous with "persecution?" ""Political Correctness" is not synonymous with "being nice" it's synonymous with "blasphemy law", and the literary definition is deceptive." Ignoring the fact that you definitely don't know what "literary" means, you certainly don't know what "blasphemy law" means. I promise no one is executing you for making edgy memes. Calm down. Yes, you should've included your actual argument in an argumentative video. Your intellect knows no bounds. Regardless, I'm interested in your definition of "actual racism." Sanders and Biden have, at most, been called "out of touch" with much of their non-white audience for things like, for example, Sanders saying that a black person is less palatable to the general public. That Bernie Sanders quote was actually "white people don't know what it's like to live in a ghetto," and said that they are "sometimes not aware kinds of pressures that take place in the African-American community," while speaking in Flint. He had been asked if he, personally, felt he understood what it was like to live in the ghetto, and was describing his own experience. Are you going to try and tell me that the ghetto is associated with white people? Are you going to tell me that the African-American community is actually associated with white people? Are you going to tell me that Bernie Sanders DOES understand living in the ghetto, for some reason? Just because you're too lazy to look into actual facts, or even get a simple quote correct, doesn't mean you're right. Sure, there are more poor white people, but that's not what was said. As for Larson saying there should be more non-white critics--what's inherently bad about that? It's not as though black people in specific are encouraged to go into careers critiquing art, so she likely rarely hears their voices. Wanting to hear perspectives from different subcultures and life experiences (since as you stated in your video, different ethnicities have different experiences) isn't a bad thing to want. Your next argument is TRULY baffling. You say black people can't be white supremacists. Alright. But RIGHT before that, you've given only white people as examples of anti-whiteness. What? White people can be anti-white, but black people can't be anti-black? It's only possible for white people to be victims? Hm. Sounds like someone has a victim complex. Not "every right-wing political commentator" is called a white supremacist. Again, relax, drama queen. I'm sure you've never even looked into the warranting of the educated people who genuinely make those accusations. Besides that, "white supremacist" is just a phrase. I thought we shouldn't be hurt by words and that that's your argument in a few paragraphs? Could you provide me with an exact statistics of how many black supremacy groups there are, how many people are in them, and by what percent they outnumber white supremacy groups? Could you also send me information about their violent rallies where they have made threats or killed others? Lastly, can you explain to me how the Black Hebrew Israelites are violent and how they're looking to reach the goal of actual black supremacy? For someone who preaches about facts so much, you don't really seem to be providing many. One interesting thing I noted in your video--when discussing "people of color," you mentioned Jewish people. Can you explain to me the inherent differences between ALL Jewish and white people? Can you show me examples of people being persecuted over the phrase "people of color?" Can you explain how your free speech is being censored? Again, more evidence of a victim complex. Your last paragraph has a lot to unpack. Yes, language influence reality. That's incredibly basic lexical hypothesis. Could you please explain how calling someone a nigger has no weight anymore? The other part of basic lexical concepts is that language is given its meaning based on the reaction to it. So if people are still hurt by it then, yes, it does have weight. Yes, context matters, but that's where the issue comes in. How often do you think it really happens that a white kid in a group of black kids randomly drops the n-word in any form and they all have a good, genuine, unironic laugh? Do you really think that black people have absolutely no reaction to that word anymore? People are not always vocal about their political opinions or biases. If almost any black person heard a friend suddenly say the n-word to them, they would probably wonder what made them so comfortable using it, even if they don't outwardly express their discomfort. No one thinks people are white supremacists for using the n-word once in a context that isn't inherently derogatory. Calm down. Lastly... "Well they need to start listening to other opinions or else they'll never learn the truth, and innocent people will have their lives destroyed because of one mistake." This is such a fascinating breakdown of your own arguments. Your entire general thesis seems to be we need to use logic and facts and the way you end it is... "listen to opinion?" You accept that subjectivity is useful, yet again, but only in contexts where people want to listen to your side? Also, no one is having their life destroyed for dropping the n-word once. For the billionth time, no one is persecuting you and you need to relax. I can say that you certainly did attempt to demonstrate your rationale, but your emotions got in the way and muddied your argument. I understand where you're coming from and it doesn't appear to be somewhere rational. At the very least, you contradict yourself at every turn and use words incorrectly. Good chance I don't respond to whatever you say next unless you have reliable and valid research, no contradictions, and an explanation for the hot mess I just read, since I have a life and have better things to do with my time. Do basic research on the concepts you're trying to debate and come back into the political game when you have your facts down, bud.