Meager Moral Fruits Argument Debunked
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 พ.ย. 2024
- Some atheists have argued against Christianity using the meager moral fruits argument, which claims if Christianity is true Christians should bear moral fruits and have a better reputation than what we see in reality. But this argument is riddled with problems.
Link to Emerson Green's article: emersongreenbl...
Link to Interview with Jonathan M.S. Pierce: • Meager Moral Fruits Ar...
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ba9jAVzADY0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/tr.png)
I'm glad someone finally answered this in a video. Another thing I've thought of in line with the sanctification argument is Jesus predicted that there would be false followers of his and also that some who believe his word but don't bear fruit because of the cares of this life, the deceitfulness of riches and the desires of other things choke the word in the parable of the sower. There are things that can stifle growth with Christians. Kind of hard to say we'd expect X when the founder of the faith says expect Y.
Thx for the intake brother, also a big fan of your channel. God bless.
🙏🔥❤️
Are you a THEIST? 🤔
If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓
@@TheWorldTeacher one reason i believe in God is that I exist
Dude, when I was between the ages of 12 and 14, I used to fantasize about killing people, and even wrote complex stories wherein I created detailed fantasies about the lives of people I hated, and their families, and tortured and killed them. Jesus reached out to me in a way that I can only describe as miraculous when I was in the later part of 14, and He completely transformed me from an absolutely out of my mind, suicidal, self-hating individual, into a person who has a sense of deep meaning and purpose, is blessed and loves my life, and is now 21, married, and involved in youth outreach ministry serving kids and preaching the Gospel. I have seen innumerable other transformations like this. My own life is a testimony that this atheist argument is utterly invalid beyond comprehension. My YoungLife leader and area director from when I was 15 to now, who has been like a dad to me, and had a positive effect on countless lives, you can look him up: Todd Tardie, there is a video about him on TH-cam. But he describes his life to me before he met Jesus at 17 as him being an arrogant bully and jock who used to make fun of everyone who he felt was inferior, and he used to physically and verbally abuse even autistic and special ed kids at his school, and he fornicated with his girlfriend, and smoked weed. When he met Jesus his immediate experience was one of feeling compelled to break up with his girlfriend, quit smoking weed, and apologize to everyone he had hurt at his school, even though they thought he was weird for doing it.
Man.. that is awsm.. godblessu
Cool story. What I like about Jesus is that he is the only person that can heal and transform people. What else would have changed your ways. I know someone who did a year long intensive anger management course with the best professionals available. The day he finished he got angry with a stranger for no real reason and jumped up and down on him until he felt all of his ribs broke. Later he found Jesus and is now a pastor and says Jesus is the only way that can change a person.
@@jeremybeavon4476 I'd add that when one sees great moral development in secular contexts, God is likely implicitly present in these things driving them. God isn't bound by those efforts who explicitly recognize him, which makes your point all the more true imo
P.S. And in any case, wherever there ISN'T moral transformation (but at least a desire for it, or else the salvation of the individual is questionable), that is ALSO evidence for the TRUTH of the Word, because that's just proof we need MERCY, which is what the Gospel is really about, and it's why salvation is even necessary.
Notice that God isn’t interested to convince our degenerate minds of the truth. He reveals Himself by His power at work in those who decide to trust Him and all that Jesus did for us, i.e. the gospel message.
Excellent critique. It hits on some of my own objections to the argument. Personally, I think Christianity has made me a much better person (especially once I discovered Christian virtue ethics, thanks to your videos).
If It wasn't for Christianity, I'd beat down every guy who looked at me wrong, and chase down every woman I saw in a skimpy outfit with my pants around my ankles. I'm still kind of a horny jerk, but subtract Jesus and
😬😱🤯 😭🤬💀
Confucian virtue ethics can teach the same things without any of the dishonest apologetics.
@@merbst hey just wondering what you mean by dishonest apologetics as I could see determining that he is being dishonest if you stop listening at around 12:10, but he immediately goes on to say that the magnificent moral fruit argument he was stating at that point is unconvincing to him and goes on to show how the reputation assumption he built it on is demonstrably problematic because it is inherently biased in a way that the meager moral fruit argument would also be subject to. As far as I could tell his apologetics once given the benefit of a full listen seemed honest.
If I missed something I would be happy to have it pointed out as I believe that testing and examining one's beliefs is beneficial since either I will be able to defend it and so be strengthened in it or I will have to question it's validity and possibly discard a false belief.
@@merbst Confucianism still rests on similar metaphysical presuppositions.
I remember living as an unbeliever in my youth, I've met my mom's believing friends from time to time and could clearly sense the difference between them and myself, I was clubbing, getting drunk, fornicating, cursing, smoking, and those believing guys, even though some of them were my age, about 18-20 years old, they were already married, had kids, worked hard, participated in charity, participated in their church activities, visited our mom on a regular basis (she was seriously ill of bone marrow cancer), it was all done in love and I can remember how I clearly felt inferior to them to the point that I was waiting for them to do or even say something wrong so that I could look down at them and say "ahah! you aint so good after all"
Interesting that you were looking for the bad in them. I think we all tend to do that for out group members
@@InspiringPhilosophyRespected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, socialism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
Christianity saved my life. It showed me what a monster I was and made me a do a 180° turn from my ways. Totally changed me morally. “meager moral fruits” my rear end
I would ask the atheist: by what standard are you judging the moral fruits of a Christian?
As someone who's heard Paul Draper speak on this years back, I'm beyond stoked to see you tackle this topic!
I'd love to see more work like this covering such arguments rising within naturalist academia and philosophy circles
Just want to say as a non Christian, I really enjoy your videos.
Thank you, that makes me happy to know
To see the "moral fruits" of Christianity, one must only look at the progress of humanity since Christ's death and resurrection.
having a faith crisis this week, and though this wasn't a concern, the critique was phenomenal. Always a pleasure to see your videos
Everything okay?
If you haven't already, feel free to check out TalkAboutDoubts to schedule a 1-on-1 Zoom call with someone who has expertise in a field relevant to your questions. I did that a while ago and it helped me think through my faith more logically and rationally than before.
@@InspiringPhilosophy atheism or naturalism is starting to make more sense for the arbitrary nature of things. And several things seem far too drastic and heavy for God or Christians to be bystanders. I don’t see how one can rationalize or reconcile Perfect Being Theism with the God of Christianity, or even God in general. Why he would allow 99% of species to be extinct today and bypass tragic corruptions of his teachings. They seem pretty banal, but also very difficult to overlook
@@sidtom2741 You assuming things are arbitrary because you (like every other human) only has a tiny view of what is going on.
The book of Job handles this.
@@Chomper750 My favourite part in the book of Job, is when his own daughters get him drunk in a cave and then they both have incest sex with him and both get pregnant 😂
Great logic isn’t it.
A good person doing good with the right actions seldom brags about it. They are not doing it for others anyway. Their conscience drives them to do something.
Brilliant video, thank you for this! Sadly, my experience backs up that atheists are rather aggressive towards me as a Christian when it pertains to matters of religion - whether or not they're more biased isn't the point, what is is that they've tended to zealously show contempt for Christianity and resort to personal offense and mockery; I don't know a Christian that does this. We need to pray for them nonetheless and just hope they'll accept it in due time.
I’ve always found that it’s basis this is a totally subjective argument and falls apart right there.
A question I’ve had regarding Holland’s Dominion (and similar works) is how do we know we aren’t equating extrinsic religiosity with intrinsic when analyzing religious influence throughout history?
I think Holland makes a good case the positive benefits flow from Christian doctrines
I was a follower of Christ only in name for a large portion of my life. I definitely would fit into this argument through most of my walk but I’m grateful I recognize my error. Great rebuttal, too☦️
Simplest argument against Christianity:
"Christianity does not tell me what I want to hear or tell me what I demand be celebrated is good"
Ergo false.
Logik
Yep
Bingo
Well-said!😁👍
D EXACTLY. ITS THIS STUFF OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. IT JUST DOESNT STOP. AAAAAAAAAAAA
This made me think of C.S. Lewis' teeth whitening analogy in Mere Christianity. Basically, "You don't think my teeth are very white, you should see them without this tooth whitening."
Brilliantly argued, well said, thank you for this understandable critique
thank you
Well done, but my response to the argument would have been "you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God"
I can refute the "meager moral fruits" argument with one word, one name: "Cortés". In 1518 Hernán Cortés arrived in the Yucatán Peninsula with 500 men and 13 horses. Upon learning of the existence of the most evil empire to ever blight this planet, Cortés burned his own fleet and marched on Tenochtitlán. Under the banner of Christ, Cortés, his handful of men, and the tens of thousands of liberated natives who chose to follow him overthrew the bloodthirsty tyrant Moctezuma, freed the Mexica from their Satanic enslavers, and converted the nation to Christian fellowship. One ordinary man, with no military experience, and only 12 Franciscan disciples, ended over a thousand years of brutal human sacrifice and saved the lives and souls of millions of people.
If atheism is simply the lack of belief in God . Then atheism can not be appealed to as a cause for atheists doing good things
the Cosby example alone should leave the argument in ashes
If you knew the me before I was saved, you would see how much the spirit can do in a persons life. I can understand not liking some evangelical prosperity gospel types though. When the church is used by cons, it make all look bad.
THIS. This video was so good!
It's so important to me that we properly separate and not assume that just because a bad thing is done by a Christian means it reflects on Christianity.
For example, people will say that the crusades are bad and therefore Christianity is false; but the problem is obvious! The Bible doesn't support the idea of a crusade in the slightest! Yet none believers act like all actions of a believer reflect that of what they believe, when they would never apply the same standard elsewhere!
Good video IP!
@@reality1958
In which case it was based. You can not call our moral standard wrong without a objective moral standard.
@@reality1958
What you just said is a load of rubbish. If we make up morality then it’s just your opinion that those biblical things are bad. Who cares about your opinion?
@@reality1958
Nope, there is no objective “well being” without God. Without God the next best thing we have is evolution. And evolution and nature is brutal.
There is no morality without God. I find your whining to be insufferable. I don’t care what your opinion is, if there is no God then I most certainly could be bothered about you made up liberal ideals.
@@reality1958
There are no natural laws that say murdering a pillaging is wrong. You are delusional and it’s incredibly annoying
@@reality1958
Who’s “we”
just apropos of nothing it's very funny that in his interview Greene cites Mr Rodgers who famously built his career of teaching his Christian virtues. his one example of a good person was a devout christian
Mortality isn’t based on popular opinion. If it was, then it would be as heavy as the opinion that chocolate is better than vanilla. Morality transcends time and culture.
Than explain slavery or Jim crow 🙄
@@benclark4823 ? whats that supposed to mean?
@@reality1958 evolution suggests we are progressing our morals. To what standard are we progressing them to?
@@benclark4823 People wanted power. It is quite easy to explain
@@reality1958
Morality is fulfilling the purpose given to us by our creator.
What the world says is good is often evil. We follow God, atheist just make stuff up.
25:00 It is good to build a social stigma around sin. The support of LGBTalphabet creeps is a bad deed, the opposition of this debauchery is a good moral fruit.
I would say I understand where the Meager moral fruits argument is coming from, because even though I’m a Christian, I myself have been hurt by a Christian last year and it sucks because she was my friend for my long time.
Make sure she knows that she hurt you so she can reflect
@@idongesitx1873 I did, she said she was sorry, but it was short lived because she went back to her old ways.
I don’t see why a Magnificent Moral Fruits Argument would necessarily fail as long as we’re using actual data and not reputation. After, all, didn’t Jesus imply something like this with his comments about letting believer’s light shine before men so unbelievers wold glorify God?
Maybe, I’ll have to think about that. If anything it could not be an argument of comparing believers or non-believers. It would have to focus on the ideology of Christianity and use data to show it has produced moral and effective fruits.
IP i luv critiques like these. THX SO MUCH 😃😃
No problem!
"Where's the moral fruit?"
Dude doesn't recognize how barbaric we were in the age of Rome.
The argument supposes we can perfect ourselves
I thought this was about the meaning of "tree of life" and "tree of knowlege of good and evil".
You can see this video I made for that: th-cam.com/video/e5rCktgBM64/w-d-xo.html
@@InspiringPhilosophy Thanks I liked both this and that!
Using the idea that Christianity think sin outside of marriage is a sin is true. We think it is bad for families. Children are not doing well from single parent homes bears that out.
The idea that Christianity is why people don't like LBTQ is so hypocritical when we as a society do not throw them in prison or worse. Never hear them condemn atheist China or Islamic countries is baffling to me other than proof of what Jesus said; If they hated me they will hate you. (paraphrased)
@@reality1958 Having sex has way too many consequences to just play lightly with... That's why I would say yes, personally.
If you don't get married but still have sex, you might unintentionally create a bunch of fatherless children.
@@reality1958 No, its because christians believe that God has imposed a moral law in his creation. Marriage its the only natural(according the will to the end of the thing) and moral way to live a sexual life, this is why fornication and is wrong, the same applies for lgbt
@@reality1958 And it is also evidence that you view man as nothing but an animal who can't control their urges.
@@reality1958 No, its not my opinion, im explaining what are the principles that led to fornication and other sexual practices to be a sin.
"A person doesn’t need a marriage license to be responsible sexually"
Christian theology(Which its not obligatory for theism) agree with you, people do not need a license, the compromise of being together its enough.
Now, according to christianity Jesus is God, so what he says and do are of divine will.
“Because of your hard hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. It was not like that from the beginning. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sex sins, and marries another, is guilty of sex sins in marriage. Whoever marries her that is divorced is guilty of sex sins in marriage.”
10 His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.”
@@reality1958 *for a god to design us with such a strong urge as sex and then forbid it is cruel, unrealistic, and unjust*
That can actually be accomplished through marriage. However, people like you vote in for more government taxes so it makes it hard to marry early. Not to mention the sexual revolution which made it to access porn and stuff like that. Blame your worldview for making it hard for humans to control themselves.
And of course, this begs the question. Suppose a man is married to his wife and she is not satisfying him. Is he obligated to have sex with any other woman just because his wife is not pleasing him?
*To design someone with something you command them to fight against their entire lives is indeed cruel.*
There are many other urges that are just as tough to control such as hurting people who wrong you and things that. Yet, you would note that it should not be suppressed.
One of the things I love about IP is that he spends so much time and research on even the lowest arguments
Great video IP!
Thanks!
Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is Perfect.
Great presentation but i would want to see what ben watkin wants to say about this
Ah yes, using reputation as evidence. One of the evidence that’s excluded from admitting to court because it doesn’t prove that the group did it and it’s more prejudicial than probative (info is reliable or accurate info).
17:10 unless I'm missing something, isn't r=-.12 a very weak correlation? I thought 0.4 (or -0.4) was required to be considered moderate. Perhaps the critical value was such that -.12, while a weak correlation, was still statistically significant?
Wooooow this is exactly what God showed me in a vision. How the church has failed in allowing the LGBTQ community apart of the church. The traditional church of today is not the biblical church of the book of Acts and many Christians will be caught off guard for not following Jesus words.
Thanks so much for covering this! Quick question, you made the argument atheists cannot say Christianity is or has perpetrated evil when Christianity rejects their understanding of goodness. However, wouldn’t this same argument, applied to Christianity, exclude us from any objective moral comparison between us and other religions? Could we not claim moral superiority over Islam for its support of wife beating? Perhaps our morally compromised minds could not understand the intrinsic good Allah has in instituting such an allowance.
Excellent work IP!
Opposition to LGBT equality IS a moral good.
To play devil's advocate, I detected a weak point in the "Traditionalism, not religiosity, is to blame for opposition LGBT stuff."
Earlier you credited Christianity with informing a lot of what we take for granted in our society today, only to draw a clear distinction between it and Traditionalism later. I would think therefore it's fair to claim traditionalism, at least in the west, is informed by Christianity.
Excellent content sir.
Thank you, Mike!
It is true that the moral meager fruits argument is terrible, but the only way to argue with someone who believes this that you know personally is to be the saint they don't believe exists.
Social biases are strong
The Meager Moral Fruits Argument is just another display of ignorance regarding Christianity and the necessity of Christ.
“For it is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick.”
Seems to me that this relies on calling what they believe ought to be as that's how it is and use ought and is interchangeably. .
The irony of an atheist asserting ANY kind of morality.
@@reality1958
Because in atheistic naturalism worldview there's is objective standard of morality, no absolute truths
The best of them is a mere moral parasite or a utilitarian
@@reality1958 Because ussually moral realism its held by a theist fundation(moral arguement).
The mayority of atheist reject moral realism, so they cant really have moral objections, for they would only be feelings or arbitrary principles
@@reality1958 It depends not all atheist are moral realist, some of them are moral cognitivist or believe morality to not exist.
Now, you are saying that God its not demonstrable. Ill give you arguements and the definition
Definition: God is the first cause, unmoved mover, necessary being and the highest good.
1- Second way:1.
Everything which has come to exist has been caused to come to exist.
2.
Nothing which has come to exist can be the cause of its own existence.
3.
Everything which has come to exist is caused to exist by something other than itself. (follows from 1,2)
4.
It is impossible for a chain of causes of this kind to go on to infinity.
Third way
s. We
find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they
are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are
possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to
exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore,
if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been
nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be
nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to
exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was
in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun
to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence - which is
absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist
something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing
either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to
go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused
by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes.
Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having
of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather
causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God
@@reality1958 Ehm no, The first arguement holds whether we believe the universe is eternal or not. Aquinas himself believed that we had to believe that the universe was not eternal by faith. Aristotle believed that the world was eternal, but it still needs a first cause and a unmoved mover.
This is why to say that the universe can create itself from a quantum vacumm its not possible, because that is not nothing.
Besides, i would not take physicist seriously here, this is a metaphysical discussion, not a physical one.
What about the second arguement?
James Fodor had an interesting responses to this. (Shifting the goal posts)
Lol, was that all he did?
Do you have a discord?
Given the behavior of many atheists online, I’d say them critiquing religious people for being less than utter saints is kind of hypocritical.
@@reality1958 fair enough.
I think the argument runs into a serious problem from the first premise in that it appeals, seemingly, to a Christian standard of morality to assert that the lack of morality in its adherents is proof that it doesn't exist. It presupposes an axiomatic standard of morality and then proceeds to tear it down by the lack of adherence to it. But that's like tearing down mathematics as a concept by the inability of people to be mathematically competent. As in most cases presented by atheists philosophers, it's a non sequitur.
I don't understand how IP arrived at the 1000 years sanctification process. I am sure I misunderstood something, can someone clarify this for me? Thanks
I never said it necessarily took that long, I used it as an example.
@@InspiringPhilosophy
Ahhhh.....Thank You!
25:47 what is meant by "Traditionalism" and "Religiosity" here? Christianity IS opposed to LGBTQ behavior, so wouldn't a better way to address this point be to just grant what he's saying, but argue it isn't a bad moral fruit, but rather, something good? I have a hard time seeing how Christian religiosity could be totally disconnected from traditional values.
I agree with you there, a better would be something like this:
"Yes, despite christianity is opposed to reject LGBTQ behaviour, it doesnt demmands the hatred or the punishment of this group, because of its principles"
Sanctification isn't a process. Transformation is. And it is done by the renewing of the mind.
Hey IP, I have a question:
Is Purgatory real?
I wonder why he hasn’t made videos pertaining to the teachings and history of beliefs such as purgatory, Marian veneration and asking for the intercession of deceased saints.
Not a fan of purgatory but I think IP is influenced by CS Lewis who also believed in purgatory. This is evidenced in his view of hell which is also influenced by Lewis.
I'd add that redifining good to your own liking doesn't actually mean that it's good and create conclusion that Christianity is bad based on flawed metric is weird
To give the premise credit, it's correct that many who claim to follow Christ don't actually do so, they're not transformed by the Holy Spirit. They're "lukewarm Christians" - Jesus Himself touched on this, saying that the gate to God is narrow & only true Christians will enter it:
*"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate & broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate & difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."* - Matthew 7:13 (NKJV)
And Michael; Where would we be without your wonderful videos?
IP, please make a video on Matthew quoting Isaiah 7:14 with a clear and satisfied answer.
"Christianity has often been a hindrance to LBGT equality."
This argument only makes sense if you assume that the LGBT agenda is moral, which I don't believe. The entire argument is predicated on whether or not atheists and Christians agree on morality, which of course we categorically cannot.
How is what 2 consenting adults do with each other immoral to you?
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus oh boy.
1. It's hardly consensual. A disproportionate amount of gay people were sexually abused as children before they developed their sexuality (when gay people were surveyed for when they lost their virginity the most common ages were 5 8 12 and 21,) and despite being 2% of the population they're over 40% of all chomos. Not to mention that those feelings enflame with the consumption of pr0nography, due to the phenomenon of increasing tolerance requiring more extreme context to achieve the same effect (I've had friends personally who dealt with this and their feelings have gone away.) It almost is always a consequence of prenatal hormone exposure or child abuse. No use in saying you were "born that way;" scientists have never found a gay gene and never will. Why in the world would evolution put into an organism something that would divert its desire to reproduce?
2. It's hardly behind closed doors. Every single facet of media, entertainment, education, government, corporate America, and even the military corroborate the LGBT community. And you have degenerate parades showing off the worst kinds of depravity.
3. That kind of sex puts you at a much higher risk of anal cancer (big surprise,) HIV, and anal incontinence. Many people end up having to wear adult diapers after many years of it.
4. Lesbians are by far the most abusive kind of couple. About 55% of couples report some kind of abuse going on.
5. It's not love, it's lust. Non-straight are far more likely to divorce than straight couples (whose divorce rate is also increasing and that's a shame.) I've seen this type of marriage dissolve over adultery with my own eyes. The average gay man has several dozens sex partners per year. And last time I check the worst "monogamish" wasn't invented by straight people.
6. The three men most responsible for normalizing not only homosexuality but transgenderism and other deviancy like BDSM (which is also wrong and overwhelmingly a development of childhood abuse) were monsters. Alfred Kinsey was a pervert and a sloppy scientist whose studies grossly overrepresented the average person's deviancy because he interviewed people like prisoners and prostitutes instead of normal people (and who would divulge their sexual history to a stranger in the 50s.) I don't even wanna talk about the John Money experiments, just search them up for yourself they're so barbaric and cruel. This was the man that coined the word "gender" as separate from biological sex for modern parlance btw. Harvey Milk, the forerunner for the LGBT movement in the 70s was a deadass pedophile - oh sorry - ephebophile. Of course the world's difference
I don't hate gay folks but I'm not going to sit and pretend I agree with their lifestyle because I'll get called "-ist" and "-phobic," I frankly don't care. The Sexual Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race, unironically.
Things don't have to violate the non--aggression principle to be wrong. Homosexuality is wrong the same way eating junk food is wrong. It doesn't harm anyone else, but it destroys the self and is a disordered and long term dangerous way to act, not to mention bad for society. People often roll their eyes at things being "bad for society," but the fact is no man is an island. Nothing we do ever affects just us, we ripple into the community. And when a whole population accepts disorder as order, it leaves itself vulnerable to destruction from outside forces or subjugation by tyranny because they're too weak and mentally clouded to fight back.
@@maxalaintwo3578 Oh boy.
What part of 2 *consenting* adults don’t you understand?
The keyword there is *consenting.*
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus now I know you didn't read a single word of what I said. Granted it's lengthy, but the fact that you skipped the *whole thing* is impressive. I can consensually engage in relations with an underage individual, or someone else's wife, that doesn't mean it magically becomes better just cuz we both wanted it.
"As long as it doesn't hurt anyone" types when their wife is ran through by the whole neighborhood (it doesn't physically harm me and it makes her happy, so who am I to judge; that's all my flimsy worldview rests on anyway.)
@@maxalaintwo3578 Stop deflecting off topic.
How is what 2 *consenting* adults do with each other immoral to you?
Remember the Key word is consent.
Try again.
the change may not always be perceived from the outside. People may see the converted christian as more of less the same. But they dont see the things that this person did in secret before turning to christ. F.e. if a husband had secret affairs and did nto get caught. After becoming a christian he ends the affairs, but his wife thinks he has not changed, bc nothing she can see has changed. Generally speaking, the "fruit" is in many many cases rather what we do NOT do than what we do.
The objections about what fruits Christianity in fact produces are good as far as I can tell. However, in my view the in-principle objections to the argument just seem to be conceding the argument. It seemed to me that IP just showed that we plausibly might not see a significant difference between Christians and non-Christians when it comes to moral fruits, but that's hardly saying anything important to the conclusion, strictly speaking. What's important is the relative expectedness on Christianity compared to rival hypotheses such as naturalism. If the fruits we see are more probable on naturalism, that would just be to say that meager moral fruits would be some evidence against Christianity, which is exactly what proponents of the argument want to say.
In my experience, the people I know who have genuinely embraced Christ and given themselves to him (not just nominally) have gone through incredible moral improvements. Not so with those who have merely gone to church and (it seems) been less willing to die to themselves. Further, the place we should expect to see most clearly whether Christianity's moral fruits are meager or not is on the societal level, where moral differences presumably would compound over time and between people. However, this is precisely where Christianity does best vis à vis moral fruits, as we can see through the work of Tom Holland and others
The only worthwhile conversation to have with an atheist is about the miracles. The only rebuttal they have to something like the entire life of miracles of Padre Pio is to claim people were having delusions, just like they apparently did during the apparitions of Fatima, or any other miraculous event. This is why they never talk about this and why anything they say can't be taken seriously.
Never debate morals with an atheist, otherwise they will only impose their own ideological enlightenment or communist morality upon you and question why Jesus wasn't an enlightened revolutionary or a communist. You must only debate facts, miracles and saints. They will always fall back to denying facts which are well documented.
"From the beginning, Satan was trying to corrupt and dissolve the assembly, but the apostles were preventing him. (Acts 15 ; 1 Cor 5 and 15) Unfortunately, by their deaths this obstacle is removed. (Acts 20: 28-30; Matthew 13: 24-26, 36-39; 2 Thess 2: 7) Cruel and devious people gained the power over the congregation who enslaved servants of Christ, imposed their regulations and tore apart congregation of God into a variety of sects... Now, in 2019, this fear seems like an ancient history. The stories about the unprecedented period of peace in which we live are also circulating. Nevertheless, I believe that the whole world is marching toward a new global conflict! When will we arrive at that goal, I do not know, because I'm not a prophet, but I have eyes and I can see why that goal is, perhaps, not so far away. All the louder the message that the problems of global warming must be resolved on a global level can be heard, as well as that religious fanaticism must be suppressed determinedly, because it endangers peace, personal and sexual freedom! I do not doubt the good intentions of many who spread such messages, but I also do not doubt that this story will help creating a world government. This government will resolutely go to war with unsuitable religious communities and individuals, and more decisively with the original Christian values!"
archive.org/details/tree-generations-and-appointed-times-clear.-7z
Arguing that non-acceptance of homosexuality is a sign of Christianity's moral inferiority is clearly "begging the question." It would be as foolish as an Aztec claiming that the lack of human sacrifice in Christianity is a sign of its moral inferiority, or an ancient Greek claiming that the lack in belief in Zeus is a sign of Christianity's moral inferiority.
i think they forget Christianity teaches man is by default sinful. it even teaches we struggle with sin even after we are saved. Paul had a horn in the flesh and said he needed to die to his old sinful ways daily. great heroes in the bible have even stumbled and done horrible things David being the best example and were punished and had to ask for forgiveness.
when we become Christians we aren't magically zapped and our Sin nature goes away. there is a growing prosses and temptations to do wrong and our sinful desires are still with us that we have to fight every day
the other problem is what the world says is a moral ""good"" isn't the same with what the bible says is a moral good
First of all, atheists are fleshly minded and are in no position to discern or judge spiritual matters. So we owe no explanation to their grievances beyond sharing the gospel message.
[1Co 2:14-16 NASB20] 14 But a natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But the one who is spiritual discerns all things, yet he himself is discerned by no one. 16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
Secondly, while we do retain the capacity to sin after our acceptance of the gospel, a true child of God will avoid sin the best they can.
[1Jo 3:5-11 NASB20] 5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 6 No one who remains in Him sins [continually;] no one who sins [continually] has seen Him or knows Him. 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who has been born of God practices sin, because His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin [continually,] because he has been born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother [and sister.] 11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we are to love one another;
[1Jo 2:1-2 NASB20] 1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
When a musician plays Mozard poorly, we don't blame Mozard, we blame the musician who played him. If that is the case, than why is Jesus blamed for Christians who play Him poorly?
Because Mozart doesn’t call us to repentance for our sins. John 15:18-20
What would be the incentive to arguing Christianity does not correlate with nationalism? It does not seem that nationalism is a moral evil in itself, though certain forms do appear to be.
I'm not saying we should ignore the data if that's what it says, but I'm more trying to understand why nationalism is assumed to be something that would diminish the credibility of Christianity
In his video, he distinguishes between different types of nationalism and whether they are harmful. “Limited nationalism” is fine. It’s more of an authoritarian, Nazi-type nationalism that people get concerned about (e.g. “Christians are the American Taliban!”)
@@calebjore3295 Okay, that makes sense. I will have to go back and watch the video again.
Do a video on Matthew 19 please
The argument Green advanced is flawed because it doesn't distinguish between cultural Christians and the real article.
So, what's the objective moral standard for atheist then? Lol
Shrek: Good question
9:59, Alledged
Giga Chad IP
He just hit an ant with a sledgehammer. This arguments is so bad.
sounds like somebody wasn't bullied by Christians as a kid 🤷♀️
I once was taken to the hospital for a concussion because a kid threw me down the stairs at church. Believe me, I was bullied. I don’t decide what is true based on how mean kids are, I follow the evidence.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Hmm, my response disappeared! I hope it's not a sore subject. Sorry that happened to you.
Were you ever sent to the hospital by non-Christians?
No. Luckily, we are saved by grace and not works. I don’t judge Christ by the people He has saved. He calls the worst of us, and I am one of them. I don’t deserve His love but He gave it to me anyway.
I say let the (non Christians) lost wander. At this point the line is drawn. Judgement is upon us. End times draw near. Corruption is afoot. It's not about "picking a side" it's about leading your life in a proper, moral, ethical, logical, knowledgeable fashion.
Yeshua is the only way.
Jesus never abandoned you. You cannot abandon them. Keep trying to reach. You may not reach many but you may reach one.
About the first point we will find out on Judgement day to see the true fruit because men like to justify foolishness
Awesome video
Why can't you do longer videos like these? No offense, but I find the 2 minute ones to be completely useless
I have made tons of long form videos. Please see my channel and you will see many
Day 2 of asking IP to make a video on a youtuber named BIBLICAL BINITARIAN
*John Calvin entered the chat*
How about the fact that the very advancement and (moral) underpinnings of Western human civilization are based upon Judeo-Christian values. The argument is like general relativity--they are within the very realm they are measuring... and so even their analysis is affected. Atheist and other non-Christians in the West are still reaping the benefits of a historically-Christianized civilization, regardless of their own non-belief. Whereas, the moral differences between Christian and pagan societies (including hybrids like Islam) are easily recognizable, observers who are born, raised, or live within historically Christian societies would have a harder time recognizing the benefits they enjoy. As a result, proponents of this position can only point toward wayward individuals or movements within Christianized society to back up their claims. By contrast, you seldom hear refugees from Communist-athiest, Islamic, or other societies moralizing against or complaining about the Christian West. It's because they understand the true difference between what Christianity brings--even over time--versus the kind of society and moral underpinnings brought about from atheism, statism, Islam, or any other number of non-Christian belief systems. Anyway, only 5 min. into this video. Looking forward to hearing more. Thx.
@Sven Andersson I see recent centuries as a culmination of Biblical, Christian thought over two millennea. And Christian thought was only possible because of Judaism.
The big, critical issue I have to make here is this:
What is the Atheist defining as “good?” What is their basis of argument for “good?” The problem is the atheist cannot define what is “good” because, in their atheism, they cannot have an absolute notion of “good.” It all boils down to a subjective opinion rather than anything concrete, meaning that, in truth, they cannot make any judgment on who is more moral.
It would be the equivalent of building a house on sinking sand: it will shift and sag until it brings the entire thing down on them. Without a proper basis of defining “what is good,” then they cannot have any clear sense of judgment outside of their opinions nor make any approximate judgment of others.
A particular action or choice is immoral or wrong when it somehow diminishes happiness, well being or health. Or somehow caused unnecessary suffering or harm or it does both.
Would you agree with that?
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus, let me explain what is wrong by providing an example.
Imagine we are looking at the life of a man named Jim. Jim likes to drink alcohol; in fact, he likes to drink alcohol all the time to the point he’s often drunk. Now, he hasn’t harmed anyone from being drunk - at least not yet - and hasn’t shown signs of physical health issues as of yet. Now, let us suppose that his mother becomes deeply concerned by this behavior and confronts Jim over this.
Jim says to his mother, “Drinking is what brings me happiness and is important for my well-being! I haven’t harmed anyone by doing it and I’m still healthy! Who do you want me to stop?”
The issue with the argument you are presenting is it is reliant on what the person is defining as what is best for their happiness and well-being. For Jim’s mother, what would be best for his happiness, well-being, and health is to not drink so much as it is dangerous for himself and others. For Jim, drinking is what he sees as best for himself as he has not harmed anyone with it so far. So, who is in the right? With what you present, both are in the right and in the wrong and the issue cannot be resolved in any proper way.
However, Christianity does not work solely in this framework. It works in a metaphysical framework that focuses on delineating a proper method of right and wrong. Christianity would argue that Jim is in the wrong because his alcohol drinking is not being done in moderation; he’s partaking it as a form of unrestrained pleasure at the cost of himself and those around him. This, in the Christian moral framework, is not happiness, but a form of sin.
To put this simply, happiness has to be contextualized in a fashion that does not connote pleasure as pleasure is self-destructive and fleeting. Happiness has to be defined as a form of joy; a sense of long-lasting satisfaction of one’s work. This is not possible within an Atheistic framework without it being rendered as subjective. This can only be done with a religious moral framework.
@@MatthewChenaultBut it is possible and I’m a living and breathing example that it is possible to have a moral standard without a religion.
So try harder bro.
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus, now actually get someone else to follow it as you do. You will never be able to do so.
@@MatthewChenault I don’t care if people don’t follow it, each to their own 😇
Why do you need to be told what and what not to do? That’s just following orders.
Good Video.
Matter chapter 23!
Be aware of the beast, anti-matter!
Ben Watkins has some of the weakest ideas/arguments I’ve ever read
Reformation approach: th-cam.com/video/5EEwY39hXKg/w-d-xo.html
I've only started the video and I'm baffled by how poor your defense is. I am disappointed IP, you can do better. The easiest thing to do to show that there is no moral fruit regardless of how many lifetimes it takes is to compare two developed countries - one that has been predominantly Christian for over 1000 years like Poland (where Catholicism is still taught at school) and the one from completely different tradition that has never accepted this faith, like Japan. Compare their crime rates and boom, here's your moral fruit argument. Apparently not even 1000 years of Christianity is enough to make a substantial difference while things like economical development improve moral character substantially over decades.
What a cringe critique.
"No YoU cAnT bE tRuE yOu DoNt HoLd 21st CeNtUrY mOrAlItY"
"Foolishness to them that are perishing"
So you WANT to go back to slavery or Jim crow 🙄
That’s weakling 20th century morals @Ben Clark.
@@benclark4823 don’t support gay “marriage,” contraception, or abortion? Guess you want slavery and Jim Crow back!
@@benclark4823 Show me where christianity demands slavery or demands that is good
Woohoo I am here early!
❤❤❤
I think free will is a weak explanation for why Christianity is not transformative. You're talking about an omnipotent God... free will shouldn't distort his pupposes. Unless you jettison classical theology.
Another issue to raise is that Christianity is not monolithic, but has appeared in different forms throughout history, often being made to accommodate itself to a prevailing culture. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer pointed out, in the modern world, many people want the consolations of religion as cheaply as possible. Consequently, Christianity has often been misconstrued to shape the interests of the powerful, who often do not want a religion that challenges their status in society. Of course this comes with moral compromises that diminish the transformative power of the kerygma or proclamation, or obscures it altogether. In the modern US, this often means Christianity too often has a public face as "the Republican party at prayer", baptizing the prejudices and bigotries of conservative, white, heterosexual men.
Lastly... Mr. Rogers were an ordained Presbyterian minister that liked to spend time at a Catholic monastery not far from where he lived in Pennsylvania. He was a deeply religious Christian, and his character came from his religious beliefs, especially about the dignity of the human person (he used the term "neighbor" in the same sense Jesus did, except the stranger he encountered was on the other end of the TV set). That's something that many people probably aren't aware of.
Free will is not opposed to God’s omnipotence but rather a product of it
@@anne.ominous If free will and God's omnipotence are not contradictory, God should still be able to produce morally superior Christians without violating their freedom.
@Magnulus76 humans, Christian or not, have the ability to do both good and evil deeds. I don’t know why you perceive it as contradictory for an all-powerful God to permit the existence of moral agency amongst created beings.
@@anne.ominous the issue is... where is the superior morality of Christians? Is it on display when Christians advocate for discrimination against gay people? Or when they think it's OK to kill or jail abortion doctors or women? Those kinds of things seriously damage the moral credibility of Christians.
Ip this is a very good video
Algorithm
25:06
False. If that is true, I guess Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 doesn't exist. You can't condemn homosexuality by saying homosexuals are going to hell forever and then turn around and say that you aren't homophobic. You are. "It doesn't condemn homosexuality just homosexual acts." Sexualities are defined by who they have sex with and love. You can't the act without condemning the sexuality. It might be fine enough if Christians say that they can't until they get married, but they won't even allow that. The Bible is openly hostile to homosexuality, not just traditionalism.
I think the meager moral fruits argument is quite strong 😞
You can think that all you want but don’t mistake your personal beliefs for objective facts. The studies I cited tell a different story.
@@InspiringPhilosophy There’s a lot to say but here are two quick points:
1) Christianity, or at least the brand I grew up in (non-denominational), predicts that there cannot be well-informed, virtuous non-Christians. Yet philosophers like William Rowe, Graham Oppy, Michael Huemer, and the young Joe Schmid refute this.
2) I saw it myself across a few churches in America and one Catholic parish. This is anecdotal but Christians are very cliquey and tribal in my experience. In one bible study I asked a few challenging questions about prayer and was ostracized for it. I didn’t learn about the foundations of critical thinking, such as intellectual virtue, through the bible or Christians, but embarrassingly I learned them through secular sources.
So to answer the question of what kinds of moral fruit should we expect, I’d expect the moral reasoning of Christians to be superior to non-Christians, but not only is that not the case, it is often the case that we have a lot to learn from secular writers on ethics.
@@bds8715 IP challenged the reliability of personal experience in the video. Many Christians have had bad experiences with atheists, but that doesn't necessarily represent atheism as a whole. We should focus on the total evidence, not on the particular slice of reality we happened to experience.
You talk as though Christianity gave us nothing but lollypops and rainbows. You don’t stop to ask what ELSE it might have given us. It raised the ante high as heaven concerning the consequences of wrong religious beliefs, practices, biblical interpretations, thus it proved to be a major force of division not just unification.
Not to mention that Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, four major Christian figures, argued from the Bible that Christian rulers MUST persecute heretics, apostates, witches, etc.
Nor do you stop to ask or even wonder about multiple complex causes for sociological and cultural changes in Western civilization. Nope, all those sociological changes, and also the rise of science, were due to “Christianity” alone.
But we know that scientific curiosity and mathematics had pre-Christian origins. And that western science received a major boost with the invention of clear glass lenses that allowed humans to peer more deeply into the heavens and into the micro cosmos as well. And that the European exploration of the Americas lit a fuse of immense curiosity, trade, and wealth that could then be spent on furthering scientific investigations. Not to mention the earlier trade of goods and ideas via the Silk Road, or that Europe is the only continent without deserts, and with rich fertile soil from glaciers crushing rocks into minerals. But the biggest boost for science was the original one, pre-Christian Greco-Roman scientists and mathematicians. Because curiosity and invention is simply human.
Same with cultural changes like changes in the status of women, or the slow diminishing of slavery. Multiple factors played a role. And there have been Christians on multiple sides of social issues.
I agree with a lot of what you have said here, but the motivations were different. Chinese culture became isolated from the near east with the rise of Islam. Islam isolated itself after much conquest. Before that, the Persian influence, which was ahead of its time in Astonomy and Math was cut off by 7th-8th centuries when they were trying to expand into Christian territories. Of course the Greeks/Phonecians were great at observational sciences, astronomy/navigation etc. Christians wanted to explain Creation, not simply to satisfy emperors/kings.
@@jasonlambert2226 Yes, people sought to please kings. But curiosity is universal. So given leisure time, and money, to pursue curiosity about all manner of things also seems of importance when it comes to scientific advances. Though curiosity could also be allied with a profit motive, be it pleasing kings or earning money from an invention related to trade. The discovery of a whole new hemisphere and two new continents boosted curiosity, trade, wealth, etc. That was coupled with the discovery of uses for clear glass after it had been ground down finely into lenses, opening the heavens and the microscopic world.
How to show you did not understand the argument without showing you didn't understand the argument... you realise the video is a critique of the meager fruit argument, its not an analysis on the entire inputs of Christianity in the western world, he is bringing nuance to an argument that is not nuanced. Not saying Christianity is only good, but showing to those who think its always bad that they are not being nuanced. I would argue that the misuse of Biblical verses by greedy empires, Kingdom and individuals to fit their view is the real problem not the religion itself, because the bible in its entirety ( beware out of context quoting of Old testament verse is not allowed thank you let's not imitate the past) is profoundly non-violent ( you know, Turn the other cheek, dont seek revenge, love your enemy and so on...) people just like to Cherry pick the verse they like and misuse them. And be honest what on earth doesn't cause harm if the socio-economical conditions allows them?? Do we ban technology because it was misuse to harm people ? Like do we stop science because E=MC2 has been used to atomized people during war?? No we just control it, the key is better control, before only some people could actually read and teach about the Bible so of course as the religious power was monopolized and people were being tricked, now i would argue that as the Bible is available for everyone now, someone teaching persecution Will be pointed out by everyone for perverting the Bible or at least for promoting such ideas 😅 and yea curiousity is universal but science as we know it today has its root on the fact that the nature is lawfull and obeys to predetermined rules, which is a notion that Christianity brought, now i am not saying without it there would have never be a world with the science we know, just that in our timeline that notion is a byproduct of the belief in a lawful world which is present in the bible when Paul says the whole univers is revelation of its Creator. Not that technology advancement is not science, but science does bring technology to a higher level, using tools animals do it too, but until proven wrong only us actually incorporate science in it, thus a technologically advanced society does not mean science. What we had before philosophy as socrates defined it was just a more evolved version of a monkey using a rock to open something which is tool handeling, after socrates, it was that moment that proto-science began, but science as we know it start when people stopped to believe the world was chaotic but rather lawfull enough to be studied
@@alexamg9491 The Bible is profoundly non-violent in its entirety? The chosen people of God took other people’s land and slaughtered man, women, child, beast, and even their neighbors. Not to mention bloody or pitiless divine laws concerning apostates, the unchaste, bastards. According to the Bible, the God of Israel tried to kill Moses (and failed?!); struck dead two sons of Aaron; commanded “brother to kill brother” leading to the deaths of 3,000 Israelites (right after He gave them the commandment, “Do not kill”); opened up the earth and buried alive “wives, sons and little children;” sent a fire that consumed 148 Levite princes; cursed his people to wander in the desert for forty years and eat 40,000 meals of quail and “manna” (talk about a monotonously torturous diet--and when they complained about it, God killed 3,000 Israelites with a plague); had a man put to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath; denied Moses and Aaron entrance into the “promised land” because Moses struck a rock twice with his staff instead of talking to the rock; delivered to his people a “promised land” that was parched, bordered by desert, and a corridor for passing conquering armies; sent fiery serpents among Israel, killing many; wanted to kill every Israelite and start over with Moses and his family (but Moses talked God out of that plan); drove the first king of Israel to suicide; killed someone who tried to steady a teetering ark of the covenant; murdered king David’s innocent child; sent plagues and famines upon his people that killed men, women and children; ordered the execution of 42 children of the king of Judah; “smote all Israel” killing half a million men of Israel in a civil war between Israel and Judah; “delivered into the hand of the king of Israel” 120,000 Judeans massacred in one day along with 200,000 Jewish women and children; gave Satan the power to kill Job’s children and servants (in order to win a bet); let the Babylonians conquer the holy city of Jerusalem, and then the Greek forces of Alexander the Great, followed by the Romans; and finally left the Jews homeless and persecuted by Christians and Moslems for nearly 2000 years. Furthermore, the large number of laws in the Hebrew Bible concerning the treatment of lepers and those with sores demonstrates that the Israelites were far from being blessed with unparalleled good health. And archeological evidence indicates that in ancient Israel the infant mortality rate was as high as fifty percent.