I used to listen to Bill Cosby years before the fallout, he wasn't doing stand up comedy, he was giving fatherhood advice to young black men -- ones who for the most part were raised without a father, or a poor example of one. Bill seemed to be the sole flag bearer for responsible and loving fatherhood. Once the cases came out about his character - I was appalled, yet was weary that this was an undermining of a moral pillar for black fathers and black society as a whole. I adjure you Matt, go back, and pick up that book. -Steve from Detroit
I always hear people use the phrase, "as long as they're happy." We need to stop making lifestyle choices solely based on perceived happiness. I see this argument coming mostly from Protestants. Show me one verse in the Bible where God promises happiness. It's quite the opposite, if anything, we are told we can expect strife.
@@JustErics101the reality is that this place is a valley of tears and it you ignore it you are just deluded . You’ll be happy in the next life. What you can obtain here though is peace , and many people who are engaging in the “pursuit of happiness” are actually not at peace they often feel very miserable inside precisely because happiness is not of this world. Just don’t let ourselves be fooled and let’s pick up our cross .
I'm not sure if I agree with what you are saying around minute 2:30 because the saints of the Church are a big component of why other people believe. Im not saying they are the main component, that would be Christ. But where else in the world can you find people like Agustine, Theresa, Thomas Merton, and local saints (I happened to meet a saintly priest at my parish). So if your argument is that we should not be shooked by bad testimony I guess then we should not be attracted by Saints at all, (which in practice I think is not what really happens). I mean have you felt attracted by Thomas Aquinas? You could say, well no, I was attracted by Christ through Thomas Aquinas. Well ok, I agree, but there is definitely a key factor in the sinfulness or saintliness of every church member for being responsible for attracting with their sanctity or driving away with sinful life and scandals.
Marriage is a commitment “to have and to hold; from this day forward; for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish; ‘til death do us part The definition would have to be broad enough to include unions as disparate as King Solomon’s polygamous household; Elizabeth Taylor’s marriages to her various husbands; my maternal grandparents’ arranged marriage; Bill’s marriage to Hillary; Barack’s marriage to Michelle. It would have to make sense of metaphors such as the claim that nuns are “married” to Christ.
@Caratacus it's Shocking how popular atheist like Hitchens would use appeals to emotion during debates against theists... it was even more surprising these so-called logical atheists never called anyone out for it. Really if you think about it the entire problem of evil it's just a giant appeal to emotion. They never used the example of a child cheating on a math test they use the Holocaust. They never use somebody getting a cold, they use children with cancer. If the logic was sound, the argument good work with even the most benign examples... But for some reason getting a paper cut doesn't cause people to question God's existence
As he said in the video, the appeal has to be genuine and not deceitful. His argument tactic is not a fallacy if the content of complimenting an opponent is done honestly.
Thank you for this informative video. I hadn't heard of the reverse ad hominem argument. Something I suggest when I meet those people who say one can be moral without being religious is that they should try receiving the Holy Spirit who will make them even more moral. We know that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, self-control but they don't need to know that initially. Just to create some curiosity can be sufficient for that moment. Of course we know if they actual did receive the Holy Spirit, He would bring a dramatic change and reveal to that person areas of sin that they need to turn from.
Trent imagine if someone said to you "You seem like a nice, wonderful, caring person...despite belonging to a church that covered up the molestation of children"?
Children have been sexually abused throughout all of human history, by all peoples and within most, if not all, institutions. Let’s not forget that. The Catholic Church isn’t the only or even the worst example of that fact. However, it receives the most publicity and prejudice.
@@mashah1085 Literally no. Even the "analogy" you put forth doesn't do that. If I were a Catholic, I'd be perfectly fine with you criticizing the Church. Same thing here, critcizing the alphabet community in general but recognizing there are some who are fine is perfectly reasonable. Same the other way around, there is no problem here. No reasonable Catholic would take offense to "The Catholic Church sucks, but you're one of the good ones." I'm sure some would even agree with you.
I hear the reverse ad-hominem with countries as well. Sweden and the Netherlands have better quality of life, most people in those countries are agnostic, Therefore agnostic is good.
Whatabout the ones u hear with Japan, that they're just spiritual, their nation is great, therefore organized religion is false? It just doesn't follow.
I am a bit split on this opinion; I think it is true, but at the same time the absolute truth is that without God, we cannot truly strive to goodness, real full goodness. Sorry, it's just my way to kind of overanalyze certain words and sentences, I have gained a great deal of amazing lessons from your videos, hosts and talks, Matt! Wish I came across your videos when I was a spirituality lame teen.
It's like asking 'what about happy junkies?' or 'what about happy alcoholics?' Sure, perhaps some addicts can live relatively functionally on the surface, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that it is degenerative.
I've worked in the field of addictions. I can assure you, 'happy junkies' is an oxymoron. Functional and happy are not the same thing (if talking about alcoholics). What makes being gay degenerative? I see your name is Euphoric Atheist so I would imagine this is not coming from a religious place, unless I'm mistaken.
@@KalCraig Typical. TH-cam overlords erased my reply... what's the point... Alphabet Inc just mass flags any substantive anti-LGBT content and censors it. It's too much bother trying to get through the damn censors nowadays.
Plenty of us gays have been in homosexual relations that are fulfilling and satisfying and do not have the negative connotations of addictions. Because we can have fulfillment in gay relationships (not always, not every relationship is a good one gay or straight alike) we’re often left baffled by outsiders saying our relationships are degenerate or “evil”. If the reasons god forbids homosexuality is allegedly because it’s not good for the person, then this is a questionable teaching, and thus I question the religion.
@@JustErics101 God’s plan as revealed in the scriptures is that intimacy is within marriage. A man and a woman uniting before God and open to life -I.e. receiving children. The rest is disorderly. So unmarried and adulterous couples, people using birth control etc shouldn’t judge you , yet that doesn’t make either practices right . At the end of the day it is about whether you just want to do whatever you like or whether you have the humility to try to live according to God’s commandments even when you are not sure you understand every reason.
@@MaaFreddy I don’t think that’s god plan. Marriage is a human institution created by us, I’m not a Christian so I’m not convinced by Christian scripture. Why should I trust some 2000 year old documents of dubious origin rather than the lived reality right in front of me?
I think the reverse ad hominem misunderstanding stems from an indifference to the holiness of God. We think our standards of niceness are indicative of righteousness.
No, it stems from the human conscience. Our ides of evil do not include Love. Which is why most homophobes don't actually know any Queer people well enough to actually Love them. Ignorance of what is being condemned is required in order to maintain the conviction.
@@Grokford I don't have homophobia and I have known and do know people who describe themselves as 'queer'. Perhaps you don't know anyone who holds to the Bible being authoritative outside of funeral picketers, or you do but simply don't care about falsely representing other people. For the record we, Biblical Christians, condemn all perversion of what God designed human gender and sexuality to be and to express between men and women. We don't condemn it on the basis of a qualitative assessment of the emotional state of any individual who practices such things but on the belief that is objectively wrong. If you don't believe in objective morals then naturally you will be more liable to change your mind on ethics based on seeing someone who practices any given behaviour as generally nice or what have you. This is a Christian TH-cam channel though and as Christians we take our standard of morality from God's Word. Though I owe no loyalty to the Vatican I believe the Roman church still officially rejects same sex unions despite some recent confusion about certain blessings.
@@zacdredge3859 "I don't have homophobia " I didn't say you were homophobic, but this comment has created more suspicion than it's removed. "I have known and do know people who describe themselves as 'queer'." Do you know them, or are you simply acquainted? Having a gay coworker or a trans neighbor a street over isn't what I would necessarily call a substantial or personal relationship. "Perhaps you don't know anyone who holds to the Bible being authoritative outside of funeral picketers" I have a degree in theology. I can assure you that your fervor is not a surprise to me. "For the record we, Biblical Christians, condemn all perversion of what God designed human gender and sexuality" You don't speak for me darling. You can condemn away all you want, God did give us free will after all. But these are human ideas you're in a tizzy over. God didn't create our modern gender roles. "We don't condemn it on the basis of a qualitative assessment of the emotional state of any individual who practices such things but on the belief that is objectively wrong." Well, close anyways. You condemn it out of your own qualitative cultural prejudices. There is no objective basis for this believe, it is not a universal human norm, it is simply cultural happenstance. Though you've rather proven my point by admitting that you don't pay any attention to the human experiences of those you are condemning. Speaking of scripture, it is the duty of Christians to Love, especially to the outcast and the oppressed. Your desire to condemn is a human flaw, not the command of God. "If you don't believe in objective morals then naturally you will be more liable to change your mind on ethics..." Darling, this is embarrassing. I don't believe what I believe because my morals are flimsy or malleable, I believe that you are wrong specifically because my understanding of morality is inflexible when it comes to perpetrating evil against the innocent. The fact that you believe that you are in the moral right is not surprising to me, but the fact that you consider your own self-righteousness to be compelling.. well, let's just say that you need a reality check. "based on seeing someone who practices any given behaviour as generally nice or what have you." You know, during some of the witch trials of medieval Europe, some of the men tasked with torturing the accused for their "confessions" were told to avoid making eye contact with the accused witch, for feat that she might cast a "wicked spell of compassion". All you've said so far only confirms what I already said: your ability to condemn in hypocrisy and ignore the plights of your spiritual equals is premised on your ignoring them. In a just world, how Loving a person is, how "nice" they are if you will, is the fundamental indicator of character. So yes, I highly object to nice and Loving people being subjected to torture and abuse by people no better than them. And you might too, if you recognized their full humanity. "This is a Christian TH-cam channel though and as Christians we take our standard of morality from God's Word." Well that's a lie. Let's cut the crap, you and I both already know that this is about your personal feelings. You already know that people are far more obsessed with gender norms than they are with a host of other sins. You should know, though it appears that you don't, that condemnation isn't even the job of Christians. "Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand." Romans 14:4 This is about you, and your petty human agenda. It always has been. "Though I owe no loyalty to the Vatican I believe the Roman church still officially rejects same sex unions despite some recent confusion about certain blessings." That changes nothing. The Vatican condemns the use of birth control. They are not the authority that they claim.
Bill Cosby had good teaching to bad he didn’t listen to himself. How sad his message was tinted by his own fall. So many young people need to be lead with righteousness and men of God
Picture Jesus Crucified on the cross and dead, now trade places with him, that’s your body once you accept Jesus Christ and his free gift of salvation, your body becomes dead to sin, sin is no longer attributed to your account because you have now died with Christ and he has forgiven all your iniquities. “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” Colossians 2:11-14 KJV
I love this snippet and i want to ask a very important question. I am a lesbian, and you see my identity as being rooted in something disordered and concerning. You are a Christian, and I find your identity to be rooted in something disordered and concerning. We could fight eachother, you could try to supress my rights or my standing in society or i could do the same to you if either of us felt that strongly about it and just couldnt stand the other existing, or, and the question follows this, we could support a secular government and a seperation of church and state, giving both of us the freedom to have our own identities and live in peaceful disapproval of eachothers convictions Can we agree that the latter leads to a better world?
That is how it should be, BUT, the problem is that the government has put laws into place that if I don’t agree with you I am breaking the law. For example religious freedom is being attacked, gender ideology is being treated as “scientific “ and has to be taught to children in schools and if a parents doesn’t agree, they are breaking the law. The word “marriage” has been redefined by the government, which has always meant the union between a man and a women, because that is the only natural way of bringing forth life and at the same time build a society. But just because the government says it is not, then I am not in good standing with them. So as you see, the problem is when government becomes the soul arbiters of morality and ethics. And that is where the separation does not work. They have to go hand in hand. God bless!!
My dear, thank you for sharing I am afraid that living and let live attitude, sometimes becomes indifference and cowardice. If we are both onest about our position, it must eventually have to do with a pursue for truth, whatever that be. If there is not the capability of having a respectful and honest debate, then we are not defending truth we are not defending love (whatever definition we have of love). What we would end up promoting is a convinient tolerance that has little to do with a genuine meeting between human being.
I support you as a lesbian. Live your authentic life ! These homophobic people will never change so, yes....the latter does lead to a better world, except that religious bigots refuse to do so and wish to control the world to think as they think. They have no respect for difference. History proves most wars have been caused by religious bigots who refuse to live and let live.
@@atgredYou are talking public schools vs religious. Public should not adhere to your beliefs, but to scientific evidence. The solution for you is simple. Send your child to a religious school that teaches what you believe not a public one. I am 63 and have had gender dysphoria since earliest memory. In my day there was no treatment for this and I've suffered ALL MY LIFE. I am now in transition and have never been happier. Young gender dysphoric people today have scientific progress on their side...giving gender dysphoric youth a peaceful existence with mind and body. You haven't walked in their shoes or my shoes. Live and let live and peace will happen. Respect and therefore you will be respected. If you don't want your child to learn that people like me exist then isolate them in a religious school not a public one. Simple as that.
Lawrence Eason Oh that was in the old Law which Jesus changed forever. And that is also in the Bible. But in this case was the stoning of the woman who committed adultery. He said pretty clearly. “ HE WHO HAS NO SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.” And guess what, we are all sinners, so no, christians can’t do what was written in the old law. But, sodomy is a sin, but will only be judged by God, unless they repent, and that if they believe this law. God bless!
@@atgred the same god atgred. Same god. And it is immoral to murder people who are gay and people who have affairs. Imagine if our society, America, went around killing gay people. Murdering people who have affairs. Wow. What an insane immorality that is. Tell me, what is immoral about being gay? Outside of "because god says so", what is actually immoral about being gay?
Lawrence Eason Inmoral about being gay? Not inmoral at all!!! But to act on it, the actual act of sexual activity, is what is inmoral, even for heterosexual sex outside of wedlock. There are many gay women and men who accept their sexual orientation, but because they consider themselves christian and knowing what God asks of them, they don’t act upon it. And yes the God of the Old Testament is the same of the new, what is different? Jesus, and what He has said. The only system of belief that I know who do murder gays are muslims in some muslim countries and I, as a christian, do not agree with what they do. What about the sexual abuse inside christian churches including the Catholic Church with the scandal of homosexual priests? Well as I said before, we are all sinners, but no one will escape the final judgement. And if you don’t have a belief of this, I respect your position, but if there is no god? Then everything goes, there is actually nothing immoral at all. All I can say from a non-theistic stand would be that same sex acts are not natural, because the main objective of the sexual act is to bring forth life. God bless!
@@thescoobymike, try to actually think for a moment. You’re finding some of your greatest joy-supposedly divine joy, no less-from a text calling for the death of human beings. This isn’t rocket science. You’re sick.
@@thescoobymike, ah, but some constructive criticism. A parody needs to be distinguishable from what it is parodying; otherwise, it goes unnoticed and is mistaken for what is parodied. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who would have said precisely what you did, verbatim, and meant every syllable quite literally. That’s the world we live in.
I would love it if people preaching about homosexuality would stop assuming the nature of Queer relationships. Saying that relationship is “disordered” is not a valid criticism, it means nothing and does nothing. But failing that I would love for people to stop claiming that Queer people have a Queer identity out of some unhealthy obsession with themselves or their sex. No. Queer people have Queer culture because society pushes us into unfavorable positions. Sometimes we have to band together to survive, sometimes we just need a temporary refuge from hostility. But Queer community and identity is something that exists because of the outside world’s preoccupation with us and our lives. Queer people share experiences that only exist because of the norms and expectations of the larger society.
@@KSTrekker did you not read my comment. People aren’t defining themselves by their sexuality, society is defining people by their sexuality and then pushing them to the margins of society. People who spend time together forms group identity it’s not that complicated.
@@Grokford - Oh yeah, right, they're so marginalized. So marginalized that we dedicate an entire month so companies can change their logos and everyone celebrates pride in being gay, queer, lesbian, ..., whatever, non-straight. If you want to feel marginalized by mainstream America, try being a straight, heterosexual, white, Christian male - the most hated demographic.
@@KSTrekker Darling, I love you, but you're delusional. When was the last time someone denied you entrance to a public place because you were male? When was the last time someone tried to kill you because you were White? What slurs have you been called for your Christianity? When was the last time being straight made people question if it was safe to have you around their children or whether or not you could rent an apartment? Queer people have serious civil right concerns, practical concerns. If you aren't aware of them then I suggest you look into it. I'm not here to spin you a sob story banking on your better nature. But the reality is that there is danger in being a Queer person, legal danger, social danger, professional danger. To say nothing of the risk that the rest of the world poses. No one has ever tried to hurt me for being a Christian, but people have tried to kill me for being Queer.
It's connected to the Catholic view of human antropology, that a marriage can exist only between one man and one woman, and that's how most people's attraction works, that is natural. If someone prefers the same sex, it's not ordered according to God's plan for humanity
a perfect example ad hominem is rather than debating the catholic church stance on marriage, it easier to win the argument by bringing up other issues that the catholic church was wrong in like slavery, or parent child separations of natice American children.
Sure that happens But the point is to say that christianity has supported pretty awful things in the past, so saying “because God says so” is not a sufficient justification for something actually being good
If they hold to a view that their belief system comes from an infallible creator it's fair to bring up changes it's undergone to try to figure out at which point there was a proper understanding of the creators will and bring under question current beliefs.
Come in Matt! That was such click bait! I may not agree with your beliefs, but I do believe you’re a very intellectual and smart person. I didn’t think you would reduce your video to click bait.
You believe the Bible commands “one man, one woman.” Christians who ascribe to this view largely base their belief on the creation story in Genesis. It is claimed that God created the institution of marriage in Genesis, and marriage was restricted to “one man, one woman.” Unfortunately, this interpretation is logically flawed. There are numerous reasons why this interpretation is flawed, but it can be refuted simply by recognizing that the mainstream interpretation is based on the “is-ought” fallacy. I will explain: The “is-ought” problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not possible to make prescriptive statements based on descriptive ones. Hume’s law or “Hume’s guillotine” is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises (descriptive statements), the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements (prescriptive statements). Descriptive statements tell us how the world is-and are typically identified by the word “is.” Prescriptive statements tell us how the world ought to be-and typically use the word “ought” or “shall.” Let’s take a look at the creation story, set forth in Genesis 2:4-3:23, and see what it says… (descriptive statements will be highlighted in blue text, prescriptive statements in red text) 5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. 15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” 18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. 25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. With respect to the concept of marriage, there is only one prescriptive statement included in this entire story-Verse 18: “It is not good for man to be alone”-i.e., man ought not be alone.* *Note, verse 24 is entirely descriptive-it merely states what is, not what ought to be. Ironically, mainstream Christians use this verse to make a prescriptive statement that man “ought” (or “shall”) only be united with a woman. This verse makes no such command, either explicitly or implicitly. This is a classic example of the “is-ought” fallacy. The verse simply describes what is-generally, a man will leave his parents and start a family with his wife. It does not say man “ought” to leave his father and mother; it does not say a man “ought” to be united with his wife; and the verse certainly does not say a man “ought” only be united with a woman. Further, this statement is general, and obviously does not describe all people-some people never get married (despite desiring a partner); some people get married and never have children; some people get married and cannot have children (no matter how hard they try)… So, this verse is nothing more than a descriptive statement about how things are, in general. Any claim that verse 24 commands that marriage “shall” (or “ought”) only be between one man and one woman, is logically flawed. As the expression goes, “you can’t get an ought from an is.” God’s recognition that man ought not be alone is the only prescriptive statement made in the entire creation story. The only “moral” statement made by God is that man ought not be alone. Notably, there is no prescriptive/moral statement made regarding the creation of woman or the union between men and woman. Quite the opposite. God did not state, “I have made woman and thou shalt have a woman and only a woman.” No. God asked Adam what he needed and allowed Adam the freedom to look and discover what his heart truly needed to not feel alone. God asked Adam to look over the entire creation to see if any of the creation would address his yearning for a companion. Theoretically, if Adam was satisfied with a cow, man would no longer be “alone,” and the need for a partner would be satisfied. For Adam, “woman” was the only thing that addressed his yearning for companionship. From this creation story, the only “moral” statement that could be made is that “man ought not be alone.” God does not want man to be alone. By definition, a homosexual is someone who cannot maintain a fulfilling relationship with someone of the opposite sex-any more than you or I could maintain a fulfilling, loving relationship with a man. For a homosexual, the yearning in their soul for companionship, love, romance, and intimacy, can only be satisfied by a person of their same sex. God did not command, “man shalt have woman and only woman.” The only prescriptive statement made in the entire creation story is that “man ought not be alone.” So, if man ought not be alone, and the only person capable of satisfying that yearning for a homosexual is a person of their same sex, then God desires for that homosexual to find his/her homosexual partner. God would bless the union of two homosexuals for the exact same reason that He blesses the union of heterosexuals: the union addresses God’s primary concern for our most basic need for companionship and ensures we are not alone. So, a Christian who states that a homosexual’s only option is to remain celibate or force themselves into an unfulfilling relationship with the opposite sex-which could never truly fulfill the yearning in their own heart for companionship-that Christian is effectively saying that God wants the homosexual to be alone. Ironically, that statement is literally the opposite of the only moral statement made by God in the entire creation story. God’s first prescriptive statement about man was, “man ought not be alone.” Stated another way: telling a homosexual that they must stay alone the rest of their life is an immoral statement. Such a belief violates the only moral statement made by God in the entire creation story. God said “man ought not be alone.” But the conservative Christian says, “a homosexual must remain alone.” That … is immoral.
No, we base our beliefs on the interpretarion Jesus gives of the creatiom story. You are misinterpreting that story if you arrive at a different conclusion, Jesus is infallible: look up Matthew 19
@@viktormuerte what’s your point? If we’re discussing the concept of marriage derived from the Genesis account, a “Josephite marriage” doesn’t even qualify as marriage because the “spouses” are refraining from the very sexual intimacy (“one flesh”) that symbolizes the union - physically and figuratively. I’d go so far as to call a josephite marriage an act of narcissistic blasphemy. By definition, a healthy marriage cannot be a marriage devoid of physical intimacy. So again, what is your point? Are you arguing that homosexuals don’t need to live alone because they can have a Josephite marriage? Is that your argument?
Being gay and living a gay life isn't disordered. Telling gay people they can't live their lives as God created them (which is gay) is what is completely disordered. In short, cut the crap..this generation and others to follow are not accepting your insanity.
"Being gay and living a gay life isn't disordered" - that is the claim you made, now I ask you, where are you getting your objective morality that gay behaviour isn't sinful?
@@SteveC-Aus I can be true to myself and my orientation without having sex. I can sublimate it and, at the same time, revel in it because it's found a higher purpose. Alan Turing, a gay man, saved 17 million people in WWII by breaking the hardest version of the Nazi Enigma code. He was inspired all his life by a young man, Christopher Morcom, he loved when both were in school. Alan and Christopher developed a theory of how life develops from a fertilized egg. Alan completed the work after Christopher's death. Ninety years later their theory was proven correct. So, if youi're glad you're not living under the Nazis, if you appreciate your computer, and if you appreciate understanding where babies come from, you can thank the love a gay man had for another.
Sir what makes you think that pedophilia is condoned in the bible? Jesus himself says when holding a child that if any man cause one of the little ones to sin that it would be better that a millstone be tied around his neck and cast into the sea. Its said multiple times in the gospels. It was clearly also understood in the old testament based on the mosaic laws which specifically talk about sexual morality. It expresses fornication and adultery which neither are condoned and specifies circumstances for when marriage is appropriate.
@@pigzcanfly444 didn't say it condones pedophilia, although in numbers 31 it directs the slaughter of everyone...everyone (even little boys and make babies plus pregnant women)...EXCEPT little virgin girls. It certainly encourages pedophilia. But my point was it doesn't even mention that pedophilia is a sin/morally wrong. Nowhere. Nowhere does it mention that pedophilia is immoral. In addition, the bible gives zero direction to adults marrying children. Say, a 48 yr old marrying a 12 yr old. Nothing in the bible
@@lawrenceeason8007 you are out of your mind to perceive that it would be allowed for the israelite soldiers to use the girls in the manner you mentioned. It is expressly opposed in their law and you are just trying to throw out anything you can to make the bible seem incredible and deceitful. When read in context its very clear that they have a law already established as to how to conduct themselves as a godly society which even they cannot do well. Clearly this shows your lack of understanding because they write many times of the times when they go against what God wants them to do and he punishes them the same as any other nation that had done so before. There is no condoning of the acts or assumptions you mentioned and this is something that you are forcing into the text yourself without any references to boot.
@@pigzcanfly444 I find it interesting that you think it's okay to slaughter boys, male children/babies, but to keep only the LITTLE virgin girls. That you think that male soldiers who have no problem taking a sword to a baby and chop it to bits in the name of a god would be moral enough not to rape virgin girls. You are living in an imaginary universe. If that is your "godly" society thank the stars we have thrown that into the trash....hopefully for good. It absolutely encourages it. Virginity was valued in that day...an "unspoiled" virgin was like a sexual diamond. Wake up. 1. Your bible never mentions pedophilia. Never. The bible never condemns or mentions it 2. The bible gives no direction on adults marrying children. A 48 year old can marry a 12 year old by the bible. The bible is severely flawed Encourages pedophilia
I hope you know if there were agnostics in the comment secrion on the verge of conversion to Christianity you just gave them a reason to believe there is no God
If you want to reduce the relationships of gay Christian couples to no more than a cheap rhetorical device, that’s just fine. It’s your loss that you can’t see them in any other way.
I used to listen to Bill Cosby years before the fallout, he wasn't doing stand up comedy, he was giving fatherhood advice to young black men -- ones who for the most part were raised without a father, or a poor example of one. Bill seemed to be the sole flag bearer for responsible and loving fatherhood. Once the cases came out about his character - I was appalled, yet was weary that this was an undermining of a moral pillar for black fathers and black society as a whole. I adjure you Matt, go back, and pick up that book. -Steve from Detroit
I always hear people use the phrase, "as long as they're happy." We need to stop making lifestyle choices solely based on perceived happiness. I see this argument coming mostly from Protestants. Show me one verse in the Bible where God promises happiness. It's quite the opposite, if anything, we are told we can expect strife.
God made gay people. I’m sorry they scare you.
It's funny you mention Protestants because Catholics are the most Queer-friendly denomination in America.
Makes more sense to base lifestyle decisions on happiness and fulfillment rather than very questionable texts.
@@JustErics101the reality is that this place is a valley of tears and it you ignore it you are just deluded . You’ll be happy in the next life. What you can obtain here though is peace , and many people who are engaging in the “pursuit of happiness” are actually not at peace they often feel very miserable inside precisely because happiness is not of this world. Just don’t let ourselves be fooled and let’s pick up our cross .
@@MaaFreddy this doesn’t answer anything I said, it just begs the question for Christianity.
I'm not sure if I agree with what you are saying around minute 2:30 because the saints of the Church are a big component of why other people believe. Im not saying they are the main component, that would be Christ. But where else in the world can you find people like Agustine, Theresa, Thomas Merton, and local saints (I happened to meet a saintly priest at my parish). So if your argument is that we should not be shooked by bad testimony I guess then we should not be attracted by Saints at all, (which in practice I think is not what really happens). I mean have you felt attracted by Thomas Aquinas? You could say, well no, I was attracted by Christ through Thomas Aquinas. Well ok, I agree, but there is definitely a key factor in the sinfulness or saintliness of every church member for being responsible for attracting with their sanctity or driving away with sinful life and scandals.
People who look at other people and their carnal nature deny Jesus and what he stood for and deny Paul and what he said about sin
Matt Fradd you and your program are amazing jewels.
Marriage is a commitment “to have and to hold; from this day forward; for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish; ‘til death do us part
The definition would have to be broad enough to include unions as disparate as King Solomon’s polygamous household; Elizabeth Taylor’s marriages to her various husbands; my maternal grandparents’ arranged marriage; Bill’s marriage to Hillary; Barack’s marriage to Michelle. It would have to make sense of metaphors such as the claim that nuns are “married” to Christ.
Whats wrong with obamas marriage?
Also i love how catholics have to own the position that divorcing an arranged marriage is immoral lmao
If memory serves me... Cosby's book was a popular Father's Day gift.
5:38 This is what we call Appeal to flattery; which by the way is a fallacy in itself.
@Caratacus it's Shocking how popular atheist like Hitchens would use appeals to emotion during debates against theists... it was even more surprising these so-called logical atheists never called anyone out for it. Really if you think about it the entire problem of evil it's just a giant appeal to emotion. They never used the example of a child cheating on a math test they use the Holocaust. They never use somebody getting a cold, they use children with cancer. If the logic was sound, the argument good work with even the most benign examples... But for some reason getting a paper cut doesn't cause people to question God's existence
@@kaufmanat1
You put it more beautifully than I ever did!
As he said in the video, the appeal has to be genuine and not deceitful. His argument tactic is not a fallacy if the content of complimenting an opponent is done honestly.
Thank you for this informative video. I hadn't heard of the reverse ad hominem argument.
Something I suggest when I meet those people who say one can be moral without being religious is that they should try receiving the Holy Spirit who will make them even more moral.
We know that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, self-control but they don't need to know that initially. Just to create some curiosity can be sufficient for that moment.
Of course we know if they actual did receive the Holy Spirit, He would bring a dramatic change and reveal to that person areas of sin that they need to turn from.
Always funny when people try to conflate religion with morality
@@nakkadu
Now that seems like a rather immoral response to this discussion.
@@johnsmit5999 ok......maybe you don't know what moral means
@RetroMan ok let's start from the beginning.....what do you think "moral" means?
Pro hominnem fallacy
Trent imagine if someone said to you "You seem like a nice, wonderful, caring person...despite belonging to a church that covered up the molestation of children"?
Children have been sexually abused throughout all of human history, by all peoples and within most, if not all, institutions. Let’s not forget that. The Catholic Church isn’t the only or even the worst example of that fact. However, it receives the most publicity and prejudice.
@@CoreyJason My point was to point out Trent's hypocritical "compliment" of gay couples as "nice people", then simultaneously attack gay couples.
@@mashah1085 How is it hypocritical? He genuinely means they're nice people. The analogy doesn't even make sense. This is a terrible "argument".
@@Кивис-ч3й He insults gay people in general, but says "Oh, but some are nice." Imagine if he said that about black people?
@@mashah1085 Literally no. Even the "analogy" you put forth doesn't do that. If I were a Catholic, I'd be perfectly fine with you criticizing the Church. Same thing here, critcizing the alphabet community in general but recognizing there are some who are fine is perfectly reasonable. Same the other way around, there is no problem here. No reasonable Catholic would take offense to "The Catholic Church sucks, but you're one of the good ones." I'm sure some would even agree with you.
I hear the reverse ad-hominem with countries as well. Sweden and the Netherlands have better quality of life, most people in those countries are agnostic, Therefore agnostic is good.
Whatabout the ones u hear with Japan, that they're just spiritual, their nation is great, therefore organized religion is false?
It just doesn't follow.
I am a bit split on this opinion; I think it is true, but at the same time the absolute truth is that without God, we cannot truly strive to goodness, real full goodness.
Sorry, it's just my way to kind of overanalyze certain words and sentences, I have gained a great deal of amazing lessons from your videos, hosts and talks, Matt! Wish I came across your videos when I was a spirituality lame teen.
It's like asking 'what about happy junkies?' or 'what about happy alcoholics?' Sure, perhaps some addicts can live relatively functionally on the surface, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that it is degenerative.
I've worked in the field of addictions. I can assure you, 'happy junkies' is an oxymoron. Functional and happy are not the same thing (if talking about alcoholics). What makes being gay degenerative? I see your name is Euphoric Atheist so I would imagine this is not coming from a religious place, unless I'm mistaken.
@@KalCraig Typical. TH-cam overlords erased my reply... what's the point... Alphabet Inc just mass flags any substantive anti-LGBT content and censors it.
It's too much bother trying to get through the damn censors nowadays.
Plenty of us gays have been in homosexual relations that are fulfilling and satisfying and do not have the negative connotations of addictions. Because we can have fulfillment in gay relationships (not always, not every relationship is a good one gay or straight alike) we’re often left baffled by outsiders saying our relationships are degenerate or “evil”. If the reasons god forbids homosexuality is allegedly because it’s not good for the person, then this is a questionable teaching, and thus I question the religion.
@@JustErics101 God’s plan as revealed in the scriptures is that intimacy is within marriage. A man and a woman uniting before God and open to life -I.e. receiving children. The rest is disorderly. So unmarried and adulterous couples, people using birth control etc shouldn’t judge you , yet that doesn’t make either practices right . At the end of the day it is about whether you just want to do whatever you like or whether you have the humility to try to live according to God’s commandments even when you are not sure you understand every reason.
@@MaaFreddy I don’t think that’s god plan. Marriage is a human institution created by us, I’m not a Christian so I’m not convinced by Christian scripture. Why should I trust some 2000 year old documents of dubious origin rather than the lived reality right in front of me?
Read Schopenhauer's excellent work on rhetoric, "The Art of Being Right"
I think the reverse ad hominem misunderstanding stems from an indifference to the holiness of God. We think our standards of niceness are indicative of righteousness.
No, it stems from the human conscience.
Our ides of evil do not include Love.
Which is why most homophobes don't actually know any Queer people well enough to actually Love them.
Ignorance of what is being condemned is required in order to maintain the conviction.
@@Grokford I don't have homophobia and I have known and do know people who describe themselves as 'queer'. Perhaps you don't know anyone who holds to the Bible being authoritative outside of funeral picketers, or you do but simply don't care about falsely representing other people.
For the record we, Biblical Christians, condemn all perversion of what God designed human gender and sexuality to be and to express between men and women. We don't condemn it on the basis of a qualitative assessment of the emotional state of any individual who practices such things but on the belief that is objectively wrong. If you don't believe in objective morals then naturally you will be more liable to change your mind on ethics based on seeing someone who practices any given behaviour as generally nice or what have you. This is a Christian TH-cam channel though and as Christians we take our standard of morality from God's Word.
Though I owe no loyalty to the Vatican I believe the Roman church still officially rejects same sex unions despite some recent confusion about certain blessings.
@@zacdredge3859
"I don't have homophobia "
I didn't say you were homophobic, but this comment has created more suspicion than it's removed.
"I have known and do know people who describe themselves as 'queer'."
Do you know them, or are you simply acquainted?
Having a gay coworker or a trans neighbor a street over isn't what I would necessarily call a substantial or personal relationship.
"Perhaps you don't know anyone who holds to the Bible being authoritative outside of funeral picketers"
I have a degree in theology. I can assure you that your fervor is not a surprise to me.
"For the record we, Biblical Christians, condemn all perversion of what God designed human gender and sexuality"
You don't speak for me darling.
You can condemn away all you want, God did give us free will after all.
But these are human ideas you're in a tizzy over. God didn't create our modern gender roles.
"We don't condemn it on the basis of a qualitative assessment of the emotional state of any individual who practices such things but on the belief that is objectively wrong."
Well, close anyways.
You condemn it out of your own qualitative cultural prejudices.
There is no objective basis for this believe, it is not a universal human norm, it is simply cultural happenstance.
Though you've rather proven my point by admitting that you don't pay any attention to the human experiences of those you are condemning.
Speaking of scripture, it is the duty of Christians to Love, especially to the outcast and the oppressed. Your desire to condemn is a human flaw, not the command of God.
"If you don't believe in objective morals then naturally you will be more liable to change your mind on ethics..."
Darling, this is embarrassing.
I don't believe what I believe because my morals are flimsy or malleable, I believe that you are wrong specifically because my understanding of morality is inflexible when it comes to perpetrating evil against the innocent.
The fact that you believe that you are in the moral right is not surprising to me, but the fact that you consider your own self-righteousness to be compelling.. well, let's just say that you need a reality check.
"based on seeing someone who practices any given behaviour as generally nice or what have you."
You know, during some of the witch trials of medieval Europe, some of the men tasked with torturing the accused for their "confessions" were told to avoid making eye contact with the accused witch, for feat that she might cast a "wicked spell of compassion".
All you've said so far only confirms what I already said: your ability to condemn in hypocrisy and ignore the plights of your spiritual equals is premised on your ignoring them.
In a just world, how Loving a person is, how "nice" they are if you will, is the fundamental indicator of character.
So yes, I highly object to nice and Loving people being subjected to torture and abuse by people no better than them.
And you might too, if you recognized their full humanity.
"This is a Christian TH-cam channel though and as Christians we take our standard of morality from God's Word."
Well that's a lie.
Let's cut the crap, you and I both already know that this is about your personal feelings.
You already know that people are far more obsessed with gender norms than they are with a host of other sins.
You should know, though it appears that you don't, that condemnation isn't even the job of Christians.
"Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand." Romans 14:4
This is about you, and your petty human agenda. It always has been.
"Though I owe no loyalty to the Vatican I believe the Roman church still officially rejects same sex unions despite some recent confusion about certain blessings."
That changes nothing. The Vatican condemns the use of birth control.
They are not the authority that they claim.
It's fun to watch intelligent people talk
Bill Cosby had good teaching to bad he didn’t listen to himself. How sad his message was tinted by his own fall. So many young people need to be lead with righteousness and men of God
Matt; is that a Holy Bible you are using as a mic stand?
@Turtle Turtleson III thanks for the explainer
The audio quality is so good.
Picture Jesus Crucified on the cross and dead, now trade places with him, that’s your body once you accept Jesus Christ and his free gift of salvation, your body becomes dead to sin, sin is no longer attributed to your account because you have now died with Christ and he has forgiven all your iniquities.
“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;”
Colossians 2:11-14 KJV
“Reverse Ad Hominem”? . . . 🤦♂️ It’s called a Pro Hominem fallacy.
I love this snippet and i want to ask a very important question.
I am a lesbian, and you see my identity as being rooted in something disordered and concerning.
You are a Christian, and I find your identity to be rooted in something disordered and concerning.
We could fight eachother, you could try to supress my rights or my standing in society or i could do the same to you if either of us felt that strongly about it and just couldnt stand the other existing, or, and the question follows this, we could support a secular government and a seperation of church and state, giving both of us the freedom to have our own identities and live in peaceful disapproval of eachothers convictions
Can we agree that the latter leads to a better world?
That is how it should be, BUT, the problem is that the government has put laws into place that if I don’t agree with you I am breaking the law. For example religious freedom is being attacked, gender ideology is being treated as “scientific “ and has to be taught to children in schools and if a parents doesn’t agree, they are breaking the law. The word “marriage” has been redefined by the government, which has always meant the union between a man and a women, because that is the only natural way of bringing forth life and at the same time build a society. But just because the government says it is not, then I am not in good standing with them. So as you see, the problem is when government becomes the soul arbiters of morality and ethics. And that is where the separation does not work. They have to go hand in hand. God bless!!
My dear, thank you for sharing
I am afraid that living and let live attitude, sometimes becomes indifference and cowardice. If we are both onest about our position, it must eventually have to do with a pursue for truth, whatever that be. If there is not the capability of having a respectful and honest debate, then we are not defending truth we are not defending love (whatever definition we have of love). What we would end up promoting is a convinient tolerance that has little to do with a genuine meeting between human being.
@@atgred you have nailed it with what you've said. It's too bad the world refuses to see it that way. Very sad how quickly we are falling.
I support you as a lesbian. Live your authentic life ! These homophobic people will never change so, yes....the latter does lead to a better world, except that religious bigots refuse to do so and wish to control the world to think as they think. They have no respect for difference. History proves most wars have been caused by religious bigots who refuse to live and let live.
@@atgredYou are talking public schools vs religious. Public should not adhere to your beliefs, but to scientific evidence. The solution for you is simple. Send your child to a religious school that teaches what you believe not a public one. I am 63 and have had gender dysphoria since earliest memory. In my day there was no treatment for this and I've suffered ALL MY LIFE. I am now in transition and have never been happier. Young gender dysphoric people today have scientific progress on their side...giving gender dysphoric youth a peaceful existence with mind and body. You haven't walked in their shoes or my shoes. Live and let live and peace will happen. Respect and therefore you will be respected. If you don't want your child to learn that people like me exist then isolate them in a religious school not a public one. Simple as that.
A religion/bible/god that commanded the execution of gay persons is not a moral religion
FaithWisdom I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the immorality of a god/bible/religion that commanded gay people to be murdered
I would like to know where can I find that commandment?
Lawrence Eason Oh that was in the old Law which Jesus changed forever. And that is also in the Bible. But in this case was the stoning of the woman who committed adultery. He said pretty clearly. “ HE WHO HAS NO SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE.” And guess what, we are all sinners, so no, christians can’t do what was written in the old law. But, sodomy is a sin, but will only be judged by God, unless they repent, and that if they believe this law. God bless!
@@atgred the same god atgred. Same god. And it is immoral to murder people who are gay and people who have affairs. Imagine if our society, America, went around killing gay people. Murdering people who have affairs. Wow. What an insane immorality that is.
Tell me, what is immoral about being gay? Outside of "because god says so", what is actually immoral about being gay?
Lawrence Eason Inmoral about being gay? Not inmoral at all!!! But to act on it, the actual act of sexual activity, is what is inmoral, even for heterosexual sex outside of wedlock. There are many gay women and men who accept their sexual orientation, but because they consider themselves christian and knowing what God asks of them, they don’t act upon it. And yes the God of the Old Testament is the same of the new, what is different? Jesus, and what He has said. The only system of belief that I know who do murder gays are muslims in some muslim countries and I, as a christian, do not agree with what they do. What about the sexual abuse inside christian churches including the Catholic Church with the scandal of homosexual priests? Well as I said before, we are all sinners, but no one will escape the final judgement. And if you don’t have a belief of this, I respect your position, but if there is no god? Then everything goes, there is actually nothing immoral at all. All I can say from a non-theistic stand would be that same sex acts are not natural, because the main objective of the sexual act is to bring forth life. God bless!
Is there a difference between ad hominem and poisoning the well?
I always thought the difference was kind of like the one between "dog" and "German Shephard."
Leviticus 20:13 is my favorite Bible verse
Well, that’s not sick at all.
@@Steve-hu9gw it's the Word of God! Sacred Scripture! How dare you call it sick?! Who are you to criticize divinely inspired words?!
@@thescoobymike, try to actually think for a moment. You’re finding some of your greatest joy-supposedly divine joy, no less-from a text calling for the death of human beings. This isn’t rocket science. You’re sick.
@@Steve-hu9gw *whispers* I'm on your side, I'm a parody
@@thescoobymike, ah, but some constructive criticism. A parody needs to be distinguishable from what it is parodying; otherwise, it goes unnoticed and is mistaken for what is parodied. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people who would have said precisely what you did, verbatim, and meant every syllable quite literally. That’s the world we live in.
I would love it if people preaching about homosexuality would stop assuming the nature of Queer relationships. Saying that relationship is “disordered” is not a valid criticism, it means nothing and does nothing.
But failing that I would love for people to stop claiming that Queer people have a Queer identity out of some unhealthy obsession with themselves or their sex.
No.
Queer people have Queer culture because society pushes us into unfavorable positions. Sometimes we have to band together to survive, sometimes we just need a temporary refuge from hostility. But Queer community and identity is something that exists because of the outside world’s preoccupation with us and our lives. Queer people share experiences that only exist because of the norms and expectations of the larger society.
There is nothing ordered or normative about defining your entire existence by your sexuality. It's perverse.
@@KSTrekker did you not read my comment. People aren’t defining themselves by their sexuality, society is defining people by their sexuality and then pushing them to the margins of society.
People who spend time together forms group identity it’s not that complicated.
@@Grokford - Oh yeah, right, they're so marginalized. So marginalized that we dedicate an entire month so companies can change their logos and everyone celebrates pride in being gay, queer, lesbian, ..., whatever, non-straight. If you want to feel marginalized by mainstream America, try being a straight, heterosexual, white, Christian male - the most hated demographic.
@@KSTrekker Darling, I love you, but you're delusional.
When was the last time someone denied you entrance to a public place because you were male? When was the last time someone tried to kill you because you were White? What slurs have you been called for your Christianity? When was the last time being straight made people question if it was safe to have you around their children or whether or not you could rent an apartment?
Queer people have serious civil right concerns, practical concerns. If you aren't aware of them then I suggest you look into it. I'm not here to spin you a sob story banking on your better nature.
But the reality is that there is danger in being a Queer person, legal danger, social danger, professional danger. To say nothing of the risk that the rest of the world poses.
No one has ever tried to hurt me for being a Christian, but people have tried to kill me for being Queer.
It's connected to the Catholic view of human antropology, that a marriage can exist only between one man and one woman, and that's how most people's attraction works, that is natural. If someone prefers the same sex, it's not ordered according to God's plan for humanity
a perfect example ad hominem is rather than debating the catholic church stance on marriage, it easier to win the argument by bringing up other issues that the catholic church was wrong in like slavery, or parent child separations of natice American children.
Sure that happens
But the point is to say that christianity has supported pretty awful things in the past, so saying “because God says so” is not a sufficient justification for something actually being good
If they hold to a view that their belief system comes from an infallible creator it's fair to bring up changes it's undergone to try to figure out at which point there was a proper understanding of the creators will and bring under question current beliefs.
He dances around the is like a pro
Come in Matt! That was such click bait! I may not agree with your beliefs, but I do believe you’re a very intellectual and smart person. I didn’t think you would reduce your video to click bait.
None are good. The heart is deceitful. Try grabbing a parking space at a busy mall. With God we can be better.
What?I loved the part about marriage sign ups all co- habiting. Duh!
You believe the Bible commands “one man, one woman.” Christians who ascribe to this view largely base their belief on the creation story in Genesis. It is claimed that God created the institution of marriage in Genesis, and marriage was restricted to “one man, one woman.”
Unfortunately, this interpretation is logically flawed. There are numerous reasons why this interpretation is flawed, but it can be refuted simply by recognizing that the mainstream interpretation is based on the “is-ought” fallacy. I will explain:
The “is-ought” problem, as articulated by the Scottish philosopher and historian David Hume, arises when one makes claims about what ought to be that are based solely on statements about what is. Hume found that there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive statements (about what ought to be), and that it is not possible to make prescriptive statements based on descriptive ones. Hume’s law or “Hume’s guillotine” is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises (descriptive statements), the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements (prescriptive statements).
Descriptive statements tell us how the world is-and are typically identified by the word “is.”
Prescriptive statements tell us how the world ought to be-and typically use the word “ought” or “shall.”
Let’s take a look at the creation story, set forth in Genesis 2:4-3:23, and see what it says… (descriptive statements will be highlighted in blue text, prescriptive statements in red text)
5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.
But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] He had taken out of the man, and He brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
With respect to the concept of marriage, there is only one prescriptive statement included in this entire story-Verse 18: “It is not good for man to be alone”-i.e., man ought not be alone.*
*Note, verse 24 is entirely descriptive-it merely states what is, not what ought to be. Ironically, mainstream Christians use this verse to make a prescriptive statement that man “ought” (or “shall”) only be united with a woman. This verse makes no such command, either explicitly or implicitly. This is a classic example of the “is-ought” fallacy. The verse simply describes what is-generally, a man will leave his parents and start a family with his wife. It does not say man “ought” to leave his father and mother; it does not say a man “ought” to be united with his wife; and the verse certainly does not say a man “ought” only be united with a woman. Further, this statement is general, and obviously does not describe all people-some people never get married (despite desiring a partner); some people get married and never have children; some people get married and cannot have children (no matter how hard they try)… So, this verse is nothing more than a descriptive statement about how things are, in general. Any claim that verse 24 commands that marriage “shall” (or “ought”) only be between one man and one woman, is logically flawed. As the expression goes, “you can’t get an ought from an is.”
God’s recognition that man ought not be alone is the only prescriptive statement made in the entire creation story. The only “moral” statement made by God is that man ought not be alone.
Notably, there is no prescriptive/moral statement made regarding the creation of woman or the union between men and woman. Quite the opposite. God did not state, “I have made woman and thou shalt have a woman and only a woman.” No. God asked Adam what he needed and allowed Adam the freedom to look and discover what his heart truly needed to not feel alone. God asked Adam to look over the entire creation to see if any of the creation would address his yearning for a companion. Theoretically, if Adam was satisfied with a cow, man would no longer be “alone,” and the need for a partner would be satisfied.
For Adam, “woman” was the only thing that addressed his yearning for companionship.
From this creation story, the only “moral” statement that could be made is that “man ought not be alone.” God does not want man to be alone.
By definition, a homosexual is someone who cannot maintain a fulfilling relationship with someone of the opposite sex-any more than you or I could maintain a fulfilling, loving relationship with a man. For a homosexual, the yearning in their soul for companionship, love, romance, and intimacy, can only be satisfied by a person of their same sex.
God did not command, “man shalt have woman and only woman.” The only prescriptive statement made in the entire creation story is that “man ought not be alone.” So, if man ought not be alone, and the only person capable of satisfying that yearning for a homosexual is a person of their same sex, then God desires for that homosexual to find his/her homosexual partner. God would bless the union of two homosexuals for the exact same reason that He blesses the union of heterosexuals: the union addresses God’s primary concern for our most basic need for companionship and ensures we are not alone.
So, a Christian who states that a homosexual’s only option is to remain celibate or force themselves into an unfulfilling relationship with the opposite sex-which could never truly fulfill the yearning in their own heart for companionship-that Christian is effectively saying that God wants the homosexual to be alone.
Ironically, that statement is literally the opposite of the only moral statement made by God in the entire creation story. God’s first prescriptive statement about man was, “man ought not be alone.”
Stated another way: telling a homosexual that they must stay alone the rest of their life is an immoral statement. Such a belief violates the only moral statement made by God in the entire creation story. God said “man ought not be alone.” But the conservative Christian says, “a homosexual must remain alone.”
That … is immoral.
No, we base our beliefs on the interpretarion Jesus gives of the creatiom story. You are misinterpreting that story if you arrive at a different conclusion, Jesus is infallible: look up Matthew 19
Being alone and being in a sexual relationship with the partner of your choice is not mutually exclusive. Look up Josephite marriage.
@@viktormuerte what’s your point? If we’re discussing the concept of marriage derived from the Genesis account, a “Josephite marriage” doesn’t even qualify as marriage because the “spouses” are refraining from the very sexual intimacy (“one flesh”) that symbolizes the union - physically and figuratively. I’d go so far as to call a josephite marriage an act of narcissistic blasphemy. By definition, a healthy marriage cannot be a marriage devoid of physical intimacy.
So again, what is your point? Are you arguing that homosexuals don’t need to live alone because they can have a Josephite marriage? Is that your argument?
Being gay and living a gay life isn't disordered. Telling gay people they can't live their lives as God created them (which is gay) is what is completely disordered. In short, cut the crap..this generation and others to follow are not accepting your insanity.
Yeah and this generation also happens to be the most mentally unstable and toxic with increasing suicide rates and mental health.
They’re talking about the act not the attraction per se
"Being gay and living a gay life isn't disordered" - that is the claim you made, now I ask you, where are you getting your objective morality that gay behaviour isn't sinful?
@@myrhh2260 Take a good look at the psychopaths you call saints. Take Saint Bernardino for example. He reveled in torture and murder.
@@SteveC-Aus I can be true to myself and my orientation without having sex. I can sublimate it and, at the same time, revel in it because it's found a higher purpose. Alan Turing, a gay man, saved 17 million people in WWII by breaking the hardest version of the Nazi Enigma code. He was inspired all his life by a young man, Christopher Morcom, he loved when both were in school. Alan and Christopher developed a theory of how life develops from a fertilized egg. Alan completed the work after Christopher's death. Ninety years later their theory was proven correct. So, if youi're glad you're not living under the Nazis, if you appreciate your computer, and if you appreciate understanding where babies come from, you can thank the love a gay man had for another.
Why do you put things on a book?
It is a good thing we have secular morals, otherwise how would we know that pedophilia is immoral? The bible says nothing about pedophilia.
Sir what makes you think that pedophilia is condoned in the bible? Jesus himself says when holding a child that if any man cause one of the little ones to sin that it would be better that a millstone be tied around his neck and cast into the sea. Its said multiple times in the gospels. It was clearly also understood in the old testament based on the mosaic laws which specifically talk about sexual morality. It expresses fornication and adultery which neither are condoned and specifies circumstances for when marriage is appropriate.
@@pigzcanfly444 didn't say it condones pedophilia, although in numbers 31 it directs the slaughter of everyone...everyone (even little boys and make babies plus pregnant women)...EXCEPT little virgin girls. It certainly encourages pedophilia.
But my point was it doesn't even mention that pedophilia is a sin/morally wrong. Nowhere. Nowhere does it mention that pedophilia is immoral.
In addition, the bible gives zero direction to adults marrying children. Say, a 48 yr old marrying a 12 yr old. Nothing in the bible
@@lawrenceeason8007 you are out of your mind to perceive that it would be allowed for the israelite soldiers to use the girls in the manner you mentioned. It is expressly opposed in their law and you are just trying to throw out anything you can to make the bible seem incredible and deceitful. When read in context its very clear that they have a law already established as to how to conduct themselves as a godly society which even they cannot do well. Clearly this shows your lack of understanding because they write many times of the times when they go against what God wants them to do and he punishes them the same as any other nation that had done so before. There is no condoning of the acts or assumptions you mentioned and this is something that you are forcing into the text yourself without any references to boot.
@@pigzcanfly444 I find it interesting that you think it's okay to slaughter boys, male children/babies, but to keep only the LITTLE virgin girls. That you think that male soldiers who have no problem taking a sword to a baby and chop it to bits in the name of a god would be moral enough not to rape virgin girls. You are living in an imaginary universe. If that is your "godly" society thank the stars we have thrown that into the trash....hopefully for good.
It absolutely encourages it. Virginity was valued in that day...an "unspoiled" virgin was like a sexual diamond. Wake up.
1. Your bible never mentions pedophilia. Never. The bible never condemns or mentions it
2. The bible gives no direction on adults marrying children. A 48 year old can marry a 12 year old by the bible. The bible is severely flawed
Encourages pedophilia
More like 'ad homo-nem', amirite?
I hope you know if there were agnostics in the comment secrion on the verge of conversion to Christianity you just gave them a reason to believe there is no God
@@joelancon7231 Doubt it. Agnostics appreciate wordplay.
@@corporateshill7473 As an agnostic I can confirm this. I do indeed love word play.
If you want to reduce the relationships of gay Christian couples to no more than a cheap rhetorical device, that’s just fine. It’s your loss that you can’t see them in any other way.
"Gay Christian couple" is an oxymoron.
@@EmberBright2077
Whatever you need to tell yourself hon'.
@@EmberBright2077an interracial Christian couple was an oxymoron to.