He's also apparently giving you guys a remarkable amount of child rapists that keep getting passed around and found out after twenty years of having access to prey. And the best answer you can give is that it's not your responsibility.
Frank Turek. God Bless you my friend. My name is Presley Fryingpan. I live in Fort McMurray Alberta Canada. I would like to meet you if you ever come through here. You are really encouraging to me. A blessing from above. Amen!
@@lancedooley7558 Have you ever told the truth? Ok you’re a truth teller. Have you ever given anything to anyone? Ok, you’re a generous truth teller. Ray Comfort refuted.
Can’t help but wonder if someone who can’t make an objective statement about a moral issue, has struggled/struggles personally with said issue. Not accusing, just wondering.
I have never wanted to do child r*pe or the Holocaust but it is not objectively morally wrong to do those things. not because im implying that those things are good or that i want them, but because objective morality is a nonsensical concept to measure things by, since "good" is only good if you have a certain goal in mind, and you can evaluate whether something is good for that goal or bad for that goal, instead of just slamming your fist on the table and saying "it's _good_ doggone it!"
@@MrRF007 have you considered the argument from "no you are" because that's the level that we're at when you just accuse people of being evil and hating the truth, with no evidence
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 individuals can’t make objective claims? Sounds like you just did… This is SO comical, it’s the self contradiction of relativism. Relativism just cannot say ANYTHING and expect to be believed.
I don't understand why so many people assume that just because we have a strong negative emotional reaction towards child molestation, or a strong desire for such actions to not to occur, that therefore we have an intuition that child molestation is objectively wrong (i.e. something that ought not occur independently of the values and attitudes of an observer). My feeling of repugnance towards child molestation tells me absolutely nothing about whether molestation is objectively wrong, regardless of whether theism is true or false.
@Lucas seattle By asking for evidence actually just shows you don't know how the Bible and God works. You made a false assumption in the beginning as most all athiest do, because you have assumed it works the way that you insist that it works. I do believe there is actual evidence but I think if it were presented to you, you would not be able to comprehend it. Or see it or hear it in. Other words.. God said some people even though they see do not see and even though they hear do not hear. See how this verse conflicts with your request for this evidence you so desperately are searching for. What good is evidence if some people see but yet do not see.
@Lucas seattle humans wanted somone they could see with there eyes. They were given Jesus Christ but they did not recognize him and they killed him. If I were looking for evidence, I would look at the prophecies because that's basically the purpose of prophecies to literally predict the future perfectly. Which only God could possibly do. The Bible says that you must find God. You must find him, then he isn't readily apparent. It means you have to search for something first in order to find something. God is a God who hides himself. He is hidden, Your evidence will do no good here. These are matters of the spirit and what's in a man's heart and mind.
Singing= "I love You, Lord and I lift my voice to worship You Oh my soul rejoice. Take joy my King in what You hear, let it be a sweet sweet sound in Your ear."
@@memastarful Absolutely 100% true sister, and there seems to be no end in sight of the *"noise"* Christians are enduring. God bless you and your daughter Sweet Pea with His most amazing gift, His peace and His love.
“Why don’t you just trust your intuition?” “Because intuition can be wrong sometimes” “Yeah but it FEELS right” “It could feel right and still be wrong” “Yeah but it feels VERY right”
Our hearts are deceitful. We must stay in prayer and God's word to make sure we align with God🙏❤️ feelings aren't inately wrong, but leaning on our own understanding will fail us. We must compare our hearts with Gods word and if it goes against God, it is wrong❤️🙏
@@mustachemac5229 he says " a moral objectivist will pose a question like that, that is so emotionally charged." Not a big deal just thought you wanted to know when he stated that.
I pray John reads his Bible because it says in Jeremiah 17:9 " the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" This verse is why I take great care and caution when I "feel' something.
This guy and his "feelings" are subjectively confused. He couldn't make an objective decision to save his life. Seriously, dirt is dirt, air is air, water is water. You can "sell" yourself on anything with feelings.
@@Greyz174 it takes a law-giver like God to have any objective morals. If you reject God, then you’re right, there’s no objective morality. But can you admit it? Can you actually not just say it but live it out, and why or why not? Please do confirm: the only thing you can really say about shredding infants and torturing them to death for no good reason is that you don’t LIKE those things and you feel bad about them? Be honest. And no, I’m not going to instantly say “then you’re a bad person” because I already know you are for simply believing there is no objective right and wrong. I mean, you SHOULD expect anyone different from you to have differences in morality, because there’s no standard and thus no measure of which morals are correct or incorrect, and each person simply makes up or feels his way into whatever arbitrary morals he wants to have… RIGHT? So the moment someone else’s morals are different from yours, then you by definition are almost certainly evil in everyone else’s eyes, in every way that you deviate from their morality.
@@TrackedHiker "So the moment someone else’s morals are different from yours, then you by definition are almost certainly evil in everyone else’s eyes, in every way that you deviate from their morality." Not if I don't think morality exists! :) Yeah I think that shredding infants just comes down to "we all really really don't want that to happen, that's going to hurt a lot of people for a bunch of reasons, this is just super impractical and we have no feasible reason to be OK with this" and saying "it's wrong!" is a convenient shorthand for that
@@Greyz174 okay then. 1. What’s the problem with hurting a bunch of people? 2. What’s the drive to avoid the impractical? 3. Do you personally take whatever advantage you can in life, for the most self-advantage, and as long as you’re pretty sure you won’t get caught, you do whatever you want?
@Lucas seattle your argument is very flawed. Humans are basically the only animal species that will self mutilate, purposefully kill their offspring for convenience and betterment of self NOT society, and kill their same kind for their ideals. The betterment of society argument does not cut it. And the evolution argument, don't even go there with the transformation of humans' sexual desires to breed with the same sex. A rooster can't lay an egg.
I always say there is an objective reality we can choose to follow, the problem is that societies tend to have their own subjective oppions on everything concerning morality so it's confusing.
@Lucas seattle that is all true, and speaking of Christians saying capital punishment is okay, there are two points. One is because Jesus Christ forgives everything we should also. The second point of view and it is that in the Bible, the big things like obduction, rape, murder... Resulted in a death penalty as punishment for wrong doing. So the death penalty is biblical, but as a society it depends on rather we want to forgive that person or give them justice for their wrong doing. What's your opinion on capital punishment or wars if you don't mind sharing your oppion on it and if you have to time to talk about it.
@@dickersoncharlie4961 He still destroyed Sodom and gommora. You say he forgives everything, but yet he turned lots wife into a pillar of salt. Someones wrong here
@@OMAELITE I think that happend I'm the book of Genesis with Sodom and Gomorrah, personally I don't believe everything I read from it but I do always take the lessons that it teaches out if it, from what I heard they where cities that exsteamly sinful constantly for a long so they where destroyed in that story, Lots and his wife's one command from God was "don't look back at the city when it is destroyed" she looked back and then she turned to salt. I personally don't think that is a fact or If it really happened but the moral lesson is follow directions
He doesn't suggest having kids that close appart. What is a kid? Does he know what it is? Is it just an experience he had and he believes he had a similar experience many that have over the years?if he is doubting so many things in the world, he has decieved himself. Plus yeah you can know what is morally right most of the time just by seeing if all parties agree to the common act. Molestation is not agreed to by all parties, nor can kids ever have the cognizance to do so. It's basically rape.
What? When did Jon fall back? One of my favorite songs ever is Crazy Love, and I'm an old guy of 65! I'm amazed when Christians fall back. I want to scream in their faces, staring them in the eyes, "WHAT IN THIS WORLD WILL YOU FIND THAT'S BETTER THAN CHRISTIANITY!? EVEN IF IT'S NOT TRUE, THERE'S NO BETTER LIFE OR MORAL SYSTEM". I learned that from C.S. Lewis. Not the screaming part, just the sentiment.
When I first was watching this, I thought the truth that “child molestation is wrong” could be viewed as subjective in a sense due to cultural differences. Like in different countries or even different time periods, girls were being married off at very young ages. Now we would definitely say that’s not right but I wonder how can the statement be objective if there’s so many different layers. Like what is considered a child, what is considered molestation? Does it depend on culture and time? Etc.
Well generally speaking it is wrong to harm someone without justification, and that is especially true if that person is at certain ages. Just because you personally can't perfectly identify where the boundaries are does not mean that those boundaries do not exist. The fact that morality is objective does not come from an ability of humans to know exactly where to draw the line, but from the understanding that some actions are wrong regardless of context and that something can be believed to be correct by the majority of people and still be wrong.
@@JJJSmit9026 yes I agree completely. I think with this specific example I wonder what God’s perspective is. Like in America children getting married is a big no. If a child under 18 has sex with someone older it’s rape bc of age of consent. What about in biblical times? I just don’t know what God’s objective point of view is
Premise 1. If objective morality exists, the truth value of moral propositions like "molestation is wrong" doesn't depend on the attitudes of a subject. Premise 2. On Frank's view, the truth value of such propositions does depend on the attitudes of God, who is a subject. Conclusion: Therefore, if Franks view is correct, objective morality does not exist.
When a person starts with with "I feel like", my brain instantly dismisses anything they say. Because tbh I don't care what you feel, and neither does reality
@@frankcardano4142 Make an actual argument. Anyone who listens to these emotional appeals of yours is just being easily fooled. Or is my “no YOU” invalid somehow, and why?
Atheist: I believe that child molestation is wrong. That is my personal opinion. Christian: Why do you not believe that child molestation is objectively wrong? Atheist: Because I lack your arrogance and hypocrisy.
@@TomMichael5678 It is arrogance to claim your personal preferences are objectively true, no matter what they are, and hypocrisy to make such a claim while adopting a religion that condones child molestation. Makes perfect sense.
@@cygnusustus Back up that claim and provide the evidence that Christianity condones this? And btw, why are you complaining about something being condoned, when you've just stated it's subjective, no matter what it is? Nonsensical logic, your opinion is irrelevant.
@@TomMichael5678 Read your Bible, boy. Numbers 31: 17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. "And btw, why are you complaining about something being condoned, when you've just stated it's subjective, no matter what it is?" What does being subjective have to do with whether or not I am justified in objecting to it, child? "Nonsensical logic" Let's just drop the pretense that you either understand or care about logic shall we?
@@TomMichael5678 Back up that claim and provide the evidence that Christianity condones this? Oh that's easy, Southern Baptists have been covering up their perverted pastors for decades and were just outed. The leadership of a christian sect which I bet a lot of people here belong, condoned it.
The priesthoods of shemites was around many places in the near east and Asia, in Egypt it was in Heliopolis a lot so of course you'll find similarities, also besides that many of these cultures gleamed from sumerians first 2 epochs of ruling tribes which especially before babel so they'd have similarities in thoughts across humanity and that shouldn't be surprising, especially if it's a culture close to the biblical one and one that interacted heavily with it's people. Correlation doesn't equal causation my friend, more laws doesn't mean more comprehensiveness in any positive or negative way.
@@nazareneoftheway3936 “More laws don’t mean more comprehensiveness”? Lol. Err. Yes they do. They include the few in the Ten Commandments plus many many more. Apart from the ones that command you to only believe in this one monotheistic fictitious god of the bible. The other codes offer a far more broader set of rules. Rules that ancient men were trying to establish as rules to live by.
It seems so obvious that it's objectively morally wrong to drown almost all of humanity in a global flood, why would Frank suggest that Jahwe is an all loving good God when it's obvious Jahwe is evil. Why? I don't get it. I would love to see Frank going through "poof or drown" thought experiment with Pinecreek and see how consistent he would be with his moral intuition. I guess he would bloviate so hard.
@@TestTest-vk4xk Nice essay but you missed my point. Frank asserts that molesting children is "obviously wrong" and says that Jon is going against his moral intuition. I guess Frank's moral intuition would tell him that drowning almost all of humanity in a flood is bad (I think Frank is on record believing in global flood, not local drowning) but when morally assessing action of God drowning humans he would go against that intuition. While for Jon going against moral intuition is somehow a problem. I understand that for you, God can take life in the most horrific way imaginable and still it would be objectively good. I get that God could take your life by impalement and while in lenghy agony you would praise God for transfering you to another place and declaring how impalment by God is objectively morally good. I get that.
In a court case, at a certain point, the judge requires the answer from the jury based on the evidence presented. It's either guilty or not guilty. But you can't just vote not guilty. Because if the accused is guilty he will harm again, but if he's innocent, you don't want to send an innocent person to prison or death because of your failure to be able to make a decision based on facts like a grown up. So when presented with evidence that you don't like, be a man and make a decision based on facts. It's obvious if it wasn't about Jesus, if it wasn't about a moral God, it would be easy to do so, but people forestall the decision making process, and try to cry "hung jury" when they really should be again making a decision based on evidence. In that case, the decision is VERY clear. And just be a man about it and face the consequences (which are actually really good by the way).
And where are these deep moral intuitions? Are they in the heart? So instead of doubting those, should you follow them, aka follow your heart? Because you have a few videos in the past couples days saying to not follow you heart.
Remember back in grammar school when they taught you that a word can have more than one meaning? Perhaps you were sick that day in school? Your little smug attack on Frank is pathetic. Either you’re a mental clod or you’re a nasty person, because it doesn’t take much THINKING to understand what he means. “Heart” is poetic, so unless you think he’s saying heart surgeons find little written inscriptions during surgery on people, you’re going to have to work a little harder to bring an actual critique.
Notice how many times Jon said """ I feel"" as opposed to what I know is wrong or right conscience means with knowledge"""" it's not what we feel it's what we know to be wrong or right but he suppressing it he's going with feelings instead of what's actually wrong and right the Bible makes it clear we know what's right and wrong but we suppress the truth this guy never was a born again Christian it's like that verse in the Bible says they went out from us because they never belonged to us"""""that definitely describes this guy he never was saved but he can be he can be if he just gets the truth and allows Christ to take the blinders off his eyes
If you have children, or a niece/nephew, or a brother/sister, or you simply see a child walking in the grocery store with their parents, and then you personally witness them being sexually harmed, would you try to stop it or simply shrug your shoulders and walk away? It’s one thing to only hear about it happening, and an entirely different thing to see it happen with your own eyes. The impact on you is different. What we all need to wrap our heads around is that whether we see it or not, it is still happening. And it is just as disgustingly evil when it is done out of sight. It needs to stop, and those who practice/support pedophilia or think its okay, ya’ll deserve to be thrown into boiling oil. Children do not deserve to be the victims of such abuse and we should therefore protect them against the absolute shi**y garbage of society.
Okay, so, everything you just said: does it apply to the two largest churches in the US being found out for child abuse? Catholic and Southern Baptist? Because literally, the statistically most likely place for child rape to occur in America is the Church. And if I'm wrong, feel free to name any other institution in the US that is in danger of going BANKRUPT for raping too many children. Children are most often assaulted by someone they knew, and youth pastors count as "someone you know." You guys are screaming about pedophilia being among your enemies, and you can't talk about the biggest, most obvious child rape occurrences happening right in front of you. Is this a bad time to mention that your side also elects leadership that has credible criminal charges of rape and assault? Matt Gaetz gets a pass but theoretical liberals in your head are worse? Log in your own eye, people. Yeesh!
@@coyoteclockworkstudios3140 My comment applies to all organizations, religions, cults, businesses, states, countries and people groups. EVERY ONE OF THEM. Jesus Christ should NOT be blamed for what so-called fake Christians do. Someone who harms a child so sickeningly deserves Gods wrath. I never mentioned Christianity in my comment, but you discerned true that I am Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, but the church is now overrun by ‘fakers in the church’ (and these ‘fakers’ include infiltrating satanists/witches, people who are only there because it fits their lifestyle, or those who like to get a paycheck by standing behind a pulpit). The Bible warned us that the church would be like this in the end times before the tribulation - a generation of “Me, Myself and I.” Good will be considered evil and evil will be considered good - (consider the tens of millions of abortions, the LGBTQ debacle, one world currency/religion/state being pushed on us which will require all nations to topple…and what about this new “sudden death syndrome?”). That’s the world we currently live in. All warned about in the Bible. We must all tread carefully to not be deceived, as deception is everywhere. Good bless, Coyote.
If I have an intuition against child molestation, then I do not need a God to hold that belief. In fact, with that intuition I have to reject religions such as Christianity which condone and excuse child molestation.
@@timmyalley6621 One can hardly spit in the Old Testament without moistened some atrocity commanded by your god, but my favorite example is Numbers 31: 17-18.
I think the best argument for God or at the very least an intelligent creator, is DNA. Why? Because instructions don't write themselves. Plain and simple.
@@rf7477 He explains in his book how we know all mammals are related. From the same patterns of truncated genes in our DNA. It’s a slam dunk for human evolution.
doubting your deepest moral intuitions is a very dark and depressing path. Not saying it's wrong, but beware how deep the rabbit-hole goes when you are constantly fine-tuning your beliefs. It's an endless nightmare.
@@chad969 it depends on whether you are a theist or atheist. Christians would not find conflict with what is written in the bible. They would find conflict with their interpretation of scripture, which is where the Holy Ghost intervenes to counsel their moral convictions. I think this is how scripture transitions from the prescriptive into the descriptive when we blend our common-sense morals with our best moral theory. I think this is the case so that Christians can maintain their position tenable while still living in harmony with non-Christians.
@@Godlimate "Christians would not find conflict with what is written in the bible." So if a self professed Christian tells me (and many have) that they're bothered by some of the things that God commanded the Israelites to do in the old testament, I can safely conclude that they're not a true Christian. Would that be correct?
@@chad969 wouldn’t *typically find conflict, sorry. I’m sure if you agree to certain perimeters, you could draw conclusions and find them to be “threshold Christians”. But that said, do those Christians agree on those terms? I’d need more info about the reasons why they are bothered but still remain Christian.
@@donn07 So if someone's moral intuition told them that killing infants and children is wrong regardless of who does it or commands it, their intuition would be wrong. Is that correct?
@@chad969 No,such a moral intuition that killing children is wrong is ABSOLUTELY correct, why don't you listen to the debates of Frank Turek miss, he'll be able to answer all your questions 👍
Nope. What he ACTUALLY said (in his lyrics): "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" Christians caught lying once again...
Arguably, morality is subjective by definition. Without any subjects to prefer one outcome over another, there would be no morality. “God’s opinion is paramount because he can hurt you,” is absolutely a form of subjective morality.
@@weirdwilliam8500 Point me to a culture that views theft murder and grape as inherently positive actions. Oh? You can't? Then morality is objective. Just that simple.
There is the physical action associated with certain deeds, that's objective. And then there is the interpretation of those deeds that's based on how they affect your sensitivities, that's subjective.
Frank, you're not listening to him. He didn't say he doesn't think it's wrong. He said he thinks it's subjective. Just because something may be subjective to someone, doesn't mean it's not wrong for them. It's like you totally ignore his words.
Frank doesn't understand the words he is using Objectively = 1) in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions. 2) in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence. How are you going to apply this to harming children? No mind, no child... no personal feelings, no right or wrong. Humans are social animals, that is where morality comes from. What is deemed good or bad within that society. Most societies will share common moral thinking (murder, child abuse, etc), but that does not make it Objectively moral. It is a well followed and shared subjective morality. Morality is the result of social animal's evolution within a society. You see a sense of morality in many social animals... monkey, elephants, dogs
That isn't where morality comes from. Humans did not create their own minds which perceive an inherent moral standard. Point me to a culture that views cart blanche murder as an objective right. Until you can, morality is objective.
@@juhadexcelsior "Point me to a culture that views cart blanche murder as an objective right."?? Have you never read the Bible? The God of the Bible commits and calls for genocide many times.
@@reality1958 The God of the Bible is not moral by my subjective opinion. It is a jealous God that demands that it's servants fear it. It commits genocide and demands that its servants commit it as well. It lays out rules for slavery and treats women as property. It tortured it's the most loyal servants Abraham and Job just to test their blind obedience and loyalty.
I got up to 50 seconds of this nonsense. If you can't say child molestation is wrong - FULL STOP - there is something wrong with you. This guy was never a Christian in the first place.
I agree he must have never knew Jesus to begin with because once you know him, how could you deny his existence? Even if I decided to turn away, I couldn’t deny he exists because we’ve met. He saved my life and soul.
That's what you get from "Christian" Rock, which has no solid foundation and is only "Christian" in order to appeal to that audience by making money off them, because they wouldn't "make it" in the mainstream rock scene.
Never heard of him or this band. But if he's "no longer a Christian", it means he was never one to begin with. Once you are born again you cannot be unborn. Sad.
1 John 2:19 they went out from us because they never belonged to us and TH-cam big Tech Marxist scumbags TH-cam keeps trying to delete mine and violate my free speech by deleting my comments I can hardly wait till God's brutal and I mean brutal deadly physical wrath rips them to shreds every one of these marxists that keep trying to delete our comments they're going to get ripped to shreds God has promised his deadly wrath and it's going to be a beautiful thing to watch when he slays them and rips them apart Psalms 50 verses 20 through 22
@@thekolobsociety im not a calvinist but remember david? and solomon? david killed a man to take his wife, still saved, and solomon worshipped another false god to gain favor of a woman. both were saved, because they got into the covenant, they were incapable of leaving it even if they wanted to.
"Never tell a person Santa 🎅 isn't real because if you do, a kid will say you was never a believer anyway." The belief in Santa is more than a belief in the mind and heart of a little kid. To that little kid, it's the TRUTH.
_"It seems so obvious that it's objectively morally wrong, why would you suggest it's subjective"_ Because that's literally what the term "subjective" refers to. If you have nothing to back something up other than your own intuitions and feelings - that's subjective. It only becomes objective if it can be confirmed to be true external to your own subjective experience. Gravity objectively exists, because apples fall in the external wall - we don't just have an "intuition" that they will fall. We can't set up an equivalent test for objective morality. This is the hole in Frank's moral argument. He wants to use objective morality to prove that God exists, but he has no way to detect whether objective morality actually exists.
*He wants to use objective morality to prove that God exists, but he has no way to detect whether objective morality actually exists.* I can prove objective morality exists. Raping a child is objectively immoral. Why? Because using the scientific method, I can produce experiments after experiments wherein the result is the child being harmed during each rape. That harm to the child, is the objective standard by which I can declare it is objectively immoral to rape a child. Therefore, objective morality exists. Again: 1. I claim objective morality exists 2. I predict that child rape produces only trauma / pain 3. I can prove it, by examining child rape victims wherein the result is trauma / pain 4. I can reproduce experiments and tests (objectivity), proving that trauma / pain is the direct result of the rape 5. I can prove that child rape is objectively immoral 6. Therefore, objective morality exists.
I agree. Frank is using "objectively" as if it were an intensifier (like "extremely" or "really") . Are you "really" against child abuse or merely "subjectively" against it? He's implying that a subjective value is less deeply held than an objective value (whatever that means).
@@chosenone8408 The problem is that Frank rejects the premise that harm prevention is the standard for morality. You can objectively prove that an action is consistent with a standard, but you can't objectively prove that a specific standard is the True(tm) standard.
@@chosenone8408 You can also use the same test to examine rapists and their gratification as a result of rape. Why are they excluded if they have a moral standing? The problem with "objective morality" is that it becomes akin to moral fact, which is something incontestable, something that is universal. Yet it is very contestable and opinions are very much divided. You can't prove that child rape is objectively immoral if you ignore those who have a moral standing for child rape. It's only about as objective insofar as our laws universalising it. But those laws are broken all the time.
@@Godlimate *You can also use the same test to examine rapists and their gratification as a result of rape.* You’re proving my point. The fact that a person would enjoy harming another person, would prove that action as being immoral. *Why are they excluded if they have a moral standing?* Their standing wouldn’t be “moral,” it would by definition be “immoral.” *The problem with "objective morality" is that it becomes akin to moral fact, which is something incontestable* I already proved that it is indeed contestable in my previous post. I can use the scientific method to prove that each rape harms the raped. Therefore, rape can be objectively immoral for it harms another person. *It's only about as objective insofar as our laws universalising it* This is only partly accurate. The reason we have established law regarding child rape, is because we are aware, convinced, and have seen the harmful illogical construct of immorality and thus, we create laws to dictate against such behavior. We create law against child rape because we see the logical procession of reason that harming a child for one’s own perverted sexual gratification, is against that child’s health. Furthermore, we understand that logical procession of thought because we have a moral law giver that is the ultimate authority of what is moral and immoral, that law giver being God.
Jon Steingard apparently holds that something like "objective morality" cannot exist. Depending on how you interpret these words, this can be a valid point, because if "morality" is what we, human beings, consider right or wrong, then this is by definition something subjective. However, there are other non-theist views out there. Personally, I think part of our morality is derived from our existence as living beings, and in particular our existence as social mammals, and in that sense, as part of our "human nature" if you will, it can be considered "objective". Moreover, if we find common ground between as many people as possible, we may be able to objectivize our essentially subjective moral opinions and reach a morality that is as objective as it is humanly possible to attain. This is partly what Dr. Turek is hinting at when he says we all know what we are looking at when we are looking at "yellow" or "a tree", but I disagree with him that this in any way points to a deity. It doesn't at all, as far as I am concerned, quite the opposite.
Well said Hans, if we all agree that beating a dog with a baseball bat is immoral, perhaps we can say it's objectively immoral in that sense.. that we all agree, but you can bet that in reality, in a world of 7 billion people, there will be plenty out there who think that beating a dog with a baseball bat is actually ok. The Bible has some pretty horrific commandments from God himself, that if we were to witness, we would unquestionably call highly immoral. Morals are subjective in the sense that we all use our own sense of reason to figure out right and wrong.
@@bonnie43uk The crucial point may be to find the things we can "all" agree on (except for the one or two sociopaths that don't, or the obtuse religious fanatics who pretend they don't). For example, if we can "all" agree that self-preservation is "right" in principle, then it will be "wrong" if I act against your self-preservation, because I expect you to respect my self-preservation. You said: _"Morals are subjective in the sense that we all use our own sense of reason to figure out right and wrong."_ I agree with that, but because of our shared nature, I think there is a material basis for at least some morals, like self-preservation, and our sense of reason with which we try and figure this stuff out.
@@jesuschristdestroysmarxism3916 I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm saying his bar for knowing something is way too high. If we were able to know everything with a 100% certainty there would be no such thing as faith. As a Christian I understand that there will always be a small level of uncertainty but that's where my faith in God comes in.
@@JSRINTX yes yes I agree God lets us know what he wants us to know and you're right we do have to have faith and we absolutely have to have faith our whole relationship with Jesus Christ is based on faith we put our faith in eternity our eternal life is entrusted in him that's faith
@@jesuschristdestroysmarxism3916 Bible prophecy happens every single day so your argument is absolutely fallacious LOL, you've lost touch with reality and are vomiting delusion. Prophecy is bull much like your statement.
could it be that you just ignored everything that we've done to point to such a thing? mabye you aren't even willing to allow us to explain the objective moral principles and how they work. come on, do better.
@@omnitone they just ignore it and then say "see no one has ever shown it to be true." Whilst allowing what theists say to quickly enter one ear and then out the other.
@@akoskormendi9711 what do you mean show it?!?! can you see morality?!?! i sure can't, so i assume that your question is rigged. you will change what it means to "show morality" the moment i try. is this not what you intend to do?
I believe morality is objective as it is regulated by God's law, according to which every person will be judged, but can we truly say everybody has the same "deepest moral intuitions"? We agree on some moral tenets because we share the same "christianized" culture. What about those cultures where, for example, cannibalism is ok? Concerning the harming of children, Leviticus 18:21 states that the people of Israel were not to sacrifice their children (or let them pass through the fire) to Molek. Yet, in the land of Canaan this was common practice - did they struggle morally while burning their children alive? Maybe affectively - but morally? What I am trying to say is that people can still suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, and there can be large groups of people that do that and don't feel these "deepest moral intuitions" at all. Why's that? Because they are DEAD in their trespasses and sins and live by the FUTILITY of their thinking. IMHO, morality is objective in the sense that there's nothing higher than God's Law, which sets the bar of moral standard, not in the sense that everybody shares the same moral principles. I would argue that it is only by the preaching of the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment that people can conform their lives to this "objective morality," or even find out about its existence ("and such were some of you" - 1 Corinthians 6:11).
You seem to be talking about the "christian" god who is easily the most sinister vicious and amoral deity ever invented. Any god that inflicts endless hellish torture on his own children for a deliberate inherited fatal design is not worthy of worship. If you worship such a god, you are morally dubious.
That is indeed a great question, did warlord Moses struggle morally when he, supposedly by Gods order slaughtered all the midianites, man, woman and boy-child but kept the virgin girls as booty for his fighters.
you should use the commandments as a guide as to how you should live your life , keeping them will not save you but not keeping them will keep you out of heaven , What is sin ? Sin is transgression of the law for without the law I would not know sin , Why did JESUS come to save us because we sin ,
So, you want people to follow the law, but it doesn't matter if you keep the law because keeping the law won't save you... but not keeping the law keeps you out of heaven? What?🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
That's not correct we should meditate and try are best to keep them but we are only justified by the blood of christ. Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
@@sogiaac777 Revelation 22 v 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have the tree of life and enter the gate of heaven Revelation 14 v 12 here is the patience of the saints that keep the commandments of GOD and have the testimony of JESUS CHRIST. Revelation 12 v 17 The dragon was roth with the woman and the remnant of her seed and went to war with those that keep the commandments of GOD and have the testimony of JESUS CHRIST Psalms 111 v 7 the hands of his works are true. And his commandments are sure and are FOREVER AND FOREVER, Yes we are only saved by the grace of GOD through his son JESUS, if you break one commandment you have broken them all , this is when we turn to JESUS and ask him to ask his father for forgiveness, will we sin again yes , Doesnt it say in the scriptures " sin is transgression of the law for without the law I would not know sin " when you pray and ask for GODS forgiveness what do you say , what sin have you committed ? Adultery, theft , Lied , stolen Taken the LORDS name in vane , do you identify with what law you have broken ,
1:40 subjective ●Psalms 137:8-9 8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us. 9 Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks! ●Leviticus 20:1-2, 9-10 20 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Give the people of Israel these instructions, which apply both to native Israelites and to the foreigners living in Israel. ●9 “Anyone who dishonors[a] father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense. 10 “If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the man and the woman who have committed adultery must be put to death. 13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense. ●Judges 11 Jephthah’s Vow 29 At that time the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and from there he led an army against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord. He said, “If you give me victory over the Ammonites, 31 I will give to the Lord whatever comes out of my house to meet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”(human sacrifice) 32 So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the Lord gave him victory. 33 He crushed the Ammonites, devastating about twenty towns from Aroer to an area near Minnith and as far away as Abel-keramim. In this way Israel defeated the Ammonites. 34 When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter (child sacrifice) came out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. She was his one and only child; he had no other sons or daughters. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. “Oh, my daughter!” he cried out. “You have completely destroyed me! You’ve brought disaster on me! For I have made a vow to the Lord, and I cannot take it back.” 36 And she said, “Father, if you have made a vow to the Lord, you must do to me what you have vowed, for the Lord has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But first let me do this one thing: Let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin.” 38 “You may go,” Jephthah said. And he sent her away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. 39 When she returned home, her father kept the vow he had made, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel 40 for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah’s daughter. (Vow to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house after he gets back from his battle. He made his vow AFTER THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD CAME UPON HIM) "God is the same yesterday, today and forever" We no longer believe these actions are right. Views have been evolving for thousands of years. People will look at the verses above and say but that was the old covenant. I'm starting to feel like this covenant term is just the moral standard changing from that age to this age.
"we no longer believe these things are right" neither did the people of the old covenant believe that those things were right until you were told so. you realize that in Christianity morality is separated from everything except God? if God determines that the ammonites, babylonians, gay people, actually let's be honest, if God says that a n y o n e is deserving of a judgment, it's not our place to oppose that judgment. is it wrong to do any of those things without God's sayso first? yes. but without? no. remember righteousness is defined by a consistency with God's ideas while sin is defined as the opposition. saying that God can't choose to judge the cannanites or ammonites is like saying we can't execute murderers because that would violate their "right to live". of course we never say that because murderers loose that right by committing the crime. the standard is still objective, and separated from what pseudo christians think and what everyone else thinks.
●When the character god during the myth stories wanted to carry out his judgment on the earth or certain towns, he did it with his power. When the human authors start to give us more of a historical view, it's them(the Israelites) carrying out the judgment. The book was written by humans who claimed that the character god told them to do certain things. ●Do you think human sacrifice is wrong? Was it wrong for Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter to the god character YHWH?
If your deepest intuition is ugly superstition, lurid myth, weird ritual, cruel dogma and worship of a sinister invisible sky monster who holds a passive-aggressive eternal grudge against his own children, then you are already morally dubious.
And don’t those characterizations serve you well? They free you from any responsibility for ever considering the possible truths behind the things you’re so gleefully caricaturing. Make God out to seem ridiculous enough (a purely emotional argument, you student of Christopher Hitchens) and you never have to worry about whether your actions, desires, attitudes, and intentions might be right or wrong. I’m not saying this proves your rejection of God to be incorrect. You’re not wrong in your belief there’s no God *because* you arrived at it dishonestly or argue against him emotionally (or so I believe you have). That would be an ad hominem logic fallacy. I’m just saying that your argument isn’t a logical one and is definitely self-serving. It’s a bunch of name-calling. Trashing. Assertion. And wholly divorced from the real issues. So, maybe smugness isn’t really justified. Sounds bad, though.
Turek frequently says you can be moral and know morality as an atheist. Are you aware of this? What he says is that you have no justification for doing so. Can you justify your moral code and explain why it’s superior to a different moral code? You sound a bit… happy with yourself. Maybe even smug. Where is that smugness coming from, if I’m reading you right? Do you think it’s admirable to have your moral code? Why?
@@TrackedHiker Turek frequently says you can be moral and know morality as an atheist. Are you aware of this? Frankie is failing to walk a tightrope of not insulting people who he may be able to con into converting and sending him money. The fact is when he declares you have no justification for your morals, he is insulting people anyways. Insulting their intelligence and their being. You people are hate, that is all there is to it. >What he says is that you have no justification for doing so. This is how our society functions, which is the justification. If I violate that function, then I can suffer the consequences. >Can you justify your moral code and explain why it’s superior to a different moral code? That is what the argument is all about, christian superiority. Frankie is arguing that you should be christian because god justify your 'morality' and that makes christians superior to everyone else. It's a joke of an argument, as there is no god and us atheists looking at you knows it's a joke. There are 7 billion personal moral codes in the world. There are 195 countries making 195 societal moral codes in the world. Your god does not make your moral code superior, period. > Do you think it’s admirable to have your moral code? Why? Well for one I'm not declaring my moral code superior and not relying on an imaginary friend to justify that supposed 'superior' code.
@@brianpeterson8908 > 'Frankie is failing to walk a tightrope of not insulting people who he may be able to con into converting and sending him money. The fact is when he declares you have no justification for your morals, he is insulting people anyways. Insulting their intelligence and their being. You people are hate, that is all there is to it. ' So you were aware of it. Great. Who are you referring to by "you people"? And what's wrong with hate, in your world view? And why is someone making a philosophical claim insulting people? Are people unable to answer? There are many reasons besides low intelligence that people may not be able to answer. > 'This is how our society functions, which is the justification. If I violate that function, then I can suffer the consequences.' I think you don't understand, after all. He's not asking for a justification for holding the morals. He understands that. He's asking for a justification of why they ought to be followed, why they make sense, why they have any sense of oughtness to them. You're not addressing the real question at all, here. > 'That is what the argument is all about, christian superiority. Frankie is arguing that you should be christian because god justify your 'morality' and that makes christians superior to everyone else. It's a joke of an argument, as there is no god and us atheists looking at you knows it's a joke. ' This is going to sound harsh. And you're going to hate me more than you already do without knowing me, but the superiority problem isn't on Frank's side or my side, friend. There are definitely Christians who get this wrong, I'll agree with that. But no actual mature, genuine Christian thinks he's superior to anyone else. You, on the other hand, with how much of a joke Christians are, definitely feel superior to them. So, um, hypocrite comes to mind? I’m sure that sounds like I think I’m superior for not thinking in superior. Well, I’m a hypocrite. Aren’t you? Admit it, with me. Now one option for you is to stop seeing things through the lens of superiority. Can you be SURE you aren’t seeing that because you’re afraid you may actually be inferior? If you are secure, then give the topic a rest already. The fact is, I know my own darkness. I don't think I'm better than you. On average, within my value system, Christians think they're much worse than atheists think they themselves are within atheist value systems. Maybe you didn't know that? I think the Christian moral system is *justified* (though there's difficulty getting everything perfect so lots of humility is required), and I think the atheist moral system is not *justified* (in the philosophical way that you seem to not understand, AT ALL). You don't have to be a Christian. Don't ever become a Christian because of a "superior moral code." Anyone running that sales program (and that's not what Turek is doing) is OFF BASE. Instead, try to get what he's actually saying. The atheist cannot actually call *anything* good or evil, all claims to moral codes are 100% subjective, what's "good for people" or "good for society" or "rooted in biology" or any and all of that mess is basically meaningless. Atheists cannot say that there's anything truly wrong with torturing and shredding infants, can't actually say Hitler did anything wrong, and so on and so forth. They can get upset, and insult, and call people who ask these questions nasty names and insinuate they're dangerous or corrupt or evil etc. etc., but they just expose their hypocrisy by using those words in anger about the questions That Must Not Be Asked Because They Make Atheists Feel Bad And Suggest They Are Monsters For Not Being Able To Say Child Molestation Is Actually Wrong Even Though That Is True. Look, I know this sounds horrible, but at the end of the day, can't you and other atheists just embrace your beliefs and live out of them? I just interacted with one who did, though it was sure hard to get there. He just admitted there's no good or evil, nothing can be called truly good or bad, it's all just feelings and preferences, and he's cool with that. More power to him, if he's okay with that system. But let's be REAL. The people who can't do that, and get angry at the Christians for pointing out that's what their system actually is, are just blaming the messenger. Illegitimately. Hypocritically. > 'There are 7 billion personal moral codes in the world. There are 195 countries making 195 societal moral codes in the world. Your god does not make your moral code superior, period. ' I mean, if God exists and created the universe, and you, then his moral code is just a wee bit superior. I get that you disagree this is the case, but try to address the argument on its own merits, maybe? Stop all the complaining and just get to the point, "well, God doesn't exist, so never mind all that!" Of course, you're still left with the problem that then *everyone's* morals are completely subjective and basically meaningless. Live in meaninglessness, if that's reality to you. Figure out how to do it. Don't be mad at us for thinking meaning exists, and for wishing everyone could live in reality and have the best life possible, forever, without having to be extinguished or otherwise suffer the consequences of the sickness we all suffer from. > 'Well for one I'm not declaring my moral code superior and not relying on an imaginary friend to justify that supposed 'superior' code.' So do you? Do you admit that there's no right, no wrong, no evil, no good. Just preferences, and feelings. Just animals being animals. Just molecules bouncing around, quantum foam jiggling, brains having electrical storms, an ant fell off a boulder and a knife stuck into a person's back. A cow was slaughtered and eaten and a baby was slaughtered and eaten. It's all just life. Nothing to see here. We all hope to have good lives and try to create a society where we can pretend that death isn't coming, comfort ourselves a bit along the weay, and when we're dead that's The End. Goodbye. Hope we had luck along the way. We all want to live in a little fantasy of security and safety and normalcy, even though that's all meaningless. I mean, maximize your own pleasant and pleasurable feelings, because that's all you have. You have sensations. And you have memories. And you have trying to survive. And if someone tortures you to death along the way, too darn bad, because there's no retribution, there's no real justice, no one is going to be punished like they deserve, and our society is just make-believe, grunting, squealing, bleating animal-humans scribbling their graffiti and oinking their "thoughts" as if they were truths yanked from reality. You embrace all that and have no issues with it whatsoever? No desire to honestly inquire (in the way that such inquiry requires) into whether God just might exist, and if so, what he might be like?
Regardless of emotion if you hurt another human being it is always wrong, you can’t have someone enjoy a rape ever because there is never consent. with this in mind why would you try to go up against this and create a paradox saying that rape is not objectively wrong. We aren’t animals, we care if we hurt others and feel bad about it because of intuitions.
@@Telamonian Saying it's not OBJECTIVELY wrong does not create a paradox. Just like saying Margot Robbie is not OBJECTIVELY attractive does not create a paradox even though the majority of people immediately recognize her as such. It is enough to say that the majority of sane, empathetic people find rape clearly, and obviously wrong.
I've seen lots of atheists claim objective morality when it comes to judging the Bible. That's a funny thing how morality suddenly is no longer subjective when it comes to judging the scriptures, huh Barb?
@@kinggenius930 - *An atheist can believe in objective morality Tom...* My question to you is, what type of *objective morality* can atheists believe in?
@@keithjackson4985 I'm certainly not condoning pedophilia, but do you accept that the vast majority of pedophiles are of no threat to children, in that, they have thoughts about them. If i had a bad thought about you Keith, and you didnt know about it, would you be hurt in any way shape or form? Think about it.
@@bonnie43uk I'm male. Heterosexual. I don't sit around and think about raping women! Whoever does, I would call that a problem. Just like someone who sits around and thinks about sex with a child! It's depraved!
1. In modern Western Civilization is it considered immoral to have sex with children, so, it is no surprise that a Western Atheist would hold such a position as if it was an "Objective" moral because it has been ingrained in him since birth by his family and culture. 2. In the Islamic World, on the other hand, it is absurd to even ask this question because Child marriage, Marriage between close relatives; cousins, is considered perfectly and Objectively Moral.
My 2 cents: You don't need a God to work out a basic system of morals, we've had thousands of years to fine tune our morals, and we're still fine tuning them as we speak. In 100 years time, future generations might look back at us and think "My Goodness, .. how could they treat animals like that, how barbaric".
Or rather, how could they treat their babies worse than the animals do? Dissecting them live in the womb and profiting from it in the name of promiscuity without consequences. That’s true barbarism.
You’re making the same error 90% of the people who interact with Turek make. He himself says, frequently, that atheists can be moral. So… what’s the point of repeating that? What are you opposing, here?
@@TrackedHiker I'm opposing the proposition that morality is objective Erik. Certainly, we can have an objective, as in a goal, but how best to achieve that goal is very much subjective in my humble opinion. Would you say that lying is objectively immoral?, or does it very much depend on the situation?, eg, sometimes telling a lie can be the more moral thing to do.
@@festushaggen2563 I certainly would not regard a collection of cells as a human being Festus, btw, I'm not in favor of abortions overall. Are you in favor of aborting an ectopic pregnancy?
There's no such thing as objective morality. Your morality, if you follow the Bible, is also subjective. But even more to the point, Christians have no morality. They have only obedience under the threat punishment and the promise of reward. Only atheists can be moral.
Apostate! Thete is now therefore no more cleansing gor sin. He's trampled the blood of Jesus under foot Don't think so Paul dea this clearly This man has died his own soul He's condemned from his own mouth th with
How do you find objective morality? The same way you find objective reality. Reality is what three or more in isolation can agree on without conspiring = Objectively true. With objective truths it doesn't matter if you agree with them or not that is the beauty of them and why they work e.g. Take a tree ask three different people separately one at a time to describe that thing over there if they describe the same thing then that thing is objectively real, with only two people one could be colour blind leading to two opposing reports "it's a blue thing", "it's a red thing", that is why a minimum of three is needed. The more people aka the majority who report the same information on what that thing over there is without conspiring (Talking to each other) reveals that thing is real aka reality and that means it's an objective truth which is how you were able to discover it to be real in the first place. (Note: Discovering the truth not creating it) Similarly you don't find morality by asking people what they will allow to happen to others you find morality by observing what they won't allow others to do to them. A thief will say stealing from people is fine but don't steal from them = Stealing is wrong. You then apply the majority filter to this as you will find some want to be stolen from but the majority position is stealing from them is wrong = Stealing is wrong. Now just like the colour blind person there is people with deviances or issues which will make them Atypical so when we take stock of morality just like we did with reality we find there are objective truths even though these truths are not 100% agreed upon nor is that agreement required as the truth is revealed in the majority just like the truth of the tree was revealed in the majority. This holds true for just about everywhere meaning all people couldn't conspire with all people and it couldn't be taught to them as some had never had outsiders until that time, yet even though the different peoples of the world are separate and different from each other in so many ways when compared it reveals a unknowing consensus among the peoples on morality, steal from them but not from me (stealing is wrong), I can cheat on you but you cannot cheat on me (adultery is wrong), take their life not mine (murder is wrong). This unknown consensus reveals there is indeed objective morality just like how the unknown consensus among the peoples revealed there is indeed objective reality. (Note: Truth found not made) There is a underlying morality that the world agrees on without conspiring = Objectively true.
@@buTterflykiSsses So, if we are all liars, that means you are probably lying about Jesus being the only truth... Should be a little bit more careful with your words.
![ไข้ขึ้นเลย! เมื่อแฝดโดนจัดเต็มวัคซีนครบ2เดือน🤒 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.54 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z2VHItnyyvY/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Sub Thai] APT. - ROSÉ & Bruno Mars](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bYjhzP8x_uc/mqdefault.jpg)
Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear but of power and of love and of a sound mind. 1 Timothy 2:7
He's also apparently giving you guys a remarkable amount of child rapists that keep getting passed around and found out after twenty years of having access to prey.
And the best answer you can give is that it's not your responsibility.
More like "and God gave them over to a reprobate mind, their conscious seared with a hot iron"
Frank Turek. God Bless you my friend. My name is Presley Fryingpan. I live in Fort McMurray Alberta Canada. I would like to meet you if you ever come through here. You are really encouraging to me. A blessing from above. Amen!
Still oil up there? I found it hard to live there with so little to do when I worked there.
@@kevinleitner1103 probably another boom here soon. God willing. Amen!
I like Dr. Frank Turek as well. Another great Evangelist is Ray Comfort. No one can refute the good person test he has.
You could meet him on his online Cross examined community with activities like monthly Q&A sessions that go on in there.
@@lancedooley7558
Have you ever told the truth?
Ok you’re a truth teller.
Have you ever given anything to anyone?
Ok, you’re a generous truth teller.
Ray Comfort refuted.
Can’t help but wonder if someone who can’t make an objective statement about a moral issue, has struggled/struggles personally with said issue. Not accusing, just wondering.
Because he is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness because his deeds are evil. You’re probably right
Can you make an objective statement about attractiveness? Have you struggled to know who you find attractive?
I have never wanted to do child r*pe or the Holocaust but it is not objectively morally wrong to do those things.
not because im implying that those things are good or that i want them, but because objective morality is a nonsensical concept to measure things by, since "good" is only good if you have a certain goal in mind, and you can evaluate whether something is good for that goal or bad for that goal, instead of just slamming your fist on the table and saying "it's _good_ doggone it!"
@@MrRF007 have you considered the argument from "no you are" because that's the level that we're at when you just accuse people of being evil and hating the truth, with no evidence
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 individuals can’t make objective claims? Sounds like you just did…
This is SO comical, it’s the self contradiction of relativism. Relativism just cannot say ANYTHING and expect to be believed.
I don't understand why so many people assume that just because we have a strong negative emotional reaction towards child molestation, or a strong desire for such actions to not to occur, that therefore we have an intuition that child molestation is objectively wrong (i.e. something that ought not occur independently of the values and attitudes of an observer). My feeling of repugnance towards child molestation tells me absolutely nothing about whether molestation is objectively wrong, regardless of whether theism is true or false.
I like his t-shirt "contradict, they can't all be true"
@Lucas seattle "None of them can be proven to be true"
This is a claim in itself. One that you haven't proven to be true
@Lucas seattle By asking for evidence actually just shows you don't know how the Bible and God works. You made a false assumption in the beginning as most all athiest do, because you have assumed it works the way that you insist that it works. I do believe there is actual evidence but I think if it were presented to you, you would not be able to comprehend it. Or see it or hear it in. Other words.. God said some people even though they see do not see and even though they hear do not hear. See how this verse conflicts with your request for this evidence you so desperately are searching for. What good is evidence if some people see but yet do not see.
@Lucas seattle humans wanted somone they could see with there eyes. They were given Jesus Christ but they did not recognize him and they killed him. If I were looking for evidence, I would look at the prophecies because that's basically the purpose of prophecies to literally predict the future perfectly. Which only God could possibly do. The Bible says that you must find God. You must find him, then he isn't readily apparent. It means you have to search for something first in order to find something. God is a God who hides himself. He is hidden, Your evidence will do no good here. These are matters of the spirit and what's in a man's heart and mind.
@Lucas seattle Is it possible that God exist and you simply do not know it? The answer is Yes and case closed.
@Lucas seattle Yea but we're not talking about leprechauns.
Singing= "I love You, Lord and I lift my voice to worship You Oh my soul rejoice. Take joy my King in what You hear, let it be a sweet sweet sound in Your ear."
Hi Sweet Bee 👋, that's awesome 🙏👍❤
@@TomMichael5678 thank you brother 🙏 Sometimes ya just gotta worship through the noise and nonsense
@@memastarful
Absolutely 100% true sister, and there seems to be no end in sight of the *"noise"* Christians are enduring.
God bless you and your daughter Sweet Pea with His most amazing gift, His peace and His love.
Matthew 6 5
@@Mavors1099
What's that have to do with the comments here?
Context please!
Jesus Saves, John 14:6 amen 🙏🏾
Amen!
@@SGOV86 Romans 3:23-26 amen 🙏🏾
Confess Jesus as Lord. Romans 10
“Why don’t you just trust your intuition?”
“Because intuition can be wrong sometimes”
“Yeah but it FEELS right”
“It could feel right and still be wrong”
“Yeah but it feels VERY right”
Our hearts are deceitful. We must stay in prayer and God's word to make sure we align with God🙏❤️ feelings aren't inately wrong, but leaning on our own understanding will fail us. We must compare our hearts with Gods word and if it goes against God, it is wrong❤️🙏
“this argument are so emotionally charged” proceeds to make an emotional appeal defending himself. 🤦🏾♂️
No he didn't. Where?
@@mustachemac5229 38 seconds in
@@brandonmarriott5438 ok. Nothing.
@@mustachemac5229 he says " a moral objectivist will pose a question like that, that is so emotionally charged." Not a big deal just thought you wanted to know when he stated that.
I pray John reads his Bible because it says in Jeremiah 17:9 " the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Who can know it?"
This verse is why I take great care and caution when I "feel' something.
This guy and his "feelings" are subjectively confused. He couldn't make an objective decision to save his life. Seriously, dirt is dirt, air is air, water is water. You can "sell" yourself on anything with feelings.
i'm all ears for a way to defend that objective morality exists beyond what people feel
@@Greyz174 it takes a law-giver like God to have any objective morals. If you reject God, then you’re right, there’s no objective morality. But can you admit it? Can you actually not just say it but live it out, and why or why not?
Please do confirm: the only thing you can really say about shredding infants and torturing them to death for no good reason is that you don’t LIKE those things and you feel bad about them? Be honest. And no, I’m not going to instantly say “then you’re a bad person” because I already know you are for simply believing there is no objective right and wrong.
I mean, you SHOULD expect anyone different from you to have differences in morality, because there’s no standard and thus no measure of which morals are correct or incorrect, and each person simply makes up or feels his way into whatever arbitrary morals he wants to have… RIGHT? So the moment someone else’s morals are different from yours, then you by definition are almost certainly evil in everyone else’s eyes, in every way that you deviate from their morality.
@@TrackedHiker "So the moment someone else’s morals are different from yours, then you by definition are almost certainly evil in everyone else’s eyes, in every way that you deviate from their morality."
Not if I don't think morality exists! :)
Yeah I think that shredding infants just comes down to "we all really really don't want that to happen, that's going to hurt a lot of people for a bunch of reasons, this is just super impractical and we have no feasible reason to be OK with this" and saying "it's wrong!" is a convenient shorthand for that
@@Greyz174 okay then.
1. What’s the problem with hurting a bunch of people?
2. What’s the drive to avoid the impractical?
3. Do you personally take whatever advantage you can in life, for the most self-advantage, and as long as you’re pretty sure you won’t get caught, you do whatever you want?
@Lucas seattle your argument is very flawed. Humans are basically the only animal species that will self mutilate, purposefully kill their offspring for convenience and betterment of self NOT society, and kill their same kind for their ideals. The betterment of society argument does not cut it. And the evolution argument, don't even go there with the transformation of humans' sexual desires to breed with the same sex. A rooster can't lay an egg.
I always say there is an objective reality we can choose to follow, the problem is that societies tend to have their own subjective oppions on everything concerning morality so it's confusing.
@Lucas seattle that is all true, and speaking of Christians saying capital punishment is okay, there are two points. One is because Jesus Christ forgives everything we should also. The second point of view and it is that in the Bible, the big things like obduction, rape, murder... Resulted in a death penalty as punishment for wrong doing. So the death penalty is biblical, but as a society it depends on rather we want to forgive that person or give them justice for their wrong doing.
What's your opinion on capital punishment or wars if you don't mind sharing your oppion on it and if you have to time to talk about it.
@@dickersoncharlie4961 He still destroyed Sodom and gommora. You say he forgives everything, but yet he turned lots wife into a pillar of salt. Someones wrong here
@@OMAELITE I think that happend I'm the book of Genesis with Sodom and Gomorrah, personally I don't believe everything I read from it but I do always take the lessons that it teaches out if it, from what I heard they where cities that exsteamly sinful constantly for a long so they where destroyed in that story, Lots and his wife's one command from God was "don't look back at the city when it is destroyed" she looked back and then she turned to salt. I personally don't think that is a fact or If it really happened but the moral lesson is follow directions
@@dickersoncharlie4961 I believe it literally actually happened.
He doesn't suggest having kids that close appart.
What is a kid? Does he know what it is? Is it just an experience he had and he believes he had a similar experience many that have over the years?if he is doubting so many things in the world, he has decieved himself.
Plus yeah you can know what is morally right most of the time just by seeing if all parties agree to the common act. Molestation is not agreed to by all parties, nor can kids ever have the cognizance to do so. It's basically rape.
John 3:16-21 💝
What? When did Jon fall back? One of my favorite songs ever is Crazy Love, and I'm an old guy of 65! I'm amazed when Christians fall back. I want to scream in their faces, staring them in the eyes, "WHAT IN THIS WORLD WILL YOU FIND THAT'S BETTER THAN CHRISTIANITY!? EVEN IF IT'S NOT TRUE, THERE'S NO BETTER LIFE OR MORAL SYSTEM". I learned that from C.S. Lewis. Not the screaming part, just the sentiment.
Why is there a pic of The Black Phone as the thumbnail lol. Is it like a tie to child molestation?
Nobody should EVER be molested, regardless of age.
Especially not in a church, by 'men of god'. For 2000 years.
When I first was watching this, I thought the truth that “child molestation is wrong” could be viewed as subjective in a sense due to cultural differences. Like in different countries or even different time periods, girls were being married off at very young ages. Now we would definitely say that’s not right but I wonder how can the statement be objective if there’s so many different layers. Like what is considered a child, what is considered molestation? Does it depend on culture and time? Etc.
Well generally speaking it is wrong to harm someone without justification, and that is especially true if that person is at certain ages. Just because you personally can't perfectly identify where the boundaries are does not mean that those boundaries do not exist. The fact that morality is objective does not come from an ability of humans to know exactly where to draw the line, but from the understanding that some actions are wrong regardless of context and that something can be believed to be correct by the majority of people and still be wrong.
@@JJJSmit9026 yes I agree completely. I think with this specific example I wonder what God’s perspective is. Like in America children getting married is a big no. If a child under 18 has sex with someone older it’s rape bc of age of consent. What about in biblical times?
I just don’t know what God’s objective point of view is
Premise 1. If objective morality exists, the truth value of moral propositions like "molestation is wrong" doesn't depend on the attitudes of a subject.
Premise 2. On Frank's view, the truth value of such propositions does depend on the attitudes of God, who is a subject.
Conclusion: Therefore, if Franks view is correct, objective morality does not exist.
When a person starts with with "I feel like", my brain instantly dismisses anything they say.
Because tbh I don't care what you feel, and neither does reality
Not caring about other people's feelings is quite psychopathic
You fell for Franks set up hook line and sinker. So easily fooled.
@@akoskormendi9711 but he just expressed his feelings on the topic. Are you saying you don’t care about his feelings, you psychopath?
@@frankcardano4142 Make an actual argument. Anyone who listens to these emotional appeals of yours is just being easily fooled.
Or is my “no YOU” invalid somehow, and why?
And that's how you feel.
Atheist: I believe that child molestation is wrong. That is my personal opinion.
Christian: Why do you not believe that child molestation is objectively wrong?
Atheist: Because I lack your arrogance and hypocrisy.
How is believing child molestation being objectively wrong due to arrogance and hypocrisy?
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
@@TomMichael5678
It is arrogance to claim your personal preferences are objectively true, no matter what they are, and hypocrisy to make such a claim while adopting a religion that condones child molestation.
Makes perfect sense.
@@cygnusustus
Back up that claim and provide the evidence that Christianity condones this?
And btw, why are you complaining about something being condoned, when you've just stated it's subjective, no matter what it is?
Nonsensical logic, your opinion is irrelevant.
@@TomMichael5678
Read your Bible, boy.
Numbers 31:
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
"And btw, why are you complaining about something being condoned, when you've just stated it's subjective, no matter what it is?"
What does being subjective have to do with whether or not I am justified in objecting to it, child?
"Nonsensical logic"
Let's just drop the pretense that you either understand or care about logic shall we?
@@TomMichael5678 Back up that claim and provide the evidence that Christianity condones this?
Oh that's easy, Southern Baptists have been covering up their perverted pastors for decades and were just outed. The leadership of a christian sect which I bet a lot of people here belong, condoned it.
The Hammurabi code and the 42 negative confessions of Maat are both more encompassing than the Ten Commandments which were written centuries later.
The priesthoods of shemites was around many places in the near east and Asia, in Egypt it was in Heliopolis a lot so of course you'll find similarities, also besides that many of these cultures gleamed from sumerians first 2 epochs of ruling tribes which especially before babel so they'd have similarities in thoughts across humanity and that shouldn't be surprising, especially if it's a culture close to the biblical one and one that interacted heavily with it's people.
Correlation doesn't equal causation my friend, more laws doesn't mean more comprehensiveness in any positive or negative way.
@@nazareneoftheway3936
“More laws don’t mean more comprehensiveness”?
Lol. Err. Yes they do.
They include the few in the Ten Commandments plus many many more.
Apart from the ones that command you to only believe in this one monotheistic fictitious god of the bible.
The other codes offer a far more broader set of rules.
Rules that ancient men were trying to establish as rules to live by.
It seems so obvious that it's objectively morally wrong to drown almost all of humanity in a global flood, why would Frank suggest that Jahwe is an all loving good God when it's obvious Jahwe is evil. Why? I don't get it.
I would love to see Frank going through "poof or drown" thought experiment with Pinecreek and see how consistent he would be with his moral intuition. I guess he would bloviate so hard.
Apparently, God isn’t subject to his earthly commandments.
@@TestTest-vk4xk Nice essay but you missed my point. Frank asserts that molesting children is "obviously wrong" and says that Jon is going against his moral intuition. I guess Frank's moral intuition would tell him that drowning almost all of humanity in a flood is bad (I think Frank is on record believing in global flood, not local drowning) but when morally assessing action of God drowning humans he would go against that intuition. While for Jon going against moral intuition is somehow a problem.
I understand that for you, God can take life in the most horrific way imaginable and still it would be objectively good. I get that God could take your life by impalement and while in lenghy agony you would praise God for transfering you to another place and declaring how impalment by God is objectively morally good. I get that.
@@TestTest-vk4xk
Lol. The Noah’s flood story is made up of two stories rolled into one.
That’s the reason for the nearly dozen contradictions.
Child molestation is WRONG doesnt matter what sort od wro g its just wrong pure and simple
In a court case, at a certain point, the judge requires the answer from the jury based on the evidence presented. It's either guilty or not guilty. But you can't just vote not guilty. Because if the accused is guilty he will harm again, but if he's innocent, you don't want to send an innocent person to prison or death because of your failure to be able to make a decision based on facts like a grown up. So when presented with evidence that you don't like, be a man and make a decision based on facts. It's obvious if it wasn't about Jesus, if it wasn't about a moral God, it would be easy to do so, but people forestall the decision making process, and try to cry "hung jury" when they really should be again making a decision based on evidence. In that case, the decision is VERY clear. And just be a man about it and face the consequences (which are actually really good by the way).
How many of his followers has he convinced to also lose their faith?
Jon just sounds confused. I pray he finds his way back to the truth.
And where are these deep moral intuitions? Are they in the heart? So instead of doubting those, should you follow them, aka follow your heart? Because you have a few videos in the past couples days saying to not follow you heart.
Remember back in grammar school when they taught you that a word can have more than one meaning? Perhaps you were sick that day in school?
Your little smug attack on Frank is pathetic. Either you’re a mental clod or you’re a nasty person, because it doesn’t take much THINKING to understand what he means. “Heart” is poetic, so unless you think he’s saying heart surgeons find little written inscriptions during surgery on people, you’re going to have to work a little harder to bring an actual critique.
How hard do you have to try to reason your way out of being reasonable?
I ask theists this question all the time.
@@mustachemac5229 you're watching the right channel.
@@mustachemac5229 The answer is, “not very hard.” Atheists demonstrate it all the time.
@@ricksonora6656 I would argue that theists are better at weaseling their way out of things. They demonstrated all the time.
Jon why would you Feel like a bad person if morality is subjective?
Notice how many times Jon said """ I feel"" as opposed to what I know is wrong or right conscience means with knowledge"""" it's not what we feel it's what we know to be wrong or right but he suppressing it he's going with feelings instead of what's actually wrong and right the Bible makes it clear we know what's right and wrong but we suppress the truth this guy never was a born again Christian it's like that verse in the Bible says they went out from us because they never belonged to us"""""that definitely describes this guy he never was saved but he can be he can be if he just gets the truth and allows Christ to take the blinders off his eyes
Amén
Yep. Should a jury decide your guilt or innocence based upon evidence that they hear or should they decide on how they "feel".
@@philipgibbs5751 faxxxxx
So is it right to beat your slave as long as they don't die within a day or two? Because your Bible seems to think so... 🤔
So, if had said "I know" instead of "I feel", then would have been his points valid?
If you have children, or a niece/nephew, or a brother/sister, or you simply see a child walking in the grocery store with their parents, and then you personally witness them being sexually harmed, would you try to stop it or simply shrug your shoulders and walk away? It’s one thing to only hear about it happening, and an entirely different thing to see it happen with your own eyes. The impact on you is different. What we all need to wrap our heads around is that whether we see it or not, it is still happening. And it is just as disgustingly evil when it is done out of sight. It needs to stop, and those who practice/support pedophilia or think its okay, ya’ll deserve to be thrown into boiling oil. Children do not deserve to be the victims of such abuse and we should therefore protect them against the absolute shi**y garbage of society.
Okay, so, everything you just said: does it apply to the two largest churches in the US being found out for child abuse? Catholic and Southern Baptist?
Because literally, the statistically most likely place for child rape to occur in America is the Church. And if I'm wrong, feel free to name any other institution in the US that is in danger of going BANKRUPT for raping too many children. Children are most often assaulted by someone they knew, and youth pastors count as "someone you know."
You guys are screaming about pedophilia being among your enemies, and you can't talk about the biggest, most obvious child rape occurrences happening right in front of you. Is this a bad time to mention that your side also elects leadership that has credible criminal charges of rape and assault? Matt Gaetz gets a pass but theoretical liberals in your head are worse?
Log in your own eye, people. Yeesh!
@@coyoteclockworkstudios3140 My comment applies to all organizations, religions, cults, businesses, states, countries and people groups. EVERY ONE OF THEM. Jesus Christ should NOT be blamed for what so-called fake Christians do. Someone who harms a child so sickeningly deserves Gods wrath. I never mentioned Christianity in my comment, but you discerned true that I am Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, but the church is now overrun by ‘fakers in the church’ (and these ‘fakers’ include infiltrating satanists/witches, people who are only there because it fits their lifestyle, or those who like to get a paycheck by standing behind a pulpit). The Bible warned us that the church would be like this in the end times before the tribulation - a generation of “Me, Myself and I.” Good will be considered evil and evil will be considered good - (consider the tens of millions of abortions, the LGBTQ debacle, one world currency/religion/state being pushed on us which will require all nations to topple…and what about this new “sudden death syndrome?”). That’s the world we currently live in. All warned about in the Bible. We must all tread carefully to not be deceived, as deception is everywhere. Good bless, Coyote.
If I have an intuition against child molestation, then I do not need a God to hold that belief.
In fact, with that intuition I have to reject religions such as Christianity which condone and excuse child molestation.
When does the Bible condone it?
@@timmyalley6621
One can hardly spit in the Old Testament without moistened some atrocity commanded by your god, but my favorite example is Numbers 31: 17-18.
@@cygnusustus verse 2 seems to explain that one pretty well
@@timmyalley6621
Yep. Illustrates genocide, slavery, infanticide, and rape. All in one tidy package.
@@cygnusustus Are you sure?
I think the best argument for God or at the very least an intelligent creator, is DNA. Why? Because instructions don't write themselves. Plain and simple.
No it’s not DNA.
Geneticist Francis Collins uses the fine tuning of the universe for his god belief.
How do you know that? RNA has been synthesized in a lab and organic compounds have been found in meteorites.
@@frankcardano4142 Francis Collins also supports the theory of evolution.
@@rf7477
He explains in his book how we know all mammals are related.
From the same patterns of truncated genes in our DNA. It’s a slam dunk for human evolution.
@@frankcardano4142 Yeah. Ummm still waiting on that abiogenesis theory. 🤣😂 They want evolution to be true so badly, but it just doesn't hold water.
If he had good reason to doubt his experience before, he definitely does now!
Wow. Just wow.
What’s the problem?
Feelings and experiences?
doubting your deepest moral intuitions is a very dark and depressing path. Not saying it's wrong, but beware how deep the rabbit-hole goes when you are constantly fine-tuning your beliefs. It's an endless nightmare.
There is hidden sin in his life they begin to slowly back slide
Should we doubt our deepest moral intuitions when they conflict with what's written in the bible?
@@chad969 it depends on whether you are a theist or atheist.
Christians would not find conflict with what is written in the bible. They would find conflict with their interpretation of scripture, which is where the Holy Ghost intervenes to counsel their moral convictions. I think this is how scripture transitions from the prescriptive into the descriptive when we blend our common-sense morals with our best moral theory.
I think this is the case so that Christians can maintain their position tenable while still living in harmony with non-Christians.
@@Godlimate "Christians would not find conflict with what is written in the bible."
So if a self professed Christian tells me (and many have) that they're bothered by some of the things that God commanded the Israelites to do in the old testament, I can safely conclude that they're not a true Christian. Would that be correct?
@@chad969 wouldn’t *typically find conflict, sorry.
I’m sure if you agree to certain perimeters, you could draw conclusions and find them to be “threshold Christians”. But that said, do those Christians agree on those terms? I’d need more info about the reasons why they are bothered but still remain Christian.
CLEARLY, the world is going crazy when it says harming children isn't wrong.
Yet your bible god had them slammed against stones.
Was harming children wrong when God commanded it in the bible?
@@chad969 He's the one who created life,so he has the right to do so Miss but not us
@@donn07 So if someone's moral intuition told them that killing infants and children is wrong regardless of who does it or commands it, their intuition would be wrong. Is that correct?
@@chad969 No,such a moral intuition that killing children is wrong is ABSOLUTELY correct, why don't you listen to the debates of Frank Turek miss, he'll be able to answer all your questions 👍
Bob Dylan said if you say you lost your faith, you never had any to begin with
Nope.
What he ACTUALLY said (in his lyrics):
"You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at
You have no faith to lose, and ya know it"
Christians caught lying once again...
@@cygnusustus you can't lose faith, anymore than you can lose your mind.
@@craigfleming8849
You can lose both, fool. You'd know that if you had not already lost the second.
Morality by definition is objective, if it wasn't, there wouldn't be such thing as morality.
Arguably, morality is subjective by definition. Without any subjects to prefer one outcome over another, there would be no morality. “God’s opinion is paramount because he can hurt you,” is absolutely a form of subjective morality.
If I steal from you, I'm more happy because I have more money, why do I have to care what you think or feel?
@@weirdwilliam8500 Point me to a culture that views theft murder and grape as inherently positive actions. Oh? You can't? Then morality is objective. Just that simple.
@@BerishaFatian sounds like your quoting Marx. steeling money from the rich to give to the poor
No but even if I am, what's wrong with that?
There is the physical action associated with certain deeds, that's objective. And then there is the interpretation of those deeds that's based on how they affect your sensitivities, that's subjective.
But what do you mean by sensitivities in this sense exactly?
Somebody with some common sense.
Frank, you're not listening to him. He didn't say he doesn't think it's wrong. He said he thinks it's subjective.
Just because something may be subjective to someone, doesn't mean it's not wrong for them.
It's like you totally ignore his words.
This guy is so deconstructed that he's lost any sense of morality.
You can see it in his eyes..... he's justifying something he's done/doing
Frank doesn't understand the words he is using
Objectively = 1) in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
2) in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence.
How are you going to apply this to harming children? No mind, no child... no personal feelings, no right or wrong.
Humans are social animals, that is where morality comes from. What is deemed good or bad within that society. Most societies will share common moral thinking (murder, child abuse, etc), but that does not make it Objectively moral. It is a well followed and shared subjective morality. Morality is the result of social animal's evolution within a society. You see a sense of morality in many social animals... monkey, elephants, dogs
That isn't where morality comes from. Humans did not create their own minds which perceive an inherent moral standard.
Point me to a culture that views cart blanche murder as an objective right. Until you can, morality is objective.
@@reality1958 Humans are not the author of their own creation so therefore they are not the author of morality.
@@juhadexcelsior Your parents are your creator.
@@juhadexcelsior "Point me to a culture that views cart blanche murder as an objective right."?? Have you never read the Bible? The God of the Bible commits and calls for genocide many times.
@@reality1958 The God of the Bible is not moral by my subjective opinion.
It is a jealous God that demands that it's servants fear it.
It commits genocide and demands that its servants commit it as well.
It lays out rules for slavery and treats women as property.
It tortured it's the most loyal servants Abraham and Job just to test their blind obedience and loyalty.
Good
I got up to 50 seconds of this nonsense. If you can't say child molestation is wrong - FULL STOP - there is something wrong with you. This guy was never a Christian in the first place.
He can say it was wrong.
I agree he must have never knew Jesus to begin with because once you know him, how could you deny his existence? Even if I decided to turn away, I couldn’t deny he exists because we’ve met. He saved my life and soul.
@@sandina2cents779 Weird how so many Christians feel they have the superpower of being able to judge the sincerity of a stranger's belief
This conversation obviously went over your head...
That's what you get from "Christian" Rock, which has no solid foundation and is only "Christian" in order to appeal to that audience by making money off them, because they wouldn't "make it" in the mainstream rock scene.
Never heard of him or this band. But if he's "no longer a Christian", it means he was never one to begin with. Once you are born again you cannot be unborn. Sad.
1 John 2:19 they went out from us because they never belonged to us and TH-cam big Tech Marxist scumbags TH-cam keeps trying to delete mine and violate my free speech by deleting my comments I can hardly wait till God's brutal and I mean brutal deadly physical wrath rips them to shreds every one of these marxists that keep trying to delete our comments they're going to get ripped to shreds God has promised his deadly wrath and it's going to be a beautiful thing to watch when he slays them and rips them apart Psalms 50 verses 20 through 22
You don’t think can fall away from the faith? Are you a Calvinist?
@@thekolobsociety im not a calvinist but remember david? and solomon? david killed a man to take his wife, still saved, and solomon worshipped another false god to gain favor of a woman. both were saved, because they got into the covenant, they were incapable of leaving it even if they wanted to.
"Never tell a person Santa 🎅 isn't real because if you do, a kid will say you was never a believer anyway."
The belief in Santa is more than a belief in the mind and heart of a little kid. To that little kid, it's the TRUTH.
@@aaronmonroe7932 marxists scumbags TH-cam will NEVER EVER STOP OR HIDE THE TRUTH OF CHRIST NEVER!!!!!
_"It seems so obvious that it's objectively morally wrong, why would you suggest it's subjective"_
Because that's literally what the term "subjective" refers to. If you have nothing to back something up other than your own intuitions and feelings - that's subjective. It only becomes objective if it can be confirmed to be true external to your own subjective experience. Gravity objectively exists, because apples fall in the external wall - we don't just have an "intuition" that they will fall. We can't set up an equivalent test for objective morality.
This is the hole in Frank's moral argument. He wants to use objective morality to prove that God exists, but he has no way to detect whether objective morality actually exists.
*He wants to use objective morality to prove that God exists, but he has no way to detect whether objective morality actually exists.*
I can prove objective morality exists. Raping a child is objectively immoral. Why? Because using the scientific method, I can produce experiments after experiments wherein the result is the child being harmed during each rape.
That harm to the child, is the objective standard by which I can declare it is objectively immoral to rape a child. Therefore, objective morality exists.
Again:
1. I claim objective morality exists
2. I predict that child rape produces only trauma / pain
3. I can prove it, by examining child rape victims wherein the result is trauma / pain
4. I can reproduce experiments and tests (objectivity), proving that trauma / pain is the direct result of the rape
5. I can prove that child rape is objectively immoral
6. Therefore, objective morality exists.
I agree.
Frank is using "objectively" as if it were an intensifier (like "extremely" or "really") . Are you "really" against child abuse or merely "subjectively" against it? He's implying that a subjective value is less deeply held than an objective value (whatever that means).
@@chosenone8408 The problem is that Frank rejects the premise that harm prevention is the standard for morality. You can objectively prove that an action is consistent with a standard, but you can't objectively prove that a specific standard is the True(tm) standard.
@@chosenone8408 You can also use the same test to examine rapists and their gratification as a result of rape. Why are they excluded if they have a moral standing? The problem with "objective morality" is that it becomes akin to moral fact, which is something incontestable, something that is universal. Yet it is very contestable and opinions are very much divided.
You can't prove that child rape is objectively immoral if you ignore those who have a moral standing for child rape. It's only about as objective insofar as our laws universalising it. But those laws are broken all the time.
@@Godlimate *You can also use the same test to examine rapists and their gratification as a result of rape.*
You’re proving my point. The fact that a person would enjoy harming another person, would prove that action as being immoral.
*Why are they excluded if they have a moral standing?*
Their standing wouldn’t be “moral,” it would by definition be “immoral.”
*The problem with "objective morality" is that it becomes akin to moral fact, which is something incontestable*
I already proved that it is indeed contestable in my previous post. I can use the scientific method to prove that each rape harms the raped. Therefore, rape can be objectively immoral for it harms another person.
*It's only about as objective insofar as our laws universalising it*
This is only partly accurate. The reason we have established law regarding child rape, is because we are aware, convinced, and have seen the harmful illogical construct of immorality and thus, we create laws to dictate against such behavior.
We create law against child rape because we see the logical procession of reason that harming a child for one’s own perverted sexual gratification, is against that child’s health.
Furthermore, we understand that logical procession of thought because we have a moral law giver that is the ultimate authority of what is moral and immoral, that law giver being God.
Jon Steingard apparently holds that something like "objective morality" cannot exist. Depending on how you interpret these words, this can be a valid point, because if "morality" is what we, human beings, consider right or wrong, then this is by definition something subjective.
However, there are other non-theist views out there. Personally, I think part of our morality is derived from our existence as living beings, and in particular our existence as social mammals, and in that sense, as part of our "human nature" if you will, it can be considered "objective".
Moreover, if we find common ground between as many people as possible, we may be able to objectivize our essentially subjective moral opinions and reach a morality that is as objective as it is humanly possible to attain.
This is partly what Dr. Turek is hinting at when he says we all know what we are looking at when we are looking at "yellow" or "a tree", but I disagree with him that this in any way points to a deity. It doesn't at all, as far as I am concerned, quite the opposite.
Well said Hans, if we all agree that beating a dog with a baseball bat is immoral, perhaps we can say it's objectively immoral in that sense.. that we all agree, but you can bet that in reality, in a world of 7 billion people, there will be plenty out there who think that beating a dog with a baseball bat is actually ok. The Bible has some pretty horrific commandments from God himself, that if we were to witness, we would unquestionably call highly immoral. Morals are subjective in the sense that we all use our own sense of reason to figure out right and wrong.
@@bonnie43uk what are the horrific commandments????
I like your reasoning, I agree with most of what is written except for the last part.
@@bonnie43uk The crucial point may be to find the things we can "all" agree on (except for the one or two sociopaths that don't, or the obtuse religious fanatics who pretend they don't). For example, if we can "all" agree that self-preservation is "right" in principle, then it will be "wrong" if I act against your self-preservation, because I expect you to respect my self-preservation.
You said: _"Morals are subjective in the sense that we all use our own sense of reason to figure out right and wrong."_
I agree with that, but because of our shared nature, I think there is a material basis for at least some morals, like self-preservation, and our sense of reason with which we try and figure this stuff out.
@@cisuminocisumino3250 Do you disagree that Dr. Turek says or implies this, or that it doesn't point to a deity?
Jon is right, if there is no God, it can’t be objectively wrong
Is he doing something sinful we don't know about?
Reprobates usually do and that is why they give up the Bible for man's philosophy.
I walked away from your Bible because I could not lower my moral standards far enough to follow it.
Nothing can be provided with 100% certainty. So if that is your bar then it's unrealistic.
WRONG!!!!!!! Bible prophecy happens every single day so your argument is absolutely fallacious
@@jesuschristdestroysmarxism3916 I think you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm saying his bar for knowing something is way too high. If we were able to know everything with a 100% certainty there would be no such thing as faith. As a Christian I understand that there will always be a small level of uncertainty but that's where my faith in God comes in.
@@JSRINTX yes yes I agree God lets us know what he wants us to know and you're right we do have to have faith and we absolutely have to have faith our whole relationship with Jesus Christ is based on faith we put our faith in eternity our eternal life is entrusted in him that's faith
@@jesuschristdestroysmarxism3916 Bible prophecy happens every single day so your argument is absolutely fallacious
LOL, you've lost touch with reality and are vomiting delusion. Prophecy is bull much like your statement.
I didn't follow this conversation at all.Not going to replay it multiple times either.
I think this conversation was part of another discussion they had before and it keeps coming again.
To this day no Christian has demonstrated morality to be objective.
There is right and wrong always?..
could it be that you just ignored everything that we've done to point to such a thing? mabye you aren't even willing to allow us to explain the objective moral principles and how they work. come on, do better.
@@omnitone they just ignore it and then say "see no one has ever shown it to be true." Whilst allowing what theists say to quickly enter one ear and then out the other.
@@omnitone Do explain them. But beside explaining, you kinda have to show it too.
@@akoskormendi9711 what do you mean show it?!?! can you see morality?!?! i sure can't, so i assume that your question is rigged. you will change what it means to "show morality" the moment i try. is this not what you intend to do?
I believe morality is objective as it is regulated by God's law, according to which every person will be judged, but can we truly say everybody has the same "deepest moral intuitions"? We agree on some moral tenets because we share the same "christianized" culture. What about those cultures where, for example, cannibalism is ok? Concerning the harming of children, Leviticus 18:21 states that the people of Israel were not to sacrifice their children (or let them pass through the fire) to Molek. Yet, in the land of Canaan this was common practice - did they struggle morally while burning their children alive? Maybe affectively - but morally?
What I am trying to say is that people can still suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, and there can be large groups of people that do that and don't feel these "deepest moral intuitions" at all. Why's that? Because they are DEAD in their trespasses and sins and live by the FUTILITY of their thinking.
IMHO, morality is objective in the sense that there's nothing higher than God's Law, which sets the bar of moral standard, not in the sense that everybody shares the same moral principles.
I would argue that it is only by the preaching of the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment that people can conform their lives to this "objective morality," or even find out about its existence ("and such were some of you" - 1 Corinthians 6:11).
You seem to be talking about the "christian" god who is easily the most sinister vicious and amoral deity ever invented. Any god that inflicts endless hellish torture on his own children for a deliberate inherited fatal design is not worthy of worship. If you worship such a god, you are morally dubious.
If its regulated by any God's law then is subjective by definition. That means that law is influenced by that God opinions and or feelings.
Correct?
@@babhag5481 that's the thing God is the subject sure but he is giving us an objective to reach. It's an objective moral standard for us to love by.
@@rf7477 why do you say deliberate inherited fatal design?
That is indeed a great question, did warlord Moses struggle morally when he, supposedly by Gods order slaughtered all the midianites, man, woman and boy-child but kept the virgin girls as booty for his fighters.
Poor Frank still doesn't know the difference between subjective and objective beliefs.
Moral objectivism
you should use the commandments as a guide as to how you should live your life , keeping them will not save you but not keeping them will keep you out of heaven , What is sin ? Sin is transgression of the law for without the law I would not know sin , Why did JESUS come to save us because we sin ,
So, you want people to follow the law, but it doesn't matter if you keep the law because keeping the law won't save you... but not keeping the law keeps you out of heaven?
What?🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
That's not correct we should meditate and try are best to keep them but we are only justified by the blood of christ.
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
@@sogiaac777 Revelation 22 v 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments that they may have the tree of life and enter the gate of heaven
Revelation 14 v 12 here is the patience of the saints that keep the commandments of GOD and have the testimony of JESUS CHRIST.
Revelation 12 v 17 The dragon was roth with the woman and the remnant of her seed and went to war with those that keep the commandments of GOD and have the testimony of JESUS CHRIST
Psalms 111 v 7 the hands of his works are true. And his commandments are sure and are FOREVER AND FOREVER,
Yes we are only saved by the grace of GOD through his son JESUS, if you break one commandment you have broken them all , this is when we turn to JESUS and ask him to ask his father for forgiveness, will we sin again yes , Doesnt it say in the scriptures " sin is transgression of the law for without the law I would not know sin " when you pray and ask for GODS forgiveness what do you say , what sin have you committed ? Adultery, theft , Lied , stolen Taken the LORDS name in vane , do you identify with what law you have broken ,
1:40 subjective
●Psalms 137:8-9
8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed.
Happy is the one who pays you back
for what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who takes your babies
and smashes them against the rocks!
●Leviticus 20:1-2, 9-10
20 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Give the people of Israel these instructions, which apply both to native Israelites and to the foreigners living in Israel.
●9 “Anyone who dishonors[a] father or mother must be put to death. Such a person is guilty of a capital offense.
10 “If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the man and the woman who have committed adultery must be put to death.
13 “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
●Judges 11
Jephthah’s Vow
29 At that time the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he went throughout the land of Gilead and Manasseh, including Mizpah in Gilead, and from there he led an army against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord. He said, “If you give me victory over the Ammonites, 31 I will give to the Lord whatever comes out of my house to meet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”(human sacrifice)
32 So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the Lord gave him victory. 33 He crushed the Ammonites, devastating about twenty towns from Aroer to an area near Minnith and as far away as Abel-keramim. In this way Israel defeated the Ammonites.
34 When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter (child sacrifice) came out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. She was his one and only child; he had no other sons or daughters. 35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. “Oh, my daughter!” he cried out. “You have completely destroyed me! You’ve brought disaster on me! For I have made a vow to the Lord, and I cannot take it back.”
36 And she said, “Father, if you have made a vow to the Lord, you must do to me what you have vowed, for the Lord has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But first let me do this one thing: Let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin.”
38 “You may go,” Jephthah said. And he sent her away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. 39 When she returned home, her father kept the vow he had made, and she died a virgin.
So it has become a custom in Israel 40 for young Israelite women to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah’s daughter.
(Vow to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house after he gets back from his battle. He made his vow AFTER THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD CAME UPON HIM)
"God is the same yesterday, today and forever"
We no longer believe these actions are right. Views have been evolving for thousands of years. People will look at the verses above and say but that was the old covenant. I'm starting to feel like this covenant term is just the moral standard changing from that age to this age.
"we no longer believe these things are right"
neither did the people of the old covenant believe that those things were right until you were told so. you realize that in Christianity morality is separated from everything except God? if God determines that the ammonites, babylonians, gay people, actually let's be honest, if God says that a n y o n e is deserving of a judgment, it's not our place to oppose that judgment. is it wrong to do any of those things without God's sayso first? yes. but without? no. remember righteousness is defined by a consistency with God's ideas while sin is defined as the opposition. saying that God can't choose to judge the cannanites or ammonites is like saying we can't execute murderers because that would violate their "right to live". of course we never say that because murderers loose that right by committing the crime. the standard is still objective, and separated from what pseudo christians think and what everyone else thinks.
●When the character god during the myth stories wanted to carry out his judgment on the earth or certain towns, he did it with his power. When the human authors start to give us more of a historical view, it's them(the Israelites) carrying out the judgment. The book was written by humans who claimed that the character god told them to do certain things.
●Do you think human sacrifice is wrong? Was it wrong for Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter to the god character YHWH?
If your deepest intuition is ugly superstition, lurid myth, weird ritual, cruel dogma and worship of a sinister invisible sky monster who holds a passive-aggressive eternal grudge against his own children, then you are already morally dubious.
Lol
Darn right.
And don’t those characterizations serve you well? They free you from any responsibility for ever considering the possible truths behind the things you’re so gleefully caricaturing.
Make God out to seem ridiculous enough (a purely emotional argument, you student of Christopher Hitchens) and you never have to worry about whether your actions, desires, attitudes, and intentions might be right or wrong.
I’m not saying this proves your rejection of God to be incorrect. You’re not wrong in your belief there’s no God *because* you arrived at it dishonestly or argue against him emotionally (or so I believe you have). That would be an ad hominem logic fallacy.
I’m just saying that your argument isn’t a logical one and is definitely self-serving. It’s a bunch of name-calling. Trashing. Assertion. And wholly divorced from the real issues. So, maybe smugness isn’t really justified. Sounds bad, though.
one will be taken. the other left
My deepest moral intuitions are summed up as "do no harm" and "treat others with the same respect I would give myself".
No god is needed.
Turek frequently says you can be moral and know morality as an atheist. Are you aware of this? What he says is that you have no justification for doing so.
Can you justify your moral code and explain why it’s superior to a different moral code? You sound a bit… happy with yourself. Maybe even smug. Where is that smugness coming from, if I’m reading you right? Do you think it’s admirable to have your moral code? Why?
@@TrackedHiker Turek frequently says you can be moral and know morality as an atheist. Are you aware of this?
Frankie is failing to walk a tightrope of not insulting people who he may be able to con into converting and sending him money. The fact is when he declares you have no justification for your morals, he is insulting people anyways. Insulting their intelligence and their being. You people are hate, that is all there is to it.
>What he says is that you have no justification for doing so.
This is how our society functions, which is the justification. If I violate that function, then I can suffer the consequences.
>Can you justify your moral code and explain why it’s superior to a different moral code?
That is what the argument is all about, christian superiority. Frankie is arguing that you should be christian because god justify your 'morality' and that makes christians superior to everyone else. It's a joke of an argument, as there is no god and us atheists looking at you knows it's a joke. There are 7 billion personal moral codes in the world. There are 195 countries making 195 societal moral codes in the world. Your god does not make your moral code superior, period.
> Do you think it’s admirable to have your moral code? Why?
Well for one I'm not declaring my moral code superior and not relying on an imaginary friend to justify that supposed 'superior' code.
@@brianpeterson8908 > 'Frankie is failing to walk a tightrope of not insulting people who he may be able to con into converting and sending him money. The fact is when he declares you have no justification for your morals, he is insulting people anyways. Insulting their intelligence and their being. You people are hate, that is all there is to it. '
So you were aware of it. Great.
Who are you referring to by "you people"? And what's wrong with hate, in your world view? And why is someone making a philosophical claim insulting people? Are people unable to answer? There are many reasons besides low intelligence that people may not be able to answer.
> 'This is how our society functions, which is the justification. If I violate that function, then I can suffer the consequences.'
I think you don't understand, after all. He's not asking for a justification for holding the morals. He understands that. He's asking for a justification of why they ought to be followed, why they make sense, why they have any sense of oughtness to them. You're not addressing the real question at all, here.
> 'That is what the argument is all about, christian superiority. Frankie is arguing that you should be christian because god justify your 'morality' and that makes christians superior to everyone else. It's a joke of an argument, as there is no god and us atheists looking at you knows it's a joke. '
This is going to sound harsh. And you're going to hate me more than you already do without knowing me, but the superiority problem isn't on Frank's side or my side, friend. There are definitely Christians who get this wrong, I'll agree with that. But no actual mature, genuine Christian thinks he's superior to anyone else. You, on the other hand, with how much of a joke Christians are, definitely feel superior to them. So, um, hypocrite comes to mind? I’m sure that sounds like I think I’m superior for not thinking in superior. Well, I’m a hypocrite. Aren’t you? Admit it, with me. Now one option for you is to stop seeing things through the lens of superiority. Can you be SURE you aren’t seeing that because you’re afraid you may actually be inferior? If you are secure, then give the topic a rest already.
The fact is, I know my own darkness. I don't think I'm better than you. On average, within my value system, Christians think they're much worse than atheists think they themselves are within atheist value systems. Maybe you didn't know that? I think the Christian moral system is *justified* (though there's difficulty getting everything perfect so lots of humility is required), and I think the atheist moral system is not *justified* (in the philosophical way that you seem to not understand, AT ALL).
You don't have to be a Christian. Don't ever become a Christian because of a "superior moral code." Anyone running that sales program (and that's not what Turek is doing) is OFF BASE. Instead, try to get what he's actually saying. The atheist cannot actually call *anything* good or evil, all claims to moral codes are 100% subjective, what's "good for people" or "good for society" or "rooted in biology" or any and all of that mess is basically meaningless. Atheists cannot say that there's anything truly wrong with torturing and shredding infants, can't actually say Hitler did anything wrong, and so on and so forth. They can get upset, and insult, and call people who ask these questions nasty names and insinuate they're dangerous or corrupt or evil etc. etc., but they just expose their hypocrisy by using those words in anger about the questions That Must Not Be Asked Because They Make Atheists Feel Bad And Suggest They Are Monsters For Not Being Able To Say Child Molestation Is Actually Wrong Even Though That Is True.
Look, I know this sounds horrible, but at the end of the day, can't you and other atheists just embrace your beliefs and live out of them? I just interacted with one who did, though it was sure hard to get there. He just admitted there's no good or evil, nothing can be called truly good or bad, it's all just feelings and preferences, and he's cool with that. More power to him, if he's okay with that system. But let's be REAL. The people who can't do that, and get angry at the Christians for pointing out that's what their system actually is, are just blaming the messenger. Illegitimately. Hypocritically.
> 'There are 7 billion personal moral codes in the world. There are 195 countries making 195 societal moral codes in the world. Your god does not make your moral code superior, period. '
I mean, if God exists and created the universe, and you, then his moral code is just a wee bit superior. I get that you disagree this is the case, but try to address the argument on its own merits, maybe? Stop all the complaining and just get to the point, "well, God doesn't exist, so never mind all that!" Of course, you're still left with the problem that then *everyone's* morals are completely subjective and basically meaningless. Live in meaninglessness, if that's reality to you. Figure out how to do it. Don't be mad at us for thinking meaning exists, and for wishing everyone could live in reality and have the best life possible, forever, without having to be extinguished or otherwise suffer the consequences of the sickness we all suffer from.
> 'Well for one I'm not declaring my moral code superior and not relying on an imaginary friend to justify that supposed 'superior' code.'
So do you? Do you admit that there's no right, no wrong, no evil, no good. Just preferences, and feelings. Just animals being animals. Just molecules bouncing around, quantum foam jiggling, brains having electrical storms, an ant fell off a boulder and a knife stuck into a person's back. A cow was slaughtered and eaten and a baby was slaughtered and eaten. It's all just life. Nothing to see here. We all hope to have good lives and try to create a society where we can pretend that death isn't coming, comfort ourselves a bit along the weay, and when we're dead that's The End. Goodbye. Hope we had luck along the way. We all want to live in a little fantasy of security and safety and normalcy, even though that's all meaningless. I mean, maximize your own pleasant and pleasurable feelings, because that's all you have. You have sensations. And you have memories. And you have trying to survive. And if someone tortures you to death along the way, too darn bad, because there's no retribution, there's no real justice, no one is going to be punished like they deserve, and our society is just make-believe, grunting, squealing, bleating animal-humans scribbling their graffiti and oinking their "thoughts" as if they were truths yanked from reality.
You embrace all that and have no issues with it whatsoever? No desire to honestly inquire (in the way that such inquiry requires) into whether God just might exist, and if so, what he might be like?
Sounds like spiritual gaslighting to me!
Theists do use this argument to appeal to emotion. They confuse "clear and obvious" with "objective".
Regardless of emotion if you hurt another human being it is always wrong, you can’t have someone enjoy a rape ever because there is never consent. with this in mind why would you try to go up against this and create a paradox saying that rape is not objectively wrong. We aren’t animals, we care if we hurt others and feel bad about it because of intuitions.
@@Telamonian Saying it's not OBJECTIVELY wrong does not create a paradox. Just like saying Margot Robbie is not OBJECTIVELY attractive does not create a paradox even though the majority of people immediately recognize her as such. It is enough to say that the majority of sane, empathetic people find rape clearly, and obviously wrong.
😬👍
Never seen an apologist actually prove an objective morality, Frank included
I've seen lots of atheists claim objective morality when it comes to judging the Bible. That's a funny thing how morality suddenly is no longer subjective when it comes to judging the scriptures, huh Barb?
@@T0Mmichael1234 An atheist can believe in objective morality Tom...
@@kinggenius930
Such as?
@@T0Mmichael1234 Such as what?
@@kinggenius930
- *An atheist can believe in objective morality Tom...*
My question to you is, what type of *objective morality* can atheists believe in?
Is incest bad?
He's incredibly confused because
he's trying to justify corrupt thought, to prove his point.
what corrupt thoughts Keith?
@@bonnie43uk To think in any way that pedophilia is okay, that hurting a child in any way is okay? Is totally corrupt!
@@keithjackson4985 I'm certainly not condoning pedophilia, but do you accept that the vast majority of pedophiles are of no threat to children, in that, they have thoughts about them. If i had a bad thought about you Keith, and you didnt know about it, would you be hurt in any way shape or form? Think about it.
@@bonnie43uk I'm male. Heterosexual. I don't sit around and think about raping women! Whoever does, I would call that a problem. Just like someone who sits around and thinks about sex with a child! It's depraved!
@@bonnie43uk Are you okay with someone rationalizing raping you? I'm not. I don't wanna hear nonsense such as that come from any friends mouth.
Use some socratic method on what Turek says and you will soon find out that he disagree with himself.
1. In modern Western Civilization is it considered immoral to have sex with children, so, it is no surprise that a Western Atheist would hold such a position as if it was an "Objective" moral because it has been ingrained in him since birth by his family and culture.
2. In the Islamic World, on the other hand, it is absurd to even ask this question because Child marriage, Marriage between close relatives; cousins, is considered perfectly and Objectively Moral.
Its only wrong because of Christianity. Romans and greeks did it without a second thought or any hesitation for hundreds of years.
@@juhadexcelsior
Show me evidence that it was legal within Roman or Greek law to rape children, actual evidence, please.
@@reality1958 It literally forbids any and all sexual activity whatsoever outside of marriage. Dunno how more clear it could be on the topic.
@@XDRONIN google реderasty. happy reading.
@@juhadexcelsior
Pederasty was not the same as rape, so perhaps you should read more on the subject.
My 2 cents: You don't need a God to work out a basic system of morals, we've had thousands of years to fine tune our morals, and we're still fine tuning them as we speak. In 100 years time, future generations might look back at us and think "My Goodness, .. how could they treat animals like that, how barbaric".
Or rather, how could they treat their babies worse than the animals do? Dissecting them live in the womb and profiting from it in the name of promiscuity without consequences. That’s true barbarism.
You’re making the same error 90% of the people who interact with Turek make.
He himself says, frequently, that atheists can be moral. So… what’s the point of repeating that? What are you opposing, here?
@@TrackedHiker God. It's the first 1 of his 2 cents.
@@TrackedHiker I'm opposing the proposition that morality is objective Erik. Certainly, we can have an objective, as in a goal, but how best to achieve that goal is very much subjective in my humble opinion. Would you say that lying is objectively immoral?, or does it very much depend on the situation?, eg, sometimes telling a lie can be the more moral thing to do.
@@festushaggen2563 I certainly would not regard a collection of cells as a human being Festus, btw, I'm not in favor of abortions overall. Are you in favor of aborting an ectopic pregnancy?
TRUST IN THE LORD WITH ALL THINE HEART , AND LEAN NOT UNTO THINE OWN UNDERSTANDING . PROVERBS 3 : 5 KJV
Very sleezy Frank. Making it sound like Jon is ok with child abuse when he clearly is not.
No such thing as subjective morality. He has thoughts and is trying toi justify them ..
I would say the same for objective morality. Morality is just rooted in our feelings wether or not God exists.
There's no such thing as objective morality. Your morality, if you follow the Bible, is also subjective.
But even more to the point, Christians have no morality. They have only obedience under the threat punishment and the promise of reward.
Only atheists can be moral.
More confused than a boy that feels he is a girl.
The man just needs to repent
Apostate! Thete is now therefore no more cleansing gor sin. He's trampled the blood of Jesus under foot
Don't think so Paul dea this clearly
This man has died his own soul
He's condemned from his own mouth
th with
That boy's cheese done slid off his cracker.
Why? Does he accept the silly supernatural nonsense of Christianity?
Your great grandfathers name 4500 years ago was Noah
Lots of incest.
How do you find objective morality? The same way you find objective reality.
Reality is what three or more in isolation can agree on without conspiring = Objectively true.
With objective truths it doesn't matter if you agree with them or not that is the beauty of them and why they work e.g. Take a tree ask three different people separately one at a time to describe that thing over there if they describe the same thing then that thing is objectively real, with only two people one could be colour blind leading to two opposing reports "it's a blue thing", "it's a red thing", that is why a minimum of three is needed.
The more people aka the majority who report the same information on what that thing over there is without conspiring (Talking to each other) reveals that thing is real aka reality and that means it's an objective truth which is how you were able to discover it to be real in the first place.
(Note: Discovering the truth not creating it)
Similarly you don't find morality by asking people what they will allow to happen to others you find morality by observing what they won't allow others to do to them.
A thief will say stealing from people is fine but don't steal from them = Stealing is wrong.
You then apply the majority filter to this as you will find some want to be stolen from but the majority position is stealing from them is wrong = Stealing is wrong.
Now just like the colour blind person there is people with deviances or issues which will make them Atypical so when we take stock of morality just like we did with reality we find there are objective truths even though these truths are not 100% agreed upon nor is that agreement required as the truth is revealed in the majority just like the truth of the tree was revealed in the majority. This holds true for just about everywhere meaning all people couldn't conspire with all people and it couldn't be taught to them as some had never had outsiders until that time, yet even though the different peoples of the world are separate and different from each other in so many ways when compared it reveals a unknowing consensus among the peoples on morality, steal from them but not from me (stealing is wrong), I can cheat on you but you cannot cheat on me (adultery is wrong), take their life not mine (murder is wrong).
This unknown consensus reveals there is indeed objective morality just like how the unknown consensus among the peoples revealed there is indeed objective reality.
(Note: Truth found not made)
There is a underlying morality that the world agrees on without conspiring = Objectively true.
Hi Rambo 👋
@@mustachemac5229 Hello Mac, hope all is well in your journey of life and study of God.
@@hiddenrambo328 All is good, I see you are doing well. Hugs.
@@mustachemac5229 That is good to hear.
methinks Jon is a liar.
I think you are lying.
@@mustachemac5229
We're all liars...only Jesus is truth!
@@buTterflykiSsses So, if we are all liars, that means you are probably lying about Jesus being the only truth...
Should be a little bit more careful with your words.
@@mustachemac5229
Jesus stands alone; with or without me...
@@reality1958
No! We are all in need of a savior...