Joe Rogan and Matt Walsh Disagree Over Gay Marriage | Pastor Reacts
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Happy Thanksgiving, y'all! Based on your suggestion, today we're reacting to Joe Rogan and Matt Walsh disagreeing over gay marriage. What is marriage? What is marriage for? Where do Christians get this idea from? I talk about all of this. Take a look! :)
Link to the full video: • Joe and Matt Walsh Dis...
Get your Wise Disciple merch here: bit.ly/wisedis...
Want a BETTER way to communicate your Christian faith? Check out my website: www.wisedisciple.org
OR Book me as a speaker at your next event: wisedisciple.o...
Check out my full series on debate reactions: • Debate Teacher Reacts
Got a question in the area of theology, apologetics, or engaging the culture for Christ? Send them to me and I will answer on an upcoming podcast: wisedisciple.o...
Rogan did do a better job at defending his worldview than Walsh did defending his.
That's because Matt didn't present a worldview.
Nate! Great video!
So, I think I saw once that Matt Walsh purposefully didn’t bring up the Bible (he said this about the “What is a Woman?” movie) and I think that he wanted to come at this from a separate perspective outside of quoting the Bible…however I think your video proved that Walsh should go this route moving forward!
Yeah I saw that too and he was right as far as letting the arguments fall against the tide of logic and reason. The problem is at the very base we have Jesus and the Bible for our position and we need to be able to express that without alienating our opposition. It’s not easy!
@@fiftycalguru I disagree. He wasn't right, and he strugled to make an argument against gay marraige from natural theology because there really isn't a coherent one. There's no merit in giving up our foundation/worldview in debate. We don't expect the atheist to give up his foundation/worldview, so why should we give up ours? Without the Christian God you cannot have logic and reason.
@@michaelmannucci8585 yeah I agree with you totally what I meant was it is correct to allow the trans positions to fall apart on their own, because they will eventually. But I went on, more to your point, to say our base is Jesus and God’s Word and it should t be neglected in our arguments. I think I was trying to say the same thing you are just not as well.
17:22 for the really good Brazilian jiu-jitsu analogy against same sex marriage
Matt probably understands (at least partly) the theological depths of marriage, he just bends the knee to secularism in his arguments, just like the vast majority of Christians on the vast majority of social issues.
He's spoken about it on his channel that he doesn't want to lead into an argument to appeal from a Christian worldview. He feels people will shut him down immediately. But this is where I think he fails. So ya I agree with what you are saying. He is trying really hard to be politically correct.
@@Drowning_Girl it’s like disarming yourself when you arrive to a fight.
@@Drowning_Girl So will they not immediately shut him down when he appeals to God?
@@prayerjoseph9776 as a christian we should appeal to God though and still have sound reasoning. Why can't it be both?
@@Drowning_Girl Thanks for asking that.
Let's imagine that you are a judge, and there is this group of people who say children should be free to do as they please, us not letting them is wrong.
You ask them why they say this, they tell you; children are human beings and human beings are free to do as they please, this is what is recorded on the ancient rock, so why are you stopping children from doing as they please?
As a judge how would you take their response, does this "ancient rock" carry any weight whatsoever?
I hope you will also give me an answer to the question I asked in my other comment. If you are not sure whether or not an unbeliever would shut you down as soon as you bring up God in a seemingly seperate argument, go and do it when arguing with an unbeliever and note their reaction.
Excellent presentation.Thx for teaching us to think critically when engaging with secularists.
Appreciated the reaction. Walsh would have done well to discuss the foundation of marriage being that marriage is the only thing that came from the Garden pre-fall an all. 😉
If Walsh would have lead with Christianity, Rogan rebukes with Muslims (et al) marrying, and perhaps we'd get to the same point (and perhaps homosexuality, since it becomes a series of interchangeable labels).
It seems like Walsh is like a lot of us: He knows what he believes on this subject, but he doesn't know the subject well. If you are accustomed to simply taking your position for granted, you may find yourself in a situation where you have to articulate beliefs you haven't taken the time to examine closely for yourself. I think this encounter is an encouragement to the church to think more deeply and focus on how to communicate clearly and effectively to others who do not agree with or understand Christian faith & practice.
Another reason he failed is because Matt Walsh has said himself that it's no use to use Biblical arguements against people who don't believe in the Bible but better to use practical arguments. The problem here is, while there are good practical arguements in support of marriage, its hard to find a practical arguement against gay marriage.
Conversely, just using practicality, it is more practical that society should support gay marriage because instead of diseased spreading through the community like wildfire and over into the straight community through bisexuals, most states would require a blood test and gay or not, at least one partner is most likely going to expect monogamy.
Later in the episode Rogan asks Walsh if his view comes from the Bible and Walsh says yes but he thinks that you can defend the definition of marriage based on natural law instead of using the Bible. I disagree with him because natural law comes from the Bible and God's creative order but that is Walsh's response.
As an agnostic turned Christian, I find myself at odds with the common apologetic approach that relies on the assertion 'because God said so' when engaging in debates with atheists. Such arguments often lack resonance with those who don't have find confidence in the Bible it's akin to invoking Santa or the spaghetti monster.
In my perspective, the God portrayed in the Bible embodies wisdom and reason, and the commandments outlined within it can be justified through sound logic. I believe that individuals, when seeking the qualities of God such as love, truth, justice, mercy, and wisdom etc, would independently arrive at positions aligned with the Bible. Apologists should strive to present compelling reasons behind why God issues specific commands rather than just emphasizing they are from God.
Take the example of marriage in the podcast. While procreation is a purpose, there are numerous additional reasons for the specific configuration of marriage dictated in the bible. Monogamy between a virgin bride and groom, for instance, offers optimal protection against sexually transmitted diseases, shields individuals from emotional trauma caused by promiscuity, provides protection to women and children, fosters a nurturing environment for children, ensures sexual fulfillment and companionship for both partners, guarantees paternity, contributes to population growth, and offers stability during times when women cannot work due to pregnancy or menstruation.
There are several more reasons to argue why God designed it this way, and why alternative lifestyles like homosexuality, polyamory, or choosing not to have children may be considered selfish or suboptimal on both an individual and societal level.
While the statements 'The Bible told me so' and 'It's a model for how Christ loves the church' are valid, they might only be persuasive to those who already identify as Christian. In defence of Walsh who has to appeal to a audience of believers and unbelievers chose to not mention theology. For agnostics, logical reasons behind God's commands are more likely to instill confidence in the Bible. Anyway, that's my rant.
@WiseDisciple I'd appreciate your thoughts on whether it's advisable to use the authority of the Bible as a basis to support one's position in a debate when the opponent is an unbeliever.
The best Argument for this is simple, What is marriage?
I watched the whole interview, it was good, would recommend. This last 30 minutes on gay marriage was excellent. You can tell that Matt was trying so hard not to bring Christianity into the conversation. I total understand this, as in my experience, the moment you mention God/Bible/Christ into this kind of conversation, the other side completely rejects and/or doesn’t even listen to you. So I understand Matt’s motivation to attempt to not incorporate Christian believes into his argument. And that begs the question.. is that even possible given our understanding of marriage?
I get it but id argue that people like Rogan are KNOWINGLY asking for a christian's perspective.
He knew Matt was christian so the expectation shouldnt be "argue outsife of your belief structure but tell me your beliefs"
I didn't have much expectations for Matt Walsh knowing that he is a Roman Catholic.
If only someone like John MacArthur or James White was the one with Joe Rogan then they would start from the Scripture.
The difference is epistemology.
Man that was a great analogy the bjj hot dog contest
When you listen to this whole conversation it becomes apparent that Joe Rogan has his own standards as to what makes a legitimate marriage. The question that Joe needs to answer is what his standard his, from whence it came, and what authority does he possess to force that standard upon others who disagree with him (the exact thing he is up in arms about Matt Walsh doing). The problem sweet daddy Walsh had was that he started at the wrong place. Instead of starting with revelation, going into natural law, then appealing to human history, he skipped revelation all together and went straight to natural law and history. He cut off one of the three legs of his stool at the very beginning.
As others have stated, Walsh and Shapiro both have stated numerous times that many of our fundamental principles are Biblical in nature and have their foundation in Gods truth. However, in an argument with a secularist we have to be able to ‘win’ the argument without quoting scripture. Make the argument from the results of following Gods word, stable and cohesive society.
Natural Law arguments can be made against homosexuality and homosexual marriage. Walsh would do well to brush up on these.
In the meantime, he should invoke his Catholic moral framework, since - as a Catholic - he believes all persons everywhere will one day be judged by God.
Amen. Thank you, Bro Nate. Sweet Daddy Walsh did not do a good job, no siree. We can't allow them to sucker us into leaving God out of it, because its all about God, we lose the moment we leave God, this was a Prime example
"Why are we not talking about the Bible then?" Because the Bible is an absolute fictitious work.
Joe did the better job. Biblical marriage is a covenant relationship between one man and one woman, established by God, with the purpose of companionship, unity, mutual support, and procreation. Biblical marriage is intended to reflect the relationship between Christ and His Bride, the Church. If Matt had begun there, maybe they would have been able to have an actual debate.
Why do they have to be before a priest in church? Ratifying the marriage before God?
A homosexual union is a sin in the bible. That's like being someone who wants god to ratify and bless a bank robber for being a bank robber or a idolater, pick another sin. And since it seems obvious that they know that,
it comes off as an antagonism before God.
We have forgotten what marriage is because we have forgotten who the Lord is and what the Bible says - and that’s why today, this evil world has fallen even further into filth and wickedness. It’s sickening, it truly is.
As an attorney, the US Constitution is my second-favorite written text, second only to the Bible, and that’s because so much of it still holds true today. Our Founders were Christians (though some of the influential Revolutionary colonists were Jewish, so they might also be considered our Founding Fathers) and their Enlightenment leanings played second fiddle to Judeo-Christian values. That’s abundantly clear in everything they wrote, though not necessarily all that they did! With that being said, there are over 5,000 state and federal rights afforded to married heterosexual couples today, so that’s an issue that must be resolved otherwise we run into serious constitutional issues.
The problem with your analogy is that the other dojo is not Brazilian jujitsu it’s martial arts. They’re both martial arts not specifically Brazilian jujitsu. Just because the other dojo awards black belts a different criteria doesn’t mean there black belt in Brazilian jujitsu isn’t valid. Say Rogans dojo only awards black belts to men whereas the other dojo gives black belts to men and women. You’re saying the women don’t have a valid black belt because in Rogans version of martial arts women can’t have black belts. The problem being you don’t get to set the criteria for black belts when black belts were awarded before Brazilian jujitsu was even a thing.
Walsh’s fatal flaw here on display: he won’t appeal to Scripture b/c Rogan doesn’t accept Scripture as authority. So Walsh won’t appeal to an authority not mutually recognized as such. He says as much. And this is why it is just so flimsy and frustrating.
This interview has caused me to unsub from Walsh. There’s always something “not quite right” when a catholic speaks for Christianity.
further revealed when you compare the “Catholic Ten Commandments” to the biblical Ten Commandments. They are different.
(Catholics take out “idols” and replace it with “covet” twice).
Praise God for his wisdom and mercy and may he reveal himself more to Walsh (and us)
🙏❤️✌️
Accepting that homosexual couples can adopt children is going to probably prove to be a horrible mistake somewhere in the future. Only time will tell but when you are not following what the Bible says it normally doesn’t work out. Homosexual marriages do not damage heterosexual marriage at all, but children are definitely damaged by these arrangements. Under Joe’s definition you could legally do things that could take all of the work and responsibilities away, so then where are we. I was disappointed that Matt did not mention God’s influence on marriage at all through the entire debate. Dude you explanation towards the end was fantastic and clearly correct. And so now we have an acronym for what Joe explains at the end, or DINKs. Dual Income No Kids.
You obviously don't know this, but Walsh is intentionally talking about marriage the way he does with "secular" folks like Rogan. He said explicit on his podcast that there's a danger to the conversation if he was to mis-calibrate how he talks about the issue. Theology has ABSOLUTELY NO TRACTION with Rogan. I'm not saying this is right wrong, but that's why.
That's bull crap from Matt Walsh. Can you imagine the Holy Spirit telling you _"uh, hey... don't bring up Jesus on this multi-million viewed podcast"_ ?
See who Rogan has invited on his show to talk about Jesus in the past year. More and more of his guests are bringing up the Bible. Shoot... Hulk Hogan invited Rogan to church and he went!! That is not typical Joe Rogan behavior! 🤯
Jesus's own words in Matthew 10:33 should scare the hell out of any witness and embolden them to speak freely of Christ when in the public sphere.
This is a conversation between two unbelievers who have differing opinions. We shouldn't be surprised that Matt has no idea what he's talking about. He's not a Christian so why would he give Christian answers?
1 Corinthians 7:2 is really good
1 Corinthians 6:9
Romans 1:26
Jude 1:7
Leviticus 18:22
1 Timothy 1:10
1 Kings 14:24
Matt's body language toward the end says it all. His body is turned away from Joe, ready to run out of the room
Yeah Walsh was pure trash in this. He literally sounded like he’s never answered a question before
Matt likes stay away from appealing to the Bible when debating secularists. That's the strategy that he employed here.
Nate your Disciples NEED to see you in action brother! PLEASE....
How do you consider yourself a Christian and not center your argument around the bible?!?
The Bible never mentions or condemns the concept we call same-sex marriage. Although opponents of same-sex marriage claim that lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender unions violate biblical principles, no verses in the Bible explicitly address gay marriage or committed same-sex relationships.
No verse in the Bible refers to gay marriage for the same reason no verse in the Bible refers to Harry Potter. There is no such concept as gay people marrying in the first place.
There is also no verse in the Bible explaining why dropping nuclear bombs on your neighbors is a bad idea, but you can obviously infer that all forms of murder with any weapons, in any national border, and on any planet would be equally wrong, you can likewise refer to the many, many passages that describe the action of homosexual sex to be an abomination to mean that it remains so even if the practitioners signed a secular legal document first.
The Bible does explicitly call heterosexual sex outside of a marriage to be sexual sin, and specifically state that sex in the confines of marriage in the only acceptable form. It also explicitly defines marriage as between a man and a woman for a distinct purpose.
Because we see that the only acceptable sexual practice provided at all, anywhere, is between a man and a woman who are married, but never see a single example of acceptable homosexual practice, it only makes sense to conclude homosexual practice is sinful in all cases. How exactly do you conclude that there is an acceptable form of homosexual practice from the utter lack of such a provision?
Pluto isn't mentioned in the Bible so do the 10 commandments not apply if we are on Pluto? Is it OK to Blaspheme so long as you are orbiting Alpha Centari at the time? What other sins do you think are made magically OK so long as you do them under conditions the Bible does not address specifically?
@@shawn4110 at the end of the day for the most part people just want to pursue happiness, whether they find that in religion or in same sex relationships, it's really no one elses business.
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man. " 1 CORINTHIANS 11:8
The Biggest mistake that Men ever committed in the History of Mankind, was to detach from the Bible. Marriage between a Man & a Woman is the oldest and 1st institution created, 2nd to it was Family, and Men should have built ALL societal laws governing marriage and family on Biblical principles and instructions on a strict tone. we all just suffering from our own creative, fleshly lusts and false wisdom, we have tempered with the foundations.
Many people today will shame and call the Biblical order of the family and definition of Marriage, outdated and domineering to women, but act surprised when we suffer all from today's evils. we can debate all we like, and observe all statistical data, but it will lead to nothing. Our only option is to repent and seek Biblical truth and nothing more or less when it comes to Marriage and Family.
Walsh failed.
Yes, a much deeper biblical definition of God’s profound institution of marriage was not presented in the duologue. Very unfortunate with the amount of people who watch Rogan. A missed opportunity. Good breakdown
If a couple is not open to life, they are not deeply in love.
Nate, I don't think you really understood the logic Matt uses in these discussions. Joe KNOWS Matt is a Catholic, or at least a Christian. He already knows that, and Matt knows Joe knows that. Matt understands that simply appealing to scripture to try and convince someone of a stance, when that person doesn't believe in scripture is simply a futile task. It is entirely fruitless. Their response will simply be "I don't believe in the Bible". Matt is actually cutting to the chase by NOT going straight to "the Bible says so". As Christians, we know that God tells us to do things for our own good, and that good is not some nebulous undiscoverable thing (most of the time). We can discover and understand WHY God tells us to do certain things in certain ways in the Bible, and THAT is what Matt is trying to get to. If your interlocutor is adament on logic, and evidence being a necessity, the Christian shouldn't run from that, we can give them actual logical and evidential arguments. Matt is just appealing to those, so that Joe understands he isn't MERELY making a divine command argument.
The problem with this though is that without an ultimate authority defining what a marriage actually is it become completely subjective as even Matt pointed out in the video interestingly enough. Who’s to say that siblings can’t get married? Or adults cannot marry children? Or people cannot marry animals? Etc. Without an ultimate authority both sides are stuck with subjectivity and you get steamrolled in debate as we saw here.
@@josemuniz_ Matt didn't get steamrolled at all. They ultimately disagreed with each other. The point you are making is not restricted to a divine command argument. That was my entire point in my comment. That must not have come across clearly. The argument is perfectly valid on the standards of natural law, which are God given (to the Christian), but don't NEED to be seen as God given to be accepted. The non-believer can believe them, but they will struggle to justify them. All Matt needs to do is convince Joe the natural law exists. Usually the unbeliever either accepts it does, or comes across looking either crazy or dumb.
@@brando3342 The question then comes up which natural law and where does it come from because they would both be using different definitions of natural law. For example Joe would use the argument of homosexuality in other species as natural therefore it’s okay for humans to do the same whereas Matt would and has argued against this. They don’t even see natural law the same and it’s on this basis that Joe rejects Matt’s view as seen in the discussion. The question of where does natural law come from gets down to the issue of ultimate authority and without the answer of “because God says so” the discussion dissolves into the opinion vs opinion.
If you haven’t checked out either Jeff Durbin’s or Doug Wilson’s comments on this discussion they’re both great!
Jeff’s response:
th-cam.com/video/3LREQHSzDuo/w-d-xo.html
Doug’s response:
th-cam.com/video/VNSVLd6KCnE/w-d-xo.html
@@josemuniz_ Jeff and Doug are both presuppositionalists which is a dubious epistemology in my opinion. One MUST beg the question to argue from that point of view, Joe would just disagree with the starting point, as I mentioned. They are also both Calvinists, meaning they hold to divine determinism, which is a whole can of worms, but basically that means they pretty much have to be presup.
When speaking about "natural law" that isn't an appeal to "nature" in some general sense. Natural law is not identical for all creatures. Natural law for a lion is not natural law for a human. A lion kills a gazelle, but it doesn't "murder" the gazelle. However, "murder" is categorized under natural law for humans. Natural law appeals to intuition also, which means the reason it SEEMS inherently immoral to rape and murder babies, is because that is part of our natural law. The ability to perceive moral intuitions.
I think you are missing the general point I am making, and that Matt makes. We don't actually NEED to get down to "God says so" to have good reasons for doing what God says... even though indeed we believe that is what God says to do. We can appeal to the rationality, and logic, and moral intuition, which are all freely available to any genuine person willing to think, and not be blinded by their own preconceptions or biases.
Can that lead to belief in God upon further digging? Absolutely and I genuinely hope it does! But for many people, meeting them where they are at is the BEST way to get them to consider Jesus in the first place.
@@brando3342 I would agree with you that the consistent reading and application of scripture forces one to be a presuppositionalist.
You’re using different categories in your natural law analogy. You’re using lions against other animals when you should be using lions agains other lions in which case they do in fact kill each other and even kill and eat other lion cubs. Is this wrong? If it is why don’t they stop or are made to stop? You said natural law for a lion is not natural law for a human but we see both doing the same thing, killing babies. Why is this? and are they both wrong? You also said natural law appeals to intuition also which is the whole point I was making. According to Joe’s intuition there isn’t anything wrong with gay marriage. Now it’s Joe’s intuition vs Matt’s intuition and there’s no way to call one the objective winner or who is objectively right.
I understand your argument. You’re making what we would call a Romans 1 argument. This is one of the foundations of presup. The problem is though that without the believer building their argument on the word of God it turns back into intuition vs intuition. On this point I suspect we’re just going to go round and round so it’s been a good discussion and thank you for being kind. That’s very rare nowadays!
I think the only pushback might be that there are tangible benefits, namely tax benefits, for those who are married. So the question is would we be better if we entirely separated marriage from the state? As you alluded to, at this point, even for a lot of people who identify as Christian in some capacity, marriage is largely symbolic.
That has been discussed before by politicians that want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Thanks, Anthony. And just to be clear, I'm not proposing this solution.
@@solidsloth1Why are you not proposing that solution though? The west has already separated all of the traditional purposes of marriage from marriage other than the legal impact concerning property and power of attorney type decisions. Modern western marriage is just a civil union, and the State needs a compelling reason to maintain marriage if it is conferring benefits.
The State cannot use the stabilizing effects nor the benefits of providing a stable structure to raise children as a compelling reason to incentivize marriages though tax breaks and etc unless they maintain that traditional effects and expectations as well.
Modern marriage serves none of it's traditional purposes, therefore, it should be removed from the State and no longer incentivized by the State. All of the remaining relevant consequences of marriage are covered by alternate legal arrangements, and forcing people to go through those legal processes while taking away any unearned benefits from the married would be a forcing factor to fix everything wrong with modern marriages.
@@shawn4110 I would be in favor of it, I think, I just didn't really want to get into a debate in the comments. You could argue that the design of marriage benefits society even if people don't always follow through or do it for the right reasons. The alternative of children being raised in environments where there is no family structure is a scary one.
“Marriage is theology.” Amen! Marriage was created by God to give us a picture of what the trinity is like. It’s meant to teach us a lot of things. (Not be so self absorbed) It’s a shame that Walsh couldn’t articulate this well and represent the Christian view to millions of Rogan’s viewers. He does so well when it comes to the trans issue. But marriage is different. There has to be a basis for it besides natural law.
Jesus didn't create the institution of marriage, thats mearly a religious belief.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous it is to say "because god said so" or "because the bible says X" when you are asked why you view gay marriage as wrong?
Because that is a religious belief. Not truth.
If you are going to argue with literal biblical passages, then you need to accept that _only_ fundamental christians who follow your religion will take your argument seriously, and think it holds weight.
Matt walsh did terrible in this discussion, and Nate, your analogy is pretty lousy too. People who are married get legal protections, tax incentives, and insurance benefits from their marriage. Your Brazilian jujitsu analogy didn’t touch on any of these.
Marriage is a commitment to engage in consensual, healthy forms of sex. Merely living together without any intention of sex is not a marriage; it is a domestic partner arrangement. Consensual forms of unhealthy sex is not a marriage. Nonconsensual sex is not included in marriage. LGBTQ sex is obviously consensual. The question is whether LGBTQ sex is healthy. So what forms of sex are we talking about? We are obviously talking about using the mouth or anus for sexual purposes. Is that healthy or dignified? Is it dignified, healthy, or godly to basically use your tongue as toilet paper? Do you want anyone who does so to kiss you on the cheek? And you can read on the internet that anal sex is inherently infectious for both gay and straight couples even when they are otherwise perfectly healthy. So that pretty much leaves traditional marriage as acceptable.
@@user-we2gk7tf8e If condoms are need for safe anal sex, as you say, then are you saying that society had a right to ban gay sex 100 years ago? Are you saying that poor countries, that don't have condoms, have a right now to ban gay sex? I thought you said that it was only an unjustified prejudice that banned male, gay sex. Are you changing your mind?
@@user-we2gk7tf8e I'm sure every doctor is opposed to unsafe sex practices, whether gay or straight. So go ask the doctors. In some states it's actually illegal to pass on STDs. I wonder if that goes for infections passed on by anal sex.
@@user-we2gk7tf8e Who mentioned anything about theology or religion? Is that why you advocate LGBTQ sex, because you disagree with religion? Behavior should be approved or not based on it's own merits of harm or not. Keep your religious views out of it.
@@user-we2gk7tf8e If we by law put warnings on tobacco and alcohol products, if we force people to get vaccine shots, then we should also warn them of unsanitary sex practices. If knowingly passing on an STD is illegal, then so should anal sex for the same reason.
@@user-we2gk7tf8e You wish I were motivated by religion because your hatred of religion is the only thing driving your advocacy. You sound like an anti religious bigot who doesn't even care anymore what the doctors say.
Matt Walsh doesn't believe in talking about the Bible with people who don't believe in the Bible. See how foolish it is to start with secular presuppositions, thinking you both can be neutral, rather than starting with God's Word. You end up sounding like the fool instead of exposing the foolishness of the unbeliever's worldview.
The problem with Wise Disciples analogy is that the version of Jujitsu he makes up for the purposes of it is by definition not *REAL* Jujitsu.
*ju-jitsu*
*/ˌdʒuːˈdʒɪtsuː/*
*noun*
*noun: jujutsu*
*a Japanese system of unarmed combat and physical training.*
I fail to see how having hot dog eating contests could be mistaken for helping anyone in any way in unarmed combat, or in any kind of physical training. Marriage on the other hand is defined as:
*marriage*
*/ˈmarɪdʒ/*
*noun*
*1.*the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).*
*"a happy marriage"*
Not a man and a woman. *TWO PEOPLE*. That means a man and a man or a woman and a woman as well as a man and a woman legally wed as partners in a personal relationship. Furthermore I have yet to see you explain how a a gay couple being married in any way damages the institution of marriage. All you're doing is using a disingenuous analogy which in any way tackle the root of the issue. Seriously, if this is the best you can do I suggest you quit while you're ahead because you're simply talking complete nonsense!
Yeah. Wise Disciple is not working off that definition. Even that definition, for marriage, where did it come from?
Anyways, Wise Disciple is working off the biblical definition for marriage and all its components as related to the Bible.
So when you look at at it form that point of view and apply to Joe Rogan’s argument, much like what you said for ju-jujutsu, we can then “fail to see how [being in a gay marriage] could be mistaken for [the biblical definition of marriage] in any way…”
Does this make things more clear?
Now, if we are going off a different definition, not what the bible says, but rather what people collectively agree upon, well….then that’s a different story.
I would be cautious of this because…we are very intelligent, but our concise definition of a term may not always be because of pure intentions, but many of the times, selfish intentions.
@@charlesfickles9463 *Yeah. Wise Disciple is not working off that definition. Even that definition, for marriage, where did it come from?*
*Anyways, Wise Disciple is working off the biblical definition for marriage and all its components as related to the Bible.*
Well it didn't specifically come from Christianity because marriage was a fundamental institution in ancient Rome. It was a ceremonial union between two people that was regulated by law before the formation of the Roman Republic in 509 BC. And they weren't even Christian. And yes, Wise Disciple or to call him by his real name, Nate is not working off of the biblical definition. But this is also a book that endorses slavery and states that any person who works on a Sunday should be put to death. Ergo scripture is not something I would take the least bit seriously when it comes to stating anything.
*So when you look at at it form that point of view and apply to Joe Rogan’s argument, much like what you said for ju-jujutsu, we can then “fail to see how [being in a gay marriage] could be mistaken for [the biblical definition of marriage] in any way…”*
But then gay people, or better yet anyone who is an Atheist or Agnostic may not wish to be married in a Christian wedding service. Or in other word *"Under the eyes of God."* Therefore Nate could make a case for no one being able to be wed in a Church. However, he has no right to be able to define marriage outside of the parameters of Christian theology as if it's a general rule of thumb for everyone. Even non-believers or those in the LGBT community.
*Does this make things more clear?*
Yes, in regard to the Christian interpretation of marriage. But like I say, it shouldn't extend to those who are not Christian theists.
*Now, if we are going off a different definition, not what the bible says, but rather what people collectively agree upon, well….then that’s a different story.*
Which is what I've just argued.
*I would be cautious of this because…we are very intelligent, but our concise definition of a term may not always be because of pure intentions, but many of the times, selfish intentions.*
Like it's selfish for Christians like Nate who believe that people who are homosexual, and have an attraction to someone of the same sex which they cannot help. Should not be afforded the same legal and social privilege to create a union together as wedded partners? Especially when their union does in no way affect any heterosexual couple's marriage whatsoever? Is that not sheer self absorbed narcissism and sheer authoritarianism? But then that's the nature of theism in general. A belief in an alleged authoritarian God lauding his authority over mankind which he created.
@@charlesfickles9463 *Yeah. Wise Disciple is not working off that definition. Even that definition, for marriage, where did it come from?*
*Anyways, Wise Disciple is working off the biblical definition for marriage and all its components as related to the Bible.*
Well it didn't specifically come from Christianity because marriage was a fundamental institution in ancient Rome. It was a ceremonial union between two people that was regulated by law before the formation of the Roman Republic in 509 BC. And they weren't even Christian. And yes, Wise Disciple or to call him by his real name, Nate is not working off of the biblical definition. But this is also a book that endorses slavery and states that any person who works on a Sunday should be put to death. Ergo scripture is not something I would take the least bit seriously when it comes to stating anything.
*So when you look at at it form that point of view and apply to Joe Rogan’s argument, much like what you said for ju-jujutsu, we can then “fail to see how [being in a gay marriage] could be mistaken for [the biblical definition of marriage] in any way…”*
But then gay people, or better yet anyone who is an Atheist or Agnostic may not wish to be married in a Christian wedding service. Or in other word *"Under the eyes of God."* Therefore Nate could make a case for no one being able to be wed in a Church. However, he has no right to be able to define marriage outside of the parameters of Christian theology as if it's a general rule of thumb for everyone. Even non-believers or those in the LGBT community.
*Does this make things more clear?*
Yes, in regard to the Christian interpretation of marriage. But like I say, it shouldn't extend to those who are not Christian theists.
*Now, if we are going off a different definition, not what the bible says, but rather what people collectively agree upon, well….then that’s a different story.*
Which is what I've just argued.
*I would be cautious of this because…we are very intelligent, but our concise definition of a term may not always be because of pure intentions, but many of the times, selfish intentions.*
Like it's selfish for Christians like Nate who believe that people who are homosexual, and have an attraction to someone of the same sex which they cannot help. Should not be afforded the same legal and social privilege to create a union together as wedded partners? Especially when their union does in no way affect any heterosexual couple's marriage whatsoever? Is that not sheer self absorbed narcissism and sheer authoritarianism? But then that's the nature of theism in general. A belief in an alleged authoritarian God lauding his authority over mankind which he created.
Very good analysis!
Thank you.
Loved the Brazilian Jiu Jiutsu analogy! Spot on!
Walsh did a bad job, period. At no point did he throw the question back at Rogan with a "so what's the difference between marriage and living together?" or suchlike, as that would then naturally elicit a conversation on the definitions being used for the word, "marriage". Once it were established that one was talking about a modern legal statute and the other about scripture's definition, something fruitful might (and only might) have come from this. As it was, the conversation went Groundhog Day and Walsh ended up browbeaten by what was essentially the same philosophical point framed in different ways. All heat, no light.
It wouldn't come to Scripture because Walsh is attempting to make an argument from "natural theology", aka from nature/philosophy and not from revelation (special or natural). And he fails big time lol
@@michaelmannucci8585yes walsh has a great documentary and he does not mention the bible and focuses strictly on the natural world and biology and I respect his approach because to explain this point before the bible to people who reject God's word first establish science and biology. Makes sence and he has said alot of people gave him a hard time for not talking about the bible and he says if people reject the bible they first have to not reject basic biology and natural law.
@@joshuawoodin Apart from Scripture, there's no objective reason why Walsh is correct.
@@michaelmannucci8585 That isn't true though. The BJJ tradition is not scripture, but that tradition is still a good argument for why hot dog eating contests are not BJJ tournaments, as was illustrated in Nate's analogy.
Marriage is a word that has come to, in practice, mean 'a contractual legal agreement that carries certain limited powers of attorney and legal assumptions about property rights'. While it has come to mean the equivalent of 'going steady' or saying 'I like like you' in the minds of modern people who have attached the word 'committed' to the afore mentioned legal action.
The traditional meaning of marriage, while based on a scriptural understanding of the tradition, doesn't require scripture for the tradition itself to be the argument. The problem is that in modernity the traditional features of marriage and traditional purposes of marriage have all been abandoned except for the legal consequences of property rights and property transfer. The other pieces, such as, marriage being permanent, and even the entire point of those legal consequences, which is to ensure a stable society and provide an tradition for building families and community, has been abandoned.
To return to the analogy, it's as if we were in a world where society has already dismissed the traditional point of martial arts and the entire point of claiming you are a 'martial artist' has already devolved into nothing but a virtue signal. In such a world, it would not be surprising to find every activity being suddenly described as a 'martial art' no matter what actual activity people are doing.
In the world above, it would still make sense to point out that eating contests and acrylic painting being called martial arts makes no sense because they lack any physical fitness, physical discipline, have zero self-defense purpose, and do not map onto any purpose traditional martial arts have served other than maybe 'having fun doing an enjoyable activity'.
The point being that 'civil unions' which is a word designed to describe the legal consequences without the traditional features of marriage is ironically the accurate way to describe gay marriage, and further ironic, is that the vast majority of marriages in the west would also be best described as 'civil unions' rather than marriages.
The one place Matt could have done better in this interview while still not using a scriptural argument, which he was intentionally avoiding, would be to dig into the failure of marriages more broadly when talking about the disservice of abandoning the monogamy and permanence of marriage, and to point out that without monogamy and permanence straight marriages aren't real marriages either. ONLY traditional marriage is marriage, and everything else is just a 'civil union' codified into the laws of the times.
@@shawn4110 If marriage is just a tradition, it has no *objective* meaning. Also, there's no objective "outght" which says you cannot divert from tradition.
Matt failed utterly *because* he is adopting the worldview of the secularist (which chucks out objective truth, logic, epistomology, morality, etc) and then trying to argue that something is objectively true and something else is objectively wrong (both propositionally and morally). It's nonsense.
As a Christian the reason for marriage is to commit to the person you love and become one instead of two in the eyes of God. And now after this commitment to become one, you can now bear children. Of course now people just get married to get married that's why it's so easy for people to just divorce or just have kids outside of marriage. But for us Christians, marriage is a very sacred commitment, not just between 2 people but with God as well. That's my veiw of marriage as a Christian
Man and women
I agree, good points. And marriage allows people to have sex without sin. That fact is great too.
Rogan did great because he remained consistent. What was frustrating from Walsh is he would not provide a solid definition of marriage. I think later in that video he is asked more specifically if his belief in Jesus had anything to do with it.
This is unfortunately is an example of the position that people of faith put themselves in when they attempt to argue without including God, the Bible, or any theological understanding.
Exactly. This is what has always put a bad taste in my mouth with these supposedly religious conservative figures. They never talk about God, the Bible, the gospel, etc. They either want to appeal to a wide audience of conservatives who might not be religious, or maybe they just aren't even that serious about their own faith and really just see the Bible as a book that has some good ideas.
So far, Charlie Kirk is the only one of these widely known political people who I have actually seen talk about God a bit.
I disagree. The effects of Christian living are superior to the effects of secular living. You do not specific references to scripture or theology to see the truth. In fact, we have the term "cultural Christian" to describe this where an atheist can recognize the beneficial effects of living according to Biblical principles regardless of whether you believe in God or not.
@@CassTeaElle Joe Rogan already rejects the premise of the existence of God (from what I can tell).
The atheists reject all justification for the existence of God, if you try to use God to justify any of your arguments you will be instantly dismissed by them, no matter how good your points are.
The only reasonable way to combat this is to have them retroactively come to the conclusion of God's existence, through making good points for your arguments. Once they see your arguments clearly and probe them further, they will come to face God. What they choose to do with this realization then is up to them. But I can tell you that this is far more effective than using God to justify your arguments when talking to someone who already rejects God. In most cases at least.
@@patrickbarnes9874 I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. My point was only that in the interaction Walsh seems to intentionally leave out Christian doctrines. Many Christian apologists can go down this road as well leaning so heavily on logical reasoning as to forget to make the case for the biblical God.
@@CassTeaElle Charlie Kirk also believes in gay marriage
The Jiu Jitsu analogy is actually so good and I’m definitely stealing it to alter based on who I’m talking to and things they’re passionate about
@speaksilince14Fools who refuse to listen and fools who may come to the truth both exist. As a Christian I trust the Holy Spirit to guide me in the right way in both situations.
@@HelloTygr Who is to say that the Holy Spirit cannot use the words of a person, to help arm someone else with the appropriate words?
Do we not seek Scripture for guidance, hopefully, on a regular basis?
@@wintersresurrection9841 I think you’re misunderstanding something here. The top comment is me, and the reply comment is also me, responding to someone else who deleted their reply. I mean basically what you’re saying so I don’t disagree with that.
Walsh should have addressed the worldview difference right out of the gate, and not let up till that was clearly grasped, THEN proceed to further steps. For many Catholics (not all, but many) the Bible is a mostly black box out there on the periphery somewhere and rarely, if ever, read. Great job brother!
His point of the discussion was to prove his view without bringing his faith into it. His idea, is why bring up Christianity’s view of marriage to an atheist. I don’t agree with his way of argumentation but that’s why he went that way.
And that's where he failed terriblely. 😢
Ya I know this is how he approaches these types of conversations and yet as Christians watching it is hard to watch. In this interview, it does look as if Joe Rogan defends his worldview better. It's frustrating to watch.
@@Drowning_Girl I get that and I agree if he was talking to a Christian I would be fully for it but I do think it has effectiveness to non-Christian’s.
I think it’s a extremely effective because Christians can claim a grounding for their view of marriage. Arguing for marriage from a ‘neutral’ or atheistic perspective is like trying to contain a runny, slippery goo in your hands.
I have definitely heard non-religious arguments against g*y marriage that are more clear and compelling. He should not have conflated the product of marriage with the definition of marriage itself. Rogan's definition was subjective and vague. And Walsh picked up on that. Yet because he could not articulate a clear and sufficient definition himself, Rogan was able to press him on inconsistencies repeatedly. He clearly won the debate, unfortunately.
Very well done, brother. I appreciate your analogy of Jui Jitsu as an illustration of purpose, meaning, and function. I'll use that same idea if I ever find myself in a position of having to defend biblical marriage.
Matt could have responded better at times, however I did notice that Joe was interrupting more than he should have
Interrupting? What was he interrupting? Walsh’s embarrassing debate skills?
It’s always interesting to me how secular people and Atheists will say morality comes from the natural survival instincts example: “we don’t murder each other because otherwise we would no longer exist” and yet at the same time advocate for life styles by definition are against life
No they literally don't.
How if Infertile people get married or acesexuals it doesn't hurt the population anyway straights are still the majority population is going down because of other stuff like things being too expensive
Catholicism 🤦🏻♂️
There are so many bad representatives of Christianity out there who are so bad because they believe and think that they know it all. I hope that there will be no one lead astray by this.
Matt Walsh doesn't actually read the Bible, because he is a catholic and their priests defer them away from actually reading the Word for themselves, and if they do, they turn them first off to their catholic Bible, and then tell them to only read a verse or possibly a chapter and them come back to them for a interpretation of that passage. Matt needs to get him a King James Bible, sit and study it everyday, and come to a faithful belief in the Word. I'm not saying that catholics can't be saved. Salvation is purely based upon our faith in the Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. But catholics certainly do have a lot more hoops to jump through to get passed all of the catholic tradition and heresy to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. And Mary is NOT a mediator.
Your analogy of the Brazilian hot dog eating jujitsu is funny, and does make sense, but i feel like Joe Rogaine is so lost and confused at this point, just to not allow you to prove your point, he would say that it doesn't matter because he could come in and tear the place apart with his real jujitsu.
I may be very wrong, but imo, the reason Walsh is debating/arguing w/o using much scripture is because of his DW "co worker/mentor" (for lack of a better description) Ben Shapiro. He has a very staunch belief/practice of not using any "arguments from authority", but especually to never use the Bible/Torah.
I disagree w/ that because as Christians we're to view the world through a biblical lens; through the lens of Christ's teachings.
Here's my argument (if anyone interested.) Marriage is a religious ceremony. Period. At least this Western version of Marriage we have, where we literally QUOTE THE BIBLE! Those who are not of the Faith, should not have an interest in participating because it's not for them (obviously I'm not saying atheists can't get married, I'm just saying they shouldn't want to.) You spit in the face of my God and then ask for His blessings? No. I'm not okay with that. Go make your own tradition if you wish, I want to keep Marriage what the Church decreeded it, a sacred union of one man and one woman in God. Most of the people who advocate Gay Marriage are not Christian. Those people should not get to have a say unless they are a part of the church. I don't correct Muslim rituals. I don't walk into the Satanic Temple and yell at them for not being inclusive. They do what they want. Let the Christians keep our traditions sacred.
This is a controversial view, but here goes, Matt Walsh isn't a Christian or at the bare minimum he is a lukewarm Christian. Why? Because at one point is he willing to advocate for this faith and declare that marriage is defined by God, Jesus further clarifying its tenants, and it isn't something Man is supposed to define at all.
Matt Walsh apparently just never thinks about God this entire time. He just cares about the political implications of it because he worships the State more than Jesus.
To be fair, Walsh openly admits on his show that he intentionally did not go down the path of explaining the purpose of marriage from a religious standpoint, but instead focused on the practical standpoint, because the religious aspect is very foreign to people at least today since religion has lost of lot of its social significance in this culture. They won't understand how religion even ties into it, so Walsh rationalizes it from purely a practical, biological standpoint that is and should be non-controversial. So he intentionally tried to avoid that because he didn't think talking from a religious standpoint would be productive.
Watch his review of the highlights from that discussion:
th-cam.com/video/RXDkKpXqR98/w-d-xo.html
@josephthomasmusic Looks like Nate didn't really do his prep on this one... which is a little ironic haha
A lot of people who don't consider themselves Christian have a decent understanding of the religion (perhaps because of the early years of the country being shaped due to judeo-christian ideas)
@@anthonym8205 true that's why I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with Matt walsh. I'm just giving his explanation as to why he didn't provide a religious explanation of marriage.
@@josephthomasmusic and my view is that while non-believers may not understand some concepts (like the rosary) they do understand basic concepts (such as the idea of sin), even if they don't believe in them
@@anthonym8205 While I appreciate you sharing your particular view, I don't think it's necessary because we're just providing what Matt Walsh's rationale is. Sure you can disagree with that, but I'm not the one you should be disagreeing with since I didn't give my particular view on the matter. That's all I'm saying.
Nate, I’m surprised you let that F bomb slip through. You didn’t even flinch!.
This guy did a terrible job at putting out there the reason why its so offensive that gay marriage exist, specifically gay marriage done by a pastor in a Church! God establish the marriage to be between man and woman. It wasnt the government who established this. So Something that was specifically created and established by God is being used to bless a twisted idiology. Its like allowing marriage between brothers and sisters or parents and their children, or humans with animals, its perverse and horrifying in the eyes of God.
LGBTQA+ whatever is taking a christian practice that God invented to perverse it with their own idea and then to try to force churches to bless such marriage is insane. For people who dont believe in God im suprise they want pastors to bless their marriages.
How hard is it to say, because marriage is a covenant between one man one woman and God.
This is exactly what happens when you try to make a biblical point without the Bible just because who you're talking to doesn't consider the Bible a source.
The bottom line is homosexuals can't get married because marriage is something created by God. Your religion is supposed to come into play in this argument
It was a cringe-worthy interview. Clearly Matt has studied transgenderism more than he has studied homosexuality. Natural Law arguments can be made against homosexuality, but since Matt's representing Catholicism, he should have gone ahead and started from established Catholic dogma and then dovetailed in some Natural Law arguments.
But Matt's a smart guy. I bet he'll be better next time around (I hope).
"Gay Marriage" is an oxymoron.
Correct! It's just marriage.
@@anthonym8205 Correct. It's just marriage between a man and a woman.
@@anthonym8205 The whole purpose of marriage,all throughout History, has been to perpetuate and stabilize society. Only men and women accomplish that. They ensure the next generation. Gay Marriage makes about as much sense as saying' Married Bachelor'.
Are you aware of Logic?
@@robinrobyn1714 but who is to say (to put it in a basic, perhaps vulgar way) that it is only couples of penis havers and vagina holders that will keep a society stable?
@@robinrobyn1714 And why should it be marriage between man and woman?
Church and state are separate in the United States so your opinions on what state sanctioned marriage should be based on your religious beliefs are kind of irrelevant. Your religious institution can have the rules it wants for the marriages it wants to perform - that is separate than state sanctioned marriage outside of a church.
Regardless of the LGBTQ issue, atheists, agnostics, and people of non-Christian faiths also get married. A church's opinion on their marriage doesn't really matter because they're not going to the church to get married.
My siblings and I all went to a Lutheran church and school growing up. My parents got divorced and my mom wanted to get remarried to a Catholic man - the church I went to wouldn't do it because my mom's fiancé wasn't Lutheran, and that's fine. My mom had her wedding somewhere else. Should she not have been able to get married because her church didn't agree with her marrying a Catholic?
If you think marriage should be Biblical, according to which church's interpretation? Why should a church get to dictate state law for people who are not in that church (or who disagree with their interpretation)?
Walsh his a great cultural warrior but he is plagued by his catholic Thomistic natural theology...
Culture warriors are a plague to society IMO. They're the result and promoter of our toxic culture wars.
Matt tries not to go to the Bible argument with people like rogan that don't believe in the Bible because it's not a convincing argument to them. He has said as much. If rogan doesn't believe in or go by the Bible and you go to that he doesn't care.
Man your video is exactly what I was looking for a year ago when I saw this Joe Rogan episode. Matt's position was very difficult to understand without the clear foundation of the christian worldview. Very difficult. Glad to finally see a take like yours.
I think Matt intentionally stayed out of the biblical definition of marriage, perhaps because is well known that Rogan have continously question that validity of the Bible so they would get stuck in that subject instead of the main topic that they pick for that day.
@WiseDisciple. Love your channel and your takes! I'm with you 💯. I'm on Matt Walsh's side here, but he made a huge error in playing Rogan's game. If God's word is not our starting point, then we enter into the naive world of the unbeliever. Walsh's failure to appeal to God's word (the objective standard), led him into Rogan's subjective worldview. What's Joe's ultimate authority? Walsh should have stood firm and upheld God's word, thus highlighting Rogan's subjective and baseless worldview. Does Rogan have a problem with a grown man and a toddler tying the knot? If so, why? By what standard is that wrong in Joe's worldview? Very disappointed with Walsh here. There is no such thing as neutrality.
Walsh mentioned on his podcast that he was trying to not bring up god in the conversation
But why not?
@@billleroy6736 so non religious people might be convinced
But he needs to give a proper grounding for his view or his view is no stronger than Joe's. and that is how it came across.
And that’s why his argument fell apart, because there’s no secular argument against gay marriage.
@@jackiewheeler9202 Nope. There's a reason why Governments have protected Traditional marriages and gives them benefits over others. They have a mom and dad who in turn have children. This family structure has been around for millennia. Everyone knows this is what's best for a functioning society.
Joe gave him every opportunity to step up to the plate and gives the true biblical definition. But he just refused to do it.
As a Christian and a BJJ black belt, your analogy makes less than zero sense. If you had done just a tiny bit of research into the subject you say you know very little about, you would have quickly realized this.
How so?
I don't disagree with you because I realized there's black belts across different martial arts and some don't even have belts. I'm curious what he got wrong regarding BJJ.
You say that marriage is about self-sacrifice, Amen to that. But what your side constantly fails to substantiate is that this kind of self-sacrificial love is somehow impossible to exist in a homosexual marriage. You don't ever once explain why what is good in a heterosexual marriage is bad in a homosexual one.
True, and any long lasting and meaningful relationship, romantic or not, requires a level of self-sacrifice.
I honestly had to stop watching the podcast with Matt and Joe after a bit because I was practically yelling at the computer for Matt to ground marriage in Scripture. Joe even asked him to talk about his faith, and Matt didn't want to even bring it up. Marriage is not something that can be argued from a naturalistic perspective (as Matt is trying and ultimately failing to do) because, as opposed to Joe's claim that he made, it is not a man-made institution. It was designed by God for a purpose: to reflect the love of Christ for his bride (the church). And yes, one piece of marriage is pro-creation. Pro-creation is both a blessing and a duty of married couples. When God said in Genesis to "be fruitful and multiply," that was both a blessing and a command. It is so sad to see someone like Matt who claims to be a Christian and yet actively avoids standing on Scripture to talk about something that God has personally designed.
5:13 I believe the Bible is inspired of God but I am not sure I would go to the Bible in this conversation at first either because I would be dealing with an unbeliever who doesn't grant the Bible's authority just as I wouldn't go to Sacred Tradition first when arguing with someone who holds to Sola Scriptura. I would need to show that Sola Scriptura is unbiblical and a self refuting argument and then move to the authoritative creeds and authoritative councils of the authoritative church which authoritatively canonized the authoritative Holy Scriptures.
My thoughts too. Citing scripture to a nonbeliever isn't a good tactic since it means nothing to them. Sure it illustrates the basis of your views but there's no logical reason why they should agree.
The nonbeliever could easily say there's marriages between atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
It was a really nice example about Brazilian jujitsu. A similar case happens with the word: football. For me, American football is NOT real football. You can call me close-minded, or whatever you want, but you will not convinced me that running with a ball in you arms is Football.
Physiologically, each person has complete systems (circulatory, respiratory, nervous, skeletal, etc.) which sustain the individual, while the reproductive system is split in half between organisms that reproduce sexually. One biological function depends on the union, or marriage, of these two systems, and these systems are what define male and female. This is one of the reasons that things like r*pe are morally wrong… it’s an involuntary yet potentially permanent union.
Day 5 of asking for James White vs Tim Stratton
Nate, I found your analogy of real Brazilian Jujitsu vs fake Jujitsu eating 100 hot dogs to be spot-on when compared with the argument of heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage. It actually does create a very eye-opening perspective on why biblical marriage isn't just a "subjective, symbolic relationship" that the world can change according to its preferences. Its fundamental core truth is much deeper than just child-bearing or wanting a companion. Fantastic job breaking this down!
Rogan didn't do good either. His argument fell apart when he described selfish people SHARING a life together. How does that work? It wouldn't that's why he destroyed it his own argument when he mentioned divorce rates. I'm going to assume most of those divorce rates happen within the selfish people in a relationship.
Walsh did a bad job from y'all's perspective because he was intentionally trying to say homosexuality is wrong in the Union of marriage not under God. God wasn't supposed to be part of this conversation.
Salve Maria! Please reach out to Republicans and Team Trump to make a solid prolife platform including the banning of abortion pills not just the ''procedures''. And reinstating the definition of family as man and woman.
But marriage is not only Christian.
This ☝️
I think Walsh is trying to defend it without invoking God, presumably assuming that his message is going out to a primarily secular audience. Unfortunately that's a habit the Daily Wire has as a whole, they try to sneak their message into the mainstream but in order to do so have to disavow or diminish the principles behind it.
As much as I agree with Walsh and co. on many issues, when it comes to religious questions - and in particular explaining them with non-believers - I can't help but get frustrated. My problem with Walsh and Knowles (in particular, as the Catholics) is that they are so often caught up in the doctrines of the church as a historical, human institution and make claims based on that, rather than focusing on the spiritual concept of the church, which is a relationship with God. In doing so, they both fail to grasp the disconnect between their fundamental beliefs and those of non-believers, and they incline themselves to claim that anything not overtly-Christian is demonic (such as Knowles vs. Heavy Metal and Walsh vs. anime). When we as believers let these people speak on our behalf, we're not sending our best.
For example, I've heard both Knowles and Walsh on multiple occasions on stage at universities treat marriage as though its only purpose is procreation. That can't be something they got from the Bible (unless the extra Catholic books claim it, in which case it's an example of why those books were thrown out by Protestants for being at odds with the rest of the Canon), so it can only be a part of the other piece of evidence they pull from - the Catholic church. And this is why I'm a Protestant and not a Catholic.
Walsh did awful here. Because he's a political streamer.
Conservative politics have backed off homosexuality being wrong for a more laissez-faire approach. Sad to see Walsh prioritize his politics/image over his faith here.
Probably doesnt help that hes Catholic and that church's leadership has been so weird on this issue too.
I listened to this episode when it first came out. I remember thinking how I thought Matt Walsh was missing the mark.
I listen to MW on a semi regular basis, and I don’t think he lives his life BASED on the Bible. I think he aligns with the Bible principles, like a nuclear family but I don’t imagine he changes habits or corrects his beliefs by the word of God. I bet if I proved the word says to not eat pork or unclean animals, MW would still fire up his grill with pork ribs the next Sunday after church. Which Sunday isn’t even the sabbath.
Absolutely no judgement here, I’m just saying his argument starting point is literal definition, not faith based for a reason.
I’m gay and deeply devoted to Christ. I have my thoughts on this video, but I will say I greatly appreciate this pastor for his approach. What’s in Scripture is an institution for marriage and it’s spiritual purposes and a layout of heterosexual inferences because that’s the majority of everyone who lived and what the Law required before christ came. In the very few chances I get into discussions with someone who is against gay marriage, I would love to get to the meat of scripture and discuss the foundational pillars of marriage and why it’s in the bible! As soon as they start talking about procreation like it’s a requirement for christians or think gay couples existing is destroying the institution because of their own biases, I already know the discussion won’t get anywhere. Most people that are against gay marriage because of their faith have the privelege of shooting straight from the hip the six clobber passages “condemning homosexuality” and then dust their hands like they did God’s work, but gay christians ACTUALLY read and STUDY this particular topic EXTENSIVELY for obvious reasons. So it would be nice to talk to someone who doesn’t think being gay means you don’t know the bible and there’s just some solid definition we don’t already know about.
Marriage is a sacrament, vocation decided by God. If He doesn't approve, don't touch.
Unfortunately, you’re wasting your time analyzing Matt Walsh’s tactics. Even though I agree with him in principle on a lot of things, his thought process is incredibly superficial. I don’t think I’ve ever heard him make a good argument for anything. I have no idea how he got a show on the Daily Wire.
Joe said as an example, “I dont want to ruin a kid because Im at the office all the time.” Where’s your sense of ambition? Challenge! Those kids’ very existence is incredibly valuable to the creator of our world. If I get to spend an eternity with my children when this gauntlet is finally over it would be worth fighting and struggling to balance the glory of a career and spending nonreturnable time with my family. Even if I train them up in the way they should go and they possibly reject Christ, it makes the chance that they might believe in him that much more precious. Nate, you are doing the Lord’s work and I’m so moved by you brother. Thank you for all that you do and the glory is God’s. Love in Christ Nate. God bless you.
Rogans postion seemed to be to have you question what God says. Sounds kinda of familiar to me. Great job Nate on the Brazilian hotdog eating. I loved the comparison.
My minds blown! I’ve never heard of an argument against gay marriage that blows all arguments for it, completely out of the water’s of reason!!
Going to use this superior analogy of reason whenever confronted with this argument in the future. :)