Tap to unmute

Christian Talks to College Student About Abortion & Morality

  Рет қаралды 4,258

Hayden Rhodea

Hayden Rhodea

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 176
@santosconcepcion9616
@santosconcepcion9616 2 ай бұрын
The guy knows he's wrong but will stick to his pride of being inconsistently correct.
@Zanivox72
@Zanivox72 2 ай бұрын
I can’t tell which one you are talking about😂
@buddy_132
@buddy_132 Ай бұрын
It’s crazy what atheists will come up with to deny God. Atheist Scientists would rather consider aliens creating us and earth than ever God. The real question everyone should ask is “Why are many atheists so zealous against Gods existence?” I believe it’s what God said saying “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
@ganonthecanecorso
@ganonthecanecorso 2 ай бұрын
This is by far your best video yet
@regeneratus-l2w
@regeneratus-l2w 2 ай бұрын
Just found your channel and I quickly subscribed. Fantastic preaching of the Word, brother!
@imimpo9316
@imimpo9316 2 ай бұрын
Great example of weakness of moral relativism 😅😂
@kevindeegan141
@kevindeegan141 2 ай бұрын
You speak with incredible clarity because you are a servant for Christ. The man with the ponytail is self righteous but give him credit because he actually seems like a nice guy and didn’t get offended once through 30 minutes of conversation. No doubt, you have sowed some seeds in the young man’s heart.
@nothanksplease
@nothanksplease Ай бұрын
"who am i to say r@pe is wrong?" 😵‍💫
@CassTeaElle
@CassTeaElle 2 ай бұрын
This is such increadible timing, as I'm currently having a conversation with a few atheists who believe moral relativism and are also pro-life and against abortion. I've been trying to talk to them about these very issues in their inconsistent worldview. I recommended they come watch this, if they're open to hearing more.
@cliff7201
@cliff7201 2 ай бұрын
I'm an atheist that is pro-life. This video does not move the needle at all. Strictly speaking morality is relative even when it comes to Christianity or other religions. Something is "relative" if it's considered in proportion or relation to something else. So, a Christian judges things as moral in relation to what their supposed god says. That's moral relativism. It's just that your standard is relative to something other than what an atheist would use as their moral reference point. In both cases, the person is using a relative reference point.
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
My morality tells me that *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* Is not nor ever was a "moral" instruction and certainly not a moral reference standard that anyone should adhere or aspire to. Do you agree *YES or NO* ?? 🤔
@jimmymags6516
@jimmymags6516 2 ай бұрын
@@cliff7201 It's possible for a religion ( or a society) to define morality so succinctly that it would remove relativism. We don't need to compare immoral acts from one society to the next to understand morality. Murder is immoral whether your neighbor knows it or not . Morality is not a comparison but rather a sliding scale.
@michaellemmen
@michaellemmen 2 ай бұрын
@@cliff7201you have an incorrect understanding of relativism.
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
​@@michaellemmen Please answer my specific question
@Sher7061
@Sher7061 2 ай бұрын
Great video ! So much came out of this. The intellectual failure of morality. Cannot say murder is wrong.
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
Nonsensical, "murder" is defined as the "illegal" and intentional killing of one human being by another. Societies will generally criminalize behaviour they regard to be "wrong" so all you are doing is presenting a taughtology
@HopelessTom
@HopelessTom 2 ай бұрын
​@@trumpbellend6717ok, but WHY is murder wrong? How do you determine that? That's the whole point of Hayden's conversations with young people who usually haven't thought this through. I mean, wanting to understand why we make the laws that we make, that makes sense, isn't it? So in order to question things in life you have to step down from the position of someone who just follows sets of rules and become someone who questions these sets of rules and who tries to understand their root. Then you are faced with inconsistencies in your world views, which then should help you make better arguments for why you believe what you believe. And the end of the process is a society being shaped by people who know why they make the moral decisions that they make. I am a non religious agnostic who once was atheist and i love this sort of conversations, not because of the call to believe in christ or this god or another, but because (young) people get confronted with important topics and have the chance to put their world views to the consistency test. I once believed abortions are all about the liberation of women, and it's because of abolitionists and prolifers who bring this topic to the table and have polite conversations about it that I've changed my mind. I now also expect my first child and I would never imagine to have a healthy child in the womb aborted just because the woman doesn't feel like letting it live or parenting it.
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
@@HopelessTom "Murder" is a legal term for an action that's "definitionally" deemed "wrong" dear 🤭😅😅 So Hayden is presenting a taughtology, instead of asking would "killing" them be wrong he sneaks in the premises that its a "human being" that is being intentionally and illegally killed, highly disingenuous.
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
@@HopelessTom "Right and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless. My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard. One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'. *What is your "goal" and why 'OUGHT' one do what your subjective God desires* ?? 🙄🤔
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
@@HopelessTom // "A healthy child in the womb aborted" // Who determines what a "child" is and when human life attains value that supercedes the rights of a sentient self aware pain and emotion feeling pregnant female ?? Human life is a cyclical process and as such any determination as to what and when and new human life begins is a arbitrary and subjective one. Human $ perm are "alive" what kind of "life" do you think they are if not human? Are you going to deny this based upon some arbitrarily determined attributes or developmental stage, like you denigrate others for when discussing a zygote?? What is it about the particular haploid/ diploid transition that occurs at fertilisation that you think bestows them with a value that they did not have prior ??
@barrettcarl3009
@barrettcarl3009 2 ай бұрын
Still watching the video, but you should've made the distinction that an ectopic pregnancy isn't an abortion. Or when the life of the mother is an danger isn't classified as an abortion. (Not sure if you're gonna make that point yet) These are diversion tactics used by supporters either knowingly or unknowingly and make up less than 1% of realistic cases
@jsh381
@jsh381 2 ай бұрын
Moral relativism makes me sad. 😢 building your house upon a foundation of sand. I really don’t think that people understand how fast and violent societies can change their moral paradigm. 23:49
@eliteelitebob
@eliteelitebob 2 ай бұрын
What other option is there? I am agnostic.
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
My morality tells me that *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* Is not nor ever was a "moral" instruction and certainly not a moral reference standard that anyone should adhere or aspire to. Do you agree *YES or NO* ?? 🤔
@CassTeaElle
@CassTeaElle 2 ай бұрын
@@eliteelitebob objective morality that comes from God
@eliteelitebob
@eliteelitebob 2 ай бұрын
@@CassTeaElle but it’s subjective for you to believe in a specific gods moral system. The problem feels unresolved to me
@CassTeaElle
@CassTeaElle 2 ай бұрын
@@eliteelitebob I don't think you understand what subjective and objective morality mean... there are plenty of videos and books out there on the subject. You should look into it so you can understand better. I'm not exactly the best person to teach it.
@Ransomonious
@Ransomonious 2 ай бұрын
If you were blind you would not be guilty of sin, but since you claim to see your guilt remains.
@evocatus989
@evocatus989 Ай бұрын
The guest made a very strong point for the pro-life camp
@gorillaz_jbi
@gorillaz_jbi 2 ай бұрын
Who wrote the Bible? You’re in a conversation and someone says, “Who wrote the Bible?” What would you say? The Bible is the best-selling book in human history. But a lot of people don’t really know much about it. So it’s not surprising that people ask, “where did this book come from? Why was it written? Who wrote it?” Those are all good questions. The next time you’re in a conversation and someone asks, “Who wrote the Bible?”…Here are four things to remember. Number 1: The Bible is a collection of writings. Although many people think of the Bible as one book, it is actually a collection of many books that were written in various times and places throughout history. In fact, the earliest books in the Bible date back to the second millennium BC and the last was finished in the first century AD. So in one sense the Bible is not one book, but rather a complex set of books with a unified message. Number 2: God used people to write down the words of the Bible. God used people to write down what He wanted to communicate. In some cases we know the names of those people with confidence. Men like Moses, David, Isaiah, Matthew and Paul were responsible for actually writing down the words of the Bible. These were real people who lived in a real historical context. David for example was a King in Judah around 1000 BC. Matthew was a tax collector who lived in the Roman province of Judea in the first century AD. These men and many others wrote down the words that became the Bible in poems, legal material, letters and more. The words they wrote down retained the author’s own style, idiosyncrasies, and personality. But how did they know what to write? This brings us to the third point. Number 3: The writers communicated what God revealed to them. God told the writers what to write. In the Bible this process of revelation is called INSPIRATION. God inspired the authors to write what He wanted them to write. The words these men write down were actually a communication from God. In the second letter to Timothy chapter 3 verse 16, the Apostle Paul writes, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…”. The Greek word translated inspiration means “God Breathed”. That is to say the words he is referring to, the Old Testament to be precise in this case, were breathed out by God. They have God as their source. He’s saying that God is the TRUE author of the words that became the Bible. In his second letter, chapter 1 verse 21, the Apostle Peter writes, “For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” This passage like the previous one affirms that God is the ultimate source of the Bible. The authors of the Bible did not decide to be creative and make something new. The Bible tells us that God communicated with them and they wrote down what He gave to them. Number 4: Different books were revealed differently. Each book of the Bible has its own origin story. Some of them are stated in the books. For example, the Book of Deuteronomy contains a series of sermons that God told Moses to give to Israel. While in the Gospel of Luke, the author declares his purpose to write a comprehensive history of Jesus’ ministry. Some of the prophets like Daniel, Obediah, Hosea, and Nahum wrote down dreams God gave them. But even though these books were revealed differently, they were ALL inspired by God. He is the source of their message. The conclusion we can come to based on these verses is this: 1. God is the author of the Bible and He used men to write it down. 2. God is responsible for its content and it comes to us with his authority. So the next time you’re in a conversation and you’re talking about Holy Books and someone says, “Who wrote the Bible?” Remember these four things. 1. The Bible is a collection of writings. 2. God used people to write down the words of the Bible. 3. The writers communicated what God revealed to them. 4. Different books were revealed differently.
@eliteelitebob
@eliteelitebob 2 ай бұрын
Nice effort if you came up with this. I am agnostic because it cannot be proven that God used people to write down his words. That is my major contention that I don’t think can be rectified.
@gorillaz_jbi
@gorillaz_jbi 2 ай бұрын
@ Agnosticism is a more intellectually honest form of atheism. Atheism claims that God does not exist-an unprovable position. Agnosticism argues that God’s existence cannot be proven (empirically) or unproven-that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. Yet we also use historical science (not just empirical science) to know truth and history. Because actually when you understand observational science (empirical), it actually confirms the Bible’s history. So when you hear something like, “Billions of years ago there was an explosion in space.” Or “One hundred thousand years ago this happened or that happened”. Or even “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth.” So first, how does anyone even know? Was anyone there to observe it? Well, actually somebody was but I’m getting ahead of myself. We need to recognize that there is a huge difference between observational science and historical science. Both are valuable but very different. So let’s define the two real quick. 1. Observational science is simply when we observe something and experiment to draw conclusions. It involves repeatable experimentation and observations IN THE PRESENT. It’s through observational science that we find cures for diseases and build space shuttles amongst many other things. 2. Now through historical science we consider things that happened IN THE PAST. But they cannot be checked in the same way. We don’t have access to the past like we do the present because, well, it’s gone! All we really have is speculation, or at best, circumstantial evidences of past events based on what we see in the present. That’s not to say that we can’t make intelligent guesses about the past or form reasonable inferences from rocks or fossils in the present. But we certainly cannot directly test our conclusions because we cannot repeat the past. So does this mean historical science is unimportant? Not at all! Let’s use an example. How about the 19th century Parisian monument, the Eiffel Tower? It was designed by Gustav Eiffel that stands 1,063 feet tall which was built as the entrance for the 1889 worlds fair. It’s still the tallest building in Paris today and visited by millions of people each year. Now everything looks what’s said about the Eiffel Tower is true. But how do we test it? Well, applying observational science we can of course observe the Eiffel Tower anytime we’re in Paris. It’s here in the present. Then we can continue by testing the height and comparing it to all the other structures in Paris and confirm the claim that it is indeed the tallest building in Paris. But that’s the extent of the kind of facts that can be proved by observational science in reference to this claim. But how do we know that Gustav designed it? How do we really know it was built in the 19th century as an entrance to the 1889 world’s fair? How do we really know? How many people visited? Because these things are all in the past. They can’t be repeated. For that kind of information we need to go outside the limits of observational science and discover what has been communicated to us through historical documents and eyewitness accounts. And furthermore we have to believe those eyewitnesses and documents are trustworthy. The same is true when we talk about the origin of the earth. The earth is here. We all agree with that. So does observational science confirm that the world was created by God? And are there trustworthy documents and eyewitness accounts that confirm it? Well let’s just take the last part first. So what we’re really asking is my original question. “Was anybody there to observe it?” The answer is yes. God was there! He told us how He created. He inspired people to write down his very words that became books that were compiled into a complete book called “The Bible”. It has been verified over and over again and has demonstrated itself to be totally trustworthy in all it claims and teaches. Even secular scholars will concede that the Bible accurately records historical events. We have the most trustworthy revelation from the most trustworthy eyewitness. Now, what about observational science? Does it confirm the Bible? Yes! And what’s extremely important to realize is the observable fact that the universe is logical and orderly. That makes sense only if it’s Creator is logical and has imposed order on His creation. It doesn’t make sense at all if the universe is just an accident of a huge explosion. Also, our minds are able to comprehend many things about the universe. And that’s only possible if the Creator of the mind gave us the ability and desire to explore the universe. It doesn’t make sense if our brains are byproducts of chance because we couldn’t trust their conclusions to ever be accurate. And lastly, it only makes sense that we can observe and repeat an experiment if the universe consistently obeys the same laws from day to day. Which only makes sense if a law giver created it that way and upholds it. So to be bluntly honest, science itself, whether observational or historical, is only possible because God exists and the Bible is true. One of the verses of scripture I always have at the forefront of my mind is 1 Peter 3:15 where it says “…and always be ready to give a defense…”. I’ve been asked many questions like, Where did Cain get his wife? Or what about the so-called races of people? What about dinosaurs? What about carbon dating? What about the millions of years? What about the Big Bang? How do you know there’s a God? Where did God come from? As a Christian we need to be able to give answers and defend our faith. And we can! It’s exciting because God’s word is true.
@gorillaz_jbi
@gorillaz_jbi 2 ай бұрын
@@eliteelitebob Agnosticism is a more intellectually honest form of atheism. Atheism claims that God does not exist-an unprovable position. Agnosticism argues that God’s existence cannot be proven (empirically) or unproven-that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. Yet we also use historical science (not just empirical science) to know truth and history. Because actually when you understand observational science (empirical), it actually confirms the Bible’s history. So when you hear something like, “Billions of years ago there was an explosion in space.” Or “One hundred thousand years ago this happened or that happened”. Or even “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth.” So first, how does anyone even know? Was anyone there to observe it? Well, actually somebody was but I’m getting ahead of myself. We need to recognize that there is a huge difference between observational science and historical science. Both are valuable but very different. So let’s define the two real quick. 1. Observational science is simply when we observe something and experiment to draw conclusions. It involves repeatable experimentation and observations IN THE PRESENT. It’s through observational science that we find cures for diseases and build space shuttles amongst many other things. 2. Now through historical science we consider things that happened IN THE PAST. But they cannot be checked in the same way. We don’t have access to the past like we do the present because, well, it’s gone! All we really have is speculation, or at best, circumstantial evidences of past events based on what we see in the present. That’s not to say that we can’t make intelligent guesses about the past or form reasonable inferences from rocks or fossils in the present. But we certainly cannot directly test our conclusions because we cannot repeat the past. So does this mean historical science is unimportant? Not at all! Let’s use an example. How about the 19th century Parisian monument, the Eiffel Tower? It was designed by Gustav Eiffel that stands 1,063 feet tall which was built as the entrance for the 1889 worlds fair. It’s still the tallest building in Paris today and visited by millions of people each year. Now everything looks what’s said about the Eiffel Tower is true. But how do we test it? Well, applying observational science we can of course observe the Eiffel Tower anytime we’re in Paris. It’s here in the present. Then we can continue by testing the height and comparing it to all the other structures in Paris and confirm the claim that it is indeed the tallest building in Paris. But that’s the extent of the kind of facts that can be proved by observational science in reference to this claim. But how do we know that Gustav designed it? How do we really know it was built in the 19th century as an entrance to the 1889 world’s fair? How do we really know? How many people visited? Because these things are all in the past. They can’t be repeated. For that kind of information we need to go outside the limits of observational science and discover what has been communicated to us through historical documents and eyewitness accounts. And furthermore we have to believe those eyewitnesses and documents are trustworthy. The same is true when we talk about the origin of the earth. The earth is here. We all agree with that. So does observational science confirm that the world was created by God? And are there trustworthy documents and eyewitness accounts that confirm it? Well let’s just take the last part first. So what we’re really asking is my original question. “Was anybody there to observe it?” The answer is yes. God was there! He told us how He created. He inspired people to write down his very words that became books that were compiled into a complete book called “The Bible”. It has been verified over and over again and has demonstrated itself to be totally trustworthy in all it claims and teaches. Even secular scholars will concede that the Bible accurately records historical events. We have the most trustworthy revelation from the most trustworthy eyewitness. Now, what about observational science? Does it confirm the Bible? Yes! And what’s extremely important to realize is the observable fact that the universe is logical and orderly. That makes sense only if it’s Creator is logical and has imposed order on His creation. It doesn’t make sense at all if the universe is just an accident of a huge explosion. Also, our minds are able to comprehend many things about the universe. And that’s only possible if the Creator of the mind gave us the ability and desire to explore the universe. It doesn’t make sense if our brains are byproducts of chance because we couldn’t trust their conclusions to ever be accurate. And lastly, it only makes sense that we can observe and repeat an experiment if the universe consistently obeys the same laws from day to day. Which only makes sense if a law giver created it that way and upholds it. So to be bluntly honest, science itself, whether observational or historical, is only possible because God exists and the Bible is true. One of the verses of scripture I always have at the forefront of my mind is 1 Peter 3:15 where it says “…and always be ready to give a defense…”. I’ve been asked many questions like, Where did Cain get his wife? Or what about the so-called races of people? What about dinosaurs? What about carbon dating? What about the millions of years? What about the Big Bang? How do you know there’s a God? Where did God come from? As a Christian we need to be able to give answers and defend our faith. And we can! It’s exciting because God’s word is true.
@gorillaz_jbi
@gorillaz_jbi 2 ай бұрын
@@eliteelitebob Agnosticism is a more intellectually honest form of atheism. Atheism claims that God does not exist-an unprovable position. Agnosticism argues that God’s existence cannot be proven (empirically) or unproven-that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. Yet we also use historical science (not just empirical science) to know truth and history. Because actually when you understand observational science (empirical), it actually confirms the Bible’s history. So when you hear something like, “Billions of years ago there was an explosion in space.” Or “One hundred thousand years ago this happened or that happened”. Or even “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth.” So first, how does anyone even know? Was anyone there to observe it? Well, actually somebody was but I’m getting ahead of myself. We need to recognize that there is a huge difference between observational science and historical science. Both are valuable but very different. So let’s define the two real quick. 1. Observational science is simply when we observe something and experiment to draw conclusions. It involves repeatable experimentation and observations IN THE PRESENT. It’s through observational science that we find cures for diseases and build space shuttles amongst many other things. 2. Now through historical science we consider things that happened IN THE PAST. But they cannot be checked in the same way. We don’t have access to the past like we do the present because, well, it’s gone! All we really have is speculation, or at best, circumstantial evidences of past events based on what we see in the present. That’s not to say that we can’t make intelligent guesses about the past or form reasonable inferences from rocks or fossils in the present. But we certainly cannot directly test our conclusions because we cannot repeat the past. So does this mean historical science is unimportant? Not at all! Let’s use an example. How about the 19th century Parisian monument, the Eiffel Tower? It was designed by Gustav Eiffel that stands 1,063 feet tall which was built as the entrance for the 1889 worlds fair. It’s still the tallest building in Paris today and visited by millions of people each year. Now everything looks what’s said about the Eiffel Tower is true. But how do we test it? Well, applying observational science we can of course observe the Eiffel Tower anytime we’re in Paris. It’s here in the present. Then we can continue by testing the height and comparing it to all the other structures in Paris and confirm the claim that it is indeed the tallest building in Paris. But that’s the extent of the kind of facts that can be proved by observational science in reference to this claim. But how do we know that Gustav designed it? How do we really know it was built in the 19th century as an entrance to the 1889 world’s fair? How do we really know? How many people visited? Because these things are all in the past. They can’t be repeated. For that kind of information we need to go outside the limits of observational science and discover what has been communicated to us through historical documents and eyewitness accounts. And furthermore we have to believe those eyewitnesses and documents are trustworthy. The same is true when we talk about the origin of the earth. The earth is here. We all agree with that. So does observational science confirm that the world was created by God? And are there trustworthy documents and eyewitness accounts that confirm it? Well let’s just take the last part first. So what we’re really asking is my original question. “Was anybody there to observe it?” The answer is yes. God was there! He told us how He created. He inspired people to write down his very words that became books that were compiled into a complete book called “The Bible”. It has been verified over and over again and has demonstrated itself to be totally trustworthy in all it claims and teaches. Even secular scholars will concede that the Bible accurately records historical events. We have the most trustworthy revelation from the most trustworthy eyewitness. Now, what about observational science? Does it confirm the Bible? Yes! And what’s extremely important to realize is the observable fact that the universe is logical and orderly. That makes sense only if it’s Creator is logical and has imposed order on His creation. It doesn’t make sense at all if the universe is just an accident of a huge explosion. Also, our minds are able to comprehend many things about the universe. And that’s only possible if the Creator of the mind gave us the ability and desire to explore the universe. It doesn’t make sense if our brains are byproducts of chance because we couldn’t trust their conclusions to ever be accurate. And lastly, it only makes sense that we can observe and repeat an experiment if the universe consistently obeys the same laws from day to day. Which only makes sense if a law giver created it that way and upholds it. So to be bluntly honest, science itself, whether observational or historical, is only possible because God exists and the Bible is true. One of the verses of scripture I always have at the forefront of my mind is 1 Peter 3:15 where it says “…and always be ready to give a defense…”. I’ve been asked many questions like, Where did Cain get his wife? Or what about the so-called races of people? What about dinosaurs? What about carbon dating? What about the millions of years? What about the Big Bang? How do you know there’s a God? Where did God come from? As a Christian we need to be able to give answers and defend our faith. And we can! It’s exciting because God’s word is true.
@rachelmcgowan9115
@rachelmcgowan9115 2 ай бұрын
True, if cannot be proven, but there is much evidence. I encourage you to read it with an open heart and mind, asking God to show Himself to you. He loves you.
@OctagonalSquare
@OctagonalSquare Ай бұрын
“Morality is subjective and based on society’s whims” “So bad thing isn’t objectively bad” “No” “So if society said bad thing is good then it’s good” “Well it wouldn’t say that” “Well it has said that. And why wouldn’t it?” “Because it’s obviously bad” These people don’t freaking get it.
@Psychodegu
@Psychodegu 2 ай бұрын
There is literally never a situation when you get choose between mother or child. It is either they both live due to medical intervention, only the mother lives or they both die. There is no scenario when allowing the mother to die allows you to save a child.
@brandonivy7602
@brandonivy7602 2 ай бұрын
🙏 your videos raise a lot of good questions. Doesn’t seem the people your speaking to ever try to answer any of them🙁 It just really leaves a sour feeling getting through the whole video and that whole time only one person was trying to understand and actually answered and challenged the other viewpoint
@dhansfried758
@dhansfried758 Ай бұрын
It's unfortunate that this guy can't accept rape being 100% wrong 100% of the time. He's technically saying it is okay in a sense, and it seems he just can't see it. I just got sent here from Christ United. I love your channel(s).
@adrianobattaglia4060
@adrianobattaglia4060 2 ай бұрын
Abortion is always wrong. What they talked about is not an abortion. Why do they always do this?
@Psychodegu
@Psychodegu 2 ай бұрын
He keeps saying the life of the mother is more important than the life of the child, but he means the quality of the life of the mother is more important than the existential life of the child.
@Th3Pr0digalS0n
@Th3Pr0digalS0n 2 ай бұрын
God most definitely did not say all animals are food in the New Testiment
@CassTeaElle
@CassTeaElle 2 ай бұрын
Mark 7:18-19
@ganonthecanecorso
@ganonthecanecorso 2 ай бұрын
Do you have a discord or a way of your community to speak with you?
@bucklejrjjbg8197
@bucklejrjjbg8197 2 ай бұрын
I don't understand why the guest keeps saying the same thing over and over again
@SergiuMarsavela
@SergiuMarsavela 2 ай бұрын
Could you point out where in the new testament it states that ALL animals are clean for us to eat now? Thanks.
@BoneHead-Gaming
@BoneHead-Gaming 2 ай бұрын
@@SergiuMarsavela Google it.. Jesus said something about it's not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, it's what comes out... Or something like that.. I don't have an idetic memory.
@CassTeaElle
@CassTeaElle 2 ай бұрын
Mark 7:18-19
@GaserBeam-hi4ez
@GaserBeam-hi4ez 2 ай бұрын
@@BoneHead-Gamingno, you misunderstand and didn’t read the full context. Mark ch 7. The Pharisees were complaining about people eating bread with unwashed hands. Jesus said in response that it’s not what goes in a man that defiles him, but breaking God’s law, and we shouldn’t add or take away from the Law, for the Law is good leading us to blessing and perfection, it’s for our good. What is food according to God’s Law, only certain animals, fish with scales and fins, animals that have cloven hoofs and chew the cud, and certain kinds of birds. Pigs were never called food. In fact, God said they weren’t good and eating them is an abomination…against his created nature. Jesus was speaking about the extra laws the leaders were making about handwashing, not food. Also, Jesus goes on to say, he isn’t there to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (obey it perfectly). That NOT one jot or tittle should pass away from the Law until heaven and earth pass away.
@BoneHead-Gaming
@BoneHead-Gaming 2 ай бұрын
@@CassTeaElle did you Google it? Or are you that amazing? 😍
@GaserBeam-hi4ez
@GaserBeam-hi4ez 2 ай бұрын
@@CassTeaEllegotta make sure you read all of Mark 7
@gorillaz_jbi
@gorillaz_jbi 2 ай бұрын
What does the Bible say about animal rights? The Word of God does not mention the treatment of animals to a great extent. However, from the creation account we get both what the Bible says about animals and how we must treat them. In Genesis 1 we find the creation of all things. It is here that we see God establishing the relationship between man and animal. In verse 28 God gives to man authority over all that was created on earth. Man is to take care of and use the earth. Man is to have the authority over all that was created. This means that man is to assume the control and protection of all that God had created. We must be careful in this role. However, it is important to notice what God does after the sin of man. Genesis 3 gives to us the details of the first sin man commits. In verse 21 God prepares for mankind a covering out of skin, and for the first time an animal dies. The implications of this flow throughout the Word of God; because of man’s sin, death has entered the world. However, for our discussion on animals, it is important to understand that the animals are to be used by men for our needs. In Genesis 9 there is a change in man’s relation to animals. Up to this point, animals were not used as food. However, God now includes certain animals in the diet of mankind. God also puts fear of man into the animals. Again, animals are used to fill the needs of men. However, God repeats His command in verse two to watch over these animals. Animal cruelty should not take place if men truly understand the command to be “caretakers” of the earth. We are to control the numbers of animals so disease and sickness do not kill them off; we are to use the animals for our needs; we are to control animals in a manner in which they are not harmful to humans; and finally we should protect them from over-killing and abuse. The problem lies in the fact that many do not understand this balance and tend to over-protect or under-protect animals. Animals were created for us to enjoy, so protecting a remnant for others to enjoy is also proper. Proverbs 12:10 tells us, "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel."
@BoneHead-Gaming
@BoneHead-Gaming 2 ай бұрын
@@gorillaz_jbi animals don't have rights, or morals. That doesn't mean people have the right to harm them. This is why a fast kill for food is honorable. Unnecessary suffering is wrong. They are still food none the less. People are NOT food.
@vitbottem
@vitbottem 2 ай бұрын
don't agree with the dude but by far exceeds the reasoning ability of anyone i've ever seen on the position
@c4lvitron
@c4lvitron 2 ай бұрын
Keep it up! I can tell you've been working on speaking slower!
@Skylerrelyks93
@Skylerrelyks93 2 ай бұрын
Never been so early.
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
*1.07* When you assert that God created man in his image do you mean, ...... with no knowledge of right and wrong ?? 🤔 or did he only only truly reflect _"Gods image"_ AFTER eating of the fruit when he became a "sinner" ?? 🤔 is this why man can be a jealous, genocidal monster at times just like his alleged "creator" ??
@Somethirdthing
@Somethirdthing 2 ай бұрын
32:30 checkmate
@owendoyle6403
@owendoyle6403 2 ай бұрын
🛐🕯✝🙏🏻❤👏🏻
@callistoscali4344
@callistoscali4344 2 ай бұрын
If anything with human DNA is a person, then a bag of human blood is a person. That’s seems to be a contradiction. His definition is probably incorrect.
@bucklejrjjbg8197
@bucklejrjjbg8197 2 ай бұрын
I'm not a scientist or a medical doctor, but that only seems to be a contradiction if you do not have rational understanding.
@callistoscali4344
@callistoscali4344 2 ай бұрын
@bucklejrjjbg8197 Simply making claims without evidence or explanation is not convincing. You saying that it is not rational does not make it so. He said in the video human DNA. It was he who said it, not me.
@NikosNikos-dr7wv
@NikosNikos-dr7wv 2 ай бұрын
You make no sense. Human DNA= Human being
@bucklejrjjbg8197
@bucklejrjjbg8197 2 ай бұрын
@@callistoscali4344 the point he was making is clear though. You can argue the exact words that someone says and break them down, then form many different interpretations of what was said. However the point he was making is clear and your comparison to a bag of blood negates common sense.
@callistoscali4344
@callistoscali4344 2 ай бұрын
@@bucklejrjjbg8197 No. His point isn't clear. He said a single cell zygote is a human being because it has human DNA. That is the same as a single blood cell with human DNA is also a human being. It is he who made that point, not me. Both negates common sense, but it is he who made it.
@tarem4264
@tarem4264 2 ай бұрын
🥱
@Rick-ro8bf
@Rick-ro8bf 2 ай бұрын
18:58 this guys not 100% LOL
@omontalbano
@omontalbano 2 ай бұрын
He mentioned that you said you don’t believe in evolution- it would be great if you could make a video about why makes you do not believe in evolution
@NikosNikos-dr7wv
@NikosNikos-dr7wv 2 ай бұрын
Goes against science and logic
@laurenlooolll
@laurenlooolll 2 ай бұрын
C0mmenting for algo!!!
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
My morality tells me that *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* Is not nor ever was a "moral" instruction and certainly not a moral reference standard that anyone should adhere or aspire to. Do you agree *YES or NO* ?? 🤔
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
The German population at the time comprised approximately 94% Christians. Both they and the Jewish people held The Old Testament in common and it was only with regards jesus being the Messiah that differences occurred between these two groups and yet 6 million people were killed. One group did the dying and the other group the killing but which group do you think was which ? 🤔
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
*0.47* Personhood is a metaphysical "concept" what constitutes a "person" and when human life becomes a "person" is an entirely subjective determination
@BoneHead-Gaming
@BoneHead-Gaming 2 ай бұрын
If persons and people are the same thing, like you think it is.... Then the fourth amendment is literally nonsense.... God can be three persons, father,son,holy Ghost. Persons are fiction, people are not.
@BoneHead-Gaming
@BoneHead-Gaming 2 ай бұрын
Persons are things that people can get in and out of. Actually animals are sometimes persons too.. look it up.. there's a gorilla that is a person..
@RustyCog
@RustyCog 2 ай бұрын
People is the plural for person is it not?
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
So how does monozygotic twinning which occurs many weeks after fertilisation conform with Haydens claim that a zygote is a "person" ?? 🤔🙄
@RustyCog
@RustyCog 2 ай бұрын
@ I assume he would just say that a person split into two persons, two people.
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
@@RustyCog Lol so a "person" according to you can become two people 🤭😅 pray tell what about the reverse when two zygote's fuse to become one ( also occurs many weeks into pregnancy ) ? 🤔🙄
@eliteelitebob
@eliteelitebob 2 ай бұрын
“If a society were to declare bad thing to be moral, then it would be moral.” This was the point Hayden painstakingly got the student to concede. Similarly, in a society where God deemed bad thing to be moral, it would also be considered moral. I disagree with Hayden’s assertion that morality can be determined simply because God commands it. This approach merely shifts the problem further back, making it less obvious but no less unresolved.
@MrChoco409
@MrChoco409 2 ай бұрын
youre ignoring or misunderstanding the nature of the source of morality. Its the only true objective
@eliteelitebob
@eliteelitebob 2 ай бұрын
@ sorry can you explain?
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
​@@MrChoco409 🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ?? If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
​@@eliteelitebob The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
*2.20* // "he gave us a command to care for his creation" // _"k all the males from amongst the little ones and k every woman who has known a man intimately But keep alive for yourselves all the young virgin girls"_ Numbers 31
@xgravy997
@xgravy997 2 ай бұрын
context bro. God is just
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
@xgravy997 So suddenly killing babies is "just" 🙄
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
@@xgravy997 What does "justice" actually mean to you my friend ? 🤔 You see for me justice is all about "fairness", responsibility, equality, accountability, and consequences all of which can be negated under Christian soteriology by one's acceptance or rejection of extraordinary supernatural claims and a willingness to pass the buck. One's eternal salvation or damnation is determined not by their actions in life but membership of the "belief" club *John 5 24* _“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and _*_"BELIEVES"_*_ in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and _*_SHALL NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT,_*_ but has passed from death into life"_ Moral properties such as responsibility are supervenient on actions and attributes of moral agents, and cannot be transferred between them. As such vicarious redemption ( *scapegoating* ) could never and should never be regarded as either logical or moral. The idea of sin, or morality however you define it, being a tradeable commodity is at odds with how I define morality. Particularly when it involves the suffering of an innocent. I am responsible for my good and bad actions. My bad deeds can't be "taken" any more than my good nor should they be.
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
*0.47* // " I'd say a person is anyone with human dna" // A human $, perm has a complete and unique human genome
@xgravy997
@xgravy997 2 ай бұрын
lol it’s not the baby’s DNA, that’s the fathers only 😂
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
@xgravy997 Wrong it is *UNIQUE* ( each and every individual one ) their Dna does not just come frome the male but also from a combination of the males parents. Indeed it ensures that a baby actually inherits a blend of Dna from all 4 grand parents. It's a process known as "recombination". During this process, bits of DNA 'cross over' between homologous chromosomes, which adds to genetic variability. Furthermore, independent assortment of the chromosomes occurs. This process allows for a variability of, 2²³ 8,388,608 possible outcomes dear. plus the process of random genetic mutations But it gets much worse for you cupcake, you see because they are then individually affected by a process called epigenetics. After production in the testes they have to travel down the epididymis ( a process that takes approximately 2 weeks ) each individual sperm is once again individually changed by molecules referred to as "small RNAs". These are discarded from the sperm and then reacquired on its journey. Its a random process that is affected by simple things such as the the males stress, diet, and nutrient levels. Once again this impacts the sperm Individually each in a different way. Do you want me to post the links cupcake ?????
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
@xgravy997 Nope it is UNIQUE ( each and every individual one ) their Dna does not just come frome the male but also from a combination of the males parents. Indeed it ensures that a baby actually inherits a blend of Dna from all 4 grand parents. It's a process known as "recombination". During this process, bits of DNA 'cross over' between homologous chromosomes, which adds to genetic variability. Furthermore, independent assortment of the chromosomes occurs. This process allows for a variability of, 2²³ 8,388,608 possible outcomes on an already unique genome dear. plus the process of random genetic mutations
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
@@xgravy997 But it gets much worse for you dear you see because they are then individually affected by a process called epigenetics. After production in the testes they have to travel down the epididymis ( a process that takes approximately 2 weeks ) each individual one is once again individually changed by molecules referred to as "small RNAs". These are discarded from the $ perm and then reacquired on its journey. Its a random process that is affected by simple things such as the the males stress, diet, and nutrient levels. Once again this impacts them Individually each in a different way. Do you want me to post the links ?
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
@@xgravy997 No response as expected 🤫
@trumpbellend6717
@trumpbellend6717 2 ай бұрын
If YOU want to claim your particular god as the objective reference point for morality. You first have to demonstrate *objectively* that YOUR particular god EXISTS and is infact THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and *not merely the only true god in your subjective opinion* That he is "MORAL" ( what standard did you use to judge this ? ) Are all the other gods and denominations other than yours false and yours true If so prove it . otherwise you offer nothing but a *subjective opinion on morality* *CAN YOU DO THIS YES OR NO* ??
@Oneocna
@Oneocna 2 ай бұрын
0:52 This is a circular definition by saying a persona is ANYONE with unique human dna is not only vague but you don't believe it. Is an arm a person or is it not because its not "anyone" are twins people even though they don't have unique human dna which one is the person. 0:55 You also have this every time a cell replicates at the first split of a zygote which one is the person. And does the second cell become the person when the first cell eventually dies. Which of the thousand cells become the person when the first one dies. Also twins... 1:12 you always say this and yet the only citation you give says that pigs are smarter since they can do pathlovean tasks. You can only make this comparison if you either define consciousness or keep it within humans. Also if you eat meat you are are supporting and taking part of the mass ending of billions of conscious creatures 1:56 He didn't tell you, you were told by someone else who read a book that was translated across two languages that was written down from a story of a man who had "revelation" god didn't tell you or "us" anything to be clear 2:58 Yah but we produce way more than we eat so it doesn't matter if they are clean or not, but ig you would just say there's sin in the world 3:45 "not causing unnecessary harm" ...like eating them??? We don't have to eat animals, why did god make us want to eat animals in the first place, why make us desire to cause any harm??????? 4:52 ......................you're just wrong 6:55 Goooood response call him out, good job 10:25 You also should believe that the doctors should do everything to keep both alive for as long as possible right. Spend nutrients and water on the fetus even if its before viability until biological functions terminate. 10:44 Define die, science considered death of a person at the cessation of brain or heart function, you don't agree with this so define death
@NikosNikos-dr7wv
@NikosNikos-dr7wv 2 ай бұрын
Someone with human DNA is a human being.
@Oneocna
@Oneocna 2 ай бұрын
@ lazy boring someone begs the person already it’s circular, why would someone without human dna be a person. Since they are someone already. See the issue Try again
@njappboy
@njappboy 2 ай бұрын
This guy takes the "slow talking to appear smart" to an all new slow pace. Slow talking so much that no point is actually made halfway into the interview.
@aj-wl6xi
@aj-wl6xi 2 ай бұрын
I don't think it's on purpose. I think that's just how he operates, possibly mentally but the main thing is that he was honest and kind and willing to talk with someone who disagrees with him. It's refreshing to see someone talk and not get too heated from just disagreeing. Try not to assume malice for incompetence or ones own bias.
@Crumblederaser
@Crumblederaser 2 ай бұрын
I agree, i also speak slow just to gather my thoughts so what comes out isnt a total mess
@njappboy
@njappboy 2 ай бұрын
@aj-wl6xi I wasn't assuming malice, just hoping for coherent logic in a timely manner.
@eliteelitebob
@eliteelitebob 2 ай бұрын
Commenter not based. Replies based.
@aj-wl6xi
@aj-wl6xi 2 ай бұрын
I don't think there's need for that. It's just a difference of opinion. No one is a bad person here.
1 Atheist vs 25 Christians (feat. Alex O'Connor) | Surrounded
1:33:20
Сестра обхитрила!
00:17
Victoria Portfolio
Рет қаралды 958 М.
1% vs 100% #beatbox #tiktok
01:10
BeatboxJCOP
Рет қаралды 67 МЛН
Evangelizing Culture & Catholic Vs Protestant Stuff (@RuslanKD)
2:36:35
You Can’t Give What You Don’t Have - Bishop Barron Sunday Sermon
13:42
Bishop Robert Barron
Рет қаралды 114 М.
I Believed I Was A MAN, Until JESUS Did THIS...😳 (Testimony)
49:22
Delafé Testimonies
Рет қаралды 296 М.
YES! The Bible is Reliable. Here's Why.
1:12:27
Matt Fradd
Рет қаралды 419 М.
EWTN News Nightly | Thursday, January 23, 2025
23:01
EWTN
Рет қаралды 8 М.
Сестра обхитрила!
00:17
Victoria Portfolio
Рет қаралды 958 М.