How Martin Luther ANSWERED Sam Harris' Best Argument (500 years ago)

[@baldwinthefourth4098]

I'm Catholic, but this is a good video

[@wilfricbowknee9734]

I appreciate the content. I had a hard time laughing at the memes/ edits while listening intently to your explanations which were well thought out and easy to understand. A good problem to have, no doubt.

[@Biodegradable-Trash9005]

I just love how you edit your videos!! Its very funny and fun to watch (I could play this on a loop). Jesus christ bless you, keep making these awsome videos ☦️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️♾️

[@MyLittleTierList-nz5vo]

Very true

[@bruhvideoproduction]

Thank you, friend!

[@Biodegradable-Trash9005]

@bruhvideoproduction No problem friend :D a talented person should be complimented :)

[@Biodegradable-Trash9005]

@@MyLittleTierList-nz5vo 💯

[@mikaelrosing]

As a Lutheran. Our teaching is often with the Lutheran fathers, its only Luther alot of our theology we appreasiate and love dearly St Thomas, and his work.

[@samuelvandenbroek101]

Dude how I have I randomly come across the funniest apologetics channel ever. I cackled at you yelling lutheran soteriology

[@bruhvideoproduction]

😆 thanks bruh

[@DutchGigaChad]

I have to say that your refutation is not very good in my opinion. His argument is a internal critique not purely external

[@Parrallaxatives]

exactly, the “why do you care if ur an atheist response” immediately failed to land because given the argument you must assume we are going off the christian worldview of what good/evil is and a god existing

[@ovidiudante]

An atheist once tried to tell me that God is bad by stating that He said people's sins will be punished for up to 7 generations. Then I pointed out that that was just half of the phrase and in the very next part God says that he will forgive the sins of those who do good for up to a thousand generations, thus pointing out that God himself stated that he is much more willing to forgive than punish. The guy ignored me and tried to change the subject...plenty of them don't actually care about finding out the truth, they will just fight Christianity and even use arguments that they know are not true in hope of "defeating" some christians.

[@bamboo1763]

You realize that every generations after Adam and eve is punished for the sins of Adam and eve, right?

[@ovidiudante]

@@bamboo1763 because every generation keeps on sinning. The fall of Adam and Eve is essentially the fall of humanity as a whole and explains how the root of evil is putting your ego above the desire to do what is right. That is also why the name of the first human was Adam in order to underline that the fall of Adam represents the fall of man/humanity.

[@Julian0101]

That is still evil, punishing future generations for the acts of the parents is bad. It doesnt matter if you offer redemption to those future generations, they shouldnt have to be punished to begin with. Also, the fable of adam and Eve has way more problems for the christian god, but that is a whole different topic.

[@ovidiudante]

@@Julian0101 God also states in the old testament that everyone is punished for their own sins, that the father should not be punished for the sins of the sons or the other way around. Again, the point of that bible quote is specifically to underline that God wants to forgive. Also, as a personal note, you do realize that going out of your way to use the word "fable" instead of just story, shows that you are driven more by bitternes rather than a genuine desire to find the truth right? I'm not saying you have to agree with Christinaity or other faiths by default, but if you'll start by default with a disrespectful attitude and allow your personal biases to guide you, you'll be no better than the believers who will say that their argument against atheism is that atheists are "jerks". In fact, maybe more people would be interested in your arguments if you presented them in a respectful manner. One argument that I could present to you for example is that throughout christian history even certain saints, who were quite known, considered that Genesis should not be treated as the exact way in which the world was created and rather a simplified story that would explain creation and what part of human nature allowed the existence of evil into our world. Once you look at it that way, Genesis is no longer a story about a magical fruit that made humans evil, but a story which explains how humans fall into the trap of wanting to determine what is right and wrong by themselves and thus falling for evil. The same way Cain killed his brother out of jealousy, nowadays nations kill each other over resources and power.

[@Julian0101]

@@ovidiudante First, it literally says the "son shall not be punished for the *iniquity* of the father", not the sins (the text clearly use the word sin when it means something else). And second, the fact that god wants to forgive the next generation for the sins of the parents, makes it evil by default. The only good answer is they shouldnt have to be punished for it to begin with. Also, as a personal note, fable and story are synonyms, even in this context they mean the same. You do realize whining about it shows you are driven by bitterness rather than a genuine desire to find the truth, right? Calling an apple as apple is not disrespectful, if you feel the need to be held in a higher pedestal than everyone else, you will be no better than the believers who use persecution compIex to excuse their own behaviour. And sure, im aware of the argument that when something in the bible is not IiteraI then is metaphoricaI, not only used for genesis. This 'soIution' has the problem that it makes the bible awfuIIy unreliable, and ignoring the problem of what makes you think *_your_* interpretation makes it the correct one instead of anything else, it also raises the important question of what sort of incompetent god would send a faiIed message to his chіIdr℮n and then punish them for not understanding it.

[@johnsherfey3675]

The natural disasters part can be explained by this being a fallen world. It can just do things pretty randomly. Some of which happen to be evil. This evil being one of the random options it can choose.

[@nicolaunionsspezialfiliall3962]

7:00 I don't quite understand the second response. The whole point of the problem of evil is to argue that there is an international inconsistency in religion. An atheist arguing this point can use a god given mortality to evaluate gods actions trying to show that atheism better explains pain and suffering.

[@aaronharlow2137]

David Wood already exposed this guy. He showed where Sam Harris was quoting Matthew chapter 22 where Jesus was telling the parable of the wedding feast. He quoted that Jesus said "Bind him hand and foot and cast him into outer darkness." and claimed Jesus himself ordered that when he was actually quoting the king in the wedding feast.

[@jachymriha1278]

So the answer to his first objection is by your own admision non-sensical, and the answer to the second one just ignores half of it? Ignoring either pain not caused by people or ignoring the fact that a perfect being has no need for soulbuilding because it can make things already perfect. Is this the best you can do?

[@noahjacob5552]

Regarding Bruh Video's response to Harris' second point, why did you take his counter example and act like it was his whole position? That is even more intellectually dishonest than a straw man. I must say regarding the answer to the first objection: while I don't believe he fully justified his position, you must know that 'paradox' does not mean nonsensical.

[@monkerz360]

u talk like tobuscus

[@juliasternberg2827]

Just the fact that they never argue for their own position tells you everything you need to know.

[@iilugs]

Sam Harris has written and spoken *a lot* arguing for atheism and religion-less spirituality. Agree with him or not, he has argued for his own position. Your comment is wrong and you should correct it.

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

the fact that you just straight up lie shows me that you're subhuman

[@MauricioLSB]

@iilugs What the fellow person you are correcting might mean that they (the atheist) copy what their teachers say repeating everything word by word One thing is that some of us (Christians) also do

[@konradsartorius7913]

Samuel Harris literally wrote a book titled “The Moral Landscape” which defends his position.

[@tomasrocha6139]

You don't need to have a position to point out that Christianity is falsified by history, archaeology, geology, biology, astrophysics and philosophy,

[@KieraQ0323]

"why do you care" is not an argument, actually

[@Rolando_Cueva]

Nope, the moral argument is not that good. The atheists are just gonna point out the violence in the Old Testament. I honestly think the argument "well who caused the Big Bang" is much better. But that can lead someone to deism. So what's a better alternative? Simple, Jesus said "seek and ye shall find" if you seek Him in the Gospels you will find him. That's how I rediscovered Christ.

[@Bradchacha]

Mahn your editing is just too good😂

[@Young_Christian7]

This was awesome 😂

[@Humansarebetter1]

Man I just found you and you are really funny, I’ll be watching you (Irl I know where you are)

[@JyothirAadithyaM]

Bro this reminds me of Atheist smuggy videos lol. LOVE the videos approach by humor ❤ However, me myself being a God believer am not actually christian and still have doubts here and there ...

[@iilugs]

The first part of your argument is pretty weak, in the sense that your counter-argument is a paradox. The latter part of your argument regarding the problem of pain would fall apart if it were directed at a non-Christian, religious moral-objectivist version of Sam, like a Budhist Sam, or a Deist Sam, so it is pretty weak as well. Apologetics is cool, but I think you're videos would be more compelling if they had better arguments in them. I enjoyed the exposition regarding Lutheranism, though.

[@DoloresLehmann]

The point on Lutheran Soteriology was new to me, very interesting, indeed. Your answers to the pain problem, however, are overused and not really convincing.

[@MyLittleTierList-nz5vo]

Bro it's sad that your views dropped

[@bruhvideoproduction]

tell me about it 😆

[@PåGyngendeGrund]

No, it is possible to prove the non-existence of something. There are no square circles. They dont exist. Or did I miss the irony?😅

[@DoloresLehmann]

That only goes for things that are self-contradicting or internally inconsistent. They can be proven to be non-existing. But nothing else.

[@PåGyngendeGrund]

@@DoloresLehmann How certain are you? If I claim that there is a certain bacteria that causes atheism

[@PåGyngendeGrund]

@@DoloresLehmann if I claim that there is a bacteria with unicorn properties, would you believe it?

[@DoloresLehmann]

@@PåGyngendeGrund It doesn't matter whether I believe it or not. The matter is whether its non-existence can be proven. You gave me two examples here: A bacteria that causes atheism and a bacteria with unicorn properties. To the first one: No, that clearly can't be proven not to exist. In principle, there could be a bacterium that influences someone's brain in a way that makes them more prone to reject religious concepts. Unlikely, but not impossible. Even if you never find such a thing (the most likely scenario), that's no proof for its non-existence. Second, what would a bacterium "with unicorn properties" even mean? A bacterium with a horn protruding from its forehead? In this case, it can clearly be proven that it doesn't exist, because a bacterium doesn't have a forehead. So, internally inconsistent. Or what other "unicorn properties" are you referring to?

[@finndoestheology]

Anathema to the reformer heretics