Objective Morality vs. Cultural Standards

[@lennybenitez3579]

Im really upset i found these videos almost a decade later. But i am glad I found them . God Bless.

[@ep8470]

Ahh, but this is the time God sent ur to you (& me) ....that's what I pray & thank God for... that it's all in His perfect timing! Blessings!!

[@Jerharris90]

It's never too late! I've seen these, but rewatch them randomly. God Bless

[@paulmorton5423]

I enjoy listening to you Frank. You have a gift of explaining things .

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Is Numbers 11:19 a cultural standard?

[@chrissonofpear1384]

So, why was it £v£r us£d, if it was doom£d to fail, lat£r? And what of J£sus saying no jot or tittl£ will pass from th£ law?

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Also, I still wish to h£ar what happ£n£d to th£ captiv£s who w£r£ not kill£d...

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Ah, cont£xt is th£ backstoy is incompl£t£, thus far? For on£, why was Satan ow£d anything?

[@elvisdad3379]

Please, I enjoy all your teaching. I am an African. I don't know where people get this idea that Africans are nacked. For God's sake, educate your listeners and let them come to Africa and show me this jungle in which people are naked

[@sofaking3486]

its a big continent

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

@@1godonlyone119 no whitey has ever been naked walking around a beach or resort? lmao

[@tonyisnotdead]

​@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 no, but most white people who would do that are doing it out of recreation, not because they live like animals

[@Cetok01]

I wonder what he thinks of John Roberts today. Generally, another great message.

[@msmd3295]

Turek’s drawing distinctions that don’t exist between objective and relative. Convention is relative and even compliance is relative. Relative just means it’s subject to a person’s will. The convention of which side of the road one drives on is decided by the will of legislators. If a moral were objective it would be the same Everywhere, just like the sun is objective. It exists in a certain way independent of a person’s will.

[@Moviefan2k4]

Every law legislates morality, by declaring one thing right and the opposite wrong.

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

Incorrect. Laws are designed to create an orderly society, not a moral one. As a simple example, think of traffic laws.

[@ajmulenga2532]

@@singwithpowerinfo5815 But why do we need to be orderly, if we are just primordial beings evolved from a single cell?

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

@@ajmulenga2532 It doesn’t matter whether a god made us or primordial soup vomited us up, the species doesn’t continue without an order of some sort as a means of self-preservation. Look at any pack animal group as an example. If there is no order, then they/we die off. If we die off, oh well. We don’t have to live on. The overwhelming majority of species on this planet died off for one reason or another, and humans will likely join that number eventually. The creatures/plants who remain will do so through viability.

[@gln3276]

@@singwithpowerinfo5815 so laws against murder and rape are purely for "order" and not moral in nature? So you would say a murderer or rapist is only "disorderly" and you don't think that murder and rape is "wrong"? I think you're substituting terms to try to obfuscate. God's order is what we legislate for and what Democrats legislate against. It's clear

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

@@gln3276 My take on it is that, no, there is no objective right or wrong, nor is there subjective right or wrong from a purely moral perspective. Morality is a concept, not an objective reality.

[@TheECSH]

huh, i heard he said "political correct" and "chopping off the head" in the video, then i look at the year the video came out, 2010. Wow, these terms were already in use/relevant a decade ago!

[@realityisbest8963]

Times are changing fast.

[@Moviefan2k4]

Sharia law violates the First Amendment, because it entails legal punishments for refusal to practice a specific religion.

[@bonum_consilium4998]

Says who ?

[@gln3276]

@@bonum_consilium4998 anyone with a working brain and who is honest. Logic

[@christinaf8417]

They aren't radical Muslims. They are Muslims who actually follow what their book says. Most aren't reading it and have no idea what it says.

[@ChrisFineganTunes]

Christina Franklin "slaves obey your masters" "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" There are plenty of objectionable things in the Bible. You're choosing the bits you like just as much as an Muslin does the same with the Quran.

[@simonecher1353]

@@ChrisFineganTunes Lol bro you just taking verses out of context

[@ChrisFineganTunes]

Simone Child of God That's the beauty of (read: problem with) religious texts... You can decide they mean whatever you want.

[@simonecher1353]

@@ChrisFineganTunes no you cant, I dont know who told you that

[@ChrisFineganTunes]

Simone Child of God Nobody told me that. It's plainly obvious that people use the Bible to justify whatever they want. All they need to do is say that the other people 'haven't understood it properly'. Many Christians who advocate for a 'plain reading' of the Bible would surely see that the passages I originally quoted should be taken literally, as read.

[@newsnviews7281]

His prediction that Christians may be martyred some day just because they are Christians who won't submit to another religion has been sadly shown to come true in the past 5 years. He would have been severely criticized in 2010 had he said that Christians would soon be seen on actual videos being beheaded or brutally murdered for their faith, yet that has happened and can be seen in shocking videos that would have been inconceivable a decade or two before.

[@johnsmith-vl4ct]

Leftist and Alt right who is worse? The left just wants everyone to have rights. The Right is killing, taking away voting rights, Taking away Healthcare I can go on and on. And it is the Christians that are backing this.

[@kyleandrews1276]

@john Smith please go on. Killing people like who? Taking medical away is not what they want. Free health care yes due to the financial instability it brings on a nation. And voting rights from who exactly? So please go on.

[@davidmorris9668]

@@johnsmith-vl4ct The alt right seems so tiny compared to the Left. The Far Left is what the Left should be called and that is why it is more alarming because the Left is in love with the Far Left and is all the more willing to carry their wishes. Who is the Far Left? All those that are brain washed to believe the secular society reigns supreme and is, therefore, the rightful arbitrators of "the new morality". Who promotes this muscular secularism? Socialists/communists of all stripes, new atheists, today's Satanists, the ecumenical church circles, now the hierarchy of the Catholics, academia and media filled with such people, and more. BUT! Who is allowing them to have this kind of attention? Christian conservatives that know right from wrong who are slowly drifting from God and His Word in their personal life as descent churches and whole denominations are slowly getting hijacked from the same intolerable ideologies like homosexuality, "Social Justice", socialism, multiculturalism, and evolution to name a few. Read. Pray. Read.

[@jrozlie2280]

Man k think I saw a video on KZbin about someone getting martyred but I never watched it since I though it'd be too disgusting

[@Moviefan2k4]

Your comment was, "what phrase are you referring to, where the original version is different from the current one?" My answer was, "the separation of church and state". The way that Jefferson used it is very different from what many say today. The Founding Fathers never wanted a morally relative society in the USA. They envisioned a place where everyone could practice whatever faith they believed in both publicly and privately, without fear of oppression or persecution by the government.

[@tonyisnotdead]

what anyone said outside of the constitution is irrelevant. what anyone wanted outside of what was written inside of the constitution is irrelevant. what we have is a document which prohibits the government from respecting any religion through any laws, which is just a longer way of saying that religion can not legally influence politics within the US government and any states

[@TravisBreheny]

Good video Frank

[@Moviefan2k4]

Legislating religion is one thing, but there's no ban on religious influence in the Constitution.

[@twelvedozen5075]

Moviefan2k4 The constitution encourages taking people's earnings by force.

[@michaelwill7811]

@@twelvedozen5075 If you mean the 16th amendment, that was instilled by Progressives around 1913 or so. Hardly an indictment, of the constitution itself, it is more of a commentary on a wave of political thought that came much later than when the original document was created. Now, is that an indictment of the flawed nature of the document itself? Perhaps, however, the idea was that moral people needed to be in the US government for it to be able to survive. Progressives of that era (1913, Woodrow Wilson) also created the Federal Reserve (something Jefferson warned about) as well as took away the ability of the state legislatures to elect Senators, giving that power to the people. So you tell me how moral the progressives of that time were, to systematically undermine the foundation of our country and you can clearly see what the Founders meant...

[@PaulHosey]

Even though I think we all agree on the basics such as don't murder, steal, lie, cheat, adultery etc on more complicated matters we do not. Some people may think its moral to engage in war if it is warranted. Others may advocate pacifism. Some people think its moral to punish evil doers and give the good their just rewards. Others may think its moral to forgive everyone etc

[@lambdintodd]

The Framers of the Bill of Rights had three great purposes in mind when they gave us the "establishment of religion" and "free exercise" clauses of the First Amendment: (1) to prevent the establishment of a national religion or state church or the granting to any church or denomination a preferred legal status; (2) to safeguard the right to freedom of religion and liberty of conscience against invasion by the federal government; and (3) to permit the individual states to deal with religious establishments or institutions as they saw fit without federal interference.

[@TheEdge012]

I plan on using a couple clips from your videos in a morality series I am doing. If you would rather I not, please send me a message. Love how you present this information!!

[@Munch1289]

everything he said about Islam is true. God bless.

[@raulcastro3277]

I am sure Mr. Turek would take back those words he spoke when describing J.John Roberts who in 2021 is now seen as a appointment to us conservatives.

[@lasciviousemerick6290]

Here is a question asked with the utmost respect, if Christians believe in freedom to believe what you want, why influence the media industry and petition the FCC for a "clean" broadcasting format? Thank you in advance for answering, I appreciate it.

[@Angrybogan]

Joshua: I'll answer as best I can. I reason that we know that ultimately, a free-for-all morality isn't good for us, isn't what God intended for us. You can believe in what you want and watch what you want, sure, but those beliefs have consequences. I'd rather tell people of those consequences, so they are free to decide.

[@rustyshadow7]

Beliefs and actions are two different things. People believe some really crazy things, I don't think you want people doing whatever they feel like doing.

[@RR-mp7hw]

Richard P "Because that's what god wants" is not an explanation, and you certainly don't know what he wants anyway. You're only telling people what you believe he wants.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

And where does Deuteronomy 21 fit on this scale?

[@thetntchicken142]

we can't force people to believe, and we can't force people to act nice, but that doesn't mean we should strive to be nice everyone

[@Powerful9315]

this is awesome!!

[@BerishaFatian]

Why is greeting objective??

[@xaindsleena8090]

I wonder what moral framework Turek uses to determine that god is good? Is he using god's standard (in which case his argument is circular) or is Turek using his own standard? In the latter case, where did he get this standard from?

[@RR-mp7hw]

True, we have no more evidence that this imagined god is good than that he is evil. Given the amount of suffering not only in this world but what he is supposedly willing to subject people to eternally in the next one, I'd say the evidence is on the side of evil.

[@natphil8377]

Both of you are wrong. Go read up on philosophy to understand ontology of meta-ethics.

[@RR-mp7hw]

@@natphil8377 lol

[@xaindsleena8090]

+@@natphil8377 Turek claims that killing babies is objectively immoral, yet he forgets his own god commanded precisely that in Genesis 22:2 and Numbers 31:17-18

[@ayandamafuyeka1952]

@@RR-mp7hw your complaint is that there's too much suffering in this world and God isn't doing anything about it. You know what causes suffering?. Evil, evil causes suffering, and the last time God got rid of all evil in the world, he flooded the whole Earth. That was God getting rid of all evil in the world, God getting rid of all suffering in the world. Genesis 6:5 NIV The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. But notice before God floods the Earth he says “every inclination thought of the human heart was only evil” because that's where evil comes from. From the heart. A man sees a beautiful woman and says in his heart “I wanna tap that” then the woman rejects him and he responds by forcing himself on her and rapes her, the woman suffers but at the end he tapped that. A government official decides in his heart to get rich of tax payers money and steals it all for himself and then you have millions of people living in poverty and suffering in that country. Evil comes from the human heart, and when evil is acted upon it brings only suffering and that's what Jesus came to change, the condition of the human heart. Ezekiel 36:2 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. God is getting rid of all suffering in the world, he's doing it through Jesus by giving people a new heart. And Jesus says John 15:17 NIV This is my command: Love each other. Now do you really think anyone can rape someone that they love, anyone can steal from someone they love and watch them die in hunger while they fill their stomachs.

[@cmgAndy1222]

2:17 ~4:35

[@Moviefan2k4]

Its not a fallacy, because the "separation of church and state" phrase isn't in the Constitution. Jefferson used it to say the government shouldn't control the church, but he never said that any religion couldn't or shouldn't influence the government. In fact, just 3 days after writing that letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, he attended a church service in the U.S. Capitol Building. That's what I was referring to, because many today think religion and politics shouldn't be combined.

[@tonyisnotdead]

what do you think the first amendment is for? it's not there to just prohibit forcing religion onto other's, but to prohibit the government's ability to make laws, respecting religion, which would inevitably violate even the constitution itself; which isn't speculation if you actually read what words are written down. what Jefferson wrote in a letter doesn't matter because what he wrote in a letter isn't the law

[@1godonlyone119]

The Holy Koran states quite explicitly that religion is not by force. Anyone that tries to convert by force is not a Muslim.

[@mickm5768]

I like Frank he’s doing a great job. But his opinion - then - on Roberts I trust has now changed. It did for me as well. Thought he was the best SC pick. But that has changed. A far better, contemporaneous pick was Sam Alito.

[@Jupiter1423]

The john roberts comment has aged well

[@GreyWolfLeaderTW]

@ffairlane57 Well, for one thing, one of the most important moral tenants of Christianity is "Freedom of Conscience" meaning that while you are not free to do just whatever you want, you are indeed free to believe whatever you want. With this came the recognition of political rights such as "Free Speech", "Freedom of Religion", "Pertition for Redress of Grivances" et cetera. Under Sharia by comparison, you do not have Free Will. You must join Islam or be taxed/killed for being an infidel.

[@jeffpitts360]

Roberts certainly fell from his own lofty ideals after this video.

[@Gnomefro]

It's entirely possible that the founding fathers didn't want a morally relative USA, but I think you've got it backwards. The separation of Church and State is not there primarily to guarantee religious freedom. It's there to prevent civil war based on religion. It was a necessary compromise between the various religious factions competing for supremacy that none of them legislate their religions. The modern Lemon test is a perfect reflection of this intent.

[@michaelwill7811]

Where in the US Constitution is the separation of church and state expressed?

[@tonyisnotdead]

​@@michaelwill7811 right in the first amendment, it's literally spelled out. the government in any shape or form is not allowed to not be neutral about religion legally and it can't prevent anyone from not practicing their desired religion. so unless these words are not just describing the separation of church and state via the usage of a bigger number of words, then that's where it is

[@drog29]

How’s that John Roberts thing working out? He’s a hack.

[@RichProcida]

Morality is social, not personal. There is no such thing as personal morality. Morality is always about how we treat others.

[@revellblackwell]

It’s also about how we treat ourselves.

[@revellblackwell]

So yes it can be personal.

[@RichProcida]

@@revellblackwell Not really if there is no social concern involved. Even the prohibition against suicide is only immoral where it adversely affects one's friends and family. There is no morality outside of social responsibility to others.

[@davonbenson4361]

@@RichProcida. Exactly! You can only come to a conclusion of what’s right or wrong by comparing you actions to that of others.

[@fixanything777]

Doesn't it cost a lot money

[@dianemorris3536]

Watching this 12yrs later and John Roberts has shown himself not so brilliant but evil.

[@TJ-kk5zf]

it's a false dichotomy. Frank's favorite logical fallacy

[@robertpaulson9813]

He has many favorites unfortunately.

[@mimig123]

He was wrong about Roberts!

[@sierraclark6129]

Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven!✝️

[@admildomanuel544]

Africans what ?

[@Huntlifts]

ALL HAIL KING JESUS!!!!

[@delaliy545]

Jungle? Thats a wonderful way to think of africa.

[@wafflesmcgallagher934]

Yeah, John Roberts lied lol

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality.

[@1981lashlarue]

6:35 "John Roberts is brilliant." Wonder if he still thinks that?

[@philroe2363]

LOL! . . . Yeah . . . like where in the constitution is mandatory gubermint heath care authorized? Roberts had no issues with that incredible miscarriage of justice.

[@michaelwill7811]

I had to look at the date of this video because his statement really shocked me at first. I have a feeling that Dr. Turek feels differently about Justice Roberts by now...

[@RichProcida]

The separation of church and state is Western, not Christian.

[@Paulthored]

And that bit about Christianity being the only Religion that is for separation of church and state, includes Atheism & Secularism in this case. Oh sure, they say that they're for separation, but they don't consider themselves in the same category as other Religions... Yet another reason to consider the claims of non Religious beliefs, to be bogus. After all, most state Religions say the same thing.

[@tonyisnotdead]

atheism and secularism aren't religions. atheism is not a set of beliefs, it's a single lack of belief in a single concept. secularism is just a manner of conduct when regarding religion as a whole. religions require a set of beliefs

[@Paulthored]

@@tonyisnotdead okay. So by my understanding of what you mean.... *You be claiming that;* _Humans are incapable of forming a set of beliefs(according to you: _*_a religion_*_ ), around Atheism and/or Secularism?_

[@sherlockhomeless7138]

Wow that guy really resembles Jake Gyllenhaal.

[@MohammedBourasEng]

I do enjoy many of your talks and responses to atheist, but as a Muslim when I hear you talk about Islam it seems like you leanr about it from Wikipedia of foxnews/cnn, I really advise you to learn properly about Islam. May God guide us to the truth.

[@thewayapologetics]

Secularism is the best 👌 bet for Muslim ☪️ majority countries. However, religion is the best 👌 bet for Judeo-Christian nations (the west)😊

[@thecynic807]

I bet you want to take back your thinking on justice roberts

[@vertigo2894]

Even "African women in the jungle" have clothes.

[@rockandsandapologetics7254]

I see this is a 2010 post, so it cannot reflect your current thinking on Justice Roberts when he failed to side with the other conservative justices on 2 different occasions. In one instance Brett Kavanaugh shocked everyone by going completely to the other side. Whether he did so by following the rule of law, or if there was pressure placed on him or his family has yet to be determined. Point being, even when one says they are conservative, doesn't always mean they are conservative, and we're back at we got out of education, liberal professors indoctrinated an entire generation, 9 of whom sit on the Suprem Court. Our fault.

[@trishash79]

6:30 I bet Frank is eating crow with that statement! Roberts decent in Obergefell made my skin crawl.

[@1godonlyone119]

CORRECTION: Islam means submission to God. That is a good thing, Frank!

[@allnewministries2088]

"God can't force us to believe?" Mr. Turek you ought to rethink that. You have just denied one of God's attributes: omnipotence.

[@jakobsalvador2489]

All New Ministries if God can force us to believe then we don’t have free will

[@allnewministries2088]

@@jakobsalvador2489 That does not mean he can not do it. Hod is the ultimate force in the Jniverse and He is omnipotent and when He does not do something it is because He chooses not to not because He can't do it. Do you understand that brother?

[@jakobsalvador2489]

All New Ministries yes but the key word is “Us” because God gives us free will and let’s us have it

[@allnewministries2088]

@@jakobsalvador2489 correct. So why would we say He can't do it? That is denying God's power, because He could do it, but in His infinite wisdom He does not do it. That was my point. But if you want to debate the free will let's talk Romans 8:28-30 and 9:16 using the NASB version which is the closest to the Interlinear (Greek-English).

[@jakobsalvador2489]

All New Ministries we are free being he created us that way so he can’t not make us free being anymore or else we wouldn’t be able to choose to get saved and go to heaven or deny him and go to hell

[@JoJo-nv8jy]

We now know where sotomayor stands,... in dung with the other "judges".

[@cmgAndy1222]

코란에 쓰여진 명령대로 살인을 저지르는 이슬람 테러리스트를 막을 근거는 무엇인가?

[@SohibALGotimel]

Frank turik is good logical debater but he is completely wrong about everything he said about islam, first when he compare modern chrianty with isis. Also we don't force non Muslim to convert to islam its stated in the quran literally and non Muslims lived in harmony for centuries and the history prove it.

[@Steve52344]

WTF is "objective morality"? Is it being TOLD how to act? By who? And what if you disobey? You go hell? Who enforces this objective morality? We already have laws against doing harm to others. Punitive laws. Prison. Fines. Execution. And STILL we have offenders. How do you legislate morality any more successfully than what we already have?

[@natphil8377]

Sit down and remain uneducated.

[@benjaminadams9389]

Its the reason why you intuitively and instinctively know that lying theft and murder are wrong without someone exaining it to you. Those morale truths existed before any man ever wrote them on a paper.

[@Steve52344]

@@benjaminadams9389 And, like the Golden Rule, morality and civility existed long before organized religion or monotheism. How can anyone with a brain take Turek seriously?

[@Steve52344]

@@natphil8377 You are bright, like an oil fire.

[@sadiaasad6843]

Wrong concept about Islam....

[@j.peaceo1031]

Supreme Court Problem Answer=Trump

[@ChrisFineganTunes]

"Killing babies is objectively wrong." Thoughts on God's actions during passover...?

[@sidwhiting665]

Great question! . As with all discussions, one must keep in mind the context. In the context of a Christian (i.e. Dr. Turek) discussing killing of babies, he is speaking about murder and most likely in terms of abortion and/or infanticide. To a Christian, murder is always wrong. Now we must ask what is murder? Murder is not simply killing. Murder is unlawful killing. . When God "smote" (smitted?) the Egyptians with the plague which killed the first born, he as the creator of the universe and all beings within it, was taking lives that he gave in the first place. In other words, God cannot be a murderer because as Creator all life belongs to him. Another thought to consider is God knows when it is best for any person to die, so when he choose to act on that he is well within not only his right to act as Creator, but he is also knowing precisely at what point any of us are at the best time to be moved from this life into the life that is to come. . Let us consider what would most likely have happened to the Egyptian First born, had God not slain them: Pharaoh's heart would have remained hard, he would have continued the enslavement of the nation of Israel, he would have continued slaughtering the sons of the Hebrews, and the Israelites would never have been freed to enter into the Promised Land, which means the Savior would not have been able to be born in the place and time that God knew was right. In short, God didn't simply slaughter the first born on a whim: he did so with purpose and knowing the full scope of effects that came for thousands of years after ward. . By the way, if you've ever seen the movie "The 10 Commandments" I think they do a great job of showing that during Passover not only babies were killed. A group of men are standing around Pharaoh at night watching the fog of the angel of death pass by, and when ordered to go see what is happening, one man steps into the fog an dies. Another older man says, "this was my son...my first born." So it is wrong to think that only babies die during Passover.... "all first born" including fulling grown men who had most likely committed atrocities against the Israelite's. Perhaps some of them had thrown Hebrew babies into the river at the order of the Pharaoh. We don't know. The point is, God took those lives at the appointed time knowing the larger plan that must take place. . That answer may not satisfy you or many others, but in short God doesn't act immorally when he takes life. He knows the full arc of history and ordains the timing of events to bring about his will and purposes for the salvation of the human race. The Passover was one of those events that had to take place for the rest to follow. . If you earnestly seek the truth and need help with understand this (and it is a struggle, I grant it... took me years of questions, study, and critical thinking!) read thru the Book of Job some time. Job asks God basically the same questions: why do we suffer, why do we have pain that feels unbearable, why the torment of growing old and dying, why the loss of life of young life? God's answer is very instructive and to the point.

[@ChrisFineganTunes]

Sid Whiting so it's OK to kill babies if you're the one who gave them life and if by killing them you successfully orchestrate the release of slaves. Got it. I realise my response is facetious but i don't know how it's possible to consider the God of the Bible to be all-loving when he is purported to have committed acts that we would consider to be sub-human. If we are supposedly sinful and in need of moral guidance, surely God's behaviour should be the exemplar - not actions that require mental gymnastics to rationalise.

[@oseiaschiquellajunior8356]

Chris Finegan Well in the Christian worldview babies who are killed by God go to heaven since they’re innocent. It’s a simple change of location, it’s more of a blessing than a curse.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Why did it G£T that bad at all, also? And why ow£ disloyal ang£ls any acc£ss to this world? With various pow£rs of th£ir own...

[@gtabraham3454]

@@ChrisFineganTunes God is completely love, with that being said he is a raffle just God. A holy perfect God has to judge wrongdoing and sin, if he does not use not perfect and holy. That's why hell is a place. So yes, he can move your soul to the afterlife whenever he deems necessary, considering he's the one that made you and gave you Consciousness. It's as simple as this, hearken unto what he says, or be in a place of Eternal separation, Darkness, and pain. Or, the complete opposite. Be with him in Paradise just by dropping your pride and ego and acknowledging that the creator of everything you see around you including yourself died for you.

[@dperkins01]

you sound extreme to me.

[@TheJimtanker]

Christian "morality" is by definition subjective.

[@benjaminadams9389]

Wrong. His law is written on our hearts as ones made in his image. Why do you think certain acts like theft murder etc... have been universally criminalized in every culture for all of human history? The laws of man only reflect the objective, eternal morale law He gave us.

[@TheJimtanker]

@@benjaminadams9389 Those things are universally criminalized because they are antithetical to a civilized society. We are a social species who evolved those traits to survive. No god needed.

[@MikeJunior94]

Frank merely defines God as morally good. His morality is subjective, not objective.

[@zeredcanon997]

BecomingMike explain?

[@RR-mp7hw]

There is nothing more subjective than a group of religions each claiming they have access to objective moral values.

[@johnelliott5859]

Is slavery objectively immoral or just culturally? And if you don't submit to christianity, you are condemned to eternal torment. That makes even sharia law look good.

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

The morality arguments made by Frank are among the absolute weakest arguments he engages in… and that’s saying a lot.

[@breadpitt5777]

I really like this guy’s counter arguments against atheists, but he’s morbidly wrong on Islam and sharia laws!! Muslims ruled over India for 1000 years yet India is still a majority Hindu country, Jews have lived under Muslim rulers in Middle East they’ve had the most privilege and protection, Muslim ruled over Christians in Jerusalem they lived peacefully for decades unlike crusaders who massacred Muslims, Jews, and Arab Christians. It’s just an unfortunate Christians academic dishonesty when it comes islam and Muslims. Smh

[@anthonymitchell9793]

You can't objectively prove your God so a subjective God can't be the arbiter of objective morality. That's fallacious thinking.

[@joemorgenstern9846]

Logic is objective and comes from somewhere. He believes it comes from God. Also, without God there is no objective morality.

[@anthonymitchell9793]

@@joemorgenstern9846 Logic is objective and it must come from somewhere. I believe igt comes from intergallactic space pixies from a parallel dimension whose natural laws are different than ours who entered our space through a rip in the space-time contiuum and farted matter into it. You claim there is objective morality. You have asserted that without evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. So I reject the claim. You assert without evidence the is a god. That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. So I reject the claim.

[@richunixunix3313]

Frank, love your apologist claims right to the point....wow, I need to trade my day job into being a flim-flam man. Your a con artist presenting using "Special Pleading or Appeal to Ambiguity, let alone just out right assertion. Evidence, not philosophical word rhetoric is needed.

[@rap4008]

Richunix Unix - " con artist" really? ... Frank Turek is an amazing apologist! Do some more research.... I would recommend finding Colonel R.B. Thieme Jr. ministries. He died, however all sermons are available on MP3's, some books, etc. No cost. He is not an apologist, just knows the Bible VERY WELL.

[@robertpaulson9813]

@@rap4008 He's not amazing at all. He's a liar, fraud, and despite being corrected on his misuse of terms and concepts over the last decade, still does so. He will still commit to the same logical fallacies over and over and over again. His ideas on morality and inlts objectiveness fall completely flat if you actually read the Bible. He's honestly an intellectual joke.

[@EnlightenedHeart01]

I call.bull.on 3:13 evangelical.does force others to believe

[@ChrisFineganTunes]

jane pusecker or, at the very least, to submit to their standards.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

What a load of rubbish. We most likely developed morals and ethics as instincts as we evolved as a species. No gods needed or shown to be involved whatsoever. This is why different cultures have different morals and ethics of course.

[@andres.e.]

It looks like you didn't understand his explanation.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

@@andres.e. I understand that we exist in a natural universe and not a magical one. :)

[@andres.e.]

@@TheTruthKiwi I agree. But again: it really looks like you didn't understand his point.