Відео

All very interesting.

Election is in harmony with all of God's perfections - wisdom, power, holiness, goodness and love, justice and truth. So there is no problem there.

A lot of this mess has been driven by abortion and the low birth rate since the '60s. Certainly the case in the UK. The nation cannot renew herself and other nations are "sucked dry" of talented and untalented folk to fill the gap.

1hr 7mins - basically Burkean. We have a commitment to our ancestors and descendants as well our present nation.

Christopher J. H. Wright's books have, for example, a more nuanced and biblical approach to the Mosaic civil laws. There is an underlying godly wisdom and practicality. General equity.

All very interesting. Things will come together in God's time. The bad aspects of the Enlightenment(s) had to happen. It was Satan's time and response to the Reformation. But the Evil One will not always have his way.

Amen! Enduring suffering, without hope in God, is, well, hopeless! And giving up in the face of suffering, when there is hope in God, is wrong as well.

Short, clear, meaningful. Keep it up Owen.

Hmmm...okay. Being a Christian is plenty hard. But do you think it's as hard as being a public Christian and university philosophy professor finding out he was wrong about God, being able to humbly admit being wrong, and becoming an atheist and enduring life as an atheist, bracing for all the disappointed colleagues, friends, and family. That's doing the actual hardest thing. 1. *How can humans follow a God who has not/cannot(?) show that He was not created by a more powerful God?* Until a God shows us humans, how He knows, He Himself was not created, we are not justified in following such a God, right? We have to *know* we are following the *true God* before obeying, that's the standard all exclusive God's want. So, to fulfill this command I must know. 2. The story in John of the woman caught in adultery is a beautiful story--the clear textual analysis is that it was not in the original Gospel of John, and even shows up in manuscripts of Luke. This shows that: a) We can't know if this bit of scripture is inspired or not b) Maybe normal humans can write so well we believe it is divine, which perhaps could be applied to all of scripture. c) *If there is a God, He doesn't care about false writings getting into His Scripture, so why trust any of it?* 3. The Apostle Paul had visions, this is attested in two sources, his letters and Acts, so this has good evidence. But, is seeing visions a reason to trust Paul writes God's Words? IS this the evidence God gives us to trust Paul? In one of the letters to Timothy when it says "All scripture is God-breathed" How do we know Paul's letters are counted in this? Paul telling us his writings are God-breathed, is not trustworthy, it's practically circular! 2 Peter saying "Paul's words are hard and people twist them like all the other Scriptures" but wait, how do we know that *2 Peter* is telling the truth, 2 Peter might not be God-breathed, we have no evidence if it is, believing this would also be circular. Is all this religion just circular logic and blind faith? 4. One final one: all serpents currently crawl on their bellies. If the Devil was the serpent in the garden, and crawling on your belly is a curse, why did God curse *all serpents to crawl on their bellies.* Especially since they had nothing to do with tricking Adam, and in fact, the Devil is *not even a serpent!* Why not curse all demons to crawl on their bellies? Is this a clue this story was really an ancient culture trying to explain why snakes have no legs and explain like the Greeks and their Pandora, where evil comes from? Will a good God really fry me eternally because to me this religion looks man-made? You talk about being tough, you talk about truth, you talk about thinking logically, but are you really challenging yourself?

Amen!

That was the one where he convinced you to baptize your children 😂

Your analysis of Parker's argument is insightful, particularly in pointing out the category mistake of equating God's nature with human biology. However, it seems you may have overlooked a critical part of Parker's reasoning. He isn’t claiming that God is a man. Instead, he’s pointing out an apparent inconsistency: if God, who lacks XY chromosomes, can still be referred to as 'Him' or 'Father,' why is it considered problematic to extend the same courtesy to a trans man, who also lacks XY chromosomes? While Parker’s argument may have flaws, this question raises a valid challenge about the consistency of applying gendered language, which could benefit from further exploration rather than dismissal

I thank God often for giving me the strength to say no out of nowhere. The desire can come back, but no matter how powerful, I trust Him. He saves me from myself. 1 Corinthians 10:13 - No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it.

I agree with you. Sadly, most Christians don't know why homosexuality is an abomination in God's eyes. It is Satan's twist on something that is holy. In addition to the fact that God made man male and female in Gen 3, he also calls the church-age saints (the body of Christ, Rom 7:4; 1 Cor 10:6, 12:27; Eph 4:12) the bride of Christ (John 3:19; Rev 18:23; 21:2, 9; 22:17). In Heaven while the Great Tribulation is going on down here on earth, the body/bride of Christ will become married to Christ (Rev 19:7, 9). And the the body of Christ down here (before the rapture) is made of men and women. And each of us Christians are called sons of God (John 1:12; Rom 8:14, 19; Phil 2:15; 1 John 3:1-2). Also, the Bible says that we shall be changed to be like Christ (1 John 3:2; 1 Cor 15:52). We will not only act and think like Christ but also be replicas of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 1:3; John 14:9). It is God's holy plan for Christians (not Old Testament saints, Tribulational saints, or Millennial saints) to be changed to look like the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, every born again believer will be replicas of Jesus Christ, and then represent him throughout the Millennium, and then throughout the universe on the planets we the OTS, TS, and MS populate the universe in eternity (Isa 9:6-7; Rev 1:6; 3:21; 5:10; Eph 2:5-7). So, when the Bride of Christ is changed to look like the Lord Jesus Christ, every Church-age saint will be male just as the Lord Jesus Christ is male. Ergo, the Bride of Christ, which is all male (sons of God) after the rapture, will marry the Lord Jesus Christ who is already male: male marrying male.

I know this is random, but do you have any epistemology book suggestions? I have read a few of your books this year. “ The clarity of Gods existence” was the most influential for me so far because of the epistemology. I’m finishing two books by Gangadean and I’ve finished “ Retrieving knowledge” by Kelly Burton. The principle of clarity and rational presuppositionalism has been very influential for me, and I would like to follow up with more of that type of Content. Thank you for all your work.

Owen Anderson didn't understand the point Jillian Michaels made; it was more complex than his (oversimplifying) rendition of it. There are desires that we don't choose to have; when acted upon, such desires lead to immoral behavior. However, it's in our power to overcome these desires and behave in the ways we understand are moral. This point was made by Matt Walsh and was (at least tacitly) accepted by Jillian Michaels. But Jillian also made an important distinction, which differentiates between her and Matt. Homosexuality doesn't belong to the category of immoral desires, which we have the power to reject out of a desire to act in ways we determined to be moral. Homosexuality is rather comparable to race: people who have this sexual orientation have it inherently, it is not a matter of choice. It is NOT a desire they can reject, but it's their inherent sexual orientation, they were "born that way" (i.e., there is a strong genetic component to it). Therefore, homosexual people have to be simply accepted, the way they are - just the same as people need to treat as equals those of a different race (nobody chooses their race; whichever that is - it is what it is). Could it be retorted that, by the same token, those immoral sexual desires are also "inborn", and therefore should be accepted, not rejected? Of course, this an invalid analogy: once a couple enters a durable monogamous relationship, they decide to accept their sexual desires as inherent, but only within the framework of their relationship, to the exclusion of other sexual partners. Once people who form a couple willfully make such a commitment (because it's emotionally needed, in order to create and maintain a great relationship), its transgression by one of the people in the couple is very hurtful to the other one, which makes it immoral (and therefore, needs to be prevented - which is not always easy, but it's always needed). So, no analogy between adultery and homosexual orientation; the analogy to the latter is indeed provided by racial differences (as Jillian emphasized).

Being Black or any skin color isn't a choice.Sexual preference is a choice. You can love someone with having a sexual relationship with them. God set the boundaries in his word.

That is why Jesus Christ said YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN. Matt Walsh is correct.

So ultimately she is defending hedonism? If it feels good, do it; restraint is simply not on the radar.

I have unholy desires every day. I try to do my best to resist them. Everything is a choice. Will I adjust my behavior in accordance with God's standards or will I make up my own standards that allow me to justify my behavior to me (and the world)? Do you choose to follow Jesus today? Will you walk His path or your own? That is what it finally comes down to. Jesus said 'follow me'.

Clueless! God doesn’t create anything wrong. There is just God being God. God is All, literally. All can neither be added to nor subtracted from. God is another word for Existence or God doesn’t exist.

Desires don't cause harm? Here is a fulfilled DESIRE that continues to harm everyone living on this planet: . Genesis 3:6 Consequently the woman saw that the tree was good for food and that it was something to be LONGED FOR BY THE EYES, yes, the tree was ** DESIRABLE ** to look upon. So she began taking of its fruit and eating it. Afterward she gave some also to her husband when with her and he began eating it. . .

Here is the biblical answer about desire: . James 1:13-15 For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. 14 But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death. . . 1 John 2:16 because everything in the world-the DESIRE of the flesh and the DESIRE of the eyes and the showy display of one’s means of life-DOES NOT ORIGINATE WITH GOD, but originates with the world. .

What about pedophiles? . They have desires too! . Would there be more harm done if they reject who they are? . A thief has desires. . A serial killer has desires too! . Where does God draw the line? . The pedophile, the thief and the serial killer have drawn the line to suit their own convenience. . Isn't that what she is also doing? . The person who does not do this would be the same as Jesus Christ! . Is there anyone like that? . Romans 8:29 because those whom he gave his first recognition he also foreordained to be ** PATTERNED AFTER THE IMAGE OF HIS SON ** that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. . .

If it feels good, then it must be ok to do it..ahh no. Why would God make us feel that way then? He doesn't! He tells us what is good for us in what situation, then we reject His Word because it's NOT what we want to do. Then we blame God. How is that God's fault?? The heart wants what the heart wants..whether it is good for us or not. Again, NOT God's fault. He of course, knows what is good for us and what is coming. We obviously don't. Our first parents made that mistake, and humanity has been repeating that mistake ever since. We are sinners, saved ONLY by His Grace alone. We can do NOTHING to save ourselves. All we bring to the foot of the cross is our sin..

Pride, the antithesis of shame. She’s gone.

Exactly right. If one does not believe in God why appeal to God? Are we talking about Christianity or not?

I noticed her basically blaming God for her actions and desires, she said God make me this way and I have no choice in what I do

I find 99% of women have no morals!

If one believes the Bible to be the word of God then they will acknowledge that God says that all sin is a choice, including the sin of homosexual sex. God created everyone heterosexual and He's clear that heterosexual sex is the natural, created order that He has ordained for pro creation- Gen . 1:27-28, and that any sexual activity outside of that is unnatural, and He declares it so in Romans 1:26-27. God created no one homosexual, since He says clearly that homosexual sex is unnatural. There is no "gay' gene. All sin is committed by heterosexuals who choose to follow their own lusts and desires instead of the will of a Holy God, including the sin of homosexuality. God says that those who engage in it are perverted, unnatural, unholy, unclean and abominations that will not inherit the Kingdom of God-1st Cor. 6:9-10.

God made sugar, so it’s God’s fault I want to pig out on junk food. That’s what her argument sounds like.

Well done

The Old Testament The Book of Leviticus 18-22 specifically states that homosexuality is an abomination. The Book of Leviticus is specifically written as a guidance given by God the Father on how he wants us to lead our life.

Pointing to animals as a reason to practice homosexuality as if it’s natural won’t work because animals also eat their poo or kill their young. I’m pretty sure Jillian won’t be advocating for these things as somehow normative.

hilarious.

What strikes me is the assertion that her sexual behavior is not wrong, and that it also is not a choice. What would the point be of contending that one has no choice, if a behavior was not in some way wrong? No one defends the morality of breathing. Christian arguments often fail to convince because we are careless with the text and follow along with the culture's false equations. The bible does not condemn same sex love; it condemns same sex schtupping. It Commands same sex love, opposite sex love, and worse, love of one's enemies.

You say consciousness is a non-material property and thus cannot come from combining two predecessors, unlike the wetness of H₂O, which emerges from combining two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Why exactly? You claim it as if it is an obvious fact. Why can material properties come out of seemingly nowhere, but non-material things can't?

Animals do not abort their children. Strictly a human action. Its murder a crime of passion. Convenience

I have met many people with psychological problems, and most of them began having problems after an immoral sexual or gender related event.

This video feels like a parody

Life is choices. This is why God has given us commandments and an example in Christ. Remember also that all we have God created. Our families being one in particular. The people that truly are born “gay” still have a choice, so many people are born with many other challenges, that still does not relieve them from how they choose to react to those conditions. Choosing God and His path is the point. People born with spina bifida, are given a pass to hate other people, and harm them because of their challenges. Life is a test to see if we will follow and keep Gods commandments, in ALL conditions and circumstances. The gay life harms families first, it destroys the life efforts of the ancestors who worked to provide for their children in hopes for continuing the family, gays cannot do this, that branch will be dead to the family. So in that particular manner, being gay is in contradiction to Gods plan.

Thanks for the insight, I get blindsided by non logical arguments, otherwise known as emotional ones, and you helped with that.

For full transparency, I clicked on this video, expecting a reaction laughing at Matt Walsh... Apologies if you are a fan of Matt's, but honestly, I think the guy has some daft and misguided ideas. That said, I'm always open to hearing people out. Unfortunately, I'm not impressed by anything Matt put forth here. It's really just a version of the basic "Science can't currently explain it, therefore God" argument which throughout history has shown again and again how flimsy of a rational it is, always moving the goalposts, so to speak. There are always going to be things we can't explain with our current science, but that's because there are likely near infinite things out there to be explained... Consciousness is a really fascinating and mysterious phenomenon. It's really difficult to study as consciousness itself is something we can only verify subjectively... technically, we can't prove that other people or animals are experiencing consciousness or whether they are just machines programmed to act and respond as if they do. Instead, we do our best and infer that they are based on our experience of our own consciousness... There's some really interesting research related to consciousness that indicates that so much of our perception of the world and even our perception of our own autonomy is more of an illusion created by the brain than an acurate reflection of objective reality... It's fascinating and a really deep rabbit hole worth diving into.

After the fall man had all kinds of sinful desires.

This is basically an argument from incredulity. “I haven’t defined consciousness, but I personally can’t imagine how it could come from non conscious elements. Therefore god.” This is not a good argument, which is why no one uses it in the debates Matt references.

Animal behaviour is result of the activity by Nervous system which includes the brain. The Nervous system activity can arise from it having been pre-programmed by genetics or as a result of learning. The more advance the animal is in the evolutionary hierarchy the greater the reliance on learning as opposed to genetics. If a sheep is brought up as a part of a pack of dogs, it will behave like a dog in those aspects that depend on learning. However, it would still eat grass as in that it is genetic. When it comes to humans their reliance on genetic pre-programming is a minimum. This is why we have actors and drama. Such is possible because one person can choose to act as another. Once a choice is made it becomes a habit. Habits are the brains ability to automate a sequence of choices without the need for the will. That’s is why habits are mistaken to be genetic in origin. Yet they can be broken by the exercise of the will. For centuries men have acted as women and vice versa. Just as the sheep that thinks itself to be a dog a man can if they wish think themselves to be of a sex different to their biological sex. However, from having the ability to do so it does not necessarily follow it is also prudent to do so and more importantly we must recognise it is a choice to make and not destiny to discover. “The next question to emerge was about the determinants of homosexuality: in particular, do genetic factors influence sexual orientation? Because of the involvement of a large number of social factors related to sexual orientation in humans, this question is difficult to answer. …… The genetic contribution to sexual orientation remains largely unknown at this point.” (Eric J. N. Vilain , chapter 11 HANDBOOK OF SEXUAL and GENDER IDENTITY Disorders)

666 We say the (1st 6)universe was created by random chance or luck and Not by intelligence.(2nd 6). Life originated by random events and not by God hand.(3 rd 6). Humans was a result of evolution that is driven by chance. God is The Mind. God's ways may appear random from our perspective yet they never are random. This is evident in the result of human actions. Take the stock exchange for example. It seems to change randomly yet every transaction has been done by a mind. Collectively they appear to be random and can be analyzed as such. When Jesus was dying on the cross the soldier were casting lots for His garments (= universe). We reject God and embrace creation. We say best of luck and not God Bless you. Luck or the dice with its 6 sides has taken the place of God.

Pain is essential for all life in order to prevent death. Every animal will move away from pain and thus preserve its life. Yes it must feel the pain first in order to move away from it. Suffering while originating most often from physical pain or a physical loss in the end if understood correctly will lead the person away from spiritual death if understood incorrectly like an animal in a trap of pleasure will lead to eternal pain or hell.

Following Rene Descartes meditation Category 1: Minds I exist and I am a mind. Therefore Minds exist. Category 2: Matter I have feelings. These feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body. The sensors are receptive to stimulation from events created from within my body and from events created from outside my body. The stuff that bring about these events I shall categorise as matter. Thus my body is also made of matter. Therefore Matter exists. Category 3: Space My body needs space and matter in general needs space. Matter can exist only in space. Therefore space must exist. Category 4: Time My body needs time to change and matter in general needs time for change. Matter can change only in time. Therefore time must exist. From the above observation I conclude that these 4 categories permeate each other and exist equally with none more abstract or less abstract than another. Now to the question of the origin of these categories Could it be that any one or more of these categories can be made from any one or more of the remaining categories? Could these categories transform from one to another? Matter needs space and time for its existence, therefore without space and time matter will not exist as such matter could not have been the origin of space and time. From physics it has been observed that space and time can give rise to matter spontaneously. As such matter maybe a result of a localised change to space and time. So then could space and time be the origin of everything else? Again from the theory of the Big Bang all space, time and matter originated from this singular event. Therefore space and time could not alone have brought about the other categories. Since the big bang was an event, could it be that all things are made from events? Where there is space, time and matter there is always an event. There can be no space , time or matter without events. In an instant all of space and the matter is nothing more or nothing less than a set of events. So then space, time and matter is one and the same as a set of simultaneous events from one instant to the next. From this observation the 4 categories can be reduced to 2 categories Category 1 : Minds Category 2 : Events Now then can minds exist without events. We know that simultaneous events give rise to feeling in minds. We know from special relativity simultaneous events cannot give rise to anything physical or material. Therefore feelings cannot be physical or material. Now as feelings are a part of minds we must conclude minds are not physical. Now can the mind exist without feelings OR does feelings create the mind, that is one and the same as the mind? If feeling create the mind then as feelings are created by events then space, time and matter which we have concluded is the same as events, must also have feeling and thus be one and the same as a mind. Thus we would need to conclude a rock has a mind or is part of a mind to the same extent that my brain is a mind or is part of a mind. This conclusion is not palatable as such let’s consider the OTHER alternative Now if a mind can exist without feeling then we also know that the mind can create events. (e.g throw a rock, move a finger) So then given that the mind can create events then the big bang (The Event) could have originated from The Mind in order to evoke feelings in other minds. These other minds may have also been created by The Mind such that the earthly life of each mind is the big bang that determines the eternal or heavenly life of that mind in The Mind. philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/1020/0

In asking for proof of the existence of God, in the very questions lies the answer. Ask your self what is it about a proof that makes it so great? A proof is great becouse it does not depend on the time, place or person that gives it. A proof exist even if it has never been spoken. Therefore where do they exist and were they created? If you believe proofs were not created then you believe the proofs are eternal. So then the proofs are your God. If you believe the proofs have a creator then that creator is God. PS:It takes a mind/intelligence to understand a proof so can a proofs exist with no Mind or is a Mind essential for the existence of proof?