God’s Word says, “and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:” Acts 17:26-27 KJV I believe God puts us when and where in the timeline of history to give each and every one of us the greatest opportunity to come to know Him…so many of us still say “no” to this loving, all-knowing and all-powerful Creator, God. Those that spend eternity separated from Him have no one to blame but themselves.
Any group of people who depict Jesus as a blonde, blue-eyed, man like a Scandinavian skier in the Olympics probably shouldn't discuss racism, unless they are admitting to being in favor of it.
@@ji8044 If you examine artists’ portrayals of Jesus from around the world, you find that they often portray Jesus in a way similar to what people look like in that particular culture. Europeans portray Jesus as a European. Africans paint Jesus as an African. Asians illustrate Jesus in a way that makes Him look Asian. People prefer to picture Jesus as looking somewhat like them, or at least like people they are familiar with. Is it wrong to do this? Not necessarily. As long as we do not allow our preferred image of Jesus to become an idol, there is nothing in the Bible that speaks against imagining Jesus looking a certain way. Jesus is the Savior for “all nations” (Matthew 28:19; Galatians 3:8). No matter a person’s skin color, race, ethnicity, or nationality, he or she can experience forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God through the crucified and risen Christ. The love of Jesus transcends skin color. Having no physical description of Jesus, people naturally imagine the Son of Man to be like themselves. So, we should not be dogmatic in our preferred image of Jesus. The fact that the Bible nowhere gives a physical description should serve as a caution against arrogance and presumption on this subject. What Jesus looked like does not really matter. His physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with His being the Savior of the world (John 3:16).
Wouldn't it be boring if we all looked the same thank GOD we are so different. Black white brown yellow Red oval eyes Asian eyes blue green etc . Thank you GOD for the differences .
This is really tone deaf. The problem that white people have is that your commentary is not needed to discern the personal experience of black people: racism is what built the USA and until you realize that, you will not be able to effetely teach the gospel to the ends of the earth…
Here's an interesting fact. The Civil Rights Act started in 1957, signed into law by President Eisenhower. It was amended a few times and we commonly see the effects of the amendments made in 1964 as being the actual modern Civil Rights Act. But I want to ask this question. How racist do you believe the country was in 1957? Sure we've seen the videos, the images, and have historical evidence of some pretty bad racism. But just how racist was the average person? You'd think with the whites and colored bathrooms, places they could sit on buses, segregation of schools, and the whole thing made it just one racist slop of a country. But the Civil Rights Act passed in 1957, amended in '60, '64, '65, and '68 to be more effective. And then things started getting better. That's what we were taught anyway. How true is that? This outright racist country passed the Civil Rights Act in 1957 with 69% of the house voting for, an amendment in 1960 by 74%, an amendment in 1964 by 69%, senate amendment in 1965 by 80% of the senate, and another amendment in 1965 by 78%. Does that statement make sense? No, it doesn't. There's no way that act and its amendments could pass with veto proof majorities if this country was as racist as history made it out to be. The average person didn't like what was happening to minority races and made their voices heard in the elections. Racism was trending out among the average person nearly a century ago, and potentially longer. The systemic problem was caused by racists who wished to use it as a power base, divide the country and you keep power, and unfortunately they had positions of power to do just that, which explains why there was separate drinking fountains and such. And we see much of the same people in power (sometimes literally the same person as old as they are) doing the same thing today for the same reasons. To maintain power.
My answer to your initial question would be, very racist. Just from those numbers alone, 20-30% of politicians in america openly did not want minorities to have the same rights as white people did. If the general population followed the same trend, that would be a lot of people that were openly hostile towards various minorities in at least some capacity.
*A universe from nothing* Thousands and thousands of times, creationists accuse physicists of *“Science claim that the universe came from nothing”* On one hand this is a very hypocritical claim, because we all know that their religion makes the exactly the same claim, but they give the job of creation to a god. On second hand, science attempts to answer the “accusation” with evidence and if that is unavailable, with some plausible hypothesis. The first issue is: “*What is nothing?* I am not sure that there is such a thing in the universe as a “nothing”. Even parts of what we once thought as empty is full of energy, waves and subatomic particles. As such, we are unable to do any tests on this hypothetical “nothing” and are unsure of what may “come” from it. The best we can do is to define (rather unsatisfactorily) as a nothing is an *absence of everything* If we assert that our current universe can actually can *come from nothing* what evidence and logical reasoning can we present to establish a plausibility? We know that the sum total of the energy in the universe is zero. Once we understand the laws of nature, the characteristics of a universe created from nothing would be precisely the characteristic of our universe. This of course is not a “proof” but it is highly plausible. We are at the beginning of the discovery only, and have not yet understood fully the details of quantum gravity. But we can work back (to the origin of the universe) to time = 0. In the journey backward, every step is plausible (some supported by testing) until we arrive at the last step of quantum gravity, which needs a theory. Quantum gravity, when combined with time fluctuates and provides for the creation of a universe. When space stretches it requires energy. Empty space includes energy (we call dark energy). As space expands, the energy remains the same (it sounds like you are getting something from nothing). In classical physics if we expand matter, the density of that matter decreases. But that is not the case with empty space, which if expanded will give the appearance of an energy increase which does not occurs -- the universe remains at the same energy level, concurrenty with an increase in size, which presents us with a paradox. This phenomenon appears to defy the laws of (classical) physics. It is also true that when you endow space with energy that space will have a negative pressure. This is one of the reasons why space expands exponentially. As the universe expands, it does work on “empty” space, and it dumps energy into the “empty” space. So it sounds absurd that the universe expands exponentially without decreasing in density, yet it satisfies all the laws of physics including the conservation of energy. We do not understand the source of that energy (although it is recognized by quantum mechanics). The expanding universe remains at zero energy level. All the energy of motion by the galaxies and its components is cancelled by the pull of gravity. However this observations can only be done if we assume a closed universe. Unfortunately the longer we wait the less we will see (assuming that we find no stronger and better instruments to measure, but probably this will not be the case). Because galaxies are moving away from us at a speed exceeding the speed of light, and as the consequence, the images of them will disappear in time.
that's right. it's all about racism, no longer class struggle. let's ignore everything else like God, love, sin, and salvation, even iodine. hold it. back to the sun. did joshua make the sun stay still or did God?
Frank, I think your model of proving causation could use some work. Specifically point 3, since using that framework we wouldn't be able to say stuff like smoking causes cancer.
Sorry Frank, you missed the boat on this one. I was born in 1960 and the things I’ve experienced in following 64 years, at the hands of racism, are too numerous to write here. True, not all people are all things. However, racial bias is a product of the devil, and to call it anything else, is blasphemous. Why would a man who is spending a great portion of his life, educating nonbelievers and believers, take this road?
@@timothytakang5407 basically Frank is trying to rearrange the chairs of the Titanic. Jesus spoke about his coming back and the end times very plainly and Frank seems to be more focused on trying to make America a more Christian nation. Which leads me to believe his escatological view is: Post Millennialism.
@@timothytakang5407 Frank is trying to rearrange the chairs of the Titanic. Trying to focus on making America a more Christian nation than believing in imminent end times.
@@alexgreber2570 I stand corrected. 1 Peter 2:9 ESV - "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."
I get called a racist by Matt whenever he's on here 😂. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil
Who's Matt, and what do you mean by "on here"? Interestingly Matt Walsh recently released a documentary/comedy called "Am I racist?", it's a must watch! God bless!
@@bryant475 Matt is a disgusting commenter that uses the name Mattslater. Matt is a particularly disgusting demonic anti-theist. Our brother LarzMan here comments the gospel message...
In Christ, there are no distinctions of nationality, class, or rank. No Christian thinks of another person as English, German, French, Russian, Turk, Chinese, or African, but simply as an equal, and, therefore, a possible heir of God through Christ. If that other person, no matter what their race or nation, is also a Christian, then the bond becomes mutual, and, therefore, still stronger. For "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Not true at all. The Bible says in revelation that people of all tribes tongues and languages will be there. How is that so if God doesn’t see color? Just man and women…you gotta do better man, these color blind notions don’t help but really hurt racial progress and healing.
The phrase no distinctions does not mean that the various nations do not exist, but that God sees no difference between them. God is no respecter of persons. Acts 10:34. In every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. Acts 10:35. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek. Christ came that he might reconcile both [Jew and Gentile] unto God in one body by the cross, and through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Eph. 2:16, 18. Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Rom. 3:30 The terms by faith and through faith have the same meaning. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. Rom. 10:12
"No Christian thinks of another person as English, German, French, Russian, Turk, Chinese, or African, but simply as an equal.." Would be nice if this were true. The reality is a lot of them do think in these categories. There's a big gap between how people, including Christians, are supposed to live and act and how they actually do.
Gen 3:20 (20) And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was (the mother of all living). Acts 17:26 (26) And he made from (one man) every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth. There's only one race of people, the human race.
That's just an intellectually-bankrupt slogan; and, racial categorization is based-upon physiological traits that are determined/generated/dependent-upon genetics.
@@johnharrison6745which genetics also proclaim much diversity common to all. But you just keep making racism an issue. Keep on dividing where none should exist.
@@richiejourney1840 Except that the genetics I speak-of "proclaim" combinations of physiological/behavioral traits that make racial categorization both possible and easy. No; race is an "issue" because it 'exists' and is inherently highly 'divisive'. Whether you like it or not, we are NOT 'all the same, just different-looking'. I HIGHLY recommend Jared Taylor and his 'American Renaissance' organization to you.
Johnny it does completely, using a genetic position to define race is in itself racist. There are many more scientific factors involved if you'd like to go that route, but God has defined us as image barers, so it is much more intune with the Lord's teachings to ignore physical differences and treat everyone as Jesus taught us and love our neighbor as ourselves.
@@gi169 No; it doesn't. The "factors involved" in racial categorization stem-from GENETICS; and, that's just a brute fact. Regardless of your parroting of terms/snippets from the 'Bible', we're *NOT* "all the same, just different-looking".
@@johnharrison6745 Wow, Johnny that seems a bit antitheistic... You must know that if you are defining race by worldy science there is so much more to it. This is a pointless position to take considering your fellow man.
@@rationeextrema3776 Certainly more than that. Racial categorization is based-upon/derived from GROUPS of physiological traits that are genetics-driven; not just one.
Well then, if life can be created so easily that a bunch of accidents can do it, then surely, someone with your profound intelligence should be able to do it too. Let us know when you have created a living, reproducing, cell from scratch. After you accomplish that easy task, you can move on to creating some more complex bodies, like insects, which should only be slightly more difficult than creating a cell for you.
@@logicalatheist1065 if you have a brain, then it should be easy for you to build living organisms. But, you and I both know that you don't possess even a fraction of the knowledge required to build even a "simple" cell, let alone complex bodies. Yet, you confidently hypothesize that all life is the result of blind materialism, with zero evidence. This is not science. If you were actually scientific, and wished to prove your hypothesis, you will document the steps required to create life, so others can reproduce them. Instead, you make evidence-free claims, all while claiming to follow "science".
@@Servant-u9z Because it's not clear whether we should or we shouldn't. I remain agnostic about that as an atheist and it doesn't matter to me. Either way, a literal or a metaphorical reading, it disproves the Bible.
I think the greater irony is your comment. You’ve committed an ad hominem fallacy right there. Just because a person has a certain identity or title doesn’t invalidate their point. Attack the argument, not the person.
@@ValouroverFear My comment is about the arguments made by apologists, not an attack on the person of an apologist, so no it's not ad hominem. Every apologist I have ever come across (including Frank Turek) base most of their case on arguments riddled with falacies. My comment is completely valid.
Wow... frank loses himself in this speech. He lost control of what he was talking about so many times. Also what's the point of this? Like why? What does this have to do with religion?
How the flying fish is he dividing people? I mean did you even listen to the whole thing? How can you merely assume that racial discrimination is the single cause for disparity between the different ethnicities? That’s totally unscientific.
@@ValouroverFearUS history literally gives us 300 plus years of just that happening. How do you conclude anything else? Black people just got the right to vote 59 years ago…do better
Really disappointed in Frank for his take on race. America has done nothing to try and rectify 300 plus years of oppression in the form slavery and Jim crow and mass incarceration but wants everyone to think the disparities have nothing to do with race. I don’t know what level of cognitive dissonance one has to have to suggest that race isn’t the main factor in the disparities we see across ethnicities. It’s insulting and unless you’re willing to say it’s because of black people’s intellect or dna idk how else you explain it. Hope Frank and Crossexamined do better in this area.
It's only 6 minute videos. Forget about race. Just listen, take what works and what doesn't. Don't make a big deal about things out of our control. He has an opinion, he's not saying he's factual on it.
Can you please explain why Asains have better outcomes than Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics? Are you aware that America was just as racist against Asians as it was against any other race? Have you heard about the Japanese internment camps? Have you heard about Asian workers who built the railroads, and died at an alarming rate doing it? Have you ever heard a racial slur directed at an Asain person? Are you aware that Jim Crow Laws applied to Asians (and Hispanics)? Are you aware that Asains replaced Blacks as the new version of slave in America? Why do you claim cognitive dissonance for him, but fail to see it in yourself?
@georgemonnatjr.172 when Frank Turek uses the ontological argument for God, he commits a begging the question fallacy as he presupposes God's existence in the premise
Subscribe to our channel here ➡️ ua-cam.com/channels/edYGs_lqq1uNet0u7qlSyQ.html
Jesus called out ethnic supremacy and he called with his own people first.
Apparently truth sometimes for some takes a back seat to philosophy...
God’s Word says, “and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:”
Acts 17:26-27 KJV
I believe God puts us when and where in the timeline of history to give each and every one of us the greatest opportunity to come to know Him…so many of us still say “no” to this loving, all-knowing and all-powerful Creator, God. Those that spend eternity separated from Him have no one to blame but themselves.
Does that still hold of a different religion is true that puts you in Hell for not believing it?
@@Moist._Robotwhat is the most likely truth to you?
@@richiejourney1840
That none of these religions are true.
They’re all man made.
Thank you CrossExamined 👍
Any group of people who depict Jesus as a blonde, blue-eyed, man like a Scandinavian skier in the Olympics probably shouldn't discuss racism, unless they are admitting to being in favor of it.
@@ji8044 agreed. Now that we are in agreement, demonstrate that Cross Examined has done that or retract your accusation.
@@ji8044 If you examine artists’ portrayals of Jesus from around the world, you find that they often portray Jesus in a way similar to what people look like in that particular culture.
Europeans portray Jesus as a European. Africans paint Jesus as an African. Asians illustrate Jesus in a way that makes Him look Asian. People prefer to picture Jesus as looking somewhat like them, or at least like people they are familiar with.
Is it wrong to do this? Not necessarily.
As long as we do not allow our preferred image of Jesus to become an idol, there is nothing in the Bible that speaks against imagining Jesus looking a certain way.
Jesus is the Savior for “all nations” (Matthew 28:19; Galatians 3:8).
No matter a person’s skin color, race, ethnicity, or nationality, he or she can experience forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God through the crucified and risen Christ.
The love of Jesus transcends skin color. Having no physical description of Jesus, people naturally imagine the Son of Man to be like themselves.
So, we should not be dogmatic in our preferred image of Jesus.
The fact that the Bible nowhere gives a physical description should serve as a caution against arrogance and presumption on this subject.
What Jesus looked like does not really matter.
His physical appearance has absolutely nothing to do with His being the Savior of the world (John 3:16).
Wouldn't it be boring if we all looked the same thank GOD we are so different. Black white brown yellow Red oval eyes Asian eyes blue green etc . Thank you GOD for the differences .
@@gordo191
Awesome 👍
@@gordo191
God bless you...
Do you think the 3 million black slaves in America, all held by Christian owners, on the eve of the Civil War thanked God for the color of their skin?
That's why muslims congregate in Mecca in unity ( different races, status, skin colour etc)
This is really tone deaf. The problem that white people have is that your commentary is not needed to discern the personal experience of black people: racism is what built the USA and until you realize that, you will not be able to effetely teach the gospel to the ends of the earth…
Here's an interesting fact. The Civil Rights Act started in 1957, signed into law by President Eisenhower. It was amended a few times and we commonly see the effects of the amendments made in 1964 as being the actual modern Civil Rights Act. But I want to ask this question. How racist do you believe the country was in 1957? Sure we've seen the videos, the images, and have historical evidence of some pretty bad racism. But just how racist was the average person?
You'd think with the whites and colored bathrooms, places they could sit on buses, segregation of schools, and the whole thing made it just one racist slop of a country. But the Civil Rights Act passed in 1957, amended in '60, '64, '65, and '68 to be more effective. And then things started getting better. That's what we were taught anyway.
How true is that?
This outright racist country passed the Civil Rights Act in 1957 with 69% of the house voting for, an amendment in 1960 by 74%, an amendment in 1964 by 69%, senate amendment in 1965 by 80% of the senate, and another amendment in 1965 by 78%.
Does that statement make sense? No, it doesn't. There's no way that act and its amendments could pass with veto proof majorities if this country was as racist as history made it out to be. The average person didn't like what was happening to minority races and made their voices heard in the elections. Racism was trending out among the average person nearly a century ago, and potentially longer. The systemic problem was caused by racists who wished to use it as a power base, divide the country and you keep power, and unfortunately they had positions of power to do just that, which explains why there was separate drinking fountains and such.
And we see much of the same people in power (sometimes literally the same person as old as they are) doing the same thing today for the same reasons. To maintain power.
Yeah…we are sooooooo racist that we didn’t fight and kill each other over it in the civil war…nope…not a single non racist bone in this country…
My answer to your initial question would be, very racist. Just from those numbers alone, 20-30% of politicians in america openly did not want minorities to have the same rights as white people did. If the general population followed the same trend, that would be a lot of people that were openly hostile towards various minorities in at least some capacity.
*A universe from nothing*
Thousands and thousands of times, creationists accuse physicists of *“Science claim that the universe came from nothing”* On one hand this is a very hypocritical claim, because we all know that their religion makes the exactly the same claim, but they give the job of creation to a god. On second hand, science attempts to answer the “accusation” with evidence and if that is unavailable, with some plausible hypothesis.
The first issue is: “*What is nothing?* I am not sure that there is such a thing in the universe as a “nothing”. Even parts of what we once thought as empty is full of energy, waves and subatomic particles. As such, we are unable to do any tests on this hypothetical “nothing” and are unsure of what may “come” from it. The best we can do is to define (rather unsatisfactorily) as a nothing is an *absence of everything*
If we assert that our current universe can actually can *come from nothing* what evidence and logical reasoning can we present to establish a plausibility? We know that the sum total of the energy in the universe is zero. Once we understand the laws of nature, the characteristics of a universe created from nothing would be precisely the characteristic of our universe.
This of course is not a “proof” but it is highly plausible.
We are at the beginning of the discovery only, and have not yet understood fully the details of quantum gravity. But we can work back (to the origin of the universe) to time = 0. In the journey backward, every step is plausible (some supported by testing) until we arrive at the last step of quantum gravity, which needs a theory. Quantum gravity, when combined with time fluctuates and provides for the creation of a universe.
When space stretches it requires energy. Empty space includes energy (we call dark energy). As space expands, the energy remains the same (it sounds like you are getting something from nothing). In classical physics if we expand matter, the density of that matter decreases. But that is not the case with empty space, which if expanded will give the appearance of an energy increase which does not occurs -- the universe remains at the same energy level, concurrenty with an increase in size, which presents us with a paradox.
This phenomenon appears to defy the laws of (classical) physics. It is also true that when you endow space with energy that space will have a negative pressure. This is one of the reasons why space expands exponentially. As the universe expands, it does work on “empty” space, and it dumps energy into the “empty” space.
So it sounds absurd that the universe expands exponentially without decreasing in density, yet it satisfies all the laws of physics including the conservation of energy. We do not understand the source of that energy (although it is recognized by quantum mechanics). The expanding universe remains at zero energy level. All the energy of motion by the galaxies and its components is cancelled by the pull of gravity. However this observations can only be done if we assume a closed universe.
Unfortunately the longer we wait the less we will see (assuming that we find no stronger and better instruments to measure, but probably this will not be the case). Because galaxies are moving away from us at a speed exceeding the speed of light, and as the consequence, the images of them will disappear in time.
Does anyone have a link to the entire video?
that's right. it's all about racism, no longer class struggle. let's ignore everything else like God, love, sin, and salvation, even iodine. hold it. back to the sun. did joshua make the sun stay still or did God?
Frank, I think your model of proving causation could use some work. Specifically point 3, since using that framework we wouldn't be able to say stuff like smoking causes cancer.
Sorry Frank, you missed the boat on this one. I was born in 1960 and the things I’ve experienced in following 64 years, at the hands of racism, are too numerous to write here. True, not all people are all things. However, racial bias is a product of the devil, and to call it anything else, is blasphemous. Why would a man who is spending a great portion of his life, educating nonbelievers and believers, take this road?
Sorry, can you explain better how exactly he “missed the boat” as you say?
Frank has become a Christian Nationalist after hanging out with Charlie Kirk and Jack Hibbs lol
@@brown_recidivist What do you mean by "Christian nationalist"??
@@timothytakang5407 basically Frank is trying to rearrange the chairs of the Titanic. Jesus spoke about his coming back and the end times very plainly and Frank seems to be more focused on trying to make America a more Christian nation. Which leads me to believe his escatological view is: Post Millennialism.
@@timothytakang5407 Frank is trying to rearrange the chairs of the Titanic. Trying to focus on making America a more Christian nation than believing in imminent end times.
Frank is the Master of oversimplification lol
Frank is a master of misinformation.
@@maylingng4107 He can be unsufferable at times even lately. He's pushing a certain agenda you can tell
@@brown_recidivist
He is pushing the baseless creationist agenda. That is what Frank does for a living.
@@brown_recidivist What agenda is that?
God = Cause. Everything = Effect.
And no, God doesn't need a cause because He's spirit and material scientific laws don't apply to a spiritual being.
That's a fun way to define God into existence.
@@festushaggen2563 God bless you brother Festus...
Yes. If God needed a cause, then nothing could ever begin. Something MUST be eternal for anything to begin. That is, of course, God, our creator 🙏
God kills all babies?
Toddler logic
There is only one race, the human race. All other physical differences between humans is adaptation.
We all bleed red. If you find someone who bleeds another color, then maybe you've found another race.
@brianschmidt704 So be it!
No we are one SPECIES. BUT RACE EXISTS
Said no Christian ever.
@@alexgreber2570 I stand corrected. 1 Peter 2:9 ESV - "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."
Whatever is happening a specific god named Yahweh and his son must be behind it.
Frank lecturing others on fallacies is hilarious.
What do you mean by that? 👀👀👀
I get called a racist by Matt whenever he's on here 😂.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil
God bless you brother.
@gi169 LORD Bless you too brother 🙏
Who's Matt, and what do you mean by "on here"? Interestingly Matt Walsh recently released a documentary/comedy called "Am I racist?", it's a must watch! God bless!
@@bryant475
Matt is a disgusting commenter that uses the name Mattslater. Matt is a particularly disgusting demonic anti-theist. Our brother LarzMan here comments the gospel message...
@bryant475 matt is an atheist and he comes here alot to voice his opinions. He calls me a racist because I said kamala was a dei hire
Cliffe using rationalizations to show things and then will turn it back around to prove something else. Pay attention
Like pot is a gateway drug?
No.
😂 for many it certainly was and is…stop being foolish. But, I agree it’s really a matter of self control and moderation like all things are.
@@richiejourney1840it's a gateway to the refrigerator
In Christ, there are no distinctions of nationality, class, or rank.
No Christian thinks of another person as English, German, French, Russian, Turk, Chinese, or African, but simply as an equal, and, therefore, a possible heir of God through Christ.
If that other person, no matter what their race or nation, is also a Christian, then the bond becomes mutual, and, therefore, still stronger.
For "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Not true at all. The Bible says in revelation that people of all tribes tongues and languages will be there. How is that so if God doesn’t see color? Just man and women…you gotta do better man, these color blind notions don’t help but really hurt racial progress and healing.
The phrase no distinctions does not mean that the various nations do not exist, but that God sees no difference between them.
God is no respecter of persons. Acts 10:34.
In every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. Acts 10:35.
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek.
Christ came that he might reconcile both [Jew and Gentile] unto God in one body by the cross, and through Him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Eph. 2:16, 18.
Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Rom. 3:30
The terms by faith and through faith have the same meaning.
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. Rom. 10:12
@@watchmanofthenight2700 agreed
You should talk to Christians of the past who did believe in such disparities.
"No Christian thinks of another person as English, German, French, Russian, Turk, Chinese, or African, but simply as an equal.." Would be nice if this were true. The reality is a lot of them do think in these categories. There's a big gap between how people, including Christians, are supposed to live and act and how they actually do.
Fervent prayer and regular church attendance by sincere Christian couples has no effect on the probability of their offspring being gay or straight.
Got any data to support this probability you assert?
@@Servant-u9z How would such data be assembled? LOLOLOLOLOL
@@ji8044 😂You tell me. I’m not an empiricist or a follower of scientism so that’s not my problem. 🤷♂️
Yep…a sinful person is a sin filled person no matter who or what you are.
For REALITY regarding race and race-relations, I HIGHLY recommend JARED TAYLOR and his 'AMERICAN RENAISSANCE' organization.
Go watch "Am I Racist?" By Matt Walsh. You'll get informed better and will laugh at the same time
A white man telling black people that racism doesn’t exist…that is hilarious!
Gen 3:20 (20) And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was (the mother of all living). Acts 17:26 (26) And he made from (one man) every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth. There's only one race of people, the human race.
That's just an intellectually-bankrupt slogan; and, racial categorization is based-upon physiological traits that are determined/generated/dependent-upon genetics.
@@johnharrison6745which genetics also proclaim much diversity common to all. But you just keep making racism an issue. Keep on dividing where none should exist.
@@richiejourney1840 Except that the genetics I speak-of "proclaim" combinations of physiological/behavioral traits that make racial categorization both possible and easy. No; race is an "issue" because it 'exists' and is inherently highly 'divisive'. Whether you like it or not, we are NOT 'all the same, just different-looking'. I HIGHLY recommend Jared Taylor and his 'American Renaissance' organization to you.
@ so we are to pity a race over another no matter what?
@@richiejourney1840 Jared Taylor; 'American Renaissance'; check 'em out.
The fact that a certain behavior/trait is not shared by every member of a race, does NOT mean that it isn't shared by MOST members of that race.
Johnny it does completely, using a genetic position to define race is in itself racist. There are many more scientific factors involved if you'd like to go that route, but God has defined us as image barers, so it is much more intune with the Lord's teachings to ignore physical differences and treat everyone as Jesus taught us and love our neighbor as ourselves.
@@gi169 No; it doesn't. The "factors involved" in racial categorization stem-from GENETICS; and, that's just a brute fact. Regardless of your parroting of terms/snippets from the 'Bible', we're *NOT* "all the same, just different-looking".
@@johnharrison6745
Not any more than polydactyly can distinguish someone of Amish descent from other groups of people.
@@johnharrison6745
Wow, Johnny that seems a bit antitheistic... You must know that if you are defining race by worldy science there is so much more to it. This is a pointless position to take considering your fellow man.
@@rationeextrema3776 Certainly more than that. Racial categorization is based-upon/derived from GROUPS of physiological traits that are genetics-driven; not just one.
There's no reason to believe any god exists
Well then, if life can be created so easily that a bunch of accidents can do it, then surely, someone with your profound intelligence should be able to do it too. Let us know when you have created a living, reproducing, cell from scratch. After you accomplish that easy task, you can move on to creating some more complex bodies, like insects, which should only be slightly more difficult than creating a cell for you.
@davidjoly9816 who said anything about accidents?
@davidjoly9816 I have a brain, creationism can be dismissed, baseless religious belief that's destroyed by science
@@logicalatheist1065 if you have a brain, then it should be easy for you to build living organisms. But, you and I both know that you don't possess even a fraction of the knowledge required to build even a "simple" cell, let alone complex bodies. Yet, you confidently hypothesize that all life is the result of blind materialism, with zero evidence. This is not science. If you were actually scientific, and wished to prove your hypothesis, you will document the steps required to create life, so others can reproduce them. Instead, you make evidence-free claims, all while claiming to follow "science".
@@logicalatheist1065 There's no reason to think Atheists exist.
First off: the sun doesn’t come up. The earth turns. But the authors of the Bible didn’t know that.
😂 why make such a point? Who cares? The sun still rises from our point of view…yes? Better educate all the “scientists” who still use the terminology.
Were the people whom scribed the Bible scientists?
@@Servant-u9z Clearly not, though the Church did held the Bible as a scientific standard.
@@Eddieshred so why are you doing the very thing you condemn when you have knowledge that you shouldn’t?
@@Servant-u9z Because it's not clear whether we should or we shouldn't. I remain agnostic about that as an atheist and it doesn't matter to me. Either way, a literal or a metaphorical reading, it disproves the Bible.
An apologist pointing out fallacies. 😅😂🤣😂🤣😅😂😅😂🤣😅🤣 Oh, the irony.
I think the greater irony is your comment. You’ve committed an ad hominem fallacy right there. Just because a person has a certain identity or title doesn’t invalidate their point. Attack the argument, not the person.
An anti-theist commenting bigotry oh the irony philby😅😂🤣🤣😂😅😅😂🤣🤣😂😅
How dare an expert expertly apply his expertise!!!😅😂
@Servant-u9z
😅😂🤣 Brother... God bless...
@@ValouroverFear My comment is about the arguments made by apologists, not an attack on the person of an apologist, so no it's not ad hominem. Every apologist I have ever come across (including Frank Turek) base most of their case on arguments riddled with falacies. My comment is completely valid.
Ah, more Frank going right-wing.
Ah more leftist nonsense from philby.
@@gi169 Did you ever get round to finding any evidence for your beliefs?
@philb4462
Yes philby I have all the evidence what ever that is I need silly anti-theist; thanks for your unwanted concern.🤣🤣😅
@@philb4462
Well, in all honesty Phil, the left-wing just got buried, didn't they?
Where else should Frank go?
Maybe stick to biblical apologetics
Wow... frank loses himself in this speech. He lost control of what he was talking about so many times. Also what's the point of this? Like why? What does this have to do with religion?
The Truth, that's what it has to do with "religion"
@erwynbalbuena9900 but what's the truth? Haha he didn't make a point to claim is the truth?
Nothing says Frank Turek like trying to divide people over their race.
He said it's wrong to vary the standards based on race.
Is that divisive?
How the flying fish is he dividing people? I mean did you even listen to the whole thing? How can you merely assume that racial discrimination is the single cause for disparity between the different ethnicities? That’s totally unscientific.
There is only one race when it comes to our kind. The human race. Quit perpetuating the very thing you complain about.
@@Servant-u9z Amen
@@ValouroverFearUS history literally gives us 300 plus years of just that happening. How do you conclude anything else? Black people just got the right to vote 59 years ago…do better
Really disappointed in Frank for his take on race. America has done nothing to try and rectify 300 plus years of oppression in the form slavery and Jim crow and mass incarceration but wants everyone to think the disparities have nothing to do with race. I don’t know what level of cognitive dissonance one has to have to suggest that race isn’t the main factor in the disparities we see across ethnicities. It’s insulting and unless you’re willing to say it’s because of black people’s intellect or dna idk how else you explain it. Hope Frank and Crossexamined do better in this area.
It's only 6 minute videos.
Forget about race. Just listen, take what works and what doesn't. Don't make a big deal about things out of our control.
He has an opinion, he's not saying he's factual on it.
i think you misunderstood Dr Frank
Can you please explain why Asains have better outcomes than Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics? Are you aware that America was just as racist against Asians as it was against any other race? Have you heard about the Japanese internment camps? Have you heard about Asian workers who built the railroads, and died at an alarming rate doing it? Have you ever heard a racial slur directed at an Asain person? Are you aware that Jim Crow Laws applied to Asians (and Hispanics)? Are you aware that Asains replaced Blacks as the new version of slave in America?
Why do you claim cognitive dissonance for him, but fail to see it in yourself?
What laws on the books do you suggest go after any particular race?
@@MarkLaw13 sticking your hand in the sand is never a good solution…. Also this is a video on race. Apply your own logic to my comment.
The irony of Frank Turek teaching about logical fallacies when all he uses are logical fallacies to prove the existence of God is quite amusing
Your comment is imbicilic.
Do you have a specific example?
@georgemonnatjr.172 God of the gaps, argument from incredulity, appeal to consequence fallacy
@memecity9849 None of those are specific examples of Frank Turek making a logical error. Do you have one?
@georgemonnatjr.172 when Frank Turek uses the ontological argument for God, he commits a begging the question fallacy as he presupposes God's existence in the premise