i know this is mostly about a pretty hefty topic BUT... how are y'all liking this particular recording format?? y'all think angle? the far back vibe that slowly goes in? i'm kinda vibing with it.
Enjoyed the topic, But to answer your question lol , AT FIRST, i was not feeling it at all, but as I sat and listed it grew on me. Do with that what you will :)
Been following since your ChaseGod TV days. I was like 14 when I first watched a video(I’m 25 now so I’ve been riding a longgg time), and those were the early stages of my faith. Your videos helped so much and brought me so much knowledge I didn’t have before about God. I just want to say thank you for being open and honest with sharing your new found journey with us. It’s funny because in July of 2021 I started to experience doubt with God. Real thoughts about whether or not he existed, or really cared for me as a person. I started to ask myself “do I have real hope or am I just sitting here trying to convince myself that there is hope with Jesus.” It scared me because I never wrestled with doubt like that. I often prayed for God(and still now to) that he would “help my unbelief.” My doubt came and then it faded to the background but my ears definitely sprang up with such curiosity when just a month later you announced you left the faith. I’ve been waiting for these kind of videos and it’s interesting to hear your insight and the parallels of thoughts that I have had. Like I said the doubt came and then it went. Almost as if a faith switch was just turned back on 💀 but then the beginning of 2022 I was really struggling again with doubt, almost now more comfortable with saying I have doubt. But then that faith switch came back on in the spring and I was okay. Now it’s fall and the switch has turned off again smh . I miss the days when I just believed like a child. The fact that Christian’s are always saying different things have always stumped me too. Even within a church you have people disagreeing. I don’t necessarily think this debunks God but it just calls me to questions why is there so much confusion? Why do so many people think they have access to the truth? Like one of y’all have to be wrong. And I’m just not trying to go hard for the wrong thing dksksks. Right now I’m just wishing God will be more blatant with me. I know blessed are those who believe without seeing. But I guess that’s just not me! I can not fix my mouth to say I’m an unbeliever now. I’m quicker to still say I’m a Christian as I’m petrified to know what else I could be or who I am outside of Jesus. My faith has encompassed so much of who I am. But I want to follow Jesus is wholeheartedly and I’m not able do so currently with all the doubt and frustration. Again…..I miss when I had the heart to believe like a child.
Thank you so much for processing this in public for us. As a devout Christian, it has been very helpful for me. Also I appreciate you carefully trying to be respectful. PS. The video is great. I love the audio and the visual/angle is really nice to look at
I love this convo along with your other videos so far. I actually came to the realization in my systematic theology class in Seminary. I don’t wrestle with these ideas anymore, I kinda let it float in the background because it makes my head hurt lol but I will forever love you! You’re a wonderful storyteller & always offer great insight. Thank you🙏🏾
Always appreciate hearing your perspective Joe Where I agree: The assumed reality of an ‘absolute moral standard’ is insufficient for claiming the existence of the God of the Bible. Even assuming Yahweh, Christians do not possess absolute knowledge of morality ourselves. Your points there are solid. My push back: The argument for an ‘absolute moral standard’ isn't intended to be sufficient for proving a specific deity. Rather, it’s a foundational argument for, and explanation of, the apparent existence of (more-or-less) universally expected norms of morality across time, cultures, etc. It’s an appeal to the even more foundational claim that ‘absolute truth’ exists, using morality as “Exhibit A”. So, agreeing again, the absolute moral standard argument isn't rightly used to appeal to the right-ness of any specific belief system, but rather an appeal to the concept of right/wrong itself. From there-a standard existing-comes the question of what or who that standard is. Our answers and behaviors from there will be relative, but that’s an entirely different form of relativism than is logically consistent for those who deny the existence of a standard altogether. Without the belief in some kind of standard, moral claims are *only* relative. At least with an appeal to a standard, one can embrace the possibility of being wrong, not merely out of step with an arbitrary preference. And, given that morality affects conscious, decision-making beings, it is a good starting point for arguing for a yet-to-be-identified conscious, decision-making standard giver. Take care fam ✊
hey Mykl! thanks for going such a thoughtful response. i'll try to do the same. to the first push back: "It’s an appeal to the even more foundational claim that ‘absolute truth’ exists, using morality as “Exhibit A”. i'd say in response that absolute truth/reality can exist without absolute morality. like it's possible that there's a reality in which there is no universal/cosmic right and wrong. pointing back to the argument i was making earlier that absolute morality is *useful* but not necessary. "but that’s an entirely different form of relativism than is logically consistent for those who deny the existence of a standard altogether. " i disagree that they are entirely different. i think they may be presented as entirely different, and maybe they are in theory, but in practice, in function and application, they are one in the same. the one who does not appeal to a deity for morals still has an ideal of what is the "best" set of morals. maybe he appeals to sociology, or economics, public health, what's best for majority, or whatever as a conglomerate of authority. he is left with the task of creating a standard of how to get there. but the christian is not much different. he appeals to scripture, and then of course theology, and hermeneutics, exegesis, history, local church authority and community, etc and of course ultimately God, who he can never 100% determine. but to get as close to 100% as he can, he must come to his own conclusion of how to best get there. (i.e. he has the bible, but what is the best way to interpret the bible? ) he, too, is left with the task of creating a standard of how to get there. "Without the belief in some kind of standard, moral claims are only relative". again, for sake of argument, i can grant that absolute morality exist SOMEWHERE with some One named YHWH. but to get to claim absolutely standard, as i've shown, you must still first create essentially an arbitrary/relative way of getting to it. using relative methods to get to relative morality is, in effect, the same as using relative methods to get to "absolute" morality. zero times zero equals zero. but zero times 100 also still equals zero.
@@flightsfeelings I appreciate Mykl's original statement because he summarized a lot of what I was grappling with. @Joe, when you say "it's possible that there's a reality in which there is no universal/cosmic right and wrong" do you believe that to be true in our present/current reality? We can make conjectures about alternative realities all day, but that doen't necessarily define what we actually believe. I hope what I'm saying doesn't come off as rude. I genuinely want to understand if your new belief is in complete relativism and that no absolute truth exists. If that is the case, can you share more on how that works from your point of view? I get that you say an absolute morality is useful not necessary. I'd love to hear more about this from a practical/functional stance.
@@itsallright101 i absolutely believe that. and my point is that christians, are prey to the same experience. whether absolute moral values exist in the ether or not, you don’t have functional access to it so your method of creating morals is the same as everyone else, except you appeal the bible to substantiate it. “i’d love to hear more about this from a functional stance” lol that’s the irony is that you and the community you exist in do it all the time. it’s not a foreign concept. and in order to dismiss a world where functional morality is relative, christians have to create this absurd hyperbolic world where somehow every human would do the worst imaginable deeds if they had to no god to answer to. it completely ignores the fact that humans are intrinsically communal, and in general, will behave in ways that allows us to stay functional stay part of “the group”. on top of the fact that having an absolute moral giver named god doesn’t ultimately stop somebody from murdering. i get angry at someone on the road, and the bible compares that anger to murder because murder originated from anger. but the reality is, i and MOST of every other healthy human just simply isn’t a murderer. i don’t refrain from murdering that person because i’m a christian and god is watching me. i just don’t do it because 1. i’m not naturally wired that way, 2. i have enough sense to know that my society doesn’t abide murderers and i will ruin my own life by taking someone else’s. at a base level, this is how all human (and other animal) societies function. and what is tolerable evolves with context and time. hence why it was cool for someone in a specific moment in the OT to take a child of another man and essentially rape them in genesis, but today no pastor could ever say to another man “god told me to take your teenage daughter as my wife.” of course the christian apologetic answer is always some clever way of saying “well that was isolated event, and you gotta consider the context, etc” which just proves my point: the morality was relative to what was accepted given the context. you can’t get around it.
@@flightsfeelings "to get to claim absolutely standard, as I've shown, you must still first create essentially an arbitrary/relative way of getting to it." If the standard given reveals something as clear as, "God exists", what about that truth claim do you feel needs to be "arbitrary" or 'relatively" gotten to? It seems you're implying that the same complex (arbitrary/relative) hermeneutics that one would apply to a more ambiguous text within the standard (Bible), would need to also be applied to simple and clear basic truth claims such as "God exists", "Jesus was raised" etc. How is this not over emphasizing the need for relativity with perceiving clearly stated truth claims?
@@DanielMorgan404 i think i kind of address your questions in my other comment to you. but basically, it seems you keep using “absolute reality” and “absolute morality” interchangeably. absolutely reality may INCLUDE morality, but it is not the same as morality. think of it like a home with furniture in it. the house is reality, and the furniture exists within that house. but the furniture is *not* the house. and if you removed the furniture, the house would still exist (however, luther vandross would probably say that house is no longer a home lol.) all the examples you give are claims of reality. “god exists” or “jesus was raised.” is not a moral value.
Dude, thank you for this perspective. You helped clear out some thoughts and agree with you. The "absolute morality" argument is at best a theistic claim, but as you said, not just available to Christians. Thank you for the clarity! At the end of the day, still believe in the Christian God😊
I’ve been following your content from the Chase God Webisode days. Love hearing your perspective on things and the way you challenge people to think. Audio was great, set up is great. I did prefer the later half of the video when the camera was zoomed in a tad more. I’m excited for future content. Especially the idea of having people interview you.
I completely understand where you're coming from. My wife shares similar reasons for deconstructing her faith. She believes that humans should eventually be able to discern what leads to human flourishing, and there are many successful societies that don't place a god at the center. As a Christian, I'm beginning to embrace the idea that Christ didn't come to forcefully convert people but to change hearts, especially for the oppressed in every society. The most important commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself and to love God. This principle is what I stand by above all else, as it ultimately helps individuals who are oppressed.
Israel means to wrestle with God. And I think much of our existence is that. We are seeking the one who is truth. I believe the Holy Spirit reveals things to us more and more. I think we all have a general morality in the commandments said to be written in our hearts. Outside of that I think we are meant to wrestle, talk, question, and ultimately submit it all unto Jesus who we believe, lived a perfect life. I can agree that we as Christians are not the absolute truth, but I do believe that God is. And I don’t think it’s something humans will ever truly understand until it’s all said and done.
Hey Joe, Love this video bro. You truly made me think, challenged, and streeeeeetched my mind lol. Agreed, that the presup approach concerning objective morality is an argument for general theism, and would apply in response to a naturalist/materialist/atheist. To your question concerning it looping back to becoming the "judgers of the gods who gave us judgement", I don't see how one is forced to become subjective or the "ultimate judge" to analyzing the data. Rather, they are required to remain consistent within the epistemological (and moral) framework they are claiming exists to begin with. In other words, using consistency in order determine the validity of a worldview, does not abandon the grounding authority, or make one the ultimate judge of that worldview, such as long as the method (consistency) being used to judge it, is itself grounded in the worldview being presupposed and argued for. Therefore, as long as the one arguing for theism and then examining each theistic truth claim is using reasoning consistent withing his/her worldview, then they have not abandoned its objective and grounding authority. With respect to the access humanity has to objective morality and absolute truth, due to different views regarding the Bible: Respectfully man, to claim that the inability to "find 10 Christians that agree on absolutely everything in the Bible", somehow undermines or diminishes the ability to find objective truth within The Bible, is simply not logical. While there is certainly ambiguity in many texts, The Bible makes clear truth claims (God existing, man's sinfulness, Jesus's life, death, burial, resurrection, and return) that are either true, or they are false. While there are certainly countless views concerning scripture, I think you're severely over emphasizing the relativity with which the Church, Christians, and humanity in general hold the Bible to be true. Creeds and confessions exist for this very reason, in order to unify around a shared and grounded view of the truth revealed. Yes, even still within these theological and denominational camps, there are differing views or interpretations with certain texts and doctrines such as justification, baptism, eschatology, ecclesiology, soteriology, and these things matter greatly. However, consensus around the foundational claims such as Jesus's life, death, burial, resurrection, and return, within the Bible remain widely intact, not only within said camps, but within the 2.2B people who hold to Christian orthodoxy around the world. The majority of those 2.2B people affirm The Apostles Creed for example. Therefore, the objective and foundational truths revealed in The Bible are not undermined simply due to interpretive theological and doctrinal differences that exist within Christendom. Rather, the fact that such widely different groups agree on core foundational truths speaks to The Bible's clarity of that truth, and our ability to access it. Whether brother to brother, or human to human, I really appreciate this sharpening. "Find Me" will always be a classic btw. 👊🏼
hey daniel, great thoughtful response. i appreciate you taking the time out to respond this way. and also for being charitable. i hope i’ll be able to respond with such clarity as you. i would jump into questioning “well who decides what is ‘foundational truths”, because even that is subjective, even if widely agreed upon. but it actually would distract but from a more important point: i want to make an important distinction- the difference between claims to reality/truth and then claims to moral values. what you listed that the church agrees on (god’s existence, man’s sinfulness, jesus’ life death, burial and resurrection, and return) are claims to an external reality. none of these are moral values. they are claims about historical, future or theological reality. none of those are telling me what i “ought to do”. the apostles’ creed is literally only a list of claims to a reality but no moral values. they are telling me what is or what has happened or will happen. so that’s to say something like “gravity exists, george washington died in 1799, and america will have a new president in 2024.” we can fully agree on those things and still be left with the task of deciding what i “should” or “ought to” do based on that knowledge. and there is hardly consensus on the “shoulds” and “ought to’s” within christiandom . others are kinda getting tripped up on my “10 christian’s example” and maybe i’m kinda just stumbling over the nuance i’m trying to carve out. maybe i’m not lucid enough in how i try to drive the point home. making this point is not to say moral values cannot exist somewhere with god or in god, or in some cosmic sense. it’s to say, clearly the access to absolute morality is inhibited and therefore not functionally absolute, only theoretically. and when it comes to functionality, it’s all or nothing. something can’t be kinda absolute. either it’s absolute or it’s not. and if it’s not absolute, then you are left in the same bucket as your “opponent”: relative moral values. in every corner or cove of christianity, there exists a very distinct moral way of living, even if there some general consensus on larger moral themes. in the same respect, one could argue humanity at large essentially agrees on some “foundational” moral values. humans have long agreed murder is generally wrong, along with rape, adultery, stealing, and lying. and just like christians/bible, they’ve made exceptions to when these things were permissible. thanks again for engaging and also listening to the music. have a great week. 🙏🏽
@@flightsfeelings Hey Joe, thanks so much for your reply. Its really challenged and driven my desire to dig deeper, think more critically, and ultimately attempt to strengthen my own arguments for my presuppositions and belief. I'm really enjoying your latest content as well, intellectually and aesthetically (the slow and subtle zoom in is dope). Ultimately, your objection(s) seem to be largely epistemological. Specifically, the epistemology of hermeneutics. Put simply, "How and by what absolute standard, can we know that we're interpreting and functionally applying an absolute standard correctly. More specifically for this conversation: "Even if we presuppose that the Bible is the absolute moral standard, our access to its absolute morality is inhibited by our lack of absolute omniscient certainty within our own examination, interpretation, and functional application of it. Ultimately, this lack of absolute omniscient certainty reduces us to using the same moral relativism we're accusing the atheist of." So, I would start by saying that our inability to interpret and functionally apply the Bible with absolute omniscient certainty, simply proves that we ourselves are not omniscient, and therefore are not the absolute standard. This is consistent within the absolute standard (Bible) itself. (Proverbs 3:5-6, Isaiah 55:8-9, 1 John 3:20). Secondly, lack of omniscience does not equal total moral (or cognitive) relativism. Interpreting and functionally applying an absolute standard omnisciently and perfectly, versus sufficiently are two different things. As limited beings, we neither have the ability, nor the obligation (command) to perfectly know and functionally apply the absolute standard absolutely. We do however posses the ability and obligation to do so sufficiently. This is also consistent with the absolute standard. (2 Timothy 3:15-17, Jude 1:3, Psalm 119:9-11, 130) One might then ask, "By what standard do we objectively determine what is "sufficient?" Or as you understandably asked, “well who decides the ‘foundational truths”? The answer is "we" don't. The absolute standard we are presupposing and examining does. In other words, we remain consistent with the standard, by leaving room for ambiguity in our interpretation and functionality where the absolute standard itself is ambiguous, and by grounding and standing on the foundation of the clear, indisputably, and consistently stated objective truth claims, both moral and historical within the standard - (God exists -we ought seek Him. Humans exist, are made in His image, and have inherent value - We ought act toward one another as so. We have sinned - We ought not sin. Jesus lived, was crucified, paid for our sins, was raised, and will return - We ought believe, place our trust and faith in, and follow Him). None of these claims are ambiguous. They are clear, absolute, and objective moral & historical truth claims derived directly from the Bible, and held to as foundational by orthodox Christianity worldwide. Therefore, I would ultimately contend, The premise that our inability to omnisciently and perfectly apply an absolute standard absolutely, results in moral relativism is not only an over simplification, but a false dilemma. We have the ability to access, functionally apply, and ultimately stand on the absolute objective moral truth claims within the Bible sufficiently. Not through the use of our own relativity, but rather by and through the ability that the very standard itself reveals is within our limited, but sufficient capability to access it. Therefore, we have the ability to remain sufficiently consistent and grounded in the Bible's objective morality. With respect to "humanity at large essentially agreeing on some foundational moral values", I would argue that is even more evidence that the Bible IS the absolute standard, as it can account for a timeless, consistent, universal, inherent human awareness of an objective moral standard, especially concerning humans being made in God's image, and possessing innate value. (Genesis 1:26-27, Romans 1:20, Romans 2:14) (Not that you've argued this position), but the naturalist/materialist can claim that humans evolved with a sense of morality as a survival trait, however that worldview is still ultimately at its core, grounded in a purposeless universe where human beings are nothing more than a set of highly evolved primates with illusions of inherent objective value and meaning, but are ultimately a random cosmic accident, with no objective standard to ground such beliefs in. Dawkins himself nails it: "there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." Per what you rightfully mentioned about humanity at large agreeing on some moral values, I think its self evident that the majority of people on earth live as if the Biblical claim of humanity (Imago Dei) is true, rather than the latter. To what you said about Christian's making exceptions to the absolute moral standard and permitting evil.... Yes and Amen bro. Christian's like all humans are imperfect and inconsistent. However, the absolute objective standard (Bible) itself is what not only contrasts and therefore exposes such hypocrisy, it is also consistent in its objective truth claims regarding humanity's (including Christian's) devastatingly willingness to do so. (Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:2, 1 John 1:8-10). Ultimately, only with the existence of an absolute moral standard do we even have the grounding to call such things objectively evil at all. I truly appreciate you're heart in everything I've seen you do man. You just seem like a good and genuine dude, who is simply doing his best to be fearlessly honest with himself and others. Thanks again for challenging, sharpening, and allowing us to come along for the ride bro.
(Disclaimer: this is a personal viewpoint as a Christian, I respect everyone else's viewpoint and I am open to agree to disagree if we have a different perspective) 1/2 where I am at with morality so far is like that: every Christian has different morality standards, how? We all live different lives, our circumstances are different, knowledge/mindset is defferent, so the Holy Spirit helps us according to what we already know. How can someone be punished for something they genuinly weren't aware of? That's why I say, God knows our heart and intentions. What matters is the person keeps working on themselves and listens to the Holy Spirit speakin inside of em, then while reading the Bible, observing my surroundings, etc. That's where my morality come from. Also, the way you don't wanna be treated is the way you ain't supposed to treat others too. The higher the morality standards, the better. Obey the 10 commandents, which is common sense, as no one wants to be effed over in any of these ways. Kindness is God's way for sure. We won't be happy if someone does us wrong. If it wouldn't be wrong we wouldn't appreciate anything around us, which it would lead to chaos, and since we were made as emotional ppl, we'd all be out our minds. Cause if there's no care, there's no love. Someone had to care of us and every single cell in the whole universe in order to create us
I’m still struggling to identify how I would define my faith. What I do know is that the faith I was raised in and what I was taught to believe is not something I agree with now. The defining moment for me was when I asked myself, how is it possible for me to have more empathy than God? The God I was raised to believe was a punisher and that was when I knew to no longer align myself with those beliefs. I still very much believe in God, but it looks v different from when I was younger
My little time spent on earth has taught me the beginning of understanding and wisdom is acknowledging we are not the center of the universe. It does not start or end with us.
I feel like everyone knows how musically gifted you are, but I’m glad we’re getting another chance to see how intellectually gifted you are, as well. Don’t stop making these videos.
I like all of it. The couch does change your whole vibe. More natural and conversational. Didn't notice the slow zoom until I read your pinned comment. Funny, because the huge blank space above you was buggin' me at first. Also, I love these deep topics. I enjoy hearing your thoughts. Very interesting. Keep it coming. There's other things to say about the actual topic, but not really easy to do by commenting on the vid. I do have some push back, one of which I left in another comment, but I also want you to go deeper on other points. As always, thanks for sharing the process. 🤲🏻💜🙏🏻
Processing these things is dope & all bc they matter. But what do you make of the life, death & resurrection of Jesus? I’d be genuinely curious to hear you discuss that.
Just finished - I have to say this is a very honest, loving & fair vid :D (& quite relatable - also the funny story at the end XD); I wanna share some thoughts (as you do here lovingly, honestly, and humbly which I really admire :)) but I'm just thinking of how to go about it concisely and all. But yea I gotta say 💯video (the vibe, discussion, and all :))
The apologetics argument is principally the theist one you referenced. But even that claim is about being able to make claims to absolute truth (morality). Like which apologist (even broadly speaking) claims the claim you make for them: that they *possess* absolute truth? The true apologetic argument is the one that describes Jimmy's situation: "We have a God we communicate with but haven't met in person who possesses this absolute morality to which we can make a claim." Da is it.
Hey Jo, I would love to know your view on Salvation. And I support your view on morality, BUT we all never understood everything that we have learned at school. I believe that we should only focus on Christ than on individuals.
Forgive Jimmy bruh. Man was in love with a ghost😂 Phew... to your comments in this video. This feels like encountering so much grey, looking and finding more grey until you get tired and decide to get comfortable with grey. I understand the notion of it and what it would entail. It's tough. I think what helps with this is clear encounters with the Supernatural. Arguments are helpful. They help you wade through the intellectual mess. But at some point, they become tiring. Nothing slaps harder than hitting the Rock flat in the face. That was the only way God convinced Paul. Such experiences bring external logic factors into the loop of your thought process. They force you to "doubt your doubts", or in the very least, question them long enough until you either resolve them or find better questions. The trouble is only God (I'm assuming He exists for the sake of the argument) chooses whom He allows to have such experiences. These are just my thoughts though. I hope you respond to this comment. A conversation might be helpful. You doing good man... Keep up with the videos for as long as your honesty would allow. I'm praying for you. Grace and peace✌🏽
well, i think that may be my/the issue with christianity: the grey areas tends to make you come up with answers to feel more certain about reality. you’re uncomfortable with the grey so you either must come up with answers for the ambiguity OR you must give up on asking questions altogether. i cannot blame someone for wanting to do this. i get it. i used to do the same. i’m okay with not having some damascus road experience or some encounter with the supernatural. this world, this universe, these people are wondrous in and of themselves. the fact that we exist, that anything we see exist is quite miraculous to me. if god chooses who he wants to have these experiences, then trying to convince me or pray for me seems to be futile. jimmy remains unforgiven. 😊
@@flightsfeelings I think somewhere over here you’re making a dilemma, where there’s at minimum, a trilemma?? Just a thought..which is that you can also trust a big fact in life, which is that there’s literally only so much we can know, understand, and conceptualize in life. That fact makes it very reasonable to proceed with, “hey my knowledge is limited, let me trust in the One who is the source of knowledge.” It’s powerful to me that you understand how miraculous this reality we live in is…just encouraging you to continue to press into asking yourself maybe why you find it miraculous and not a coincidence or some other sensation, which is a more congruent process of thought in line with your current framework..
“ that fact makes it very reasonable to proceed with…” irony: you suggest that i’m oversimplifying an issue and then follow up with an oversimplified solution. just because i know that i cannot know everything does necessitate that i must assume the bible the best source to rely on. that’s a pretty big leap from such a basic point. not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing. and i know enough to know i don’t trust the bible lol.
I think one of the best responses to the Moral Argument for God is not that we are saying there is any single moral standard that we all should abide by (other than what's broadly agreed upon), but that the supposed moral standard many christians claim the bible touts isn't even a consistent moral framework within the text itself. God doesn't even abide by a consistent moral standard if we're keeping it 💯. It's an internal critique working within the ideology itself. The apologist response would be well God is above morality and therefore is not subject to it as we are. My response would be then how can you argue that there is a more Godly or less Godly character to have when this characteristic sense of right and wrong doesn't accurately align with God's actual character? Based on the text, God's character ranges from ambiguous, to lovingly merciful, to vile, petty and wrathful. What Godly character should I follow? I haven't heard a legitimate apologist response to this kind of question.
I'd like to add a response after hearing your "consistency" point. I think consistency is something that should be factored because that's what a standard is by definition. It's a precedent that's measurable, normative, repeatable, and consistent. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be a moral standard. That ties back into my earlier point about the Christian conception of God or at least what's illustrated in the text. Last point would be that the supposed baseline of our moral standard was something that societies just evolved to have overtime because, as you've stated, it's useful and beneficial for the survival and persistence of the human species or at least the immediate tribe who submit to that moral standard. That doesn't get you to a God. Even other animals like chimps have protocultures and pseduo-morality where a more primitive form altruism is upheld. It's not exclusive to humanity.
I enjoy listening to you process though things. You’re definitely more knowledgeable than I am but I find myself in a similar space. Or maybe a space that has similarities. A couple years ago I remember talking with some friends who are still Christian about this topic. You can believe the Bible and believe in the god of the Bible but you don’t actually know if it’s true. At the end of the day you’re still kinda just making your best guess and hoping it’s right. That’s probably where I struggle with people, not just Christians. People who can’t fathom that don’t know for sure. I probably struggle with this people because they remind me of pieces of me that I don’t want to admit exist.
The ultimate question ever is: who created God? And no one can’t answer that. One must first even believe in God to even ask that question, which is another rabbit hole for an atheist. Where do we go after we die? Heaven? Hell? Nowhere? Annihilation? This is where I find myself in a loop. No one wants to be motivated by fear but we all fear the unknown whether we admit it or not. Why do we even have to die? We’re all born to die basically. Each second we’re closer to death. There’s no such thing as time travel. What is time? Im just rambling typing because these are questions I think of every day and I identify as a follower of Christ YHWH. Yet, I feel like God answers me like he answered Job, “where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?” And to that, my answer is idk 🤷🏾♀️
“the ultimate question ever is: who created god? and no one can answer that.” it’s that not tricky of a question, unless you arbitrarily put stipulations on it like “one must believe in god to even ask the question?”. that’s a presupposition, an unfounded one at that. who created god? someone can answer that, you just may not like it. but humans are quite imaginative people. it’s not wild to think that maybe humans created god, and created god in their image. “where do we go when we die?” the question assumes we HAVE to go somewhere after we die. but when you let go of, or at least question your presuppositions, the question isn’t that baffling. why do we have to die? again, not that deep. there’s plenty answers to why, one being the second law of thermodynamics. “there’s no such thing as time travel.” there isn’t but it’s not out of the possibilities of theory of general relativity. it just would take a 💩ton of energy to accomplish. time is inextricably linked to space, i.e. spacetime, because it not constant but completely affected by the mass of objects. einstein called time a stubborn illusion. or time could very well be something that that emerges out of reality and not necessarily it’s own independent reality (i.e. heat is not something in and of itself. it is what emerges out of particles moving quickly.) “i feel like god answers me like he answered job. ‘where were you when i laid the foundations of the earth?’” if that one question stops you from ever actually questioning your own perception of reality, you weren’t really searching in the first place. it’s just a convenient way to keep you in what you’re comfortable with.
@@flightsfeelings and it bothers me to think that we may not GO somewhere after we die. I can’t imagine not existing. Idk if it’s bothersome to you. But for me it is.
mmm ok. forgive my approach. i’ve been much on the defense, and i apologize. maybe we go somewhere when we die. i’m not led to believe so, but i’m not completely closed off to the idea. but i believe the need to have an afterlife can diminish just how special and momentary this life really is. i don’t know when, but somewhere along this journey, i let go of the need to exist forever. in fact, i believe i’ve let go of the desire to exist forever too. even as a christian, living forever always puzzled me, since a child. even then, i had a hunch that even if there was an afterlife, it too likely had some sort of conclusion. the strongest desire of a healthy human (of any species really) is to continue living. that fear of death is a great tool to keep us alive. but i personally think our collective imaginations, such as religion, can help us cope with that fear by coming up with grand narratives that seem to do away with absolute death altogether.
@@flightsfeelings thank you. I feel like you are hearing me now. It’s been so bad that I’ve been having panic attacks. My mind is fighting itself because on one hand I don’t want to die. In my mind I’ve always existed and I can’t imagine not existing. On the other hand, the idea of living forever (without time) is just as scary. I can’t possibly imagine it. Even if it is in a paradise or heaven of some sort. That’s just as scary of not existing at all. Anyway, thanks for listening. ♥️
I'd like to hear more of your thoughts pertaining to where you stated that the world could exist without an arbiter of absolute truth. Like, how do you feel, based on what you know about the history of humanity vs the knowledge you've aquired from theological studies what would that look like to you?
well claiming to hear from the arbiter of absolute morality is actually quite the cause for much of what we deem atrocities in human history. many do good in the name of their god and many don’t. so functionally, we *already* exist without an arbiter of absolute truth. theoretically, we’d like to believe otherwise. at large, people are gonna do what they wanna do. and they’ll come up with all kinds of religious theories to support that.
@@flightsfeelings I definitely agree with that last part. It all boils down to ,like you said, what is more consistent. I would even add to that & say who is more integrous. Anyone can say "God told me____".On the flip side, it is written that God does pass judgement in which he uses the enemies of his "Chosen" people which can cause confusion or make it hard to distinguish one God from another, in my opinion. One big ol' spiritual mess lol
That catfish story 🤣🤣🤣 Anyways, application and understanding of morality is relative, but I don't know if that makes morality itself relative. And I think in that gray space, there are ways to examine what is more likely to be objectively closer to the absolute truth than others. I agree that Chriatians don't possess absolute truth but that they claim (by faith) to be directly connected to the One who does. Maybe this is another video, but my question for you, though, is what about this conclusion contributed to you renouncing Christianity?
yeah my argument was never that lack of application of absolutes is the same as saying absolutes do not exist. i believe i stated that a few times in the video. the point is that having no functional access to absolute morality is the same as not actually having it, EVEN if it is exists somewhere away from you. again, the story of the dog. “she bought me a dog but i can’t see, touch it, interact with him, nothing.” you don’t have a dog. your girlfriend has a dog. YOU have a girlfriend that had a dog… which is another way of saying you don’t have a dog. likewise, christian’s don’t have absolute morality. they have a god who has absolute morality, which is another way of saying you don’t have absolute morality. whether it exists or not is of no functional value to you, so leveraging it as an apologetic argument is an empty claim. and yes… this story trips me out every time i remember it. lol
Yea, I'm tracking. So, if I'm understanding correctly, it was the idea that Christians possessed that absolute truth that kept you in it for so long (or at least one of the reasons), and upon realizing that wasn't really the case because we don't have functional access to it, the hold/necessity to stay a Christian lost some of its strength. Almost like realizing what you thought you bought wasn't real. Is that about right?
more or less yeah, that’s about right. again, not to say that to is conclusion is necessarily a blow against* christianity. realizing christian’s don’t have functional access to it doesn’t inherently make them wrong. it just means their claim to absolute morality is not as convincing as it once was.
I just have so many questions. Can you do a q&a? It could be live (pleeeeease) on zoom, ig, patreon or answer a list like you did before. But each video sparks more questions.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is still relative morality among Christians because at the end of the day all phenomena, including divine communication, is subject to human interpretation. But don’t you think a distinction should still be made between a relativist with an absolute standard versus a relativist with no absolute standard? It seems to me that a Christian form of relativism would be akin to a map given to a group that has a clear destination marked and clear checkpoints along the way. Or at the very least important landmarks that are instructed to consider. There will still be some disagreement about the precise road to take but there is a somewhat clear direction and destination. Whereas a true relativist map would be one with no destination, and no checkpoints at all. It would solely be determined by the direction the group or individual wants to go in. While interpretation is an unavoidable reality, Christians do believe in revelation, so God’s communication to man about the direction they should go. There’s going to be disagreement as a result of interpretation, but there is still a general direction given. I’ve heard Christian theologians espouse the truth/hermeneutical spiral as well. As we learn more intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, hermeneutically, and practically we spiral closer to the truth of God’s revelation. We have clearer insight into the directions God has given and the way to get there. In sum, humans receive information from the world around us and have to determine individually and collectively how to process and act on that information. But it does seem to me to be a big, important distinction between receiving information/revelation from God and not, despite the interpretive questions that arise from that. Having a parent who talks to you, with whom you have the ability to misinterpret, seems in a different category from having no parent at all. And maybe you’re not even debating that because you already agreed that absolute morality could possibly exist even in your scenario, so apologize if this is an unnecessary point and unnecessary reading for you. I’m only engaging because I really do see you as intelligent and reflective. Your story is unique from other deconversion stories I have heard because it seems like you genuinely and wholeheartedly did pursue all possible avenues to retain your faith. It’s given me a deep curiosity and sense of care/compassion for you. So thanks for being vulnerable and sharing your true story and thoughts.
“I am the Good Shepherd, and I know [without any doubt those who are] My own and My own know Me [and have a deep, personal relationship with Me]-” John 10:14 AMP The road is straight and narrow because it is personal. God is Love. Love is personal. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Yahweh (the Father/air I breathe) is God. Love God, Love each other.
I think it would give better context to acknowledge the fact that Christianity is mainly believing & following the teaching of Jesus (who himself is an Israelite) it kinda fine-tunes, if that makes sense, the argument. I do agree that us christians today don't fully know or have absolute morality to a T. Giving the fact that scriptures have been tweaked & translated over time & the evolution of the language(s) spoken over time. I think the term absolute morality is a bit too general tho tbh because I believe there's right, wrong & then there are some things that are just permissible. As far as absolute truth, that's a bit more complex because everyone is privy to deception regardless of even spiritual encounters. Absolute morality or truth is like this big puzzle & a lot of us are navigating the pieces the best we understand how.
Hey Joseph! I am curious as to what you think about Roman Catholic intellectualism or Roman Catholicism in general in relation to church history? Also, I am from East Tx! Tyler! I converted from evangelicalism protestantism to Catholicism in 2017 and was baptized Catholic in 2019. Gotta say, I agree with you on the morality argument and the sola scriptura point. I would love to continue dialogue with you in relation to some of your hefty philosophical objections to Christianity. Some of the things you mentioned here were the questions I asked and the tipping point of my conversion to Catholicism. I would absolutely love to continue dialoguing. Here's what I would say about your objection to sola scriptura. I think you're right. The Bible itself doesn't say that you have to get everything only from the Bible. Christians before there reformation 500 years ago never believed this either, and neither do most Christians in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. There is absolute truth, and the holy spirit does have ways of guiding the church into all truth that doesn't necessarily rely on individual interpretation. I would love to talk about this more!
hello briana. i’m familiar with catholicism’s relation to church history. my first introduction to apologetics was actually through a catholic college group. even through my protestant learning, much of the early “church fathers” who give us the foundation for such intellectual discourse, were catholic. so in a round about way, i am familiar. but to your point, you say you agree with me on the sola scriptura point but i don’t think i really made that point of mine, even inadvertently. to sort of transfer that weight from the individual believer onto the pope doesn’t solve the problem. it just outsources it. in general, i have zero interest in engaging in organized religion, and my god, roman catholicism is the glaring epitome of that lol.
@@flightsfeelings I would say to look past it from the pope to the magisterium. But anywho, my husband and I have a podcast (with a whopping 500 followers) where we talk about philosophy and theology. We would love to have you on to discuss your objections to Christianity sometime just to dialogue!
1. 6:07 - I guess my point is it's not really about "who are you to say _ is wrong if you don't have the cosmic 'arbiter' to appeal to", but moreso what grounds a thing's rightness/wrongness other than its very nature (and so christian metaphysics might be relevant here); I think that morality is grounded in the actual state of affairs of things (which if you really think about it, has to do with the thing's end/its purpose/etc.) I think it would make more sense to think of what morality actually is, whether it's because God made a rule, or would it be in the actual state of affairs of things, e.g. goodness is in the state of someone being helped and lifted up by another, now I do think God could offer a framework to navigate through these things (as we choose; and following that it is in the actual state of affairs of things then, even then, the mode in which we do so ties into morality). 2. 10:54 - yep, but I think here this is where discerning powers come into play (if it is that morality is bounded by the nature of things/state of affairs of things, then we can test them - e.g. whether they're consistent within&/outside of the system of belief; different religions do have different moral claims afterall). 11:47 - Don't really see a problem here (other than the possibility of fallacy which is the essence of being human I guess) 13:06 - I think consistency is a pre-condition for truth (if the whole thing is to be assessed), and then consistency with things outside the system should tell you about how likely that thing is to be true (if it is consistent amongst many different facets - it's more likely to be true 3. 14:46 - True, but I don't make that accusation so XD 18:56 - I guess the point is we don't measure it to "God" but moreso to the actual state of affairs of things (and God could've created whatever thing with its end or purpose in mind as rooted and "evident" in its nature); so yes we do have an epistemic barrier, but it can be worked out (so in a sense we do have access to it but we have an epistemic barrier, depending on how "tricky" the problem to solve is - 19:31) And our responsibility to solve it depends directly on what we honestly have in our minds (a verse that comes to mind is; if someone thinks that something is good and that person doesn't do it - to that person it's "sin") And I guess that answers 20:12 / 21:28 (do what you can - and that's the most you can do; if it's honestly what you think is true/good then that's that and if God is all-knowing then surely, following that, God would (have to) understand - afterall, we each have our own circumstances, intellectual prowess, etc.) 27:15 - No, I don't like that idea and I don't think its necessary This is more neat XD I felt bad about the last one (I noticed a couple typos too - I was multi-tasking while typing it - and also wanted to add a bit but when I clicked on edit it gave me a "pushback error" message). Anyway, very thoughtful & nice video
Appreciate your honesty, certainly some provoking thoughts. ow man I felt your frustration regarding the story at the end. smh. So just to have an idea of your state of mind when you were at the verge of calling it quits with Christianity, can I say that as your were searching for answers, "Christianity" was taking you for a ride and you got frustrated, thinking hmm this is probably going nowhere?
Interesting video. Respectfully disagree with some of your reasoning but I hear you on points raised. Random question and if too personal you can ignore but would you ever become a moral nihilist and if not, why? (FYI I'm a Christian)
2/2 Someone might ask: "Why does God let evil happen?" Well, that's the result from giving us free will. It's ppl doing evil, not Him. Also, from all of the evil happening, there's always a reason behind it, whether we're aware of it or not, or if we may not understand it. If He wouldn't given us free will, we'd just be someone's puppets, with no genuine will/choice of being with Him, it'd be very forced. Also to explain how to get to heaven, it'd be like "Why do ppl feel some type of way when others ain't supportive and don't believe in them during the storm but have the audacity to suddenly show up once they doin good?" These people want a piece of cake in the end no matter what. And I bet no one wants to deal with anyone who disrespects them in their circle. Same goes with God and I cannot be mad at Him for that. (Disclaimer: this is a personal viewpoint as a Christian, I respect everyone else's viewpoint and I am open to agree to disagree if we have a different perspective)
I have a question Ivy. Lets say a police officer has been tipped by an informant that a potential crime is going to happen. Said officer pulls up to the scene in its squad car and wait …. The officer then sees the criminal pull out their weapon and shoot its target but said officer doesn’t intervene because the criminal has free will …. Who’s in the wrong? The police officer, the criminal or the victim?
@@kerrykeaton4475 The criminal and the officer. Since the criminal has obviously already really low moral standards, he is already guilty for commiting a crime and the officer hasn't intervened as he'd be expected to as it was his job to protect the victim. BUT I see where you tryna take me. You cannot compare God to the officer. God's authority is way different from human's. That is all the point of free will, and the reason of when evil things happen. It is due to the ppl, choices circumstances that lead to them. If there was no free will, there would be no point of creating ppl free of choice. God is testing us on our free will, so it is different. Also, having Him intervene everytime something bad happens, we basically back at it at no free will. People would not be able to know what's wrong and what is right
@@kerrykeaton4475 I have already responded with the free will explanation. Looks like you haven't got the context of God's free will. He is testing the officer as well on his free will whether he is doing his job right or not and if it's in the officer's interest to head to heaven or not. He showed he isn't which will lead to consequences in his own part in front of God. As for the victim, it was their way to go, unfortunately. It will be up to God to see if they were one of His sheep. If they was they will be happily reunited with Him in heaven
Can you make another video expounding on how 10 Christian Friends agreeing on everything means that absolute truth exists? That’s a bit confusing to me. Is agreement necessary for absolute truth to be absolute? If five people agree that 2+2=4, but the other five don’t, would it follow that absolute truth does not exist? I mean the idea of absolute truth seems like an elusive and rather nebulous thing for any mortal to claim to know. We all can claim to have it, but in the end, would it not be left an individual who in fact decides what absolute truth is? Otherwise, the only absolute truth would be that all truth is relative, which also hurts my brain and seems self conflicting.
Hey! thanks for chiming in. no, agreement is not necessary for absolute truth/Truth Giver to exist. i started my point with this and i paused several times in the video to reiterate this very point. explaining in the comments would only be repeating what i’ve said in the video. i.e.: “per my last email…” lol
If a tree falls down 2 streets away, and you and your neighbors say it didn't happen, does that mean it didn't happen? If the tree fell, it fell. That is a fact. So I'd say existence of an objectively factual reality is the foundation for absolute truth. If the Christian truly exists and truly rules over all and operates how the Bible describes, then that too would be an absolute truth, regardless of what we believe about it. Absolute truth as a concept is like gravity. You may not believe in gravity, but gravity does not depend on agreement. Jump off the bridge and that absolute truth will quickly become a tangible experience of gravity.
1. i never said absolute truth does not exist or is unnecessary. absolute truth/reality and absolute morality are not the same thing. 2. necessary and “extremely useful” are not the same thing.
@@flightsfeelings let me rephrase... I'm just asking, how could the world exist without an arbiter of absolute Truth? If absolute Truth exists... would morality be exempt? If so, why?
think you still might be missing my point. i was mentioning in the video the point is not whether or not absolute morality is extremely useful, but does reality necessitate it. auto-pilot features on planes are extremely useful helping to navigate through very complex situation but planes can and have existed without it. the existence of planes is not dependent upon the existence of auto-pilot.
@@flightsfeelings No, I get it. My argument is that the world we live in could not exist independent of absolute Truth. It is not merely extremely useful, it is absolutely necessary. If absolute Truth is our reality, then why would morality be exempt from this standard? Where would the idea of morality even come from? What I'm really trying to understand and have you expand upon is your stance that these are only extremely useful but not necessary. In my mind, relativity does not negate absolutism. I'm interested to hear what your mind thinks.
By absolute morality do you mean holiness? I think Christian’s recognize that we are not and cannot achieve “absolute morality” because then Jesus would have died & resurrected for nothing. It’s not in our power, it’s in His power. The basis of the faith is to follow Jesus who is The Way The Truth and The Life. I think it’s simple, and It all depends on relationship because God is personal. Whether via ‘deep intellectual theoretical and philosophical’ lectures or a mere experience is a vehicle used to draw one nearer to Christ it can all be used. As mentioned, there are differences of opinion but there are not differences of faith. If anyone is reading my comment please consider this… “For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. -2 Tim. 3:6-7” And 2 Cor 10:4-5 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, Wait on the Lord Isaiah 40:31 - try not to be led astray. The spiritual realm exists and if good and evil exists in the physical then is also exists in the spiritual.
“By absolute morality do you mean holiness?” no. in this video, i explained what i mean by absolute morality at length. “I think Christian's recognize that we are not and cannot achieve "absolute morality" because then Jesus would have died & resurrected for nothing.” again, no. not what i’m talking about. i can’t really reply to the rest of your comment because it really has nothing to do with what i’m addressing in this video.
@@flightsfeelings To give a complete answer (because I didn’t think you would actually respond given that this video was posted over a year ago), God is completely necessary. God would only be useful if we created ourselves. But, clearly-and maybe you just don’t believe this anymore-there is intelligent design at play here. We didn’t make ourselves, and we are not inherently good. If you spend enough time with kids, you would see that, which is why I said you approach these arguments as if we start off with the ability to reason at the mature level that you and I stand in. God is the creator, we didn’t just happen. He has wisdom in knowing how we were designed and how we operate that automatically makes Him the arbiter of morality, of truth. If we lived in a world of gray, then there would be no need for our hearts to cry out for justice in wrongdoing; there would be no shame, no guilt…..nothing would matter. We wouldn’t care who dies or how; all these negatives in life wouldn’t exist, we wouldn’t acknowledge it as negatives. We would just acknowledge these things as happenstance. And, of course, standing in this reality (which is very real), that is a dreadful place to be. To be so numb….. I mean, maybe in that reality there’s a freedom there, but that’s not the reality that we live in. 20:05 Haha, see this is why I’m nondenominational. The God of the Bible is God of the ages. I really wonder what sense of morality you speak of, because if you’re only talking about the gray areas, if you’re only talking about nuanced situations, then, of course, there’s going to be differences between Christians and people in general. There are situations where there’s no definitive right or wrong, but the right and wrong takes place in the hearts of those who are acting on the situation (in fact, there’s an old 80s game for Christians that a leader at church had us play one Christmas called “Choices” which was created specifically to address the nuances of life, and I bought it on Amazon later). God knows our hearts and our reasoning behind everything that we do. When Christians speak of absolute truth, I don’t think they’re talking about those gray areas that people argue over. They are gray for a reason. People, in general, are always arguing their opinions on certain matters. But other matters-in fact I believe this is most matters-are matter-of-fact. I believe all of our opinions should be based in truth, which honestly is hard to come by these days, but it’s out there, and God is sovereign over it. There is his moral truth that we read in His Word, and then there are truths that have yet to be discovered or are hidden (i.e. scientific truth, and the truth behind people stories, since we are prone to lie and cover up, because we’re born in shaped in iniquity). There’s always going to be a constant battle for truth in a fallen world. At the end of the day, God is the standard, His law is written on our hearts and in His Word (to be read with wisdom and for wisdom to be gleaned from it), nothing good in us comes from us, and the evidence for absolute morality also lies in the consequences of our actions.
none of what you say actually directly interacts or addresses my point. your points merely keep asserting as necessary without actually demonstrating that. OR simply proving the point i’ve been making i.e. “i don’t think there talking about those gray areas” lol then its not absolute. absolute means absolute. “mostly absolute” is an oxymoron. either you’re missing my point or choosing not to engage with it. that point was: even if absolute morality exists in the mind of god, you don’t have absolute access to it in practice. i expound on this in the video. “the evidence for absolute morality is our consequences.” essentially saying “the ends justify the means” aka simply demonstrating the use of “absolute” morality but not proving it true. being functionally necessary is not the same as being logically necessary. claiming to be nondenominational doesn’t solve it either lol. nondenom is still category of christianity, even if it’s broad and generally undefined, and it comes with its own opinions about how christian life should be lived. again, you simply are asserting what you believe and not actually proving or demonstrating the truth. and if it’s that your aim, cool. it’s just not actually engaging with the point of this particular video.
@@flightsfeelings So…..are you saying that Christians believe they have absolute truth and morality, or that Christians believe that God has absolute truth and morality?
How can one have morals without a belief in God? Morality is the careful consideration of the rights and consequences of one's own actions and the rights of others involved. Although many persons might believe in a God, their doctrines and morals do differ. For example, some things that are considered a sin in Islam are quite all right in Christianity. Some things that were not suitable in the Old Testament are now acceptable in the New Testament. Do you not see the evolution of morality unfolding and becoming better as time goes by? So where is this universal standard or religious world view of morality? It does not exist, never did. Even if l think that God dictates morality, the question then begs, "Which God am l speaking of, and what time in history am l living?". Therefore l say that morality is the careful consideration of the rights and consequences of one's own actions and the rights of others involved. I don't need to have a God consciousness to achieve respect for others. I only need to care! Assume nothing, question all things, but most of all learn to think critically, for this is the most noble thing that one can do for one's own self.
What’s popping! I’ve been watching your videos since your very beginning on UA-cam and actually stopped watching as much several years ago because I felt a slow shift in your spirit just by how you communicated your interpretation. I know you don’t believe it and I hate to come across as a troll. It’s just the undertones of a lot of your content is this quest to in a way get all the answers and answers that just 1000% make sense to you presently…I wanna say “I feel like” you missed the whole nature of, He is God and we are not, but I know you have bro. I genuinely care about your soul and I hope you can feel that and understand that to be the reason for the passion behind the voice “a lot of” ( I won’t say most because I’ll acknowledge ill willed, condescending, condemning behavior, but I say a lot people, because I think it’s more than you seem to perceive) of people that challenge you in this new direction you’re going. A lot of the reasons you bring up for why you left “Christianity”, you communicate as if you’ve really aired this thing fully out. There’s been so many people before you, along side you and that will come after you that will fully process the reasons you state for leaving and come to the actual conclusion of truth, by the grace of God. The more I listen honestly, the more I’m like, your conclusions are not full, they always address a partial aspect of a concept and you leave out so much. I continue to watch honestly because time reveals so much. God will fully reveal Himself in time, on His hand, while simultaneously He has given us ample evidence, cognition, and reason to believe in Him. Bless you brother. I am a former agnostic and til this day I invite discussions, questions and explanations from non theists and those that believe in the false gods, because I think we should always be open to the idea there is evidence that we got it wrong. I hope you’re opened to that idea brother, just as open as you were when you professed Christianity that maybe you got it wrong. Stay strong brother, keep seeking truth!! I’m excited to hear your future content where you discuss with those that agree and disagree with you! I really hope you bring on the people that present either side of the discussions well and accurately. It’s always so wack when theres one side of the table that’s like “ I’m going to sit down with someone that disagrees with me” and they pick someone that totally butchers the exegesis or inaccurately conveys the other side lol I don’t know if that makes sense. I’m not saying you’ll do that, intentionally or unintentionally. But I’d like to encourage you to get the best arguments for all, both sides and wrestle with that,. Anyways this is just my thoughts, I thought I’d share with you since you give us the privilege of hearing your thoughts too, as I rarely ever comment on social media. But I care about your soul, cause that doesn’t die once our bodies do. Love and grace to you, a fellow human just on the journey of discovering truth!
one, thanks for chiming in after all these years. and no i don’t see you a troll. i hear the concern in your tone. yes there are many men and women much smarter than me that have come to a much different conclusion, but also many who land right where i am. so i don’t really look to quantity of people who agree or disagree. there’s a duality in your advice that maybe you don’t notice. on one side you sort of condemn the idea that i’m trying to have all the answers and have to make christian faith make complete sense *while at the same time* suggesting that i need to search for more answers and come to a more full conclusion. which one is it? am i searching for too many answers or do i not have enough? and then on one side you say you once were an agnostic and still invite discussions and are open-minded but you are still resolute that i am wrong. but when i am resolute in my stance, i’m somehow not open-minded. it’s a bit hypocritical. we tend to only call people close-minded when they just don’t easily agree with us. should i be open to evidence that i got it wrong? of course, but i’m going to live my life just how you live yours: under the confidence that i have more or less come to or am heading towards the right way. you don’t stop going to church just because there’s a possibility you’re wrong (even though you don’t seem to think you’re wrong). you don’t just easily accept every objection to christianity just because there’s a possibility you’re wrong. you are giving me advice that you yourself are not actively taking. lastly, many christians tend to keep making this charge to me, that i missed god because im trying have all the answers, im trying to fully understand him or xyz. it’s just not true. again, i think it’s just an easy oversimplification for people to feel like they have the right way to fix me. i’ve never had any delusion that i can somehow fully know the mind of god, or somehow have an airtight faith that has no questions. even on this side of things, i have no delusions that i could somehow know everything there is to know about life and this universe. also, i want make no mistake about people i plan to bring on my channel. it is not to have people debate with me but to process and have conversation. don’t want to get your hopes up lol.
“Am I searching for too many answers or do I not have enough?”(first off, I’m an artist, so that right there is a weighty verse, you spitting bars fam lol) but honestly I think it’s both. And this is just my judgment based on the culmination of what I’ve heard you break down so far. I went back and rewatched a video you did with Ruslan( which I originally didn’t watch fully because I felt your vibe then that you were deeply wrestling ) and you talked about this idea of persevering light, taking what’s necessary for the journey. What I’m saying is, the facts are facts, Jesus’ body is still gone, it’s nowhere to be found still, and unless they find the body and identify Jesus, that is like the ultimate historically verified evidence that’s probable that He is God incarnate. While I stand on that, I’m open to the idea that one day somebody could find his body, I think it’s highly unlikely but I’m open to being wrong. And if that were ever the case, I’d denounce my faith in Him too lol. (Also I’m not saying here that people that haven’t looked into the historicity of Jesus need that to put their faith in him, because the Holy Spirit is evidence too, there are so many logical, rationally reasons) But based off the empirical evidence we have right now, and we’ve had for centuries, it makes sense to take the chance to put the faith in Jesus over putting our faith in “ only” science. God gave us a little bit of everything, the Bible, science, math, history etc And maybe that’s really what this is about. I’m not condemning you, I’m really sorry if that’s how I sound, irl I’m goofy af, I like to laugh and joke, so all my lol is not to come off as like scoffing or condescension (which I assume maybe you perceived that based on the accusatory nature of your response). But maybe what this is all about is that we all choose to put our faith in something at the end of the day. So on the left or right side of things we can come to a resolve, but we also have to understand the huge reality that faith is a big part of this, because no one of this earth can 100% say I KNOW. Our version of “know” is soo limited. We can only know based on what we know now and up until this point and we can have faith and hope that what we “know” holds up as truth forever. I’m not sure if I’m regurgitating this clearly lol. And this can be interpreted as hypocrisy, but it’s intellectually honest to understand as the reality of human beings, we are limited. Also, me being resolute that you’re wrong, and you also being resolute that I’m wrong…I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at..And I never said you weren’t open minded. I personally was just encouraging you to be, which doesn’t automatically imply you’re not. But this can really just be a game of semantics and really has more to do with perception, which is not beneficial for either of us to discuss via comment section i feel like. I hope you feel the undertone of love here. I’m not condemning, accusing you. I think what you’re doing now that is great is being authentic to where you’re at. I know many Christians that dictate their “whole life” on what their auntie said…instead of doing the due diligence to understand good, intelligent reasons for why they believe what they believe. I think that’s what you’ve always been on, and I sincerely appreciate that from you. And I do agree with you that I do not easily “accept” every objection to Christianity. I’m a skeptic like yourself and I definitely would not describe myself as credulous. With that being said what I am is someone that sits there, and actively listens to the objections and then I analyze and research before I can come to answer on if it’s accurate or not. (This is me sharing who I am personally, hopefully you don’t take it that I’m saying you are not also doing the same.) So we can definitely agree to disagree. I think it’s logical to be able to come to a resolve, given all the information a person has taken in, while also having a mentality to stay opened minded to being wrong. So what I’m saying by that, is truth is truth. It’s not really up for the “discussion” we think. Our discussions and conversations about it are moreso for us to help gather and process information, but truth is already written. (And I know there’s only so much we can agree on because of the differences in our worldview. ) And I’m definitely not looking for debates on your channel, I have plenty of channels for that and I know that’s not your vibe here right now. You’re clearly trying to give a more chill, lax vibe, which I genuinely appreciate!! My intention in what I said, is that the people you do bring on to converse, I hope they from each side can bring either sides of the topic (I used the term arguments earlier so I can understand kinda why thought I was suggesting debate) up accurately in your discussions and conversations. Also, brother I don’t go to church right now, as you brought up going to church. The Lord is working on me because I’ve quite honestly been so turned off by the way it seems most American Christians live out the gospel and churches look like a concert and run like a business and abused people’s servitude to build their own little kingdoms( Clearly I am traumatized but we working on it lol. I hope you can see the tension in my humor and honesty) and a lot the hypocrisy, that you deem I have, which I’m not totally opposed to the idea because everyone is a hypocrite in some ways unfortunately you know lol. I ain’t saying it’s right but we all are. Anyways, it’s thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving Joseph!! And thank you for responding!! I don’t agree with you on a lot but I agree with you on a lot. It’s all LOVE! We all help each other to be better and I appreciate you challenging my thoughts and your feedback!! ❤ never be quiet about your quest for truth!!
1. how is it click bait? i literally talk the entire time about the exact thing title is talking about. do you know what the word clickbait means? 2. i’m monetizing my life and my ability to make videos. i feel no shame for that. y’all literally following and paying pastors who monetize christianity but i can’t create content? do you have the same critique for christian channels that are literally monetizing christianity? if you don’t like what i’m doing, just don’t watch. it’s really that simple.
i know this is mostly about a pretty hefty topic BUT... how are y'all liking this particular recording format?? y'all think angle? the far back vibe that slowly goes in? i'm kinda vibing with it.
I like it. It's most definitely a vibe. 🌟
Enjoyed the topic, But to answer your question lol , AT FIRST, i was not feeling it at all, but as I sat and listed it grew on me. Do with that what you will :)
I dig the set up. I sat in my room and felt so comfortable hearing you speak. Made me think but also was oddly relaxing.
I'm a fan of the zoom length at 24:00
It's nice
Been following since your ChaseGod TV days. I was like 14 when I first watched a video(I’m 25 now so I’ve been riding a longgg time), and those were the early stages of my faith. Your videos helped so much and brought me so much knowledge I didn’t have before about God.
I just want to say thank you for being open and honest with sharing your new found journey with us. It’s funny because in July of 2021 I started to experience doubt with God. Real thoughts about whether or not he existed, or really cared for me as a person. I started to ask myself “do I have real hope or am I just sitting here trying to convince myself that there is hope with Jesus.” It scared me because I never wrestled with doubt like that. I often prayed for God(and still now to) that he would “help my unbelief.” My doubt came and then it faded to the background but my ears definitely sprang up with such curiosity when just a month later you announced you left the faith. I’ve been waiting for these kind of videos and it’s interesting to hear your insight and the parallels of thoughts that I have had.
Like I said the doubt came and then it went. Almost as if a faith switch was just turned back on 💀 but then the beginning of 2022 I was really struggling again with doubt, almost now more comfortable with saying I have doubt. But then that faith switch came back on in the spring and I was okay. Now it’s fall and the switch has turned off again smh . I miss the days when I just believed like a child.
The fact that Christian’s are always saying different things have always stumped me too. Even within a church you have people disagreeing. I don’t necessarily think this debunks God but it just calls me to questions why is there so much confusion? Why do so many people think they have access to the truth? Like one of y’all have to be wrong. And I’m just not trying to go hard for the wrong thing dksksks. Right now I’m just wishing God will be more blatant with me. I know blessed are those who believe without seeing. But I guess that’s just not me! I can not fix my mouth to say I’m an unbeliever now. I’m quicker to still say I’m a Christian as I’m petrified to know what else I could be or who I am outside of Jesus. My faith has encompassed so much of who I am. But I want to follow Jesus is wholeheartedly and I’m not able do so currently with all the doubt and frustration. Again…..I miss when I had the heart to believe like a child.
Totally relatable
This is so beautiful.. it's almost like a poem.. candid thoughts! Love it
Felt this 💔
Thank you so much for processing this in public for us. As a devout Christian, it has been very helpful for me. Also I appreciate you carefully trying to be respectful.
PS. The video is great. I love the audio and the visual/angle is really nice to look at
I love this convo along with your other videos so far. I actually came to the realization in my systematic theology class in Seminary. I don’t wrestle with these ideas anymore, I kinda let it float in the background because it makes my head hurt lol but I will forever love you! You’re a wonderful storyteller & always offer great insight. Thank you🙏🏾
Always appreciate hearing your perspective Joe
Where I agree:
The assumed reality of an ‘absolute moral standard’ is insufficient for claiming the existence of the God of the Bible. Even assuming Yahweh, Christians do not possess absolute knowledge of morality ourselves. Your points there are solid.
My push back:
The argument for an ‘absolute moral standard’ isn't intended to be sufficient for proving a specific deity. Rather, it’s a foundational argument for, and explanation of, the apparent existence of (more-or-less) universally expected norms of morality across time, cultures, etc. It’s an appeal to the even more foundational claim that ‘absolute truth’ exists, using morality as “Exhibit A”.
So, agreeing again, the absolute moral standard argument isn't rightly used to appeal to the right-ness of any specific belief system, but rather an appeal to the concept of right/wrong itself. From there-a standard existing-comes the question of what or who that standard is. Our answers and behaviors from there will be relative, but that’s an entirely different form of relativism than is logically consistent for those who deny the existence of a standard altogether.
Without the belief in some kind of standard, moral claims are *only* relative. At least with an appeal to a standard, one can embrace the possibility of being wrong, not merely out of step with an arbitrary preference. And, given that morality affects conscious, decision-making beings, it is a good starting point for arguing for a yet-to-be-identified conscious, decision-making standard giver.
Take care fam ✊
hey Mykl! thanks for going such a thoughtful response. i'll try to do the same.
to the first push back: "It’s an appeal to the even more foundational claim that ‘absolute truth’ exists, using morality as “Exhibit A”.
i'd say in response that absolute truth/reality can exist without absolute morality. like it's possible that there's a reality in which there is no universal/cosmic right and wrong. pointing back to the argument i was making earlier that absolute morality is *useful* but not necessary.
"but that’s an entirely different form of relativism than is logically consistent for those who deny the existence of a standard altogether.
" i disagree that they are entirely different. i think they may be presented as entirely different, and maybe they are in theory, but in practice, in function and application, they are one in the same. the one who does not appeal to a deity for morals still has an ideal of what is the "best" set of morals. maybe he appeals to sociology, or economics, public health, what's best for majority, or whatever as a conglomerate of authority. he is left with the task of creating a standard of how to get there.
but the christian is not much different. he appeals to scripture, and then of course theology, and hermeneutics, exegesis, history, local church authority and community, etc and of course ultimately God, who he can never 100% determine. but to get as close to 100% as he can, he must come to his own conclusion of how to best get there. (i.e. he has the bible, but what is the best way to interpret the bible? )
he, too, is left with the task of creating a standard of how to get there.
"Without the belief in some kind of standard, moral claims are only relative". again, for sake of argument, i can grant that absolute morality exist SOMEWHERE with some One named YHWH. but to get to claim absolutely standard, as i've shown, you must still first create essentially an arbitrary/relative way of getting to it. using relative methods to get to relative morality is, in effect, the same as using relative methods to get to "absolute" morality. zero times zero equals zero. but zero times 100 also still equals zero.
@@flightsfeelings I appreciate Mykl's original statement because he summarized a lot of what I was grappling with. @Joe, when you say "it's possible that there's a reality in which there is no universal/cosmic right and wrong" do you believe that to be true in our present/current reality? We can make conjectures about alternative realities all day, but that doen't necessarily define what we actually believe.
I hope what I'm saying doesn't come off as rude. I genuinely want to understand if your new belief is in complete relativism and that no absolute truth exists. If that is the case, can you share more on how that works from your point of view? I get that you say an absolute morality is useful not necessary. I'd love to hear more about this from a practical/functional stance.
@@itsallright101 i absolutely believe that. and my point is that christians, are prey to the same experience. whether absolute moral values exist in the ether or not, you don’t have functional access to it so your method of creating morals is the same as everyone else, except you appeal the bible to substantiate it.
“i’d love to hear more about this from a functional stance” lol that’s the irony is that you and the community you exist in do it all the time. it’s not a foreign concept.
and in order to dismiss a world where functional morality is relative, christians have to create this absurd hyperbolic world where somehow every human would do the worst imaginable deeds if they had to no god to answer to. it completely ignores the fact that humans are intrinsically communal, and in general, will behave in ways that allows us to stay functional stay part of “the group”. on top of the fact that having an absolute moral giver named god doesn’t ultimately stop somebody from murdering. i get angry at someone on the road, and the bible compares that anger to murder because murder originated from anger. but the reality is, i and MOST of every other healthy human just simply isn’t a murderer. i don’t refrain from murdering that person because i’m a christian and god is watching me. i just don’t do it because 1. i’m
not naturally wired that way, 2. i have enough sense to know that my society doesn’t abide murderers and i will ruin my own life by taking someone else’s. at a base level, this is how all human (and other animal) societies function.
and what is tolerable evolves with context and time. hence why it was cool for someone in a specific moment in the OT to take a child of another man and essentially rape them in genesis, but today no pastor could ever say to another man “god told me to take your teenage daughter as my wife.” of course the christian apologetic answer is always some clever way of saying “well that was isolated event, and you gotta consider the context, etc” which just proves my point: the morality was relative to what was accepted given the context. you can’t get around it.
@@flightsfeelings "to get to claim absolutely standard, as I've shown, you must still first create essentially an arbitrary/relative way of getting to it."
If the standard given reveals something as clear as, "God exists", what about that truth claim do you feel needs to be "arbitrary" or 'relatively" gotten to? It seems you're implying that the same complex (arbitrary/relative) hermeneutics that one would apply to a more ambiguous text within the standard (Bible), would need to also be applied to simple and clear basic truth claims such as "God exists", "Jesus was raised" etc. How is this not over emphasizing the need for relativity with perceiving clearly stated truth claims?
@@DanielMorgan404 i think i kind of address your questions in my other comment to you. but basically, it seems you keep using “absolute reality” and “absolute morality” interchangeably. absolutely reality may INCLUDE morality, but it is not the same as morality. think of it like a home with furniture in it. the house is reality, and the furniture exists within that house. but the furniture is *not* the house. and if you removed the furniture, the house would still exist (however, luther vandross would probably say that house is no longer a home lol.) all the examples you give are claims of reality. “god exists” or “jesus was raised.” is not a moral value.
Thumbs up to the new format! Very relaxing and welcoming! Keep up the good work.
ah thanks Briana!
Dude, thank you for this perspective. You helped clear out some thoughts and agree with you. The "absolute morality" argument is at best a theistic claim, but as you said, not just available to Christians.
Thank you for the clarity! At the end of the day, still believe in the Christian God😊
I’ve been following your content from the Chase God Webisode days. Love hearing your perspective on things and the way you challenge people to think. Audio was great, set up is great. I did prefer the later half of the video when the camera was zoomed in a tad more. I’m excited for future content. Especially the idea of having people interview you.
I completely understand where you're coming from. My wife shares similar reasons for deconstructing her faith. She believes that humans should eventually be able to discern what leads to human flourishing, and there are many successful societies that don't place a god at the center. As a Christian, I'm beginning to embrace the idea that Christ didn't come to forcefully convert people but to change hearts, especially for the oppressed in every society. The most important commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself and to love God. This principle is what I stand by above all else, as it ultimately helps individuals who are oppressed.
Israel means to wrestle with God. And I think much of our existence is that. We are seeking the one who is truth. I believe the Holy Spirit reveals things to us more and more. I think we all have a general morality in the commandments said to be written in our hearts. Outside of that I think we are meant to wrestle, talk, question, and ultimately submit it all unto Jesus who we believe, lived a perfect life.
I can agree that we as Christians are not the absolute truth, but I do believe that God is. And I don’t think it’s something humans will ever truly understand until it’s all said and done.
Also love how the camera got closer and closer. About halfway through the video was my favorite angle overall.
I’m excited to see how God proves Himself through this journey. He is gloriously magnificent.
Hey Joe,
Love this video bro. You truly made me think, challenged, and streeeeeetched my mind lol. Agreed, that the presup approach concerning objective morality is an argument for general theism, and would apply in response to a naturalist/materialist/atheist.
To your question concerning it looping back to becoming the "judgers of the gods who gave us judgement", I don't see how one is forced to become subjective or the "ultimate judge" to analyzing the data. Rather, they are required to remain consistent within the epistemological (and moral) framework they are claiming exists to begin with.
In other words, using consistency in order determine the validity of a worldview, does not abandon the grounding authority, or make one the ultimate judge of that worldview, such as long as the method (consistency) being used to judge it, is itself grounded in the worldview being presupposed and argued for. Therefore, as long as the one arguing for theism and then examining each theistic truth claim is using reasoning consistent withing his/her worldview, then they have not abandoned its objective and grounding authority.
With respect to the access humanity has to objective morality and absolute truth, due to different views regarding the Bible:
Respectfully man, to claim that the inability to "find 10 Christians that agree on absolutely everything in the Bible", somehow undermines or diminishes the ability to find objective truth within The Bible, is simply not logical. While there is certainly ambiguity in many texts, The Bible makes clear truth claims (God existing, man's sinfulness, Jesus's life, death, burial, resurrection, and return) that are either true, or they are false.
While there are certainly countless views concerning scripture, I think you're severely over emphasizing the relativity with which the Church, Christians, and humanity in general hold the Bible to be true. Creeds and confessions exist for this very reason, in order to unify around a shared and grounded view of the truth revealed.
Yes, even still within these theological and denominational camps, there are differing views or interpretations with certain texts and doctrines such as justification, baptism, eschatology, ecclesiology, soteriology, and these things matter greatly. However, consensus around the foundational claims such as Jesus's life, death, burial, resurrection, and return, within the Bible remain widely intact, not only within said camps, but within the 2.2B people who hold to Christian orthodoxy around the world. The majority of those 2.2B people affirm The Apostles Creed for example.
Therefore, the objective and foundational truths revealed in The Bible are not undermined simply due to interpretive theological and doctrinal differences that exist within Christendom. Rather, the fact that such widely different groups agree on core foundational truths speaks to The Bible's clarity of that truth, and our ability to access it.
Whether brother to brother, or human to human, I really appreciate this sharpening. "Find Me" will always be a classic btw. 👊🏼
hey daniel, great thoughtful response. i appreciate you taking the time out to respond this way. and also for being charitable. i hope i’ll be able to respond with such clarity as you.
i would jump into questioning “well who decides what is ‘foundational truths”, because even that is subjective, even if widely agreed upon. but it actually would distract but from a more important point:
i want to make an important distinction- the difference between claims to reality/truth and then claims to moral values. what you listed that the church agrees on (god’s existence, man’s sinfulness, jesus’ life death, burial and resurrection, and return) are claims to an external reality. none of these are moral values. they are claims about historical, future or theological reality. none of those are telling me what i “ought to do”. the apostles’ creed is literally only a list of claims to a reality but no moral values. they are telling me what is or what has happened or will happen.
so that’s to say something like “gravity exists, george washington died in 1799, and america will have a new president in 2024.” we can fully agree on those things and still be left with the task of deciding what i “should” or “ought to” do based on that knowledge. and there is hardly consensus on the “shoulds” and “ought to’s” within christiandom .
others are kinda getting tripped up on my “10 christian’s example” and maybe i’m kinda just stumbling over the nuance i’m trying to carve out. maybe i’m not lucid enough in how i try to drive the point home. making this point is not to say moral values cannot exist somewhere with god or in god, or in some cosmic sense. it’s to say, clearly the access to absolute morality is inhibited and therefore not functionally absolute, only theoretically. and when it comes to functionality, it’s all or nothing. something can’t be kinda absolute. either it’s absolute or it’s not. and if it’s not absolute, then you are left in the same bucket as your “opponent”: relative moral values.
in every corner or cove of christianity, there exists a very distinct moral way of living, even if there some general consensus on larger moral themes. in the same respect, one could argue humanity at large essentially agrees on some “foundational” moral values. humans have long agreed murder is generally wrong, along with rape, adultery, stealing, and lying. and just like christians/bible, they’ve made exceptions to when these things were permissible.
thanks again for engaging and also listening to the music. have a great week. 🙏🏽
@@flightsfeelings
Hey Joe, thanks so much for your reply. Its really challenged and driven my desire to dig deeper, think more critically, and ultimately attempt to strengthen my own arguments for my presuppositions and belief. I'm really enjoying your latest content as well, intellectually and aesthetically (the slow and subtle zoom in is dope).
Ultimately, your objection(s) seem to be largely epistemological. Specifically, the epistemology of hermeneutics. Put simply, "How and by what absolute standard, can we know that we're interpreting and functionally applying an absolute standard correctly. More specifically for this conversation:
"Even if we presuppose that the Bible is the absolute moral standard, our access to its absolute morality is inhibited by our lack of absolute omniscient certainty within our own examination, interpretation, and functional application of it. Ultimately, this lack of absolute omniscient certainty reduces us to using the same moral relativism we're accusing the atheist of."
So, I would start by saying that our inability to interpret and functionally apply the Bible with absolute omniscient certainty, simply proves that we ourselves are not omniscient, and therefore are not the absolute standard. This is consistent within the absolute standard (Bible) itself.
(Proverbs 3:5-6, Isaiah 55:8-9, 1 John 3:20).
Secondly, lack of omniscience does not equal total moral (or cognitive) relativism. Interpreting and functionally applying an absolute standard omnisciently and perfectly, versus sufficiently are two different things. As limited beings, we neither have the ability, nor the obligation (command) to perfectly know and functionally apply the absolute standard absolutely. We do however posses the ability and obligation to do so sufficiently. This is also consistent with the absolute standard.
(2 Timothy 3:15-17, Jude 1:3, Psalm 119:9-11, 130)
One might then ask, "By what standard do we objectively determine what is "sufficient?" Or as you understandably asked, “well who decides the ‘foundational truths”?
The answer is "we" don't. The absolute standard we are presupposing and examining does. In other words, we remain consistent with the standard, by leaving room for ambiguity in our interpretation and functionality where the absolute standard itself is ambiguous, and by grounding and standing on the foundation of the clear, indisputably, and consistently stated objective truth claims, both moral and historical within the standard - (God exists -we ought seek Him. Humans exist, are made in His image, and have inherent value - We ought act toward one another as so. We have sinned - We ought not sin. Jesus lived, was crucified, paid for our sins, was raised, and will return - We ought believe, place our trust and faith in, and follow Him). None of these claims are ambiguous. They are clear, absolute, and objective moral & historical truth claims derived directly from the Bible, and held to as foundational by orthodox Christianity worldwide.
Therefore, I would ultimately contend,
The premise that our inability to omnisciently and perfectly apply an absolute standard absolutely, results in moral relativism is not only an over simplification, but a false dilemma.
We have the ability to access, functionally apply, and ultimately stand on the absolute objective moral truth claims within the Bible sufficiently. Not through the use of our own relativity, but rather by and through the ability that the very standard itself reveals is within our limited, but sufficient capability to access it.
Therefore, we have the ability to remain sufficiently consistent and grounded in the Bible's objective morality.
With respect to "humanity at large essentially agreeing on some foundational moral values", I would argue that is even more evidence that the Bible IS the absolute standard, as it can account for a timeless, consistent, universal, inherent human awareness of an objective moral standard, especially concerning humans being made in God's image, and possessing innate value.
(Genesis 1:26-27, Romans 1:20, Romans 2:14)
(Not that you've argued this position), but the naturalist/materialist can claim that humans evolved with a sense of morality as a survival trait, however that worldview is still ultimately at its core, grounded in a purposeless universe where human beings are nothing more than a set of highly evolved primates with illusions of inherent objective value and meaning, but are ultimately a random cosmic accident, with no objective standard to ground such beliefs in. Dawkins himself nails it: "there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." Per what you rightfully mentioned about humanity at large agreeing on some moral values, I think its self evident that the majority of people on earth live as if the Biblical claim of humanity (Imago Dei) is true, rather than the latter.
To what you said about Christian's making exceptions to the absolute moral standard and permitting evil.... Yes and Amen bro. Christian's like all humans are imperfect and inconsistent. However, the absolute objective standard (Bible) itself is what not only contrasts and therefore exposes such hypocrisy, it is also consistent in its objective truth claims regarding humanity's (including Christian's) devastatingly willingness to do so.
(Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:2, 1 John 1:8-10). Ultimately, only with the existence of an absolute moral standard do we even have the grounding to call such things objectively evil at all.
I truly appreciate you're heart in everything I've seen you do man. You just seem like a good and genuine dude, who is simply doing his best to be fearlessly honest with himself and others. Thanks again for challenging, sharpening, and allowing us to come along for the ride bro.
(Disclaimer: this is a personal viewpoint as a Christian, I respect everyone else's viewpoint and I am open to agree to disagree if we have a different perspective) 1/2 where I am at with morality so far is like that: every Christian has different morality standards, how? We all live different lives, our circumstances are different, knowledge/mindset is defferent, so the Holy Spirit helps us according to what we already know. How can someone be punished for something they genuinly weren't aware of? That's why I say, God knows our heart and intentions. What matters is the person keeps working on themselves and listens to the Holy Spirit speakin inside of em, then while reading the Bible, observing my surroundings, etc. That's where my morality come from. Also, the way you don't wanna be treated is the way you ain't supposed to treat others too. The higher the morality standards, the better. Obey the 10 commandents, which is common sense, as no one wants to be effed over in any of these ways. Kindness is God's way for sure. We won't be happy if someone does us wrong. If it wouldn't be wrong we wouldn't appreciate anything around us, which it would lead to chaos, and since we were made as emotional ppl, we'd all be out our minds. Cause if there's no care, there's no love. Someone had to care of us and every single cell in the whole universe in order to create us
I’m still struggling to identify how I would define my faith. What I do know is that the faith I was raised in and what I was taught to believe is not something I agree with now. The defining moment for me was when I asked myself, how is it possible for me to have more empathy than God? The God I was raised to believe was a punisher and that was when I knew to no longer align myself with those beliefs. I still very much believe in God, but it looks v different from when I was younger
grace to you on your journey!
My little time spent on earth has taught me the beginning of understanding and wisdom is acknowledging we are not the center of the universe. It does not start or end with us.
I feel like everyone knows how musically gifted you are, but I’m glad we’re getting another chance to see how intellectually gifted you are, as well. Don’t stop making these videos.
I like all of it. The couch does change your whole vibe. More natural and conversational. Didn't notice the slow zoom until I read your pinned comment. Funny, because the huge blank space above you was buggin' me at first. Also, I love these deep topics. I enjoy hearing your thoughts. Very interesting. Keep it coming. There's other things to say about the actual topic, but not really easy to do by commenting on the vid. I do have some push back, one of which I left in another comment, but I also want you to go deeper on other points. As always, thanks for sharing the process. 🤲🏻💜🙏🏻
Processing these things is dope & all bc they matter. But what do you make of the life, death & resurrection of Jesus? I’d be genuinely curious to hear you discuss that.
Just finished - I have to say this is a very honest, loving & fair vid :D (& quite relatable - also the funny story at the end XD); I wanna share some thoughts (as you do here lovingly, honestly, and humbly which I really admire :)) but I'm just thinking of how to go about it concisely and all. But yea I gotta say 💯video (the vibe, discussion, and all :))
Glad you enjoyed it!
The apologetics argument is principally the theist one you referenced. But even that claim is about being able to make claims to absolute truth (morality). Like which apologist (even broadly speaking) claims the claim you make for them: that they *possess* absolute truth?
The true apologetic argument is the one that describes Jimmy's situation: "We have a God we communicate with but haven't met in person who possesses this absolute morality to which we can make a claim." Da is it.
That Jimmy story set it off for me... I have no words. Only much to process 🙇🏾
Hey Jo, I would love to know your view on Salvation. And I support your view on morality, BUT we all never understood everything that we have learned at school. I believe that we should only focus on Christ than on individuals.
Forgive Jimmy bruh. Man was in love with a ghost😂
Phew... to your comments in this video. This feels like encountering so much grey, looking and finding more grey until you get tired and decide to get comfortable with grey. I understand the notion of it and what it would entail. It's tough. I think what helps with this is clear encounters with the Supernatural. Arguments are helpful. They help you wade through the intellectual mess. But at some point, they become tiring. Nothing slaps harder than hitting the Rock flat in the face. That was the only way God convinced Paul. Such experiences bring external logic factors into the loop of your thought process. They force you to "doubt your doubts", or in the very least, question them long enough until you either resolve them or find better questions. The trouble is only God (I'm assuming He exists for the sake of the argument) chooses whom He allows to have such experiences.
These are just my thoughts though. I hope you respond to this comment. A conversation might be helpful.
You doing good man... Keep up with the videos for as long as your honesty would allow. I'm praying for you. Grace and peace✌🏽
well, i think that may be my/the issue with christianity: the grey areas tends to make you come up with answers to feel more certain about reality. you’re uncomfortable with the grey so you either must come up with answers for the ambiguity OR you must give up on asking questions altogether. i cannot blame someone for wanting to do this. i get it. i used to do the same.
i’m okay with not having some damascus road experience or some encounter with the supernatural. this world, this universe, these people are wondrous in and of themselves. the fact that we exist, that anything we see exist is quite miraculous to me.
if god chooses who he wants to have these experiences, then trying to convince me or pray for me seems to be futile.
jimmy remains unforgiven. 😊
@@flightsfeelings I think somewhere over here you’re making a dilemma, where there’s at minimum, a trilemma?? Just a thought..which is that you can also trust a big fact in life, which is that there’s literally only so much we can know, understand, and conceptualize in life. That fact makes it very reasonable to proceed with, “hey my knowledge is limited, let me trust in the One who is the source of knowledge.”
It’s powerful to me that you understand how miraculous this reality we live in is…just encouraging you to continue to press into asking yourself maybe why you find it miraculous and not a coincidence or some other sensation, which is a more congruent process of thought in line with your current framework..
“ that fact makes it very reasonable to proceed with…”
irony: you suggest that i’m oversimplifying an issue and then follow up with an oversimplified solution. just because i know that i cannot know everything does necessitate that i must assume the bible the best source to rely on. that’s a pretty big leap from such a basic point. not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing. and i know enough to know i don’t trust the bible lol.
I think one of the best responses to the Moral Argument for God is not that we are saying there is any single moral standard that we all should abide by (other than what's broadly agreed upon), but that the supposed moral standard many christians claim the bible touts isn't even a consistent moral framework within the text itself. God doesn't even abide by a consistent moral standard if we're keeping it 💯. It's an internal critique working within the ideology itself.
The apologist response would be well God is above morality and therefore is not subject to it as we are.
My response would be then how can you argue that there is a more Godly or less Godly character to have when this characteristic sense of right and wrong doesn't accurately align with God's actual character? Based on the text, God's character ranges from ambiguous, to lovingly merciful, to vile, petty and wrathful. What Godly character should I follow?
I haven't heard a legitimate apologist response to this kind of question.
I'd like to add a response after hearing your "consistency" point. I think consistency is something that should be factored because that's what a standard is by definition. It's a precedent that's measurable, normative, repeatable, and consistent. If it wasn't then it wouldn't be a moral standard. That ties back into my earlier point about the Christian conception of God or at least what's illustrated in the text.
Last point would be that the supposed baseline of our moral standard was something that societies just evolved to have overtime because, as you've stated, it's useful and beneficial for the survival and persistence of the human species or at least the immediate tribe who submit to that moral standard. That doesn't get you to a God. Even other animals like chimps have protocultures and pseduo-morality where a more primitive form altruism is upheld. It's not exclusive to humanity.
I enjoy listening to you process though things.
You’re definitely more knowledgeable than I am but I find myself in a similar space. Or maybe a space that has similarities. A couple years ago I remember talking with some friends who are still Christian about this topic.
You can believe the Bible and believe in the god of the Bible but you don’t actually know if it’s true. At the end of the day you’re still kinda just making your best guess and hoping it’s right.
That’s probably where I struggle with people, not just Christians. People who can’t fathom that don’t know for sure. I probably struggle with this people because they remind me of pieces of me that I don’t want to admit exist.
the ending of this was legendary 😂
The ultimate question ever is: who created God? And no one can’t answer that. One must first even believe in God to even ask that question, which is another rabbit hole for an atheist. Where do we go after we die? Heaven? Hell? Nowhere? Annihilation? This is where I find myself in a loop. No one wants to be motivated by fear but we all fear the unknown whether we admit it or not. Why do we even have to die? We’re all born to die basically. Each second we’re closer to death. There’s no such thing as time travel. What is time?
Im just rambling typing because these are questions I think of every day and I identify as a follower of Christ YHWH. Yet, I feel like God answers me like he answered Job, “where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth?” And to that, my answer is idk 🤷🏾♀️
“the ultimate question ever is: who created god? and no one can answer that.”
it’s that not tricky of a question, unless you arbitrarily put stipulations on it like “one must believe in god to even ask the question?”. that’s a presupposition, an unfounded one at that. who created god? someone can answer that, you just may not like it. but humans are quite imaginative people. it’s not wild to think that maybe humans created god, and created god in their image.
“where do we go when we die?” the question assumes we HAVE to go somewhere after we die. but when you let go of, or at least question your presuppositions, the question isn’t that baffling.
why do we have to die? again, not that deep. there’s plenty answers to why, one being the second law of thermodynamics.
“there’s no such thing as time travel.” there isn’t but it’s not out of the possibilities of theory of general relativity. it just would take a 💩ton of energy to accomplish.
time is inextricably linked to space, i.e. spacetime, because it not constant but completely affected by the mass of objects. einstein called time a stubborn illusion. or time could very well be something that that emerges out of reality and not necessarily it’s own independent reality (i.e. heat is not something in and of itself. it is what emerges out of particles moving quickly.)
“i feel like god answers me like he answered job. ‘where were you when i laid the foundations of the earth?’” if that one question stops you from ever actually questioning your own perception of reality, you weren’t really searching in the first place. it’s just a convenient way to keep you in what you’re comfortable with.
@@flightsfeelings I guess you missed the fact that I clearly do question my perception of reality.
@@flightsfeelings and it bothers me to think that we may not GO somewhere after we die. I can’t imagine not existing. Idk if it’s bothersome to you. But for me it is.
mmm ok. forgive my approach. i’ve been much on the defense, and i apologize.
maybe we go somewhere when we die. i’m not led to believe so, but i’m not completely closed off to the idea. but i believe the need to have an afterlife can diminish just how special and momentary this life really is. i don’t know when, but somewhere along this journey, i let go of the need to exist forever. in fact, i believe i’ve let go of the desire to exist forever too. even as a christian, living forever always puzzled me, since a child. even then, i had a hunch that even if there was an afterlife, it too likely had some sort of conclusion.
the strongest desire of a healthy human (of any species really) is to continue living. that fear of death is a great tool to keep us alive. but i personally think our collective imaginations, such as religion, can help us cope with that fear by coming up with grand narratives that seem to do away with absolute death altogether.
@@flightsfeelings thank you. I feel like you are hearing me now. It’s been so bad that I’ve been having panic attacks. My mind is fighting itself because on one hand I don’t want to die. In my mind I’ve always existed and I can’t imagine not existing. On the other hand, the idea of living forever (without time) is just as scary. I can’t possibly imagine it. Even if it is in a paradise or heaven of some sort. That’s just as scary of not existing at all. Anyway, thanks for listening. ♥️
Great video, great conversation. I’m
Enjoying having these conversations with friends as well.
I'd like to hear more of your thoughts pertaining to where you stated that the world could exist without an arbiter of absolute truth. Like, how do you feel, based on what you know about the history of humanity vs the knowledge you've aquired from theological studies what would that look like to you?
well claiming to hear from the arbiter of absolute morality is actually quite the cause for much of what we deem atrocities in human history. many do good in the name of their god and many don’t. so functionally, we *already* exist without an arbiter of absolute truth. theoretically, we’d like to believe otherwise. at large, people are gonna do what they wanna do. and they’ll come up with all kinds of religious theories to support that.
@@flightsfeelings I definitely agree with that last part. It all boils down to ,like you said, what is more consistent. I would even add to that & say who is more integrous. Anyone can say "God told me____".On the flip side, it is written that God does pass judgement in which he uses the enemies of his "Chosen" people which can cause confusion or make it hard to distinguish one God from another, in my opinion. One big ol' spiritual mess lol
That catfish story 🤣🤣🤣
Anyways, application and understanding of morality is relative, but I don't know if that makes morality itself relative. And I think in that gray space, there are ways to examine what is more likely to be objectively closer to the absolute truth than others. I agree that Chriatians don't possess absolute truth but that they claim (by faith) to be directly connected to the One who does. Maybe this is another video, but my question for you, though, is what about this conclusion contributed to you renouncing Christianity?
yeah my argument was never that lack of application of absolutes is the same as saying absolutes do not exist. i believe i stated that a few times in the video.
the point is that having no functional access to absolute morality is the same as not actually having it, EVEN if it is exists somewhere away from you. again, the story of the dog. “she bought me a dog but i can’t see, touch it, interact with him, nothing.” you don’t have a dog. your girlfriend has a dog. YOU have a girlfriend that had a dog… which is another way of saying you don’t have a dog. likewise, christian’s don’t have absolute morality. they have a god who has absolute morality, which is another way of saying you don’t have absolute morality. whether it exists or not is of no functional value to you, so leveraging it as an apologetic argument is an empty claim.
and yes… this story trips me out every time i remember it. lol
Yea, I'm tracking. So, if I'm understanding correctly, it was the idea that Christians possessed that absolute truth that kept you in it for so long (or at least one of the reasons), and upon realizing that wasn't really the case because we don't have functional access to it, the hold/necessity to stay a Christian lost some of its strength. Almost like realizing what you thought you bought wasn't real. Is that about right?
more or less yeah, that’s about right. again, not to say that to is conclusion is necessarily a blow against* christianity. realizing christian’s don’t have functional access to it doesn’t inherently make them wrong. it just means their claim to absolute morality is not as convincing as it once was.
I just have so many questions. Can you do a q&a? It could be live (pleeeeease) on zoom, ig, patreon or answer a list like you did before. But each video sparks more questions.
The audio is great, the zooming cool [creative] (if one notices lol!), well easy on the eyes the whole panorama.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is still relative morality among Christians because at the end of the day all phenomena, including divine communication, is subject to human interpretation. But don’t you think a distinction should still be made between a relativist with an absolute standard versus a relativist with no absolute standard?
It seems to me that a Christian form of relativism would be akin to a map given to a group that has a clear destination marked and clear checkpoints along the way. Or at the very least important landmarks that are instructed to consider. There will still be some disagreement about the precise road to take but there is a somewhat clear direction and destination.
Whereas a true relativist map would be one with no destination, and no checkpoints at all. It would solely be determined by the direction the group or individual wants to go in.
While interpretation is an unavoidable reality, Christians do believe in revelation, so God’s communication to man about the direction they should go. There’s going to be disagreement as a result of interpretation, but there is still a general direction given. I’ve heard Christian theologians espouse the truth/hermeneutical spiral as well. As we learn more intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, hermeneutically, and practically we spiral closer to the truth of God’s revelation. We have clearer insight into the directions God has given and the way to get there.
In sum, humans receive information from the world around us and have to determine individually and collectively how to process and act on that information. But it does seem to me to be a big, important distinction between receiving information/revelation from God and not, despite the interpretive questions that arise from that. Having a parent who talks to you, with whom you have the ability to misinterpret, seems in a different category from having no parent at all.
And maybe you’re not even debating that because you already agreed that absolute morality could possibly exist even in your scenario, so apologize if this is an unnecessary point and unnecessary reading for you. I’m only engaging because I really do see you as intelligent and reflective. Your story is unique from other deconversion stories I have heard because it seems like you genuinely and wholeheartedly did pursue all possible avenues to retain your faith. It’s given me a deep curiosity and sense of care/compassion for you. So thanks for being vulnerable and sharing your true story and thoughts.
The name change✨ reminds me of the sky club ✈️
✈️
Me too! ✈️ ...
good times... good memories...new adventures ahead! 🌟
@@Passion84GodAlways 🥂
@@nnekatreshon 😀🥂
✈️✈️✈️✈️🌐
This is so helpful. Thank you for sharing your perspective!
“I am the Good Shepherd, and I know [without any doubt those who are] My own and My own know Me [and have a deep, personal relationship with Me]-”
John 10:14 AMP
The road is straight and narrow because it is personal. God is Love. Love is personal. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. Yahweh (the Father/air I breathe) is God.
Love God, Love each other.
I think it would give better context to acknowledge the fact that Christianity is mainly believing & following the teaching of Jesus (who himself is an Israelite) it kinda fine-tunes, if that makes sense, the argument. I do agree that us christians today don't fully know or have absolute morality to a T. Giving the fact that scriptures have been tweaked & translated over time & the evolution of the language(s) spoken over time. I think the term absolute morality is a bit too general tho tbh because I believe there's right, wrong & then there are some things that are just permissible. As far as absolute truth, that's a bit more complex because everyone is privy to deception regardless of even spiritual encounters. Absolute morality or truth is like this big puzzle & a lot of us are navigating the pieces the best we understand how.
Hey Joseph! I am curious as to what you think about Roman Catholic intellectualism or Roman Catholicism in general in relation to church history? Also, I am from East Tx! Tyler! I converted from evangelicalism protestantism to Catholicism in 2017 and was baptized Catholic in 2019. Gotta say, I agree with you on the morality argument and the sola scriptura point. I would love to continue dialogue with you in relation to some of your hefty philosophical objections to Christianity. Some of the things you mentioned here were the questions I asked and the tipping point of my conversion to Catholicism. I would absolutely love to continue dialoguing.
Here's what I would say about your objection to sola scriptura. I think you're right. The Bible itself doesn't say that you have to get everything only from the Bible. Christians before there reformation 500 years ago never believed this either, and neither do most Christians in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. There is absolute truth, and the holy spirit does have ways of guiding the church into all truth that doesn't necessarily rely on individual interpretation. I would love to talk about this more!
hello briana. i’m familiar with catholicism’s relation to church history. my first introduction to apologetics was actually through a catholic college group. even through my protestant learning, much of the early “church fathers” who give us the foundation for such intellectual discourse, were catholic. so in a round about way, i am familiar.
but to your point, you say you agree with me on the sola scriptura point but i don’t think i really made that point of mine, even inadvertently. to sort of transfer that weight from the individual believer onto the pope doesn’t solve the problem. it just outsources it.
in general, i have zero interest in engaging in organized religion, and my god, roman catholicism is the glaring epitome of that lol.
@@flightsfeelings I would say to look past it from the pope to the magisterium. But anywho, my husband and I have a podcast (with a whopping 500 followers) where we talk about philosophy and theology. We would love to have you on to discuss your objections to Christianity sometime just to dialogue!
1. 6:07 - I guess my point is it's not really about "who are you to say _ is wrong if you don't have the cosmic 'arbiter' to appeal to", but moreso what grounds a thing's rightness/wrongness other than its very nature (and so christian metaphysics might be relevant here); I think that morality is grounded in the actual state of affairs of things (which if you really think about it, has to do with the thing's end/its purpose/etc.)
I think it would make more sense to think of what morality actually is, whether it's because God made a rule, or would it be in the actual state of affairs of things, e.g. goodness is in the state of someone being helped and lifted up by another, now I do think God could offer a framework to navigate through these things (as we choose; and following that it is in the actual state of affairs of things then, even then, the mode in which we do so ties into morality).
2. 10:54 - yep, but I think here this is where discerning powers come into play (if it is that morality is bounded by the nature of things/state of affairs of things, then we can test them - e.g. whether they're consistent within&/outside of the system of belief; different religions do have different moral claims afterall).
11:47 - Don't really see a problem here (other than the possibility of fallacy which is the essence of being human I guess)
13:06 - I think consistency is a pre-condition for truth (if the whole thing is to be assessed), and then consistency with things outside the system should tell you about how likely that thing is to be true (if it is consistent amongst many different facets - it's more likely to be true
3. 14:46 - True, but I don't make that accusation so XD
18:56 - I guess the point is we don't measure it to "God" but moreso to the actual state of affairs of things (and God could've created whatever thing with its end or purpose in mind as rooted and "evident" in its nature); so yes we do have an epistemic barrier, but it can be worked out (so in a sense we do have access to it but we have an epistemic barrier, depending on how "tricky" the problem to solve is - 19:31)
And our responsibility to solve it depends directly on what we honestly have in our minds (a verse that comes to mind is; if someone thinks that something is good and that person doesn't do it - to that person it's "sin")
And I guess that answers 20:12 / 21:28 (do what you can - and that's the most you can do; if it's honestly what you think is true/good then that's that and if God is all-knowing then surely, following that, God would (have to) understand - afterall, we each have our own circumstances, intellectual prowess, etc.)
27:15 - No, I don't like that idea and I don't think its necessary
This is more neat XD I felt bad about the last one (I noticed a couple typos too - I was multi-tasking while typing it - and also wanted to add a bit but when I clicked on edit it gave me a "pushback error" message). Anyway, very thoughtful & nice video
Appreciate your honesty, certainly some provoking thoughts. ow man I felt your frustration regarding the story at the end. smh. So just to have an idea of your state of mind when you were at the verge of calling it quits with Christianity, can I say that as your were searching for answers, "Christianity" was taking you for a ride and you got frustrated, thinking hmm this is probably going nowhere?
someone got the metaphor 😏
Bro I love this channel.
Interesting video. Respectfully disagree with some of your reasoning but I hear you on points raised. Random question and if too personal you can ignore but would you ever become a moral nihilist and if not, why? (FYI I'm a Christian)
not a nihilist. very much a relativist but my argument here is that, at the core, everyone is, including christians.
@@flightsfeelings perhaps.
2/2 Someone might ask: "Why does God let evil happen?" Well, that's the result from giving us free will. It's ppl doing evil, not Him. Also, from all of the evil happening, there's always a reason behind it, whether we're aware of it or not, or if we may not understand it. If He wouldn't given us free will, we'd just be someone's puppets, with no genuine will/choice of being with Him, it'd be very forced. Also to explain how to get to heaven, it'd be like "Why do ppl feel some type of way when others ain't supportive and don't believe in them during the storm but have the audacity to suddenly show up once they doin good?" These people want a piece of cake in the end no matter what. And I bet no one wants to deal with anyone who disrespects them in their circle. Same goes with God and I cannot be mad at Him for that. (Disclaimer: this is a personal viewpoint as a Christian, I respect everyone else's viewpoint and I am open to agree to disagree if we have a different perspective)
I have a question Ivy. Lets say a police officer has been tipped by an informant that a potential crime is going to happen. Said officer pulls up to the scene in its squad car and wait …. The officer then sees the criminal pull out their weapon and shoot its target but said officer doesn’t intervene because the criminal has free will …. Who’s in the wrong? The police officer, the criminal or the victim?
@@kerrykeaton4475 The criminal and the officer. Since the criminal has obviously already really low moral standards, he is already guilty for commiting a crime and the officer hasn't intervened as he'd be expected to as it was his job to protect the victim. BUT I see where you tryna take me. You cannot compare God to the officer. God's authority is way different from human's. That is all the point of free will, and the reason of when evil things happen. It is due to the ppl, choices circumstances that lead to them. If there was no free will, there would be no point of creating ppl free of choice. God is testing us on our free will, so it is different. Also, having Him intervene everytime something bad happens, we basically back at it at no free will. People would not be able to know what's wrong and what is right
@@chariivy sis, of course God and the Officer are different. lol. That’s not the point. How can you say the Officer is wrong and not God?
@@chariivy I tried, have a good night. ✌️
@@kerrykeaton4475 I have already responded with the free will explanation. Looks like you haven't got the context of God's free will. He is testing the officer as well on his free will whether he is doing his job right or not and if it's in the officer's interest to head to heaven or not. He showed he isn't which will lead to consequences in his own part in front of God. As for the victim, it was their way to go, unfortunately. It will be up to God to see if they were one of His sheep. If they was they will be happily reunited with Him in heaven
Very interesting. Processing as I navigate through my own faith.
Would LOVE to see you on the couch with guests👍
I'm fixated by the books. can you share the title of the books?
I love this video
The couch is working 👌🏽
Can you make another video expounding on how 10 Christian Friends agreeing on everything means that absolute truth exists? That’s a bit confusing to me. Is agreement necessary for absolute truth to be absolute? If five people agree that 2+2=4, but the other five don’t, would it follow that absolute truth does not exist? I mean the idea of absolute truth seems like an elusive and rather nebulous thing for any mortal to claim to know. We all can claim to have it, but in the end, would it not be left an individual who in fact decides what absolute truth is? Otherwise, the only absolute truth would be that all truth is relative, which also hurts my brain and seems self conflicting.
Hey! thanks for chiming in. no, agreement is not necessary for absolute truth/Truth Giver to exist. i started my point with this and i paused several times in the video to reiterate this very point. explaining in the comments would only be repeating what i’ve said in the video. i.e.: “per my last email…” lol
If a tree falls down 2 streets away, and you and your neighbors say it didn't happen, does that mean it didn't happen? If the tree fell, it fell. That is a fact. So I'd say existence of an objectively factual reality is the foundation for absolute truth. If the Christian truly exists and truly rules over all and operates how the Bible describes, then that too would be an absolute truth, regardless of what we believe about it. Absolute truth as a concept is like gravity. You may not believe in gravity, but gravity does not depend on agreement. Jump off the bridge and that absolute truth will quickly become a tangible experience of gravity.
@@benjamintraji ok
Your friend getting catfish reminds me of that Mateo story on Netflix! I hope he gave up after the party but something tells me he didn’t 🥴
you can´t tell me those books weren´t left there on purpose
lol that’s where they always are 🤷🏽♂️ at first just was being lazy with nowhere to put em but they kinda just stay there now.
7:35 how do you logically make this claim? absolute Truth is necessary... and evident.
1. i never said absolute truth does not exist or is unnecessary. absolute truth/reality and absolute morality are not the same thing.
2. necessary and “extremely useful” are not the same thing.
@@flightsfeelings let me rephrase... I'm just asking, how could the world exist without an arbiter of absolute Truth?
If absolute Truth exists... would morality be exempt? If so, why?
think you still might be missing my point. i was mentioning in the video the point is not whether or not absolute morality is extremely useful, but does reality necessitate it. auto-pilot features on planes are extremely useful helping to navigate through very complex situation but planes can and have existed without it. the existence of planes is not dependent upon the existence of auto-pilot.
@@flightsfeelings No, I get it. My argument is that the world we live in could not exist independent of absolute Truth. It is not merely extremely useful, it is absolutely necessary. If absolute Truth is our reality, then why would morality be exempt from this standard? Where would the idea of morality even come from?
What I'm really trying to understand and have you expand upon is your stance that these are only extremely useful but not necessary.
In my mind, relativity does not negate absolutism. I'm interested to hear what your mind thinks.
@@flightsfeelings in other words, how is the plane even flying?
By absolute morality do you mean holiness? I think Christian’s recognize that we are not and cannot achieve “absolute morality” because then Jesus would have died & resurrected for nothing. It’s not in our power, it’s in His power.
The basis of the faith is to follow Jesus who is The Way The Truth and The Life. I think it’s simple, and It all depends on relationship because God is personal. Whether via ‘deep intellectual theoretical and philosophical’ lectures or a mere experience is a vehicle used to draw one nearer to Christ it can all be used.
As mentioned, there are differences of opinion but there are not differences of faith. If anyone is reading my comment please consider this…
“For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. -2 Tim. 3:6-7”
And 2 Cor 10:4-5
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,
Wait on the Lord Isaiah 40:31 - try not to be led astray. The spiritual realm exists and if good and evil exists in the physical then is also exists in the spiritual.
“By absolute morality do you mean holiness?”
no. in this video, i explained what i mean by absolute morality at length.
“I think Christian's recognize that we are not and cannot achieve "absolute morality" because then Jesus would have died & resurrected for nothing.”
again, no. not what i’m talking about.
i can’t really reply to the rest of your comment because it really has nothing to do with what i’m addressing in this video.
We don’t start off as fully formed and mature adults though…..
ok…..
@@flightsfeelings To give a complete answer (because I didn’t think you would actually respond given that this video was posted over a year ago), God is completely necessary. God would only be useful if we created ourselves. But, clearly-and maybe you just don’t believe this anymore-there is intelligent design at play here. We didn’t make ourselves, and we are not inherently good. If you spend enough time with kids, you would see that, which is why I said you approach these arguments as if we start off with the ability to reason at the mature level that you and I stand in. God is the creator, we didn’t just happen. He has wisdom in knowing how we were designed and how we operate that automatically makes Him the arbiter of morality, of truth. If we lived in a world of gray, then there would be no need for our hearts to cry out for justice in wrongdoing; there would be no shame, no guilt…..nothing would matter. We wouldn’t care who dies or how; all these negatives in life wouldn’t exist, we wouldn’t acknowledge it as negatives. We would just acknowledge these things as happenstance. And, of course, standing in this reality (which is very real), that is a dreadful place to be. To be so numb….. I mean, maybe in that reality there’s a freedom there, but that’s not the reality that we live in.
20:05 Haha, see this is why I’m nondenominational. The God of the Bible is God of the ages. I really wonder what sense of morality you speak of, because if you’re only talking about the gray areas, if you’re only talking about nuanced situations, then, of course, there’s going to be differences between Christians and people in general. There are situations where there’s no definitive right or wrong, but the right and wrong takes place in the hearts of those who are acting on the situation (in fact, there’s an old 80s game for Christians that a leader at church had us play one Christmas called “Choices” which was created specifically to address the nuances of life, and I bought it on Amazon later). God knows our hearts and our reasoning behind everything that we do. When Christians speak of absolute truth, I don’t think they’re talking about those gray areas that people argue over. They are gray for a reason. People, in general, are always arguing their opinions on certain matters. But other matters-in fact I believe this is most matters-are matter-of-fact. I believe all of our opinions should be based in truth, which honestly is hard to come by these days, but it’s out there, and God is sovereign over it. There is his moral truth that we read in His Word, and then there are truths that have yet to be discovered or are hidden (i.e. scientific truth, and the truth behind people stories, since we are prone to lie and cover up, because we’re born in shaped in iniquity). There’s always going to be a constant battle for truth in a fallen world. At the end of the day, God is the standard, His law is written on our hearts and in His Word (to be read with wisdom and for wisdom to be gleaned from it), nothing good in us comes from us, and the evidence for absolute morality also lies in the consequences of our actions.
I also believe the gray exists because we live in a fallen world.
none of what you say actually directly interacts or addresses my point. your points merely keep asserting as necessary without actually demonstrating that. OR simply proving the point i’ve been making i.e. “i don’t think there talking about those gray areas” lol then its not absolute. absolute means absolute. “mostly absolute” is an oxymoron. either you’re missing my point or choosing not to engage with it. that point was: even if absolute morality exists in the mind of god, you don’t have absolute access to it in practice. i expound on this in the video. “the evidence for absolute morality is our consequences.” essentially saying “the ends justify the means” aka simply demonstrating the use of “absolute” morality but not proving it true. being functionally necessary is not the same as being logically necessary. claiming to be nondenominational doesn’t solve it either lol. nondenom is still category of christianity, even if it’s broad and generally undefined, and it comes with its own opinions about how christian life should be lived. again, you simply are asserting what you believe and not actually proving or demonstrating the truth. and if it’s that your aim, cool. it’s just not actually engaging with the point of this particular video.
@@flightsfeelings So…..are you saying that Christians believe they have absolute truth and morality, or that Christians believe that God has absolute truth and morality?
How can one have morals without a belief in God?
Morality is the careful consideration of the rights and consequences of one's own actions and the rights of others involved.
Although many persons might believe in a God, their doctrines and morals do differ. For example, some things that are considered a sin in Islam are quite all right in Christianity. Some things that were not suitable in the Old Testament are now acceptable in the New Testament. Do you not see the evolution of morality unfolding and becoming better as time goes by?
So where is this universal standard or religious world view of morality? It does not exist, never did. Even if l think that God dictates morality, the question then begs, "Which God am l speaking of, and what time in history am l living?". Therefore l say that morality is the careful consideration of the rights and consequences of one's own actions and the rights of others involved. I don't need to have a God consciousness to achieve respect for others. I only need to care!
Assume nothing, question all things, but most of all learn to think critically, for this is the most noble thing that one can do for one's own self.
What’s popping! I’ve been watching your videos since your very beginning on UA-cam and actually stopped watching as much several years ago because I felt a slow shift in your spirit just by how you communicated your interpretation. I know you don’t believe it and I hate to come across as a troll. It’s just the undertones of a lot of your content is this quest to in a way get all the answers and answers that just 1000% make sense to you presently…I wanna say “I feel like” you missed the whole nature of, He is God and we are not, but I know you have bro. I genuinely care about your soul and I hope you can feel that and understand that to be the reason for the passion behind the voice “a lot of” ( I won’t say most because I’ll acknowledge ill willed, condescending, condemning behavior, but I say a lot people, because I think it’s more than you seem to perceive) of people that challenge you in this new direction you’re going.
A lot of the reasons you bring up for why you left “Christianity”, you communicate as if you’ve really aired this thing fully out. There’s been so many people before you, along side you and that will come after you that will fully process the reasons you state for leaving and come to the actual conclusion of truth, by the grace of God. The more I listen honestly, the more I’m like, your conclusions are not full, they always address a partial aspect of a concept and you leave out so much. I continue to watch honestly because time reveals so much. God will fully reveal Himself in time, on His hand, while simultaneously He has given us ample evidence, cognition, and reason to believe in Him. Bless you brother.
I am a former agnostic and til this day I invite discussions, questions and explanations from non theists and those that believe in the false gods, because I think we should always be open to the idea there is evidence that we got it wrong. I hope you’re opened to that idea brother, just as open as you were when you professed Christianity that maybe you got it wrong. Stay strong brother, keep seeking truth!!
I’m excited to hear your future content where you discuss with those that agree and disagree with you! I really hope you bring on the people that present either side of the discussions well and accurately. It’s always so wack when theres one side of the table that’s like “ I’m going to sit down with someone that disagrees with me” and they pick someone that totally butchers the exegesis or inaccurately conveys the other side lol I don’t know if that makes sense. I’m not saying you’ll do that, intentionally or unintentionally. But I’d like to encourage you to get the best arguments for all, both sides and wrestle with that,.
Anyways this is just my thoughts, I thought I’d share with you since you give us the privilege of hearing your thoughts too, as I rarely ever comment on social media. But I care about your soul, cause that doesn’t die once our bodies do.
Love and grace to you, a fellow human just on the journey of discovering truth!
one, thanks for chiming in after all these years. and no i don’t see you a troll. i hear the concern in your tone.
yes there are many men and women much smarter than me that have come to a much different conclusion, but also many who land right where i am. so i don’t really look to quantity of people who agree or disagree.
there’s a duality in your advice that maybe you don’t notice.
on one side you sort of condemn the idea that i’m trying to have all the answers and have to make christian faith make complete sense *while at the same time* suggesting that i need to search for more answers and come to a more full conclusion. which one is it? am i searching for too many answers or do i not have enough? and then on one side you say you once were an agnostic and still invite discussions and are open-minded but you are still resolute that i am wrong. but when i am resolute in my stance, i’m somehow not open-minded. it’s a bit hypocritical. we tend to only call people close-minded when they just don’t easily agree with us. should i be open to evidence that i got it wrong? of course, but i’m going to live my life just how you live yours: under the confidence that i have more or less come to or am heading towards the right way. you don’t stop going to church just because there’s a possibility you’re wrong (even though you don’t seem to think you’re wrong). you don’t just easily accept every objection to christianity just because there’s a possibility you’re wrong. you are giving me advice that you yourself are not actively taking.
lastly, many christians tend to keep making this charge to me, that i missed god because im trying have all the answers, im trying to fully understand him or xyz. it’s just not true. again, i think it’s just an easy oversimplification for people to feel like they have the right way to fix me. i’ve never had any delusion that i can somehow fully know the mind of god, or somehow have an airtight faith that has no questions. even on this side of things, i have no delusions that i could somehow know everything there is to know about life and this universe.
also, i want make no mistake about people i plan to bring on my channel. it is not to have people debate with me but to process and have conversation. don’t want to get your hopes up lol.
“Am I searching for too many answers or do I not have enough?”(first off, I’m an artist, so that right there is a weighty verse, you spitting bars fam lol) but honestly I think it’s both. And this is just my judgment based on the culmination of what I’ve heard you break down so far.
I went back and rewatched a video you did with Ruslan( which I originally didn’t watch fully because I felt your vibe then that you were deeply wrestling ) and you talked about this idea of persevering light, taking what’s necessary for the journey. What I’m saying is, the facts are facts, Jesus’ body is still gone, it’s nowhere to be found still, and unless they find the body and identify Jesus, that is like the ultimate historically verified evidence that’s probable that He is God incarnate. While I stand on that, I’m open to the idea that one day somebody could find his body, I think it’s highly unlikely but I’m open to being wrong. And if that were ever the case, I’d denounce my faith in Him too lol. (Also I’m not saying here that people that haven’t looked into the historicity of Jesus need that to put their faith in him, because the Holy Spirit is evidence too, there are so many logical, rationally reasons) But based off the empirical evidence we have right now, and we’ve had for centuries, it makes sense to take the chance to put the faith in Jesus over putting our faith in “ only” science. God gave us a little bit of everything, the Bible, science, math, history etc
And maybe that’s really what this is about. I’m not condemning you, I’m really sorry if that’s how I sound, irl I’m goofy af, I like to laugh and joke, so all my lol is not to come off as like scoffing or condescension (which I assume maybe you perceived that based on the accusatory nature of your response). But maybe what this is all about is that we all choose to put our faith in something at the end of the day. So on the left or right side of things we can come to a resolve, but we also have to understand the huge reality that faith is a big part of this, because no one of this earth can 100% say I KNOW. Our version of “know” is soo limited. We can only know based on what we know now and up until this point and we can have faith and hope that what we “know” holds up as truth forever. I’m not sure if I’m regurgitating this clearly lol. And this can be interpreted as hypocrisy, but it’s intellectually honest to understand as the reality of human beings, we are limited.
Also, me being resolute that you’re wrong, and you also being resolute that I’m wrong…I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at..And I never said you weren’t open minded. I personally was just encouraging you to be, which doesn’t automatically imply you’re not. But this can really just be a game of semantics and really has more to do with perception, which is not beneficial for either of us to discuss via comment section i feel like. I hope you feel the undertone of love here. I’m not condemning, accusing you. I think what you’re doing now that is great is being authentic to where you’re at. I know many Christians that dictate their “whole life” on what their auntie said…instead of doing the due diligence to understand good, intelligent reasons for why they believe what they believe. I think that’s what you’ve always been on, and I sincerely appreciate that from you.
And I do agree with you that I do not easily “accept” every objection to Christianity. I’m a skeptic like yourself and I definitely would not describe myself as credulous. With that being said what I am is someone that sits there, and actively listens to the objections and then I analyze and research before I can come to answer on if it’s accurate or not. (This is me sharing who I am personally, hopefully you don’t take it that I’m saying you are not also doing the same.)
So we can definitely agree to disagree. I think it’s logical to be able to come to a resolve, given all the information a person has taken in, while also having a mentality to stay opened minded to being wrong. So what I’m saying by that, is truth is truth. It’s not really up for the “discussion” we think. Our discussions and conversations about it are moreso for us to help gather and process information, but truth is already written. (And I know there’s only so much we can agree on because of the differences in our worldview. )
And I’m definitely not looking for debates on your channel, I have plenty of channels for that and I know that’s not your vibe here right now. You’re clearly trying to give a more chill, lax vibe, which I genuinely appreciate!! My intention in what I said, is that the people you do bring on to converse, I hope they from each side can bring either sides of the topic (I used the term arguments earlier so I can understand kinda why thought I was suggesting debate) up accurately in your discussions and conversations.
Also, brother I don’t go to church right now, as you brought up going to church. The Lord is working on me because I’ve quite honestly been so turned off by the way it seems most American Christians live out the gospel and churches look like a concert and run like a business and abused people’s servitude to build their own little kingdoms( Clearly I am traumatized but we working on it lol. I hope you can see the tension in my humor and honesty) and a lot the hypocrisy, that you deem I have, which I’m not totally opposed to the idea because everyone is a hypocrite in some ways unfortunately you know lol. I ain’t saying it’s right but we all are.
Anyways, it’s thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving Joseph!! And thank you for responding!! I don’t agree with you on a lot but I agree with you on a lot. It’s all LOVE! We all help each other to be better and I appreciate you challenging my thoughts and your feedback!! ❤ never be quiet about your quest for truth!!
Really enjoyed reading this conversation from you both! ❤
Video needs more plants
Not gonna feels like you monetizing Christianity rn, if you left fine but click baiting and using it to make money or views is wild
1. how is it click bait? i literally talk the entire time about the exact thing title is talking about. do you know what the word clickbait means?
2. i’m monetizing my life and my ability to make videos. i feel no shame for that. y’all literally following and paying pastors who monetize christianity but i can’t create content? do you have the same critique for christian channels that are literally monetizing christianity? if you don’t like what i’m doing, just don’t watch. it’s really that simple.
👍🏾