正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Nicole Shanahan's powerful shift from liberal "gray zone" morality to clear objective right & wrong: "I've learned since becoming Christian that there is actually an objective morality… When you live your life that way, your life gets better. You end up living in this light-filled, good-filled, morally sound, reasoned...

157,245 次观看 • 5 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Great balance of showing compassion while sharing truth as Wes Huff responds to the question of why a good God would allow evil: "Well, that is arguably the hardest and most pressing apologetic question there is, because ultimately, the very tidy philosophical and theological answer isn't the right answer sometimes. You know, sometimes the right answer to the wrong question is the wrong answer, because I've encountered situations where someone has brought up a variation of the problem of evil to me, and I've just felt uneasy about maybe the tenor that they're coming at with the question...and asking them, 'You know, that's a great question. Why are you asking that question in particular?' and finding out once again (like the previous question related to it), they're personally hurting. And so, in that sense, I could give a tidy answer about if you're positing that something is good, you're positing that there's an objective good and evil, and if there's an objective good and evil, then you're positing an objective law, and objective law needs an objective lawgiver. So where do we find the groundwork for an objective lawgiver to begin with? Otherwise, you may not like certain things, but to say they ought not to happen is actually an ethical leap to an objective reality that you may or may not have groundwork for. But if that person is struggling because a family member of theirs has cancer, then that particular, maybe tidy, tied-up-in-a-nice-bow answer is not going to speak to them whatsoever. And so that's why that's the hardest question because there are actually very good answers to it, but often it doesn't speak to the person in front of you, because questions have questioners that sit behind them. And one of the pitfalls of my chosen field of ministry apologetics is that sometimes we give answers where we talk at people rather than with people. And there's a danger to that because the Christian faith isn't just an intellectual assent, right? It's a personal relationship. And that should also be played out in the answers that we give..."

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

116,003 次观看 • 3 个月前

“YOU’RE A CHRISTIAN NATIONALIST!” This is a loose term being thrown around to vilify Christians today, and we must define the term. If, by Christian nationalist, you mean someone who believes Christianity should be forced onto people by the state… then no, I’m not a Christian nationalist. If, by Christian nationalist, you mean someone who believes in no separation between Church and state… then no, I’m not a Christian nationalist. If, by Christian nationalist, you mean someone who worships a political party above God and will remain loyal to that party even if they begin rejecting God’s standards… then no, I’m not a Christian nationalist. But if, by Christian nationalist, you mean someone who loves God first, loves their nation and believes that Christianity is the best moral framework for a civilisation… then yes - I’m a Christian nationalist. “You can’t legislate morality!” All laws legislate morality. All laws declare your behaviour either as right or wrong. Morality is the one thing that should be the foundation of our laws. It shouldn’t just be up to whoever is in power to decide right and wrong - good and evil? As Aristotle famously observed that “all law rests on a necessary foundation of morality.” So the question is never WILL morality be legislated - but WHOSE morality will be legislated. What do you think is the best moral framework for a civilisation? Atheism? Secularism? Islamism? I can confidently say, I believe CHRISTIANITY is the BEST MORAL FRAMEWORK.

Millicent Sedra

48,932 次观看 • 9 个月前

Francis Schaffer in 1982 answering the question of what has gone wrong with evangelicals that allowed the Christian consensus to be lost in our nation: "I think a false view of spirituality, a Platonic view of spirituality which follows Plato, but certainly isn't biblical. And that is that spirituality is shut up to a small area of life...in this view, everything is worldly that isn't in this little box of spirituality. Now, as I look at the Bible, this is exactly 1000% backwards. There are certain sinful things that God tells us are sinful, and we ought to take those and set them aside...and then, everything else is spiritual." Robertson: "Elaborate on that. Everything then in the world, because you're saying that Jesus has a plan and a worldview and a purpose. He's not just God of the church; He's God of everything." Schaeffer: "Absolutely. He made it. And one day, the wonder is, Jesus is coming back and is going to be the redemption of all things...God is interested in the totality of life—art, music, literature, but also the political life. So true spirituality means the Lordship of Christ in the totality of life and not just a small part of it." Robertson: "The liberal press, particularly, would try to keep conservative Christians or evangelicals out of political life, and there's this great pressure to make fun of you when you get in politics, and they don't think it should be. And there are many Christians who say yes to the same thing. Now, what do you say to them?" Schaeffer: "Well, they're wrong." Robertson: "Christians should do what? Run for office, vote, register, get involved? What ought they to do?" Schaeffer: "Well, we ought to realize that in the viewpoint of the Scripture, life is not divided up into watertight compartments, that all of life should be lived for the Lordship of Christ. Now, what exact portion each one of us should have is according to the Lord's leading for us...but the rule to lay down is that Christians have a responsibility for the society in which they live. We're to be the salt. We're to be the light...By our silence, by refusing to be what God tells us to be, the light of this culture, the salt of the culture, we are the ones responsible before God for the mess we're in."

Melissa the Hopeful🏠Homemaker

123,391 次观看 • 4 个月前

Thomas Nagel dismantles relativism in one paragraph. In a 1995 talk on reason, the philosopher exposes a fatal flaw at the heart of the relativist position: "Claims to the effect that a type of judgment expresses a local point of view are inherently objective in intent. They suggest a picture of the true sources of those judgments which places them in an unconditional context." In other words, the moment you say "all truth is relative," you've already made an absolute claim. Nagel sharpens this into a precise logical trap: "The judgment of relativity or conditionality cannot be applied to the judgment of relativity itself." The relativist wants to stand outside all perspectives and declare that no perspective is universal. But that declaration is itself a universal perspective. He then drives it home: "To put it schematically, 'everything is subjective' must be nonsense, for it would itself have to be either subjective or objective. But it can't be objective, since in that case it would be false if true. And it can't be subjective, because then it would not rule out any objective claim including the claim that it is objectively false." The argument is elegant in its completeness. If "everything is subjective" is an objective truth, it defeats itself immediately because it would mean at least one thing is objective. But if it's merely a subjective opinion, it has no power to challenge objectivity at all. Either way, relativism collapses under its own weight. What's striking is how often this self-refuting structure goes unnoticed in everyday debates about truth, culture, and morality. The person who says "that's just your perspective" is quietly assuming their own perspective is the correct one. Nagel's point isn't that objectivity is easy to achieve, only that abandoning it entirely is incoherent.

Mateus — eu/acc 🇪🇺

27,895 次观看 • 3 个月前

I often watch videos like this and wonder if these people understand what they are saying or if they are just saying whatever they think sounds edgy and rebellious. If children should not be taught ideas they cannot fully evaluate until adulthood, then virtually all parenting would be useless. Every parent passes on a worldview to their child every time they teach them something. The only question is which worldview. We need to stop pretending that religious and moral traditions are interchangeable simply because saying that makes people feel better. How do you know murder is wrong? The Decalogue. Objective morality comes from the Creator. The Decalogue does not invent goodness. All it does is reveal it to us in an authoritative form which is the moral order grounded in the character of the One who created it. And there are only two religions that treat the Decalogue as moral law. Judaism and Christianity. Other religions may contain individual rules that resemble individual commandments but sharing isolated moral prohibitions is not the same thing as receiving the Ten Commandments as canonical divine revelation delivered by God to Moses. Every time a parent tells a child that lying is wrong, that stealing is unjust, or that the powerful can’t exploit the weak, that parent is teaching a moral worldview. Just because they ground that worldview in consensus or autonomy doesn't mean it did not come from God. Why else is that it wasn't until Judaism and Christianity that something like for example child sacrifices to the Gods stopped? The biblical tradition produced one of history’s clearest, most sustained, and most influential theological repudiations of child sacrifice. So clearly before Scripture was revealed most people didn’t know that murder was wrong. Hebrew Scriptures contain repeated, explicit condemnations of sacrificing children, including prohibitions against giving children to Molech and denunciations of those who burned their sons and daughters as offerings. Why? Because surrounding people practiced that. And Christianity later extended that protection within the Greco-Roman world to infanticide and infant exposure. “Let children decide for themselves” is an insane proposition. Children cannot decide among moral systems they do not understand. They do not know anything, we are the ones who teach them. And anytime we teach them don't lie, cheat, and steal we are teaching them the Decalogue. Whether we call it that or not. That is also why Judaism and Christianity matter uniquely to the moral formation of Western civilization. They share the biblical creation account, the image of God, the revelation given through Moses, the Decalogue, the prophets’ demands for justice, and the conviction that rulers and ordinary people alike remain accountable to a law above human power. Christianity receives this Jewish moral inheritance; it does not replace it or create one of its own. Christians and Jews disagree profoundly over the identity of Jesus, the Messiah, salvation, and the world to come. But their basic moral vocabulary concerning life, truth, fidelity, justice, responsibility, worship, family, property, and care for the vulnerable is the same. Every parent teaches their child about reality and morality. The difference is that the religious parent is honest about the source of that morality, whereas a secular parent is not. Truth is objective, whether you chose to accept that or not. You can raise your child however you want. But pretending secular morality is neutral is just not true.

Insurrection Barbie

31,422 次观看 • 5 天前

BAP is cautiously starting to take an interest in KIROK. A delightful development. Here he’s talking about how politics needs art. Art comes before morality and politics because art emerges directly from life itself, while morality and politics arise later as attempts to regulate, tame, or justify that life. “You can put all the new facts into peoples minds. But if they feel the same way, they will use them for their ends.” “The primary fight, I think, is on people’s moral valuations, and even more so on what precedes that, on the ground of morality in aesthetic appreciation and taste, how you form people’s tastes.” “If i can introduce to the world, new human types, new desires and ways of life, which I get from history and literature. But many intellectuals always forget this step: you have to transfer that through a modern possibility prism. And humor is your only path to jolt an audience and show something fundamentally new.” “At some point you have to make your own books, movies, videos, and so on. It can’t just be tweets and streaming. This New York thing, for example, it’s been going on for what? I’ve known about it for at least two years now. Tell me of one art piece that you know of or would watch again, whether movie or book or anything like that, that’s come out of that? I like art collectives that actually make art. That’s why I’m interested in this Dutch… I see it as a humor art collective, it’s called KIROK. I don’t know it very well yet, but I’m curious. I watched some of their movies. They’re quite funny.”

KIRAC

38,470 次观看 • 7 个月前