Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

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...

157,315 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

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

116,176 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

“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

49,349 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

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

123,658 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

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 🇪🇺

27,983 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

FRIDAY TORAH WITH ARI FULD Z”L 🕯️ (Part of our scheduled content...always pinned) Ari Fuld was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist—but even after being critically wounded, he fought back and helped save others. His courage, advocacy, love of Israel and love of Torah continue to inspire. In this week’s Grilling in Torah episode on Parshat Re’eh, Ari explores a fundamental question: Who gets to define morality? 🔥 The Torah is a way of life—not a system of prizes and punishments. When the Torah places “blessing and curse” before us, Ari explains that the blessing is found in living according to a moral path, not simply waiting for a reward. 🔥 Morality cannot change whenever society changes its mind. Ari challenges the idea of moral relativism—the belief that each person or society can ultimately define right and wrong for itself. Torah demands an objective moral compass that does not shift with fashion, politics or convenience. 🔥 “Doing what is right in your own eyes” is not enough. Especially in the Land of Israel, Ari argues that Jewish sovereignty must mean more than simply creating another Western country. Israel has a unique purpose, rooted in Torah, responsibility and Jewish values. 🔥 Values mean little without action. Whether supporting soldiers, helping those less fortunate or standing for what we believe is right, Ari’s message is that conviction must eventually become something we actually do. May Ari's words of Torah, courage and legacy continue to live on. The Ari Fuld Project

Mossad Commentary

29,714 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Overwhelming thoughts You feel panic or uncertainty when faced with an overwhelming thought, a painful emotion, or a trigger from your past. Doubts flood your mind: I don’t know how to handle this. What if I mess it up? What if it’s already too late to change this part of my life? This is just who I am. Why should I try to change now? Maybe I’m not strong enough. But here’s the truth: You’re ready. You are well trained, equipped with everything you need, and mentally prepared for what’s going to happen when you start operating. Equally important is what will happen if you don’t operate: Things will stay the same or get worse because the default process is also a type of self–brain surgery. The sad truth is that default leads to decline and that choosing not to change is choosing to stay the same. You see, neuroplasticity works all the time in your brain, and response to every thought you have, whether you take charge of the process or not. So when those automatic and negative thoughts pop into your head, and you accept them without critically, examining them or challenging them to replace them with something more true, your brain wires them in as if they are true. The bottom line? You're either getting better at staying the same/getting worse, or you're getting better at getting better. Self-brain surgeons get better at getting better. The ninth Commandment of self-brain surgery is this: I must believe that I'm getting better at what I'm doing. II Timothy 1:7 says God did not give you a spirit of fear, but of power, of love, and of a sound mind. II Peter 1:3 sad that his divine power has given you everything you need for your life. So what's going to have the final say for you? Your automatic thoughts that research suggests are almost always wrong? Or scripture, which never changes and reflects the timeless truth of God's plan for you and is being validated every day by 21st-century neuroscience findings. Let's get better at getting better together. Hit that follow button, save this for later when you need to remember something true, and share it with a friend who needs to believe that they really can get better. And click the link in my bio to learn more about my New York Times best seller, The Life-Changing Art of Self-Brain Surgery. #neuroscience #selfbrainsurgery #neurosurgeon #mentalhealth

Dr. Lee Warren

17,336 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

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

31,536 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten