Objective Morality to Black Hebrew Israelite and Bad Logic | Apologetics Live 0018

Striving for Eternity Videos

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:10

This is Apologetics Live with Matt Slick and Andrew Rappaport, part of the community.

00:27

Alright, we are live, Apologetics Live. Glad that you are out here with us.

00:33

We are with our resident apologist, Mr. Matt Slick from CARM, who's been doing apologetics for almost 40 years.

00:45

And I just want to actually, that was actually just a test. See, last week he got upset when I said more than 30 years.

00:52

He wanted, no, 39. 39. He wanted to make me the precision. 39. I want to see if you can do the same thing when

00:58

I said almost 40. I want to see. No, because you're right. It's almost 40. It's 39. That's the number of mercies in the

01:04

Bible. It was right when I said more than 32. Technically, yeah, but let's just not shave off too much.

01:14

I've been doing this a long time. A long time. Alright, so this is a show for you folks who are watching live.

01:23

You can join in. You can ask any kinds of questions you want. We usually do, for the most part, a

01:29

Q &A. The link to join is at apologeticslive .com.

01:36

You can see the link. Usually we end up having to wait to put that link in until just before we go live because of the way

01:42

Google Hangouts work, but we may change that in the future. We do have someone in who says he's a soft atheist and wants to discuss the position of objective standard of morality, so that'll be a good one.

01:59

Matt, there's something that happened. I actually didn't get a chance to talk to you yet about this, but Stan Therese, and I don't know if you're familiar with that ministry,

02:05

Greg Koukos. Yeah, I've talked to Greg before. Yeah, so they do a thing where they get their speakers to come in and will go into youth groups and either pretend to be a

02:18

Muslim or pretend to be an atheist and grill the students, and the students don't know that they're actually

02:24

Christian. So these guys realize that there's some tough questions to be answered, and then they start showing how to answer these things simply.

02:35

Well, I guess someone that's on their mailing list, that they actually invited into one of the youth groups to grill students themselves, a professing atheist, and that person chose not to show, but gave the email where they talked about doing this to a guy called the friendly atheist, and the friendly atheist,

02:52

I guess, made a mockery of it, saying that they were probably asking softball just so that they could say, oh, see, they were able to stump the fake atheist, the pretend atheist.

03:05

But I kind of saw something that is pretty common that you and I see all the time, guys that say they have really good arguments that come in saying atheism, and then they use dishonesty in their argumentation, where they'll sit there, and instead of dealing with real definitions, they just misrepresent.

03:25

And so I think that's one of the things we see pretty regularly with a lot of the atheist community, right?

03:34

Yeah. You know, I try to get him to talk, and what does he do?

03:40

All right, so before we bring the first person in. I answered the question. I love doing that to you, too. You set me up, and I go, yeah, just dead air.

03:49

It always gets you every time. Well, sometimes they're dishonest. Sometimes their arguments are just not good, you know.

03:58

So we should, you know, you're with Karm .org. I don't know if I plug this. Karm .org,

04:04

Christian Apologetics Research Ministry, 39 years. Matt's been doing it because he likes the precision of it.

04:11

I'm Andrew Rapport with Striving for Eternity. And just to give a plug.

04:18

Actually, do I have it? I'll give a plug later for the conference we've got coming up with Justin Peters.

04:26

So we'll probably play that later. But since we've got someone in here, I'm going to add him.

04:32

And a hint to folks, if you want to get in. And everyone likes to come in at the end and ask all these really great questions, and you get good dialogue.

04:40

Come in right when we begin, and you get the floor until other people start showing up. So that's the smart way of doing it.

04:47

You get the most time, and we don't have to cut you off. So I just added John here.

04:53

And John says he's a soft atheist who came in to discuss his position that there is no objective standard for morality.

05:02

So you can unmute yourself, John. I hope you can. Can you hear me okay?

05:08

Yeah, there we go. So go ahead, ask your question.

05:15

So basically, I was just – I see that most people, including

05:21

Matt Slick, believe in the idea that there's an objective standard of morality.

05:28

And I believe that this is a mistake. And I believe I can demonstrate how it's a mistake.

05:36

Okay, go ahead. So first of all, I believe you believe in the correspondence theory of truth.

05:42

Is that correct? Yeah, I lean towards that. And so – or propositional logic, you know, something is true if it corresponds to a standard.

05:52

Basically, yeah. Okay. So first of all, the question is how can you – how do we determine what is the correct moral standard?

06:04

Well, God reveals it to us. But how do we know that – how can that be – how can that possibly be correct if God is simply giving us his biased opinion?

06:16

How can it be correct if God is telling us what's right? Yeah, isn't that just God's subjective opinion?

06:24

Define what you mean by subjective. Well, objective means it's unbiased by any personal position.

06:33

Subjective would be biased by their position. Objective means not biased? Independent of any personal opinion or position, perspective.

06:45

In relationship to who? In relationship to anyone. Okay. So is

06:53

God's declaration of what is right and wrong therefore incorrect? It would be subjective.

07:02

And if it's based on his character, which would not be subjective because he's absolute, knows all things all the time.

07:08

He knows exactly what is right because it reflects his character. Then it's just based on his character. If you want to call it subjective, then go ahead and call it subjective.

07:15

When you say it's right, what do you mean? What's the standard by which you measure that it's right? God reveals what is right as is consistent with his character.

07:25

So basically what you're saying is that it's consistent with God's character is what makes it right? Yeah. And that's your opinion?

07:33

That's what God has revealed to us in the Word of God, the Bible. Okay. But again, you're going with this is what

07:39

God has revealed. So God reveals his position, his subjective position. Well, he's telling us what is right and is wrong.

07:49

And he's telling us so that it's no longer subjective to us, but now it's objective to us. So you think that something can be objective to us even though it's subjective to somebody else?

07:59

Well, the way you're defining subjectivity. You see, if God is the one who knows everything all the time and he reveals to a side of his character what is right, then it becomes an objective truth for us, right?

08:10

Wouldn't you agree? I would not agree. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. If it's no, no, no, no.

08:16

If the truth is revealed from God, then to us, isn't that truth then non -subjective to us?

08:22

Well, now you're calling it truth. Is not the truth of the moral reality, not subjective to us, but objective.

08:29

Isn't that correct? Well, again, you're talking about a moral reality being true. You're assuming something. When God reveals something to us, he reveals something based on his character, what is right and what is wrong.

08:40

Thou shalt not murder, for example. Then it becomes an objective truth to us. Is that not correct?

08:46

I would say that is not correct. It's not objective truth to us. So now it's a subjective truth to you?

08:53

No. It is. It is. It's not subjective. It is not objective. If it's neither subjective or objective, then what is it?

09:01

It is not. It is subjective. The question is not whether it's subjective or objective. Wait a minute. How can it be subjective?

09:07

That means it's based on your personal preference, your personal desires. But if it comes from God, it's not then based on your personal preferences.

09:15

So it would be objective to you, wouldn't it? It would be. It would be based on God's personal opinions and desires.

09:20

I said to you. You don't really want to answer the question.

09:26

Because I've already got you worked into a corner. The fact is God reveals his word to us.

09:31

He reveals what is morally right. He is the standard of righteousness. He reveals it to us. The issue of subjectivity and objectivity deals with us.

09:39

And what we're talking about here is what is morally right and wrong. You don't have all knowledge. You do not know if God exists.

09:45

You're a soft atheist. So, therefore, the only thing you have is your subjective opinion about things.

09:51

So you are not qualified to be able to tell us what is objective. Particularly when we as Christians tell you that God has revealed what is objective to us.

10:00

That's what I'm telling you. So if God reveals something to us, it's no longer. It's not a subjective thing to us.

10:07

It's an objective thing to us, isn't it? No, it is not. You want to claim that it's objective to me.

10:14

So if God reveals something, now it's subjective to us? If he says don't lie, that means it's just subjective to my opinion?

10:23

It is subjective to God's opinion. If God is saying this is what you should do. Yeah, let's just say it's subjective to God's opinion.

10:30

I keep asking you about you, and you keep misrepresenting the answer. Misrepresenting my question.

10:36

I ask you, let's try it again. Is not the revealed truth from God to you?

10:42

And it's objective to you? Can you answer that? The idea that something is objective to me does not make any sense.

10:50

What do you mean, objective? What does objectivity mean? Objectivity means free of any bias.

10:58

If it is God's bias, then it has to be a certain thing. Can you show me that definition?

11:04

Show me that definition in an authoritative source. That's what it means. Now you want me to appeal to authority?

11:12

Dude, are you serious? Wait a minute. Let's just go off your subjective opinion of what it is.

11:20

Let's just do that. What dictionary would you accept? Whatever you want to use. Tell me what objectivity is.

11:26

Let's give something besides your subjective opinion of what it really is. Let's go to something more objective. Okay, I have to go to Webster's Dictionary.

11:34

What does it say for objective? Okay. Webster's Dictionary.

11:43

I'll type in the word objective. You should have already done this homework. You should have already known what your terms mean.

11:51

I know what my terms mean, but I can't say that they're going to mean the same thing to you.

11:56

You've already demonstrated that they don't. Relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence.

12:05

Of or relating to being or object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience.

12:11

Independent of individual thought and perceptual by all observers. So what makes you think that your subjective definition is the right one?

12:23

My subjective definition being the right one is simply a matter of consensus, just like morality.

12:32

Whoa. You complain about appeal to authority. Now you're appealing to argumentum and populum. The majority.

12:37

No, no, no, no. Consensus. So consensus is what it means now?

12:44

No, it's a matter of. What's your definition again? What's your definition of objectivity?

12:53

Free of bias. Free of bias. Personal bias. Free of personal.

13:01

Oh, so what you're doing is. Oh, so by definition, you just define it that way.

13:08

Can you demonstrate to me that that's the correct definition to work with? Can you demonstrate it's not?

13:13

I asked you to demonstrate your assertion to be true. You're asking me what my definition is.

13:20

And I asked you if you can verify that it's true. You said free from bias. That's correct.

13:26

That is my definition. If you accept my definition, then we have a consensus and we can move forward.

13:32

If you don't accept my definition, we don't have a consensus and we can't move forward.

13:38

Well, I don't accept your definition because I read what the Webster's Dictionary, which you referenced.

13:44

You said use that one. I did. It doesn't agree with you. I would beg to differ.

13:50

If we are using Webster's Dictionary, it agrees with what I'm saying. Wow. So relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence.

14:06

That agrees with your definition that it means free of personal bias. Yes. Wow.

14:14

Of or relating to or being an object, phenomena or condition in the realm of sensible experience, independent of individual thought and perceptual by all observers, having reality independent of the mind.

14:25

That means without bias. That is correct. Wow. Okay.

14:33

I guess then you concede that I'm correct. I am conceding that if you want to agree with the

14:41

Webster's Dictionary and I agree with the Webster's Dictionary on the definition, then we can move forward.

14:48

I'm glad that you just acknowledged that I'm correct and that you don't know what you're doing. Thank you.

14:56

I mean, that was easy. It didn't take much. I think you're being disingenuous now,

15:02

Matt. Oh, thank you. I didn't think that you liked me that much, but, you know, it's a nice compliment.

15:08

Thank you. No, my point is that I think that you're basically assuming that you won without actually demonstrated the case.

15:17

No, I don't have a new car. No, I don't.

15:24

I don't know where you got that. Exactly what I'm talking about. If we don't have a consensus of meaning, we can't move forward.

15:29

No, I'm not bald. What? Were you getting that? Seriously, what is up with you?

15:37

Wow. I guess,

15:43

John, you don't know what you're doing, do you? Because if I'm going to read you a definition and then you just reinterpret it to mean whatever you want it to mean in light of what you desire, then

15:51

I can do the exact same thing to you. If you're not going to go with what the consensus of what you required was

15:56

Webster's Dictionary, which does not say what you said, and then you say, but it does say that, how are we going to have any rational discourse whatsoever?

16:03

Since you cannot demonstrate to me that you know what you're talking about in subjectivity, you can't define it.

16:09

When I asked you to define it, you said you define it. I said, where do you want me to go? Webster's. You couldn't even define it for yourself.

16:14

I go there. It doesn't agree with you. And then you say it does. Do you really understand how ridiculous your presentation is so far?

16:26

Oh, I understand how you're making it out and how you're trying to put it to the audience that is watching.

16:34

I'm not trying to. I'm simply doing what's obvious. You're the one demonstrating that you don't have the ability to think critically in this area.

16:45

You just defined it in a way not consistent with what the dictionary said that you want me to reference.

16:51

What you want to do is say it means any personal bias.

16:56

And you say, well, God has a personal. Therefore, it's not objective. So what you're doing is defining it in a very narrow way, specifically and purposely, which is not done in the dictionary.

17:05

You wanted to cite so you can apply to God so that you can try and win an argument, which really is no argument.

17:11

Let's look at one B. When I asked you specifically, I said, is it objective to you?

17:18

The truth you said, no, it's not. And you said it's also not subjective. We only have two options here, subjectivity and objectivity.

17:25

And then I asked you if it's not subjective and it's not objective, then what is it? Can you answer that question?

17:31

And my answer was that it's not about subjectivity or objectivity. It's about your characterization of it being true.

17:39

That's what it is. So that's your subjective opinion about what is true about the word subjectivity and objectivity. I'd like to reference the one

17:48

B. One B, of relating to, which I've already quoted several times, of being or object, of relating to, of being or object, phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience, independent of individual thought, and perceptible by all observers.

18:03

Yeah. Yeah. Independent of individual thought. So any individual, individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

18:14

Okay. Independent of the mind. You are independent of the mind?

18:20

No, I'm saying that this is the definition of objectivity that we are referring to.

18:26

Okay. Existence independent of the mind. Something that exists without us knowing it exists.

18:32

No. It's independent of the mind. Independent of our mind. If it's independent of our minds, then it exists without us having to know it, right?

18:44

Okay. This glass I'm holding in my hand, does this exist independent of your mind? No, I'm seeing it.

18:51

So you're saying that if you cease to exist, this glass would cease to exist as well?

18:58

Wow. Does that, did anybody hear me say that? No, you said you're seeing it, so you're saying it exists dependent upon your mind.

19:06

No, I didn't say that. I didn't say that. No, I didn't say that. I didn't say that. Is it dependent or independent?

19:13

It's not dependent upon my mind, which is why I said if a mind is not there, it still exists.

19:21

So that makes it not dependent. It makes it independent of your mind. Not dependent upon the mind for its existence.

19:27

Which mind is the dictionary talking about there? Any and all. Any and all?

19:32

Does it say any and all? It doesn't say any and all. It's implied. Okay. So, in other words, you've just now defined

19:39

God out of existence because an object exists objectively without any mind.

19:46

So since God would know about it, it can't exist or he can't exist? Is that what you're trying to say?

19:52

No, that's not what I'm trying to say at all. What are you trying to say? I'm trying to say that things which exist in material reality exist independent of whether or not

20:03

I'm thinking about them, you're thinking about them. Yeah, I know that. That's what objectivity is.

20:09

Okay, we've come to a consensus on what that means. To us, yes. No, not to us.

20:15

To us makes it subjective. It does not depend on our existence for its existence.

20:24

It doesn't depend upon anyone. Anyone's existence. How do you know that's the case?

20:31

So let's take an example, okay? Wait a minute. How do you know the glass is not dependent upon anyone's existence?

20:38

I don't know that. You just said it's not dependent upon anyone's. No, I'm saying that that's what the standard of objectivity is.

20:46

Okay. You're running in circles because you know what's going on.

20:52

You know where the problem is and you're just running around in circles playing word games. No, don't tell me what

20:58

I know. You're not making any sense to me. Okay. Back up.

21:05

Try and make some point. Try and make some point. I mean, I don't know what you're doing. Okay.

21:13

You believe in the correspondence theory of truth, correct? I said I lean towards that way, yes. If you lean, does that mean you believe it or you don't believe it?

21:22

I lean towards that. Okay, good enough. That's what I said. What's your next statement? Okay. So the correspondence theory of truth requires that a standard exists, correct?

21:34

I can't say yes or no. A standard against which you would measure any proposition. I can't say yes or no.

21:41

I don't know what you mean by proposition. John, define your term. You define it.

21:48

So, for example, if you want to say that this glass exists, the standard against which you measure is existence.

21:59

Standard? Are you serious? The standard that I measure it's a glass is against its own existence?

22:07

Well, I claim that this glass exists. Yeah. The claim is measured against its actual existence.

22:14

Does it actually exist? Or I could say this is a toaster. Then you measure the claim of is this glass a toaster?

22:23

You're just making statements that linguistically agree with what the statements are revealing about an object.

22:31

Okay. Now what? So then if we're going to say that there is a standard.

22:38

Standard. What's a standard? That's a great question. So a standard is an object or a thing against which we measure other things or compare other things.

22:50

All right. Okay. Let's go with that. Yeah. Okay. So if there is an objective standard, then the objective standard must be a standard which is independent of any particular opinion, position.

23:07

Oh, I get what you're doing. So by the definition that you're using, you automatically win by defining it the way you do.

23:15

That's all you're doing. You're saying A is B because B is A. What you're doing is you're saying objectivity means that there can be no mind involved in anything about the knowledge concept or knowledge claim about it.

23:27

Therefore, that means God can't have any objective standard easily. That's what you've done. All you've done is defined it that way.

23:33

Not just God, but anybody. There cannot be any objective standard. That's all you've done is just defined it. That's all you've done is just defined it that way.

23:42

And that's it. So you want to see there's no objective moral standard. So you're going to say there's no more objective standard to God, right?

23:50

There is no objective moral standard at all. At all. So you're saying that you know of all situations, all minds, and all standards.

23:59

And so universally, there's no objective moral standard. No, I'm saying that the whole notion of an objective standard is nonsensical.

24:06

Okay, are statements true or false? Based on what standard? Oh, crap.

24:13

Are you serious? Two plus two equals four. Is that true? By the standard of mathematics, yes.

24:22

Is a statement true or false? I am a man. Is it simply true? It's not simply true.

24:29

It's true based on the standard that we agree upon. What's a standard? The standard we agree upon, which happens to be what defines you as a man.

24:39

And whether that standard is something we agree upon as correct. Okay. So is a statement true or false?

24:49

Is a statement true or false depends upon the standard. If we're talking about the standard of...

24:55

Okay. A horse normally has four legs. Is that true or false? Since we have a standard of what horses is, which we agree to commonly, we can say yes, a horse normally has four legs.

25:07

The English language uses verbs and nouns. Is that true or false? Since we agree upon the standard of the

25:13

English language, yes, we can say it is true. Okay. So the square root of nine is three.

25:20

Is that true or false? Since we agree on the standard of what nine and square roots and three are, yes.

25:26

We can say that is true. Okay. So yours is... Okay.

25:32

So here's a statement. Is it true or false? It's always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for one's personal pleasure.

25:40

Based on what standard? You tell me. You're the one who's developing all the standards. So if we agree upon the standard that torturing babies is wrong because we have a notion that it's not good to cause harm to babies, then...

25:58

Define what good is. What's good? Good is just a subjective judgment that we have that says this is something that's desirable or...

26:07

You can't know if it's good or bad to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure. I can know for myself whether it is, and I can know based on a particular standard that I am aware of.

26:19

And what's your belief? What's your opinion on this? It is always wrong for everyone to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure.

26:25

It is my personal... Agree or disagree? It is my personal opinion that it is always wrong to do so. Okay. So I just said it's always wrong for everyone.

26:33

So your personal opinion is that there is a universal absolute moral standard that applies to everybody independent of their existence and independent of their desires and knowledge.

26:43

You just affirmed an objective moral standard. No, I would not say independent of...

26:49

Sure it is. No. It's your opinion that it exists. It's your opinion that it's true for everybody, everybody all the time.

26:57

That's an objective standard to them. It is not objective, but it is absolute and it is universal.

27:02

Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You just said that according to your belief, it's always wrong for everyone.

27:10

That's what we call an objective standard. Okay. That it applies universally to everybody.

27:16

It's independent of their preferences or personal preferences. That's what objectivity means.

27:22

That's what the real definition means. So now you're defining what the real definition means.

27:30

So you're redefining it. I'm not redefining it. You're the one who said bias. Yeah. Look, is it always true?

27:38

Is the statement true? It's always wrong for anyone. And you said, yeah, it is always wrong for anyone.

27:44

How do you assert that as being a universally valid statement in your subjective non -objective moral universe?

27:53

It is the standard which I hold to. It is the standard that I would impose upon others.

28:00

Whoa. So now you would impose upon others your opinion? Yes, absolutely.

28:06

Everybody does. So you have the right now to impose upon everybody your subjective standard.

28:15

What do you mean by right? Oh, brother. So you have the right. You have the authority.

28:21

You're the one who's saying it's good for you to do this. That you are the one who said, yeah, I would impose it upon everybody else.

28:26

So you're the one who's saying you have that right to be able to do that. I'm saying that if others did not agree with me about torturing babies,

28:34

I would actually act against their desires and wills to prevent them to do so.

28:39

Yes. Are they wrong if they disagree with you? By the standard that I hold to and the standard by which society would generally hold them to, yes.

28:49

So your subjective standard. How do you know your subjective standard is the right one? Again, what do you mean by the right one?

28:58

How do you know your subjective standard is the right one? Because you want to impose it on everybody else. Why should anybody else listen to you?

29:03

Why is yours the one that should be listened to? So basically, again, it's a matter of consensus.

29:09

It's a matter of agreement among the members of society. If they don't agree with you, why do you have the right to impose your value on people that don't agree with you?

29:19

In that society, I don't suppose I would have that right. You just said you do. You said you have the right to impose it on others.

29:26

You said you would force it on other people. Yes, I would. You wouldn't be doing it because you don't have the right.

29:32

You'd be doing it because you say you're having the right. You're inconsistent. No, I would not say

29:37

I have the right. So you don't have the right, but you would impose it on them anyway.

29:43

Yes, because I feel strongly against the torture of babies. So you feel it, and that's why your opinion is the one that should be imposed upon others by your judgment.

29:56

I would say that, yes, I would impose it on other people based on how I feel about that particular subject.

30:03

And I would have the consensus of the vast majority of society, I believe. Who gives a flying rip what the consensus of the majority says?

30:10

You don't even know if that's the right standard. The consensus of the majority of people believes slavery was right and wrong at different times in different parts of the world.

30:16

Consensus means nothing. It's called argumentative ad populum. It's a fallacy of logical argumentation, which you've employed several times.

30:22

So if I were to come into your home, if I were to come in your home with a gun, I would not do this. But I came in your home and I robbed you, and you said,

30:29

I don't like it. And I say, bang, they shoot you. Am I right or wrong for doing that? You would be wrong by my standard because it's something that I would do.

30:39

I'm not talking about your standard. Talk about my standard. Let's talk about my standard. I'm the one. Am I right or am

30:44

I wrong? You would have to tell me whether or not that agrees with the standard that you believe in and hold to.

30:50

So if I say, I believe that this is okay for me to do, and I shoot you, am I wrong for that, objectively?

30:57

Objectively, no. There's no possibility. There's no problem with it. It's not an issue of right or wrong for you, is it?

31:03

It's just an issue of who has the gun. When you say it's not an issue of right or wrong, there's nothing wrong with it.

31:09

What I'm saying is that I have a problem with it. You, in that particular hypothetical situation, would not.

31:15

I don't care if you have a problem with it. Who cares? I got the gun. Exactly. And so it's just a matter of force.

31:20

So this is where we have morality. Wait a minute. You said it was okay to force your view that it's wrong for everybody to do that thing about the baby thing.

31:29

You said it's okay to do that. So it's okay for me to be consistent. Is it okay for me to shoot you and use my force?

31:36

I said I would do that. And you're saying that you would shoot me. In that hypothetical situation, let no one take it out of context.

31:43

I'm not going to do it. You're inconsistent. You said you would force your view on others, and that's okay with you.

31:50

But if I do the exact same thing, then it's not okay with you. So your system contradicts itself.

31:56

How can it be true? It doesn't contradict itself at all. I'm saying morality is a matter of consensus. If we disagree with each other, we have conflicting morals or ethics, then we don't live peacefully among each other.

32:09

You and me. You and me. You and me. There's three factors.

32:15

You, me, and my Glock. All right? So the Glock and me win. The consensus is.

32:22

And if I happen to have a buddy of mine, and it's two people against you, our consensus wins.

32:29

According to you, it's okay to do. No, not according to me, it's okay to do. According to you, it's okay to do.

32:35

According to us, according to what you're saying, to be consistent, you have to say, yes, it's right, because the consensus would agree.

32:44

No, no, no. I'm saying that as far as society is concerned, society might say it's all right to.

32:51

So you disagree with slavery back in the 1800s? Absolutely, I disagree with slavery in the 1800s.

32:56

The consensus of society was that it was okay. Who are you? You are so inconsistent.

33:02

No, I'm not inconsistent at all. I would be inconsistent if I suggested that there was an objective moral standard which permitted slavery.

33:11

Wait a minute. Or an objective moral standard which opposed slavery and then permitted it.

33:17

You said that you went with a consensus. Okay. The consensus of America 200 years ago said slavery was okay.

33:24

You, by your own view, would have to say, well, they were right. It was okay to hold slaves.

33:30

That's what you would say. No, what I would say is that society is saying that it's right, and I would be in direct opposition to society just as many of the people in that society were.

33:41

You said by consensus. Were they right when the consensus said that slavery was okay? By the standard of society at that time, they were right.

33:50

Okay. So they were right. Now, here's a problem. So 200 years ago, they were right, but now they would be wrong if the consensus was still the same?

33:58

If the consensus was still the same that slavery is right or wrong, I'm not quite following your question.

34:04

That's right. If the consensus today was the same as it was 200 years ago, you have to say that it was okay to do.

34:10

If the consensus of society today said that slavery is still right, I would still be opposed to it, but society would still be opposed.

34:19

You'd be inconsistent because you said your morality goes with the consensus. So now you're not saying your morality goes with the consensus.

34:25

No. You're inconsistent yet again. No, that is not what I'm saying, nor what I said. What I said is

34:30

I have my sense of morality, which may differ from that of society, and if it differs from society,

34:38

I'm willing, in many instances, not all, to actually go against what society says.

34:45

That's right. If the society I lived in said it's okay to torture babies or to enslave people,

34:51

I would be opposed to that society, and I would act to subvert that society and prevent what

34:57

I consider to be wrong and immoral and harmful, even though that's not what society is saying it is.

35:03

Do you believe in universal moral absolutes? I believe that a universal moral absolute is something that a person can hold and say that all society or all people ought to behave a particular way, but I do not believe that such a universal moral absolute is an objective fact.

35:24

Is a moral an abstraction? Morals are, in a sense, an abstraction, yes.

35:30

So it's an abstraction. So you have a universal absolute moral truth. I would not call it a truth.

35:38

It's not true that we should not torture babies to death? It's okay to do it? Or is it false? Statements are true or false.

35:44

So is it true or is it false? That isn't always wrong. Is it true or false?

35:50

It's always wrong for everyone to torture babies to death merely for one's personal pleasure. Is that true or is it false? According to whose standard?

35:56

According to my standard, it is true. According to some other person who enjoys that and believes that that's what people should do, that would be false.

36:02

So then you would have the ability to justify that it's okay to murder people, babies, torture them to death merely for their personal pleasure, if it's their opinion.

36:10

And you'd say, well, for them it's okay, because it is okay for them. No, I'm saying that they would think that it's okay.

36:16

I would not justify their behavior according to my standard. Who cares? So whose standard is right?

36:22

Yours or theirs? They differ with you. Which one's the right one? Again, you're asking whether or not there's a, or you're basically trying to get them to say that there's an objective moral standard when there's not.

36:32

Which one's right or wrong if you disagree on something? By whose standard? You two are disagreeing which one's right or which one's wrong.

36:41

They both can't be right and they both can't be wrong because they're mutually exclusive. So one person would say hypothetically it's always wrong to murder and someone else might say it's not always wrong to murder or it's always wrong to lie, not always wrong, whatever it is.

36:53

There can't be a third option. How do you determine if either one is true or both are true or are both false?

36:59

Because if you can't decide if one is true and the other one is false, then you don't have any way of knowing if there is any truth or is any falsity and your statements don't have any truth or falsity value to them.

37:13

So again, it depends on the standard that you're measuring the question against. If you cannot determine what is true and false, even your statements about what is true and your opinions have no meaning because they have no truth or false value to them.

37:29

They're nothing more than your personal preference of subjectivity. And the only thing you've got to offer is, it's just what

37:37

I like. That's all you've got. And who gives a flying rip? But what you're saying is that I have to compare the standard or compare the statement to some standard, some objective standard for it to be an objective truth.

37:51

Well, that's what you keep on pointing out and saying, how do I do that? But the point is that all standards are subjective.

37:58

Are you absolutely sure about that? The only standard or the only thing that's objective is our measurement against the standard.

38:05

And we can say objectively, yet this applies to the standard and is true or this applies to the standard and is false.

38:14

So are you familiar with basic logic? Yes. Law of identity?

38:21

Yes. What is it? Law of identity is the notion that an entity is identical to itself.

38:29

What's the law of non -contradiction? It is the idea that no two propositions, which are mutually contradictory, can be true simultaneously.

38:40

Law of excluded middle. That if you have two propositions, which entail all options or all possibilities, that there is no third option, which is neither the one proposition or the other.

38:56

In other words, the LEM, law of excluded middle, says statements are either true or false.

39:03

So what you're doing is you're rephrasing things to find favor with your subjective opinion. And then what you're trying to do is argue from your subjective opinion upon others.

39:11

Do you see the hypocrisy here? You're trying to impose a value upon others. That's nothing more than your subjective opinion.

39:20

So I do not see that as hypocrisy, but I do see... Sure it is. No. It would only be hypocrisy if I am imposing a standard upon others, which

39:30

I do not hold for myself. Well, you see, does

39:36

God exist? I don't know. Does morality exist? Morality, as I've defined it, exists in the minds of the individuals holding such a notion.

39:47

Okay, does universal absolute moral truths exist? Do they? Universal absolute moral truths exist?

39:53

No. Okay, so they don't exist. So you're now saying... So I'm saying that universal moral propositions or truths do exist.

40:02

Now, your statement and my statement cannot both be true, correct? That is correct.

40:08

So which one is true? The one which conforms to reality. And how would you know it conforms to reality?

40:16

We have to look at whether or not the statement that you made makes semantic sense.

40:21

Whether or not you can say that there's such a thing as objective standards. And how would you do that?

40:28

How would you do that? You, you, you, you.

40:34

How would I do it? I would say, okay, what is the standard by which we can measure whether or not an objective standard exists?

40:41

What's the standard by which you can measure a standard? Yes, because all truth is comparative.

40:47

You already agreed or said that you lean that way. You have to compare truth or a proposition whether or not it's true.

40:54

Let's back up. Let's back up. I say there are such things as universal moral absolutes. You say no.

41:00

I'm asking you, tell me how to determine which statement is correct. Hey Matt, try not to talk over each other.

41:06

Okay. How do you determine which one's correct? So how would I determine which statement is correct?

41:11

I would first have to parse out the statement and say, does, do the words actually make any sense together?

41:20

It's like saying, is there a true, true favorite color? What's your standard of true parsing for the words to make sense?

41:30

So when we parse language and we parse a sentence group, we have to, basically what we're parsing is the meaning.

41:39

So we're saying, what do these particular words actually mean? And when we put them together, do they actually mean something that can be rationally comprehended?

41:48

How do you know that's correct? How do you know what the meaning of a certain word is? So the meaning of a certain word is a matter of consensus.

41:56

That's why we have so many different languages out there with so many different words and so many different meanings. So how do you know that a manner of consensus is the right way to go with what words mean?

42:07

So how do we know this really comes down to a matter of pragmatism? Does it actually work to communicate ideas, to actually interact with the universe, to actually survive and thrive in society?

42:22

That's called pragmatism. What works seems to be the truth. Yeah, well, that's obviously flawed. What is the truth?

42:29

It's what works is what seems to work. What works, works, which is tautologous. Yeah. Doesn't really produce anything.

42:35

I'm asking you to show me, explain right now how you're going to, and then use whatever it is you explain, whatever method you use, and tell us which statement is true.

42:47

There are no objective moral truths. There are objective moral truths. Please tell us, go through the process, connect the dots, and tell us how you arrive at which one is absolutely true.

42:57

Okay, so a moral is a prescription or a proscription of behavior.

43:07

So it's basically something which we say people ought to do. So can there be a standard of what people ought to do, which exists apart from any person thinking what people ought to do?

43:26

And so if we say, if it can, then we can say that that's objective. But if we say there can't be a standard which exists apart from anybody thinking it, then that can't be objective.

43:40

It doesn't have any independent existence. It exists only in a person's mind. Tell us which statement's true.

43:49

I'm asking you to conclude which one's true. So if we say, can an objective moral standard exist?

43:57

Well, we say, can a moral standard exist independent of any person's mind?

44:05

Well, no. We can't see that that happens, because all moral standards exist only in people's minds.

44:12

They don't have independent existence. Therefore, they cannot exist objectively. There cannot be an objective moral standard.

44:24

So you said a moral is a prescription of behavior, something that people ought to do. That's correct. Okay. Or something that they ought not to do.

44:32

Why ought they do it? That, again, is the whole thing about the subjectivity of the moral statement.

44:40

Why ought they do anything? Explain why they ought to do something.

44:47

So in a general sense, a person ought to do something, because either they feel like they have a sentiment which says that this is something that ought to be done in order to create a particular ideal or maintain a particular ideal, or they ought not to do it for a similar reason.

45:07

So ought is based on nothing more than personal preference. Preference or sentiment, basically, yes.

45:16

And how do you know that this is the right way to determine what someone ought to do? How do

45:22

I know whether something is what somebody ought to do? Is that the question? Well, no, you said that what they ought to do.

45:30

I asked why ought they do something. You said they ought to do something because they feel it ought to be done, based on preference and sentiments.

45:37

Yes. This is basically what the whole is -ought dilemma or question that David Hume talked about way back in the early times.

45:46

So if I feel something that I ought to do is come over and rob you, and I sentimentally think that's what

45:54

I ought to do, then that is a good moral behavior, according to you. No, according to you.

46:01

No, according to you. No, according to you, because you're the one that's having that thought that you ought to do it. No, you said that this is what's defined by, and you're saying that's what makes it good.

46:12

I applied it and say this is what I'm doing, so therefore it is good by nature.

46:18

No, no. So either you're misunderstanding me deliberately or unintentionally. I'm going to assume that it was unintentional.

46:30

Someone's got their thing. Go ahead. So what I'm saying is that if a particular individual thinks that this is what they ought to do or what others ought to do, that is their individual subjective standard of behavior.

46:48

If they're imposing it upon another person, that's what is called morals or morality. If it's self -imposed upon themselves, that's what we would call ethics.

46:57

Is it right to impose a certain view on anybody else, or is it wrong? Well, in my personal opinion, it is right under certain circumstances to do so.

47:08

Society generally feels that it's wrong to do it under certain circumstances and right to do it in others.

47:14

That's why we have police officers, for example. So what you've given me here is sometimes slavery is okay, sometimes slavery is not okay.

47:23

You don't have any standard by which you can judge what is true or false. You don't have any standard by which you can say something is moral or immoral other than to say it's what people prefer, and then it's by popular vote.

47:33

This is what you've really given us. And you don't know that all your opinions are true or not.

47:40

They're nothing more than your opinions about this. I'm going to bring this home to you. What you've done is do nothing other than give us a personal opinion about something where you say in your personal opinion objective morals can't stand.

47:53

But the problem with your personal opinion is your personal opinion is nothing more than your personal opinion, and it does not demonstrate that any objective standards do or do not exist.

48:02

It's just your subjective opinion. This is a problem with subjectivity. It's self -refuting. When you have a subjective preference, what you're doing is you're saying,

48:10

I believe it's right. Well, how do you know it's right? Because I believe it. Well, what makes it right? Because I believe it. It goes nowhere.

48:17

You can't use logic to do this because to do logic means you have to have absolute truths by which you can then raise in order to argue about morality.

48:27

The problem with logic and morality is you can't bridge the is -ought gap. If you've studied a new philosophy, you should know this, the is -ought gap problem.

48:36

When I asked you why ought someone do something, I was asking you to bridge the is -ought gap, and all you did was give me back to the subjectivity issue, which is not bridging the is -ought gap.

48:47

All it's doing is saying, well, it's just my opinion. Well, that's nice. You have your opinion, but your opinion has no bearing on whether or not something is true or whether something is not true or whether or not there is an objective moral or whether or not there is not an objective moral because your subjective opinion about morality is based upon you, and as I said, your subjective opinion is ultimately self -refuting.

49:08

You've given us nothing to work with, and you've only refuted yourself. I would agree in part with what you said, but the part

49:15

I would disagree with is the idea that there's no subject, that everything is subjective in my position.

49:23

It's not. Oh, you're saying there's objective truths? I'm saying that truth is based on whether or not it conforms to a particular standard.

49:37

What standard? So in the case of existential truth, the standard is existence.

49:45

Wait, but truth is a statement. Existence is not a truth.

49:51

It's an actuality. That's correct. You don't understand apparently what truth is. The word tree is not true or false, but the statement, there is a tree in my backyard, is either true or false.

50:05

That's correct, and what is the standard by which that statement can be considered true or false?

50:11

Well, in the case of that testable statement, I would go out and take a look, and that would be based on empiricism, but you don't do that with morality.

50:21

Correct. Because it's a different issue, and morality is an abstraction, and you admitted that already, and yet you also admitted in your opinion there's universal moral absolutes.

50:36

Yes. And yet you're saying that you are a subjectivist, which means everything's based upon your opinion, and your opinion is that there's universal moral absolutes, which means that it's imposed upon everybody, not just subjectively, but objectively, which refutes yourself.

50:55

No. Yes, you did. No, no. So here's the thing. I agreed that there are universal moral absolutes, and I agree that those are imposed upon others, but these are nevertheless subjective.

51:08

My opinion is that everybody should always. Your opinion is everybody should always.

51:15

Every other person that has a universal moral absolute that they hold to believes that everybody always, but that does not make any of those positions objective.

51:25

They're not objectively true. They are the subjective opinions of those people who hold them.

51:31

By logical necessity, that which is subjective is not a universal moral absolute.

51:39

When you say a universal moral absolute, are you saying it's universally applicable, or are you saying that it exists independent of any person's opinion?

51:52

When we're talking about morale, we're talking about as it relates to our world and our people. Now, I asked you earlier, is it true or is it false?

52:01

It's always wrong for anyone to torture baby's death merely for one's personal pleasure. You said it's true, which means you believe in a universal moral absolute truth.

52:10

I said it's true according to the standard that I hold to and according to the standard that other people hold to that is similar or the same as myself.

52:18

According to your standard, it's universally true. According to your standard, there's a universal moral absolute.

52:24

Yes, one that I hold. One that comes from me and one that is shared by, thankfully, the vast majority of others when it comes to the torture of babies and slavery.

52:35

You also said it was an abstraction. Morality is an abstraction. Can you have an abstraction without a mind?

52:41

No, I don't believe you can, which is what makes it subjective instead of objective. Okay, so now what you have is a universal moral absolute truth that is based on a mind.

52:54

Again, you're injecting the word truth and it doesn't belong there. The only time it can be considered as truth is if it is compared to a particular standard.

53:03

I asked if it was true or false. I asked if it was true or false. You said, yes, it's true according to what you believe.

53:09

According to my standard. So your standard is a completely subjective standard that is universally true for everybody.

53:15

No, yeah, so it is not true for everybody. It is true to the standard that I hold.

53:24

And is your standard the right one? To me, my standard is the right one. Other people may disagree.

53:31

Society collectively agrees upon what the standard is. I don't care about society. What about you? Society holds the standard that benefits the majority of society.

53:40

Yeah, and that's circular. Why is it beneficial? Because they agree with it. Why do they agree with it? Because it's beneficial. It doesn't go anywhere.

53:45

It's a logical problem. But look, you're the one who said that it's a universal moral absolute.

53:50

That I hold. But it's also a conceptual thing. So you hold, then, your opinion is that there is a universal moral abstraction.

54:01

A single universal moral abstraction that's represented by the statement, it is always wrong to torture babies that are familiar for one's personal pleasure.

54:10

So what you're saying is there is a universal, transcendent, universal moral abstraction.

54:16

Transcendent means it's not dependent upon space and time. Now, not dependent upon space and time means it's transcendent.

54:22

It's always wrong for everyone. That's independent of space, it's independent of people, it's independent of time.

54:28

In the sense of independent of people meaning their preferences don't determine its validity. So you're saying that there is a universal, moral, transcendent, absolute, which is an abstraction.

54:40

Okay, so when you say it's not dependent upon other people for its validity, that is, in a sense, true, but only according to the standard that we are referencing.

54:49

And that standard is one that I hold, and therefore it is true according to that standard which I hold.

54:55

But you still can't show that standard which you're referencing is an objective standard.

55:02

It's simply a standard which I hold and other people hold. I'm taking what you said. You said,

55:07

I said, you said, you. You keep going out all this, I go, you. You said that it's always wrong for everyone to torture babies of death merely for their personal pleasure.

55:18

You said that this is a true statement. That means, now we look at the statement, the nature of the statement is that it's an abstraction.

55:24

You said morals are abstractions. And it's also universally true for always wrong for everyone.

55:30

That is what transcendent moral truths are. Now you're saying that you believe in a universal moral transcendent truth.

55:40

So are you saying that my standard is a universal or is a transcendent moral standard?

55:50

No, I'm not. But I'm saying that you affirm that there is one. No, I'm not affirming that there is one.

55:57

I am asserting one. Yes, you are. I am imputing one to all of society.

56:02

You just said it's always wrong. I am the originator of that standard. I am the one that holds that standard.

56:09

And I am imposing it upon all society based on how convicted

56:16

I am that people ought not to torture babies. So then you said you're the one who originated it.

56:22

So that means it's biased. Subjectively to me, yes. It's biased to you. Yes. Okay.

56:27

And so you said that what's objective is what's not biased. So you're saying it's just subjective. So your subjective opinion is there's an objective truth.

56:34

No, I'm not saying that it's an objective truth. You're the one that keeps on saying that. You just did. You just did. It's always wrong for everyone.

56:41

That's an objective truth. It doesn't depend on our subjectivity. You're saying it's universally applicable. It is dependent upon the standard.

56:49

Something is only true according to a standard. Dude, you said, you said that there's a universal moral truth because you're the one who said it's always wrong for everyone.

57:00

That's your opinion. You believe that statement is true. So you're the one saying there's a universal moral truth standard that everyone ought to be based on your subjective preference.

57:11

I'm not saying it's a truth standard at all. I'm saying the standard I hold is that it's universally, absolutely, you know.

57:20

Yes, you are. You are saying it's a universal truth standard by agreeing to the statement. No, I'm not saying it's true.

57:26

Okay. So if there's the standard that I hold and you say is torturing babies, you know, always.

57:35

I didn't ask that. It's not that it's always wrong for everyone. That's the statement.

57:41

Right. So according to the standard I hold, it is always wrong for everyone.

57:48

Now, I think we're just going over this over and over again. I think, Matt. Yeah, we are. We're not making any progress.

57:54

Yeah, we're not because you're stuck. I'm going to leave it at this and say. Oh, no. Well. No, no, no.

58:01

You're the one. I'm going to show you. You're the one saying it's always wrong for everyone to do a certain thing.

58:09

You're the one asserting there is a universal moral standard. You're the one saying that based on your subjective opinion.

58:16

How do you assert subjectively that there's a universal objective truth? Okay, I'm not asserting there's a universal objective truth in that.

58:25

Yes, you did. You agreed it's always wrong for everyone to do this. That's a universal objective truth.

58:31

No, it's not a universal objective truth. It is a position that I hold.

58:37

It is a subjective position that I hold that everyone should always not. Your opinion is that there's a universal moral truth because I said it's always wrong for everyone to do this.

58:49

You said that's correct. You're the one holding to a universal moral truth, which is by definition of moral truth is an abstraction, which you said.

58:58

I'm sorry. I really got to go, but it's been good talking to you. I'm sorry.

59:03

We have not come to an agreement, but thank you again, Andrew, for the chat. Well, come back in because I got a whole bunch of questions.

59:11

I wanted to have fun with you. All right. We have a good one. All right. You too, Matt. Yep. Okay, that was classic.

59:24

That's pretty classic. So on one hand, he affirms a universal moral absolute, but on the other hand, he does not.

59:30

When he applies his subjective truth to the statement, it's absolutely true, but it's not really absolutely true.

59:36

But he has an absolute truth value to everybody based on his subjective position, which means you can't have a universal truth actually be that.

59:45

And what they'll do is he does this typically with atheists. It's just my opinion that it's true. It also is your opinion that there's a universal moral truth, isn't there?

59:54

You notice he never did do what he said he could do, which was to prove by his standard that one of the two statements there is or there is not objective morality, that he could prove it.

01:00:08

He didn't prove it. But he couldn't. What he did was just by definition, this is how you start, and then you go that way.

01:00:16

Well, I didn't spend much time on it. How do you know your definition is the right one? He went to consensus, but that's already been a bit popular.

01:00:22

Then we get into some more deeper philosophical issues about the nature of what truth is, but he didn't want to go there.

01:00:28

But still, we went with this standard statement I use, and it really tripped him up. It trips them all up.

01:00:34

What are they going to do? It was funny because he's first off begging the question. He wants you to accept his definition.

01:00:41

Why should I do that? I could prove he's wrong. There's three of us in here.

01:00:47

Two of us agree there's objective morality. By his standard, he must accept the majority.

01:00:54

I mean, the real scary thing. Here's the real scary thing with this. This becomes good for folks to see.

01:01:01

It's exactly what we actually started the show with. He was a great example of it, that what atheists have to do is redefine all their terms because their arguments are not logically valid.

01:01:12

They have to redefine everything to try to fit what they wish was reality.

01:01:19

That's what he was doing. So much heresy, so little time.

01:01:26

He gives a definition that, as you pointed out, his definition is worded so that he can win an argument, but it's not a valid definition.

01:01:41

If we all accept the definition. What you have is that everyone, as you pointed out, everyone's just changing definitions to say, well, what's an atheist?

01:01:50

An atheist is someone who lacks belief. And I love what you do. Oh, this is an atheist. My mouse is an atheist.

01:01:57

Yeah. You know, this pen is an atheist. It lacks belief. I mean, they end up on poor definitions.

01:02:04

They can't be precise because their arguments are invalid. Gosh. It was pretty bad.

01:02:11

There's a scary thing with this. What you see with this is that what he was ultimately appealing to is majority rule and Mike makes right.

01:02:20

And that's where it gets scary, because this is when you get this as a government. That's what ends up happening.

01:02:28

You know, that's that question I pose. I framed for my debate with Dan Barker. It's always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death for their personal pleasure.

01:02:37

This is the inconsistency of the universe of the atheist position. It says all morality is subjective. How can you then, from your subjective opinion, say all morality really subjective?

01:02:46

How can you then say, but it's universally applicable to everybody? That's, by definition, is not what subjectivity is.

01:02:52

And this was the problem he was having. He could not grasp that. He's playing a word game with himself in order to work.

01:02:59

Yeah. I mean, the standard for definitions is called the dictionary. Yeah. Not yourself.

01:03:08

Yeah. I mean, that's really what it comes down to. Yeah. I illustrated it, too, when he said basically the definitions, whatever standard you want, whatever the subjectivity of it.

01:03:19

I started behaving in a manner consistent with his statement and was trying to illustrate the problem with it.

01:03:24

But you don't have proper definitions. You can't work with anything. And I didn't see his definition in the dictionary that he said go to Webster's.

01:03:31

It wasn't there. But he tried to interpret part of it to mean that. And, you know.

01:03:36

And then what did he want to do? He wanted to appeal to everybody. Yeah. Appeal to the majority.

01:03:43

Yeah. So here's a simple. Let's make this really simple for folks. If you're going to try to argue this way, that it's the majority, then we should not in America be trying to change any laws for same -sex marriage.

01:04:00

We shouldn't have been changing them for abortion because the majority was against it.

01:04:06

That was the majority's morality. And so you should not be pushing to change any of those laws.

01:04:13

You should be submitting to the majority. But he said he has the right to try and change opinions of everybody else because it's his right to do so, which is another topic.

01:04:24

Why is it your right to do so? What gives you the right to say that it's your right? Because everything is subjective.

01:04:31

And I tried to show him your subjectivity is nothing but self -refutation. But as you gave with the one example with the, you know,

01:04:39

I think it was the case of rape or, you know, the rape in the children. The issue is that what he ends up doing is he says even if he and if he's the only one that held that because of his standard, he would try to force it on others.

01:04:52

Yeah. And so therefore he's not submitting to the majority. It's the majority in his definition should be what's true.

01:05:00

And, you know, take this on the streets for police officers. He mentions the police. I mean, put that on the street for police officers.

01:05:07

How in the world? By what standard are they going to judge? Yeah. If all the police agree that that makes it right?

01:05:17

Yeah. You cannot govern by this kind of thinking.

01:05:23

And this is why atheism, whenever it gets into trying to govern, always fails. It leads to death.

01:05:30

Yeah. Always leads to death. Yeah. Murder. Murder. Death. This is the problem is, you know, look, even if you try to argue as he was saying that he has the right to change people's opinion.

01:05:42

Okay. But that's not how we see that change going on in culture. Why would he say that we should go with a consensus definition of things?

01:05:50

He's contradicting himself. Because the definition is changing.

01:05:56

Therefore, it's not consensus anymore. It's them changing the definition. If he's going to be consistent, he should always work to keep the status quo.

01:06:05

Yeah, that's true. All right. So I think

01:06:10

John is the next one in. I'm going to get some. Before we bring

01:06:16

John in, I'm going to play a quick commercial. So many

01:06:22

Christians struggle with suffering, and yet they do it alone because most of us are too ashamed to let others know that we're struggling.

01:06:31

We struggle alone because we think that there's something wrong. As Christians, we shouldn't be struggling at all.

01:06:37

We should just have the answers, and yet that's not the case. There's many of us who struggles, whether it be within our marriage, whether it be with our children, whether it be with physical ailments.

01:06:48

I want to let you know of a conference coming to Freehold, New Jersey to help with this.

01:06:54

It is called the Sanctification Through Suffering Conference. It is going to be held at Chinese American Bible Church in Freehold, New Jersey.

01:07:02

You can get all the information and the speakers. The speakers will be Justin Peters, who if you know him, you know he struggles physically,

01:07:10

Frank Mullis, Colleen Sharp, and Joe Suazo. And we will have this conference.

01:07:15

You can get all the details and register at strivingforeternity .org slash conference dash on dash suffering.

01:07:26

Get all the details, and I hope to see you there. All right, so that's the conference we are going to be doing, dealing with the topic of suffering, both dealing with anxiety, depression, physical things.

01:07:36

And I just got word this past weekend that Pastor Mullis will be doing a session on suffering through persecution, being that, as we were just discussing, that's something that's going to end up coming for Christians.

01:07:52

Reality is, the thinking that we just got an hour of, as that prevails, death always follows that.

01:08:01

I'll also let you folks know, you know, one thing that can help with dealing with suffering is a good night's sleep.

01:08:09

How can you help to get a good night's sleep? Well, one way that I do it, and so does Matt, is we use

01:08:15

MyPillow. MyPillow is a supporter, a sponsor of the show here. And so if you want to get yourself a good night's sleep, get yourself a

01:08:24

MyPillow. You can call 1 -800 -944 -5396.

01:08:31

That's 1 -800 -944 -5396. Let them know that you heard it on Apologetics Live.

01:08:39

And so we, Matt and I both love our MyPillows. We both travel with them because they are that comfortable.

01:08:46

I've had mine for many years, and it hasn't gotten any softer. So Matt can still hear you,

01:08:55

John. I've unmuted, or I've added you in if you want to unmute yourself. I don't know what questions you might have.

01:09:02

Do babies exist? I mean, seriously, this guy,

01:09:12

I wanted to go and go hostile on this guy. I mean, come on.

01:09:18

I mean, really? I mean, he makes these claims, right, that he only lives by subjective standards.

01:09:30

I guarantee if he tried to have that consistent worldview, inconsistent worldview

01:09:37

I should say, in a bank, if he says, hey, I feel that I have $10 ,000 in my account.

01:09:44

They're going to go, no, I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way. So it's just ridiculous how they think that there's no such thing as objective morality.

01:09:56

I mean, it's retarded. I just cannot believe how frustrating that conversation was.

01:10:04

Since you asked the question, Matt, we should play the clip that that comes from.

01:10:12

So this is what sparked that question. Here we go. You said statements either true or false.

01:10:17

I gave you a statement and you said it doesn't apply. So is it true that I'm talking to you?

01:10:27

Is it true? That is true statement. I'm talking to you. Is that true? Yeah. Okay. Is it true that babies exist?

01:10:36

Well, I mean, how long before you go down the sketchbook? Babies exist. Babies exist. Is that true?

01:10:41

Or is it not the case that it's true? I mean, if you want to go down the, if you want to be very strict about it,

01:10:47

I would be sketchbooking it. Okay. We're done talking. We have a longer clip where John lost it.

01:10:56

We can play that. Hey, let me give a quick shout out.

01:11:02

We just got, and I forget what it's called when folks give a donate to the show in the middle of the show.

01:11:08

What is it? Super chat. Super chat. That's right. So we got a $2 super chat from Henry Rodriguez.

01:11:17

So thank you for that. All right. So I guess

01:11:24

John's question for you, Matt, is do babies exist? Yes. My question is how do

01:11:30

I become a super chatter so I can do that too? I'm not sure. I think there's an

01:11:36

IQ limit, so I don't know if you can make it. Oh, I don't qualify. When you're watching on YouTube, there is a way to, there's a little cash button.

01:11:49

And you can, if you look down, you'll see the little smiley face. You also see a little cash, like a dollar sign, and you can click on that.

01:11:57

And that's a super chat. Oh, I found it right below my chat line. Yeah. So what you do is if you like what you're hearing, if you're enjoying the conversation, you can shoot off a dollar or two or three or four, whatever you want.

01:12:13

And that will basically get that over.

01:12:19

And we'll announce, like Jason Manning just gave $2 saying babies exist. Exclamation point.

01:12:29

Babies exist. We should have a t -shirt, babies exist. We need a t -shirt.

01:12:35

If we can get $20 in super chats, we'll play John losing it over the babies exist.

01:12:41

One of the funniest clips ever. We'll do that. How's that?

01:12:47

All right. Tyler, really? I would love to have his thoughts on that whole thing with the atheist.

01:12:57

Geez. Well, it was, you know, for me, it was a little bit of practice. We'll see how this guy's thinking, see if there's anything new.

01:13:05

But it all comes back down to this same issue of subjectivity. But notice what happened when I started telling him about the transcendental nature of the statement that he was talking about.

01:13:13

And it was a universal abstraction. He didn't know what to do at that point. Then his phone started going off conveniently and he had to leave.

01:13:20

So, I don't know. The next up is

01:13:27

Andrew. He was the next one in. So, Andrew, you can unmute yourself and ask your question from down under.

01:13:37

Thanks, guys. Sorry, I got a call going in the background. I just wanted to say thank you for helping me out about two weeks ago.

01:13:47

Getting me out of the thing. Got back in the church and felt a lot better. So, that's basically all

01:13:54

I wanted to say. Well, good for you. Good for you.

01:14:00

I mean, would Matt and I pray before we start this week that this would be a blessing to, specifically to believers, like yourself.

01:14:10

That some of the things that we teach would be helpful. And then we pray for the unbelievers that they would come to know

01:14:16

Christ. Yeah, that's the tough part. Trying to talk to my brother about anything to do with religion.

01:14:28

That's the tougher part. So, I've ended up having to pray and that's about all I got left.

01:14:34

Well, good for you, man. Good for you. I think it had to do with subjectivity, a little bit of feelings, some other stuff.

01:14:39

Pointed you to just trust in God and things like that. That's right. Yeah, and the church is going through changes, which we still have to have our meeting to get the committee to fund the new pastor.

01:14:49

That sort of thing. Well, have them fly me down. I'll preach for a couple of weeks and then they'll have plenty to clean up afterwards.

01:14:57

Yeah, I'm sure they'll enjoy it. Dan will enjoy it again. You'd enjoy it.

01:15:04

I don't know if anybody else would. Yeah, no, we've discussed you at length,

01:15:10

I think. He knows he didn't say, but it was good.

01:15:18

He didn't say we discussed you. We didn't say it was good though. No, he just mentioned that he knew you and he said you're a little bit odd.

01:15:26

And I kind of went, yeah, you know what? I think that's because of Asperger's comes in on it. That's my thought.

01:15:32

Yeah, it does. There are advantages and disadvantages to everything. Oh, of course there are.

01:15:39

That's right. Yeah, very slick. That's right. Anyway.

01:15:45

Matt's not slick enough. I have proven that Matt's not slick enough. No, no, no. You're just sneakier than me, but I'm totally slick.

01:15:55

All right. So it looks like Arith wants to go. So let him go.

01:16:01

I'll mute. Well, yeah, we go in order and I'll give a shout out. I see Skylar Fiction in the watching.

01:16:08

So give a shout out to him. We had a good show together some time ago. We may do another, hopefully, talking about Islam.

01:16:15

But I've brought in Catholic traditionalist. You can unmute yourself. And so what questions do you have for Matt?

01:16:31

Let's check his volume. Your volume is up. Coming in loud and clear now.

01:16:38

Now we're hearing. OK, let me plug this back in again, because if I don't, you might hear the other volume.

01:16:45

Let me try this again. Hold on. Can you still hear me? Am I coming in? Yeah, you actually sounded better before.

01:16:54

Oh, I did. Yeah. But OK, well, we can hear you. Go for it. OK. Yeah, I think you're very good at debating atheists,

01:17:02

Matt. I remember when you go into pal talk and you go into those atheist rooms and you get them all riled up.

01:17:09

But I noticed that the atheists, they all use that same tactic, you know, with these logic arguments that's presented.

01:17:16

And, you know, they try to work around it. So I called and it was last year I called into that atheist experience show and I spoke to Matt Dillahunty and I took a different approach.

01:17:29

I figured, OK, well, let me get him to admit. That through supernatural miracles, the credibility of God, he's more it's more credible that a

01:17:40

God exists rather than a God not existing. And so I asked him the question. I said, if Jesus snapped his fingers and made the entire universe disappear with with the exception of, you know, the

01:17:52

Earth and the solar system. Then would you say that it is more credible that God does exist versus him snapping his fingers and nothing happened?

01:18:02

And I got him to say yes. After doing that, I said, OK, so we have a miracle, supernatural miracle attributed to God that you said, you know, validates.

01:18:14

You know, makes it more credible that this God does exist, this God of the Bible. So therefore, we have miracles that actually do exist.

01:18:24

And as I was, I guess he knew what I was about to say since he knew I was a Catholic.

01:18:29

I said I was a Catholic, you know, when I called in. So I started, you know, speaking about Fatima and the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the miracle of La Ciena, and I started going into all the different miracles attributed to God.

01:18:43

So he knew where I was going with it. So how do you know? But I think, how do

01:18:50

I know that they're from God? Well, that's just it. He would have asked the same question.

01:18:58

How do you know they're from God? Well, that's just it. They're already attributed to God through the church.

01:19:06

And not only that, but also the shroud. Not only that, but also the shroud of Turin. I don't know what your thoughts are on the shroud of Turin.

01:19:13

How do you know that the apparitions of Mary or Fatima, for example, how do you know it's really

01:19:20

Mary? Well, I believe that it's

01:19:25

Mary because the church said that it's worthy of belief.

01:19:31

And they go ahead and they study this stuff. They look into it. And there are many apparitions that they don't approve.

01:19:38

Because there are apparitions that are demonic, that Satan goes ahead and he tries to represent himself as the

01:19:44

Blessed Virgin Mary. Such as the apparition of Medjugorje, which is happening right now in Croatia.

01:19:53

And so you know that these are demonic apparitions because whenever an apparition, like for example, in Medjugorje, said that God is happy with all religions, that he believes all religions are good.

01:20:06

Well, that's simply false. Even a Protestant would say that's false. How do you know it's false? Because God would not say that Islam is good.

01:20:14

How do you know that? God would not say that any pagan religion is good.

01:20:21

Because we know the very first commandment of God is against false religions.

01:20:26

So scripture. So the apparition said the exact opposite of what God said in the

01:20:32

Bible. So you're saying that you judge the truth of an apparition by the Word of God, scripture? Yes, by scripture and by Catholic infallible teaching, which coincides with scripture.

01:20:44

Yeah, right. So how about this? This is Fatima, May 13, 1917.

01:20:51

This apparition says, there's three quotes here I want to get to. Are you willing to offer yourselves to God to bear all the sufferings he wants to send you as an act of reparation for the sins by which he's offended and by the conversion of sinners?

01:21:04

So they're supposed to make reparation for the sins. I thought Jesus made reparation for our sins.

01:21:11

Well, you do know that Jesus didn't take all the penalty for our sins when he died on the cross. You do realize that, don't you?

01:21:18

Yeah. Okay, so the reparations is in regards to that, those penalties.

01:21:24

It's not talking about penalties with regards to salvation. It's talking about temporal penalties and penalties with regards to purgatory.

01:21:31

So this reparation for the sins which he's offended. Okay, correct. All right. So you're saying that what that really is, is it's nothing to do with atonement.

01:21:39

It's about they have to make themselves right with God because he's offended by them. So they got to make it right.

01:21:46

Yeah, that's, for example, a person doesn't go to heaven if they're still in sin.

01:21:52

No one can get into heaven if they have sin on their soul. Now, if one doesn't have mortal sin, but still has sin, then they have to go to purgatory for a certain amount of time, and they're purged from that sin.

01:22:06

They're made right with God with regards to being purged from that sin. For example,

01:22:14

I've heard Protestants say before that, well, Jesus took all our penalty for our sins upon himself on the cross.

01:22:20

Well, that's simply not true because one of the penalties was physical death. Another penalty was the pains of labor for women when they're giving childbirth.

01:22:28

Another one is simply physical suffering. All of these things are because of sin. Therefore, we're still experiencing physical death.

01:22:38

Women are still experiencing labor pains. So the fact of the matter is we're still in a world whereby the penalties for sin still exist.

01:22:49

Okay, so you're saying it's okay then that these children offer themselves as reparation for the sins by which

01:22:57

God himself is offended. You say that's not a problem. Yeah, that's not a problem.

01:23:03

When you go ahead and you pray for someone and you're doing, for example, you're doing something.

01:23:09

Well, let me ask you this. Is it beneficial for any Christian to pray for another Christian? I don't know what you mean by beneficial for.

01:23:20

Well, if you pray to God on behalf of another Christian that, you know, let's say for that Christian's child to get healed, let's say the child is sickly and God answers your prayers.

01:23:34

And let's say you even fast for this to happen.

01:23:39

Is this biblical? Is this something that's biblical? Fasting and prayer. It's biblical to pray and to fast.

01:23:48

Okay, so if you have these children of Fatima praying and fasting for someone, for another

01:23:56

Christian, so that that Christian and their family does not embark on some sort of punishment due to a sinful world that we live in, would that be obviously that would be biblical then?

01:24:13

Yeah, you're interchanging biblical and beneficial. There are certain biblical things to pray.

01:24:20

But the quote I gave you, are you willing to offer yourselves to God to bear all the sufferings?

01:24:25

You wait guys, there's two more quotes that are really good. Offer yourselves to God to bear all the sufferings.

01:24:31

He wants to send you as an act of reparation for the sins by which he's offended. So when we lie, we've offended

01:24:37

God. So their suffering is for reparation. What that means, reparation means to repair, to make it right.

01:24:45

So their suffering makes things right before God. That's right. Correct.

01:24:51

Yeah. For example, let's say, for example. That's heresy. Well, no, no, no, no.

01:24:57

Well, let me explain. For example, let's say, let's say a child, they're taking, the father says, give me some orange juice out of the refrigerator.

01:25:08

The child gets the orange juice. The child is purposely careless with the orange juice and accidentally spills it.

01:25:16

But it didn't have to happen because the child could have been cautious with it, but it happened anyway. And we have orange juice all over on the floor.

01:25:23

So the child is actually sorry for what they've done. And because the child is sorry for what they've done, the father forgives the child.

01:25:34

So this, this is what took place with regards to Jesus. He, he forgave us of our sins.

01:25:40

So the child is right with the father. Now, would you, do you believe that the child at this point should clean up the orange juice or leave it on the floor?

01:25:51

Guy, you're way off topic here. I'm just, I'm just saying that what the quote says, what this apparition says is that by their suffering, they're going to make things right before God.

01:26:02

And that's what I'm trying to explain to you on their sins against God. And the biblical position is that Jesus Christ is the one who did that.

01:26:09

Let me read the second quote. Well, hold on. Let's, well, hold on. Let's, let's focus on the first one because you, you pointed out because we're not finished with that.

01:26:20

Do you think that the child should clean up the orange juice on the floor or just now the child is already forgiven, but should the child leave the orange juice on the floor?

01:26:30

Sure. He should clean up the orange juice. Yeah, he should. Okay. So then that answers your question. There are things that must be repaired, right?

01:26:38

Meaning orange juice off the floor mean that they're suffering. These children suffering actually fixes the sins that have offended

01:26:45

God. Because it was, it was the sin of being careless with the orange juice that caused the orange juice to end up on the floor in the first place.

01:26:55

Their sins against God. So therefore, they make it, they make their, by their suffering, they make things right before God.

01:27:02

What about their sins? Notice what it says. As an act of reparation for the sins by which he's offended, our sins against God are repaired by their suffering.

01:27:11

Okay, Matt, we're going to go on to, you know, comparing Jesus to a child. We're not doing that here.

01:27:17

Let's move on to your second quote. Let's move on to the second quote. I want to do that, but what he's saying is ridiculous.

01:27:22

Jesus wants to use you. It just always gets me. The apparition says,

01:27:28

Jesus wants to use you to make me known and loved. He wishes to establish a devotion to my immaculate heart throughout the world.

01:27:35

I promise salvation to whoever embraces it. Okay. Well, just to, just to answer

01:27:44

Andrew, Andrew said that I was comparing Jesus to a child. I never compared the child to Jesus. I was comparing the father to Jesus.

01:27:51

The father was the one who gave the child. Okay. So, so anyway, yeah, with regards to that, if you have a devotion to the, to the blessed

01:28:00

Virgin Mary, she always points to Jesus. You're not giving the whole story because throughout.

01:28:07

Let me read it again. Jesus wants to use you to make me known and loved. He wishes to establish a devotion to my immaculate heart throughout the whole world.

01:28:16

I promise salvation to whoever embraces it. That's what the apparition says. So salvation is promised by the apparition to those who have devotion to whatever it is, the immaculate heart of Mary.

01:28:28

If you have devotion to the immaculate heart of Mary, the apparition promises salvation. And is that, she, okay.

01:28:34

Throughout the, she gave several different messages, several different months. Now, did you look, did you read all those other messages?

01:28:41

Because she's constantly speaking about. Years ago, I read a lot of them. What about this? What is it?

01:28:46

Tell me seriously. I don't, in all seriousness, I don't understand. What is the immaculate heart of Mary?

01:28:52

I don't understand what that is. Okay. Well, the, the heart refers to love.

01:28:57

The, the, the immaculate heart of Mary. It refers to her. When she was conceived, she wasn't conceived in sin like you and I or anyone else.

01:29:07

She was born without any original sinless. Correct. Okay. Also, the thing is, well, hold on,

01:29:14

Matt, you asked me a question. I'd like to answer your original question because you said that she's pointing to herself.

01:29:21

Well, that's not true. If you would have read all the other messages along with that same message, because you're only taking one little part, she's constantly speaking about Jesus and that they, they're to look to Jesus in that going through her, that they can go through her as an intercessor to Jesus, which is in biblical intercession is biblical.

01:29:44

And I don't know why Protestants deny that. Just like the example. We didn't say intercession is not biblical.

01:29:50

You said going to Mary to get to Jesus. That's not biblical. You, you, you did was you just bastardized the whole concept, two concepts.

01:30:00

You bastardized them. Let me tell you something. When you say it's biblical to intercede and yet to go to Mary, to go to Jesus, those are different things to intercede.

01:30:08

You know, if I pray for you and your salvation, what you desperately need, and I pray for your salvation, I'm not going to ask

01:30:14

Mary to do it. I'm going to go to Jesus to do it. See, what you do is you equivocate. You, you

01:30:20

Catholics do this all the time. You change the meeting. You say one thing over here, and then you drive a truckload of hair heresy through it.

01:30:27

You're not understanding. Oh, I don't understand. I don't understand. Look, Jesus wants you to use you to make me known in love.

01:30:36

Really? The Holy spirit bear witness of Jesus. The scriptures bear witness of Jesus. The prophets bear witness of Jesus.

01:30:41

The father bears witness of Jesus. The prophecies of the Old Testament bear witness of Jesus. Jesus bears witness of himself, but this is what.

01:30:48

I agree. I absolutely agree. Jesus wants to use you to make me know. Jesus wants to make Mary known.

01:30:54

Show me that in scripture. Okay. Well, you just admitted that you can act as an intercessor by praying for me or anyone else.

01:31:02

So can Mary act as Mary? So can, so can Mary act as an intercessor?

01:31:08

I don't know. Well, well, she admitted it.

01:31:15

Hold on. Let's be specific. Cause you got category errors all over the place. He does. This is not praying for someone the way that you're using it.

01:31:23

That's right. Okay. This is being a mediator, which scripture is kind of clear. There's no mediator between God and man, except to not marry.

01:31:32

That's the way it's being used. So use it properly and then find the scripture that denies what scripture says.

01:31:40

Okay. Well, Andrew actually mediator. Okay. Okay. Well, actually Jesus is the ultimate media mediator between us and the father, but he's the only mediator.

01:31:51

There's one. Yeah. Ultimate. You keep changing the word of God and make it fit what you want. Okay. This guy, seriously, this guy, and I started to watch that.

01:32:01

He's now arguing just like the previous atheist and he doesn't even see it. Yeah, he is. Let me, let me go to this quote, because look, this is the point that Jesus apparently says in the apparition, he,

01:32:11

Jesus wishes to establish devotion to my immaculate heart throughout the world. No, he doesn't.

01:32:17

You cannot find that in scripture. And then the apparition says, I promise salvation. Whoever embraces the devotion to Mary, where's that in scripture.

01:32:26

It is not there. Here's the third quote. Everybody needs to know these things, sacrifice yourselves for sinners and say often to Jesus, especially whenever you make a sacrifice.

01:32:37

Oh, Jesus, it is for the love of the, for the conversion of sinners and in reparation for the sins committed against the immaculate heart of Mary.

01:32:48

Now, not only we have sins against God, but now the apparition says, now you have sins against Mary.

01:32:56

Really? This it's, this is elevating a demonic manifestation to official acceptance.

01:33:05

The demonic manifestation is very obvious. And the reason we know it's obvious is because we go with what the scripture says.

01:33:11

We know that we cannot make any reparation for the sins by which God is offended. We cannot, which is why

01:33:18

Jesus did it. He bore our sin, his body and the cross first Peter two 24. He made reparation for the sins by which

01:33:25

God is offended. We know that Jesus wants us to come to him. He says, everyone should come to him.

01:33:30

Matt 11, 28. He says, come to me who are heavy laden and I will give you rest. He doesn't say go to Mary.

01:33:37

He never says go to Mary. He would never say that he wants to establish the devotion to the immaculate heart of Mary and that this apparition would then approve or God would approve of that person saying that the apparition promises salvation.

01:33:51

Whoever embraces devotion to the immaculate heart of Mary and nor would Jesus ever say, sacrifice yourselves for the conversion of sinners so that you can make it right with the sins you committed against Mary.

01:34:06

This is just idolatry. And the fact that you as a Roman Catholic cannot see this is just evidence of your unregeneration, your blinded, your bondage, and that you are on your way to eternal damnation because you are lost.

01:34:23

Okay. Well, what she means by that is she doesn't mean about sins as in she's not comparing those sins to the sins that you commit against God.

01:34:31

She's speaking of sins with regards to offenses. For example, if you mass like was to the sins committed against the immaculate heart of Mary, you keep changing what it actually says to make it fit.

01:34:44

You're backpedaling. No, I'm just going by what you just said. We both agree that sins, actual sins are committed against God.

01:34:54

So therefore when she's speaking about sins, she's not speaking about sins against a deity, which is

01:35:00

God, the one deity. She's speaking about offenses against her because there are many offenses against her by many

01:35:07

Protestants for they don't respect her like we Catholics respect her. They show actually disrespect.

01:35:13

Of your Catholic value is not found in Scripture. So it's a meaningless statement to us.

01:35:19

We want Scripture. And also those that actually compiled the books of Scripture, if you look at their writings, they spoke very highly of the blessed

01:35:29

Virgin Mary. Whereas we don't see that with Protestants. We see them because of the reactionary against the reaction against the idolatry that is committed by the

01:35:41

Roman Catholic church. We don't want to aid and abet the enemy of the gospel in that process. Well, it's not idolatry because we don't worship the blessed

01:35:50

Virgin Mary. We only worship the Holy Trinity. Actually, it's idolatry. What you do.

01:35:58

No. The thing is, even if we disagree on Fatima, the thing is, it's still with regards to Matt Dillahunty, it still would approve something with regards to the supernatural.

01:36:19

And that's what I was getting at, because he admitted that in my previous question to him, that it is more credible, you know, because of a supernatural event taking place.

01:36:31

And that's what I was getting at. And I think your approach is very good. It's, you know, it's one type of approach, but I think bringing up the miracles of God, for example, what's your thoughts on the shroud of turn?

01:36:43

I haven't an opinion on it. Okay. So here's the thing, because we got some other folks to come in.

01:36:52

You know, we got someone who's been dying to get in here quite, quite impatiently.

01:36:57

So let's save his life. He doesn't die. I don't want him to die here on us. So I want to make sure he comes in.

01:37:06

I just, I I'll say for, you know,

01:37:12

I do appreciate that. You did exactly like I thought you did argue exactly like the atheist did.

01:37:19

You're redefining things and putting the same thing. So you really shouldn't criticize him.

01:37:24

All right. But I'm going to bring in, let's see. His name is O Perez.

01:37:30

Let's see. Let me bring him in. You should be able to unmute yourself.

01:37:36

Well, just not Josh Smith. Yeah, I know he's here. Can you hear me?

01:37:42

Yes, we can. So we got about 20 minutes left.

01:37:48

So go for it. Now, before we talk about the, my main topic, well, you have 20 minutes.

01:37:57

So don't better make it quick. That Catholic was wrong. I agree.

01:38:05

He was wrong. So you're an atheist, right? No. What are you? I'm an Israelite.

01:38:12

Okay. All right. You're an, you're an

01:38:18

Israelite like I am. No, no way. You're not an Israelite. I'm from Israelite.

01:38:26

Are you BHI? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Okay. So you're a black

01:38:33

Hebrew, Israelite. Okay. Go for it. I'm from the tribe of Issachar. Okay.

01:38:40

But, so these Catholics never read second Ephesians. Where it says

01:38:45

Jesus is the cornerstone, not Peter. Second Ephesians. Yeah. I think he means

01:38:51

Ephesians 2. Where's second Ephesians? No, Ephesians chapter two.

01:38:56

Oh, oh, Ephesians two. Okay. Jesus is the cornerstone. Okay.

01:39:02

So what you said, what you're dying to talk to me. Did you want to ask me something?

01:39:08

So let's go to Daniel seven, nine, Daniel seven, nine.

01:39:15

Okay. What about Daniel seven, nine? I beheld to the thrones were cast down and the ancient days did sit, whose garment was white as snow and the hair of his head, like pure wool.

01:39:25

His throne, like the fiery flame in his wheels as burning fire. So, you know who that's talking about?

01:39:34

Ancient days, probably is Christ, but not exactly sure. It's been a long time since I talked about it, but go ahead.

01:39:40

God has wooly hair, wooly hair. Oh, so he has wooly hair.

01:39:50

So that means God is a black guy. Yes. So we're talking about God here.

01:39:58

Is this God, the father? Yeah, exactly. Okay. So God, the father has a body of flesh and bones.

01:40:06

Wait, no, but wait, wait, let's, let's read the, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, no, no, no, no, no.

01:40:12

Let's go to the text. So he has wooly hair. Does he have a head? You said his wall, that's his hair.

01:40:23

Well, this is a spiritual entity. We're talking. Well, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You know, it does say head.

01:40:30

The hair of his head was like pure wool. So you're using this to, I guess, wool is kind of curly.

01:40:35

So black hair is kind of curly. So do you say he's a black guy? That's what you said. And so he has a head, right?

01:40:42

So you're saying God has a head, has a body. Doesn't he has a body, right? That's why I wanted to read to you.

01:40:48

Adam Clark's commentary. I don't want to hear Adam Clark's commentary. I'm talking to you. So you're saying that God has a body of flesh and bones and flesh and blood, right?

01:40:58

Do you know more than Adam Clark? I'm asking you the question. Are you saying that God has a body of flesh and bones?

01:41:07

Well, no. Then why would you appeal to the issue of hair on God to support black stuff?

01:41:16

Well, I don't understand. That's why

01:41:22

I wanted to read that. I'm not interested in, in, in that I'm interested in what you think the text means.

01:41:28

You're the one who brought this text up. Daniel seven, nine. You're the one who brought up the issue of the wall, implying, uh,

01:41:34

I don't know. How am I shy? Could we talk about what?

01:41:41

I was shy. Who's that? I was shy. Is that a department? What is it?

01:41:50

Okay. Who are you talking about? Who are you talking about? Seriously. And this is the only place in the segment ratings where God, the father is represented in a human form.

01:41:56

Adam Clark said that. Can you, can you, uh, please did this word that you used? What is that in reference to?

01:42:03

What was it? Yeah. Yeah. How was shy? Okay. Who is that? Or what is that?

01:42:10

The son of ya. What language is that? Hold on. So wait, so it's a smith.

01:42:19

Okay. Hold on. Hold on. So y 'all hum a shot, whatever. That's the son of who?

01:42:26

Yeah. Uh, and who's y 'all? God. So it's a son of God.

01:42:31

Is he the literal son of God? So God had sex with a woman and made Jesus. Is that, is that, did not say that.

01:42:38

Are you a begotten son of God through the Holy spirit? Okay. So it's not a literal thing.

01:42:43

Okay. So you think that this head wool refers to Jesus. It could read revelations.

01:42:51

One 14. So you're saying it refers to Jesus, right? Yeah. Okay.

01:42:59

Wow. Uh, so wool is, is white, right?

01:43:06

Yeah. But look out, look out tight and curly wool is. Yeah. It's white.

01:43:11

And so do you know any black people have white hair like that? Well, if they're older, elderly.

01:43:18

Oh, okay. They're older. So Jesus, here's an elderly person, even though he died at 33 years of age, it wouldn't have happened to him.

01:43:24

So that's what you mean. So why are revelations one 14? Did it say his hair was white like wool in his feet?

01:43:30

Like burnt bronze? Obviously. Cause he's Caucasian, right? Yeah. I mean, my hair is curly.

01:43:36

Yeah. It's not tight. It's not. Oh, so now

01:43:41

Jesus, it has to be black sheep's hair. It's tight. And it's also white.

01:43:48

Okay. So, but Jesus was not old. So he died before he, you know, he got old.

01:43:55

So it was her wouldn't Caucasians have white hair. So he would not have been white. So, so you're saying

01:44:02

Jesus is a black guy. Okay. Let me ask you a question. I'm a white guy. Am I of the devil? Yeah.

01:44:08

You descend from Esau. Okay. And the tribe of Magog. Okay. So I'm, I'm with the devil. Right.

01:44:14

And so that means I'm my possessed or I'm evil in my nature or, you know, is that what it means?

01:44:22

What does it mean? Well, in a Romans nine, 13, as God said,

01:44:28

I love Jacob and I hated Esau. Okay.

01:44:34

So I'm a white guy and you say I'm, I'm, I'm evil or, you know, demonic.

01:44:41

Okay. And so I'm descended from Esau. Okay. And what does that mean? It means I'm going to hell because I'm white.

01:44:48

It means you're eating my, you're a cursed race. Does it mean that I'm going to hell because I'm white? Well, you ain't getting saved by your heart was shy.

01:45:00

Does it mean I'm going to hell because I'm white? Yes. But wait, wait, wait, let's talk racist.

01:45:09

You were how big of a, of a hate filled racist. You are. You judge someone's worth by the color of their skin.

01:45:18

And what that is just so racist of you. Yeah. I think

01:45:24

Satan has got you. I think Satan has really deceived you. Satan obviously is speaking through you.

01:45:31

You don't even know it. And the reason I know it is because you say things that are unbiblical.

01:45:38

You say things that are sinful as though they're true. I'll be right back. Where are you going to go?

01:45:45

We don't have much time. Andrew. While he's gone, let me explain how we know someone's from a certain genealogy.

01:45:58

We know it because you go from their father to their father, to their father, to their father.

01:46:06

That's how you figure out a genealogy. The argument for folks, just to think about this logically, just a small bit of logic.

01:46:17

The argument would be that the, the whole argument is that the slaves were the

01:46:23

Hebrews and that they took them. They basically knew which ones were the

01:46:31

Hebrews and took them to America and the islands. Now think about this, just logically.

01:46:39

Do you really think slave traders were concerned about trying to keep them there so that all the tribes of Judah would be in one area and all the different tribes in different areas as they kidnapped them?

01:46:53

Follow that on with the fact that how in the world do you get a brother and a sister? I'm back.

01:47:01

Both brother and sister, one being kidnapped and the other not. So one would be an Israelite. The other wouldn't be.

01:47:08

But, but here's the, here's a great verse. I'm going to prove that. Okay.

01:47:15

Do you know that you, if you're right, that Jesus must be in hell?

01:47:20

Do you know that? Why? Why do you say that? Because Mark chapter nine says

01:47:28

Jesus is white. His, he and his remnant became shining, exceedingly white as snow, so that no fuller on earth can white them.

01:47:41

He is so white. The context of white is pure. Pure, not a color. Just white means pure.

01:47:47

Just like the Nazarene to a pure. So this is the thing. Pure. You cannot interpret the scripture the way the rules of interpretation are.

01:47:58

Okay. White means white. Now what in this text would show that white doesn't mean white when he gives two things.

01:48:07

One, he compares it to snow, which is considered white. Two, he considers it to a fuller.

01:48:14

Do you know what a fuller is? A what? A fuller. Do you know what it is?

01:48:22

A fuller. Yeah. Okay. So I'll say you don't. Wait, wait, wait, wait, let's talk to him.

01:48:28

A fuller would be a cleaner. So I draw it like a, like a laundromat person. They would bleach things.

01:48:35

So it is so white that no fuller, no cleaner on earth can white them.

01:48:42

He's so white that there's no way to get him whiter. So this is.

01:48:47

You are misinterpreting the context. I'm reading the context.

01:48:53

You're lying devil. I didn't, I didn't change the word white. You did that. Okay. It says he's exceedingly white as snow.

01:49:02

He's exceedingly pale. Exceedingly white as snow so that no fuller on earth can white them.

01:49:11

That's how white he is. So if you're right, then Jesus would have to be in hell.

01:49:20

Okay. I'll show you why you can't be saved. Well, I just showed you why you believe

01:49:26

Jesus can't be saved. You believe God in hell. You're lying because that means it's true and I ain't gonna argue anymore. Let's.

01:49:35

Listen, the reality is you have no proof that you're an Israelite. You cannot trace your line back to Abraham.

01:49:42

You have to misinterpret a passage of scripture in Deuteronomy. I have a debate on, on the Striving for Eternity YouTube channel with the black

01:49:49

Hebrew. There is no way that you can read Deuteronomy Deuteronomy in context and argue that that is the

01:49:57

African slave trade. It's in wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Who else was almost wiped out by disease?

01:50:03

The natives. What are you talking about?

01:50:10

It said it said they would be wiped out almost wiped out by disease and reduced in small numbers.

01:50:16

That's what said in Deuteronomy 2859. Deuteronomy.

01:50:23

Which was? 2859 to 62. And that applies to the

01:50:32

Native Americans. Huh? That applies to the natives. It does?

01:50:39

Yes. So you think that this, this is the

01:50:47

Native Americans here in America? Yes, they're Israelites too. What?

01:50:55

Well, verse 68, and the Lord shall bring them to. Egypt ain't literal.

01:51:01

Egypt ain't literal. It means America. Egypt's not literal. Okay. Egypt's not literal. Okay. And again, with ships, is ships literal?

01:51:08

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Then Egypt's literal. Okay. No, no, wait, wait, wait.

01:51:14

Egypt is a symbolization for America, just like Babylon. Oh, that's a symbol. Okay. What do the ships symbolize then?

01:51:22

Slavery. The ships, the ships represent slavery. Yeah. Why?

01:51:31

Where do we ever see ships representing slavery? The transatlantic slave trade.

01:51:40

Yeah, that's not in the Bible. You see, here's the thing. Here's the thing, Perez. You're so, you don't even realize that you're supposed to say

01:51:46

Egypt represents the slave trade. You're not even a good, you haven't been brainwashed enough to even realize which words you're supposed to use.

01:51:55

I'm an Israelite apologetic. What do you mean? Sorry. Sorry.

01:52:02

Dude. Listen. Simple. Let's talk context.

01:52:08

You cannot take a word and say, well, because this fits my predefined definition, the word Egypt is figurative, but the word ship is literal because I want it to be.

01:52:17

Okay. The verse says, and the Lord shall bring them. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

01:52:26

Well, let's read the verse. And the Lord shall bring them into Egypt again. Talk to the hand.

01:52:31

Buy ships. And the way. Thou shall see it no more again.

01:52:40

And there shall be. And they, and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondsmen and bondswomen.

01:52:50

And man shall buy you. So this is impossible to be the

01:52:55

African slave trade because there were buyers for those slaves. They didn't sell themselves into slavery.

01:53:03

As happened when the, when the Jewish people that fled the Assyrian and Babylonian captivity, as they fled by ship into Egypt to make a living, they sold themselves as slaves.

01:53:15

They didn't have a buyer. They sold themselves. That's what actually happened.

01:53:21

So what this verse is talking about is not the African slave trade. This verse is talking about a historical event that occurred, both of the

01:53:27

Northern tribes of Israel and the Southern tribes of Israel during the Assyrian invasion. You don't know what you're talking about.

01:53:36

Wait, wait, wait. Speaking of the Assyrians, the 10 last tribes were dispersed throughout all the nations.

01:53:45

So folks, this is what ends up happening. When you get someone pinned, you saw this with Matt earlier with, with both the atheist and the

01:53:51

Catholic, when you get someone pinned, they just jump off. They ignore, just completely ignore what's being discussed and jump onto something completely different.

01:54:00

Wait, wait, wait, wait. I got to talk. I got to talk. Dang. Dang. So, so you got to deal with the context here.

01:54:10

I got a question. Should white people be killed? That's my question. Should white people be killed? Cause they're of the devil.

01:54:15

Okay. When our kingdom was established. Okay. So you think that white people should be killed when your kingdom is established?

01:54:25

No, you will, you will, you will lick the dust off of the bottom of our sandals. Okay. And does that include

01:54:30

Jesus since he's whiter than white? That wasn't meant to be taken literally. The white neck pier. Uh, he kind of made it pretty clear that that should be taken literally when he uses all those references to white being snow and white being whiter than bleach.

01:54:45

Give me the verse again. Give me the verse. I'm going to, I'm going to expose you using the Greek lexica. I'm using your

01:54:52

King James cause I assume you're a King James only. Kind of guy. Of course. So I've been reading to you from the

01:55:00

King James, Mark chapter nine, verse three. I'll read it again. Mark nine three. James was done by white people.

01:55:09

They always had over King James. White people, the ones who translated the

01:55:18

King James that you think is authoritative. You, you twisted Mark nine three.

01:55:25

Make no mistake. I've read it. I've read it. I'll read it again. And I'm reading. His garments, his garments became exceedingly white.

01:55:32

It's not what it says in your King James. It says as his remnant became shining, exceedingly white as snow.

01:55:39

So no fuller on earth can white them. That's what it says. Okay. But the

01:55:45

King James didn't accurately agree. Every time the King James age, it says his

01:55:51

Raymond in King James, Raymond, not remnant, Raymond, Raymond means close. Sorry, which, which version of the

01:55:58

King James are you using? Just the KJV, the original. No, you're not using the original.

01:56:05

You're, you're using the author. It's close. You're authorizing King James. You have no clue what you're talking about.

01:56:10

It's in the 1800s and later. You don't even know.

01:56:16

It's talking about close in the Greek. It says close the word for, for Ray Raymond, whatever.

01:56:25

Wait, no, that's, that's how do you know that that's literally what it's supposed to mean? Oh, so you're, you're going to, you're, you're going to what now?

01:56:40

You said you're King James. Now you don't want to go to King James. Look, look, the

01:56:47

Greek is more official than the King James. Is it saying that he's white? Is that what it says?

01:56:54

It said his clothes are white. You, you, and it's your twist on devil.

01:57:00

And it says, it says, it says, Is that what it says?

01:57:16

Is, so, so is it say, cause here's the thing, here's the thing you cannot do.

01:57:21

You cannot stay with the scriptures in context, interpreting it the same way you're trying to defend

01:57:31

Marian devotion. We're not defending Marian devotion. Yeah. But you're, what you're saying is like similar to a

01:57:38

Catholic, it never works. No, here's the thing, here's the thing, what we're saying is we're reading it in context.

01:57:45

You start with the conclusion just like the Catholic did, just like the atheist did.

01:57:50

You started with a conclusion and you want to make everything fit that and when you get something that doesn't fit that, like the very key passage that everything you want to try to argue that you're an

01:58:01

Israelite is based on that Deuteronomy passage and you cannot argue from that Deuteronomy.

01:58:07

Show that Mark 9 -3 scripture to the screen. Huh? Put the Mark 9 -3 on the screen, show me.

01:58:16

Here, I'll do it, I'll do it. You quote the scriptures, I'll put them up. Go ahead. Yeah, well, he's got to see it from the

01:58:23

King James here, the King James 1900 version. 1900, 1900, it's 1611 it was wrote.

01:58:32

Okay, hold on, let me get his 1611. This would be great, I'll see if he could actually read it, hold on. How many of you guys have ever seen an actual

01:58:41

King James? Now we're gonna have some fun. This is the 1611 version, okay?

01:58:51

Okay. We will see, I'm gonna hold up the screen and we will see if he can read the 1611.

01:58:59

Hey, hey, calm, I saw that comment you made, Matt Slick, but Sikar is mixed,

01:59:09

Sikar is mixed. Yeah, I said if a black guy and a white woman have a baby, is the baby's part a devil too?

01:59:17

No, because no, not only the woman's a devil. Let's read this, let's read this from this version because here's the 1611 that says remnant.

01:59:29

Let me see if I can get that. And his remnant became shining exceedingly white

01:59:37

It's blurry. Can everyone else read that line? See the 1611.

01:59:44

Hold it up very still. Nathan, I mean Nathan, Andrew, hold it up very still because people have not seen this.

01:59:51

Just hold it there for a while, keep talking, as still as you possibly can. Pretend you're waiting to ambush me to buy me a meal.

01:59:59

You're waiting creditorily. Okay, hold it still. and now talk because people want to see this but okay so I gotta move it right so it says and his remnant became shining white as snow

02:00:23

Raymond Raymond means is a garment Raymond is a garment and out of garment Raymond is a robe of collection no no no but it is his face no it's his garments when

02:00:42

Raymond is used for Moses when he sits with God his face was his remnant was so bright they had to put a veil over him his clothes why would they have to put a face a veil over his face who's in my patience because you keep twisting the scriptures you devil okay so this is the problem with you you're very racist and you cannot you don't have patience you can't handle what the scripture actually says

02:01:10

I'm sorry to say that you're us and not

02:01:15

Jesus you're the one who's twisting scripture you cannot read it in context you cannot take it you you're one key verse in Deuteronomy does not speak about the

02:01:29

African slave trade it's impossible to be the African slave trade impossible because the

02:01:36

African slave trade had buyers what you have to say that only one word is literal the word ships and everything let me let me discuss that you want to keep talk let me talk are you done now

02:01:55

I'm going to talk about that it's talking about their own people your own people won't buy you is that what it says yes okay we'll read it again and the

02:02:10

Lord who is it and who and yeah okay and the

02:02:17

Lord shall bring thee in again with ships by the way whereof

02:02:28

I spoke unto thee thou shalt see it no more and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondsmen and bondwomen and no one shall buy you that doesn't say it says no man shall buy the use whatever whatever what can you do can you do like I can can you do a search on your last name and trace it back to Abraham what would you look is

02:03:10

I'm a Levite absolutely math yeah so the way we usually do genealogy is we go from so -and -so's father to so -and -so's father to so -and -so's father we don't take a passage like this and you perfectly explain that you don't you cannot interpret it literally or figuratively you're picking and choosing and you have no basis for it

02:03:37

I'm gonna show you the the scriptures that that destroys all of you because you can't deal with this one

02:03:46

I want to know this destroy all of us they'll be awesome and remember destroy the

02:03:54

Romans later than white Romans he's whiter than white he said earlier white was good then what's black wait wait no no no it means like like like not like skin but like like you get it like peer it was a verse that destroys us the one that says not at all

02:04:21

Israel is Israel let me let me talk before let me let me explain everything give me like two minutes to explain everything before please can

02:04:30

I yeah yeah

02:04:36

Tyler said he's

02:04:43

Mexican I'm Mexican and Sicilian we do about Asian people oh well now he's he's not a slave trade he's not he's not an

02:04:54

Israelite thank you you just I'm the Senate from the tribe of get the natives I'm the tribe of issues it's a trip but you're but you're not part of the

02:05:03

African slave trade you're Mexican let me let me read everything and explain it before you tell me what it becomes important what he just said is this is the thing that the

02:05:15

Hebrew Israelites argue is that the slave traders brought certain that people by tribes and the folks in Jamaica are all one tribe and the people in America were all one tribe and the people that were brought that came to Mexico or one tribe now just think about it what a slave trader really be concerned about keeping the tribes together and what about the people who were left behind logically what what a brother let me read in Israel like but the his other brother wasn't so the the passage he brought up three minutes to read and explain please go for it give you three minutes we're going long but we'll give you three minutes so it says not all

02:05:57

Israel or Israel now now I'm going to take you to the

02:06:03

Genesis no no no no you can't do that you're going to stay Roman but this this is related to it no because we wrote the rest of Romans 9 is going to prove that what you're you're going to argue whatever whatever idea idea because this is really ridiculous why don't we see how he does so we can learn how the

02:06:25

BHI exegete stuff of what they do with scripture be good lesson to watch them hopscotch around and make a quilt work of heresy okay so we're going to give you a couple minutes to do this and let me let folks know what he's going to do he's going to take a passage from Isaiah where it says line upon line precept upon precept and what he's going to do is show you their view of precept upon precept jumping all over the

02:06:47

Bible I'm going to say this up front and you're going to prove that I'm right he's going to jump all over the place taking a word from here in a word that has the same word somewhere else take them out of it rip them right out of their context slam on no that's you as you are you losing patience okay come on let him do

02:07:16

I want to hear what he's going to steal on it this be great thank you Matt click you should say thank you he devil but go ahead

02:07:25

I want him to hear him say thank you your majesty to you Matt I'd like to hear that never what you went to Rome next verse wait please please and in I see shall all the nations of the earth be blessed

02:07:39

Genesis 22 18 so all the nations refer to the tribes of Israel and I'm just gonna keep going just don't interrupt me you see

02:07:51

Romans 9 6 not all of Israel are Israel you see you see it is through Isaac the seed of the promise now now the descendants of Israel but the other brothers of Isaac you see though the descendants of Isaac's brothers will be safe not anyone else only the people who are the sentence of Abraham are you done he left okay

02:08:37

I don't know if he did that I'd per okay here he is let's put him back in don't know what happened there there you go you're back in Perez are you there yeah you did okay you dropped out go back so I said that like all the like Paul is writing to they are all the descendants of Abraham's sons who are not

02:09:05

Isaac you see are you are you done where do you still go so none of you heathens can be safe what way

02:09:21

I'm trying to get the verses down Romans 9 6 not all Israel is Israel Genesis 22 18 in your seat all the nations shall be blessed what was either verse you said what what was the other verse was the other verse so uh let me go to Romans 9 7 neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children but in Isaac shall they see because now yeah how we shy

02:09:50

Jesus Christ died for the descendants of Abraham's other sons why did you skip the part in between Romans 6 that you read in Romans 7 that you read why'd you skip the part in the middle what it says neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children that the the one that actually defines that they are all the seed of Abraham that he's speaking of so when he says

02:10:19

Israel he clarified it yeah but did you hear what

02:10:24

I said though yeah you you interjected things you you made claims that aren't from Scripture you inserted it you said because there's nowhere here that Paul says he's speaking to the group that claiming he made it clear who he's speaking to go back to your case oh now we're going to James dang

02:10:52

James what where are we going in James wait who's

02:11:00

James who's are you going to the book of James now why would

02:11:08

I go to the book of James why do you say James I did not say

02:11:13

James yeah

02:11:24

I like what Charlie said this is verbal waterboarding yeah the comments here great father the devil because you're telling lies okay now the fact is you can't stay to a pastor

02:11:46

I hope you do come back in we got it we got to end it because I know the guys at the counselor you look like just like he saw yeah

02:11:53

I look just like a Jewish person a Hebrew would look because I'm Hebrew because I'm from the line of Quora through leave

02:12:02

I stop bending the speeches stop disrespecting my god don't you ever did you speak my god your god is what devil is what that's who your god is and we pray for you because if you don't repent of this racist religion that you hold to you will stand eternity in a lake of fire do you not see that this race this is a now sinners both of us you and I both deserve

02:12:31

God's eternal punishment because we break his law you and I both this is what the scriptures say those scriptures you don't know you are devil what do you do the guys the guy is a great example of someone who is extremely brainwashed in a really wacko cult and all that's happening is the devil is using his own racism to justify hatred

02:13:03

I do I'm autistic

02:13:14

I've been studying cults for 39 years buddy I know it's awesome guys we got to get the core recording

02:13:26

Swiss you you devil all the other was it or this is great stuff oh man

02:13:31

I'm sorry but dude look and you come on stop laughing at me look

02:13:37

I'm sorry it's so ridiculous you are so ridiculous you're such an incredible racist you're so full of hate condemnation and racism no well you're gonna be my slave soon so here's the thing here's and this is this is why

02:13:53

I have so much disrespect for people that hold to the position I ain't gonna bring peace but a sword yeah and this is this is dangerous thinking yeah that was that is not you that's

02:14:10

Jesus now you're claiming that you're okay this guy you get rid of him he's so so here's the thing

02:14:20

I want I want him to hear the gospel first yeah because he doesn't know it and he you know Perez listen you have to realize that what scripture says is all men fall short of the glory of God everyone all men all men

02:14:38

Israelites the nation of Israel so it says all have fallen short of the glory of God all sin okay that's every single human being breaks

02:14:51

God's law yeah I do know what I'm talking about because that's actually quoting scripture something you can't do and the fact that you don't even know that I quoted scripture shows how much a devil you are

02:15:05

Perez you can whisper it but I heard you here's the reality Perez you could whisper that we don't know what we're talking about but the fact that you don't even realize that we quoted scripture that's the thing that's scary because you actually think you're an

02:15:25

Israelite and that you're spiritual and you don't even know what scripture is you only know the devil's talk lies that's all you seem to know and if you die you will spend eternity in a lake of fire because you and I both deserve that you and I both deserve eternity in a lake of fire however

02:15:47

Jesus Christ that one that was transfigured and was so white he was white as snow whiter that no four can white him that Jesus died on a cross to be a payment of sin that you could be forgiven of your racism your hatred you may feel emboldened because you are surrounded by a bunch of people that want to racism but you're no better than the white supremacists out there you're no better than them and that's why

02:16:21

I have so little respect for people that come in and give that kind of racism because it's sinful and it's wrong and you'd be hard on it for anybody that would be a white supremacist

02:16:34

I'm sure and you don't see that you're the same thing and if you die in your sin you will spend eternity in a lake of fire if you understood the passage that you were quoting that not all

02:16:48

Israel is in there that even though they're born of Abraham doesn't mean they're going to heaven it doesn't mean they're

02:16:58

God's spiritual children it means that they're people who are trusting in something like you trust in the color of your skin and by the way as you said you're

02:17:07

Mexican then you wouldn't be a Hebrew Israelite from the city

02:17:12

African slave trade you wouldn't have been part of it so you would not be an Israelite so by name you would be a white devil you're not a

02:17:24

Hebrew Israelite even in your own belief what are you talking about I'm back I am back but I said

02:17:33

I'm back not with an L so so the thing is you know I think he just tunes us out whenever we share the gospel with him so we're gonna we're gonna close it up wait give me a minute give me a minute

02:17:46

I want to share something no actually I'm not gonna give you a minute so we're gonna close up but I don't know if let's see if John Vince if you're here do we have a link to the to the after show yes we do okay all right we're gonna put a link to the council for the after show so that link is in here if anyone wants to go over there folks this is you know

02:18:17

I want folks to realize that see you next week I'm going there where you going

02:18:23

I'm going over to the council okay so I'm gonna head over to the council and I'm gonna put the link into into YouTube comment so here's the thing folks you know we saw three examples we saw someone who came in and wanted to start with a conclusion that all morality is subjective and then define things in such a way that they can only be his hit that his way he comes up with his own definition so his way is the only way to conclude things then what do you have you had a

02:18:54

Roman Catholic that came in wanted to do the same thing starts with a conclusion but when

02:18:59

Matt asked him well how do you know these things are these supernatural things are really from God he had to do the same thing that the atheist had to do by arguing from his conclusion you had the same thing with this

02:19:13

Hebrew Israelite who starts with the conclusion he's a Hebrew Israelite and then from there wants to argue but what you don't see is with any one of the three cases now first one didn't want to argue scripture so it's a little different there but with the

02:19:27

Catholic and Hebrew Israelite you see that they cannot take scripture within context they can't look at the scripture what do they what do they do you saw with both of them they want to jump all around you saw with all three that went in the thinking they want to jump all at the point when when the that point up but that's logically invalid

02:19:45

I'll just jump over to something else and ignore the fact of the logical fallacy that was there and so this is what you end up seeing you see this over and over again this is when you have the truth like we're doing with the man and I we're just reading the scriptures we can just say this is what

02:20:03

God says and that's we don't have to sit here and jump into all these gymnastics why because you don't have to do that when you have the truth you can't argue against truth with lies because the lies you have to always do these gymnastics want to give us just some quick things for folks to tune in Matt slick has a radio show you can go if you want to call in during the week he's got

02:20:29

Monday through Monday through Friday from 3 to 4 Pacific Time you could go to calm org to get the details there if you want to listen if you want you can for it if you want to listen on podcast just search for Matt slick it's on sermon audio you'll be able to get it there it's the

02:20:51

Matt slick live show this podcast well this becomes a podcast this video so those who watch live

02:20:58

Thursday nights 8 to 10 it should be a 10 but like tonight we thought it was a little bit educational or entertaining went a little bit longer so what you see is we go we'll take this we'll turn it into a podcast if you prefer listening you can subscribe to the apologetics live also since you're at a podcast let me recommend my own podcast go search for rap report we have two of them we have

02:21:24

Monday through Friday two minutes if you like short biblical interpretations and applications we do that what we're doing right now is going through the entire

02:21:34

Bible all 66 books in two minutes giving an overview two minutes a day to dealing with another book each day the longer ones we have are the rap reports of the rapper for daily or the short ones you could subscribe to the rap report that one is going to be about an hour long

02:21:52

I think what's coming up next may be an interview with Todd free all I don't know because we have some special thing that we might do so but those are some things look forward to so so go subscribe to them and I guess we'll do is we'll close out for folks who want what

02:22:09

I'm going to close out with what did with John Wilkinson losing it with the babies exist there's no sense of having a conversation with someone who just can't even recognize the statement that babies exist well you're gonna give me a break we're never gonna get anywhere he's not he's not having a normal conversation or it's gonna move on to something else it's ridiculous he's not interested in a conversation

02:22:31

I already decided as soon as I said you know how's he gonna answer this with babies exist if he's moving on you know all right

02:22:47

John you had something you want I was gonna say he doesn't want to have a conversation you asked him a very simple question do babies exist and he has to dodge that?

02:22:59

Seriously. No, it's a simple question. It's simple.

02:23:08

It's simple. It's a simple freaking question. Come on. John's a little fired up.

02:23:18

I'm not gonna lose it. I'm just gonna lose it. I'm tired of this. I'm tired of these games. Oh, I'm tired of this.

02:23:25

There's no such thing as babies. I'll kid you not, man.

02:23:34

You guys will do anything you can to deny God. You will do anything. You will do anything to deny

02:23:40

God. You guys are idiots. So, tell us what you really think, John.

02:23:46

He's sad, dude. I'm telling you, man. I'm very much aware of my moral preference.