Christian Admits God Was Morally Justified Killing Unborn Babies

追加: 2026-05-11

[00:00:00]All right. Matthew 11:28. This should be interesting.

[00:00:05]>> How's it going?

[00:00:06]>> Good. How are you?

[00:00:08]>> Yeah, doing well. Can I get your age and pronouns, please?

[00:00:11]>> 42. He >> He Okay. All right. Uh, Matthew 11:28.

[00:00:15]So, it sounds like you are a Christian.

[00:00:18]>> Correct.

[00:00:19]>> All right. Fantastic. All right. What's your best evidence that God is not evil?

[00:00:26]>> Um, >> steales.

[00:00:29]the fact that he shows mercy.

[00:00:31]>> He shows mercy.

[00:00:33]>> Okay.

[00:00:33]>> Correct.

[00:00:34]>> All right. Gotcha. [clears throat] And um now, how does that demonstrate that he's not evil?

[00:00:40]>> Evil.

[00:00:41]>> Well, because evil would be put to death. Correct.

[00:00:44]>> Evil would be put to death.

[00:00:46]>> Yes.

[00:00:47]>> Yeah. Perhaps. Um >> Well, not perhaps. Do we do we in our even our own justice system put evil people to death? Uh yeah, in some some places we do. Yeah.

[00:01:00]>> Okay. So therefore, my standing would be that because he shows mercy to even those that are evil, >> he is good.

[00:01:09]>> Okay. So there was a um there was a German officer in World War II. um don't know if you saw the movie Schindler's List and it was based on a German officer who was um who would just indiscriminately unal alive uh you know uh camp uh prisoners right and um so he was persuaded by someone by Oscar Schindler to show mercy and say because that actually shows more power. So did he suddenly become not evil?

[00:01:43]Did he change his behavior?

[00:01:45]>> Yeah, he did. He became more merciful.

[00:01:47]>> Or was he still evil?

[00:01:48]>> Yeah, he he was more merciful. Yeah.

[00:01:50]>> Yeah.

[00:01:51]>> Then in that aspect, I would say that he is no longer evil in that aspect than then.

[00:01:57]>> Was he was he an evil person when he was indiscriminately unal alive in Jews?

[00:02:04]>> Well, yes, because it's murder.

[00:02:05]>> Okay. So, did he So, that means he was he was a good person after that after he decided to become merciful. to become merciful >> cuz he still hated Jews. He still wanted them all exterminated and he still thought that they were human scum and all that stuff.

[00:02:20]>> But you're saying because he became he became merciful, he's suddenly a good person.

[00:02:29]It depends on what the if the person actually changed their behavior inside themselves. Because here's the thing.

[00:02:37]You could sit here and say that let's let's take this example. But if he was if he was still hurting people and still going against pe against the Jews, then that doesn't necessarily make him like a good person.

[00:02:55]He still has evil in his heart.

[00:02:56]>> Well, he ran a concentration camp, but he was merc he merc he did it mercifully.

[00:03:01]>> Okay.

[00:03:02]>> So, he was good.

[00:03:06]In that aspect, he changed. But I can't.

[00:03:09]I'm not the judge and juror of that.

[00:03:12]>> Okay. Well, then if you're not the jud Okay. So, you're not the judge and juror of that. How are you the judge and juror of God being good?

[00:03:19]>> How can you judge God is good if you can't judge that?

[00:03:23]>> Here's the thing. God is judge and juror. I'm not.

[00:03:26]>> Okay. So, then you don't know whether or not God is good or evil or evil.

[00:03:29]>> No, God is good. Well, how can you how can you say that if you can't be the judge and juror? Because isn't isn't saying God is good judging God?

[00:03:38]>> Well, because I'm a I'm the created. I am not the creator, >> right?

[00:03:44]>> You cannot if you are a creator, you cannot you are the dictator of what um subjective morality is.

[00:03:54]>> Okay. Isn't God Isn't calling God good a judgment?

[00:04:00]Yeah, but it's based on morality.

[00:04:03]>> But you can't judge God.

[00:04:06]>> I'm not judging God. I am judging.

[00:04:10]>> You just said it was a judgment.

[00:04:11]>> No, you're you're taking there's two different ways of being a judge. I'm not judging as far as >> whether somebody is um >> forgot to set the timer. Sorry.

[00:04:26]>> Okay. All right.

[00:04:28]>> Okay. So then in that sense here, I'll let you out of this one. I'll let you out of this trap. But in that sense, then how could we determine whether or not God is good? What's a way we could do that?

[00:04:41]>> Well, we could verify that, right?

[00:04:43]>> Well, what is what is what is your dictation or definition of what morality is?

[00:04:49]>> Um, that which is lines [clears throat] up with like morally good. So I define it as actions, motives or character traits that conform to standards of virtue, righteousness and ethical principles. Would you agree or disagree with that?

[00:05:02]>> Well, and where did you come up with that definition?

[00:05:05]>> It's a dictionary definition. So is do you agree or disagree with it?

[00:05:10]>> I'll agree with the uh with the definition.

[00:05:14]>> Okay, fantastic. So So another way to say it is like things that are righteous or virtuous are morally good. like actions, words, character traits, things like that, right?

[00:05:28]>> Well, it it depends on what you consider moral and what I consider moral.

[00:05:34]>> Well, why does it depend on me? I'm talking about you because you're saying God is good, right? So, how do you determine that God is good? Like, are you saying God is virtuous and righteous and ethical, right?

[00:05:46]>> Correct.

[00:05:47]>> Okay. Fantastic. All right. So, we can test that, right? Sure. Because he shows us his nature.

[00:05:53]>> Okay. He shows us his nature. Okay. Um how do you know like how did you derive that he is ethical, virtuous and righteous >> because he gave us uh his word that >> he gave us his word in the Bible, right?

[00:06:08]>> That he that [clears throat] he is these things. Yes. Correct.

[00:06:11]>> Yeah. So we can look at the Bible and then we can see is God acting virtuous, righteous, and ethical.

[00:06:20]Correct.

[00:06:21]>> Fantastic. Okay. So, um so is it righteous then to well tell me how what like under what circumstance is it righteous to uh to rip open pregnant women's bellies?

[00:06:41]>> Where does it say that?

[00:06:43]>> Uh it says it in several places. Hosea it says it in Isaiah. It says it in Psalms. Um now and you would agree that he did send a flood, right?

[00:06:54]>> Yeah, he sent a flood.

[00:06:55]>> Yeah.

[00:06:55]>> Get rid of all the evil.

[00:06:56]>> Yeah, he got got rid of all the evil people. All the evil bad people. And you would agree then that the unborn babies there were some unborn babies that were uh killed, right?

[00:07:08]>> Correct.

[00:07:09]>> At least one. Yeah. Okay. So was that are you saying that that wasn't that unborn baby was evil?

[00:07:18]>> And how do we know that?

[00:07:20]>> Well, because it derives from the evil that it was coming from evil because >> derives from the evil. Okay. So the baby was automatically evil and so God had to get rid of it.

[00:07:31]>> Well, do you even know what the context was is why he flooded the earth?

[00:07:35]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It says in um Genesis 6, I had this up the other day.

[00:07:41]Um, in Genesis 6, it basically says, um, he says to Noah, he says, um, I'm going to I'm going to blot the earth of humans and all of the animals, uh, in it because I'm sorry that I made them because there's evil here. So, that's essentially what it says. I'm paraphrasing it, but that's essentially what he says. Yeah. Well, what what you're not >> what you're not saying is is that all the evil and the nephilim, the crossbreeding that was happening between the fallen angels and the humans. Okay.

[00:08:13]That the abominations that were actually created, that's what he was eliminating.

[00:08:17]>> Yeah.

[00:08:17]>> That all the sin in the world. So, the unborn babies were abominations of creations that were never supposed to be.

[00:08:23]>> Okay. So, in the circumstance of if the baby if if the baby is evil, it's it is morally ethical to kill it. Is that what you're saying?

[00:08:35]>> It depends on what God's justice and how he >> Well, yeah. Yeah. So, if if he if God deems that it's moral, it's >> if God judges to kill a baby because it's evil, it is that's the morally ethical thing to do.

[00:08:49]>> Correct.

[00:08:51]>> Got it. Okay. Um, is it also morally ethical to allow the burning of daughters?

[00:08:59]Where does it say that?

[00:09:01]>> Uh Leviticus 21:9.

[00:09:03]>> So under Leviticus 21:9, under the Mosaic law, you would agree God gave the Mosaic law, right?

[00:09:10]>> Correct.

[00:09:11]>> Okay. So it says under Leviticus 21:19, when the daughter of a priest profaines herself through prostitution, she profains her father. She shall be burned to death. So that's the that's a morally ethical thing to do.

[00:09:25]>> Yes. Because she's she's committing sin.

[00:09:27]Okay. So, if I catch my daughter uh running a prostitution ring out of her bedroom, should I take her out to the front yard and burn her to death?

[00:09:35]>> Well, what you're doing is you're conflating the fact that Old Testament and New Testament, there was a new covenant that came in.

[00:09:42]>> I'm glad you said that. All right, let's go take a look at that. Yeah, this is the second time today I've had to go through this. Matthew. All right, so this is Matthew 5:17. Have you read this and 18?

[00:09:55]Um I have but I can't remember off the top of my head but I'll read it.

[00:09:59]>> Okay. So it says do not think I and do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. Now who's speaking here?

[00:10:05]>> Okay.

[00:10:06]>> Jesus.

[00:10:06]>> Okay. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. So let's take this look at this word fulfill for a second. Um because we're talking about laws here, right?

[00:10:15]So, when um when you go into a store and you don't steal anything um because there's probably a law in your area that says don't steal, right? So, when you go into a store and you don't shoplift and you walk out with your paid stuff and don't shoplift anything, are you fulfilling the law or are you abolishing the law?

[00:10:36]>> You're fulfilling technically you're obeying the law. Yeah.

[00:10:40]>> Yeah. You're obeying the law. You're following the law, right? That means you fulfilled it. Now, if you fulfilled it one time, Matthew, can you go back into that store the next time and and steal anything you want?

[00:10:52]>> Because of free will, yes, I could.

[00:10:54]>> You No, I mean with without breaking the law. Like, would the law allow you to just say, "Oh, well, since Matthew, since you were in the store one time, you didn't steal anything. The next time you anytime after that, you can go in and take whatever you want."

[00:11:07]>> No.

[00:11:08]>> Okay. So, that means you have to follow the law every time you go in there, right? Or else there will be consequences, right?

[00:11:13]Correct.

[00:11:14]>> Okay. Fantastic. So that's what it's saying here, right? Jesus did not come to abolish but to obey. Follow the law, right? For truly I tell you >> until heaven and earth pass away. Safe to say heaven and earth have not passed away. Right.

[00:11:30]>> Correct.

[00:11:30]>> Not one letter, not one stroke of a letter will pass from the law until all is accomplished. And it's also safe to say all has not been accomplished according to your belief.

[00:11:39]>> Correct.

[00:11:40]>> Okay. Fantastic. So there were conditions here, right? It says the law does not pass until heaven and earth pass away and all has been accomplished.

[00:11:49]But until then, not one letter, not one stroke of letter will pass from the law.

[00:11:53]That means the Mosaic law is still in effect. Which means that if I take my daughter out to the front yard, if I find out she's been running a prostitution ring and I burn her to death, have I done the morally ethical thing?

[00:12:13]I'm sorry. Can you say that again? You broke you were breaking up it.

[00:12:16]>> So, since we've established that the Mosaic law is still in effect, if I take my daughter out to the front yard after I found out she's run a prostitution ring and I pour lighter fluid all over and light her on fire, have I done the morally ethical thing?

[00:12:32]>> Well, again, if you're going by what God says, then yes.

[00:12:37]>> Okay. Wow. That is wild. So, burning daughters, we're good there. All right.

[00:12:43]How about uh how about graping women?

[00:12:46]>> Now, I kind of want to punish you question.

[00:12:48]>> Yeah, sure. Sure.

[00:12:50]>> Okay. So, if God doesn't exist, tell me why that would be wrong anyway because there's no moral standard at that point.

[00:12:57]>> Uh there is a moral standard because I'm an objective moral realist. I conform to the the grounding that I use is the laws of logic, law of identity, law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle. So for example, a contradiction would be uh something to the effect of you know something cannot be true and false at the same time, right? Like a squared circle that's a contradiction, right? So um so that would be it. Now um under the under the objective moral realism uh where that grounds we use something called the principle of generic consistency and what that means is that everybody uh if there's no discernable difference between people they are all entitled to the same thing. They all have rights to the same thing. So do you agree with that or not? Like if there's no difference between people do they have the same rights?

[00:13:48]Are are you saying that if people agree on the same thing as like a social construct?

[00:13:55]>> No, >> it's not a social construct. It's the it's the laws of logic which transcends agreement.

[00:14:03]>> So like >> where do the laws of logic come from?

[00:14:06]>> They're the foundation of our reality.

[00:14:07]They are the ground of our reality.

[00:14:09]>> Where's come from?

[00:14:11]>> Where's reality come from? It's always been here.

[00:14:15]>> So we're we're kind of we're drifting way off into the wheats.

[00:14:18]So I believe that I believe that the universe has always existed because that's the evidence that we have. So we're getting into, you know, >> God creating things.

[00:14:28]>> So that means the laws of logic have always existed. The laws of physics has always existed because again, we have evidence of that, right? But you you ask me where am I getting this from and that's where I'm getting it from. Now help me out with this. Um like you agree that like the law of identity, A equals A, right? An apple equals an apple, right?

[00:14:47]Um, could you if you didn't know if you couldn't properly identify things, would you how would you like how would you navigate reality if you couldn't properly identify things? If you didn't know an apple was an apple if you couldn't figure out, you know, your hat was your hat or your car was your car.

[00:15:06]Like, how would you get to work every day? How would you get dressed every day?

[00:15:11]>> If if I let's say I grow up on an island, I think I know where you're going with this. If I grow up on an island and I don't know what an apple is and then I come to your town and you say, "Here's an apple." Well, I say, "Well, that's an orange."

[00:15:24]>> That's subjective. If I grew up with the fact that it was an orange, >> then who?

[00:15:29]>> No, you're not following me. That's not what I'm saying. Here, let me let me do it again.

[00:15:33]>> Yeah, that's not what I'm saying. Let me do it again. So, let's just say that um you are unable to identify food.

[00:15:39]>> Like, you just have no way to identify it. You don't know what it is. You can't you can't tell what it is. Like sometimes you just put, you know, you put rocks in your mouth or something like that. What What do you think your odds of survival will be?

[00:15:52]>> So, are you are you saying like a stroke victim?

[00:15:56]>> Sorry, my wife.

[00:15:58]>> No, that's not what I'm saying.

[00:16:01]>> I'm asking about I'm asking about the law of No, no, it's cool. I'm asking about the law of identity.

[00:16:05]>> So, if you can't identify things, if you can't identify food, uh, Matthew and Mrs. Matthew, >> what do you guys think is your odds of survival? Like if you like every time you picked up an object, it was a rock and you tried to put it in your mouth and you couldn't eat it or it was a piece of poop or it was a piece of wood or something like that. What do you think your odds of survival would be?

[00:16:27]>> Well, it would be slim to none.

[00:16:29]>> Right. Right. So that means that we have because that is that is why it's foundational to our reality. And if we look all up and down our our our uh our animal kingdom, every animal uses the law of identity in some way or another, right? because they have to be able to identify food. They have to be able to identif identify a predator versus prey versus you know all of these things, right? So that is like fundamental to our reality.

[00:16:56]>> So on that I worked for um a company that we rehabilitated wolves and we raised them from babies. They have also instinct. They also, you could have a wolf that has never been out in the wild, but will know how to hunt, know what to eat and what not to eat.

[00:17:15]>> Fantastic. And you just made your point.

[00:17:17]You made my point for me. Thank you.

[00:17:18]That's the law of identity. Thank you.

[00:17:23]>> But that's what a law of identity is.

[00:17:26]>> Yeah, that's the law of identity. I just I just pointed out. So, we have also the law of non-contradiction, right? We had a squared circle, a married bachelor.

[00:17:33]You know, those are contradictory terms.

[00:17:35]those things don't exist, right? So, if we can't identify contradictions, then we have a hard time understanding our world, right?

[00:17:42]>> Like this and not this, right? And then also like the law of uh you know excluded middle again like it can't rain and not rain over my house at the same time, right? That just doesn't make sense with reality. So that's why I'm saying the laws of lots the laws of logic are found are foundational to our reality. Unless you can show me how we can understand our reality without the laws of logic. How could we do that?

[00:18:10]>> I I personally don't know.

[00:18:12]>> How about you, Mrs. Matthew?

[00:18:14]>> Oh, she's not here.

[00:18:16]>> Oh, she left. Okay, my bad. Oh, I thought Yeah, I I'm welcoming the conversation with both. That's it's totally cool. So, if she comes back Yeah. Yeah. Have her ask more questions.

[00:18:23]So, okay. So, it doesn't sound like there's a way to do it, right? So that's why I'm saying it's foundational to our reality. That is the foundation. That is the ground. And so I'm not seeing why we need a god. We need to insert a god in that.

[00:18:35]>> From my well from my perspective, God is what is has grounded these logical and uh natural laws to be put in place.

[00:18:46]>> Okay. And so I I hear that and I understand. So if that's the case then um were these laws did God create these laws?

[00:19:00]>> Yes.

[00:19:00]>> How did he do that without the laws of logic? How was he able to identify things without the law of logic?

[00:19:06]>> Because he's omniscent and he knows all.

[00:19:10]>> Okay. Okay. So, if he's omnisient and he knows all, that means that the laws of logic had to be in place already because how how can you identify things without knowing what without using the law of logic, without identifying things.

[00:19:21]>> Okay.

[00:19:22]>> See what I mean?

[00:19:23]>> Uh I understand what you're where you're going at is where then where did God get them from?

[00:19:29]>> Yeah. Well, I think the better way to put it if I were you, I would I would say it like this. If I were a theist, I would say they are inherent with God and they've always existed along with God.

[00:19:41]Uh, I I understand that. But what you're getting at is where did God get them from? Because you're coming from an atheist point of view.

[00:19:47]>> Yeah. But what I'm saying though is that >> I'm saying it's not nec it it just complicates things. It's not necessary to have a god in the mix. Like the laws of logic just stand fine by themselves.

[00:19:58]There's no need to have because Yeah.

[00:20:00]Because then you get run into problems with, well, if God created the laws of logic, how was how was he able to do that without the laws of logic? That doesn't make sense.

[00:20:09]Okay.

[00:20:09]>> Which means they always had to have existed.

[00:20:11]>> Okay.

[00:20:12]>> She wanted to say something. She came back.

[00:20:14]>> Yeah.

[00:20:14]>> Okay. So, you do you have a computer?

[00:20:17]>> Uhhuh.

[00:20:19]>> Okay. AI and all that.

[00:20:22]>> Yeah.

[00:20:22]>> There's someone created that and controls the computer, right?

[00:20:27]>> Um, in a sense, yeah.

[00:20:30]>> So, a computer cannot be made just out of nowhere, right?

[00:20:35]>> Yeah.

[00:20:36]>> Someone has to make that. Yep.

[00:20:39]>> Then who made all of us?

[00:20:42]>> Um the laws of physics.

[00:20:45]>> Then where did the laws of see this is >> they've always existed that well no they don't always exist.

[00:20:51]>> Yeah they did. We have evidence of that.

[00:20:53]>> Well no we don't. There theology. No >> it's not a theology. We have evidence.

[00:20:59]>> Yeah. No.

[00:21:00]>> What about them confirming >> the Christian?

[00:21:04]>> Well no. Here >> Oh yeah. We're Yeah. We're jumping all over the place. Hang on.

[00:21:08]>> One thing at a time, please.

[00:21:10]>> Here's the thing. The thing that Christians have and that atheists have is that neither one of us can dictate where and how the universe was created.

[00:21:18]We cannot dictate how God was created.

[00:21:20]>> Yeah. Yeah. I agree.

[00:21:22]>> I agree. I'm not saying it's a done deal. I'm not saying it's proof. I'm not saying it's 100% >> reality. I'm saying we have evidence [clears throat] of that. We don't have any evidence that God created anything.

[00:21:30]We have no evidence of that.

[00:21:32]>> Evidence actually means fact. If you have evidence of something, it means that it's a fact.

[00:21:37]>> Well, what it actually means, yeah, it's a piece of data that increases the probability of something being true, right? So, like for example, we have like as far as the laws of physics go.

[00:21:48]Well, what we have is evidence that the laws of physics have always existed is uh things like we figured out that there was like a non-zero amount of energy that always has been in the universe. We figured that out, right? We have figured out um that uh time, space, and gravity have always existed. Like we figured that stuff out. Um so >> how is that possible? And science itself says that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

[00:22:15]>> Well, they used to say matter cannot be created nor destroyed. They don't really say that anymore. That's like 1800's physics. They still say they they still go by the second law of thermodynamics, which kind of underscores my point. If energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then that means it was not created, right? That means it's always existed.

[00:22:32]So you kind of made my point.

[00:22:35]>> Well, then even by evolution and us just being here is not even possible by that point.

[00:22:42]>> Why not?

[00:22:43]>> Do you get what I'm saying?

[00:22:44]>> Why not?

[00:22:45]>> Because if then where did the energy and the matter come from for us to >> Well, like I said, if it if it's never been created nor destroyed, it always was here.

[00:22:54]>> It always existed.

[00:22:56]God was always here and has always existed, >> right? But see, the thing is is we have evidence of that. We don't have evidence that God was always here. Like, what evidence do we have that God was always here?

[00:23:06]>> Well, the Bible has plenty of eyewitness testimonies and everything else.

[00:23:12]>> And okay, so the eyewitness testimonies, >> right?

[00:23:15]>> Yes.

[00:23:16]>> Um, now you know how eyewitness testimony works, right?

[00:23:20]So like for example if somebody let's just let's just imagine do you have a truck or a car or >> Yeah.

[00:23:28]>> Okay. So is so let's just say I I'll just say truck and if you and if it's a car just correct me but I'll just say truck. So let's just say Matthew that you walked out one morning your truck is gone right.

[00:23:41]>> Okay.

[00:23:42]>> What is more reliable test eyewitness testimony?

[00:23:45]Um, your neighbor says, "I saw uh Ed take it." versus your neighbor saying, "I heard that Ed took it." What's more reliable eyewitness testimony?

[00:23:57]>> The person that said that they saw it.

[00:24:00]>> I saw it. Yeah. Exactly. And so, >> okay. If Now, if um if it was only your neighbor that said that, right, that said, "I saw Ed take it." But nobody else saw that. And uh we we don't have any other evidence that Ed took it. So we go to Ed's house, truck's not there, you know. Um there's no other evidence that he was there.

[00:24:24]Like let's just say you have trail cameras on your property. You got cameras on your property. Ed didn't trip any of the cameras. Anything like that.

[00:24:30]All you have is the neighbor saying, "I saw it." Is it still reliable evidence?

[00:24:36]Is that enough to arrest Ed?

[00:24:41]It's enough to investigate.

[00:24:43]>> It's enough to investigate. I agree. I agree with that. But it's not enough to arrest. Right.

[00:24:48]>> Well, no.

[00:24:50]>> Right. So, what we have in the Bible is we have one mentioned by Paul of 500 witnesses, but we don't have any names.

[00:24:58]So, that's even worse than what I said because you knew your neighbor said that. But, let's just say it was an anonymous tip. back up. How many eyewitnesses do you need to then verify that it is reliable evidence?

[00:25:12]>> One. But we need a one verified witness.

[00:25:14]We don't have any verified witnesses.

[00:25:16]>> But how do you verify an eyewitness?

[00:25:19]>> Uh you get a name, you get a statement from them, right? Like in this case, you your neighbor was an eyewitness and you know it was your neighbor. Now, what if it was a note in your mailbox that said, "I saw Ed took it. Sign anonymous. Is that good evidence?

[00:25:38]>> I'm sorry. Say that again.

[00:25:39]>> If you found a note in your mailbox that said, "I saw Ed take your truck." Signed anonymous. Is that good evidence?

[00:25:48]>> Again, that would be enough. Not to convict. No.

[00:25:52]>> What's better, your neighbor saying it or the anonymous person saying it?

[00:25:56]What's more what's more reliable?

[00:25:58]>> Depends on if I know my neighbor likes or dislikes Ed. True. But let's just say your neighbor is just your neighbor let's say your neighbor likes Ed. Okay.

[00:26:08]And there's no beef between Ed and the neighbor. And you know >> we're getting off into some some other weeds like >> Well, yeah. Well, I'm kind of following you there. But what I what I'm trying to get at is that one claim of 500 witnesses is not is not a good claim.

[00:26:24]It's just a claim. So, we have to verify that these witnesses are real, right?

[00:26:28]And the way we would do that is with like independent writings, right?

[00:26:34]>> Do you know that there was other witnesses that were named that say that they saw him afterwards >> that wrote something?

[00:26:41]>> Who?

[00:26:44]>> Uh Thomas Matthew.

[00:26:46]>> What did What did he write? What did Thomas write? Thomas didn't write anything.

[00:26:50]>> Okay. Um Thomas said that he actually saw him after the resurrection and said because he denied it and said no touch my hands and he was like my lord my lord.

[00:27:03]>> Yeah that's a story in the in the gospels but Thomas didn't actually say I saw this. This is that's a that's a secondhand account. That's that's what's called um hearsay.

[00:27:13]>> Well >> not really.

[00:27:16]>> Yeah it's hearsay.

[00:27:19]If 10 people came up to you and said the same thing, but they didn't write it down and you wrote it down because you're, let's say, a journalist, >> then are all 10 of these people wrong in what they just said?

[00:27:32]>> No, it's just hearsay. We can't independently verify it.

[00:27:36]>> That's my whole point. Can't independently verify it. So, it's just the same thing as if like like I said, if if somebody said like, yeah, that you know, cuz that's what hearsay testimony is. And for most cases, it's not admissible like as evidence. It's just hearsay. But it's it but I agree with you. It's worth investigating. It's worth checking out. But it's not worth but that's not something you rest your hat you lay you know you hang your hat on. You got to you got to keep investigating. And that's Yeah, I agree with that. But that's not evidence.

[00:28:08]>> Okay. Well, >> that's a reason to keep investigating.

[00:28:12]>> Okay. Well, then keep in keeping investigating. What about the shrouded turn?

[00:28:17]>> Okay. So, um, oh, is Aaliyah here? We got the Shrouded Turin. So, the Shrouded Turin, um, first of all, was debunked in 1988. Okay. And if you counter with, well, they had problems with the study.

[00:28:32]Yes, that is by people who are trying to say they don't like the results of that study. However, they've done two since then, at least two since then, right? In 2009, uh, Luigi Garleselli um recreated his own shroud using middle m middle age technology. So what he did was he took a mask and then he used pigments and things of that sort that they used during the middle ages and he recreated his own shroud. And then the other thing that they did was uh they tried to debunk his results using wax s technology. But the problem with that is um and they said that this affirmed that the shroud came from the first century.

[00:29:11]But the problem with that is that uh when people tried to peer review the results of the study, they found a lot of like problems with it like the data didn't add up. Um things like they couldn't verify a lot of the results and so they couldn't get anybody else to peer review that study and affirm it.

[00:29:28]So, we have uh so we have two. And the other thing about that is um if you look at the shroud, if you if you place a cloth over somebody's face and it makes an imprint, um when you pull the cloth apart, it's going to be a flat face, right? Because it goes this way, right?

[00:29:46]But if you look at the shroud, it doesn't do that. It's not a flat face.

[00:29:50]It's not a flat wide face. It's like a thin face. So that's and also we have um we have the writing from the bishop uh can't remember from the middle ages who um who talked with the artist who created the shroud and admitted it was a forgery. So we have that evidence as well. So we have a lot of strong evidence that it's a forgery. It's a fake.

[00:30:13]>> Interesting.

[00:30:14]>> Yeah.

[00:30:14]>> I have never come across any of those things >> and I've done a pretty good dive on it.

[00:30:22]Yeah, >> I would [snorts] like I would like your sources on that one.

[00:30:26]>> Sure. Um, let's see. Luigi Garelli.

[00:30:35]Let's see.

[00:30:37]This was done in two 2009.

[00:30:40]Garelli >> 2009.

[00:30:44]>> Google for uh >> Shroud. Well, there's an article. Yeah.

[00:30:48]Yeah. I'm doing it, but it's an article.

[00:30:49]Yeah. I'm not doing the art. I'm not doing the Google AI.

[00:30:53]>> Uh let's see here is National Institutes.

[00:31:01]Oh yeah, that's another one. Okay. Oh, no, no, no, not that one. Okay, here we go. So, this is this is from CNN. It's in the it's in the chat. Paste.

[00:31:15]Copy.

[00:31:19]paste. Uh, it's not letting me do it here. Let's see if this will work. Okay, there we go. All right. So, he recreated this. He recreated the shroud. Um, then also you wanted what? The um the wax.

[00:31:39]>> Oh, no. I I'll just start there.

[00:31:41]>> Okay. Oh. Oh. Oh, the bishop.

[00:31:45]Yeah.

[00:31:49]Bishop letter. Bishop of Troy. That's it. Bishop of Troy. That's what it is.

[00:31:56]Um, there we go.

[00:32:04]There we go. Artnet news. Uh, newly uncovered, uh, medieval text calling the shroud a forgery.

[00:32:13]>> Here you go.

[00:32:14]>> Okay. this from 2020.

[00:32:16]>> Yeah, it's in the it's in the chat. So, you have to dig through the chat.

[00:32:20]>> I'll definitely take a look at that. Um I have one more question for you. Yeah.

[00:32:25]>> Just kind of based off of a more mor morality because from my point of view, >> from a secular um view, you really can't dictate what is, you know, good and evil. Sure.

[00:32:36]>> Um so, so I'm going to ask you this. If you create an AI >> Mhm.

[00:32:43]a robot, it gets to the point to where it can think for itself. It can even feel emotions, so on and so forth.

[00:32:51]>> If you start seeing that your creation is going to start hurting people or destroying things or um and even at the same time doing good things for people, >> um do you have a right to destroy it?

[00:33:08]Yes or no?

[00:33:09]>> Do I have a right to destroy it? Um ultimately, yeah, to take it offline.

[00:33:14]Yeah. And to the point where if I need to, yes, >> I would.

[00:33:18]>> So, yes. So, therefore, >> I would I would be morally obligated to.

[00:33:23]>> Okay. So, God has the exact same thing.

[00:33:29]>> Okay. So, help me out with this. Now, am I am I omnicient?

[00:33:33]>> Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

[00:33:36]Even even if regardless of if you're a mission or not, whether or not you can see the future, it it really doesn't matter. The fact is is that you've dictated that if you create something and that creation, even if it does good or bad, you have the right to destroy it.

[00:33:51]>> Yeah. So there's the point though hold on, let me finish talking.

[00:33:56]>> All right. My point is this is that you are pre presumptuating that God does not get that assertion because he is the creator. You want to take that assertion.

[00:34:09]>> You want to take that away from him but yet give it to yourself.

[00:34:13]>> It's a false equivalency. And here's why.

[00:34:15]>> Because that's why I asked. Yeah, it is.

[00:34:17]And here's why. Because well, you said you said it doesn't matter if I'm all knowing, right?

[00:34:22]>> Okay. Before I create, if I was all knowing and before I created this this AI or this robot, did I know for a fact that this robot would turn bad and start doing harm?

[00:34:34]>> Okay. Uh let's say that you do.

[00:34:36]>> I did.

[00:34:37]>> Okay.

[00:34:37]>> Let's let's say that you do.

[00:34:39]>> Okay. So, I automatically did the immoral thing by >> I I automatically did the immoral thing by creating the robot in the first place. So, I shouldn't have even created it in the first place. If I knew that it was going to create harm and cause harm, I did. I create I committed an immoral act just by creating it because I knew it was going to do it.

[00:34:58]>> So yes, >> and by your all of us should be gone.

[00:35:00]None of us should be here.

[00:35:02]>> None of us should be here.

[00:35:03]>> Absolutely.

[00:35:04]>> If you are going to dictate that kind of but yet what if you want to show mercy to your creation?

[00:35:10]>> Okay. But if I'm but if I'm all knowing and I know for a fact that this this this thing that I create, this robot that I create is going to harm other people, other things, other creatures, then it no amount of mercy I would show would overcome the fact that I knew for a fact that this would harm people and it doesn't it doesn't make up for that.

[00:35:29]It's still an immoral act. So no, we so according to your logic, no, we shouldn't be here in the first place.

[00:35:35]No, we should have never been created.

[00:35:36]Or or if I'm omnisient and if I have the ability, I would have just created the robot so it doesn't harm anybody.

[00:35:45]>> And then direct in another.

[00:35:47]>> Let me let me ask you in another way. Do you have any children?

[00:35:51]>> I do.

[00:35:53]>> I have two.

[00:35:55]>> If all knowing one of your children was gonna create do horrendous acts, would you still have your child?

[00:36:01]>> No.

[00:36:04]So you would literally snip >> if I knew for a fact that the next baby I birthed like the like the next I I got somebody pregnant and the next and I knew for a fact that my sperm would cause this to be like the next shitler.

[00:36:23]I would I would get a facectomy immediately. I would never procreate.

[00:36:29]>> All right?

[00:36:30]>> Because it would be immoral to do that.

[00:36:34]immoral to not allow your child to >> No. Immoral to even create a child knowing 100% for a fact that they would be the next shitler.

[00:36:42]>> It would be immoral to create that child.

[00:36:45]>> You're you're you're saying that you wouldn't create your your own child.

[00:36:49]>> Nope.

[00:36:49]>> Based off I would not.

[00:36:51]>> Then >> if I knew for a fact what they would they would turn out to be like that. I absolutely would not. No.

[00:36:56]>> That's your objective morality. Okay.

[00:36:58]>> Yep. It is objective. Yeah. It is objectively immoral to do that. You're absolutely right.

[00:37:02]>> But here here's the thing. Your objective morality and my objective morality are different. So who do we then go to?

[00:37:08]>> The problem is you don't have objective morality.

[00:37:11]>> That's the problem. You have you have you have moral relativity.

[00:37:15]>> I have subjective morality.

[00:37:20]>> Okay. So here I can prove it >> right away. Um under what circumstance?

[00:37:26]Hold on, Matthew. Under what circumstance then is it objectively moral to grape somebody as punishment?

[00:37:35]>> It's not >> it's not no circumstance at all.

[00:37:40]>> No.

[00:37:40]>> Okay. So if you cheated on your wife, okay, and God commanded that you be graped as punishment. Is that morally good?

[00:37:56]Um, that wouldn't happen.

[00:37:59]>> That's not what I asked. It >> It doesn't matter. What What you're doing now is you're moving fence post of what God's word.

[00:38:06]>> It's not moving a fence post cuz I asked you. You said that yours you said that you're object Yeah. Well, you got caught in the trap because you just said that you're you just said that you just said that it was objectively moral, right?

[00:38:18]And I asked and I asked you under what circumstance is it good to punish somebody with grape? And you said none.

[00:38:23]And I said, and then I just went with a a what if. So in that instance, is it morally good? I just need you to answer the question.

[00:38:32]>> It's subject. It's not subjective. It's objective. It's objective morality.

[00:38:37]>> Yeah. So then in that case, >> it would be morally good for you to be great.

[00:38:43]>> None. Because God has shown us nature and that is not ever going to happen.

[00:38:48]>> Okay. It's not ever going to happen.

[00:38:52]>> Okay. So are you saying then that God now is everything in the Bible true?

[00:38:57]>> Oh boy chat, this is so easy. Is everything in the Bible true?

[00:39:02]>> Yes.

[00:39:03]>> Okay. So all the events that happen in the Bible actually happen, right?

[00:39:06]>> Correct.

[00:39:07]>> Fantastic. Let's go to 2 Samuel. You guys know where I'm going with this chat. You guys know where I'm going.

[00:39:13]Um 2 Samuel 12 8-12. You have you read that story of David and Basha?

[00:39:22]Give me one second. Samuel 7 2 Samuel 12:es 8-12.

[00:39:34]>> Just pulling it up real quick.

[00:39:35]>> All right, this is going to be the last one, guys. This will be my last one for the day. So, >> yeah, I got to get going myself. All right.

[00:39:42]>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, this this won't take long. Matthew.

[00:39:48]>> All right. I got it up on my screen if you can read it. If you can read it, >> I got it online.

[00:39:52]>> Okay. Fantastic. Okay. So, this is uh the story of David Basheba, right? And this is when uh God sent Nathan as his prophet to uh talk to talk to David about what he did.

[00:40:03]>> Yeah.

[00:40:04]>> Um so, if we go to verse 11, um so let's let's before we get into dive into this um what is consent to you as far as having sex with a woman? What is consent?

[00:40:19]Uh, give him permission.

[00:40:21]>> Yeah. Like everybody has to agree, right?

[00:40:24]>> Okay. That's like the simplest way to put it. Okay. So, um, you know what, Chad? I won't even do fries this time. I won't even do fries. We'll just we'll go with Matthew's definition. So, we agree on that. Um, every everybody has to agree, right? And do they have to like like literally agree? Like you have they have to clearly agree, right? Like there is no like may you know like uh let's just say if um if a if a man wanted to have sex with a woman all right and let's just say you know things are going and she is she seems like she's flirty she's complimenting him you know she looks like she likes him and if he kind of goes for it Matthew if you know what I mean and she doesn't say yes and she doesn't say no she says nothing does he have consent >> goes for What are you talking about?

[00:41:14]>> Just he he tries to move things forward.

[00:41:15]Yeah. Like, you know, goes in for a kiss or, you know, just he tries to move things forward. I don't really want to say, you know, I don't want to get too graphic here, but hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

[00:41:27]>> Like, let's just say second base. He wants to go to second base. Does he have And she says nothing, right? Does he have consent?

[00:41:37]I would assume yes because she's not saying no.

[00:41:43]>> Okay. So, she has to absolutely say no.

[00:41:46]Otherwise, he should assume that she he has consent.

[00:41:49]>> Well, not say, but she has to make some kind of um an action of some sort to >> if she's passed out drunk.

[00:41:58]>> Well, no.

[00:41:59]>> Okay.

[00:42:00]>> That's because it's an unconscious person.

[00:42:03]>> Okay. So, but she's not making any action. So, so you're saying then if she doesn't make any action, he should assume it's a go.

[00:42:12]>> No, you have to have consciousness. You can't just >> Yeah, she's conscious. She just doesn't say yes or no. She just sits there.

[00:42:19]>> Does he have consent?

[00:42:23]>> I honestly I would don't really understand like it you're you're trying to >> [sighs and gasps] >> Yes, I'm just going to concede. Yes, he has consent. Let's >> He has consent.

[00:42:40]>> Let's just move on. I'm just consistent.

[00:42:42]>> Well, I've had my I've had a talk with my son about this and I have told my son specifically, no, do not have consent.

[00:42:50]No consent whatsoever.

[00:42:52]>> So, um so unless the if the person has specifically says yes, unless they say yes, go ahead. There was no consent.

[00:43:06]>> Well, what if the woman all of a sudden just jumped on him >> and there was no yes.

[00:43:11]>> Then I would say she would have to get consent from him.

[00:43:14]>> So it goes both ways, right? So >> he's he's already Well, he's already dictated that he's >> Let's say he's already said yes, right?

[00:43:21]Yeah, I know. I should have done fries.

[00:43:23]You're right, Jessica.

[00:43:25]>> I should have done fries.

[00:43:26]>> If he doesn't he doesn't say anything, then what?

[00:43:29]>> Okay, so if she jumps on him, he doesn't say anything. And let's just say, yeah, she doesn't have consent.

[00:43:37]So, you should you should have consent to touch people, right? To kiss people.

[00:43:41]To >> Okay, they're both they're both mute.

[00:43:43]>> They're both mute.

[00:43:45]>> And they give no and they give no body language whatsoever.

[00:43:48]>> They can't verbally say yes. I'm with you. They can't verbally say yes. They give no body language either way. Nobody has consent. Yes. Correct.

[00:43:55]>> Nobody has consent.

[00:43:56]>> For mute people out there, you can't have consent. Okay. They will give body language because mute people will have body language. They will give signals.

[00:44:04]They can write things down. Right? So there's ways they can communicate. What I'm saying is there's no way there is no form of communication that she has given to indicate yes or no.

[00:44:15]>> There's just nothing >> then. No, there is no consent.

[00:44:18]>> There we go. Okay. That's what I that's what I needed to clear up with you.

[00:44:22]Okay. And I agree with you. If there's no form of communication and she just sits there and hasn't done anything, the man does not have consent whatsoever.

[00:44:30]None. None at all. Okay. So verse 11, thus says the Lord, I will raise up a trouble against you from within your own house and I will take your wives before your eyes. So uh we're talking about David's wives here. When it says I will take your wives, do you see anywhere where they wives have given consent?

[00:44:50]>> Give me one second. Here, I'll even highlight the entire verse for you because this is it right here, verse 11.

[00:45:11]>> Okay, I've read it.

[00:45:13]>> Okay. Do you see consent by the wives?

[00:45:17]>> And if so, where?

[00:45:20]No, I don't.

[00:45:21]>> No consent. Okay. So, if there's no consent and it says God will take the take David's wives before his eyes and give them to his neighbor and the neighbor shall lie with the wives in broad daylight.

[00:45:32]>> If they don't have consent, that means this is grape, right? Sex without consent is >> is rape.

[00:45:42]>> Bang. Okay. So, that is grape. So if we if we and then if we go forward to 2 Samuel 16.

[00:45:50]>> Well, hold on. Hold on.

[00:45:53]What is the context of this?

[00:45:55]>> The context of this is that David uh graped Bath Sheba because he didn't have consent either and then he got her pregnant and then he uh because Ba Sheeba was his number one general's wife, then he sent his general Uriah into battle and had him killed. And so that's the context of this. This is the reason why this is all happening because da because God is punishing David which is then that's a whole another can of warnings. We didn't even we didn't even get get into that. But but the other part is what context justifies graing somebody as punishment which you said earlier there's no context for that.

[00:46:33]There's no circumstance for that.

[00:46:49]Did I lose you, Matthew?

[00:46:52]>> No, I'm still here.

[00:46:53]>> Okay. Okay. You're just thinking. All right. No, take your time.

[00:46:57]>> Okay. I'm sorry.

[00:46:59]>> No worries. Did you hear my question?

[00:47:02]>> No, I'm sorry. What was your question?

[00:47:04]>> Okay. My question is that um you had said earlier that there's no circumstance in which it it's which is justified to punish someone with grape and we have an instance here and what what God is doing is he's punishing David by graping having his wives graped. So you're because you asked for the context. So are you saying then that it was justified for God to have David's wives graped or what David did?

[00:47:39]No.

[00:47:40]>> Okay. So, and then if we go to 2 Samuel 16 >> uh 20-23, I don't know why it's not coming up because then we see it happening. So, just just to confirm it did happen right here. So, uh this is 2 Samuel 16 23-23.

[00:47:59]Um Abselum who was David's son actually um graped all of his stepmothers. So they pitched a tempt for Abselon upon the roof and Abselon went into his father compuines in the sight of all of Israel.

[00:48:11]>> I'm sorry. I have to go.

[00:48:13]>> Okay. All right. Well, thank you, Matthew. Appreciate you.

[00:48:16]>> I do apologize. I wish I could have stayed a little bit longer.

[00:48:19]>> No worries. All right. Have a good one.

[00:48:22]>> Bye.

[00:48:23]>> All right. So, that's okay. It wasn't going to go well.

[00:48:30]It wasn't going to end well for him. So that's okay.