Unless they also have brains in their heads.

That's the world we live in. You can do whatever you want. Hitler died in a bunker and faced ultimately no consequences for what he did. In the end, our species will probably go extinct, and no one will remember we existed. If you find that reality intolerable, that says more about your lack of mental toughness than it does about God's existence.

@@Molotov49 What a sad rant that was. "Hitler died in a bunker and faced ultimately no consequences for what he did." Sounds like a de-rail and non-sequitur. Not to mention that everybody faces the consequences of their actions, in this life (suffering and death) and the next (cleansing fires of purgatory or eternal damnation in hell). "In the end, our species will probably go extinct, and no one will remember we existed." another non-sequitur and a nihlistic one at that and you're here talking about mental toughness? Good grief...

Just so we’re clear, God is quite “racist” and has been throughout history, as described in detail in the bible.

@@Molotov49 ooo, edgy :)

@@Molotov49 Ah, the typical nihilist paradox. How asinine it really is.

Fake monk Dimond makes a lot of bold claims about a lot of people.

Dimond is a joke, Even Sedes don't Agree with him.

What are you trying to know more about?

Try "Why We're Catholic" by Trent Horn. Also Catholic Answers have great videos. God bless and wish you all the best

@@LostArchivist the biggest things are the papacy and Marián dogma. I’ve looked into both and they make more sense but I want to know more about them. The Marián dogma especially makes more sense to me than before, I used to think they were silly.

@@Black-ui7ff the Marian Digmas make more sense when you identify yourself with the person if Mary. Jesus is the incarnation of God as Man. Mary is the fruit of the relationship of Christ living within us. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Divine Trinity, Jesus Mary and Joseph are the Natural trinity manifested through divinization in the Natural world. When Chrsit lives in us sanctifying us we participate in His power authority and responsibility and Mary is the highest most perfect example of that participation.

"Does anyone have any recommendations on resources to help me on my journey?" Try other religious items and see if they bring the same results as the rosary. Hell, close your eyes, reach into a box of random items, start praying, and then see what you were holding. See how long it takes to realize that the feeling is coming from your own mind, and the desire for it to be there.

It's not obvious because we almost all now accept that equality is a good thing as in societies such as ours. In my post college days I remember struggling with abandoning a budding vegetarianism that was ruining my health because I couldn't see the difference. That was 20+ years ago as secular liberal. Part of reason belief in God (other than the "once saved, always Protestant decayed vision of God) is on the wane is because God is hierarchal. Too many Catholics are trying to keep egalitarian principles and the faith, but the first erodes the second.

this only points out that humans fancy they are more important than animals and animals aren't worth much.

@@atrifle8364 You don't need it to be physical or material, it can be spiritual. Humans can be spiritually equal but materially unequal both in terms of outcome and opportunity. We are all humans, but humans are different from each other in infinite ways. We can all have a soul but different flesh.

@@JC-pi9em - We are not even spiritually equal. Am I spiritually equal to Mary or St. Paul? God really does love us all though. It's okay. It does enhance faith to really abandon as much sense of egalitarianism as possible.

@Excuse me but - I had a very personal experience. But that said, why do you exist at all, if God doesn't love you? Of course you are loved.

God bless you as well

​@@paynedv I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

@Linus Direen I guess you linked the answer in the same subjectivity to define "dignity" as quality you set as intrinsic to all human beings. however I usually ask what exactly makes someone or something have "dignity" suppose you find life in a different planet will they have also "dignity" too. I think you try to link them with the question: "Is it ok to murder an non born baby because of their "dignity" or is a different standard."

I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dogzm

@@a.39886 it depends on what you mean by “dignity;” as a human being, the rapist murderer has more dignity in his nature as a human, but by his actions of raping and murdering he probably may have debased and defiled his soul to be lower than a service dog; especially from a Theological point of view in that, if both of them died right now the rapist murderer would probably suffer eternal death in hell, while the service dog wouldn’t. However it should be noted that the service dog doesn’t really have moral worth in and of his/herself, the dog is only doing what he or she is trained to do, there is no moral contemplation or act of the will on the part of the dog.

@@claritasyoutubechannel3312 I found your way of thinking about this similar as I do.

@@VindensSaga interesting.

I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog.,.

@@a.39886 Answered you in the previous post.

@@antoniomoyal .I guess you linked the answer in the same subjectivity to define "dignity" as quality you set as intrinsic to all human beings. however I usually ask what exactly makes someone or something have "dignity" suppose you find life in a different planet will they have also "dignity" too. I think you try to link them with the question: "Is it ok to murder an non born baby because of their "dignity" or is a different standard.",.

I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog.-

@@a.39886 a And don't ask me anymore questions. I won't reply.

@@maciejpieczula631 why don`t you answer any question?

@@a.39886 He did, he said a)

I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog I

@@a.39886 The rapist murderer has definitely more dignity that the dog, because the rapist can know and act with his will, whereas the dog only does what has been created to do: The dog is not free, whereas the rapist is. The rapist has responsibility, the dog doesn't. Don't get me wrong. They both have value and are good. The dog's actions are good, It is just the rapist action of raping is that it is evil. But the rapist in himself is good. It is existence what gives dignity. This can be justified religiously or through mere human reason.

Egalitarianism both does not exist and counters the theist argument. There really is no equal dignity of men before God or other men. God loves us all but ultimately people go to Heaven or Hell, which are very unequal dignities. Once egalitarianism is rejected entirely as an argument of fantasy and current Marxist dogma, we can proceed to much more satisfying arguments on every level.

The statement that “all men are created equal,” is a theological and political statement - not a natural one. Humans are created in the Image of God. We recognize it or not.

You are adding criteria to what Trent is saying and addressing your new definition rather than addressing what Trent was saying. Trent never said that people are treated equally and therefore we have equal dignity (in the sense of what lengths people ought to go when we die, for example). Trent DID say that there is something about us as humans that most humans tend to agree with (almost without debate now) that means we have certain rights that we still debate about other animals having. AKA "human exceptionalism". Trent also gave synonyms to explain how he meant the word "dignity". It's not "everyone is treated like the queen therefore we have equal dignity". That's an epic strawman. He is talking about the idea that human life is valuable (supposedly) over and against the lives of other animals. Most people are not vegans, for example. Yet most people also don't advocate for cannibalism. We eat other animals but find cannibalism appalling. What makes us the exception?

@@atrifle8364 .- I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

@@rhysenfyneix7864 - Trent referenced the foundational document of modern times - the Declaration of Independence - as the go to statement of what's "obvious" about the human condition. That's despite it's incompatibillity with Catholic teaching and thinking. If you know any history at all, you know Jefferson himself certainly did not act as though all humans were endowed equally by their Creator to life, liberty, and the rather hedonistic pursuit of happiness. Trent's arguments are watered down precisely because he's trying to use egalitarian arguments as conclusive evidence for God. But even a few objective moments with human society sees heirachies. All of Scripture is about heirachies, including God making distinct choices of covenants with and through specific people. It's not anyone's fault that they think naturally in egalitarian terms. Equality is the unquestioned public virtue of our age. We all think in public coin of the realm, until a specific decision is made to avoid it. I think the miracle is that anyone can think coherently about God anyway, despite our swamp of a society.

I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dogz

@@a.39886 Human beings have more value than dogs, yes. In regards to the rapist/murderer- they are deserving of the death penalty. A rapist/murderer forfeits their right to life as a result of the crime committed against a human being who posses intrinsic value and moral worth by virtue of being made in God's image. Thats justice, Biblical justice. The central issue with abortion is the status of the unborn. The unborn are fully human from conception, with each level of development being one of form, not nature. Abortion kills an innocent human being, which is wrong. I will ask you- when is it ok to murder an innocent and defenseless human being? Stick to the topic, thanks.

@@p4pdestined8 when is it ok to murder an innocent and defenseless human being? Isn´t the answer when you can get a greater good with that murder?

@@a.39886 What good would that be? Again- when is is justifiable to intentionally murder an innocent and defenseless human being in the womb, depriving that human being of life, which is the most fundamental right of all? And what standard are you appealing to by which you measure right from wrong, good from evil. Utilitarianism? Still need an objective standard, an external moral order, with transcendent grounding in order to JUSTIFY your morality.

@@p4pdestined8 Perhaps I´m confuse isn´t this the right apologetic to kill innocent and defenseless human beings. Maybe I miss my apologetic class. Is it not the same reasoning used to justify the murder of children and babies of pagan peoples in the old testament, to bring a greater good to humanity, I do not see any difference. 1 Samuel 15:3 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” Deuteronomy 2:34 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[a] them-men, women and children. We left no survivors. Deuteronomy 20:16-17 6 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the Lord your God has commanded you.

Can Aliens also not know God?

The argument is based on other animals and creatures we are aware of. So you strawman his argument to make this objection. Since we know not of such aliens.

@@nics4967 there are two levels of Creator. The proton electron interaction in hydrogen careaes >20 specific dpectrL lines. This cannot occur unless spacetime has quantitized values which are non-random. Non randomness requires deliberateness. Therefore, one Creator made space-time with its properties from quark and other quantum denizens. Then , a Creator of Life. Data driven protein production and an operating system based on DNA, RNA and proteins so far beyond human comprehensio is also so light-years distant from randomnon- causality that there can be no other explanation than a Superintelligence. Why can't aliens grasp this as well?

All hail Baal!

., I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

There's a couple of problems I can see with it. One is that of agency, ie: who decides upon the rationality or lack thereof for all other human beings in all times and places? Even if such a person could exist, it's not such an obvious thing to simply recognize rationality, as people disagree. Every war ever fought testifies to that. Another issue, related to it, is that no one can be considered fully rational at all times regardless of circumstance, which you alluded to with the examples of coma patients and fetuses. If rationality is the standard by which dignity is upheld, but no one can legitimately claim to be always rational, dignity correspondingly falls by the wayside.

One response would be that this does not explain the intrinsic dignity of those humans who have permanently lost their rational nature like people with severe mental handicaps.

... and if I may add, ALL PLATYPOODLE LIVES MATTER!

@@TheCounselofTrent Thanks for the response! I think a reply to that would be that even people with severe disabilities have a rational nature. The fact that we refer to them as being “disabled” indicates that they are lacking something which it is in their nature to have. For example we wouldn’t say a brick is disabled for not being able to reason, but we do say that about human beings because we recognize that they have a rational nature, regardless of whether a given individual is actually capable of reasoning.

I think another possible response would be to ask why we should place more value on rationality (as you mention, a seemingly unique human ability) than sentience (the ability to feel pain, something that all animals seem to have). It seems like a goalpost shift for the human exceptionalist position. While not actually saying "we have value because we're human," it's saying "we have value because we have a rational nature," but only humans have a rational nature. Picking a uniquely human quality to make an argument that humans are uniquely valuable seems like circular reasoning. Suggesting the specific adaptation of rationality should give us value over and against other animals (who have adaptations we don't) seems circular, too.

Thank you for your comment. My replies here may not be as articulate as others, but I hope it can help in some ways and I hope the best for your mother and for your family. 1. We pray, not necessarily because we want God to know our intentions, but because we love our mothers, and we want our best for them. To pray also means to be united with God's will, and it is God's will for us to pray for one another. And, through our prayers, we can be closer and more united to God which actually helps other people as well as we grow closer to God as we pray for them. 2. I remember before that I also view prayer as making a request (of course, petitions are requests),but I am unaware before that prayer is union with God's will. It is to say, Thy Will be done, in a specific situation, and in every situation, in our lives. It is expressing our faith, hope and love for God. We may not say this word per word, but it should at least be implicit as if we pray, "Lord, I pray for her healing and if it's Your will that she can serve you and be closer to you as she receives this gift of healing, may Your will be done. If it's Your will that she (or others) can serve you and that they can grow in holiness even more even if they do not have a good physical health unlike before, may Your will be done, I trust in You." Of course, we may have limitations in our understanding of prayer, but it's an opportunity to be more humble and to trust in Him and in His mercy. 3. Thank you for your openness to share this. This is difficult, and I can see that your love your mom, and you truly want what is best for her. To answer your question, I'll divide it to two, about questioning God and about the will of God with regards to your comment that He intends it to happen. There is nothing wrong with "questioning", if we understand it by "asking a question." It's more of reflecting on God's will, speaking to Him as our Father, and trusting in His mercy. I'll speak more about this, but at the same time, Jesus is the Truth, and we can know the truth about our life by consulting Him and speaking to Him in our prayers. With regards to the other point, it is not intention of God as if He just wants people to suffer. I am glad that you spoke about this since sometimes, the lack of peace in our hearts is due to our perspective, and what I recognize, even in my own life, is that perhaps, our faith in God should not be the one that should change but our perspective in such a way that we can see God more clearly and know His love for us. So, to go back to my point, we believe in God's "permissive will", but permissive will is about God bringing goodness out of the difficulties in our lives. I'll just give some examples below. We also believe in redemptive sufferings. When we offer our sufferings to God, not just through words, but by being faithful to God's will even amidst sufferings, our sufferings can actually help the conversion of sinners. Yesterday is the day that we commemorate the last day of the apparition of Mary in Fatima, and the three children were offering prayers (including the rosary) and their sufferings to our Lord, and the Blessed Virgin Mary revealed to them that more souls entered heaven due to their sacrifices. We may not be aware of heaven yet, but we should not be surprised if we see souls who are thankful for us due to the time that we are conformed to God's will when we are sick and maybe, it's one of the many things that helped souls to enter heaven. And, I assure you, God will bring good out of our sufferings and the sufferings of your mother, and by praying for her, you can help her and more souls as well. At the same time, sufferings that we receive can also help us. It may be difficult due to pain, but the more we endure it in patience, the more that we can grow in union with God because we become more conformed to Jesus Christ. For the saints, when we look at them, many of them, if not all of them, receive numerous illness and sufferings, and yet, their joy is supernatural and beyond what even those who do not suffer have. Below, I'll just share some of my recommendations that you may consider. 1. I hope you can speak to God and be honest with Him with your feelings and thoughts. Express to Him your pain, your sorrows, and this is also a form of offering your sacrifices to Him. As much as possible, speak to Him in the Blessed Sacrament where Jesus is truly present. You can do this in front of the Tabernacle in the Church, in their Adoration chapel if they have, or you can search "Online Adoration" on KZfaq. just be cautious since we may experience temptations of anger, despair, etc, but when you feel these temptations, just go back to God and find peace in Him. And, I hope you can pray the rosary because the Blessed Virgin Mary is also our Lady of sorrows. She is present in our lives, both in our joys and in our sorrows. She is our Mother who always cares and prays for us. I'll offer a rosary for you, for your mother and for your intentions. 2. If possible,I highly recommend speaking to a Catholic priest in your parish or seeking help from a spiritual director. Having a spiritual director was really helpful for me, and I just like to add. The pain that we may experience can also be caused by repressed wounds in the pasts, and these wounds are in need of healing. And, having a spiritual director, or speaking to a priest, will help you and guide you to God's healing mercy. 3. Perhaps, it may help you if you can read and reflect on quotes by the saints on sufferings, and even read spiritual readings. I will send some references later, but pondering on the lives of the saints can help us in our journey because they are models for us, and they are always praying for us. Thank you.

@@chrisoliverdelacruz5347 Thank you for your response 🙏 bless you

But you don't know anything about any specific atheist, except that that lack belief in a God or God's. So there is no "Logical conclusion" to that, other than they do indeed lack a belief in a God or God's.

@@CalebScott1991 -Theism or lack thereof is a foundational belief. An assumption that must be chosen to reason forward. Atheism is strict materialism from which many conclusions must follow. In real sense I know almost everything that an atheist sees about the world that I cannot assume about theist. Atheists are rather always hoping their views make them unique, but it shuts down multiple lines of thinking by simply refusing to accept the supernatural.

@@atrifle8364 But you just made all of that up lol. Atheism is just an answer to a question: do you believe in a God.

@@atrifle8364 .- I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

@@CalebScott1991 - No, I didn't. In any event, the proper historical definition of atheism is the denial of God. The typical normal reaction of seeing atheists as arrogant at best and morally bankrupt at worst is correct.

Speak softly and carry a big stick (or rather shotgun). On a serious note though, we Christians live on the knife's edge. Between "the blood shed for me was also shed for them" and "can't save them all". Or that's just me In any case, fact remains that God is the source of all good. A fact they can't deal with since they are obssessed in denying Him. That's why they keep looking for excuses while labelling it science. Then pointing at us for not believing them "da science".

@@leokim1458 ..- I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

@@a.39886 "I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog" Easy. None of the above. It's like trying to compare the best football player to the worst basketball player. Stupid comparison. But of course, I'd hate the rapist. And I'd be very friendly with the dog. Not date the dog like you would since you clearly have hard time seeing the difference.

@@a.39886 it would have the same moràl worth with the only difference that the human, if capable of following morality, would have a priority to exist.

.- I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

USSR is a good example of atheism and on consenus-based morality (and then you can also ask on whose consenus?) People can claim that they have "good" morals as atheists but as they don't believe in anything of human worth or dignity they can change their views on a dim, in order to survive or simply by peer pressure. There is no set framework other than for the current moment. As a christian (true christian) I am forced to become a better person, I am forced to adhere to examples which I personally might not agree with.

@@VindensSaga isn´t this the right apologetic to kill innocent and defenseless human beings. Maybe I miss my apologetic class. Is it not the same reasoning used to justify the murder of children and babies of pagan peoples in the old testament, to bring a greater good to humanity, I do not see any difference if you say "god opinion". 1 Samuel 15:3 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” Deuteronomy 2:34 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[a] them-men, women and children. We left no survivors. Deuteronomy 20:16-17 6 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the Lord your God has commanded you

I mean, you can assert anything you want.

I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog.-.z

.--, I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

@@a.39886 Under the assumption that there is no god and that the material world is all there is then there’s really no reason to value one living creature more than another one. So regardless of any scenario that you can come up with the answer would always be the same, no creature has more or less dignity or value than other creatures.

@@oscartorre6003 Is any opportunity where is justifiable to intentionally murder an innocent and defenseless human being ?

@@a.39886 Probably if he/she is suffering from an unbearable pain caused by some illness or birthdefect but What’s your point? If god doesn’t exist then nothing is objectively good or evil and all we have left are people’s opinions.

@@oscartorre6003 Perhaps I´m confuse isn´t this the right apologetic to kill innocent and defenseless human beings. Maybe I miss my apologetic class. Is it not the same reasoning used to justify the murder of children and babies of pagan peoples in the old testament, to bring a greater good to humanity, I do not see any difference if you say "god opinion". 1 Samuel 15:3 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” Deuteronomy 2:34 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[a] them-men, women and children. We left no survivors. Deuteronomy 20:16-17 6 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the Lord your God has commanded you

. I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

@@a.39886 Far more dignity than the service dog, and that's why he or she has the right to a trial of his or her peers and if you think a service dog is your peer how would you fare under the judgement of a pack of dogs? No matter how well behaved some service dog has been trained to be. Man is in God's image, we know that because God became man and died so that murderes and rapists might have forgiveness and if you think dogs are superior to Christ you will begin to have the morality of a dog which makes no bones about either rape or murder.

@@314god-pispeaksjesusislord ,..-I guess you linked the answer in the same subjectivity to define "dignity" as quality you set as intrinsic to all human beings. however I usually ask what exactly makes someone or something have "dignity" suppose you find life in a different planet will they have also "dignity" too. I think you try to link them with the question: "Is it ok to murder an non born baby because of their "dignity" or is a different standard."

@@a.39886 Subjectivity is not a dirty word rights are subjective until they are protected by law enforced with violence and then they are objective rights. Your self worth (dignity) is subjective until your power to have it respected is accepted and there is consequences for dishonoring you, then your self worth is objective. Christ will judge in the equity of his image on humanity and God has given us evidence of this by raising him from the dead, that force of judgement makes prior subjective dignity objective because to deny it has consequences.

@@314god-pispeaksjesusislord Is any opportunity where is justifiable to intentionally murder an innocent and defenseless human being ?

I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog.-.z

.- I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

@@a.39886 the service dog has greater intrinsic value than the human.

@@adam7402 - The dog is more useful to society. However only the human is made in the image of God, so he is the only one who possibly could even have dignity before God and man, for that matter. The dog on his best days is naked and can relieve himself in broad daylight. The murderer jailed forever still has to wear clothes.

@@atrifle8364 Keep in mind that dignity and value are not the same. And value, in a sense, is defined by more than just usefulness. "Value" is the summation of many traits. You can include "dignity" as one of those traits. Anyways, so called "intrinsic value" is malleable, the things we do effect our value. You know this to be true because a dog will never be anathematized or damned. If we recieve our intrinsic value from Christ, who is of greater value, the damned, or the dog?

@@adam7402 - I am keeping that in mind. The trouble is your argument conflated the two. A dog literally never has dignity, although he or she might have worth and be cute and fuzzy to boot. We routinely offer dignity instinctively to the most worthless and awful people on the planet, because they are people. Not much dignity, not as much as you might offer your Mom, but still it's there. In any event, the existence of human dignity is a clue about human exceptionalism, but it does not prove it.

@Excuse me but here's another way stating it in regards to salvation. When we dignify the integrity of Christ in his identity as God he dignifies our integrity in our identity as sons of God and joint heirs with Christ in the rights of citizenship in his kingdom.

@Excuse me but I have one Jesus is Lord and King like it or not.

@Excuse me but No, in fact just the opposite, it provides a factual basis for the truth of fundamental human rights. Other than that you're bound under the judgement and violence of government instituted by men to allow you to have rights.

@Excuse me but the Dobbs decision was secular based on the secular constitution whether right or wrong. In Christ who is the Christian constitution in his person the rights that he gives as our creator are in EQUITY such that the controversy of rights between the two persons mother and child must be weighed if an actual controversy is claimed. It's functionally equivalent to two persons being sewn together by a mad scientist or conjoined twins who seek separation, does the right to life of one outweigh the right of the other? The science is clear the unborn are human beings I didn't like Dobbs because these human beings should have been declared legal persons with the full set of rights and duties, a mother could then sue for separation as needed with the child having equal protection of law. So, I agree I don't like the secular decision made in Dobbs either.

@Excuse me but but Muhammad did not rise from the dead and Jesus did again that's what I'm saying about Christ being the factual predicate for universal human rights. Man made theocracies under man made gods are just government by man. The rights you enjoy would not exist for you without Christianity instead you would exist in a purely Roman or Greek or Muslim or Communist nation. Christianity prevailed as it did because of the equity it guaranteed to the least in society protected by the risen Christ the final judge. That's not to say that making the claim to be Christian is enough, these principles of equity must be applied. I would suggest reviewing the evidence for the resurrection, even if you still don't believe it you will know why others did.

Link? I'd have to see how he formulates this argument. I can't even understand what you're saying he says and I read SEP articles for fun. "...if yes, then surely it is that on account of which He stands in this special relation that is doing the work here, so there is no need to posit God to explain it...." I have no idea what this is supposed to mean or how it is relevant to the issue of a foundation for our belief in the value of human life/experience. As for your suggestion that humans would be rational animals whether God existed or not, argument and/or evidence needed. Just claiming that doesn't give us a reason to think it's true.

But isn't that a false dilemma? Other options include 1) it is something about humans, but that thing about humans that makes them special is itself best explained by God. 2) human dignity requires both something to be true about humans and something to be true about God (i.e. something to be true about the foundation of reality). 3) human dignity depends upon several things, including facts about human nature, facts about God, and facts about the relationship between human nature and God. All that is necessary for the human dignity argument to work is that God be a necessary condition for innate human dignity; there may be other necessary conditions which include facts about human nature. Edit: this reply was meant for aiden. Also, it's worth noting that the dilemma does nothing to show that human dignity is actually explainable without God. So if we can show that it is explainable with god, and that it is not explainable without god, then we have established the argument even if we were forced to embrace the first Horn of the dilemma (which we aren't)

@@rhysenfyneix7864 Hey there, thanks for the reply! I'll try to link Joe's video, but I think sometimes KZfaq blocks links, so if it doesn't work, just look up Majesty of Reason and look for the video called "Moral Arguments for God: An Analysis." Here's the link, if it will work: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/max1nbary6u1ook.html As for what you quoted from my comment, my apologies for the lack of clarity, I kind of rushed that post. What I meant was that, if God stands in special relation to humans on account of some feature, f, that humans possess, then f is what grants humans their moral status, not the special relation. So, that special relation is unnecessary for moral status. If I can clarify further, please let me know. As for whether human beings would be rational animals whether God exists or not, I think this is rather obvious. The essence of a human just is to be a rational animal. This is just real essentialism, which Trent, other Thomists, and myself would all affirm. Now, I certainly don't think humans would exist without God, for He is the infinite source of Being that we all participate in. But that is a separate argument.

@@travispelletier3352 Hey there, thanks for the reply and these thoughts! I would say that it is not a false dilemma. The way I presented it was not clear enough, but the two options I presented are either 1) humans have moral status entirely based on their intrinsic features or 2) humans do not have moral status entirely based on their intrinsic features. With that clarification, this is just A or ~A. So, it is a true dilemma. But then, with your proposals, it looks like you're offering some possible ways that we could accept the 2nd horn of the dilemma, so let's look at your proposals. As for your first proposal, I wouldn't deny this. I mean, I would say the essence of humans is what gives them their moral worth, and I would say that God has to grant existence to creatures along with their essences. But that is the De Ente argument, which is not a moral argument, so I think my criticism survives your first proposal. As for proposal 2, I'm not sure what this means. Is it similar to the previous proposal where we need God to explain the existence of creatures? If so, the same response applies. If not, I'm not sure what this fact about the foundation of reality could be. Could it be that God is perfect goodness itself? If so, I agree with that, but I don't see how this argument can establish that. It's important to keep the dialectical context in mind. I agree that God is perfect goodness, but if we need to believe that for this argument to work, then this argument is useless. But I'll need further clarification on what you mean here to have a settled judgement. As for number 3, I again fail to really grasp what you're referring to here. But here, I'll assume you mean that the fact about God and His relationship to us is that He loves us or chose us to have moral status. But then the dilemma is just pushed back a step. Does He love us on account of some fact(s) about us or not? If yes, then it is these facts that give us our moral status. If no, then His decision to grant us moral status is arbitrary. There is also one ultimate problem that afflicts your entire response though. That is the fact that you have misunderstood the dialectical context. You, Trent, and any defenders of this argument have the burden of showing that the atheist has either 1) *no* way of accounting for the moral worth of humans or 2) that their ways are worse off than the theist's ways. But as for 1, that is clearly false. I gave you that option already (ie. Humans have moral worth on account of their rational nature), and we could think of plenty more. As for 2, this would take debate, and I'll be happy to engage you on that, but let me offer a first response here to the proposals you offered. On my view, humans derive their moral worth from their rational nature. This account is extensionally adequate (that is, it covers all moral facts that we want to cover about human dignity), and it posits only one fact to explain all the others. On your accounts though, they will explain the data no better than this rational nature account, and they will posit more than one fact to explain the same data. Therefore, on account of simplicity, my theory would beat yours. So, you will need to show why my theory fails to account for the data in some way in order to prove your case.

@@Dailishusband .- I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dogz

.,- I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog.-.-.

@@a.39886 I would ask you to define "dignity" so that I can answer accordingly. That's a genuine question, so I hope you answer, but to avoid completely dodging your question, I'd say that my gut reaction is to respect the dog more... Is that the same as dignity? It causes some friction with my belief in restorative justice and the capacity for people to change for the better, though, which moves me somewhat towards a response that they should be treated with equivalent levels of dignity - that is both should be treated equitably according to their capacities as agents in a moral system.. is that the same as equal dignity? I could possibly be convinced that the criminal should be respected as an agent with a greater capacity to correct their own behavior with appropriate treatment, which may ground a reasonable response that they warrant greater dignity due to their greater capacities. Then again, the criminal also has a capacity to appreciate the moral depravity of their actions and yet they did them anyway... Could that warrant less dignity-owed, than a dog who does good actions but does not have the capacity to comprehend their moral significance? I don't know.

​@@HonestlyAtheistI guess I linked the answer in the same subjectivity to define "dignity" as quality you set as intrinsic to all human beings. however I usually ask what exactly makes someone or something have "dignity" suppose you find life in a different planted will they have also "dignity" too. I think they try to link them with is it ok to murder an non born baby because of their "dignity" or is a different standard.

@@a.39886 I'm not certain I totally follow your response, but I hope I answered your question. Feel free to rephrase if you have some additional question or if I did not answer fully. I tend to be sympathetic with a view that "dignity" is not really a "real" thing, and is largely just a semantic/rhetorical tool used in this kind of debate to smooth over difficult discussions by appealing to intuitions and/or emotions, and pretend that the solutions are simpler than they really are.

What did you ask of him when you tried to communicate with him? Losing a relative is hard or a good friend is hard if that was your case. Especially as a child. Before my grandfather died, I didn't pray for good health but a quick death without pain. He was swimming in painkillers as he died so I guess he didn't feel much but I think his pain was not bodily but mentally as my grandmother didn't want to hold his hand.

An average internet atheist delusion explanation...

Why don't you hate say what you mean? Namely that human life has no value, Hitler trying to o exterminate the Jews is morally no different from me trying to exterminate the roaches living in my kitchen

What is magical about theology?

@@Jimmy-iy9pl that which he doesn't understand he calls magic

@@Jimmy-iy9pl , I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog.

I do to my own satisfaction at least but one has to be willing to simply assert God the Creator and move on. Modernly debates are hobbled by presumptive atheism/evolution theory and egalitarianism as unquestioned good. Those assumption have be thrown off before more solid answers can be offered.

@@atrifle8364 well, the whole point of this video is that "humans have objective moral superiority" is a premise in an argument that ends in "therefore, God exists". So you wouldn't be able to use God's existence to prove that the premise is true - that would be circular.

@@Kevigen so we are no different than animals, average internet atheist?

@@Tzimiskes3506 I'm actually not an atheist, and I actually never said that humans are no different than animals. Please don't strawman me.

@@Kevigen - Atheists want me to prove what I will never be able to prove, that is the existence of God. The moral argument may sway a more uncommitted POV towards the existence of God. There's nothing short of God's grace that will do so for militant atheists. Thus it's better to assume God, rather than play around in the atheistic framework. For the average listener presumptive atheism secedes the high ground to atheism before the discussion starts. Presumptive theism is the framework of confidence.

In "Orthodoxy"?

Value is not necessarily objective. The value of a car you may hold is 30k, and I may disagree. I'm not sure you could see if an argument is poor or good given the evidence of your response. Market (free) value is subjective.

@@nics4967 Value is never objective. I have no idea what you think you are resounding to, child.

@cygnusustus You claim value is necessarily objective 9 months ago now you claim it never is. Curious lack of consistency. By resounding, do you mean responding? By child, do you appeal to adhominum or, more specifically, the genetic fallacy? You make a bold claim of no objective values. Can you prove that claim?

@cygnusustus Truth is not an objective value? Is it a private value? Truth is not the aim of a good worldview?

,.isn´t this the right apologetic to kill innocent and defenseless human beings. Maybe I miss my apologetic class. Is it not the same reasoning used to justify the murder of children and babies of pagan peoples in the old testament, to bring a greater good to humanity, I do not see any difference if you say "god opinion". 1 Samuel 15:3 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” Deuteronomy 2:34 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[a] them-men, women and children. We left no survivors. Deuteronomy 20:16-17 6 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the Lord your God has commanded you

@Timothy ,.I guess you linked the answer in the same subjectivity to define "dignity" as quality you set as intrinsic to all human beings. however I usually ask what exactly makes someone or something have "dignity" suppose you find life in a different planet will they have also "dignity" too. I think you try to link them with the question: "Is it ok to murder an non born baby because of their "dignity" or is a different standard."

The problem for athiest would be sure creation is beautiful and what not but let's not forget how chaotic it is. Merely blaming everything on the fall won't probably convince them since they reject this paradise like creation before the fall.

@@YovanypadillaJr .- I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

Those are two different things, of course. Why did you decided to conflate them?

@@cygnusustus it's from the same worldview the devil is tempting saying just curse God and die I'll give you everything

@@rickyc46 ...and in your worldview God is saying just worship me and die and I'll give you everything, right? Not much difference in those worldviews.

@@cygnusustus except one created me the other didn't

@@rickyc46 Your mommy and daddy created you, child. Did they never give you "the talk"?

Possessing equal dignity before God is not an inheritently Christian point of view. The best "equal dignity" I can dredge up is that the elites of any society are also fallen. Yes, God loves us all. But Mary alone has way more dignity before God than I do. Christian societies are naturally more egalitarian because nobody believes in the moral superiority of the ruling class. But beyond there Christianity preaches and warns about highly unequal dignities before God

@@atrifle8364 .-, I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

Spot on, brother! I was surprised how easily he was assuming this axiomatic position that is found only and only Christianity

...or Christian.

So you're okay with human beings being treated as though they have no value?

@@claritasyoutubechannel3312 Did I say I was OK with human beings being treated as though they have no value? No. Of course I didn't. You xtians seem incapable of honest discussion. Why is that?

@@cygnusustus Why? Why should one treat their fellow-human beings as though they have intrinsic value if they objectively don't?

@@claritasyoutubechannel3312 Because intrinsic value is not the only type of value. In fact, I don't believe anything has intrinsic value. Value exist subjectively. An entity can only have value TO another entity.

@@cygnusustus And if said entity or society of entities decide that another entity or minority of entities don't have value?

I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog.-z

@@a.39886 More dignity than the service dog. He's a human being, that's enough reason.

@@eucharistenjoyer I guess you linked the answer in the same subjectivity to define "dignity" as quality you set as intrinsic to all human beings. however I usually ask what exactly makes someone or something have "dignity" suppose you find life in a different planet will they have also "dignity" too. I think you try to link them with the question: "Is it ok to murder an non born baby because of their "dignity" or is a different standard."

Here's hoping!

@@a.39886 Sorry I don't discuss the value of human life with someone who relativizes it. I'd rather lend my ears to a service dog than to you.

I was a secular agnostic once. From personal experience, a proper belief in human exceptionalism springs entirely from a belief in a God who creates and we share the image of. For a true agnostic, a perception of this fact of existence will help put evidence in the God column. However, human exceptionalism is exactly unprovable the way God is unprovable. The concept springs from an uncreated Creator of a certain type. That said, the best counter argument I can give is that Stalin was absolutely correct by his strict atheism to indulge in killing and torture of all kinds. There is no room in the atheistic framework for the sort of moral mush that modern atheists are forever seeking on the point. Any admittance of a finer feeling that you might be more important than a cow is indeed illusion supplied by long unimportant wiring. If you don't like those conclusions, too bad, because they flow directly from presumptive atheism, which is also unprovable. They are what they are, because there are no alternatives when we are all fleshy accidents of the universe.

@@atrifle8364 -.- I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog

@@atrifle8364 Your experience -- like mine -- is that it isn't a brute fact. I agree with you. It's not. But Trent claims it as a brute fact, and argues that it points to God. You (and I) say the god belief must come first, and human exceptionalism supervenes on that. And I think you're right and Trent is wrong.

@@stephengalanis - We do agree that human exceptionalism only becomes a fact once we're reasoning forward from the existence of a particular type of unCreated Creator. I point out however, that with minor exception of sociopathic types, we all experience a nagging impression of human exceptionalism. I certainly did my most atheistic days. Most normie atheists would be quite upset if we took their framework to it's logical conclusion and put my dog on equal legal footing as themselves. Most "choice" arguments carefully avoid giving pre-born infants their full humanity in justifying their attitudes. They will become quite upset when the word "baby" is introduced in the conversation. The fact of a universal nagging impression that simply being human that is something remarkable can be used as evidence for but not proof of God, an uncreated Creator with whom we have a special relationship. Human exceptionalism, however only becomes fact/working assumption once we reason forward from an uncreated Creator.

@Randolph Worthington III Why do we write in full sentences? Why do we write with punctuation? I'd say it's mostly for readability; for avoiding ambiguity.

@Timothy I'm not a post-modernist, I don't think meaning of a text is up to the reader, I think one has to understand a text on its own terms first. I had running battles with the English department at university over Seamus Heaney's poetry. I think what he meant matters. It's not up to me to project a meaning onto a text.

There is a much simpler explanation. It's not translated correctly.

I'm personally not fluent in OT Hebrew to make that call. I can see how a dozen different translations render that verse, I can trust the experts. The translators, on the whole, are going to be doing that work because they're believers. They aren't motivated to put the Bible in a bad light. Still, this a drop in the ocean. For another example, the alleged flood of Noah, if it were it real, is needlessly sadistic. An all-powerful god did not have to drown everyone. There are too many instances of God not valuing human life at all, of bloodlust. Does God care about human dignity? Did Trent stop to ask that question? Yes, he's going to construct an internally coherent argument... just so long as we don't look at the source material for his god. Lets all go back to the Bible before making fun claims about human dignity and value. There's little evidence that God thinks about human value. The OT god doesn't spend much time caring about the internal, lived experience of women, what their feelings are about being taken as a sex slave. It's laughable to think their feeling matter, or should be consulted. The attitude of the Bible is "who cares? they're women." They're just property. There's no twee dignity and human exceptionalism. The marriage / sexual purity laws only treat them as property of their fathers first, and husbands when married. Property. Far from being valuable qua human, the OT women are dehumanised; valuable like a cow or a vase is valuable. At some point we have to consider that the god Trent imagines is absent from, and opposed by the Bible. We can't erase and rewrite all the passages where God doesn't value humans equally. Put it this way: if a violent bronze age tribal war god was the outlier, if there was only one instance of it, then "it's not translated correctly" would be plausible. But when it's the norm, when there are hundreds of examples, it can't all be mistranslated, right? Oh I'm glad Trent conjures up a kinder, softer, more empathetic God. But maybe what's happening is Trent's a nice guy, and he's making a god in his own image. He's nice, and wants his god to be nice.

@@stephengalanis YOu’ve made a few calls here. I’d argue that most of them take way more knowledge, wisdom, and capacity than does fluency in OT Hebrew.

@@stephengalanis - You are correct here on many examples Christianity offers of unequal dignity before God. The problem is, including Trent and myself, that we are all sitting in strong mental brine of egalitarianism. It's in the social water we drink and almost completely unconsciously. Yet, every Hail Mary that a Catholic prays is a statement of unequal dignity before God. There only three true egalitarian ideas in Christianity: 1)God loves us all, 2) We are all made in the image of God, and 3)We are all effected by the fall. Those three concepts produce some unique egalitarian aspects to Christian society. However, that's the end of it. Everything else including angels, New Testament apostles, and saints in Heaven involve unequal dignities before God. In Heaven, nobody cares really because God is enough. But God makes heirachies, not communist societies.

,.isn´t this the right apologetic to kill innocent and defenseless human beings. Maybe I miss my apologetic class. Is it not the same reasoning used to justify the murder of children and babies of pagan peoples in the old testament, to bring a greater good to humanity, I do not see any difference if you say "god opinion". 1 Samuel 15:3 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” Deuteronomy 2:34 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[a] them-men, women and children. We left no survivors. Deuteronomy 20:16-17 6 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites-as the Lord your God has commanded you

@@a.39886 God's opinion. That's good enough for me. Different time. Different purpose. Ultimately God has the right to do whatever he wants with his creation. We are not to kill the unborn. We are not the kingdom of Israel. We are not fighting a pagan tribe.

@@truefaith9339 anyway what I´m trying to push is that if god says something that we seem to be immoral then that same thing will be moral just because god said so?

Unsurprisingly, velkyn has not yet given up on hitchenism and average internet atheism. The extent of velkyns knowledge are average internet atheist blogs. Genesis 1:27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And where does it say that Non-Christians aren't equal, ignoramus velkyn? Atheism and morality are like oil and water.

I would like to ask if I show a service dog and then show you a rapist murderer would you say that this human has? a) more dignity than the service dog b) the same dignity than the service dog c) less dignity than the service dog.,z

hmm, there seems to be a reply missing from what I can see.