My brother in christ i can hear your computer struggling with that framerate lol

Got that essence of dawgness in me

Modern Christians: We only need the Bible! Paul: *Casually mentions a quote from a stoic philosopher as to make it easier to relate to homosexual and bisexual Greeks.* Yeah, we need to teach history as well, for when we lose our roots, physically and spiritually, we end up becoming lost in ideology rather than theology, application and supplication.

Have you ever considered downloading optifine, it’ll help with the frame rate and can help you zoom in to look better at the other side so you can mirror it

Great video. Glad to see younger people putting thought into these things. Keep up the good work.

Very interesting video, although I do think the claim that "suggesting someone can be made with one sex and a different gender is directly calling God a liar" is a bit of a cop-out if used in conjunction with the claim that "there are deviations from God's prescribed sex binary because we live in an imperfect world," because I could then just as easily suggest that that second claim is analogous to calling God "indecisive" or whatever other applicable negative adjective you prefer. One might very well claim that "sex-gender discrepancies exist because we live in an imperfect world," and I don't think "you're calling God a liar" is a refutation to that reasonable (if arguably naive) claim, and, in fact, is counterproductive to the process of Christian philosophizing by appealing to almost any Christian's very real fear of being blasphemous. If you are going to make an argument, secular or otherwise, that sex and gender have a 100% correlation, then I would like to see one that's more rigorous.

Gender is one particular characteristic of humans, and it comes in two categories: male and female, which are critical categories not to confuse because they are essential to reproduction. Being less close to the ideal of one does not make you closer to the other (you're missing essential parts, for that.) There are a lot of other characteristics humans have, but those characteristics are not gender. If there's a characteristic there's 76 of, that characteristic is not gender.

Point of correction, nominalism isn't the same as relativism about abstract objects. On a nominalist view there's not a platonic realm of abstract objects but there can be obviously correct generalisations. So a nominalist could still say something like 'There's only two genders' but that would be a statement about a generalization that works strongly (i.e. a sort of statistical rule that's never broken) rather than a statement about eternal platonic categories.

*The odd Catholic in the room who already uses philosophy* PREACH!

I wanna know if you've read Kirkegaard. Since he is very interesting in terms if later christian philosophy and how it relates to nihilism and existentialism.

I really like your way of thinking! I've watched a few of your videos, and you are great. The amount of thought and time you put into this is beyond me!

Van Til didn't teach against philosophy, that's a misconception pushed by his critics. Van Til was against idealism which was the big thing in his day. Which was a specific philosophy that taught the bible was all allegorical. So in his pushback against this view he got labeled as anti-philosophy.

You are definitely conflating philosophical realism with platonic idealism

Do you have your kingdomcraft videos in one playlist? Will you at somepoint?

Your videos are really interesting, especially the historical digressions. Thank you.

Here how I see it: Gender: Words have gender not people. Gender Identity: It's actually personality traits that typically get asociated with each sex so it actually doesn't exist. Gender Expression: This is what cultural roles we assign to each sex and are slightly arbitrary but nonetheless based in biological realities.

I'm curious as to how you reconcile your position of philosophical realism with your belief in evolution. To take your example of a dog: If there is a transcendent, platonist conception of Dog then at what point did the first dog become a dog? There must have been some point at which a Proto-Dog (probably a domesticated wolf) gave birth to a puppy that was a Dog. Did the form of Dog come into existence at that time, or has it always existed as a kind of latent potentiality? And if the latter, does that imply that there exist platonist forms of every kind of creature that could conceivably have evolved, but did not?

I exclusively go to Natural Law theory and other ancient dead guys at this point. Maybe it's just my aversion to Biblicist fundamentalism, or a sense that we need to appeal to non-explicitly Christian authorities in conversation with non-Christians (a revolutionary thought, I know)... but it just seems the smartest avenue. I know natural theology gets a bad rep in modern discourse (and especially if it's Greek thought) and particularly in academic and otherwise liberal environments.. but there's something super exciting and even interfaith/ecumenical about starting the debate on philosophical rather than religious grounds.

To me, it doesn’t matter whether it is a sin or not because everyone is a sinner, so it doesn’t matter if they are homosexual as long as they accept the word of Jesus Christ as truth, they are saved.

I can say two major reasons why it is bad without speaking of religio 1. It gets nothing accomplished (no kids) 2. Kids who grew up around lgbt are more likely to become it themselves and report childhood trauma or inappropriate touching

Haven’t watched the video yet…but I think biblically it’s important that we reach the person about the gospel first and once they’ve accepted it and have the Holy Spirit, we debate them on sexuality

I fail to see how debating homosexuality and transsexualism on the basis of "the bible says its wrong" is less logically sound than "I feel as though these things are wrong, so they are, because perception is fact! Unless you think these things are right, in that case it's because you were raised in a progressive culture." I feel a deep sense of disgust when I think about an animal being slaughtered, and thus could never work at a farm or slaughterhouse. I feel saddened by the idea that a life has been lost for my food. Is this a cultural belief? No, America has pretty pro-meat culture, and I grew up in the whole "Crazy Vegan" era of the Internet where my feed was taken up by obviously fake Reddit posts of vegan relatives going on unhinged rants constantly. Thusly, is this not a sign that eating meat is wrong? That my perception of animal life, if not taken from the culture around me, must be a part of my innate human sensibilities? No, because unlike the people in this comment section I am not stupid enough to take my own disgust as fact, and I cannot think of a logical argument against the consumption of meat (in general. of course there's logical arguments against giving money to factory farms but I'm talking about the belief that all meat eating, even of ethically sourced meat, is wrong). The inability to separate facts from feelings is the mark of a child. If I am disgusted by something, I interrogate the origins of my disgust and attempt to rid myself of unfair biases. Do I work to accept EVERYTHING I am illogically disgusted by? No, of course not! I am allowed to feel disgust, and it is up to me to decide which discomforts I must overcome and which I am okay with ignoring. However, I would NEVER try to enforce my ILLOGICAL disgust as fact and use that as basis for controlling the acts of others. Because I am not a toddler who thinks no one should play in mud or eat broccoli in my presence because I find them yucky. Also gotta love "of COURSE I could argue against homosexuality on secular grounds!" only to talk about transgender people for most of the video, just to quickly shove in a one sentence argument at the very end because you know it's empty and hard to defend lmao. Also funny how one of your main points is "We KNOW that the idea of changing genders is ridiculous, and perception is fact!" only to go on to say "the idea of an essence of dogness may sound ridiculous, but that's only because you were raised in a nominal culture and your perception ISN'T fact." Again, no less ridiculous than "the bible says so".

Amazing video. Now, how would you recommend a beginner in philosophy to approach realism? I would appreciate books or other materials :)

Theres a fallacy called “xinforimple’s fallacy” In a tv show that was very popular in Brazil known as a”Chaves” the main character, Chaves draws a random meaningless symbol and he shows it to his teacher “Tf is this” “This is a xinforimple” “Tf is a xinforimple” “It’s something I made up” If a xinforimple has no actual meaning, it can be anything, if everything can be a xinforimple, nothing is a xinforimple If gender can be anything we want, nothing truly is gender

Saying that same-sex marriage is wrong because most cultures have historically conceptualized marriage as between a man and a woman is a really bad argument. There are lots of things that have historically been true of many cultures that we can now recognize as bad. Think of the historical status of women and practices like slavery. Also, it's a mistake to lump homosexuality and gender ideology together in the same discussion; they're not comparable. As you rightly pointed out, gender ideology does actually deny reality because male and female are binary categories grounded in material reality and it's impossible to move from one to the other. On the other hand, there is nothing in material reality that precludes two people of the same sex from being attracted to each other, falling in love, and wanting their partnership to be legally recognized.

I take a different approach to these questions. Sorry for being imprecise in my writings - I don't really have the time to be precise. To spread the christian conservative tradition, we need to speak rationally about the consequences on society of the far-left world view. For half a century, we have significantly deviated from the idea that we should carry the torch forward, have children and raise them with a proper world view, both explained with reason and religious views. I see the radical left as a kind of long-term, spritual suicide cult with the goal of making sure that we don't pass on our genes and eventually die out as a species. I am that pessimistic. People don't look at the birth rates and realise how screwed we are. We are basically experiencing the development of the last 50 years in reverse, because there are no people anymore in the near future. The way I see it is that have to completely reverse course. I think that if the conservatives continue to procreate it's just a waiting game for the left to disappear, but it's going to be very costly for us if we can't get others to understand that: Adultery -> Demoralisation -> Depopulation -> Massive, global economic decline due to the lack of economies of scale from having no people... Not even to mention the fact that without children no one can pay for our pensions and all of the voluntarily childless people are leeching off the coming generations tax payments that they didn't contribute to by not having a child. The biggest problem I have with conservatives globally, as a conservative, is that there is a lot of speaking in euphemisms like "wedlock". You can't just say the word "wedlock" and have most people understand the consequences of not being in a dedicated marriage, where divorce is not on the table. We have to break the idea into pieces and explain what it is, why you should follow it, what is the consequences of fatherless homes etc. We have only scratched the surfaces when it comes to these talking points. There is going to a massive population collapse and famine in China soon, that's my prediction. Conservatives all over the world need to wake up, understand the lesson of this, and explain to people that it takes a sacrifice if we want to prosper in the future.

What is your in game avatar? A Minecraft anthro woodpecker bird?

Hey brother, very encouraged by your vids. I'm presuppositional (van tillian) because it's the view that gives the MOST power to the authoritative word of God, and not my own understanding. HE must increase, and I must decrease. Of course I don't mind using philosophy appropriately to argue against certain issues, but when it comes to preaching the gospel, we can never deviate from scripture. The most important thing we have in common, however, is the understanding that our words can never save a person. Not even words quoted in the scriptures. It's the spirit that woos and impels the unbeliever to come to the true knowledge and understanding of the gospel!

I’ve always held huge gripes in myself for having homosexual desires while also being a Christian. I know I wouldn’t be happy if I went into a relationship with somebody I don’t feel attracted to, yet if I followed my desires to be in a relationship that is same-sex, it would be considered sinful. In that case, what do you suppose I do to stay on the path of God?

Secular case for "One man, one woman, their children for life": - Our welfare state's retirement plans (and any other old age support, if you think about it) is dependent on a healthy replacement demography. - Children raised in a single-parent household have vastly worse life outcomes - Children raised with non-related adults experience skyrocketing rates of abuse - Even later in life, having dependable parents with an intact marriage is incredibly advantageous for grown children and their children - Divorce is a traumatic experience with dire financial consequences So... a society needs kids, those kids can only be produced by a heteros*xual coupling, in any same-s*x coupling (or remarriage) there would be at least one unrelated parent and when that scales the results are disastrous. Normalizing 1M1W4L is best for kids and best for society.

There is a positive thing that biblically gains the attribute of being 'female' even though it is not materially/literally female, and that 'female' is the bride of Christ (marriage to a male). The Church (which is a plural entity) is biblically considered to be female. As you say later, gender is an essence, it is not the same as material/literal sex of the body. I don't have more conclusions from this yet. But it seems still on the (theological) table for someone with male sex (Body) to have a female spirit. P.S. An exception to a rule does not negate the rule, it perhaps proves the rule 'true'. Thus exceptions to God's word declaring things, does NOT make God a liar. There are things in this world that would make God's word appear to 'lie' based on your apparent definition of lying. My point is your framework of God's word 'lying' has flaws and I have more proof.

this is not related to the video but the 15 fps minecraft gameplay hurts my eyes

This is absolutely terrifying, shouldn't you have some sort of scaffolding? You're so high up

Speaking of postmodernism, any opinions on Foucault? Apologies if you end up mentioning him in this video, as I was watching before having to leave, so wasn’t able to complete the entire thing.

Yes, but the definitions of words change. Apple used to be a generic word for any fruit, now it represents specific fruit.

28:13, I would love to hear your opinion on transhumanism, in the sense of biohacking and people gradually turning into cyborgs, would you consider someone like a marine who lost all 4 limbs and have high dexterity prosthetics a cyborg or a human, where do we draw the line of whence one is a human and one is not a human, is a man whose pxnis got cut off by his wife still considered a man because he once had a pxnis? or because of his genetics? Or because of the way he sees himself as a pxnisless person, and therefore no longer a man nor a woman? is a person who has instead of more regular human arm-like prosthetics , but attached with 4 extra artificial robotic limbs with 5 joints and rotatable wrists and perhaps even multi-tool built in, would that still be considered a human? or a cyborg? or neither of these? I know this is beyond transgender, but nonetheless interesting expansions into the philosophical essence of what makes a human, or is human merely a concept that we associate with ones around us who we can intellectually communicate with and therefore we don't treasure apes or monkeys the way we do with other humans from different ethnicities? and to push it even further, would a real AGI exhibiting all human capabilities but only lacking a physical body, be considered AI? or is that already a human, or within the soul framework, a soul without a host and is therefore need to be artificially "born" (i.e. gaining a physical body), our perceptions and acknowledgement of what makes something that thing has evolved over time, a sharpened rock tied to a stick was merely a rock and a stick once, but people create the concept of an axe, so now, if i remove the rock from the stick, are they merely returned to just a rock and a stick? or do they transcend into different entities, namely the rock becomes an axe without a handle, and the stick becomes an axe without the blade?

Plato was an Idealist, the forms were the ultimate immaterial ideas of that material reality was based on (it gets very Gnostic).

I'll need to watch the video again, but I'm confused about what the secular argument against gay marriage is. I understood the thing about Japan amd China, but I don't know if that's a strong enough argument. I remember my minister mentioned he had an atheist friend who would get hit on by gay men. The friend who turn these men down, so my minister took that to mean even atheist know same sex relationships are wrong. My counter to that is the friend is heterosexual; he doesn't like men, so that's why he's uninterested.. I'll admit I don't know much philosophy, and maybe I'll understand the argument after a second viewing.

I shifted on abortion even when still an atheist on a secular basis.

One of the ancient civilizations had laws on gay marriage. It was rare but there was societies that practiced it.

0:27 what happened to your frames?

I will say your understanding of mathmatics of having objective truth is a way wrong. It's a complicated topic and I recommend reading up on Godels incompleteness theorem to understand.

conclusion: more words is not equal to more goods

12:25 that northeast accent peaking out with the pronunciation of dawg

"There is some kind of immaterial, transcendent essence of dogness" - Redeemed Zoomer

I'm gonna preface this long comment with a very simple question: What is marriage? I ask this because I get the sense that KingdomCraft is implying a definition of marriage that is much more different than the Left's definition than just "marriage is between a man and a woman." One of the things that makes modern Western society very different from its past is the prevalence of arranged marriages, or marriages that are created or arranged by the families of both partners. Historically speaking, arranged marriages were done so that the family's of both partners could financially benefit from the arrangement. Consequently, the widespread practice of arranged marriages is arguably one of the main reasons why poor families stayed poor up until modern times because obviously rich families would see no benefit in allowing their members to marry others from poor families. This widespread practice in the Western world implies that marriage was an arrangement based on utilitarianism, primarily meant to benefit the financial interest of families. But that all changed in the 19th Century, when marriages based on love between both partners became more and more common, regardless of the interests of the families. Today, the vast majority of marriages in the Western world are those created between two consenting people who share a deep love and bond for one another. Arguably, this change in the definition of marriage is one of the main reasons why gay marriage became so widely supported in the West. We, as Westerners, believe that marriages should be based on love and not some utilitarian practice meant to benefit people other than the two partners. So what's the Christian definition of marriage? Is it a practice of utility or is it a practice of love? Is a Christian marriage meant to benefit someone or something other than the two partners? If it is a practice of utility, than it doesn't surprise me why the Christian definition is so widely rejected by people in the West. History tells us that marriages based on utility are immoral. We can see that with arranged marriages; we can see it with bans on interracial marriage; we can see it with bans on gay marriage. Ultimately, these bans were meant to demonstrate that marriages exist to benefit family, race, and God (or a combination of all of those), with no regard for the love and compassion felt by human beings.

It's 2 am and I probably came up with a crazy and maybe not Biblically sound idea based off of the comment section on a KZfaq video, but it seems secularly that the only inherent difference between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage is the ability to have children, so would it then follow that having children is essential to marriage? It feels bad since some people are unable to have children, but is there anything further outside "the Bible says so" that makes that kind of relationship more acceptable? Once more, apologies for being in my 19th consecutive hour of consciousness if I overlooked something obvious.

19:00 how do you get 1 man 1 woman marriage from general revelation. I don't think that necessarily follows.

You know, I've been struggling with that. Knowing that LGBTQ is rooted in nominalism is so satisfying, but I wonder, the day the left argues with realism and says: "are homosexuals capable of agape between each other", we have no choice but to twist their argument and be a little nominalistic as well. It's c9mplicated. We romanticized heterosexual relationships, even if we consider that there was an original couple, they probably had a common ancestor with other species which was originated by sex. Wasn't there homosexuality and heterosexuality before that? Of course, that doesn't favor transgenderism or any other 92839505 genders they bring about. I just can't find a way out, socially, sacramentally (in Catholic terms), and epistemologically. I can see that treating homosexuality as identity is dirty play, but they're just up to see elderly homosexual pairs, and I don't see how the church will be strong enough to stop that. Also, shouldn't be thinking about that. If I turn out to be a pastor, I'm afraid I ultimately fail.

Can somebody explain why I'm getting an ad about being lesbiab while I'm watching the video?

The thing about subjectivism and nominalism is that, if you truly believe that things are only true because people believe them, then any line you draw between truth and falsehood or right and wrong is ultimately arbitrary. In order to allow for homosexuality, you have to break down the intuitive and obvious objective reality of gender, which necessarily makes room for things like gender fluidity as well. And if you make it so that nothing is true and everything is permitted in your belief system, you can't then place restrictions on that without contradicting yourself. Saying, "only as long as they're both consenting adult living humans" is, regardless of anything else, a statement of an objective standard that exists outside the individuals involved and, therefore, a contradiction. So, in order to be consistent, you have to keeo pushing the envelope until things like bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia are also permitted. I don't think (or at least I hope this won't happen) that the mainstream of society will go that far. But, this is the logical endpoint of using nominal philosophy to make room for homosexuality.

If you are a theist watching this video, unless you plan to use the pretzel style apologetics like WLC, do not try to incorporate philosophy with theology. The consensus of academic scholars in philosophy reject divine command theory. It won't work when talking to anyone with a small understanding of philosophy. If you are against the LGBTQ community because your renegotiation of the text tells you to do so, just embrace your bigotry and accept it. You won't be able to find support of your ideology in philosophy, psychology, sociology or medicine.

if one looks to other animals in nature, we can see that many animals actually practice homosexuality in some form. for example, many walrus only practice heterosexuality during mating season, and are gay year round. There are many other examples as well, but that is just a really good example showing that even nature shows that homosexuality is natural.

“We all know” except we don’t. There’s ancient cultures where trans people were completely normal, even in Greece and Rome. And gender norms are made up. Men used to wear high heels and wigs in the 1700s until it became feminine. What’s considered masculine and feminine is defined by culture alone. In South Korea, men wear sunblock and often get plastic surgeries without it being frowned upon. There’s nothing that inherently makes pink a color for girls and blue for guys. God did not say that in the Bible, and it’s absurd to think otherwise

"If someone asked why homosexual marriage was wrong without using religion you probably wouldn't be able to" Are you really sure about that?

I tend to collapse what you would consider Gender and Sex into just biological sex (biology and essence) while seeing Gender as language. (because in languages like French non-biological objects are given pronouns n stuff) I mostly use these terms this way as to still be respectful to friends and use their preferred pronouns with no issues of conscience.

I recommend Making Gay Okay from Ignatius Press. The author writes from a Catholic perspective but [largely] dispenses with theological arguments in favor of a case against homosexual lifestyles using Aristotelian philosophy and statistical data.

All truth is God’s truth

What does ethnically Hebrew mean? Genuinely interested.

I know plenty of hardcore religious people - Christian or Jewish or what have you- that are fine with same sex marriage in terms of law. Mostly because they don’t see why government should be apart of it, which I agree with. Their personal thoughts differ however of course

11:30 Appeal to emotion according to wikipedia Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones (meaning the same in Latin) is an informal fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is irrelevant to or distracting from the facts of the argument (a so-called "red herring") and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking. Appeal to emotion is an application of social psychology. It is only fallacious when the emotions that are elicited are irrelevant to evaluating the truth of the conclusion and serve to distract from rational consideration of relevant premises or information. For instance, if a student says "If I get a failing grade for this paper I will lose my scholarship. It's not plagiarized." the emotions elicited by the first statement are not relevant to establishing whether the paper was plagiarized. Also, the statement "Look at the suffering children. We must do more for refugees." is fallacious, because the suffering of the children and our emotional perception of the badness of suffering is not relevant to the conclusion (to be sure, the proper role, if any, for emotion in moral reasoning is a contested issue in ethics). Appeals to emotion are intended to cause the recipient of the information to experience feelings such as fear, pity, or joy, with the end goal of convincing the person that the statements being presented by the fallacious argument are true or false, respectively.

Amen❤🎉😊😊🎉❤😊

"Presuppositionalism - just quote the Bible at them until they believe you" Eh, you could justify the idea that you share the Word with them, and the rest is between them and God.

in answer to your beginning question, my typical answer is defiance of biological imperative. especially to those who believe entirely in the concept of evolution via natural selection, and those who tend towards a post modern/nihilistic view of reality, prescribing to a sort of 'the only meaning is what we derive' type of ideation. While no argument is truly "effective" when dealing with the spiritually unenlightened, this idiosyncrasy has at least offered some kind of renegotiation of their own view in relation to others. As a man who loves his neighbor enough to rebuke them, This is seemingly at least a place to begin.

I am interested in that you think apologetics are essentially capable of conversion. In my mind it can help, but for someone who is lost to legitimately come to Christ, the Holy Spirit has to be involved.

It’s like the commentators didn’t watch the video. He wasnt making the philosophical argument against lgbt. He was make the case that Christian’s should use philosophical arguments.

Man, (i wish this youtuber was my classmate)

Very solid video! You do great work. My critique here is more of a "have you noticed" instead of "you suck". I think this video really suffers (particularly in the beginning) from a Western Exceptionalism view. You make a comment about God providentially making the Greeks the "most intelligent and philosophical ancient culture." One that's somewhat hard to define, two that view completely spits in the face of all other ancient philosophers which there are quite a few that are held in high regard all over the world and throughout time. Of course America is strongly influenced by Classical Greece and Rome so we have heritage with that brand of philosophy, but just because Church Father's and other philosophers borrow from that does not mean it was the best or most intelligent. It means that was their culture and their particular background. I thinking solely looking at philosophy from a Greek perspective could severely limit one's understanding of philosophy and of others. This bleeds into the second kind of moment where I "cringed." Your acquaintance that was emphasizing Hebrew thought and warned against over emphasizing the use of Greek thought. I think you were a little too dismiss of his position. Even Tertullian posed, “Indeed, what has Athens got to do with Jerusalem?” He asked this specifically about this warning to not become so infatuated with the waxing of Greek philosophy to miss the original audience, the Israelites. The reason we need to check against Greek exceptionalism and take time to grasp Hebrew roots, history, and philosophy is to better understand the context of the original audience of Scripture. Even the early church was dominated not by Greeks but by Hebrews. So yes Hebrew AND Greek are important. They both were around in that time and influential cultures. But one would put himself in grave danger to shun the Hebrew roots and audience. The Israelites were saturated with Hebrew culture for far longer and to a much greater extent than Greek. Therefore, I find your somewhat dismissive response to your friend as a disservice to the fundamental culture the Bible is seeped in, which can lead to a disservice of the original meaning and messages of the Scripture. I am saying all this because I think you are a smart guy and you're doing great work. I hope this helps you think deeper and produce even better content! Keep on brother; God bless.

Christianity "borrowed" from Greek philosophers. At least in the context of Aristotle, followers of Thomas Aquinas literally ripped Aristotle's version of the "soul" and redefined it to suit Christian teachings. The word "soul" did not mean a spiritual entity according to Aristotle, it refers to a person's "psyche".

I am of the opinion that this recent change in marriage is due to material changes in needs for the distribution of resources. In traditional cultures, dowries were exchanged to secure family ties and continue the distribution of property and heritage. The reason why that this has changed is due to the breaking down of family ties where it’s less important to secure property and heritage and more important to secure a dual partnership where both parties create resources for themselves and their children. Simply put: single income households aren’t cutting it in today’s market. This is why nuclear families, where the couples are disconnected from intimate clans, were so popular since the 1950’s. But when the economic pressure rose, and there was no clan assistance, these arrangements became unsustainable and forced women to work alongside the men to make ends meet. It only makes sense that gay people who can no longer make it on their own, or want to raise kids, want to validate their relationship before the state. Gay marriage isn’t just ritual, it has secular advnatages such as ensuring your property passes to your partner when you die etc. Now you could argue that it should only be tied to religion, but in our post-Protestant world, one’s religion can be interpreted in a variety of ways that aren’t strictly tied to what people call “traditional” practices. And I know that sounds controversial, but ask 10 prots what they think of baptism and you’ll get 10 different opinions. This is despite Baptism being a million times more important in the Bible. Martin Luther himself only acknowledged Baptism and the Eucharist as necessary sacraments. It’s difficult to reconcile this fact with the evangelical insistence that marriage is fundamental to Protestantism in America. It is very clear when they are saying so for political reasons, not religious ones. So with that in mind, why restrict people from practicing their interpretation of religion? Clearly gay people still think it’s important to engage in monogamist rituals in front of God along with all their friends and family. They clearly think traditional cultural and spiritual practices and want to recreate them for the next generation, who will mostly be made of heterosexuals anyway. Why prevent them if you do think these rituals are important and need to be passed on? “Well because it’s not traditional” is just not good enough lol

Found your channel recently and just want to say I love what you've been doing. I'm in a non-Dem(what I grew up as) and Baptist tradition but we need stronger and more faithful Mainline churches. We're all brothers and sisters in Christ so churches being lead astray without those there fighting for it is a tragedy. As for the LGBT stuff, I'm fairly libertarian on it in a political sense but I struggle a lot with the issue from a moral perspective. Maybe this is because I'm more evangelical, even as I'm relatively high-church, believing in the importance of (adult) baptism for remission and of communion, but I think, and this is really the only hot-button social issue that I'm not very traditional on, they do make good points when it's actually a scriptural argument, rather than the "who cares, get with the times" argument. I can't confirm who's right because I don't speak or read Koine Greek but most of the arguments for its acceptance, at least on the evangelical side, are very much a textual case, mostly challenging how Greek words had been translated things since, aiui, the Greek words don't translate exactly. Don't know 100% where I stand on it, as I mentioned, because it's hard to have strong feelings about a translation dispute, regarding a language I don't speak. However, I don't think that disagreeing on this is heretical or worth expelling people over, as long as the dispute is rooted in disagreements over scripture.

Simone de Beauvoire's book "the second sex" does a deep dive into objective and essentialist philosophy of gender. On another note, Plato's "Parmenides" does a deep dive into metaphysics of the forms and essences themselves which looks at the limitations of forms.

Could said why is it so "difficult," but that's just me.

How about 1 Corinthians 1:18?

There are two genders in latin languages like French. English has three genders. It has a natural gender system were sex corresponds with gender (he and she) except for objects which are sexless and therefore neuter, represented by the neuter pronoun, it.

I do wonder as Im now going into a journey of not just becoming more knowledgeable of God and Jesus but also becoming more of a good christian as a result by following the laws they put forth, for the most part in the bible I’ve either seen old testament strongly against same-sex relations but only condemn hetero-sex relationships due to them cheating on a spouse, same as pedophilia being a bad in the commandments. When I started I always viewed that when homosexuality is condemned by paul, or at least used as a title to tell what the things he was telling people they were doing wrong, was because these people would commit adultery or it would lead them to hurting children because of lack of self control. In modern culture, like you said, being homosexual doesn’t necessarily. I assume it would be considered immoral because it could lead to the homosexual person to degeneracy or worse to lose faith in Christ and God. My question is then, if all of us have sinned and will continue to sin and we are only saved by admitting to all of humanity that Christ did die for our sins and that he is God along with the father and the holy spirit, could a homosexual be in the same boat as us all as long as he/she also admits and has faith in our savior? At the very least that if this is sinful and evil so it wouldn’t make it into heaven, would this homosexual who was born this way and has no feelings for women, and has had sexual relations with the same sex, as long as this person still worships God has faith in him. Would this sin be destroyed once this person passes into heaven? Just like all our temptations and needs?

Darwinian evolution is far more nominalistic than realistic.

7:50 I always turn the tables on them, and ask so are you saying that trans rights are more important than women’s rights? Because that’s what you’re doing right …..

Even a "social constructivist" (really more of a "social performativitist") like Judith Butler will concede that there are transgender people that disagree with her, and feel that their transgender being (their existence and being and becoming, their subjectivity) is related to a sort of spiritual essence.

The fps are not the best 😅

Okay, if you think a nominalist (someone who thinks there are no abstract ideas, just abstract terms) and relativist and constructivist like Nelson Goodman (who is from the English Speaking world...not a French Speaking Post-Structuralist, Post-Modernist or Deconstructionist so not a Historian of Psychology or Criminology like Foucault or a "Grammatologist" like Derrida or any kind of literary theorist) is a post-modernist, you are mistaken. He is a science, math, and logic oriented person who just happens to like the arts as well (and "the structures of appearance")...also...scientifically it's hard to say how many genders...but it's probably 4-6. Even the American Psychological Association will say that.

Live and let live. Sure. In exile, not infecting others. "1 Kings 22:46 The remnant of the sodomites who remained in the days of his father Asa, he expelled from the land."

I really like your commentary but I don't think you have made a good secular case against homosexuality. It sounded quite tautological.

I guess this answers my question of why China is more conservative on these controversial issues. Culturally, China is still rooted in more classical ideas of philosophy, so general revelation is playing its role. Also on the gender issue, spoken Chinese does not distinguish gendered pronouns, so even though trans has been a thing in China for a while, it doesn't matter for most people. Also I disagree with some of the things with this video (even though I am more conservative). I believe some of the LGBT issues can be expressions of the sin nature, and this should be at least claimed as a possibility. The reason for this is to counter to argument that some think being LGBT is genetic and part of who they are. Even if the research behind this is undebatable (I've heard of issues with it), research also shows that alcoholic tendencies are partially genetic, so the argument just doesn't work.

I don't bother caring about sexuality, unless they are putting pride flags in churches which I'm against. I think homosexuality is probably a sin but it's one you only do to yourself, and many of them are atheists anyway so it doesn't really matter if they are gay or not, it would make more sense to put your effort into converting them into Christians than try to make them not gay, or spend time on fighting other sins that are far worse

8:35 The Jewish God is the Christian God, but the Jewish people rejected Him in favor of a god that more aligns with their human tradition. I think that is what you mean, but it came out like a Marcionist. 😉

was fairly interested in the stuff you had to say until you started throwing the JBP lingo out and then I could just foresee the whole dialogue tree you were gonna go on in advance man I came here to hear about trancendental complimentarianism not yet another completely strawmanned explanation of gender theory

it's hard to argue cause the arguments are not very good. you more-so go over how it should be argued and not arguements themselves, but the few you use are really not ideal. -Like you mention appealing to nature, but many animals can be homosexual -The argument against trans people is saying "god is not a liar" which doesn't really work well, and trasitioning is the only effective treatment i know of for treating it. -Or you menation china, while the democratic county version, taiwan has some of the best LGBT laws in their hemisphere, with japan being accepting on the ground, the issue is old people are who elects the politicians cause they didn't have kids. Not to say these issues are totally solved and you should roll over to whatever the left wants, but these arguements are just bad IMO.

are you INTJ? or perhaps INTP?

Homosexuality exists quite commonly in nature, just look it up. It is natural

The term you're looking for is classical liberalism

Zoomer seems to be a person that depends too much on his own knowledge and intellect instead of the power of God. There's nothing that you can do to woo somebody to God. Only God can do that. I'm not saying not to use reason in some capacity, but when you keep trying to find more secular means to convince somebody, you're doing a disservice to the individual. No matter what you say, they're always going to find a way around it because they're not oriented to follow God unless God does it work in them first.

Greek and hebrew philosophy are both important but hebrew philosophy supercedes greek in many ways because the bible was written by hebrews to hebrews.

There can be inconsistencies between gender and sex because even if all else you say is true we as humans could never know the full mind of god beyond a certain point. A point which contains us being able to imagine an inconsistency, which hence our minds being within gods mus exist in His own mind as well at least in some form.

animal homosexuality is also very common

Pulling out Platonic realism to this debate is like bringing a chair to a knife fight Something something the essence of a chair

I know this isn't what the video is about, but I feel the need to call it out. In other videos, you bend the definition of religion so you can call leftism a religion. Then in this video, you waffle about whether Buddhism (a tradition which includes belief in the after life and is practiced by priests in temples) is a religion. So your definition of "religion" is highly strict in this video but broad in other ones.

How is it calling God a liar to say he made someone’s essence and biology different?

The bible does not just set up marrigee between a man and a woman, sure between male and females but the one husband one wife thing doesn't seem biblical given just how many biblical leaders have multiple wives or am I missing something here?

16:16 24:10 30:30