@@JiraiyaSama86 No, not for sure SWZ. Something does seem weird though... Oh well... My plan is just to put my thanks to CE up and call it all I can do... Take care my friend, there will be no cencors in Heaven... God bless brother...
@@gi169 We normally call the censer a thurible! There may well be a lot of them in heaven. One of our jokes is that Churches should smell of furniture polish and incense.
@@harryfaber Ok, I see what you did there... I have a brother in Christ that believes there will be Harley Davidsons in Heaven. I hope they smell like Harley Davidsons.
Dr. Turek's answer that his God is the grounding of his morality is just as circular as the answers he says his opponents give if he cannot demonstrate that his God actually exists. As to the purpose of our lives; the evidence shows that at the conscious level we construct this for ourselves, while on a subconscious level we may be part of the perpetuation of the chemistry of life. Subjectively believing that there is a supernatural entity that dictates your purpose is just one way of constructing your own purpose. The fact that you might personally prefer that your purpose is dictated by some external entity does not mean that such an entity therefore exists.
he is right, I follow Christianity because of the good moral conditions, not all Ten Commandments, and I believe in the eternal lives of humanity, even so, I am confused and disbelieving in many stories of the Bible. I am not a full Christian, but a believer in gods and goods in the world and earths.
If morality is the main thing holding people back from Christianity today, then let's do our best to practice the values we've been taught. Be kind, loving, generous, etc., even to people who mock or hate us. We won't always succeed at being good examples, because none of us are perfect, but still... Let's show the world that our faith drives us to do good things, and that's why it's good to follow God.
@@mattr.1887 I am just relaying what I have seen OTHERS say, but they say he is too confrontational, condescending and comes across as harshly judgmental thereby turning more people away than he brings in.
@@mattr.1887 I have. Some were kind, some weren't. Ray Comfort has an interesting way of taking the Gospel to the people, I am not sure it is the best way and a lot of his videos have very 'clickbaity' titles. But, hey, each to his own. I was brought to faith by a strange mix of a pentecostalist street preacher, a Catholic priest, a handful of Baptist ministers and a Methodist missionary. I was helped along by a Muslim and a pair of JWs. Anyone who goes out and says 'do you know God/Christ/the Bible' has something going for them.
What he says is so simple to understand yet those who are on the opposing side of the argument act like it doesnt make sense or they dont get it, but in reality its just them trying there hardest to deny the truth so they dont have to accept it, therefore they can continue living life as they please and how they see fit. Like Jesus said. " If I tell you of earthly things and you dont belive, how much more will you believe if i tell you of heavanly things. Like Dr. Turek has said before. The problem isnt in their head and understanding, its simply a matter of whats in their hearts.. They just dont want to believe the truth even if The Lord Jesus Christ Himself told them standing face to face. They still wouldnt believe because they dont want to believe
So true! Frank DOES make simple clear arguments and I'm so grateful to the Lord for leading me to him to help in my circle of people who have questions!
@hhh-et2vi you must not have seen the video. You are exactly the kind of person turek was addressing. You think God is supposed to adhere to your morals as if you are the creator
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. 2. I personally have never observed a god. 3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
I really should know better than to get into an online dialogue, especially on RUclips, where half of one's comments get sucked into the ether for no discernable reason. But I'll have just one go - I won't continue this conversation beyond this one comment, for the above reason. Two thoughts to ponder (I could say more, but I won't): If you were to accept a decent robust definition of God, you would have to accept that most of the rest of your points are irrelevant. For instance, if you could "observe" God in the way you seem to think you should be able to, he would be within the universe, not its transcendent creator. Also, you might want to ask yourself why you accept the rules of logic as premises (allowing you then to assess arguments). How do you demonstrate them to be true?
Claire, according to the Bible, God has appeared many times to people. Apparently, this didn't break any theological rules or stop God from being the creator. It's possible the Bible is simply wrong though.
Finally someone that believes and understands proper biblical principles and scripture on TBN….and I’m NOT referring to Kirk ‘pre-trib’ Cameron either. Soli Deo Gloria~
Only three verses are necessary to prove a pre-tribulation rapture is false. Only three sets of scripture are required. They prove no pre-trib rapture. And my last example shows a post tribulation rapture is only thing that fits. 1 Cor, 15:51-52 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 1 Thes. 4:15-17 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Rev. 20:4-5 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. This last verse clearly indicates that those beheaded during the tribulation are in the first resurrection. We know from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 that the Rapture is immediately preceded by the resurrection of the dead in Christ. The resurrection of the dead in Christ happens during the first resurrection. But this resurrection includes Christians killed by Tribulation-period persecutions, such as not taking the Mark of the Beast and not worshiping the image of the beast. If the first resurrection includes these, then it must happen after the Tribulation. And since it is the first resurrection, there is no general resurrection event prior to this. Therefore, this passage shows that the Rapture, which follows the first resurrection, must come after the Tribulation. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 English Standard Version 13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[a] that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.
Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, if you abide in my word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. John 8:31,32
Questions all about making oneself God, from a position they can't justify. Put two together and you'll see disagreements form. Jesus lives! ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
This is why they keep trying to take the offense. So that they don't have to play defense and show that they have no source. They don't want to see themselves as unintelligent and foolish. Perhaps it's because they don't want to humble themselves. The current public education system doesn't really teach being humble anyway. It teaches that the individual is enough.
Public education taught us laziness. Just do the bare minimum to get by. Don’t think about the material, just figure out what the teacher wants you to say in response to get a good grade. By contrast, university teaches you self-motivated understanding of what you learned. Of course, there were exceptions to that pattern. This mirrors the church. Don’t think too hard about the doctrine, just accept Jesus and do what you can. It was only by applying a more scholarly mindset to my faith that I realized how uncritical I was. This is what Frank Turek gets wrong: It is not that deconverts object to the morality of Christian doctrine and then decide to reject the truth. It’s by seeking truth that we are dragged from our childhood religion, realizing with horror that it cannot be true. Only afterwards do we realize that moral rules were forced upon us and we can think for ourselves about what is right and wrong. I don’t intend to speak for all of us, but that was my experience.
Us humans define, and enforce morality. We are the source. I don't have a problem defending that position. We know humans exist, we know that they can form moral opinions, and we know that they do. It's the theists that has an indefensible position. You would need to show that your god exists, wow how you have gotten a moral law from it, and show that it is objective, and not just gods subjective opinion. I think that's why frank deflects by asking irrelevant questions, because he knows he doesn't have any answers.
@@seanpierce9386 Are there bad churches? Yes. Undoubtedly. Are there bad pastors? Yes. Of course. Do those things define Christianity? No. Bad teachers also don't define the subject they teach. When you're anywhere between a baby and a child, you lack the capacity to make decisions, let alone good ones. Only gradually can parents allow and should allow the child to make decisions on their own. A child has no concept of right and wrong until they are taught. You don't just suddenly obtain morality. No. You need to be taught. Christianity is supposed to be arrived at willingly. It is not to be forced on individuals, as otherwise, it's not true Christianity. You should understand that a relationship with someone else is to be entered willingly. Frank is not completely wrong. There are deconverts that object to the morality of Christianity and then deconvert. Plus, how do you know for certain that the real reason isn't because you object to a part or so of Christianity's morality? Given what the public education system teaches, especially about pride and belief in oneself, is it not likely that the individual finds the appeal in the ideologies that the public education system pushes on the students and therefore reject Christianity?
@@somerandom3247 If humans get to define morality, then it is all just relative and subjective, and it just becomes opinions. This meaning, if I define morality in a way where r@p3, theft, and murd3r is good, you can not object to it because it is my opinion. I and other similar people get to define it as well, and anyone who objects should bugger off. Because there is no objective morality, and I can do whatever I want. If someone objects, then it just becomes a matter of might makes right. Eventually, all that is needed is for the wrong person to get into power and enforce their morality on subjects. That has happened many times in history. The next time something like Germany in the 30s and 40s happens, you can not object to it. No. Frank has provided evidence many times. Whether an individual is convinced is a different story. To be convinced is a choice, albeit in some cases, a gradual choice. Many atheists simply deny evidence on this channel and therefore say that Frank hasn't provided evidence. To take it one step further, you can not keep denying evidence without eventually assuming yourself to be the authority on the subject. In that case, it is right to then press you on what is evidence. And I mean specific evidence. I've seen you deny it many times. So I now press you. What is evidence for God?
What did Frank just say? He is asked about there only being one way to Jesus? Say what? I thought that the Bible taught there was only one way to the God, Jesus. Peter wrote for there is no other Name given among men, under heaven by which we must be saved. Jesus, Himself, said I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except by me. But wait a minute, what is Frank really saying? Are not the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit inseparable and One in the Trinity? Jesus is God yet He says the only way to God is through Himself, that is through God. This means that salvation is not dependent on any thing that man can do but only upon God. As God has said, I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy. So to say there is only one way to Jesus is to affirm God's sovereign will in salvation. Whom he chooses He never loses, whereas our erratic, emotional convictions change like the wind changes direction.
We have a similar pattern today to the pre-king times in the book of Judges. Probably a lot more celebrity worship today. The left's powerbase is recruitment, and the recruitment is, like with gangs and suicide terrorists, most successfully targetting the discards of social conservatives painted with Christian looking racing stripes (when expedient). Too many books, shows, etc are hyperfixated only on the problem from the left instead of the underlying problem of sin and, as Ezekiel was shown, of ignoring the blatant idolatry and abominations within. The country club is easily distracted by the constant focus on "they," and refuses to also focus on the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. The right's version of save the whales; murder the babies, at least in overall heart and mind approach with all the excuses, deflection, and ignoring. If fear of the Lord and humbly seeking him was the true focus, then there would not be this trend driven approach that neglects the chewed up victims of internal rockstars and their fandom.
But Turek subjectively believes in god…….and subjectively attributes objective morality to a god that he can’t prove exists. Different Christians interpret God’s moral standard differently . So for a number of different reasons morality is clearly completely and utterly SUBJECTIVE.
Oh my. The atheists have all now jumped ship to the side of no objective morality. Subjectively believing in God is irrelevant to the fact that there has to be a God for objective moral values to exist. Therefore I'm assuming the atheist stance now is there is no such thing as right or wrong
Why wouldn't human well-being be a good enough standard since we are humans? Our collective well-being would benefit us as a society as well as individuals. But if you think God is required, what standard do you use to verify that God actually exists beyond the imagination of humans?
"Why wouldn't human well-being be a good enough standard" - Why is that the right standard, other than because you want it to be? What if someone decides their well-being means they should steal all your stuff? "But if you think God is required, what standard do you use to verify that God actually exists beyond the imagination of humans?" - If there is an objective standard, then there is God. You can't have an objective standard without God. You want to deny God, that's fine, but then you can't have an objective moral standard, you've got nothing but personal feelings and opinions.
Because "human well-being" or human flourishing isn't agreed upon by the masses. Multiple cultures and societies have strongly opposing concepts of what those terms mean and how to achieve them. Also, this is again stealing the concept of objective good (i.e. it "would *benefit* society" - also makes an ungrounded determination on what is better/worse or benefits/harms). If there is no moral absolute or objective morality, then it's completely inconsequential if humanity continues for millennia or goes extinct tomorrow. Human well-being is no more important, on that worldview, than dust mite well-being.
There's not much to go on from there JP, because even if everyone agrees that we should be good because it helps society progress and so on, this will never stop being something that a human defined for others, an opinion in despite others, well let's assume that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and that the Universe came from complete chance, you have no inherent purpose, you have no inherent value, you don't really matter, a mindless process of evolution doesn't attribute value to anyone, it just happens you know? On the other hand, if God exists and he designed us in his image and likeness, then it is natural for us to have conscience, will, feelings and morality. Now, to answer how we can understand God if our mind can betray us, well the world gives the answer, because if God exists and he made everything that exists in the most detailed way possible, we are supposed to be able to interpret creation, we aren't attributing a new perspective to what we discover, we only know how it works, I think this differentiates you attributing value to yourself vs knowing things, for example, I can be inside a dream and discover how the world projected by the dream works, even though I don't know I'm in a dream, in the dream I can be very afraid of being shot because there I know that if I get shot I will die, even if the whole world is an illusion, what you learn from it is concrete, so even if your mind doesn't be that trustworthy, if I hit you with a stick you will feel pain, you will know that pain is real, I hope this answered your questions, God bless.
If you don't believe that human life has any particular value, then sure, I can see why it would be difficult to accept human well-being as a reasonable standard. You ask what if someone decides that their well-being means that they should steal all your stuff. Well, people make that decision every day in spite of having been exposed to Christian theology. So it seems that Christianity doesn't solve the problem. PEOPLE solve the problem by making the world a better place. Degenerates still exist regardless.
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD --- *"Ask and you shall receive.* *What would you like to know?"* -- Sweeeet, one question for the time being, seeing how questions stump you to no end. Do you believe trans are delusional?
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD 😂 *LAUGH MY freaking FACE OFF* 😅 What a coward. DELUSIONAL: Characterized by or holding FALSE BELIEFS or judgements about EXTERNAL REALITY that ARE HELD despite "incontrovertible" evidence TO THE CONTRARY. So, you're then agreeing that yes they indeed are delusional 👇 --- *"...where their brain believes their body should be of the opposite sex to which they were born."* -- That was a pretty round about way of confirming that, Hunts. Btw, the plot thickens, what do you mean by opposite sex, seeing how you've just described a few definitions of it, LOL 😂....
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD Btw, Hunts, you say "people who have for unknown reasons come to the conclusion that they are born into the wrong sex,..." No, actually we know the reason, Hunts, it's called *"delusional..."*
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD 😂 *ROLLING OVER LAUGHING* 😅 Remember this 👇 --- *"Oh poor Tom, I guarantee I know more than you on most subjects."* -- That'll be the day, pal. Maybe in your native tongue of gibberish, outside of that, your bloviated ramblings state otherwise. Btw, there are only TWO biological sexes, male and female.
@somerandom3247 What are you talking about? Define what you believe is "evil" . Also tell us how you know what Evil is without a real God to define it. No God = No Evil exists and No Good exists. CS Lewis does a marvelous job with the breaking down philosophical attributes of good and evil and God. Either you get to be god and decide...or God gets to be God and decides. There is only room for One on the throne. You both can't be right and sit there. Personally, I'll take the morality of SINLESS ONE Who is the supergenius Creator Life over anyone else who has obviously lied in their life. I do not have the credentials... nor am I worthy to judge an Almighty God. Are you saying you are worthy and have those credentials?
@@GreatBehoover Evil - profoundly immoral and wicked. There is no need for a god to exist for us to define things as being evil.... Lets take a specific example. If a group of people didn't behave the way I wanted them to, would you consider me to be good or evil if I drowned every living creature on the planet because of it? I dare say you would consider me to be evil for doing this, yet you believe your god who supposedly did this to be good? See how you give him a free pass there? Why do that?
@somerandom3247 why let evil continue to flourish across the earth? What is the point of evil continuing to beget evil? Do you think evil should be unpunished and unrestrained, and if so, why?
@@joshd3502 Lots of videos of frank mistakenly calling his subjective morals objective.... nothing in the line of evidence for morality actually being objective... If you know of such evidence, why not present it instead of deflecting?
Frank has already admitted a few times that he gets his morals from his feelings and opinions, or "from the heart" as he puts it. The problem is that he mistakenly thinks his opinion is the objective standard of some god.
Apologists need to learn to do better if they are actually interested in truth. I doubt those kids think they have a moral standard God needs to adhere to. Rather they listen to what pastors and apologists say about God, then they see many of the stories in the bible (as an example), and God's actions make no sense to them in the context of:- a. Good moral behaviour as they understand it. b. Good moral behaviour as God/Jesus supposedly taught it. c. Good moral behaviour as pastors and apologists teach it. So it's not a matter of a person saying "God, your standards have to match mine." Rather it's a matter of people saying "God, your standards don't make sense to me, based on what your representatives say about you." ^^ There is a difference. It's perhaps subtle, but if you think about it, you may see it, and it is a very important difference. When an apologist comes to town, people finally have a person they can talk to and get an audible answer from. People either want clarification or they don't believe that Frank's version of God can be real. Hence they quiz the apologist. And Frank and Kirk do not help themselves when Frank misrepresents what people actually think, and Kirk just sits there and smiles.
@@amethyst4444 If I thought you were God and you were articulating your standards to me, then I might be inclined to agree with you. However, I doubt you are God. This leaves us with the claims and subsequent behaviours of believers to see what God's requirements as well as his standards are in practice. And since the beginning of the faith until now, despite claiming to have God on their side, the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, and God's clear, infallible and inerrant word via the bible, believers have been and continue to be in such sharp disagreement with each other over so much, even to the point of condemning each other to hell, and even killing each other - that it's not at all clear that any of you know exactly what God's requirements and standards are. PS. I am not saying that all believers are like this. However, enough of you are that I don't think you have a leg to stand on when you claim - "God's standards are very clear in the Bible." Your opinion might be clear to you, but I doubt that every other Christian on the planet would agree with your opinion.
There are profound moral objections to the bible…but there is more than just morality. From a god that doesn’t confirm its alleged message to the contradictions to evidence to narrative flaws like a god who can design a world without sin/suffering (the new earth, heaven) but instead chose to design an earth that does have sin/ suffering. And there are more. No shortage of problems with the bible
@@lawrenceeason8007so you are mad at the nonexistent "god" who apparently could not have composed the Bible since you say He doesn't exist, so who came up with the Bible that you have profound morals objections to?
I’m not a Christian, but please don’t suggest people “made up” the Bible myths. That’s not how myths work. People came up with explanations for things that, over time, became “fact”. Sure, there might be a lie thrown in from time to time, but no one would suffer for what they know is a lie. However, that same persecution has a tendency to reinforce beliefs held for emotional reasons.
@@logicalatheist1065 You’re confusing myth and conspiracy. Ideas can control people despite not being intended for that purpose. Trust me. I’m an ex-Christian.
Subscribe to our channel here ➡ ruclips.net/channel/UCedYGs_lqq1uNet0u7qlSyQ
Frank and Kirk, two awesome guys!
😂😂😂😂😂
Awesome!! Love both of those guys! Long time way of the master fan!
Excellent
Thanks Frank!!!
Amazing points by Mr. Frank
@@J.O.Junior....so you're just an azzkisser?
Amen(Truly)🙏🏿. The mission ✝️ has become a movement.
@@DavidLukoson-om7rl a bowel movement?
They're not questioning God's morals, they're questioning the morals that your religion attributes to God.
I love that frank always gets to the point. Cuts through all the nonsense to get to the hard question.
But he doesn’t…….he just repeats the same nonsense, and people believe it because they want to.
@@brianschmidt704 Huh? Guess you've never heard of the Turek Trot....
Thank you CrossExamined.
This may be a silly question. But do you know if you have been made an enemy of the Toob yet? That they have to torch many of your comments? Lol
@@JiraiyaSama86
No, not for sure SWZ. Something does seem weird though... Oh well... My plan is just to put my thanks to CE up and call it all I can do... Take care my friend, there will be no cencors in Heaven... God bless brother...
@@gi169 We normally call the censer a thurible! There may well be a lot of them in heaven. One of our jokes is that Churches should smell of furniture polish and incense.
@@harryfaber
Ok, I see what you did there... I have a brother in Christ that believes there will be Harley Davidsons in Heaven. I hope they smell like Harley Davidsons.
Awesome! I love this logic. I'll be reminding myself of this in the days to come.
If it's these 2, it's toddler logic
@@logicalatheist1065 What do you mean?
@@NoahGuan-pengu186 Frank and Kirk are both idiots.
Amen.💙🙏🇦🇺
rock solid argument
Frank FTW!
Dr. Turek's answer that his God is the grounding of his morality is just as circular as the answers he says his opponents give if he cannot demonstrate that his God actually exists.
As to the purpose of our lives; the evidence shows that at the conscious level we construct this for ourselves, while on a subconscious level we may be part of the perpetuation of the chemistry of life. Subjectively believing that there is a supernatural entity that dictates your purpose is just one way of constructing your own purpose. The fact that you might personally prefer that your purpose is dictated by some external entity does not mean that such an entity therefore exists.
not only one way, to Jesus, but one way, to God, through Jesus...
Jesus is God
he is right, I follow Christianity because of the good moral conditions, not all Ten Commandments, and I believe in the eternal lives of humanity, even so, I am confused and disbelieving in many stories of the Bible. I am not a full Christian, but a believer in gods and goods in the world and earths.
If morality is the main thing holding people back from Christianity today, then let's do our best to practice the values we've been taught. Be kind, loving, generous, etc., even to people who mock or hate us. We won't always succeed at being good examples, because none of us are perfect, but still... Let's show the world that our faith drives us to do good things, and that's why it's good to follow God.
Looking good Kirk. Lol
Don't many of us who call ourselves Christians hold God to our own moral standard? And in doing worship a false God?
Most Christians I know don't think Kirk Cameron is good model for Christians.
Why is that?
@@mattr.1887 I am just relaying what I have seen OTHERS say, but they say he is too confrontational, condescending and comes across as harshly judgmental thereby turning more people away than he brings in.
Okay. Thanks for the response. Have you heard other Christians say anything about Ray Comfort?
@@mattr.1887 I have. Some were kind, some weren't. Ray Comfort has an interesting way of taking the Gospel to the people, I am not sure it is the best way and a lot of his videos have very 'clickbaity' titles. But, hey, each to his own.
I was brought to faith by a strange mix of a pentecostalist street preacher, a Catholic priest, a handful of Baptist ministers and a Methodist missionary. I was helped along by a Muslim and a pair of JWs. Anyone who goes out and says 'do you know God/Christ/the Bible' has something going for them.
@@mattr.1887 Don't know who that is, sorry
What he says is so simple to understand yet those who are on the opposing side of the argument act like it doesnt make sense or they dont get it, but in reality its just them trying there hardest to deny the truth so they dont have to accept it, therefore they can continue living life as they please and how they see fit.
Like Jesus said.
" If I tell you of earthly things and you dont belive, how much more will you believe if i tell you of heavanly things.
Like Dr. Turek has said before.
The problem isnt in their head and understanding, its simply a matter of whats in their hearts..
They just dont want to believe the truth even if The Lord Jesus Christ Himself told them standing face to face. They still wouldnt believe because they dont want to believe
So true! Frank DOES make simple clear arguments and I'm so grateful to the Lord for leading me to him to help in my circle of people who have questions!
@elmyra.jackson exactly! And all we can do is consistently pray for them.
It's a shame, the devil has blinded the minds of others. Just 🙏pray
Christian God's moral standards? Yikes, we can do better!
@hhh-et2vi you must not have seen the video. You are exactly the kind of person turek was addressing. You think God is supposed to adhere to your morals as if you are the creator
@@thizz707gr I certainly don't let other's pick my ideas of morality for me, do you?
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*
And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.
1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
I really should know better than to get into an online dialogue, especially on RUclips, where half of one's comments get sucked into the ether for no discernable reason. But I'll have just one go - I won't continue this conversation beyond this one comment, for the above reason. Two thoughts to ponder (I could say more, but I won't):
If you were to accept a decent robust definition of God, you would have to accept that most of the rest of your points are irrelevant. For instance, if you could "observe" God in the way you seem to think you should be able to, he would be within the universe, not its transcendent creator.
Also, you might want to ask yourself why you accept the rules of logic as premises (allowing you then to assess arguments). How do you demonstrate them to be true?
@@claireandcolin5314 test3
Claire, according to the Bible, God has appeared many times to people. Apparently, this didn't break any theological rules or stop God from being the creator.
It's possible the Bible is simply wrong though.
What happened to the IDHEFTBAA podcast on Amazon and Audible?
Finally someone that believes and understands proper biblical principles and scripture on TBN….and I’m NOT referring to Kirk ‘pre-trib’ Cameron either.
Soli Deo Gloria~
Only three verses are necessary to prove a pre-tribulation rapture is false.
Only three sets of scripture are required. They prove no pre-trib rapture. And my last example shows a post tribulation rapture is only thing that fits.
1 Cor, 15:51-52 Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1 Thes. 4:15-17 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Rev. 20:4-5 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
This last verse clearly indicates that those beheaded during the tribulation are in the first resurrection.
We know from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 that the Rapture is immediately preceded by the resurrection of the dead in Christ. The resurrection of the dead in Christ happens during the first resurrection. But this resurrection includes Christians killed by Tribulation-period persecutions, such as not taking the Mark of the Beast and not worshiping the image of the beast. If the first resurrection includes these, then it must happen after the Tribulation. And since it is the first resurrection, there is no general resurrection event prior to this. Therefore, this passage shows that the Rapture, which follows the first resurrection, must come after the Tribulation.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
English Standard Version
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord,[a] that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.
Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, if you abide in my word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. John 8:31,32
Questions all about making oneself God, from a position they can't justify. Put two together and you'll see disagreements form.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
Are you willing to answer questions concerning your comment?
@@Theo_Skeptomai I wonder if you'll ever stop trolling
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD I wonder if you'll ever stop trolling
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD I wonder if you'll ever stop trolling
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD I wonder if you'll ever stop trolling
This is why they keep trying to take the offense. So that they don't have to play defense and show that they have no source. They don't want to see themselves as unintelligent and foolish. Perhaps it's because they don't want to humble themselves. The current public education system doesn't really teach being humble anyway. It teaches that the individual is enough.
Public education taught us laziness. Just do the bare minimum to get by. Don’t think about the material, just figure out what the teacher wants you to say in response to get a good grade. By contrast, university teaches you self-motivated understanding of what you learned. Of course, there were exceptions to that pattern.
This mirrors the church. Don’t think too hard about the doctrine, just accept Jesus and do what you can. It was only by applying a more scholarly mindset to my faith that I realized how uncritical I was.
This is what Frank Turek gets wrong: It is not that deconverts object to the morality of Christian doctrine and then decide to reject the truth. It’s by seeking truth that we are dragged from our childhood religion, realizing with horror that it cannot be true. Only afterwards do we realize that moral rules were forced upon us and we can think for ourselves about what is right and wrong. I don’t intend to speak for all of us, but that was my experience.
Us humans define, and enforce morality. We are the source.
I don't have a problem defending that position. We know humans exist, we know that they can form moral opinions, and we know that they do.
It's the theists that has an indefensible position. You would need to show that your god exists, wow how you have gotten a moral law from it, and show that it is objective, and not just gods subjective opinion.
I think that's why frank deflects by asking irrelevant questions, because he knows he doesn't have any answers.
@@seanpierce9386 Are there bad churches? Yes. Undoubtedly. Are there bad pastors? Yes. Of course. Do those things define Christianity? No. Bad teachers also don't define the subject they teach.
When you're anywhere between a baby and a child, you lack the capacity to make decisions, let alone good ones. Only gradually can parents allow and should allow the child to make decisions on their own. A child has no concept of right and wrong until they are taught. You don't just suddenly obtain morality. No. You need to be taught.
Christianity is supposed to be arrived at willingly. It is not to be forced on individuals, as otherwise, it's not true Christianity. You should understand that a relationship with someone else is to be entered willingly.
Frank is not completely wrong. There are deconverts that object to the morality of Christianity and then deconvert. Plus, how do you know for certain that the real reason isn't because you object to a part or so of Christianity's morality? Given what the public education system teaches, especially about pride and belief in oneself, is it not likely that the individual finds the appeal in the ideologies that the public education system pushes on the students and therefore reject Christianity?
@@somerandom3247 If humans get to define morality, then it is all just relative and subjective, and it just becomes opinions. This meaning, if I define morality in a way where r@p3, theft, and murd3r is good, you can not object to it because it is my opinion. I and other similar people get to define it as well, and anyone who objects should bugger off. Because there is no objective morality, and I can do whatever I want. If someone objects, then it just becomes a matter of might makes right. Eventually, all that is needed is for the wrong person to get into power and enforce their morality on subjects. That has happened many times in history. The next time something like Germany in the 30s and 40s happens, you can not object to it.
No. Frank has provided evidence many times. Whether an individual is convinced is a different story. To be convinced is a choice, albeit in some cases, a gradual choice. Many atheists simply deny evidence on this channel and therefore say that Frank hasn't provided evidence. To take it one step further, you can not keep denying evidence without eventually assuming yourself to be the authority on the subject. In that case, it is right to then press you on what is evidence. And I mean specific evidence. I've seen you deny it many times. So I now press you. What is evidence for God?
Sean. If you're reading this, I did respond. If you didn't get the response, that is b/c the Toob nuked it.
What did Frank just say? He is asked about there only being one way to Jesus? Say what? I thought that the Bible taught there was only one way to the God, Jesus.
Peter wrote for there is no other Name given among men, under heaven by which we must be saved.
Jesus, Himself, said I am the way the truth and the life no one comes to the Father except by me.
But wait a minute, what is Frank really saying? Are not the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit inseparable and One in the Trinity?
Jesus is God yet He says the only way to God is through Himself, that is through God. This means that salvation is not dependent on any thing that man can do but only upon God. As God has said, I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy.
So to say there is only one way to Jesus is to affirm God's sovereign will in salvation. Whom he chooses He never loses, whereas our erratic, emotional convictions change like the wind changes direction.
We have a similar pattern today to the pre-king times in the book of Judges. Probably a lot more celebrity worship today. The left's powerbase is recruitment, and the recruitment is, like with gangs and suicide terrorists, most successfully targetting the discards of social conservatives painted with Christian looking racing stripes (when expedient).
Too many books, shows, etc are hyperfixated only on the problem from the left instead of the underlying problem of sin and, as Ezekiel was shown, of ignoring the blatant idolatry and abominations within. The country club is easily distracted by the constant focus on "they," and refuses to also focus on the weightier matters of justice, mercy, and faithfulness.
The right's version of save the whales; murder the babies, at least in overall heart and mind approach with all the excuses, deflection, and ignoring.
If fear of the Lord and humbly seeking him was the true focus, then there would not be this trend driven approach that neglects the chewed up victims of internal rockstars and their fandom.
🎤
Why is the "creator" and the Bible so hard to understand if they're perfect?
Man made malarkey
You guys understand perfection, that is impossible to believe
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD lol 😂
But Turek subjectively believes in god…….and subjectively attributes objective morality to a god that he can’t prove exists. Different Christians interpret God’s moral standard differently . So for a number of different reasons morality is clearly completely and utterly SUBJECTIVE.
Oh my. The atheists have all now jumped ship to the side of no objective morality. Subjectively believing in God is irrelevant to the fact that there has to be a God for objective moral values to exist. Therefore I'm assuming the atheist stance now is there is no such thing as right or wrong
@@joeledwards4509 What objective moral values can come from an invisible supernatural entity ?
I don’t love this argument.
Why wouldn't human well-being be a good enough standard since we are humans? Our collective well-being would benefit us as a society as well as individuals.
But if you think God is required, what standard do you use to verify that God actually exists beyond the imagination of humans?
"Why wouldn't human well-being be a good enough standard" - Why is that the right standard, other than because you want it to be? What if someone decides their well-being means they should steal all your stuff?
"But if you think God is required, what standard do you use to verify that God actually exists beyond the imagination of humans?" - If there is an objective standard, then there is God. You can't have an objective standard without God. You want to deny God, that's fine, but then you can't have an objective moral standard, you've got nothing but personal feelings and opinions.
Because "human well-being" or human flourishing isn't agreed upon by the masses. Multiple cultures and societies have strongly opposing concepts of what those terms mean and how to achieve them.
Also, this is again stealing the concept of objective good (i.e. it "would *benefit* society" - also makes an ungrounded determination on what is better/worse or benefits/harms).
If there is no moral absolute or objective morality, then it's completely inconsequential if humanity continues for millennia or goes extinct tomorrow. Human well-being is no more important, on that worldview, than dust mite well-being.
There's not much to go on from there JP, because even if everyone agrees that we should be good because it helps society progress and so on, this will never stop being something that a human defined for others, an opinion in despite others, well let's assume that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and that the Universe came from complete chance, you have no inherent purpose, you have no inherent value, you don't really matter, a mindless process of evolution doesn't attribute value to anyone, it just happens you know?
On the other hand, if God exists and he designed us in his image and likeness, then it is natural for us to have conscience, will, feelings and morality. Now, to answer how we can understand God if our mind can betray us, well the world gives the answer, because if God exists and he made everything that exists in the most detailed way possible, we are supposed to be able to interpret creation, we aren't attributing a new perspective to what we discover, we only know how it works, I think this differentiates you attributing value to yourself vs knowing things, for example, I can be inside a dream and discover how the world projected by the dream works, even though I don't know I'm in a dream, in the dream I can be very afraid of being shot because there I know that if I get shot I will die, even if the whole world is an illusion, what you learn from it is concrete, so even if your mind doesn't be that trustworthy, if I hit you with a stick you will feel pain, you will know that pain is real, I hope this answered your questions, God bless.
If you don't believe that human life has any particular value, then sure, I can see why it would be difficult to accept human well-being as a reasonable standard.
You ask what if someone decides that their well-being means that they should steal all your stuff. Well, people make that decision every day in spite of having been exposed to Christian theology. So it seems that Christianity doesn't solve the problem. PEOPLE solve the problem by making the world a better place. Degenerates still exist regardless.
@@schlauchmeister234well being is the right standard, the superior standard, because anything other than well being is harm
Anything is smarter than god because god is imaginary
I have questions but no way to ask and get an answer.
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARDapparently nothing
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD
--- *"Ask and you shall receive.*
*What would you like to know?"* --
Sweeeet, one question for the time being, seeing how questions stump you to no end.
Do you believe trans are delusional?
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD
😂 *LAUGH MY freaking FACE OFF* 😅
What a coward.
DELUSIONAL:
Characterized by or holding FALSE BELIEFS or judgements about EXTERNAL REALITY that ARE HELD despite "incontrovertible" evidence TO THE CONTRARY.
So, you're then agreeing that yes they indeed are delusional 👇
--- *"...where their brain believes their body should be of the opposite sex to which they were born."* --
That was a pretty round about way of confirming that, Hunts.
Btw, the plot thickens, what do you mean by opposite sex, seeing how you've just described a few definitions of it, LOL 😂....
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD
Btw, Hunts, you say "people who have for unknown reasons come to the conclusion that they are born into the wrong sex,..."
No, actually we know the reason, Hunts, it's called *"delusional..."*
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD
😂 *ROLLING OVER LAUGHING* 😅
Remember this 👇
--- *"Oh poor Tom, I guarantee I know more than you on most subjects."* --
That'll be the day, pal.
Maybe in your native tongue of gibberish, outside of that, your bloviated ramblings state otherwise.
Btw, there are only TWO biological sexes, male and female.
First
The age old question...
Does God get to be God?
All these kids think they get to!😂
Why does god get a free pass to do things that even he (supposedly) considers evil?
@somerandom3247
What are you talking about?
Define what you believe is "evil" .
Also tell us how you know what Evil is without a real God to define it.
No God = No Evil exists and No Good exists.
CS Lewis does a marvelous job with the breaking down philosophical attributes of good and evil and God.
Either you get to be god and decide...or God gets to be God and decides. There is only room for One on the throne. You both can't be right and sit there.
Personally, I'll take the morality of SINLESS ONE Who is the supergenius Creator Life over anyone else who has obviously lied in their life. I do not have the credentials... nor am I worthy to judge an Almighty God. Are you saying you are worthy and have those credentials?
@@GreatBehoover
Evil - profoundly immoral and wicked.
There is no need for a god to exist for us to define things as being evil....
Lets take a specific example. If a group of people didn't behave the way I wanted them to, would you consider me to be good or evil if I drowned every living creature on the planet because of it?
I dare say you would consider me to be evil for doing this, yet you believe your god who supposedly did this to be good?
See how you give him a free pass there?
Why do that?
@somerandom3247 why let evil continue to flourish across the earth? What is the point of evil continuing to beget evil? Do you think evil should be unpunished and unrestrained, and if so, why?
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARDyou didn't answer the question. Should evil be allowed to continue and become even more evil?
Still waiting for any evidence of this supposed objective standard that you keep claiming that you have.
We'll be waiting a long long time
There's plenty of videos on the topic on the channel. Go watch them.
@@joshd3502
Lots of videos of frank mistakenly calling his subjective morals objective.... nothing in the line of evidence for morality actually being objective...
If you know of such evidence, why not present it instead of deflecting?
@@joshd3502 can you pick your favorite one?
@somerandom3247 how are your "morals" subjective?
Does Frank get his moral standard from the bible?
I hope not lol 😂😂😂
Frank has already admitted a few times that he gets his morals from his feelings and opinions, or "from the heart" as he puts it.
The problem is that he mistakenly thinks his opinion is the objective standard of some god.
It's banana man's brainless sidekick
He got your atheistic thinking perfectly. You seem bothered by him expressing "your truth".
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD he pegged you atheists perfectly. You denying it?
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD prove he is lying. Y'all admit to everything he said.
@@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD do you even understand you are ridiculous?
@HUNTSMARTFASTHARD don't let me stop you...show God to be immoral. Not your opinion, not your suppositions or raving. Prove God is immoral.
Apologists need to learn to do better if they are actually interested in truth.
I doubt those kids think they have a moral standard God needs to adhere to. Rather they listen to what pastors and apologists say about God, then they see many of the stories in the bible (as an example), and God's actions make no sense to them in the context of:-
a. Good moral behaviour as they understand it.
b. Good moral behaviour as God/Jesus supposedly taught it.
c. Good moral behaviour as pastors and apologists teach it.
So it's not a matter of a person saying "God, your standards have to match mine." Rather it's a matter of people saying "God, your standards don't make sense to me, based on what your representatives say about you."
^^ There is a difference. It's perhaps subtle, but if you think about it, you may see it, and it is a very important difference.
When an apologist comes to town, people finally have a person they can talk to and get an audible answer from. People either want clarification or they don't believe that Frank's version of God can be real. Hence they quiz the apologist. And Frank and Kirk do not help themselves when Frank misrepresents what people actually think, and Kirk just sits there and smiles.
God's standards are very clear in the Bible. Again, it's people refusing to accept those standards and God...
@@amethyst4444
If I thought you were God and you were articulating your standards to me, then I might be inclined to agree with you.
However, I doubt you are God.
This leaves us with the claims and subsequent behaviours of believers to see what God's requirements as well as his standards are in practice. And since the beginning of the faith until now, despite claiming to have God on their side, the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, and God's clear, infallible and inerrant word via the bible, believers have been and continue to be in such sharp disagreement with each other over so much, even to the point of condemning each other to hell, and even killing each other - that it's not at all clear that any of you know exactly what God's requirements and standards are.
PS. I am not saying that all believers are like this. However, enough of you are that I don't think you have a leg to stand on when you claim - "God's standards are very clear in the Bible." Your opinion might be clear to you, but I doubt that every other Christian on the planet would agree with your opinion.
Very well said @rolandwatts.
@@hhh-et2vi Thank you.
@@rolandwatts3218 I might have to plagiarize small parts of it, maybe all of it. LoL
There are profound moral objections to the bible…but there is more than just morality. From a god that doesn’t confirm its alleged message to the contradictions to evidence to narrative flaws like a god who can design a world without sin/suffering (the new earth, heaven) but instead chose to design an earth that does have sin/ suffering.
And there are more. No shortage of problems with the bible
What is your specific problem with God?
@@chloemartel9927I said profound objections to the bible…the narratives in the bible. I don’t believe any gods exist
@@lawrenceeason8007 then why are you whining about God?
@@chloemartel9927 read the very first sentence in my OP
@@lawrenceeason8007so you are mad at the nonexistent "god" who apparently could not have composed the Bible since you say He doesn't exist, so who came up with the Bible that you have profound morals objections to?
Smarter than the people who made up the Bible myths.
I’m not a Christian, but please don’t suggest people “made up” the Bible myths. That’s not how myths work. People came up with explanations for things that, over time, became “fact”. Sure, there might be a lie thrown in from time to time, but no one would suffer for what they know is a lie. However, that same persecution has a tendency to reinforce beliefs held for emotional reasons.
@@seanpierce9386yes they would... It's meant to control the people. A book of myths is the best way to describe the bible
@@logicalatheist1065 You’re confusing myth and conspiracy. Ideas can control people despite not being intended for that purpose. Trust me. I’m an ex-Christian.
@@seanpierce9386 that's also true
@@seanpierce9386 but no, the bible turns Jesus into a myth / fictional character