Wow. He’s right. Why don’t we [Christians] understand this as well as we should? Because we’ve been numbed to the glory of the gospel, because we’ve lazily assumed God’s grace, that’s why.
Only in our age of grace, or gentiles, have we become numb to God’s grace. As Israel begins to wake up, they’ll understand that grace. This age of grace for the nations is over, no more fence sitters or assuming human rights exist.
You guys beed to speak for yourselves - I’m sure there are millions of us who know perfectly well that Christ IS the reason for human rights - and England.
If you believe we live in a simulation that has a creator, you may as well believe Jesus is the Son of God who died to save humanity because your faith will make it true. Is my framing here so far off the mark?😁
Re: 3:49 yeah I mean this is kind of silly. He's taking the biblical story of Jesus literally (actually a zombie) and only literally, but talking about human rights abstractly. If you believe in a multiaspectual version of the resurrection (like not just a literal zombie), that's one thing. But Ithis "if you can believe in human rights in any abstract sense, then why don't you also believe in a zombie?" Because one is gauged by it's empirical usefulness and the other is a specific truth claim with insufficient evidence.
So secular humanists should say they don’t believe in human rights objectively, rather they believe in the usefulness of the social construct. Seems like a fair representation, yes? And then a fair concern is that this usefulness of a social construct is a weaker foundation for the dignity of humanity than what Christians believe
@@playswithbricks what do you mean by "what Christians believe." There's dozens of Christian denominations. At any given time there's a Coptic and Catholic pope. Not all social constructs are the same. There's empirical evidence supporting human rights leading to human flourishing. You use science to rank the utility of social constructs. If you follow the methodology, the results will work. With religion, there's no equivalent methodology.
@@CraigTalbert (1) To pretend like there is not a set of agreed upon doctrines of Christians that is agreed upon across the the Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic traditions is disingenuous or ignorant. Otherwise you could never say "christians are wrong" because which christians if there is no such distinguishable group? (2) Science doesn't rank anything. Science tells you what things are according to the instrument by which you perceive it. And then we can use some other value to rank what those are. "Science" can tell us there are 5 of one thing, 3 of another, and one of another. But it does not tell us that 5 is "better" (ranked higher) than 1. Or that 1 is ranked higher than 5. You're taking for granted a framework by which you're ranking things supposedly self-evidently. Holland is challenging this self-evident nature of things as being actually the Christian way of things.
@@playswithbricks Re: (1) if there is, Coptic, Catholic popes or other patriarchs could change them on a whim. In your mind, what are these currently agreed upon doctrines? (2) Of course it does. Oncologists will, for example, have a ranking of what treatments work best under what circumstances for curing patients.
@CraigTalbert What is resurrection? Resurrection is not the same as resuscitation. It is not simply the dead being brought back to life only to die again at a later date, like Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead. Or, what some doctors allegedly did with modern medical technology, etc. Resurrection is a quantum leap to a new form of a very superior kind life: life everlasting that is not confined by time and space, to say the least. An analogy would be that of a caterpillar having 'died' to its old form but lives again as a butterfly.... or a seed having died but sprouted/transformed into a new form of life, that of a plant or even a tree. *
Without a Clue - IN THE DOWNWARD-SPIRAL OF A DEFILED-DEPRAVED-REPROBATE-''MIND'' RENDERED SENSELESS AND USELESS = ROMANS 1:18-32 = GOD'S ABSOLUTE-TRUTH CONFIRMED = AS ALWAYS = FROM HEAVEN = JOHN 3:3
The thing with human rights is that we had to fight for them - sometimes against the church. They might have things in common with Christianity, but ideas like all people are equal and have a right to life, liberty etc came from before Christianity, it’s only that they weren’t “universal”, as in they hadn’t been spread across the world. We know not all countries and cultures embrace human rights, but that doesn’t make them right or entitled to their autocracy or oppression just because they think the same now as they did 300, 1000, 2000 years ago. Because if we accept as equally valuable “cultures”/ beliefs/schools of thought that are fundamentally unfair and unequal, who is to decide why certain ethnicities or classes or genders get a leg up on others? And who is to decide which one has a right to oppress the other? And whom are we kidding? We only “respect” certain cultures because they happen to live on top of most of Earth’s stores of fossil fuel or other prime materials.
“…..ideas like all people are equal and have a right to life, liberty etc came before Christianity…..” A good statement. Which societies/cultures would you point to in order to illustrate this?
@@Uppernorwood976 The UN gave us universal human rights. Slaves existed in most of Christian world until a few hundred years ago. Whatever you think about women's liberation, Christianity was rarely leading that charge.
@CraigTalbert Uniquely ignorant response, I'll give you that. How did the UN "give" us human rights? Also, historians are in agreement no institution or government in human history has done more to elevate the status of women than the Catholic Church. Honestly, the worst possible argument you could have made.
[Quran 57:29] Thus, the followers of previous scripture should know that they have not monopolized GOD's mercy and grace, and that all grace is in GOD's hand. He bestows it upon whomever He wills. GOD is Possessor of Infinite Grace.
Stop talking about human rights and talk about sin and immorality and wickedness and evil and unrighteousness. If Communists and secularists reject God then they will pay the price.
@@solb101 Satan doesn't send anyone to Hell, nor does he become psychotically enraged if someone doesn't believe in him. That's your magical invisible sky-daddy.
We can't hang human rights on Christianity alone. Church opposes medical progress and equal rights. And denominations disagree about capitalism, free speech, education, even abortion.
Yes we can - pretty much - before there was Christianity in England via Kent - and then throughout Britain - there was ruthless dog eat dog unscrupulous barbarity and human sacrifice… admittedly the welfare state and decency, gentility and kindness took a long long “unChristian” while to establish on the street - to become the code of ethics that we know … BUT arguably there’s still a load of thuggish behavior going on - inside and out of the “Church” but Jesus Christ and the Gospel gave us ALL we have based our code of morality, our laws, our artistry and literature and our fair-minded views upon. The will of God - the Holy Spirit in action. And it’s this we have helped export far and wide. Thanks to Christianity. It’s still 2022 “AD” and we’re not going to stop until God calls time.
@@chuckles9767 I am scared of nobody on Earth- I am a Christain - I fear only God. If God decides to see Christianity fail, then it will. BUT as Christianity is ETERNAL - there is nothing to discuss. The Light wins out in the end - it is already His Victory.
@@chuckles9767 Did Christianity started as the "biggest dog" as you calle it? NO, it started with the martyrs in the colosseum of Rome. How is it possible that it went from being persecuted to being the dominant World view? Why did it flourished in a cruel, ruthless World where the incentive was to be vile to survive? How is it possible that the advanced ideas of the great Greek and Roman philosophers did not permeate in their societies as the Christian ideas?
What’s wrong with opposing equal rights? Where does this belief that it’s wrong come from? If you read his book, his point is that even when Christianity is deemed to be ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ it’s being judged by Christian standards.
i have to disagree, despite being a major fan of tom holland. it is quite clear to me that human rights emerged as a concept in spite of Christianity, rather than because of it.
@@Uppernorwood976 the enlightenment for example, which the church vociferously reacted against. both the old and new testament loudly rail against freedom, democracy, women's rights, sexual liberty and both feature a lot of violence and racism. it is not a coincidence that human rights emerge at a time when the power of religion in our societies dwindled. Oh, and regarding religion being the enemy of behaviour by people like weinstein, a short history of the catholic church makes a mockery of that.
@@Uppernorwood976 Assuming you're looking for a reasonable answer; I'd say it's about the movements for democracy, inherent in which is the strive for human rights. Weinstein's behaviour was and to a large extent still is perfectly acceptable within the highest echelons of the christian church. Christianity took up a moral framework from the ancients and preserved it until today, and that's the extent we owe them thanks. The rest of it has been brutal persecution of dissenters and minorities, enslavement of foreigners and the poor and sucking up every bit of wealth that was to be found among the rural poor. What counters this beast are the free thinkers. The suffragettes could never exist in a wholly christian society, and they are the kind of people who stop people like Weinstein and rapist clergymen. It's also strange to call it a "belief". A person persuing wealth wouldn't be classified as needing a "belief" in wealth. It's simply a strive towards something better. Christianity is a stopping block to that persuit, as it's fundamentally anti-intellectual and its raison d'etre has always been for the nobility to control the peasants.
@@addemanns You find all of those behaviors reprehensible because Christianity has taught you that those are moral hazards, and of all moral hazards incurred the worst is hypocrisy. And the Suffragettes, if you actually read the Declaration of Sentiments, couched their language entirely in Biblical language, about how man has fallen short of the glory of women and sinned against her. And if all you think of Christianity is "for the nobility to control the peasants" then take a look at what our current nobility is using to control the people they see as peasants.
@@dotwarner17 They're not moral hazards, they're just immoral. This brand of morality stems from enlightenment values, in opposition of the church. One could also make a case that it stems from the ancient romans and their advanced legal framework which set up the system we have today with public laws instead of the preferred christian method of ruling by an anointed king making arbitrary decisions. The suffragettes knew their opposition and had to be convincing. Most of them were likely religious as well, but my point is that their ideas could never spring from organised religion, which can be quite easily seen in the number of female popes and the gender difference in the priesthood. The current nobility still uses religion in large parts of the world - christian conservatives are still a massive force in american elections and use their power to repress minorities and make women into cattle.
The truth. When you hear, it's all so clear.
Also, thanks for capitalizing "Destroys"
I kinda wanted to hear the end of what he's saying. Thankfully the whole conversation is on RUclips!
Wow. He’s right. Why don’t we [Christians] understand this as well as we should? Because we’ve been numbed to the glory of the gospel, because we’ve lazily assumed God’s grace, that’s why.
Only in our age of grace, or gentiles, have we become numb to God’s grace. As Israel begins to wake up, they’ll understand that grace. This age of grace for the nations is over, no more fence sitters or assuming human rights exist.
You guys beed to speak for yourselves - I’m sure there are millions of us who know perfectly well that Christ IS the reason for human rights - and England.
because you lack courage and conviction, especially high up the Church hierarchy
Most people (including Christians) are woefully ignorant of the depth of human evil and history.
I read the title and thought Spider-Man was gonna preach about human rights 😂
Fantastic clip!
Anybody know where the longer version is
ruclips.net/video/p6w7qw9kJ9k/видео.html
Try Hegel's 'Elements of the Philosophy of Right'.
Well that made very little sense.
Useless because ads take over and end the presentation. I gave us.
Too bad this doesn’t get more views. Tom speaks a lot of wisdom here.
If you believe we live in a simulation that has a creator, you may as well believe Jesus is the Son of God who died to save humanity because your faith will make it true. Is my framing here so far off the mark?😁
Has he read anything from the enlightement. We defend Human rights for its values and expected effects. Why defend the fact that Jesus walked on water
Yes, he has. Read his book.
Re: 3:49 yeah I mean this is kind of silly. He's taking the biblical story of Jesus literally (actually a zombie) and only literally, but talking about human rights abstractly. If you believe in a multiaspectual version of the resurrection (like not just a literal zombie), that's one thing. But Ithis "if you can believe in human rights in any abstract sense, then why don't you also believe in a zombie?" Because one is gauged by it's empirical usefulness and the other is a specific truth claim with insufficient evidence.
So secular humanists should say they don’t believe in human rights objectively, rather they believe in the usefulness of the social construct. Seems like a fair representation, yes? And then a fair concern is that this usefulness of a social construct is a weaker foundation for the dignity of humanity than what Christians believe
@@playswithbricks what do you mean by "what Christians believe." There's dozens of Christian denominations. At any given time there's a Coptic and Catholic pope.
Not all social constructs are the same. There's empirical evidence supporting human rights leading to human flourishing. You use science to rank the utility of social constructs. If you follow the methodology, the results will work. With religion, there's no equivalent methodology.
@@CraigTalbert (1) To pretend like there is not a set of agreed upon doctrines of Christians that is agreed upon across the the Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic traditions is disingenuous or ignorant. Otherwise you could never say "christians are wrong" because which christians if there is no such distinguishable group?
(2) Science doesn't rank anything. Science tells you what things are according to the instrument by which you perceive it. And then we can use some other value to rank what those are. "Science" can tell us there are 5 of one thing, 3 of another, and one of another. But it does not tell us that 5 is "better" (ranked higher) than 1. Or that 1 is ranked higher than 5. You're taking for granted a framework by which you're ranking things supposedly self-evidently. Holland is challenging this self-evident nature of things as being actually the Christian way of things.
@@playswithbricks Re: (1) if there is, Coptic, Catholic popes or other patriarchs could change them on a whim. In your mind, what are these currently agreed upon doctrines? (2) Of course it does. Oncologists will, for example, have a ranking of what treatments work best under what circumstances for curing patients.
@CraigTalbert
What is resurrection?
Resurrection is not the same as resuscitation.
It is not simply the dead being brought back to life only to die again at a later date, like Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead. Or, what some doctors allegedly did with modern medical technology, etc.
Resurrection is a quantum leap to a new form of a very superior kind life: life everlasting that is not confined by time and space, to say the least.
An analogy would be that of a caterpillar having 'died' to its old form but lives again as a butterfly.... or a seed having died but sprouted/transformed into a new form of life, that of a plant or even a tree.
*
Neither demand a "leap" in the sense of "absence of evidence/argument".
Clearly an ashenden…
Without a Clue - IN THE DOWNWARD-SPIRAL OF A DEFILED-DEPRAVED-REPROBATE-''MIND'' RENDERED SENSELESS AND USELESS = ROMANS 1:18-32 = GOD'S ABSOLUTE-TRUTH CONFIRMED = AS ALWAYS = FROM HEAVEN = JOHN 3:3
The thing with human rights is that we had to fight for them - sometimes against the church. They might have things in common with Christianity, but ideas like all people are equal and have a right to life, liberty etc came from before Christianity, it’s only that they weren’t “universal”, as in they hadn’t been spread across the world. We know not all countries and cultures embrace human rights, but that doesn’t make them right or entitled to their autocracy or oppression just because they think the same now as they did 300, 1000, 2000 years ago.
Because if we accept as equally valuable “cultures”/ beliefs/schools of thought that are fundamentally unfair and unequal, who is to decide why certain ethnicities or classes or genders get a leg up on others? And who is to decide which one has a right to oppress the other?
And whom are we kidding? We only “respect” certain cultures because they happen to live on top of most of Earth’s stores of fossil fuel or other prime materials.
“…..ideas like all people are equal and have a right to life, liberty etc came before Christianity…..”
A good statement. Which societies/cultures would you point to in order to illustrate this?
Where in antiquity have you found the idea that all people are of equal value? What civilizations espoused that before Christianity?
Extremely ahistorical.
Which society had any idea of equality and human rights before Christianity ?
Re: 2:31 so ancient (pre-Christian) Rome didn't have human rights? Funny, read a lot of the stoics and I think they would disagree.
Not *universal* human rights. Big difference. Slaves everywhere, women 2nd class citizens etc
@@Uppernorwood976 The UN gave us universal human rights. Slaves existed in most of Christian world until a few hundred years ago. Whatever you think about women's liberation, Christianity was rarely leading that charge.
@CraigTalbert Uniquely ignorant response, I'll give you that. How did the UN "give" us human rights? Also, historians are in agreement no institution or government in human history has done more to elevate the status of women than the Catholic Church. Honestly, the worst possible argument you could have made.
@@Uppernorwood976 "Slaves everywhere, women 2nd class citizens" Err Just like in Christendom? At least in Pagan Rome women could own land.
@@tomasrocha6139 no, nothing like Christendom
Is he a Christian yet?
He’d probably say we in the West all are in a sense.
[Quran 57:29] Thus, the followers of previous scripture should know that they have not monopolized GOD's mercy and grace, and that all grace is in GOD's hand. He bestows it upon whomever He wills. GOD is Possessor of Infinite Grace.
Stop talking about human rights and talk about sin and immorality and wickedness and evil and unrighteousness. If Communists and secularists reject God then they will pay the price.
Such a loving god you grovel before, who would condemn a soul to eternal torture simply for not believing in him.
@@c.a.t.732 Your master, Satan, would do such a thing.
@@solb101 Satan doesn't send anyone to Hell, nor does he become psychotically enraged if someone doesn't believe in him. That's your magical invisible sky-daddy.
@@c.a.t.732 Satan has fooled you then or you are simply a fool.
We can't hang human rights on Christianity alone. Church opposes medical progress and equal rights. And denominations disagree about capitalism, free speech, education, even abortion.
Yes we can - pretty much - before there was Christianity in England via Kent - and then throughout Britain - there was ruthless dog eat dog unscrupulous barbarity and human sacrifice… admittedly the welfare state and decency, gentility and kindness took a long long “unChristian” while to establish on the street - to become the code of ethics that we know … BUT arguably there’s still a load of thuggish behavior going on - inside and out of the “Church” but Jesus Christ and the Gospel gave us ALL we have based our code of morality, our laws, our artistry and literature and our fair-minded views upon.
The will of God - the Holy Spirit in action.
And it’s this we have helped export far and wide.
Thanks to Christianity. It’s still 2022 “AD” and we’re not going to stop until God calls time.
@@chuckles9767 I am scared of nobody on Earth- I am a Christain - I fear only God. If God decides to see Christianity fail, then it will. BUT as Christianity is ETERNAL - there is nothing to discuss. The Light wins out in the end - it is already His Victory.
@@chuckles9767 Did Christianity started as the "biggest dog" as you calle it?
NO, it started with the martyrs in the colosseum of Rome. How is it possible that it went from being persecuted to being the dominant World view? Why did it flourished in a cruel, ruthless World where the incentive was to be vile to survive? How is it possible that the advanced ideas of the great Greek and Roman philosophers did not permeate in their societies as the Christian ideas?
@@chuckles9767 one is free to be as simplistic as one can be.
What’s wrong with opposing equal rights? Where does this belief that it’s wrong come from? If you read his book, his point is that even when Christianity is deemed to be ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ it’s being judged by Christian standards.
I wasted my 4 minutes 😢
Your 4 minutes of what?
i have to disagree, despite being a major fan of tom holland. it is quite clear to me that human rights emerged as a concept in spite of Christianity, rather than because of it.
Where did it come from then? How did we get from Ancient Rome, where Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour would have been the norm, to human rights?
@@Uppernorwood976 the enlightenment for example, which the church vociferously reacted against. both the old and new testament loudly rail against freedom, democracy, women's rights, sexual liberty and both feature a lot of violence and racism. it is not a coincidence that human rights emerge at a time when the power of religion in our societies dwindled. Oh, and regarding religion being the enemy of behaviour by people like weinstein, a short history of the catholic church makes a mockery of that.
@@Uppernorwood976 Assuming you're looking for a reasonable answer; I'd say it's about the movements for democracy, inherent in which is the strive for human rights. Weinstein's behaviour was and to a large extent still is perfectly acceptable within the highest echelons of the christian church. Christianity took up a moral framework from the ancients and preserved it until today, and that's the extent we owe them thanks. The rest of it has been brutal persecution of dissenters and minorities, enslavement of foreigners and the poor and sucking up every bit of wealth that was to be found among the rural poor. What counters this beast are the free thinkers. The suffragettes could never exist in a wholly christian society, and they are the kind of people who stop people like Weinstein and rapist clergymen.
It's also strange to call it a "belief". A person persuing wealth wouldn't be classified as needing a "belief" in wealth. It's simply a strive towards something better. Christianity is a stopping block to that persuit, as it's fundamentally anti-intellectual and its raison d'etre has always been for the nobility to control the peasants.
@@addemanns You find all of those behaviors reprehensible because Christianity has taught you that those are moral hazards, and of all moral hazards incurred the worst is hypocrisy.
And the Suffragettes, if you actually read the Declaration of Sentiments, couched their language entirely in Biblical language, about how man has fallen short of the glory of women and sinned against her.
And if all you think of Christianity is "for the nobility to control the peasants" then take a look at what our current nobility is using to control the people they see as peasants.
@@dotwarner17 They're not moral hazards, they're just immoral. This brand of morality stems from enlightenment values, in opposition of the church. One could also make a case that it stems from the ancient romans and their advanced legal framework which set up the system we have today with public laws instead of the preferred christian method of ruling by an anointed king making arbitrary decisions.
The suffragettes knew their opposition and had to be convincing. Most of them were likely religious as well, but my point is that their ideas could never spring from organised religion, which can be quite easily seen in the number of female popes and the gender difference in the priesthood.
The current nobility still uses religion in large parts of the world - christian conservatives are still a massive force in american elections and use their power to repress minorities and make women into cattle.
,,reopens"
Please close the Pandora box.
dr med Corina Miriam Georgeta IJAC
19 nov 2o23