Very very contradictory viewpoint from Father Hans Jacobse. He states that Christianity is self-correcting in terms of it's moral abominations of the past. The problem is that Christianity depicts God's word as unchanging, infallible and the end-all truth. If Christians have to change the word of God or in essence modernize the word of God, then that right there shows that the original word was INCORRECT. This is in high contrast to the original interpretation of the bible's infallibility.
The priest completely fails on the argument of slavery. The bible STILL advocates it, and provides guidelines for it. It is flat-out WRONG, no matter who says it isn't.
Matt, I love your work man, but you let this douche steal a free 5 minutes by not asking him, "DUDE, do you have a question or WHAT?!?" Don't let a d-bag hog the mic like that in the future, por favor.
ok he didnt answer it at all. If it is bad, then why the fuck is it in the bible in the first place? My god, this priest was good at talking bullshit. Either the bible is right, or its wrong. It cant be both.
this is why christian piss me off all being a athiest means i dont belive there is a god if there is prove me wrong it doesnt mean that athiest is a religion just proves how closed minded xains realy are
Priest you may prose your sermon: *starts a sermon........oh I forgot where I was* You were proposing a question.....*ahh yes! continues sermon.......I forgot where I was*
If present day religion now changes their thoughts on what is right and wrong against what is written in the very book they believe in changes, what makes them think it's that big of a leap to assert that one doesn't need that book/god/any religion to adibe by what is known now as reality or morality as we know it today? why is it necessary to follow a book for morality that they themselves changed the morality of what the book even says
I can't believe what this guy got away with. He refused to touch the fact that the bible contains explicit rules, from God, about who you're allowed to enslave, who he WANTS you to enslave, and even practical advice on buying, selling and abusing humans as property. Then he blames biblical slavery on the Pagans. Then he skips over the completely factual Christian opposition to abolition and credits Christianity for ending slavery... during the life of Martin Luther King, Jr.
I can't believe what this guy got away with. He refused to touch the fact that the bible contains explicit rules, from God, about who you're allowed to enslave, who he WANTS you to enslave, and even practical advice on buying, selling and abusing humans as property. Then he skips over the completely factual Christian opposition to abolition and credits Christianity for ending slavery... during the life of Martin Luther King, Jr.
@Avealicious No, instead he blames slavery (which was explicitly prescribed, reinforced and regulated by God himself) on Pagan religions. This is the sort of disingenuous game you must play when you choose to defend an indefensible position. The old testament says "thou shalt do no murder". Clearly God's definition of murder is different than ours, because he proceeds to send Moses and his tribe on a series of genocidal missions in which they are explicitly required to slaughter children.
@Avealicious No, instead he blames slavery (which was explicitly prescribed, reinforced and regulated by God himself) on Pagan religions. This is the sort of disingenuous game you must play when you choose to defend an indefensible position. The old testament says "thou shalt do no murder". Clearly God's definition of murder is different than ours, because he proceeds to send Moses and his tribe on a series of genocidal missions in which they are explicitly instructed to slaughter children.
"some Christians argued that [slavery] was God's will, but they were wrong" *face palm* kinda like how they were wrong about the divinity of Jesus? these people clearly weren't guided by any perfect being but where going through the normal human action of argument except now they are claiming that the arguments aren't theirs but gods...
Attributing your ideas to god doesn't make them stronger.
@xom2811 It's called a scapegoat. He's not able to use Atheism too much for fear of looking ignoble, so in flies the whip towards Paganism; especially since few people actually know what Paganism is and was.
this preacher is terrible. he doesnt answer questions, and changes the subject to irrelevant topics thatnobody was talking abour WW1. the question was about slavery and how/why a loving god would ever advocate it. and then he forgets his point at like 8:45..what shit.
WHAT? Christianity has a sense of self correction? That's total bullshit,
1. Because the laws are written down as divine law that CANNOT BE CHANGED.
2. Because god says THOU SHALT NOT FUCKING JUDGE.
If you can't judge because god forbids it, and if the things you COULD judge if god allowed you to were UNCHANGEABLE DIVINE RULES FROM HEAVEN DIRECTLY FROM GOD then you can't "self-correct:" them. This priest doesn't even know WHAT THE FUCK he's talking about.
If slavery was a pagan institution adopted by the early church, why has it never been erased from the Bible? If the Bible is the 'literal' word of God, which many Christians believe, how does the Father suggest expunging these verses?
eugenics and the crimes of 20th century communism are because of ideologies... not the lack of one (atheism). it's ridiculous to argue that atheism directly caused these things. Hans jacobse argues that the lack of god's morality makes people take morality in own hands and that allows them to do bad things. Then why do religious ideologies also cause people to do bad things? because people always have morality in their own hands, it's the ideologies that influence them.
Christianity did this...Christianity did that...ok...obviously Christianity doesn't know what the hell it is talking about about these issues. So obviously its morals are informed by something else....what? I have no fucking idea even though I watched this debate...what are they talking about? That guy is rambling and Matt is following every step of the way...actually no.. it isn't their fault its that damn proctor's fault. What is he doing?
@VideoMenu . This is Y/T and you speak my language, thus- I don`t feel compelled to spell properly- would be lost on stupid american`s.................
In other words, you're a big man on the internet who talks big shit ("because this is the interwebz") but you don't have anything to back it up. Thanks.
This guy is so bad of a debater, matt was thrown a soft ball when he had to debate this guy. I wish he was better, but theist have the poorer position
"I respect an authentic search for that which is true....(EVEN if a person denies God while he's doing it)".
More like....even if a person denies the CLAIMS made about this supposed..."God".
Sounds like he was indirectly implying that he possess the truth, and that anyone else who doesn't agree with the christian assessment is authentic only in regards to the 'search'. However, if the conclusion of that individual's 'truth' doesn't contain the idea of god, it is useless.
@bruinjogger Because it's so damned hard to demonize something as basic as mere lack of belief. If you can dress it up as a philosophy that inevitably leads to atrocities, it's so much easier to scare the congregation with it.
@bruinjogger Because then they have no arguments left. So instead of proving their position, they want to make the other position look less reasonable and plausible. This is a common way of arguing that is used in every type of debate.
@blahdoot20 I actually do not think that he avoided it. The question was something along the lines of: "Was slavery always wrong, or did it change with time?" Hans answered this clearly that it was always wrong. He is not making excuses for the Bible, I'm sure he admits that it is not infallible.
It seems that the only difference between his and Matt's thinking is simply where the "truths" come from.
@thricerocks Since this is a debate about where morality comes from, I think the point of this question was to make him address the fact that this source of morality (the bible) is filled with immoral things and for society to have come in and claimed that it was wrong was not an act of god but that of a basic built in sense of morality. The fact, the bible was promoting the act of slavery itself means it should not be used as a source of morality.
@thricerocks so in your mind the father gave a coherent answer even though he waffled more than an ice cream cone maker and then forgot what his point was?
@blahdoot20 I do not think that his answer was good, however he did answer Matt's question. My only point is that the question was answered, and you are just upset that FR Hans isn't a literalist. I'm sure if he was his attempt to answer would have more entertaining, but we have to get over that.
@thricerocks okay I can agree with you that he did indeed answer. Whether or not the answer that was coming out of his mouth properly addressed the issue at hand is another thing. Matt wanted to see how the father could justify slavery if it condones it in the bible. if he believes the bible is not infallible then doesnt that throw his whole religion out the door? If you pick and choose from the bible anyway, then your morality and judgment does not come from the bible but from your own judgment
@blahdoot20 I understand what Matt's point was in asking. The thing is FR Hans' beliefs are such that this problem isn't one for him. It may not be rational, but it is what he believes. The bible is not infallible to an Orthodox Christian, and that is the problem. Like I said earlier, I do not think the FR believes his morality comes from the bible. He probably thinks that his god simply provided the moral truths to the world, and then it us up to humans to discern them.
So he doesnt get his morality from the bible and he gets to pick and choose what to believe or not believe? God gives him truths and he as a "lowly man" can choose from the word of god? Then god serves no purpose if his word can be cast aside by whoever. I will agree with you that the father has answered the question albeit unsatisfactorily but has waffled his way out of claiming any responsibility that religion had for the evils contributed to it.
@blahdoot20 He doesn't believe that the bible is necessarily the word of god though, so he isn't picking and choosing from god's word, merely deciding what of the bible IS god's word. I'm not saying I like his view, just saying that's what I believe it is. And yes, this belief system does wriggle out of any responsibility, however it is also less harmful, because they are recognizing that some of the things in the bible are immoral.
@thricerocks Yes, however he's unknowingly taking a position of moral relativism. One moment he claims that the truths "revealed" in the bible are eternal and unalterable, then he proceeds to use his own moral compass to decide which of God's words are real and which are false. Where can he possibly claim the authority to decide what words from the holy book are actually holy? Anyone can creatively interpret and cherry-pick the bible to justify whatever insane psychopathic policy they desire.
@DocBlasto He is not taking a position of moral relativism at all. However, you are correct, I have no idea where he gets the authority to decide what is true or false. His position is still stupid, but he did in fact answer the question. Even Matt later said that he understood why the answer was so unsatisfactory at the time, because Matt was assuming the Fr. held a belief that he did not.
PS Moral relativism holds that there are no objective moral truths, while the Fr. claims the opposite
@blahdoot20. It's actually better than that because he actually says that the christians that believed slavery was right "were wrong"...so he's actually saying that his bible is wrong...If that's statement is right than how can we decide on the (nonexistent) validity of any bible verse at all? If you can just pick and choose, which is essential what he's doing with the unnecessary picturesque language, then why not choose to forget the entire bible.
@stranger201 Agreed ... usually whatever arguments these guys put out usually means they shoot themselves in the foot for future arguments. Not thinking through your arguments or ignoring validity of points seems to be the foundation of a religious belief.
Christianity has a self correcting mechanism... in the sense that it gets dragged kicking and screaming into the present day, then immediately tries to pretend that it thought that way all the time.
I think... or let's say.... Mmmm'k? You know? Right? Those types of ricketty statements really hurt your position.
This isn't a history lesson it's debate. He's treating the debate as a remix preeching session rather than an exchange of debate and not even *understanding* any of the questions of the other speaker.
Fr. says it took four hundred years for the church to condemn slavery. He's admitting Jesus and Paul and all the other x-tian idiots didn't condemn slavery. He's admitting god couldn't even get it right.
The priest is constantly bullshitting. The whole flow of things from his mouth is bullshit. I want to see TF debate him. lmao. TF is a focused razor of intelligently slaying religion.
Christianity has a "self correcting system" - no, all humans do which is exactly what Matt is saying. If anything religious dogma impedes moral progress, secularism doesn't because its reason based and can change accordingly.
What a B.S. artist this priest is - BOTH Yahweh of the Old Testament and Jesus of the New Testament condoned slavery (and specified guidelines for the treatment and ownership of them), and yet, he states that this was clearly wrong - which is it Father? - our morality comes from God, or do WE decide what is right?
Father Hans is full of crap - Pagan's are to blame for the Christian God allowing and endorsing slavery in the bible? WTF!!! (I never thought I could feel sorry for Pagan's until now!)
Slavery is no more or less of an vestige of pagan civilization, than the whole of the Christian composite itself. The egalitarianism that was the basis of the abolitionists movement, was just as pagan in origin as slavery itself. Difference being of course that there were no pro abolitionist scriptures, yet boat loads of pro slavery scriptures.
@DonQuixotedeKaw With the corporate Dominionist control of USA politics, slavery is FAR from gone. It's simply wearing a new "Christian" facade. The inheritors of the plantation paradigm, the good ol' boy network, is in full control of dehumanizing everyone else. Look at the TSA; do you think a Saudi prince or Texas theocrat (same thing) is going to ride with the peons, or go through security, when their real god (money) buys them an end run around the 4th amendment violations, on a private jet?
@DonQuixotedeKaw "Christianity has a self correcting mechanism" !! Wow, not only is that a whopper of a fish story, it's plagiarism, from antitheocratic naturalistic science! The only self correcting mechanisms in Christianity are the same as other Abrahamisms and theocratic crime syndicates; extortion and bribery.
All moral progress in western civilization, is due to the separation of church and state. That is why moral progress has stopped, so has that separation.
@DonQuixotedeKaw And another lie. Though based on the rebirth of pagan egalitarian thought (the Renaissance) itself a rejection of dogma, which in turn could not have happened without the black plague, and the discovery of Islamic and Alexandrian knowledge from the libraries of Toledo, the industrial revolution started in England, BECAUSE of a rejection from COE theocracy, of anyone with half a brain, requiring that they get industrious, or die. Progress results, from rejection of theocracy.
@darkchiron "The Bible is the bastion of absolute morality from God, giver of the absolute truths that are unerring and unchanging. He's so great, he even gave his religion a mechanism to change over time!!!"
If it's perfect, absolute, and unerring, why would it change?
If you're arguing for the sake to return society to gospel morals, as stated in the video description. Then how can you point out the obvious moral wrongs supported in the bible? (slavery) Or wife-beating, murder, mass murder, genocide, infantcide?...ect. Eugenics existed in the bible far before evolution was presented. Atheistic morals are self-correcting, not biblical. If the bible is not the word of god and moral absolute, then Christian morals are irrelivant and no different from secular.
So he blames slavery on paganism... well, Rome invaded Ghaul among other nations and indeed enslaved them, but at least they didn't say "I do so in the name of my God". On a side note, what about thanking pagans for Christmas al well?
He admits defeat without even realizing. Ultimately his defense is that "people got parts wrong, but it's ok, we learned" completely ignoring that if he could be wrong in part, the whole thing suddenly becomes nothing more then personal interpretation thereby abandoning any claim at "divine morality"
The Existentialists are the ones who tell us that human beings must take responsibility for morality and not pawn it off on some alleged supernatural entity.
They are on to something there - the theistic premiss that morality comes from something inhuman is ultimately a cop out.
Christianity has self correcting mechanisms? Kind of funny considering it's humanity that has these mechanisms. I was kind of hoping he'd point that out directly, but in a roundabout way I guess he did.
I have a christian friend who told me a joke once. "Q. how many Catholics does it take to change a lightbulb. A. Change? What is that?"
'Christian culture' did not simply 'carry the sin forward.' The Christian bible, the Christian god's word, endorses slavery. Christianity's self correction, asserted by Jacobse, ignores, distorts and rewrites the text of the bible.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female SLAVE, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
Why do people keep attributing Eugenics to atheism. It's worst incarnation came about in a massively Christian country during the rule of a Christian Creationist who dabbled in occult and various mythos. There is obviously a great separation between Arianism or Nazism and other Christian sects, but it's foundation was Christian none the less. I would not however attribute it to Christianity, but to superstition and supernatural beliefs.
Ah..for whatever reason, probably shyness, I just didn't think you were really asking that. Thanks for the compliment, or compliments I should say. I am single.
@lancevancedance Ye exactly. presuming that Zeus exists and using his existence for an argument doesnt cut it so why do people think Yahweh is a special case?
@BabySatch1 and i bet the zeus followers did the same faulty reasoning for zeus. and today, we know that zeus is imaginary, in fact we blatantly call it "greek mythology".
So when the bible states something that is immoral (slavery), it's from culture of the time. But if the bible states something moral (do not kill) then it's from god. wtf?
@BabySatch1 His last comment about apes expressing themselves and thinking about themselves does prove that he doesn't understand the theory of evolution.
@lancevancedance Ye, that seems to be common here on youtube amongst christians. I'm no scientist but i understand basic science in physics chemistry and biology. I swear man, if all children were brought up competent within the science's, religion would become old news.
@BabySatch1 tell me about it. through my conversations/debates with theists, I have concluded that a belief in a god often REQUIRES the ignorance of science and all of its brilliant theories and explanations. i've actually come to expect it in conversations with theists. i mean i've had theists tell ask me questions like, "If god doesn't exist then how does the sun stay in the sky?". All I do is suggest things for them to read, even though I know most of them won't.
@Gnomefro Exactly, even a gods moral code cannot be objective but merely authoritarian. The god of the old testament and Kim Jong il have but one difference. One is real and the other is imaginary. Apart from this minor but vital distinction they are both unchallengable, unalterable totalitarian dictators who allow no morals but their own.
What is atheism's self-correcting mechanism? Atheism is the result of the self-correction mechanism of following the evidence instead of fear and wishful thinking.
It would have been easier to eradicate slavery if religion hadn't written down laws to justify it and regulate it. Even Jesus couldn't make a condemnation of slavery 13 centuries or so after Moses? But it took another 17 or 18 centuries to dismantle it with different Xtian factions disagreeing?
I think the people insulting the priest right out need to get a grip.It's supposed to be civil debate which it was.Sure Matt certainly shone better,no doubt on that.But seeing the insults shows our community in a bad and mocking light.Say with you wish but vulgarities really doesn't do our side justice.
@0Xian0 He's just spent most of his time which was meant to be a question, makign a speech. The moderator should have stopped him two minutes in and told him to get to the point.
@stukajunker88 So its the fault of the moderator then?Why insulting the preist if he was let run with it.Im not saying you particulary but just must admit all the vulgur terms aren't really showing us as an understanding crowd.
I think that the reason most people are insulting him is because they feel like he was being deliberately intellectually dishonest. He waffled about things beside the point and almost never really directly addressed what what was being asked or the points being made by his opponent. It seemed as though he was deliberately avoiding directly answering questions and tried to babble his way out of them in a dishonest fashion. Lots of strawmanning. Lots of non sequiturs etc.
What do you mean 'Obviously they were wrong (about slavery)"? It's all in your bible in black and white! Slaves be fearful of your master... a master may beat his slave...
That moderator needs to sharpen up his act for letting that priest witter on irrelevantly when he was supposed to be asking a question. What a waste of time.
I think the father is actually preaching relativistic morality without getting it himself - don't get why he insists on hiding this "god" character behind it... seems odd.
Very very contradictory viewpoint from Father Hans Jacobse. He states that Christianity is self-correcting in terms of it's moral abominations of the past. The problem is that Christianity depicts God's word as unchanging, infallible and the end-all truth. If Christians have to change the word of God or in essence modernize the word of God, then that right there shows that the original word was INCORRECT. This is in high contrast to the original interpretation of the bible's infallibility.
ludogogo 1 month ago
Matt you got to com to the U.K. Would like to have a pint with you and NOT talk about religion!
SteveArpo 4 months ago
The priest completely fails on the argument of slavery. The bible STILL advocates it, and provides guidelines for it. It is flat-out WRONG, no matter who says it isn't.
TheAmericanCthulhu 5 months ago
this guy has a real thing for the pagans
naughteedesign 5 months ago
matt then the father, then matt then the father
naughteedesign 5 months ago
Bla bla bla. The priest is beating around the bush. A burning bush .. hehe
kloveless82 6 months ago
Blah, blah, fucking, blah.
TheFoulest 6 months ago
Atheism is not a philosophy. It is merely a lack of a belief in god. Damn Christians are hard to teach.
fatouche99 6 months ago
Matt, I love your work man, but you let this douche steal a free 5 minutes by not asking him, "DUDE, do you have a question or WHAT?!?" Don't let a d-bag hog the mic like that in the future, por favor.
tommyru 7 months ago
ok he didnt answer it at all. If it is bad, then why the fuck is it in the bible in the first place? My god, this priest was good at talking bullshit. Either the bible is right, or its wrong. It cant be both.
gulbirk 9 months ago
I came for a debate on morality. Matt gave me answers, Hans gave me a brief history lesson.
JakeXVX 9 months ago 2
I feel as though this guy has a "presupposition" that the western world is superior to the rest of the world.
JakeXVX 9 months ago
this is why christian piss me off all being a athiest means i dont belive there is a god if there is prove me wrong it doesnt mean that athiest is a religion just proves how closed minded xains realy are
TheWheelerr 10 months ago
this guys makes me puke, i can't watch it anymore.
millrice 10 months ago
This guy calls slavery a sin, so clearly his god commanded a sin.
reasonformirrors 10 months ago 6
Priest you may prose your sermon: *starts a sermon........oh I forgot where I was* You were proposing a question.....*ahh yes! continues sermon.......I forgot where I was*
What a fucking idiot!
TheLuckySaGe 10 months ago
@TheLuckySaGe propose*
TheLuckySaGe 10 months ago
If present day religion now changes their thoughts on what is right and wrong against what is written in the very book they believe in changes, what makes them think it's that big of a leap to assert that one doesn't need that book/god/any religion to adibe by what is known now as reality or morality as we know it today? why is it necessary to follow a book for morality that they themselves changed the morality of what the book even says
rustedromeo 11 months ago
If this priest would have been a caller on the show, he would have been crushed by Matt. In this 'debate' he still looks bad though.
dutchbb1979 11 months ago
So he thinks the bible is BS. Why the heck is he a preist?
Paetaor 1 year ago 13
I can't believe what this guy got away with. He refused to touch the fact that the bible contains explicit rules, from God, about who you're allowed to enslave, who he WANTS you to enslave, and even practical advice on buying, selling and abusing humans as property. Then he blames biblical slavery on the Pagans. Then he skips over the completely factual Christian opposition to abolition and credits Christianity for ending slavery... during the life of Martin Luther King, Jr.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
DocBlasto 1 year ago 6
I can't believe what this guy got away with. He refused to touch the fact that the bible contains explicit rules, from God, about who you're allowed to enslave, who he WANTS you to enslave, and even practical advice on buying, selling and abusing humans as property. Then he skips over the completely factual Christian opposition to abolition and credits Christianity for ending slavery... during the life of Martin Luther King, Jr.
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
DocBlasto 1 year ago 3
Atheism IS. NOT. A. PHILOSOPHY.
felisleo101 1 year ago
He didn't address why there was slavery endorsed in the bible.
Avealicious 1 year ago 3
@Avealicious No, instead he blames slavery (which was explicitly prescribed, reinforced and regulated by God himself) on Pagan religions. This is the sort of disingenuous game you must play when you choose to defend an indefensible position. The old testament says "thou shalt do no murder". Clearly God's definition of murder is different than ours, because he proceeds to send Moses and his tribe on a series of genocidal missions in which they are explicitly required to slaughter children.
DocBlasto 1 year ago
@Avealicious No, instead he blames slavery (which was explicitly prescribed, reinforced and regulated by God himself) on Pagan religions. This is the sort of disingenuous game you must play when you choose to defend an indefensible position. The old testament says "thou shalt do no murder". Clearly God's definition of murder is different than ours, because he proceeds to send Moses and his tribe on a series of genocidal missions in which they are explicitly instructed to slaughter children.
DocBlasto 1 year ago
Haha that christian is so stupid in the middle of his response he forgets what he is talking about lol guess god didn't have his back.
SuperNeo1989 1 year ago
this father got turned into a mother ...
zacmondejar 1 year ago 2
first question can be answered by simply yes or no.. the priest said bulshit'sss
valsotto27 1 year ago
"some Christians argued that [slavery] was God's will, but they were wrong" *face palm* kinda like how they were wrong about the divinity of Jesus? these people clearly weren't guided by any perfect being but where going through the normal human action of argument except now they are claiming that the arguments aren't theirs but gods...
Attributing your ideas to god doesn't make them stronger.
geoffpot 1 year ago
What the hell is the preacher talking about? ROTFL
Gamahlee 1 year ago
How can u forget your point like that ??!?!?! He just made a fool out of himself...
AlexDieGo777 1 year ago
That priest has more waffle than birdseye.
Scanini 1 year ago
Why does this guy insist on bringing up the Pagans?
xom2811 1 year ago 2
@xom2811 It's called a scapegoat. He's not able to use Atheism too much for fear of looking ignoble, so in flies the whip towards Paganism; especially since few people actually know what Paganism is and was.
FortisConscius 1 year ago
this preacher is terrible. he doesnt answer questions, and changes the subject to irrelevant topics thatnobody was talking abour WW1. the question was about slavery and how/why a loving god would ever advocate it. and then he forgets his point at like 8:45..what shit.
Bockatadi 1 year ago 2
6:05 "you have an opportunity to ask a question." "blablablabla" 9:55 "Here's my question."
blueskiesmev 1 year ago 3
@blueskiesmev I want to cave my skull in, listening to this.
kreskinkun 1 year ago
WHAT? Christianity has a sense of self correction? That's total bullshit,
1. Because the laws are written down as divine law that CANNOT BE CHANGED.
2. Because god says THOU SHALT NOT FUCKING JUDGE.
If you can't judge because god forbids it, and if the things you COULD judge if god allowed you to were UNCHANGEABLE DIVINE RULES FROM HEAVEN DIRECTLY FROM GOD then you can't "self-correct:" them. This priest doesn't even know WHAT THE FUCK he's talking about.
iXenomorph 1 year ago 14
I could've done much better than the preist on this topic..sad Matt was able to disable him so quicklyzz
monopolydevil 1 year ago 2
Father loves the sound of his own voice
joelmartens 1 year ago 6
If slavery was a pagan institution adopted by the early church, why has it never been erased from the Bible? If the Bible is the 'literal' word of God, which many Christians believe, how does the Father suggest expunging these verses?
thundergunn 1 year ago 7
Wow this religious guy is really clueless... Quite astonishing really.
ragerancher 1 year ago 7
Did he just say that their wasn't progress under pagan rule? Greeks, Romans, no progress?? WTF???
cobrompton 1 year ago 2
Slavery was a pagan institution...guess the Jews were Pagans too.
Talondas 1 year ago 3
"Christianity has a self correcting mechanism" What is it??? Societies changing ideas? Every religion can claim that.
nak807 1 year ago 5
The religious debater has very little understanding of history. Slavery ended in the sixties with the Civil Rights movement? WTF?
mnkittel 1 year ago
@mnkittel lololol
moety2 1 year ago
Matt is better in ad hoc debates when he needs to think on his feet. Here, I find him too long and explaining too much. Does the audience need this?
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
eugenics and the crimes of 20th century communism are because of ideologies... not the lack of one (atheism). it's ridiculous to argue that atheism directly caused these things. Hans jacobse argues that the lack of god's morality makes people take morality in own hands and that allows them to do bad things. Then why do religious ideologies also cause people to do bad things? because people always have morality in their own hands, it's the ideologies that influence them.
Zuurkool1 1 year ago 3
Christianity did this...Christianity did that...ok...obviously Christianity doesn't know what the hell it is talking about about these issues. So obviously its morals are informed by something else....what? I have no fucking idea even though I watched this debate...what are they talking about? That guy is rambling and Matt is following every step of the way...actually no.. it isn't their fault its that damn proctor's fault. What is he doing?
Existentialisht 1 year ago
England stopped slavery.................American`s come`s from my intelligent ppl`s- lol!!. :)
jjmm112 1 year ago
@jjmm112
If only you had a firm grasp of the language.
VideoMenu 1 year ago
@VideoMenu . This is Y/T and you speak my language, thus- I don`t feel compelled to spell properly- would be lost on stupid american`s.................
jjmm112 1 year ago
@jjmm112
In other words, you're a big man on the internet who talks big shit ("because this is the interwebz") but you don't have anything to back it up. Thanks.
VideoMenu 1 year ago
@jjmm112 I didn't realize you were such good spellers in Assholevania.
jussts 1 year ago
@jjmm112 faggot
ryanmail2004 1 year ago
This priest goes a long way to say absolutely nothing. That had to be the worst question ever.
kclem69 1 year ago
The priest has nothing to say. Sad to watch.
AndresUppsala1 1 year ago 5
I didn't know a lack of a belief was a philosophy.
no1sjester 1 year ago 3
This guy is so bad of a debater, matt was thrown a soft ball when he had to debate this guy. I wish he was better, but theist have the poorer position
thesparitan 1 year ago 3
HAHA, immediately BLAME someone else. This pastor is the worst of the apologists.
porterwake 1 year ago
Oh, Mr. Jacobse: You didn't forget your point. You never ever had one. This "father" is sooooo ridiculous uneducated, it hurts!
ahr8p 1 year ago 2
slavery is alive and well in the U.S. it has morphed in to the prison system look ,for "theantiterrorist" on youtube ,for a full explanation.
kevrs2 1 year ago
"I respect an authentic search for that which is true....(EVEN if a person denies God while he's doing it)".
More like....even if a person denies the CLAIMS made about this supposed..."God".
Sounds like he was indirectly implying that he possess the truth, and that anyone else who doesn't agree with the christian assessment is authentic only in regards to the 'search'. However, if the conclusion of that individual's 'truth' doesn't contain the idea of god, it is useless.
This guy is fail.
Ecite 1 year ago
Why do theists have such difficulty accepting that atheism is merely a non-belief in god(s)?
bruinjogger 1 year ago 52
@bruinjogger Because it's so damned hard to demonize something as basic as mere lack of belief. If you can dress it up as a philosophy that inevitably leads to atrocities, it's so much easier to scare the congregation with it.
ObakeOnna 1 year ago 3
@bruinjogger their minds are too small to be wrapped around anything
skippydeenice 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bruinjogger Because they are stupid.
shaneisawesome11 1 year ago
@bruinjogger Because then they have no arguments left. So instead of proving their position, they want to make the other position look less reasonable and plausible. This is a common way of arguing that is used in every type of debate.
gulbirk 9 months ago
Is it just me or does it feel like this guy didnt really answer the question.
Still neglecting the fact that your holy book promotes slavery...dont care whoever else did what...
blahdoot20 1 year ago 48
@blahdoot20 I actually do not think that he avoided it. The question was something along the lines of: "Was slavery always wrong, or did it change with time?" Hans answered this clearly that it was always wrong. He is not making excuses for the Bible, I'm sure he admits that it is not infallible.
It seems that the only difference between his and Matt's thinking is simply where the "truths" come from.
thricerocks 1 year ago
@thricerocks Since this is a debate about where morality comes from, I think the point of this question was to make him address the fact that this source of morality (the bible) is filled with immoral things and for society to have come in and claimed that it was wrong was not an act of god but that of a basic built in sense of morality. The fact, the bible was promoting the act of slavery itself means it should not be used as a source of morality.
blahdoot20 1 year ago
@blahdoot20 But that is a straw man, at least in the Father's case. That is not his position and he never claimed that it was.
Note: I agree with Matt in this debate, just I see no issue with the Father's response to this question.
thricerocks 1 year ago
@thricerocks so in your mind the father gave a coherent answer even though he waffled more than an ice cream cone maker and then forgot what his point was?
blahdoot20 1 year ago
@blahdoot20 I do not think that his answer was good, however he did answer Matt's question. My only point is that the question was answered, and you are just upset that FR Hans isn't a literalist. I'm sure if he was his attempt to answer would have more entertaining, but we have to get over that.
thricerocks 1 year ago
@thricerocks okay I can agree with you that he did indeed answer. Whether or not the answer that was coming out of his mouth properly addressed the issue at hand is another thing. Matt wanted to see how the father could justify slavery if it condones it in the bible. if he believes the bible is not infallible then doesnt that throw his whole religion out the door? If you pick and choose from the bible anyway, then your morality and judgment does not come from the bible but from your own judgment
blahdoot20 1 year ago
@blahdoot20 I understand what Matt's point was in asking. The thing is FR Hans' beliefs are such that this problem isn't one for him. It may not be rational, but it is what he believes. The bible is not infallible to an Orthodox Christian, and that is the problem. Like I said earlier, I do not think the FR believes his morality comes from the bible. He probably thinks that his god simply provided the moral truths to the world, and then it us up to humans to discern them.
thricerocks 1 year ago
@thricerocks
So he doesnt get his morality from the bible and he gets to pick and choose what to believe or not believe? God gives him truths and he as a "lowly man" can choose from the word of god? Then god serves no purpose if his word can be cast aside by whoever. I will agree with you that the father has answered the question albeit unsatisfactorily but has waffled his way out of claiming any responsibility that religion had for the evils contributed to it.
blahdoot20 1 year ago
@blahdoot20 He doesn't believe that the bible is necessarily the word of god though, so he isn't picking and choosing from god's word, merely deciding what of the bible IS god's word. I'm not saying I like his view, just saying that's what I believe it is. And yes, this belief system does wriggle out of any responsibility, however it is also less harmful, because they are recognizing that some of the things in the bible are immoral.
thricerocks 1 year ago
@thricerocks Yes, however he's unknowingly taking a position of moral relativism. One moment he claims that the truths "revealed" in the bible are eternal and unalterable, then he proceeds to use his own moral compass to decide which of God's words are real and which are false. Where can he possibly claim the authority to decide what words from the holy book are actually holy? Anyone can creatively interpret and cherry-pick the bible to justify whatever insane psychopathic policy they desire.
DocBlasto 1 year ago
@DocBlasto He is not taking a position of moral relativism at all. However, you are correct, I have no idea where he gets the authority to decide what is true or false. His position is still stupid, but he did in fact answer the question. Even Matt later said that he understood why the answer was so unsatisfactory at the time, because Matt was assuming the Fr. held a belief that he did not.
PS Moral relativism holds that there are no objective moral truths, while the Fr. claims the opposite
thricerocks 1 year ago
@blahdoot20. It's actually better than that because he actually says that the christians that believed slavery was right "were wrong"...so he's actually saying that his bible is wrong...If that's statement is right than how can we decide on the (nonexistent) validity of any bible verse at all? If you can just pick and choose, which is essential what he's doing with the unnecessary picturesque language, then why not choose to forget the entire bible.
stranger201 11 months ago
@stranger201 Agreed ... usually whatever arguments these guys put out usually means they shoot themselves in the foot for future arguments. Not thinking through your arguments or ignoring validity of points seems to be the foundation of a religious belief.
blahdoot20 11 months ago
Christianity has a self correcting mechanism... in the sense that it gets dragged kicking and screaming into the present day, then immediately tries to pretend that it thought that way all the time.
Macrochenia 1 year ago 5
@Macrochenia LOL
Sciborg09 1 year ago
Chapter and verse father chapter and verse where GOD condemns slavery?!
philosophyman76 1 year ago 2
I think... or let's say.... Mmmm'k? You know? Right? Those types of ricketty statements really hurt your position.
This isn't a history lesson it's debate. He's treating the debate as a remix preeching session rather than an exchange of debate and not even *understanding* any of the questions of the other speaker.
GAH!
FoxBatinaHat 1 year ago
Did the Moderator say that was a marvelous answer? WHAT?!?
TianSan 1 year ago 3
Fr. says it took four hundred years for the church to condemn slavery. He's admitting Jesus and Paul and all the other x-tian idiots didn't condemn slavery. He's admitting god couldn't even get it right.
216trixie 1 year ago
He said "some christians say that god did not endorse slavery, and they are right!" Excuse me, but it has god DIRECTLY commanding it in the Bible.
Enochsfury 1 year ago
don't give France any credit, father. they havent really succeeded at anything
innurblonde 1 year ago
The priest is constantly bullshitting. The whole flow of things from his mouth is bullshit. I want to see TF debate him. lmao. TF is a focused razor of intelligently slaying religion.
1010011010is29a 1 year ago
Hang on, Christianity has a self-correcting mechanism? Is that why it took Christians 2000 years to say slavery was wrong? :S
wretcherwretch 1 year ago 4
Christianity has a "self correcting system" - no, all humans do which is exactly what Matt is saying. If anything religious dogma impedes moral progress, secularism doesn't because its reason based and can change accordingly.
TitenSxull 1 year ago
What a B.S. artist this priest is - BOTH Yahweh of the Old Testament and Jesus of the New Testament condoned slavery (and specified guidelines for the treatment and ownership of them), and yet, he states that this was clearly wrong - which is it Father? - our morality comes from God, or do WE decide what is right?
You CANNOT have your cake and eat it too.
steveb0503 1 year ago 2
Father Hans is full of crap - Pagan's are to blame for the Christian God allowing and endorsing slavery in the bible? WTF!!! (I never thought I could feel sorry for Pagan's until now!)
MangaFanGuy 1 year ago
Why did he completely sidestep the question of why his God ever mandated alvery in the first place?
adrenacrumb 1 year ago 2
Wow, which obfuscation to start with..
Slavery is no more or less of an vestige of pagan civilization, than the whole of the Christian composite itself. The egalitarianism that was the basis of the abolitionists movement, was just as pagan in origin as slavery itself. Difference being of course that there were no pro abolitionist scriptures, yet boat loads of pro slavery scriptures.
DonQuixotedeKaw 1 year ago
@DonQuixotedeKaw With the corporate Dominionist control of USA politics, slavery is FAR from gone. It's simply wearing a new "Christian" facade. The inheritors of the plantation paradigm, the good ol' boy network, is in full control of dehumanizing everyone else. Look at the TSA; do you think a Saudi prince or Texas theocrat (same thing) is going to ride with the peons, or go through security, when their real god (money) buys them an end run around the 4th amendment violations, on a private jet?
DonQuixotedeKaw 1 year ago
@DonQuixotedeKaw "Christianity has a self correcting mechanism" !! Wow, not only is that a whopper of a fish story, it's plagiarism, from antitheocratic naturalistic science! The only self correcting mechanisms in Christianity are the same as other Abrahamisms and theocratic crime syndicates; extortion and bribery.
All moral progress in western civilization, is due to the separation of church and state. That is why moral progress has stopped, so has that separation.
DonQuixotedeKaw 1 year ago
@DonQuixotedeKaw And another lie. Though based on the rebirth of pagan egalitarian thought (the Renaissance) itself a rejection of dogma, which in turn could not have happened without the black plague, and the discovery of Islamic and Alexandrian knowledge from the libraries of Toledo, the industrial revolution started in England, BECAUSE of a rejection from COE theocracy, of anyone with half a brain, requiring that they get industrious, or die. Progress results, from rejection of theocracy.
DonQuixotedeKaw 1 year ago
how is the fact of some christians finding slavery reprehensible tantamount to an answer to that question?
maikit333 1 year ago
"Slavery is declared moral by Biblical works. What's up with that?"
"Well that's a hold over from the Pagans."
lolwut?
darkchiron 1 year ago 3
@darkchiron "The Bible is the bastion of absolute morality from God, giver of the absolute truths that are unerring and unchanging. He's so great, he even gave his religion a mechanism to change over time!!!"
If it's perfect, absolute, and unerring, why would it change?
darkchiron 1 year ago
If you're arguing for the sake to return society to gospel morals, as stated in the video description. Then how can you point out the obvious moral wrongs supported in the bible? (slavery) Or wife-beating, murder, mass murder, genocide, infantcide?...ect. Eugenics existed in the bible far before evolution was presented. Atheistic morals are self-correcting, not biblical. If the bible is not the word of god and moral absolute, then Christian morals are irrelivant and no different from secular.
ant1establishment 1 year ago
So he blames slavery on paganism... well, Rome invaded Ghaul among other nations and indeed enslaved them, but at least they didn't say "I do so in the name of my God". On a side note, what about thanking pagans for Christmas al well?
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
He admits defeat without even realizing. Ultimately his defense is that "people got parts wrong, but it's ok, we learned" completely ignoring that if he could be wrong in part, the whole thing suddenly becomes nothing more then personal interpretation thereby abandoning any claim at "divine morality"
dragonmatt5 1 year ago 6
@BabySatch1 I think the figure of Jesus of Nazareth did exist but I think he was more on the "lunatic side".
JaguarEscarlata 1 year ago
@Hopeful71
You are quite correct - the 'trilemma' about this alleged jesus presupposes that he ever existed and also that we have reliable reports about him.
So it's a form of the logical fallacy called begging the question, which is a reliable theist standby.
proudfootz 1 year ago
The Existentialists are the ones who tell us that human beings must take responsibility for morality and not pawn it off on some alleged supernatural entity.
They are on to something there - the theistic premiss that morality comes from something inhuman is ultimately a cop out.
proudfootz 1 year ago
i think they sort of agree with each other but the priest is insisting that his morality comes from god
icameupwiththisname 1 year ago
Christianity has self correcting mechanisms? Kind of funny considering it's humanity that has these mechanisms. I was kind of hoping he'd point that out directly, but in a roundabout way I guess he did.
I have a christian friend who told me a joke once. "Q. how many Catholics does it take to change a lightbulb. A. Change? What is that?"
ScaryGuy255 1 year ago
'Christian culture' did not simply 'carry the sin forward.' The Christian bible, the Christian god's word, endorses slavery. Christianity's self correction, asserted by Jacobse, ignores, distorts and rewrites the text of the bible.
biosnark 1 year ago
@BabySatch1 Plus the Epic of Gilgamesh which is an ancient Sumerian tale predates the biblical myth of noah and provides the template for it.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
Awesome response by Matt!
CutieBabe25 1 year ago
10:10 Matt owns.
AKICKTOTHEEYE 1 year ago
Ha ha ha slavery a pagan social system. What about the BIBLE?
adolthitler 1 year ago
5:30 - Did he compare Christianity to the scientific method(?) I call bullshit.
AKICKTOTHEEYE 1 year ago
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female SLAVE, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.
AnnRKey 1 year ago 2
Ahhhhhh! excuse my grammar its 5.00am over here lol.
BabySatch1 1 year ago
@lancevancedance I dont believe he's used the Fossils on mountain tops crap.
That mystery was solved by the royal society in the 19th century lol...
BabySatch1 1 year ago
Why do people keep attributing Eugenics to atheism. It's worst incarnation came about in a massively Christian country during the rule of a Christian Creationist who dabbled in occult and various mythos. There is obviously a great separation between Arianism or Nazism and other Christian sects, but it's foundation was Christian none the less. I would not however attribute it to Christianity, but to superstition and supernatural beliefs.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez single?
zodiakranch 1 year ago
@zodiakranch
What?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez sorry....inteligence is such a turn on....plus you have great hair :)
zodiakranch 1 year ago
@zodiakranch
Ah..for whatever reason, probably shyness, I just didn't think you were really asking that. Thanks for the compliment, or compliments I should say. I am single.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@lancevancedance Ye exactly. presuming that Zeus exists and using his existence for an argument doesnt cut it so why do people think Yahweh is a special case?
BabySatch1 1 year ago
@BabySatch1 and i bet the zeus followers did the same faulty reasoning for zeus. and today, we know that zeus is imaginary, in fact we blatantly call it "greek mythology".
lancevancedance 1 year ago
So when the bible states something that is immoral (slavery), it's from culture of the time. But if the bible states something moral (do not kill) then it's from god. wtf?
muzvh1 1 year ago
@muzvh1 very good point.
lancevancedance 1 year ago
How long does this guy take to ask a freaking question?
Jonstern1983 1 year ago 2
@BabySatch1 His last comment about apes expressing themselves and thinking about themselves does prove that he doesn't understand the theory of evolution.
lancevancedance 1 year ago
@lancevancedance Ye, that seems to be common here on youtube amongst christians. I'm no scientist but i understand basic science in physics chemistry and biology. I swear man, if all children were brought up competent within the science's, religion would become old news.
BabySatch1 1 year ago
@BabySatch1 tell me about it. through my conversations/debates with theists, I have concluded that a belief in a god often REQUIRES the ignorance of science and all of its brilliant theories and explanations. i've actually come to expect it in conversations with theists. i mean i've had theists tell ask me questions like, "If god doesn't exist then how does the sun stay in the sky?". All I do is suggest things for them to read, even though I know most of them won't.
lancevancedance 1 year ago
"Christianity has a self-correcting mechanism"
lol what
mauroprovatos 1 year ago
@Gnomefro Exactly, even a gods moral code cannot be objective but merely authoritarian. The god of the old testament and Kim Jong il have but one difference. One is real and the other is imaginary. Apart from this minor but vital distinction they are both unchallengable, unalterable totalitarian dictators who allow no morals but their own.
BabySatch1 1 year ago
@BabySatch1 hence euthyphro's dilemma
lancevancedance 1 year ago
10 points for grifindor!!! oh, um I mean the atheists
OpiatedBliss 1 year ago
What is atheism's self-correcting mechanism? Atheism is the result of the self-correction mechanism of following the evidence instead of fear and wishful thinking.
8WholeThing 1 year ago
It would have been easier to eradicate slavery if religion hadn't written down laws to justify it and regulate it. Even Jesus couldn't make a condemnation of slavery 13 centuries or so after Moses? But it took another 17 or 18 centuries to dismantle it with different Xtian factions disagreeing?
8WholeThing 1 year ago
Simple question, no answer. Typical. Does this guy have anything to say about the actual debate?
pacogoatboy 1 year ago
Simple question, no answer. Typical.
pacogoatboy 1 year ago
"...some christians argue that slavery was the will of god, but obviously they were wrong"
How exactly is that obvious?!?
wassholm 1 year ago
BOOOM BITCH!!!!!
Abraham Lincoln was an atheist :P
burgercris 1 year ago
This fool didn't even answer Matt's question, he merely danced around it and made biased, unfair judgements that were completely outright wrong.
Acorafication 1 year ago
Why does this condescending fucker keep bringing up Pagans, and Paganism?
OnTheFritz602 1 year ago
STOP BABBLING! DEAR JEEBUS! Just ask your damn question, stop lecturing!
canadianmaple09 1 year ago 2
"The atheist doesn't have this, christianity has within it a self-correcting mechanism in that it can judge it's own sins."
That's so wrong, it made me choke on my drink.
firefly4f4 1 year ago 6
@firefly4f4 It made me choke too, but i poured another one. Cheers! ha! ;)
musicgeniusno1 1 year ago
"I think that slavery was a vestige of pagan civilization."
How can he say that with a straight face?
feldsliscia 1 year ago 2
I think the people insulting the priest right out need to get a grip.It's supposed to be civil debate which it was.Sure Matt certainly shone better,no doubt on that.But seeing the insults shows our community in a bad and mocking light.Say with you wish but vulgarities really doesn't do our side justice.
0Xian0 1 year ago 6
@0Xian0 He's just spent most of his time which was meant to be a question, makign a speech. The moderator should have stopped him two minutes in and told him to get to the point.
stukajunker88 1 year ago
@stukajunker88 So its the fault of the moderator then?Why insulting the preist if he was let run with it.Im not saying you particulary but just must admit all the vulgur terms aren't really showing us as an understanding crowd.
0Xian0 1 year ago
@0Xian0 Also, we need to take points from Matt for having the ease of arguing the right side. ;-)
Maxdwolf 1 year ago
@0Xian0
I think that the reason most people are insulting him is because they feel like he was being deliberately intellectually dishonest. He waffled about things beside the point and almost never really directly addressed what what was being asked or the points being made by his opponent. It seemed as though he was deliberately avoiding directly answering questions and tried to babble his way out of them in a dishonest fashion. Lots of strawmanning. Lots of non sequiturs etc.
moyga 1 year ago
What do you mean 'Obviously they were wrong (about slavery)"? It's all in your bible in black and white! Slaves be fearful of your master... a master may beat his slave...
stukajunker88 1 year ago
@stukajunker88 nonno he said that they thought god told them how to justify slavery.
That's how they were obviously wrong ;p since god didn't tell them jack shit.
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Proletariat12
Read the Bible, not only does it say slavery is ok but it gives instructions for how to treat your slaves and purchase them etc.
moyga 1 year ago
@moyga uh.. I know. how is that relevant to my joke?
Proletariat12 1 year ago
@Proletariat12
Oh sorry, I get you now. I thought you were saying that the bible doesn't condone slavery.
moyga 1 year ago
The reverend dodged Matt's question... he failed to address the bible's specific tolerance of slavery.
bozzutoman 1 year ago 2
wasn't that suppose to be a question and not a monologue?
verstwo2 1 year ago
That moderator needs to sharpen up his act for letting that priest witter on irrelevantly when he was supposed to be asking a question. What a waste of time.
MessyPussy 1 year ago 2
Jacobse ?
Is that like Goatse ?
RoadRunnerLaser 1 year ago
I think the father is actually preaching relativistic morality without getting it himself - don't get why he insists on hiding this "god" character behind it... seems odd.
DigitizedSelf 1 year ago
Hold on, I thought this cunt was supposed to be asking Matt a question now. he's just stood their blabbering on about his own "fancies".
He's a fuckin imbecile. A blithering blabbering incoherent fool.
Dillahunty deserves a much better opposition than this clown.
Everything he's said has betrayed he doesn't even know what atheism actually means.
martiangrundy 1 year ago