17. With Greg Koukl - Intolerance

How can we answer people when they say that we are intolerant? See great advice given by author Greg Koukl.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• apologetics
• one minute apologist
• witness
• evangelism
• oneminuteapologist
• life fellowship
• life charlotte
• bobby conway
• jesus
• greg koukl
• atheism
• SES
• intolerant
• intolerance
• koukl
• greg

[Mathenaut]

You're not being called intolerant because you think you're right. You're being called intolerant because you're being an unreasonable, insufferable douche with respect to the private beliefs and practices of others.

Christians bring alot of this ire down on themselves.

[keksinnot]

Not wanting to change your beliefs when they are proven wrong is idiotic.

To challenge other fellow's beliefs without having your own beliefs checked is arrogant and stupid.

[M3PanoS]

@JasonBensleyDrain Because if the standard isn't transcendent or absolute then it's not a standard at all. In order for something to be a standard, it has to be unchanging to the shifting sands of time -that's the whole point.

No you haven't given a foundation because you haven't shown COMPULSION.

And on the Euthyphro dilemma, here you go: watch?v=KE862nKWNTk&feature=ch­annel_video_title

[JasonBensleyDrain]

@M3PanoS

Cont:

"Is something moral because it is commanded by God, or is commanded by God because it is moral"

The problem for you is this, in the first instance, there is a higher standard than God even, that transcends even him. In the second case, the problem is that morality is arbitrary. God could command rape and murder (which he in fact does) and it would be moral.

[JasonBensleyDrain]

@M3PanoS

Well if it isn't then I guess not the way you're defining it. I don't really understand why you're insisting the standard must be transcendent and absolute. But I guess we're at an impasse there. And I have already given you my foundation for morality. Also, I must counter a bit here. I don't know if you're familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma, but if not it is basically this:

1/2

[M3PanoS]

@JasonBensleyDrain You agree with moral compulsion which is a good thing, but I have to press this issue.

Unless that moral standard is universal and binding, morality doesn't exist, right? Give me the standard. I have given you mine, and I have reason to believe that it is real because of the Resurrection. What do you have to offer?

[M3PanoS]

@JasonBensleyDrain Under what authority do you penalize someone? How do you decide if that action is not more detrimental? Who defines what's detrimental? Your philosophy descends into a subjective, meaningless cluster-f*ck, sorry I can't say it any other way. Whatever answers you give to these questions, I'll just question those also -it will NEVER end.

On my worldview, it ENDS on a transcendent authority which we call God. Does God exist? I believe He came into the world and became man.

[JasonBensleyDrain]

@M3PanoS Us as humans do, you can't necessarily get everyone to agree, I would penalize them because to not do so would be detrimental to humanity.

[JasonBensleyDrain]

@M3PanoS I completely agree, but why does the compulsion have to be God?

[M3PanoS]

@JasonBensleyDrain There is NO morality without compulsion.