"I indict God if I say that was immoral!" - Theist Caller SO Close to Getting Point ft. Seth Andrews

Añadido: 2026-05-11

[00:00:00]Hey everybody, welcome to my channel. My name is Promise Backland. One of the cool things I get to do is host over on a channel called The Line where we take live callers. The clip you're about to watch is from one of those episodes. If you're interested in more content like this, you can head over to the link in the description and check out their channel. Thanks for watching. We've got DB um wants to call and tell us that God is not fake.

[00:00:25]Hey, DB, you are you're on the Sunday show with Promise and Seth. How are you?

[00:00:31]>> I'm good, thank you. Uh, how are you guys?

[00:00:35]>> Are you on a speaker phone or on a can I get you a little closer to the mic so we can hear you a little better, Debbing?

[00:00:41]>> I'm sorry. Is Am I getting any better?

[00:00:43]Uh, >> this as close as you can get, my friend.

[00:00:47]>> Yeah, it is. I got my mic right in my mouth almost.

[00:00:51]>> All right. Well, it'll work. that. Oh, sorry about that. Didn't want to be that guy. Sorry. Um, yeah, guys. Hi. Yes. Uh, interesting listening to you guys talk and so forth. Do you mind if I ask you a question first? Promise before I just state my case.

[00:01:07]I'm intrigued by the fact that you spend many dedication 20 years of of very dedicated maybe more than a lot of Christian possibly more than myself of of looking into these things and following through. I I wanted to ask if you don't mind is there is was there anything that still remains in your mind uh compelling like I can't imagine you would find the whole thing completely rubbish there must be like is there still just a facet of of the Christian religion or theism that still makes you wonder that still >> you're still on the fence you're just >> no way you consider the whole thing just fogw Yeah, I I don't believe any gods exist.

[00:01:52]I I have never heard a good reason to believe that one does. I think that um the god claims I've heard so far all seem to be uh made up by people and I've never been given evidence to believe contrary to that.

[00:02:08]>> Okay. So you find just even even your own sort of sense of morality of the design doesn't doesn't appeal at all to that a god a god existing or anything even remotely or >> nope I I wouldn't be calling myself an atheist if I was uh holding out >> no understood understood I don't I don't think you're compromising your convictions or feigning it but just I I just if there's just a a vestage if you will of conviction somewhere that maybe just needs to flourish from a more compelling argument or something. Not a problem. Thank you for that. My I think my like I I it's been sort of natural to me just to believe in a God. I I sort of have to go back and think what >> Well, let me DB, let me ask you real quick. Which God is it specifically that you believe in?

[00:02:58]>> A Christian. Sorry, I told that to the >> You might have said it and I just didn't catch it, but I just want to make sure I I'm knowing where we're going. Okay, continue. Great. Thank you for that. Um, yeah, a Christian God. Uh, uh, uh, so when I was, uh, it was intuitive, instinctive possibly that I believed in God and I had to sort of when asked the question, I was have to go back and ask myself why. Um, that as far as my experience goes, um, I think I think there was a do design element when I was very young, just sort of looking. It was thrown out the window one day for whatever reason. And I just sort of dawned on me just seeing this sort of panorama trees, birds flying the air, the sunny sky, the grass, things. It just I can't articulate what that means, but just I guess there was apparently a design factor that just couldn't have been halfhazard. I can't imagine how many um uh test scenarios would require to to get such a conformity of design and so forth. But the moral the moral aspect I think humans are distinctly and and and definitively spiritual creatures as opposed to the animal kingdom meaning we we have that that sense of of morality uh uh understanding transcendent thoughts and so forth right and wrong the spiritual realm you know understanding is just what the word god means even >> well so DB let's figure out which which direction we want to go what do you think is the more compelling argument for the existence of your god uh intelligent design or morality and then we can go down the route that you pick.

[00:04:36]>> Agreed. Thank you. Morality.

[00:04:38]>> Okay. So, you would say that morality proves a god. Is that fair to say?

[00:04:44]>> I do believe so. Yes.

[00:04:47]>> Okay. Why?

[00:04:49]>> Because I I see that it's it's written just bear with me here that it's written that we're creating God's image. And to me the evidence sort of displays that I don't think the um animal kingdom ha has has any sense of morality. I know many have argued that well the monkeys over here do this and that and we've witnessed you know equality or something one defending another this minute sort of case. I think definitively the animal kingdom just the fact that they kill just to sustain themselves predominantly. They could not they cannot have that love thy number as yourself mantra you know that they they cannot be moral beings for reasons of such just the way they live the way they're designed they don't have the capacity we are clearly have this spiritual nature that has to have a source that couldn't come from the material realm if we came from you know protolas >> the problem is >> yeah but the problem is we don't all agree on um morals we we we tend to find objectives to agree on to agree on so like well-being and then we try we aim for that but even amongst Christians if you ask one what's moral and what isn't this is clearly a human construct that we've come up with because we're social creatures and we've been able to communicate to the level that we can find agreements to make that make life hopefully better for the most amount of people. Um but for example like you brought up you know the golden rule like treat others as you would want to be treated. Is that one of the thing that's what you were talking about right?

[00:06:26]>> Abs. Absolutely. Yes.

[00:06:28]>> But I can I can write a better one.

[00:06:30]Treat other people how they want to be treated. Because if you treat me the same way that I use this example, sorry for everybody that's heard it a million times. If you treat me on my birthday how my husband wants to be treated on his birthday, I'm going to have a shitty birthday. And if you treat my husband on his birthday how I want to be treated on my birthday, he's going to have a shitty birthday because we both have very different ideas of what a good birthday is like.

[00:06:56]>> So that's already not like >> from the Bible like that's already if that's one of the one of the peaks of moral uh poems that we can offer in there, it's not good. I can write a better one.

[00:07:11]>> That's interesting promise. That is interesting. I imagine the golden rule is is uh is is sort of cont not contextual but I understood that not on the spec not on the specifics if if I'm not going to if your husband wants a drill for his birthday and I'm going to buy you a drill I can appreciate the uh the uh lack of appreciation but um yeah but no but if it's if if it's being generous to you on your I think it would just be a little broader than that if it's if it's sharing.

[00:07:45]>> Well, here's the problem. My My husband doesn't like birthdays. He's Finnish.

[00:07:49]So, he just doesn't even He just wants to have a great day and he just wants to have a great day every day. That's a good birthday to him. He doesn't actually. It makes him uncomfortable getting gifts and having people go out of their way to do big shows of anything. Me, on the other hand, I'm like, >> "Bring me breakfast and bread. Breakfast in bed. Bring me flowers. Make a big deal. Tell me all the best things about me. And I want it to be special. and I don't want this every day every year.

[00:08:14]So, you know, already there I like you're already having to fudge that verse so much to make it work. So, it's clearly not a very clear um moral foundation for anything. It's not that helpful. It's not even that wise.

[00:08:31]>> Interesting promise. That's the first time I've heard it sort of uh uh deprecated to such a degree. I think most I thought I thought it was sort of a universal even even across religions one might hear to this you know consider it to be a compelling precept to follow and so forth. Um, okay. So, I well, I think I think me being a little bit broad about it is sort of out because I would sit there and say, "Okay, then Dan, what would you want somebody to do for you on your birthday?" And think to myself, "Okay, what would we promise want somebody to do for her birthday?" I think that's the same sentiment, >> you know, just put yourself in her place.

[00:09:09]>> But it's literally it's literally not.

[00:09:11]It's treat that person how they want to be treated instead of treat that person how you would want to be treated. It's very different. And I think that that adjustment would have been a lot better.

[00:09:19]But here's the other problem. If we're going to go to the Bible for morality, >> sorry, I have to bring up slavery because it's a really really big problem in the Bible. I also have to bring up the fact that there's all kinds of awful things that are perpetuated by religious people, by the church, that the Bible could have just been like, God could have just seen in advance, oh, this is going to be a problem. Let me be really clear about this. and he wasn't. And and now we have denominations arguing over that. We have people being abused because of it. Uh because it's not clear. It's not very clear and often times it is contradicting itself. Um, so my problem with like bringing we can go down the whole line of like what's immoral about the Bible, but I what I I'm more interested in how did you determine that morality could not have been something that we as humans um developed in order to survive >> because I I I you are talking about the specific the specifics now um are defining what is more and what is not. I I believe that's possibly for the sake of this argument a slightly different issue. Just the fact that we have that care and concern even like again an animal a lion will just eat an analopee child without losing any sleep. It doesn't cross his mind. Nobody gets together and says you we can't keep living like this. We should become vegetarians or whatever. It doesn't cross their mind. Just the fact that we even have that notion of of that intangible that what was what was right, what was wrong. Um uh >> the DB our sense of morality has changed and grown over the years. Like I said, the Bible was claiming that it's totally cool to own slaves as long as you do it this way and that way and it's totally fine to hit women and to stone people and all this stuff. And now we know that's immoral. But at the time people were doing it and they were making justifications for it. And then they've kept doing it and used the Bible to justify it. So clearly our morality is something that has changed over time.

[00:11:28]Age of consent has changed. The more we learn about each other and how our brains work, we we have changed so much morally over time. If it was something inherent in us from a god, why was it so shitty? Why has it had to evolve over time?

[00:11:48]uh again again the specific um doctrines or or or precepts of of morality and so forth they do change and evolve and man is striving to to find out what is conducive to every situation so forth it's an impossible task I imagine but but the notion that umh that well but just that again I I just think watching uh uh dogs and animals They kill indiscriminately to a large degree.

[00:12:18]Even if you wander into their territory, they have no benefit of feeding off of you or not. They're they'll be that manner and it's it's they don't have that sense of being repulsed. Is it a chance?

[00:12:31]>> Is there is there a chance that us humans just have had access to more tools to develop this morality and it's and it's benefited us to do so?

[00:12:44]>> Is it possible Is it possible that there's nothing spiritual, supernatural whatsoever about our about the morality that we don't even all agree on?

[00:12:57]>> Um, is it possible? I know. I I was probably not hard to fathom. And what I was going to say is that to say that as creatures, if there was no God and you just came from the material realm, started in protoplasm, you wouldn't have that dimension. you wouldn't have that dimension in man's, you know, constitution that that that to go off into that abstract thing and and like you said to the detriment. Why wouldn't man be sort of self annihilating in that way just to confound himself with these rules regulations that just have no significance or bearing or just uh are subjective or contextual or so forth in that um why would he do that? I think there's just something in him that is just innate.

[00:13:43]Like why would he go there to his own detriment as as you've expressed?

[00:13:53]>> Oh, hello.

[00:13:56]>> You've literally shortcircuited promise.

[00:13:58]You've short circuited her. She's literally >> I'm just waiting for the the reason why you've like how you determine there's a god behind this and I'm I'm hearing like really abstract terms like spirituality and realm and all of this stuff and you keep referring back to animals which the other problem is we have we do know of morality in in uh amongst different species. We are animals. So clearly animals can have morals. And I don't know, Seth, do you have something to add? Cuz I feel like >> Oh, I'm just sitting back here watching you not be lazy and it was just refreshing.

[00:14:41]>> Um, >> finally.

[00:14:43]>> So, you know, um, Erica Gutsick Gibbon does a lot of, um, education about pro-social behaviors that we do see. She specializes in the primate uh kingdoms.

[00:14:58]But you know, we see there are family units. We see animals that operate in groups that show compassion, love. They grieve when there is loss. They will put themselves in danger to save a member of the family or a member of their species or tribe, often to, you know, the result of their own deaths. And you can't exclude animals from killing other species or even itself. The human animal has certainly evolved more of a conscious reasoning when it comes to what we do and how we do it. But we are still animals. And I don't think it's a stretch to say that pro-social behaviors are one of the reasons that species survive and thrive. If you are out alone on the African savannah, you are being antisocial, you are hoarding resources, you are being cold and cruel and torturous and murderous. You are not going to live long. But if you coalesce and you have societies and you engage in pro-social behaviors, you are then stronger. You are more able to procure resources. You are then happier. And these traits begin to code and we evolve into social creatures. And we see this throughout the animal kingdom. And the idea that I would have to have my moral compass dictated to me by some third party and even the objective moral standard argument is the first part of a larger conversation about who is the standard giver or standard bearer.

[00:16:36]Because it almost always whenever an apologist starts to talk about this, they have a god in mind. That's a whole other conversation. But I myself, I think it's terrifying that we would have to be told that harm is bad. We understand innately what harm feels like when it's done to us. As such, we can understand what harm would be like when done to others. And while there are aberrations throughout the animal kingdom and we do see uh lower animals with uh more limited intelligence who are more instinctual and surviving based on killing other species for food. We still kind of do the same thing and uh it doesn't prove any deity any designer any moral objective standard giver anywhere. I think evolution explains it just fine. Don't you think that's fair DB?

[00:17:28]>> Uh I don't see I I it comes it has it has its merits to to understand >> and I really need you to get close to a mic or to change the mic or phone before you call again. You are really in a hole.

[00:17:42]>> Oh, sorry about that. Is is it the volume or just the the >> It is that you sound >> muffled.

[00:17:49]>> And we've got thousands of listeners who are really interested in being able to hear the caller who calls. And so to do our due diligence, we need to make sure you are hearable and and you are clear enough. Do you have another phone?

[00:18:05]>> Um, I'm calling from a headset using uh uh what's it called?

[00:18:10]Bluetooth.

[00:18:11]>> It's time for an upgrade.

[00:18:13]>> Yeah, apparently. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Is it Am I getting any better at all?

[00:18:18]>> I can understand you, but everybody's having to work a little bit. Let's continue. Does evolved pro-social tendencies or traits make sense given what I've just said?

[00:18:34]>> Not not to the the degree that uh again >> what part isn't making sense to you?

[00:18:41]>> I think that um this is not a matter of evolving. I think right from the beginning of time and history and so forth. Man has built you know religious edififices have been has been a spiritual creature. It wasn't something that sort of developed in time. every society, every culture, every corner of the planet, every street corner had an altar, a shrine, some sort of worship center, that man was clearly displaying these tendencies, which again, as you said, is an aberration is is antithetical to his to a creature of um just trying to survive in this material realm. And what hang on, hang on, hang on. Let's say that I concede there is an objective moral standard giver.

[00:19:27]Who or what do you think that is?

[00:19:33]>> The Christian God Yahweh.

[00:19:35]>> The Christian God. Now, did I say earlier that it usually drifts from deism, the first cause, the standard bearer into a specific deity with a proper name because that is exactly what has just happened. So fine, if I was, and I don't, but if I was to concede that morality has been set in place, the bar has been set by a deity, how do you know that deity was not another deity?

[00:20:03]>> Yeah, fair enough. Um, I I I I did not receive any revelation, so you're right. I have to I have to read the literature claiming to be divinely inspired and so forth. So yes, there there's a there's a um a chance I'm taking I'm going to read the uh the back literature >> would you read for your revelation >> the the well you you would you listen to the Quran you listen to the Bible you listen to the Bhagavita of the Hinduism SA Buddhists whatever literature they might have you decide I guess which one conforms more to reality than the other one that's the only thing that I I can appeal to or confess what compelled me to believe.

[00:20:47]>> So >> I write >> let's play a little street epistemology game.

[00:20:51]>> I'm sitting at a table as a neutral observer. You are sitting saying that morality is given by Yahweh of the Bible. The Muslim says it is Allah of the Quran and let's say the Hindu says it's another deity out of the baga.

[00:21:07]If I was a neutral observer listening to all three positions for morality being presented, how would I be able to tell which one, if any, were accurate?

[00:21:18]>> The one that again, the one that conforms to reality the best. The one that makes the most sense and uh >> conform Yeah. conforms reality.

[00:21:27]>> How would I know it makes sense?

[00:21:30]>> You're right. It's an epistemological issue. Um if if depending on your maturity, depending on your experiences and so forth, it's subjective. That's for sure. Just your own where you're >> No, no, I'm not intuiting subjectively.

[00:21:43]I want to know knowledge. I want to know the fact who is the deity who set the moral standard. So there must be some good reason evidence for me to latch on to one of the deities being presented.

[00:21:59]So what would the evidence be? Why would I choose one over the other? Who would I believe? EB >> the the one I I've read the Bible and it made sense to me. I said, "Yes, I can see God if he is all holy and righteous and but how we played out in history."

[00:22:17]Okay.

[00:22:17]>> Is his dealings with >> Okay, so DB >> if it's God, then why did he uh not condemn slavery? Why instead did he tell us how to own slaves uh and how to beat them and all of that?

[00:22:34]>> Why did he not uh condemn treating women like property? Why did he not say like, "By the way, I know the Catholic Church is going to be like one of the biggest representatives of me at some point and they are going to have a systemic issue with abusing children. Don't do that."

[00:22:53]Why did this all- knowing God who's supposed to be the moral center leave a book that's so shitty that it has allowed some of the most immoral behavior that we have ever seen to be justified by it? Well, it wasn't just it attempted to justify it.

[00:23:12]>> I I I don't know if if slaver is really as endorsed. I I know what I know the passages you're referring to and there were circumstances when uh they were taken over Cain and the the Isra do you know do you know about slave Bibles? Um they were actual Bibles that were they had these verses highlighted in them.

[00:23:35]They were given out to enslaved people to um convince them to be quote good slaves. and they were used to justify the behavior of the um other people that were enslaving them. And it was really really awful. And that's just one little moment in history. We didn't we're not even getting into the Crusades and all of that. Did God know that was going to happen one day?

[00:23:58]>> Absolutely knew it for sure was going to happen. Yes.

[00:24:01]>> Great. Why did he not want to change his word to maybe make that less likely to happen?

[00:24:12]I in my opinion only in my opinion the limited knowledge that I have that it there there there's always a little bit of a loophole in general I promise I have to be very careful how I word this I may not do it so correctly and so forth he leaves a little bit of room for doubt a little bit of room for corruption just to expose >> DB he was so clear about so many things like how to wear certain forms of fabric but this thing that was going to harm and harm millions and millions of people and create thousands of years of problems did not care to address and in fact allowed those that were considered to be after God's own heart to enslave women and children and other people and then go on to use it later. This is in very recent history that the Bible has been used to justify this. If you were God, would you have maybe wanted to like do something to prevent that from happening?

[00:25:15]>> If I was God, and which I'm not, so I'm using my own intelligence.

[00:25:18]>> If you were God, >> right? So, you're already more moral than the objective source you're claiming is supposedly moral. This isn't adding up, DB. It's not making sense.

[00:25:32]>> Well, no. I I what a lot of things you had said is what man has corrupted with God's word with the crusades, the um Inquisitions, the uh the the >> Did God see that coming?

[00:25:43]>> And also you you started this by saying that you think that humans just innately have this morality. These were humans doing that.

[00:25:51]>> They thought they were justified. They absolutely thought they were justified.

[00:25:54]The people that have done some of the worst things you've ever heard of >> believe that they were doing the right thing.

[00:26:02]I I'm not convinced they they actually did not know any better. I'm not convinced, but I think they just >> Why wasn't their god-given morality kicking in? Why wasn't it working?

[00:26:12]>> No, but sorry. No, sorry.

[00:26:14]>> Why does it work for meality >> and it doesn't work for them?

[00:26:18]>> Right. Well, I I mean the awareness of it. I don't I mean I mean both good and bad. We have a spiritual warfare going off in our minds daily. We're fighting things. I just meant that aspect. I didn't mean we're righteous. I just meant the fact that we even contemplate these things. I just >> Let me jump in if I may, >> please.

[00:26:34]>> Would it be all right if I jumped in De?

[00:26:37]>> Yeah, absolutely.

[00:26:38]>> So you say that we are sinful and corruption has entered the world. So let me take you to the biblical God and the story out of Numbers 5 regarding the bitter water. This was not something that humans corrupted. It was a process which was put in place by the biblical God where a woman was suspected of becoming pregnant by a man who was not her husband. And God's method for determining whether or not the woman was a harlot was to have her brought before a tribunal of men. They would take dirt from the ground and they would mix it with some other stuff and they would force her to drink it. And if the fetus was flushed out of her body, she would be exposed as the harlot and she would be condemned. But if the fetus survived, the woman was virtuous.

[00:27:32]Do you find that that is a moral story and a moral process put in place and written about specifically in the book of Numbers by the biblical God. Explain the morality of that to me.

[00:27:47]>> Right. Right. Thank you, sir. Sorry. I I I don't recall it being if the woman's impregnated. I think she committed adultery.

[00:27:54]>> Oh, what was I trying to say? No. Or maybe it is about being pregnant. Uh >> it is about the fetus.

[00:27:59]>> It is about the fetus.

[00:28:03]>> Even if there was no fetus involved, explain to me the morality because that's not humans going, I came up with this rule. It's Yahweh's process that humans are carrying out. There is no middle person. It's source-based.

[00:28:18]Explain that as a moral thing.

[00:28:22]>> If she committed such a a sinful act as a as >> Don't you dare say she had >> No. No. Well, a penalty must be prescribed.

[00:28:36]A penalty. Now, is this is this the best solution that aborts the baby? Is that is that what you're sort of protesting that the >> I'm talking about the whole thing. the the humiliation of dragging the woman in front of the tribunal, forcing her to drink what is potentially poison, and then the consequence or potential consequence to the fetus growing inside her body. Explain to me the morality of that.

[00:29:07]>> I can't explain half of those prescriptions.

[00:29:10]>> You're goddamn right. You can't explain it. You want to know why? because it's not moral.

[00:29:22]>> I I I can appreciate your your sentiments that way. I I I get it when they get say these things and so forth.

[00:29:29]Um I listen bear with me, Seth. I I think God has shown enough mercy and love throughout the scriptures that you have to sort of balance it, harmonize the two, like what's going on.

[00:29:39]>> This is an abuser model, by the way.

[00:29:41]This is a version of you should see God on his good days because he really can be loving.

[00:29:49]>> Well, this I think the authors who wrote that knew exactly what they were writing and and and it's they they it wasn't a contradiction or paradox even. It was they it meant something to them in a just justified manner. Uh I would imagine sense you know um but I know that's not a response. It's not a response. Does it appear immoral to myself? It appeals cruel. Maybe a better way could have a better solution could have been offered. Even Joseph, you know, despair Mary privately was going to end the marriage and so forth. He did the decent thing. I did not have to expose the woman before that. And whatever formula, I don't know how poor >> this answer is so man centric that it's offensive.

[00:30:33]>> Yeah, it's really >> offensive.

[00:30:34]>> Really bad.

[00:30:35]>> I'm sorry. I'm not okay. I'm sorry that that's not my expert. I I'm not good with that. I'm You got me there. You got me there. I don't I don't >> DB. Do you think that it is ever moral to enslave another person?

[00:30:52]>> I can't think of a scenario, but I would eventually say possibly. If they're slaves of war, then my morality is better than yours and and I don't have a god. It goes against the person's consent. It goes against their autonomy.

[00:31:08]It goes against their well-being. These are all like >> enslaving someone >> by definition >> is immoral.

[00:31:17]>> Do you And the other option is to kill him. I possibly that there's a situation maybe that that slavery would be better. I don't know. I choose slavery over death. I mean for the sake of argument promise.

[00:31:32]>> Good for you. That's not you're you're DV. You're being dishonest at this point because the correct answer is no. There is no situation in which slavery, enslaving other human beings is moral.

[00:31:45]Like I, you know this. And yet you're having to literally worsen your morals in order to defend what you claim the source of them is. And I don't have to do that. I'm a secular humanist. I get to sit here and say, "No, that is very immoral." And I don't have to defend any kind of crazy horrible behavior >> as opposed to a prison of war. Promise had a better solution.

[00:32:13]>> It's a weird argument. You know what?

[00:32:15]I'd rather be a pet than cattle is not a moral position.

[00:32:20]>> Yes, it's all wrong. It's all awful.

[00:32:25]>> Example from the Bible where there were prisoners of war.

[00:32:29]Okay, let me ask you this. Do you think it's ever moral to commit violence against uh a person that you have enslaved, which now you are claiming you think it that's okay? We can enslave them. That's fine. Do you think it's okay to beat them?

[00:32:45]>> No, I don't. I don't get that part.

[00:32:47]>> What about a little? As long as they don't die. What about as long as they don't die? Is that okay?

[00:32:51]>> Oh, Promise, you've got a great point.

[00:32:53]That that that passage has always disturbed me. I don't get it. I don't get it. I don't have an answer.

[00:32:58]>> Because it's immoral. Do you think it was moral then and that morality has changed over time or has it always been immoral to do that?

[00:33:10]>> I I mean if I I indict God if I say it was immoral. So I I'm sort of caught in a rock in a hard place. And >> Oh, you're so close.

[00:33:19]>> You're so close to being honest, man.

[00:33:22]>> So close. How about this one? So when God commanded Moses to take his armies and slaughter the town, I think it was Midian. Um, remind me of it's one of the towns where everybody slaughtered and they kidnapped the virgins and give them over to the soldiers.

[00:33:42]Is that moral? Is that a moral teaching from the lips of Yahweh?

[00:33:48]>> I I can't see it in my perspective. I cannot see it as being moral.

[00:33:52]>> The answer is no. The answer is no.

[00:33:56]>> Because if they were to die otherwise, I think it's it's that clemency is offered slightly better.

[00:34:01]>> What about the verses where the soldiers can take them and change their clothes and cut their hair and clip their nails and essentially test drive them for 30 days, but after a month, if the soldiers aren't satisfied, then they release the the virgin or what was a virgin into the into the uh wild like she's a stray cat.

[00:34:22]That's God's rule. Is that moral?

[00:34:26]>> It's a peculiar passage. I I I didn't >> The answer is no.

[00:34:31]>> I don't get it.

[00:34:35]>> I know right now, >> DB. This an easy one. This is the This is an open book test. So easy to say no, it's not moral.

[00:34:47]>> I don't I don't doubt God to that degree at this point in my life. I don't I don't doubt God. I I I I just don't I if it's there. I know he raises things for certain purposes, Seth. I know that's a stretch. He raises things for certain purposes. I don't know. Seth, I >> I want you to change that sentence and then I'm I'm I'm done. I'll let promise finish up.

[00:35:09]>> He raises rape for certain purposes. He raises slavery and slaves for certain purposes. He wants kidnapping of virgins and the slaughter of the virgin's entire family for certain purposes. He allows the soldiers to kidnap and change their appearance and do what they want as property for certain purposes. He allows his soldiers to kill a half a million people in a single city in one day for certain purposes. You understand how that sounds, don't you?

[00:35:41]>> Yes. Yes. I from your perspective. Yes.

[00:35:44]Yes.

[00:35:46]Um, God is sovereign. Um, okay. But no, I get your point, Seth.

[00:35:51]>> This is divine command theory. You are now saying that if God does it, it is moral by default. And Promise and I simply disagree. You want to know why?

[00:36:01]Because we have an evolved ethical center. We have a moral compass innately outside of Whoops. outside of God. And it's just fine to challenge what the Bible says God did as immoral if we deem it to be so. You are likely more moral hopefully than the God of the Bible.

[00:36:23]That's kind of where I fall. And that's all I got promised. So I'll sit back and watch you be lazy again for the for the next few minutes, whatever the accusation's going to be. So, >> right, >> you're anything but >> DB, is it possible?

[00:36:41]>> DB, is it possible that the Bible could be used to defend enslaving somebody and beating them >> based on the passage you brought up?

[00:36:50]Absolutely. 100% history has proven to be so. So, there's no argument there from anybody.

[00:36:54]>> Great. So, is the Bible a good source for morality?

[00:37:00]uh in the hands of the right person.

[00:37:03]Absolutely. In the hands of the wrong person, it's a double-edged >> then it's a terrible source because I could write a book that would be perfectly fine in the hands of anybody that was able to read it and then I'd make an audio book so if they couldn't read it, they could still hear it and it would be more moral than the Bible in the hands of anybody.

[00:37:22]>> If you needed a narrator for that too, you could call me. Like we'd make it a tandem project, you know? Awesome. Yeah.

[00:37:29]What was that? Do you believe >> Sorry. Do you believe that you could actually come up with rules and regulations that would satisfy everybody? Never.

[00:37:38]>> Never.

[00:37:39]>> No. But I 100% know that I could DB.

[00:37:43]That's not what you You're shifting the goalposts. I We're not talking about what could satisfy people because the Bible doesn't satisfy people. That's for sure. Um I I'm talking about what's moral or not. I could write a book that has less immorality than the Bible so easily just by not writing a book at all, first of all, but also just by writing a book that says, "Hey, treat other people how they want to be treated." That could be the whole book. And it's already more helpful than the entire Bible. Because the entire Bible contains horrible things that we pointed out to you over and over and over again. And it's honestly disturbing how much you're trying to defend it to the point that I'm hearing you create tension with yourself and your what I believe to be probably your own morals and then what your position is requiring you to defend. It is it's like I can hear you squirming and it's sad. That's the problem with the Bible is it takes people and it takes the worst people and gives them justification to do horrible things and it takes the best people and causes them to defend these horrible things. It's it's so up. It's the worst argument to be made for morality.

[00:38:59]>> Right. I understand what you're saying.

[00:39:00]you're you're perceiving a conflict within myself as if I'm in denial or just uh conveniently adhering to something indoctrinated or discovering for the sake of it. Um not so much. I still because it didn't work that that you found anything compelling with it.

[00:39:16]couldn't sort of and and the argument that I said that God does some good things a lot of good things the majority the prevalence of things he does are good and so forth that that I have to sort of use my wits about me to harmonize the other passages I think they're far and few between to a certain degree I don't think these are precepts I think they are circumstantial you don't read in the law yeah a law with a slavery and you >> then it's a terrible source for morality, baby. It's really shitty if we have to go back and do a million rounds of mental gymnastics in order to determine what parts we should take from it. And guess what you're using when you're determining which parts to take from it? You're using your current human senses and understanding and uh understanding of well-being and autonomy and consent. That's generally what most of us uh actually are determining our morality from. That's why you're struggling with these things because you literally have better morals than the source that you're claiming you get your morals from. And you're having to use your subjective morality like all of us use to to determine this.

[00:40:29]>> Um, not a million acrobats and leaps and jumps to to justify certain things.

[00:40:35]There's a few that are problematic.

[00:40:36]There are a few that are >> I hope I hope it's taking you so many leaps and bounds to get to saying possibly maybe some circumstances of slavery are okay.

[00:40:49]>> Uh um these are times I'm not familiar with a history I'm not aware of. uh I don't know uh what what the norms were for society back then and I I don't mean to make it a cultural thing and and so forth but but I think that does come into play and and the laws have changed with the New Testament the dispensation of grace and so forth.

[00:41:09]>> Did morality change DB? Did God suddenly get better morals between the Old Testament and the New Testament?

[00:41:17]>> I thought this he's the objective source. I thought he's perfect. I thought he's always the same yesterday, today, and forever. Why is he changing up so much?

[00:41:25]>> It was a demonstration to show to show that we needed that we needed a savior >> at the cost of other humans being enslaved, being raped, being brutally murdered, cuz God didn't want to make it super clear, but he was totally down to make other things clear that aren't that important.

[00:41:50]I I I think I think God is revealing a lot about ourselves just our ourselves just seeing how we act in certain conditions and so uh given free freedom of will just what we will do and how we will defy him and and uh just be so cruel to each other. I mean constantly just even the small lies or >> only if only he said something about that. If only he had the foresight to say hey by the way don't ever use this book as justification to harm other people to to enslave them to rape them to treat women like property. Don't ever do that. If only he had the foresight to be able to do that.

[00:42:31]Doesn't doesn't the New Testament sort of intimate that is is not the whole idea.

[00:42:37]>> But DB, even if it did, why wasn't it explicitly said? Why did God decide that it's important to hear laws about how to own slaves and how you can beat them up until the point that they're going to die? That as long as they don't die, it's okay. Why was he like, "Yeah, let's keep that in." That's the thing I want people reading thousands of years later.

[00:42:57]I don't want them to read a sentence that says absolutely do not enslave your fellow humans. Do not rape them. Do not like why is that not what why instead is it clearly painting women as property?

[00:43:10]Why instead is it giving us rules about how we can enslave each other and as long as we don't kill each other, you know, but then even then we can kill each other if you're like not circumcised and stuff because God hates this particular tribe. It is full of awful, awful, awful things. Why did God decide to keep those things and not say in there, hey, don't use these stories as justification to do more of this?

[00:43:38]>> I would think uh almost it goes without saying and I get and I and there is the idea of sort of the Bible is meant to separate the sheep from the goats that let those read it understand it. Let them who have ears understand what I'm saying. It's not not everybody's going to get it and they're going to exploit it to their own advantage. They're going to be uh it's a double-edged sword.

[00:43:58]Absolutely. And I think he's not as >> There's no Absolutely, DB. You're not making any sense. All you're doing is defending the indefensible over and over and over again. This argument has completely failed when it comes to trying to defend biblical morality. Um to the point that you've had to even be like, "Well, yeah, even that verse is kind of weird to me." There is nothing about secular humanism that I have to sit here with you and be like, "Yeah, well, that thing is it's kind of caused a lot of death and destruction throughout history, but you know, it is what it is." I don't have to do that with secular humanism. Um I unless Seth has something he wants to add, I think we're going to move on and see if we can open up the line for one last caller.

[00:44:44]Uh, we've got time for one more caller on here and I I think we've kind of hit a point where uh it's just getting depressing. So, I'm going to let you guys go.

[00:44:53]>> Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

[00:44:54]Thanks.

[00:44:55]>> Thanks, Stevie. Hey, thanks so much for watching and don't forget to like, subscribe, comment, all the things. If you want to see more calls like this, you can also head to the link in the description and head over to the Lines channel. Thanks so much.