The debate offers a sophisticated look at theodicy, yet it ultimately illustrates how the free will defense struggles to reconcile abstract theology with the raw reality of suffering. It is a commendable example of civil discourse that clarifies the philosophical impasse without resolving the underlying paradox.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
Christians vs Atheists: Does Suffering Disprove God?
Added:Because a lot of this misconception is that atheism is somehow like a counter to Christianity. It is not. All atheism is is a conclusion. Do you believe in a god that answers prayers, interacts in the world, and and talks to people? And if [music] the answer to that is anything other than yes, then you are an atheist.
>> I had a supernatural encounter with Christ. [music] And I was not looking for him at all.
>> Some of the most immoral people I've ever met in my life go to church every Sunday. the the author in Luke in the very first chapters [music] claims that this is a historical document and even other historians claim this was a first- rate historian of his time [music] period >> when God commands the killing of children that is good >> which one are you talking about are you talking about the Amalachites or the Canaanites >> are you talking >> there's no there's two events that people conflate there's two events that >> Welcome to Counterpoint where we've made it our mission to [music] bring real people together to have some of the realest conversations on the internet I'm your host Ryan and Price. And on this episode, [music] we have Christians and atheists. Now, let's dive into this episode of Counterpoint.
>> Hi, I'm Daniel. I'm Christian and I'm excited to be here.
>> Hello, I'm Caleb. I've been Christian for just over 3 years and I'm excited to be here.
>> Hi, I'm Tiarara and I'm a Christian and I'm happy to be here.
>> Hi, my name is Beth. I'm a Christian and I'm happy to be here. Hi, I'm Wendy. I'm an ex-Christian of 24 years and now I'm an atheist.
>> My name is Jason and I am an atheist.
Good to be here. Hi. Uh, my name is Brianna. I like talking and I happen to be an atheist.
>> I'm Justin Chesmore and I'm here representing atheism today.
>> The existence of suffering disproves a loving God. We'll start by bringing up everyone that agrees. Now, >> I think that if you're claiming that God is um is triune, so all knowing, all powerful, and all loving, all three at once, then it does to me. I think it's reasonable to see a lot of unnecessary suffering in the world. Even if you just go to animal suffering and like the millions of years of animal suffering before humans even existed. Um then I think that would could challenge the idea of a triune god at least.
>> Okay.
>> I mean you you hit it. Unnecessary suffering is really what I think is the best explanation here. Um I think we can all imagine a situation or a world where where some suffering is necessary. It teaches that keeps us safe by having pain, but it's the unnecessary suffering. We can all imagine a religion or in a world that has just far less suffering in it that still works. So, the fact that we don't have that, I I think discounts a loving God.
>> Okay.
>> Basically, uh the same points as uh Wendy made. The problem, it all goes back to the problem of evil. It's a very, you know, it's a very cliche talking point, but I think it's pretty solid. You know, you have a supposedly a God that is both omnisient, omnipotent, and allloving. So, this God from the moment that he creates any living creature knows exactly what suffering it's going to go to if it's created in that exact way. And um goes about things in the same way. Anyway, I think that warrants some explanation.
>> So, we're coming up on the one that burns my ass the most, football season.
We get to the end of the game and quarterback thanks God for helping him win this football game while 10,000 children are murdered and those four hours. How do you reconcile that? How do you reconcile that is the guy on the field? You are soing special that he helped you in a game and allowed children to die, some of them at the hands of their own parents, which it says right in the ten commandments.
Honor thy mother and father. How do you honor a mother and father who are the source of your suffering?
>> Okay. Well, I think that's a perfect time to bring up everyone that disagrees.
>> Yeah, this is a a topic that Christians talk about all the time. We talk about suffering and how can suffering exist?
And um one of the core things that I go to is that Jesus himself suffered. And often times when I'm faced with suffering, grief, pain, loss, any of those things, knowing that Jesus himself suffered brings great comfort. And then also having people around me who have experienced suffering as well experience love in that suffering. You know, when you think of what love is like, love sends, love seeks, and love is with. And that's exactly how Jesus is described in the Bible that he's a God that is with. And so when we're faced with suffering and we're sitting in those moments, we can have great comfort knowing that God is with and that that is an act of love. And not just me like corporate suffering, personal suffering, my friend suffering to your point like when those children are like being murdered, that is suffering. And that like the knowing the heart of God that God is grieved by that is an important point as well.
>> I would like to say oh sorry >> um I just wanted to say I think before going into suffering you need to also talk about intentions the intentions of God. And if you go to Genesis 1 and Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2, it speaks about God's intentions for his creation and what he wanted this world to be like. And it was not for kids to be murdered. It was not um for us to live in suffering. Now, due to the fall in Genesis 3, we encounter suffering because we go through sin. We have sin that has entered the world. I just think that we need to look at God's intentions. And the Bible declares that God saw everything that he created as good. He intended it for it to be good.
Humans were supposed to live in a world that was of perfect harmony with him.
This that was never his intentions.
That's what I wanted to say.
>> And I wanted to jump in and say the prompt was that the existence of suffering disproves a loving God. So we as the sister mentioned there is suffering but we the Christian biblical sense still shows that it is possible for both suffering and a loving God to coexist. If you believe that the existence of suffering disproves a loving God, you have to show that the existence of suffering makes it impossible for a loving God to exist.
And when we talk about the Christian worldview, we have to talk about exactly what she just said, which is you have to look at the entire uh the entire hemisphere of what the Christian worldview believes. The intention God created this world to be good, to have no human or animal suffering at all. But then we have this lifespan where we have where the man has fallen and created this chaotic world and then we have to weigh in eternity. Romans chapter 8 says that it's bas Romans chapter 8 basically says that this life that we experience right now is but a blip compared to the glory that we feel in in the next life.
It's almost like a dreamlike state is like a good analogy that I like to use.
You have a nightmare one night and in that nightmare let's say you suffer. You suffer immensely in that nightmare. But when you wake up to reality that nightmare might have changed you. That nightmare might have really changed your soul and allow you to grow and you might have gleaned lessons. But that suffering, you forget that suffering as you enter into real reality. So when we talk about Christianity and the existence of a loving and a loving God with the existence of suffering, we have to factor in all of eternity as well.
Um, so I I'd like to just throw it back to you guys. How does the existence of suffering make it a complete disproval of a loving God? Yeah, I mean the only thing I would add on is I want to be careful to define our terms because our view of love might be different and that's a crucial part in this topic and a part of the definition of love is it does not seek its own which is to say that that suggests that God is giving us a free will to decide whether to do good or to do bad, whether to help or to hurt. And so to your point, it's like how can this person say, "Thank you, God," while he wins a football game, which is so, you know, just mundane compared to the real pain and suffering that those kids go through. The thing is that he loves us enough to give us a choice, like I said, to do good or bad.
That is absolutely wrong and it's absolutely bad for these people to have done those things. But part of the definition of love is that he allows it to happen. And part of your uh also your statement is that well our parents brought us into this suffering world.
Like why should we even exist? Right?
That's basically part of my atheistic view is how can you if suffering is disproving God? How can you say now to your parents, thank you for giving me birth because suffering is always bad, suffering is always evil.
>> See, I think you misunderstood me. It's not that they brought you into this earth. It's that your mother sells you to the meth dealer to be used sexually for her fix. It's when your dad beats the out of you with whatever's handy because he can. That's supposed to be the representation of God on earth.
Two children is their parents. That's why it's our father in heaven. Correct.
>> And that's why supposed to be >> when your physical representation on this earth is this violent, cruel, mean thing. How could you ever expect Sky Daddy to be any better?
>> You you can trivialize our faith with these with names like this, but I think that we're kind of deviating from the actual prompt. So, the prompt is the existence of suffering disproves a loving God. I have yet to hear how the existence of suffering makes it impossible for a loving God to coexist.
So, I'm really curious. I think Bri, you had something you wanted to say.
>> Well, I just have a, you know, a few things floating around in my mind. I I do think uh you know using a a a deity or some kind of like um you know felt relationship to one as a way to um cope with the pressures of life. I can see how that can be you know and not trying to like uh it not trying to condescend or anything. I can see how that can be very helpful. I can see how that can be a great comfort to people who are grieving and things like that. Um, I don't really see that kind of talk as very helpful in this discussion though because really, and you were very visceral about it, but really we're talking about types of suffering that are beyond what people in this circle can probably imagine. And I also I do have a question that I'm going to answer myself and then get to you. I do kind of have that thought of like, well, how could an omnipotent and omnisient being have its own creation rebel against himself? And the answer to that is that you would say is free will. But then I ask you, how does an omnisient omnipotent being who because of its omniscience knows exactly the actions its creation is going to take from the moment of creation and knows if it's creates its creation in exactly that way, it's going to behave in exactly this way? How does that being create something with free will?
>> How does that being?
>> He doesn't want to force us to love him.
>> No, he doesn't. We shouldn't force anybody or anything that has been created to love him. We have a purpose for why we would just because you know something is about to happen doesn't mean you are the cause for it to happen.
Let me give you an analogy. Let me give let me give you let me give you an analogy here. Maybe this kind of explains this. Let's say that there's a perfect garage that God creates. It's an absolutely perfect garage. You open all the drawers and you look at all the tools. Nowhere on those tools does it say evil or death or pain or suffering.
They're all perfect tools. There's even an instruction manual on, "Hey, you should build a car." And then God creates a human being in that garage and says, "Hey, you know, this this is all good. God said it was good." He gives this human being the greatest gift of all time, and it's free will, right? And this human being then decides to take those tools, build a car, and run it into a wall, blowing up the garage. Now, here's the thing.
God owns that garage. But we as humans using our free will, we must own up and take accountability to our actions. You have a loving God because he tolerates >> Can I jump in? Let's use your analogy.
Let's say he made the tools, but one of the tools is is a nuclear bomb.
>> Okay.
>> Why make the bomb? Why make cancer? Why make natural disasters? Why make parasites? Like all all these things that do cause unnecessary >> have to say that even Okay. So even if we take it past um just humans suffering, you have to think about the fact that the angels had free will as well. If you read the Bible, you get to see that the that the first fall was Lucifer fallen and taking a third of the angels with him. And so that further proves that God is not going to make us love him. He's not going to make us do something. I don't think he's not going to >> Isn't that the whole purpose of hell?
>> I have loves me or >> if if you don't mind, I'll >> Isn't that the whole purpose of hell?
>> We can talk. We can talk about hell, but >> No, I think I want to stay on suffering.
I want >> I think he I think he gives us free will. I think that if the angels have free will and humans have free will, I think this can sidestep it. Cancer doesn't have free will. Tornadoes don't have free will. So, so set that aside.
>> But it is an effect that happens from sin. It comes from sin. So before before sin there was no cancer tornadoes.
>> Is that what you're Is that what you're saying?
>> Well that that actually the mythology that is Yeah. I I I have a question though. So when God creates this perfect garage with the perfect tools and the human that he puts in and immediately drives the car into a wall. Does God know from the moment he creates that human puts them in that garage that they are going to drive the car into the wall?
>> Yes. Now let me answer this. He knows what humans are capable of. And he gives >> not capable of. He knows what they're going to do.
>> And I'm getting to that. So he knows what they're capable of. He knows what they're going to do. He knows that they will eventually rebel against him, right? He knows all these things. Yet he's given them a free will. But just because he knows it doesn't mean he's forcing them to make that decision. Why didn't God take the keys away from the car?
>> Not necessarily.
>> Okay. If if you create a computer program, >> okay, >> that is going to inevitably, I don't know, fire a nuclear weapon and you run that program, even if you are hands off from that moment forward, are you not responsible for the bomb going?
>> And let me add an addendum that you'll answer. It'll be you mentioned the sin with the sin thing. Imagine all this happens and there runs into the car all that stuff and innocent people behind it are the ones who get hurt.
>> Yeah. Unnecessary suffering right and I think I'll answer both in this right and I think the sister did kind of answer it but under the Christian worldview and we have to we first of all we have to m maintain that the prompt is the existence of suffering disproves a loving God. So in under the Christian worldview free will necessitates an option not to choose him. That is the nuclear option that was eating from the tree of knowledge. Right? So free will free will necessitates the option to to love him or to not love him and to not love God and to do that and to rebel in him in such a way the wages of sin is death. So they were gi so because of their actions they were sentenced to death. When you are writing on a word document and you misspell a word there's a red squiggly line on there. You as the author have every right and justification to delete that word replace that word. He could have erased all of humankind, created a new species, but because God loves us so much, he knew that that word would become a squiggly line, and he kept writing.
Anyways, now the chaotic world that we have, you're talking about what about the people that were born afterwards, correct? Well, Adam was in charge of the garden. The wages of sin is death. Now, he is given this death sentence, right?
And it's something that we all inherit, right? So, now now chaos enters the sphere. Now we have natural disasters.
Now we have animal suffering. Now we have cancer and all of these things. But it's because through sin through one man sin entered the world. And so this chaos >> is that love. Is that love?
>> It's love.
>> That's that sounds awful to >> I'm telling you because God cannot contradict himself, right? So God would have to be a just if God cannot contradict himself and he is a just God, there must be just punishment. Now let me tell you where the love comes in. How can you have just punishment and love at the same time?
Because God gives us a way out. And God walks with our suffering. God entered this world. He was beaten. He was mocked. He was crucified for you, for me. He suffers yesterday. He suffers today. And he suffers tomorrow. He will suffer with us. And he that's the love of that. He suffers with us. Even though we deserve to not even be here in the first place.
>> I think that's all a presupposition. I want to hear Wendy. Yeah.
>> One small point. God could have created only the humans who were going to use their free will to to love him and not end up in hell. But number two, I think the free will point falls apart when you consider heaven. Most Christians think that heaven like after after the earth that heaven will include free will in it. But that heaven also will never have any sin or suffering. How then? Why does free will necessitate sin and suffering?
You're using that to explain our world.
Yet you'd believe that the world that a perfect sinless sufferingless world can exist >> Mhm.
>> without like with free will in it. So like how do you how do you square that?
>> I also and I want to hear I also want to tackle things that aren't with free will like cancer. Like I really want the cancer answer. I I think you haven't answered that at all. Well, the thing though is that the way that they square that circle, the way they justify a world with suffering but a loving God is free will, which is why we're getting down to that because that is the crux of the argument at the end of the day. We could, you know, lambast each other with tragedies all day long and get very visceral with it. But at the end of the day, that's not the crux of the argument.
>> Exactly.
>> So the argument is because of the sin of one guy, everybody has to suffer cancer and all these things. That is the argument. So think about >> we're supposed to call that love.
>> Well, think about it like this, right?
If you have an immoral king or a king that decides to go to war and then they lose that war, who suffers? All of his kingdom suffers. In the same way, Adam In the same way, let me let me let me finish explaining. In the same way, Adam was in charge of what? To tend the entire garden, the animals, the plants, everything. Because of his sin, sin entered the world. And scripture says all of creation groans together and we all suffered together. Yet God, because he loves us so much in in that moment, we all deserve to be gone. But God loves us so much that he suffers alongside us and he says this will be just a blip compared to the glorification you reach in the next life. To your point when you said, "How can you have free will in heaven?" I can explain to you that I cannot fully explain to you how free will works in heaven because I'll concede I don't know the intricacies of heaven. But what I do know is theologically it says we will reach such a glorified state even all of creation meaning animals as well will reach such a glorified state that we know understand the purpose and where we fall in that creation.
>> Why couldn't God start there?
>> Why couldn't God start there? Because we have to have the free will to choose or not. If I took that free will of you to choose a way, right? But I if I took that free will from you to even choose him in the first place, then why would he force that glorification? You cannot.
But once you're in heaven, you no longer have the ability to like not to not choose him anymore.
>> That's not true.
>> You lose that. Then why couldn't he just create the people?
>> Because Isaiah would states how the um saraphim stand before his throne and they cry out, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty." And they say that because they get to see different characteristics and difference uh differences of God each time, every time single time. So that is not true. And there is free will inside of um in heaven. If that was the case, Lucifer wouldn't have failed. That doesn't make sense. He had a choice to serve God, but he was filled with pride. He was serving God at one point, but he fell. And so there is there is free will in heaven.
>> So will anyone ever sin in heaven?
>> Will anyone what >> will anyone ever sin in heaven if they can?
>> Oh, I would [laughter] >> theologically you don't believe going forward that you believe that into eternity in the future there will be no more sin in heaven.
>> I mean I do believe that but I also believe that everybody has free will.
Again it doesn't change the fact that contradiction. It is not a contradiction if they had a ball.
>> I also want to get back to the loving part of this topic because I think it's pretty important.
>> And I think the whole reason that he can't be all loving is because then there would have to be another power that is pure evil to rise up to match.
Because one thing that's constant in this universe is balance. Even God himself has to have balance. Because if you've got puress of anything, something will rise to fill the vacuum to set off that balance. So either Lucifer would have to come up and be his equal or >> I don't know if that logic tracks under a biblical sense. Now what is evil? Evil is not a thing. It's a choice that you choose to do. It's so when you say like for example >> I reject that definition.
>> Okay. Well I I'm going to give you the biblical definition. Your definition for example like if if I have if God created something good the corruption of that good would then be evil. So it's the choice to do is to corrupt the good that is there. Now, I think the prompt, and I think we keep running from the pro, I don't mean running from the prompt, but I think we keep getting sidetracked with the prompt. Yeah. The prompt is the existence of suffering disproves a loving God. So, I'm still looking for how it is impossible for a loving God to exist with the existence of suffering. So, we have theologically it is still consistent. I mean, it's all loving. So, >> we see it in every single person. Every single one of us is capable of great love and terrible hate. And if we're a reflection of God himself, why is it that part of God?
>> I'm sorry. What What is What? So I just want to understand your argument.
>> As a human, >> yeah, >> I can love somebody intensely.
>> Absolutely.
>> Give my own life for them.
>> Absolutely.
>> Kind of like the story, right? He gave his life for us, right?
>> Absolutely. I can also hate intensely and I can wish somebody not to be existence because either a they fruit somebody I care about or whatever the cost may be. And if we're a reflection of God himself, why wouldn't that be contained in God?
>> What do you mean by when you say we're a reflection of God himself?
>> We were made in his image. Yes. So it's the imo day principle that we are made in his image. But I think that you're presupposing things into that definition of what made in the image of God is.
Made in the image of God does not mean that everything I do, God is doing a mirror to that. Right. But correct. But he has to be able. He has has whatever we do has to be encompassed by God though, right? Like he could do it.
>> Like he has the free will.
>> He has the ability.
>> We have we have free will as well. He has the ability, but he would not he would never contradict himself.
>> He would have the choice to have orgies should there be other gods available to him. He would have he chooses not to.
And I think we're still missing the point of the prompt. I'm still looking >> it's all loving. So I won't deny like, oh, there's a loving God and suffering.
Sure. Sure. But typically your worldview claims that God is 100% loving, omni benevolent, omnipotent, um, and all knowing. So like if you try to fit all that together, if there's any unnecessary suffering in the world, God put that into play which would not be 100% loving. If if sure if every every single drop of suffering in the world is actually necessary in some way, then this kind of goes away a little bit. But if it's unnecessary, >> can you give me an example just so I can understand >> of >> of like an unnecessary suffering that you're talking about? Just so I can understand.
>> Couldn't we have diseases that kill us without pain?
>> Well, okay. Wait, I mentioned I mentioned Well, sure, but I mentioned like animal suffering before humans even existed, humans or animals suffered for millions of years.
I I personally can't fathom how that would be necessary in the world. Can I so if I'm able to explain how theologically this could be consistent where you have animal suffering and and I think you're talking about like fossil records that predate animal uh animal records, right? Or predate human records. Yeah.
>> So here's the thing. The Bible doesn't ever claim to be a pure science book.
It's kind of like the water analogy. I you can explain why the water is boiling, but I can also explain, hey, it's not just boiling because H2O heated up to a certain degree. It's because I wanted to cook ramen. So when we look at the Bible, I I'm not saying that this is an absolute theory that all Christians hold to, but this is a possibility. And the possibility would be that if God created this garden of Eden, we don't know whether it was on a different dimension or if it was encapsulated. And we don't know that when when Adam and Eve were expelled from that garden, we don't know that in that span. To them, it might have felt like a blink of an eye, but in that span, millions of years could have happened. It could have triggered right there. We don't know the exact science behind that, but I still am waiting to hear the existence. So what I'm what I'm giving you what I'm giving you is an explanation was in Jackson County, Missouri.
>> No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
>> I know you wanted to stay talking about the topics of love and suffering, but I think you guys is that was the prompt, but I think we our argument argument of evil. Your counter to that is free will.
So I'm going to talk about free will. So on an individual level, I know I already made this argument on a collective level, but on an individual level, God knows if each and every human being is going to rebel from him and go to hell, right?
>> He knows.
>> He knows. He knows which human beings are going to hell. As you said, this existence, this life is just a blip in the eye and doesn't even really matter.
So in essence, >> it didn't matter though. God is creating souls to suffer forever.
>> God even though he knows that these people will rebel against him, he's not causing >> why not create them differently. He is creating them in a way where he knows he knows based on the way he is creating them that because of how they are being created >> that they will rebel or not. He knows based on the specifications, based on the very specific way he is creating their minds and their souls that they will rebel. And if he did anything even slightly differently, then they would not.
>> We The reality is we've all rebelled against God. I'm I'm a sinner. I've cheated. I've lied. I've stolen. And just like I believe that you guys may maybe do more good than I do, I believe we're all sinners. We've all rebelled.
If that were the case, if you said, "Why can't God just delete everybody and all suffering and all people who would do evil?" Who's to say that you would be here tomorrow?
>> He could just delete the concept of sin.
Delete hell. Delete free will. You can't.
>> You can still have free will. You say, "How can you just free will if you have no choice?"
>> You say delete like it's after the fact, like he's going back and killing all these people.
>> No, it's just before they're created before. I'm just saying.
>> So, I think she wanted to say something.
>> Okay. So I think if we go and think about the story of Noah, God did delete everything and everyone that was terrible.
>> Um but he had mercy on Noah. Why?
Because Noah was righteous. He was serving him. He had a choice.
>> Some people deserve to live more than he had a choice on whether he would follow culture and the ways of the world or he could still serve God.
>> What about the little babies in South America that had no idea who Noah is?
they they died >> because he chose to uh to serve God. Him and his family were spared and they were spared to the point where they were able to be used and repopulate everything.
And so I say that to say that God has taken everything away. It's I mean you're saying why why he's done it, but then he made a covenant. God is a God of um he's a God of promises and he made a covenant and said that he would never do that again. And so he hasn't. And so because of his mercy, it is why we are sitting here having this conversation.
And because of free will, we have a choice again. We have a choice on the things that we decide to do.
>> And you're forgetting the idea that the creator has full authority to delete the word that's misspelled. You're talking about >> I'm not forgetting it. Well, that's >> if that word has sentience and can suffer, >> then we should.
>> He has full authority as the creator. He has full authority to do what he wants with his creation. So when you talk about the baby and I just want to address why doesn't he type it differently from the beginning.
>> Who's to say that you would have ever existed if we all see one thing that's happening.
>> Can perfection have intentions that don't pan out?
>> What do you mean >> can perfection have intentions that don't come to fruition?
I feel like if I can take a step back, I feel like I think that uh my brother Daniel and my sister in Christ here are making excellent points and that is to say that because of the nature of God and our definition of love in our theology, we can't have an account for how suffering and an all good, allloving God could exist. And I'm not trying to straw man your arguments or anything, but really what I'm hearing for your side is, well, couldn't God do this?
Well, I don't I I don't think that love is this. Well, I I don't like this, you know. But I'm not hearing a sort of hard disproval that these things are absolutely inongruent that a allloving God absolutely cannot also exist with suffering. And I think it's because until you really see it for yourself in person, >> he does also create suffering.
>> It's hard to understand fully.
>> Christianity has done more harm than good. We'll start by bringing up everyone that agrees. Now, >> you know, obviously I disagree with a lot of the moral tenants of Christianity. So I think it just stands to reason that I disagree with a lot of the uh control it's exerted over the culture and politics for a very very long time now and I think a lot of that in influence has brought about a lot of harm and destruction and stifling of progress and you know um it's not to say I don't think that anything good has come out of a Christianity some very famous very good figures I mean I mean MLK was a pastor you know I so I don't think that it's necessarily has all been bad but I think you know overwhelmingly I think it has contributed more harm.
>> See I go like with the deep cuts man like the slaughter of the Knights Templar back in 1312 who went into the Holy Lands for the Crusades and then came home to be given death. um the fact that the church sponsored uh the rape and pillage of the new world and the slaughter of indigenous people here. Uh it goes on and on and on. There's multiple different events where the church either funded or commanded that death was dealt out in their name.
>> It also promotes a lot of discrimination against people like the queer community.
Um, so it obviously it it tries to prevent people from having autonomy over their own bodies, but also it's from a personal standpoint, I was a Christian for 24 years and I'm 33 now, but it has done more harm than good in my life personally, which I could wait to get to, but in in my life, I've seen more harm than good.
>> I had to agree with that as well in my personal life, even though I have not been a Christian since I was like 10.
>> Yeah. Yeah, and I mean agree with many of the points stated. I think Christianity has had and continues to have a dilitterious effect on a lot of the positive things that we uh do as a as a culture and as a species. Uh you know, science and modern science, a lot of it came from Christian institutions, which is great. But then because they came from Christian institutions, we have seen science be wielded as a weapon. We've seen progress uh slowed.
Buddha uh things uh progress in human rights and civic rights and civic duties are often um diluted and poisoned by religion where they would be better but for Christianity and I think we see that even today.
>> Well, now I think it's a good time to bring up everyone that disagrees.
>> I think it's heartbreaking to hear that they've had personal situations and maybe some trauma that has come from Christianity. I just want to say that I'm sorry that you guys have had to experience that. Um I don't know what you've gone through, but just hearing that it has caused any pain in your lives, I am very sorry about that. I believe that true Christianity, and when I say that, I mean people that are truly following Christ, who are following the teachings of Christ, I don't think that it has done more harm than good. Um, I think that when you look at what Christ teaches, it is all to bring unity, love, freedom, um, peace, you name it. It's it's all about love, submission to the father, always pointing us back to the God that created us. Um, so yeah.
>> Yeah. I I would uh also not try to minimalize the pain that you've had. And I actually kind of identify with some of the things that you guys have said. The most horrific thing that happened in my life was the assault of my sister and that was done by somebody who said that they were Christian and they tried to justify their act using the Bible. So I'm not here to minimize that pain and actually why I am here is to defend true Christianity just like my sister said.
So when I say true Christianity, we have to look at the word Christianity and it means to follow Christ, to be like Christ. And Christ taught love. Christ taught to lay down your life for your neighbor. And what we hear in the gospel, it's one John 4:8. God is love.
If you do not know love, you do not know God. So, there are plenty of people that wore a cross like this and did horrific things in the name of God, but were not practicing Christianity as it teaches biblically. And I think we have to be careful about that. If I give you this hoodie and you wear it and then you go and kill 10 people, it doesn't mean that Christianity is wrong at all. We're not speaking. Those actions don't represent the core of Christianity. And when we talk about the good that Christianity has actually done, as I've brought up many times today, it gave us the IMO day principle. It abolished slavery. It established hospitals for the first time. It established universities. So if we say Christianity has done more harm than good, first I have to say what is it true Christianity? Was the person acting in accordance with the Bible in their actions? And if they were, what did they do versus also what what good have they brought? That's what I would say. There's a passage that Christians talk about that talks about the fruits of the spirit. When you have the Holy Spirit, the result is kindness, gentleness, patience, goodness, self-control.
And so when I see the good in Christianity, it's seeing the fruit in other people that that has been spurred on from the fruits of the spirit. That being said, to claim that it's all good would not be true, right? Or that it's all been, you know, sunshine and rainbows over on the Christian side is not true. Like there Christians have caused harm. I grew up in the church. My dad was a pastor and I work for a church now. And when you see um behind the curtain, you're going to find people that are broken, people that are flawed, people that cause harm. And that's something to come to terms with. That's something to wrestle is like and ultimately what I come down to is that's not God. Like those people are created in the image of God. But when I look at scripture, the only definition I find God and talking about his heart is that his heart he is gentle and lowly in heart.
>> So when you experience that, that is the heart of God. And the result when Christians believe that is fruit that you see.
>> Um for me this question is hard to answer because really I don't know all the good things Christianity did all the bad things and then I can now you know tell you well oh because you know we got one point up that we did more good than harm. So kind of I don't know but I also want to make clear that there are those who believe oh Christianity's only done bad. they've only done these horrible terrible things. Like this is not true.
Like like you said, the like science was basically born from those who had a theistic view in the 15th and 16th century. And you look like at someone like Isaac Newton who maybe is the most brilliant man on the planet and he didn't discover the u like the law the motion of the planets and say well I don't need God. It was in fact his discoveries that made him praise God.
>> But wasn't he prisoned for it?
>> Well, that was Galileo, but that has more house arrest >> there. There's more political than purely theological when in his story. If you look, >> they've always gone hand in hand, though. You can't necessarily separate the thing. And what you guys have all touched on is like there's a true good nature of Christianity apart from the bad. The thing is as people who don't actually believe in Christianity, we don't draw that same distinction.
>> And I think another part of the problem is it's hard to separate Christianity from the church. And while Christianity overall is good, the story is good. It makes sense. Like we've talked about several times, if people live that way, what a fantastic world, >> but the church is still part of that.
And when it does bad things and the name of Christianity has this trickle down effect done horrific things.
>> Do do you understand the fundamental point that Justin's making? I think it's really important because all four of you did touch on it and I think if we understand this it'll help when you say true Christianity following Christ you know look living the living the Bible you know looking at what it's done from somebody who's not in that group. Who are we and frankly who are you to say someone else is not a true Christian?
When someone hurt hurt your family, you say, "Well, you know, they claim to be a Christian." Who are we to say, well, you weren't really eating.
>> They may have repented.
>> Yeah. So, you don't you may have your life will demonstrate that. I mean, that's why she said something about the >> Not all the time.
>> Not all the time. Like Hitler was a Christian. We could just go to that. He was a Christian.
>> He was a bad Christian.
>> Dennis Raider.
>> He spoke out against the church actually. And just because he was raised Catholic does not mean in his older age he was. But again, now we're in somebody else's.
>> I understand what you're I actually understand what you're saying. And I think um just like you summarized his point, maybe I could summarize ours. And if you guys have anything to add, we could do that. So what we're saying is I what you just said was how can you judge how could we judge that? The same thing.
The prompt is that Christianity has done more harm than good. You said that you don't understand this true Christianity.
So how are you able to say that we have done more harm than good? when I say that Christianity when when I say true Christianity the church has done terrible things >> and the church has also apologized for a lot of those things but I don't think that that apology just erases the pain that it caused right let's be completely honest about that but when we say true Christianity that means it doesn't mean to be Christian just to believe in Jesus that is actually not what that means that's what it means it actually is not it says scripturally scripturally it says scripturally it says even demons believe in God so what separates you is one that submits to God. You you believe in him and you must repent. That's why it says over and over again, believe and repent. So you can believe that Jesus is God. You can walk around with a cross on your body, but if you don't submit to him and turn your heart towards him, then you are not you guys still believe that Christians can sin.
>> Absolutely.
>> And repent and that this can happen throughout your entire life.
>> When we do that, when we do that, it doesn't mean that I'm no longer Christian. What it means is I wasn't acting in accordance with Christianity.
>> And and some of the people that that you will try to say that was so horrific that they can't be a Christian.
>> Well, if you ask them, they would say that they're a Christian.
>> Well, well, let's backst step here.
>> We have to go back to repentance as well. What does repentance really look like? What is the real argument is about knowing somebody's >> more than just confessing sins. It is actually doing a complete turn your heart and not just doing it physically but actually your heart's turning.
>> So when we say exactly what the sister is saying this a complete turn. I didn't mean to cut you off. We're saying >> it's a complete turn and you're heart changing. It's a heart.
>> You can't be complete if you still will fall and have to keep repenting.
>> Well, we're imperfect. We're not perfect people. So it's not possible to walk a life of perfection, right?
claim someone who's not perfect.
>> The difference is there's a difference though. When people become Christians, they become filled with the Holy Spirit which empowers them to be able to now to now walk a certain way or to do things a certain way. And so >> unless they sin >> well >> and fall and have >> Well, that's the point of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit helps you along this journey. Yes, it is a journey.
>> It's a journey. It's it's not >> heads tails you >> No Christian can ever say that they've made it. We haven't made it.
>> We've we haven't made it. It's not claim. The point is so that you cannot look at another person claiming to be a Christian and saying no you're not doing good enough. I'm going to say that you can't be a Christian.
>> I can't do that but the Bible can.
>> Yeah. You know what you're actually Yeah. I do not know the hearts of the people that I'm around. I don't. And so what it comes down to is >> the fruit. So when we say true Christian their actions, right? There's a level of if I believe wholeheartedly that the Huskers are the best team in the world that's going to affect the way that I talked, the way that I act, the things that I, you know, enjoy, it's going to it's going to be evident in my life. So if somebody is a when we say true Christian, yeah, there are there are people that I could be around that um they will do something and I say that thing that you just did is not the heart of Jesus. that I can say, but I actually don't know their hearts.
>> You can't say if they're actually saved or not. You're I mean, we can't I'm not the one who determines. And but there's no and there's no hard line in the sand that you can point to saying, well, you can sin up to like this kind of sin, but then boom, there's these ones where that would make you not be a not saved.
>> Well, the judgment of someone's soul is not our job. Yeah. Right. And so and so I'm not going to sit here and look across somebody and say definitively you are not Christian if you claim to be Christian. However, when someone says that they are acting in the name of God >> did you did both of you three all four of you.
>> Well I well I well I'm let me can I finish explaining that point. Right. So I'm telling you what the theology is of what it means to be a true Christian or not a true Christian. But if someone sits here and says I truly believe and I truly have repented. Who am I to judge their soul? Is what I'm saying. But here's what I'm saying. Just because and and I I love the point that you brought up because it's such an honest one. When somebody sins, do they lose their Christianity? No, it's not. That's not what it is. So, there are times in my life that I've acted against Christianity, but I'm still a Christian because I turned my heart back to God.
In the same way, those atrocious events, even if they were done with people wearing crosses on their chest, those atrocious events, if they did not align with what the Bible teaches, they are not following the teachings of Jesus.
But before how are they any different than you in that scenario?
>> But they could be Christians. However, Christianity Christianity is would beckon them to repent.
>> He's not talking about Christianity as Christians as individuals. He's talking about Christianity as a like some kind of I guess entity or force. It's a theology.
>> A theology that he as a something that >> as a impetus through people rather than on the whole a person by themselves.
>> Yeah. I was just trying to get him to admit that he can't necessarily say at this point you I'm saying can't be Christian. Can't really that's not our position.
>> When we say the word that we say the words it sounded like flames to be pushed.
>> I'm not subject to the the judgment of their lords. I would say that yes, they're acting like I would expect a follower of Jesus to follow.
>> That's the highest honor you could give me.
>> The huge shaman who invaded our capital building, swears up and down, he's Christian, >> is clearly not acting like Jesus. How can we judge their theology?
>> But I could I could completely expect a Christian to also be outside with terrible signs that say like God hates gays. See, and to me that makes them automatically not a Christian.
>> I could expect I think >> I'm a judging >> I think that makes them just as Christian.
>> And that's that's the problem is that is the standard bearer. Now those are the people who are hitting on is kind of what captures what our position really is, which is we are not we are saying that when we're talking about Christianity, the the word Christianity, what we're talking about is to act Christlike, is to be Christlike. So a Christian can act incorrectly and in that moment they are not acting in accordance with Christianity. So when we say Christianity has done more harm than good, what I'm saying has this does this theology teach to do harm and what harm is that that was >> does your does your Christianity support discrimination of the queer community?
>> What do you mean by that? I want you to elaborate and then I'm happy to >> Well, for example, um not allowing them to marry. So our our religion believes that there are two genders.
>> So that's a yes.
>> Well, everyone discriminate. Well, everyone has a level of discrimination.
I mean, everything that we do is discriminates. We discriminate in our choices every day, right? Doesn't mean that we're not supposed to love this. I would love to be able to talk to you about this because I was married to a woman before Christianity and I was married to her for about four years. And when I first became a Christian, it w that's not what I received. I did not receive judgment. I did not uh receive discrimination. I didn't receive anything but love. I received people telling me truth and giving me truth, right? Biblical truth on what the Bible says. But I didn't get discriminated at all. So, we're all going to vote differently. We're all going to have different political beliefs. And that's already been expressed tonight. Right?
And honestly, two Christians may look at that and fundamentally disagree on how we should politically vote when it comes to homosexuality. However, as from the Christian biblical perspective, there are two there are two genders. However, the most important thing to remember is that person that is homosexual, as a Christian, we ought to love them. They are made in the IMO day. We are not to hate them. And so, people who wear signs that said, "I hate uh gay people." Is that what you said? People who wear those signs of this is because I I hear what you're saying and I'm not discounting. I want to move forward. Do you do you have a problem with samesex marriage being legal in all 50 states equal to your marriage? It is. It is a problem. I had to get a divor I had to get a divorce.
>> But this is also Daniel's point.
>> You can say that about any marriage that was a mistake.
>> Like we have our belief, but now we're talking about what is your political stance on this? Because my belief I can believe that people should be able to politically have two people of the same sex get married because I believe in that freedom, but I can also hold that marriage should only be.
>> That's true.
>> Correct. And I'd like to hear what she was saying because [laughter] I'd also like to hear what >> as my life is aligned with the Bible, I had to make a choice. I had to let go of that lifestyle. I could not stay in that >> because But just because you came to regret that decision doesn't mean it should be illegal.
>> Illegal. That's the key. I don't wait.
>> No, that's the question I asked.
>> Let me let me >> No, that's the question I asked. I know I asked you, >> guys. I think you guys are jumping to conclusions. You guys said that's sad.
She's >> I asked, "Do you believe that samesex marriage should be legal in all 50 states?" And she said, "No."
>> Well, she's she's still explaining. Can Can we let her finish?
>> There's a problem with that. So, and I apologize. I'm going to have No, you're right. If if I misspoke, then please.
>> Okay. And even if I retract that, I'm not going to say whether it should be legal or not, but according to the Bible, it is incorrect. It is not right.
And so if we're talking about Christianity, um, then I cannot be a Christian and be in a same-sex marriage, like that is not of the teachings of Christ. Christ states male, female. That is a part of his teachings. And so that is the thing though, we have to know like are we aligning our lives with the Bible? Like really living it out. We cannot just read this book and say, "Okay, I've read this. I've read this. Oh, this was a nice story." There you go. A Christian is actually supposed to align their life with the Bible. Like you should my life is a living epistle which is which is in the in the Bible.
>> We consider that discrimination.
>> Why?
>> Let me let me ask you something really quickly because this seems like a one of one time in universal history that I'll be able to ask this. The prompt is Christian Christianity has done more harm than good. And now we're talking about, you know, samesex marriage and stuff. you walked away from someone um that was the same sex as you. Yes. Did Christianity in that situation do more harm to you or more good to you in that situation?
>> Now, I'm gonna be honest. In the beginning, it did. And I'm going to tell you why. And this is why I stated in the beginning true Christianity. I grew up in church. And the church that I grew up in, I was told that I was everything under the sun because I was attracted to females. And it pushed me away from God so so far to the point where I thought I could never ever love a God like this.
Um why would he make me have these feelings and then condemn me for it? Like I didn't understand it. And so I ran I ran for years and then eventually on my own outside of the church that I grew up in I had a supernatural encounter with Christ. like literally and I was not looking for him at all. And with that, um, I started to read the Bible. And I'm I'm I'm going to be honest. I'm a new Christian. I've only been in Christianity for four years. So, this is very recent. Um, I started to read the Bible. I didn't understand a lot of it in the beginning. It took so much time for me to really sit and and get a a a foundation and an understanding of it.
But I was dedicated because I knew what I experienced was real. I knew that there was a change that really did happen within my life and my heart. And so I continued to read. And as I continued to read, I started to really realize this is morally wrong. I shouldn't I cannot do this. I cannot remain married to a woman and say that this is the life that I am now devoted to that I am dedicated to or that I am serving the God that saved me. I am 100% better before when I had that situation to happen that when I was in um that marriage I was idle I was depressed I was at my darkest point like I can't even explain to you and I'm going to be honest I felt like because I I have children so I wasn't always in a gay relationship but um when I was in that lifestyle for 10 years. I felt like it was the darkest moment of my life and even the friends and stuff that I had while I was in that lifestyle. Like I saw how how dark it was. I saw how they were all there was nothing good coming from it. And I'm not putting everybody in a category. I cannot do that. But what I will say is based off of experience of what I actually had a chance to see the group that I was hanging with. It was nothing good coming out of that. It was dark. It was you know everybody lack of identity. It was so much good. I would say is objectively there are queer people who are at their happiest after being especially ones who maybe have been like they grew up religious and they were like held back from it and they get out and then they're able to live their true selves and they become the happiest and most joyful that they've ever been and they don't experience the darkness that you did.
Like what would you what would you say to them? You would say, "Well, no, you still have to come out of that even though you were now maybe they were when they were being kept from that, but now they are not."
>> I encourage them to come out of it, not based off of the people that I've seen, but based off of the Bible that I read.
>> God is the only foundation for true morality. We'll start by bringing up everyone that agrees. Now >> I believe that God is the only foundation because he is the one that set the standards. There has to be a standard or everything is considered permissible. Um when you look at Exodus and you look at the ten commandments, you see the laws that he gave Moses. Um and it started from heaven down. So God is the the foundation for true morality.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um I I think you did an excellent job explaining that. And what I would add is the definition of true morality and the and the foundation. So I'm not saying that atheists can't be good. I'm I'm sure and I've talked to a lot of the atheists in this room and I think a lot of them have probably done more good than I've done. Um I'm not saying that. But I think um John Lennox, a mathematician, once said that you can read a book and understand a book but not know its author. So I think you can do good, you can know good, but I think what lacks is the ability to call something truly evil or truly good requires a a foundation. And I think that atheism does not have that. Whereas for the Christian stance, our true morality is grounded in God and revealed to us through scripture. So you can look at it, you may disagree with our with with what our foundation claims, but that is our foundation. And I I'd be really interested to hear from the atheistic perspective what their foundation for true morality is.
>> Yeah. An interesting thing about true morality and the foundation of it is you think of like we all have this innate knowledge, right, that number one, I'm flawed. I make so many mistakes. I made mistakes this morning like on the way here. I hurt people unintentionally this morning probably in this room too.
Literally on the way here I'm sure I cut someone off. I'm sure I did something you know >> and and I know that because of something I can also recognize like I recognize number one that I am not perfect but I can recognize what perfect looks like.
So there is this like thought that comes to you know my mind of like I recognize that I am flawed but I also know what perfection looks like. And as a Christian, we can look at God as like that that perfection, that that like moral standard, right? When you look at Jesus, when you look at the cross, he never sinned. And so, he's the he's the image for believers of what what perfection looks like and what true morality looks like.
>> How about you, man? Yeah, I think that with well, I'll actually take an other quote from John Lennox and he says that science can tell you that if you put poison in the water and give it to someone to drink that they will die. But science can't tell you whether you should or shouldn't do that. Which is to say that they have no way to actually have a foundation. for them it's just their opinion because they can point to well let's uh look at the what's best for human thriving let's look at what's best for human survival but why are you doing that like why are you looking at those things obviously I agree we should be looking into that I I agree with that standard but where are you coming with that and I think that with uh those who are atheists those who believe in nothing but science their morals are their opinion and opinion is no foundation for morality.
>> Wow. Coming off the back end of that, I feel like I'm Jerry Springer. Like, come on out. Yeah. So, we'll bring up everyone that disagrees now.
>> So, we learned something really important in kindergarten that sums up morality altogether. Treat others how you want to be treated.
>> And where does that come from?
>> Comes from the Bible. Jesus words >> that actually predates the Bible. The golden rule way predates the Bible.
>> Yeah. Do you have evidence of that?
>> Actually, we do. the fact that the Bible was written at all. Do you think if people didn't have any morality or any ability to come together and build any kind of culture, society that we would have a group to go to Mount Si in the first place?
>> So the prompt was though not that you don't have any morality, but that you don't have >> That's exactly what you said.
>> That is not I said you don't have a foundation.
>> Wasn't the exact prompt um God is the only source of true morality.
>> Yeah. God is the only foundation was not true morality. That's the >> I have no foundation for true morality.
>> I'm curious. I think you were going to say something. What what is the foundation for true morality for you?
>> Uh well, okay, so first I was going to say that >> if true means objective, we don't necessarily believe in objective morality, but I was going to bring up the Euthifer dilemma.
>> Um does God command something because it's good or is it good because he commands it? If something is good simply because God commands it, then morality is arbitrary because God could command cruelty and cruelty would become good.
But if it's the other way around, then morality is already independent of God.
Because if he's commanding something because it is good already, it's it's that's independent from him. He's he's reacting from something that already exists. So the found like God can't really be that foundation. If you look at >> there are evidence of things like that happening where the papal decrees declared that slavery was okay and was actually the Christian's right to go capture people to tame.
>> That's also factually incorrect. And I want I want to I want us to make sure.
So the youthro dilemma, I'm I'm glad you brought that up because it is really interesting, but it misses and I think it's a false dilemma because it misses a third option because from the Christian worldview, God is good. It's part of his nature. You brought up slavery. So slavery, I think we all agree, is bad.
That's not that's a no no. That's a bad thing. It has never we have a foundation where we can point to and say slavery is bad because the Bible says that we are made in the imo day. That is a purely Christian idea and concept. How do we know this? The first person to ever publicly speak out recorded against the abolishment of slavery was a Christian who read the Bible and said, "Hold on, we're all made in the imo day, the image of God." That and it is a purely Christian concept.
>> But this is after centuries of Christians having slaves. Well, everybody had slaves. Slave slaves were there from the beginning. And so I'm telling you, what about groups of people that just let me finish real quick, right? Just let me finish real quick. So just because I have the Bible doesn't mean I have complete mastery of it. But what happened with Gregory of Nissa, he was the first person to publicly come out and say this this slave is equal in value to this king. And that was a purely Christian idea. We know this because Tom Holland, not the Spider-Man Tom Holland, but but a famous historian that is secular and not Christian. He says that that value is a Christian inheritance that we have gained from that. It was purely a Christian idea that was put forth from Gregory of Nissa >> is is your contention that cultures that don't have Christianity didn't figure this out.
>> No, I'm not saying that. Right. So, what I am saying and from the beginning of the prompt I said that atheists can recognize good, atheists can do good. I or other religions can also recognize and do good. But we have a foundation for ours. And I'm really curious, what's your foundation for calling something truly evil?
I don't think >> the problems the problem with the with that wording is truly >> right >> because we well I'll speak for myself. I don't believe in objective morality.
>> So I think then you agree with us on the prompt that God is the only foundation for true morality.
>> No because I don't believe in true morality.
>> And the reason the biggest reason I struggle with that statement is the fact that it's not displayed at all. Some of the most immoral people I've ever met in my life go to church every Sunday >> for a moral Bible >> and they're automatically given that gold ticket to get all forgiven to go do it all again.
>> So you said true morality doesn't exist.
Does that mean that slavery is not necessarily wrong across the board? I thought we all agreed that slavery is innately wrong.
>> I don't know about innately. Um we can start like we we believe that we evolved. we are animals. Um we can as a society come up with a subject a subjective foundation for morality that we can agree upon and then from that subjective foundation you can create objective moral truths. So if we want to say as a society we want our foundation to be to promote well-being and autonomy overall and reduce harm and suffering.
Then from there we can say well then then objectively from there murder is wrong, slavery is wrong because it increases harm and suffering.
>> You base your objective reduces autonomy >> on a subjective foundation >> because we're subjective individuals.
That's right. So you would agree that there is no true morality. That's what we said.
I'm wondering why you didn't come forward in the prompt.
>> I don't I don't know why we have to say that true morality has to be objective morality. That's the definition.
>> I want a definition of what I think is the definition. True means objective.
>> So yeah, if we say true morality, we mean what is evil for one person is evil for everybody. So when we say slavery is objectively wrong, it's true morally wrong.
>> No, no, no. If if sometimes if if for if for someone over there like lying is the wrong thing to do, but then in another situation lying is actually the most moral thing to do, >> then you can't say morality is evaluative. So then is not absolute.
Morality is not slavery. Are you saying that slavery is there's a realm where slavery is good?
>> I don't know if I would say slavery is good. I could see where is more permissible than other worlds that we >> the trolley problem.
>> Exactly. [laughter] >> It's not something I mean I I I I really I think it test morality, right? Like [laughter] >> but morality shifts too.
>> There are there are moral issues, right?
I would agree with you. You could look at one society that is going to have one standard of moral issues that they believe in that would be that would differ than another one. But when we say true morality, that's saying that there are some that actually cross [snorts] various different societies. So I'll circle all the way back to the torturing innocent children, right? In as a ton of different societies, that is a true morality that that is wrong, right?
Across societies. And so how did that happen? Right? Not even like from the dawn of time, right? Murdering children has been wrong. And so from your perspective, I'd be curious to know like how did that happen? We're talking about those true moralities that crossed societies.
>> Well, I want her to go.
>> Oh, sorry. Do [laughter] you believe that those things would still happen if everybody was Christian?
>> Well, I believe Oh, sorry.
>> What do you mean?
>> Like, do you still think that we would have the same level of evil and atrocity if everyone were Christians? Yes, 100%.
Because the foundation is that >> like we are fallen sinful people. So I to your point I have met sinful fallen Christians and I am one of them.
>> Exactly.
>> So So of course to your point >> and and I think because >> you got to be down on yourself. I think you're pretty cool.
>> Well, thanks.
>> Do you guys all think uh Christians, do you all think that there would be equal amount of that kind of stuff if everyone was Christian? That's a that's a fascinating question. Um >> I just wonder I'm hearing from them.
They're saying what's the point of Christianity then?
>> Yeah. Well, yeah. No, it's a fascinating question. But what happens and this is the kind of the point of this that we have a firm we have a similar firm foundation is let's say she interprets the Bible differently and I interpret the Bible differently. She interprets the Bible to to do harm to somebody and I interpret the Bible. You should not do harm to somebody. Well, we have a firm foundation that we should across society and we say this is our foundation. Does this Bible check out with what you're doing or does it check out with what I'm doing? And as a Christian, we also have this we have to submit to that authority and say, does this really check out with what I'm doing?
>> But you just described.
>> I just really want a a non-diplomatic answer.
>> Do you think that there would be less of that child torture and stuff if everyone was Christian?
>> I would hope so, but I can't guarantee that.
>> So when God So when God commands the killing of children, that is good. Which one are you talking about? Are you talking about the Amalachites or the Canaanites?
>> What are you talking about? [laughter] >> No, there's two events that people conflate and there's there's two events that Well, they're different. You have to look at them.
>> He commanded other humans to kill children.
>> Dash their head. Happy are they that dash their heads the babies are on their not that that's why I asked.
>> That's an example.
>> Well, that's an that's why I asked that.
>> I will say from the atheist, we consider them all equally bad. So, pick one.
>> Sure. And and that's why I wanted to bring up both because it's important. I think you guys understand it's important to read in context, right? And so when you when you gave that verse, I believe that's from Psalms and that wasn't a command.
>> It wasn't it was talking about description describing >> when we talk about the Canaanites and the Amalachites. I like to talk about them both together because they were both. It's jarring when you read that.
When I first when I first came across that, that almost made me leave Christianity if I'm being completely honest because I didn't understand. But what we learn is it's like an idiom that was used. It was a war rhetoric that we see from other cultures of its time period when it says to it it meant complete utter victory. And we see this because those same people appeared later on. It's not like they were all destroyed. And we and one example of that is the Moabites. The Moabites are not Christian. Yet in their own rhetoric, they use the exact same terms when they're dealing that the Israelites used to talk about the Canaanites. And they said that the Israelites were completely destroyed. And >> so why does it why when it describes that they left some of like the women and children alive does it say no >> you can't leave them alive go back and kill all of them >> you which verse are you talking about? I don't know the specific verse, but it's >> so I think you're talking about I think I think she's talking about the Amalachites where they so they said to have a complete total victory over the Amalachites and and what happened was >> to have go back to finish they only killed the men and they're like we're not killing these women and they I think King Aag I think it was the Amalachite king right and what happened was they did not end King Aag it was a and so they did not have a full decisive victory instead they went against God.
Israel went against God and said, "No, we don't need to do that." And then God said, "That's a punishment coming to you." And so, um, I would say that when we read, we have to read in context. And we see that that is an idiom. It is a it is a war.
>> I don't think there's any context in which killing children >> and everybody knows if you don't kill the children, they'll come back and kill you later in 20 years. Let me ask you guys something just because I think every prompt has and I'm I mean this is what the show is but it has came into like a a Bible on trial which is fine but I want to know >> where do you guys get your sense of morality from in general just cuz they don't know to be fair they don't actually know really any as a viewer they don't know anything about you they just know what you don't think of like about that. So what what do you guys what do you guys get your mor morality from? Well, for me, I'd say it's probably some kind of messy mix between empathy and consequentialism. I don't I don't I'm not going to pretend like I have some neat um ideology with a nice little bow on it. But I also I do contest the idea that true more true and objective are onetoone parallel here.
that uh to be true means to be objective in this case. Cuz I think morality is a human concept in much of the same way that um well I I I I guess in some in some ways in the same way that like love is a human concept, but I don't think that it not being objective like I think love is a a subjective experience and a subjective human concept. I don't think that makes it any less my experience of it any less true or any less valid. And I also don't think that even if God existed, he would be a source of objective morality.
>> Okay. Do you guys think that we have like empathy downloaded on us like we know >> Oh yeah. We're a social absolutely right and that's where where I wanted to answer because a lot of this misconception is that atheism is somehow like a counter to Christianity. It is not. All atheism is is a conclusion. Do you believe in a God that answers prayers, interacts in the world, and and talks to people? And if the answer to that is anything other than yes, then you're an atheist. Nothing else follows.
No hating God, no sinning, nothing else.
Evolution, that's all extra. Atheism is simply a conclusion. It is not an ideology. And that is the one thing I want the audience to understand. Atheism is a conclusion, not an ideology. Now, secular humanism is something that I do ascribe to. That is a type of ideology.
And that is something where we base it on our h human capacity to love and have refle reflective experiences with other people. Things like Maslo's hierarchy of needs. I've never met a human being who wants to be hungry, wants to be tired, wants to be cold, wants to be alone, wants to be unsecure. These are things that are, as you're saying, that can apply to all cultures universally. All human beings, human beings want all of these things. So my morality comes from maximizing those things and minimizing the things that take away from those things. human like we call human thriving. That's it. That's it. And we use science to measure the best ways to do that. No supernatural is needed.
Often supernaturalism gets in the way of making human lives better. That's why I'm an outspoken atheist and secular humanist because I want to do away with this idea that morality comes from some kind of hierarchy. It doesn't. It is something that we generate amongst ourselves. And the best way to get there is through reason, empathy, community, dialogue, not from looking at a 2,000-y old text or 5,000-y old text or 20-year-old text because wisdom isn't there for morality.
>> Our our environment and our senses are.
>> When do you think that happens? And I ask that because I have a son who's 9 months old and three months ago, actually I can even just use last night I fell and I like screamed. I was on the the sidewalk. I fell and I screamed and my knee is all bloody. It's disgusting.
That's why I'm wearing jeans. And my son like for the next hour was like crying and he was wanting to be with me. And I was like, "This is crazy. He's he's a little baby. Where do you think that that came from?
>> It's it's evolved into >> empathy has hardwired into us through evolution. Yeah.
>> Um how >> we recognize faces. We hear >> it's genetically necessary for the population to survive.
>> How do animals have empathy? I actually understand what you're what you're saying that like you're saying we have this innate ability is is kind of what you're saying to recognize something that is good or bad. And I think there is an atheist scholar Michael Roose that also agrees and says our morality our sense of morality is just a genetic evolution that's programmed into us so that we can cooperate with one another. That's what Michael Roosse believes. And Richard Dawkins says this universe is just blind pitiful. There is and blind, pitiful, and indifferent. There is no good, there is no bad. So these are atheist scholars that proclaim this. I'm not saying you guys subscribe to that, but what I'm really questioning is going back to the heart of this prompt, right? What is the foundation? So how do you how are you able to say stealing a Jolly Rancher from a kid is worse than slavery, right?
Like we have two obvious subjective foundation, >> right? We have two obvious extremes. And if you say you start from a subjective foundation, I would say then that is not what's considered true morality.
>> There are two things.
>> True morality is objective.
>> There are two things that found the that make the foundation. Don't hurt other people. That's pretty plain and simple because you don't want to get hurt, right? We can figure that out in our brains.
>> But there are times when it's necessary.
>> True.
>> Sure. But >> how do you how are you morals? How are you able to how are you able to distinguish? And I'm just I'm genuinely curious. How are you able to distinguish? The other part is if you can help, help.
>> Doesn't matter.
>> I love that principle, >> right? And that's the foundation.
>> But what if they say the same thing back to you and they say, "Well, me hurting you is helping me and my family. So, who's right here?"
>> Go back to it. I feel like I did answer this with Maslo's hierarchy of needs and and the ability of us to see outcomes amongst our own community, you know? And there's been a lot of people who have been abused or enslaved who then internalize that and say it is good that I'm a slave because I see all these other happy people over there who are benefiting from my work. But they still see that they're suffering. They're still seeing they're having to get up earlier than everybody else.
>> Humanity has been on a journey of bettering itself over time, little by little throughout history. That's we're forming morality as history goes on.
morality has shifted within the church that I'd like to share because well in case it even needs to be mentioned I don't like kids dying. Okay. So I don't like that in case said >> we weren't sure.
>> Yeah. In case it has to be said >> for the comments but my point is right you're about human life and flourishing and life and and living right and not about killing kids. Well the problem is that I consider abortion a human life.
>> What science are you using to say that they're not? Here's the problem and why you face against other people.
>> But then when it comes to Iceland, when it comes to Denmark, when uh mothers find out their kids going to have Down syndrome, 99% of those kids are aborted >> and nobody here wants to pay the taxes to take care of those kids now.
>> Actually, I'm actually glad that you brought up abortion because that was not a uh lynchpin in the Christian political movement until extremely recently >> until the 70s.
>> Yeah. Well, actually it is theologically grounded. So let's say we both disagree on abortion, right? When we because we have a firm foundation of true morality, we consult the book. And when we see this book, it's do that.
>> Well, this is our firm foundation. You have a shifting one. So I'm just explaining where we come from.
>> You guys have a shift.
Yours has shifted.
>> We have a shifting interpretation, but that foundation has never changed. No, here. I think you're misunderstand.
This might help you understand. No, you say you have a shifting shifting interpretation. You said that we're not all going to 100.
>> We consider that shifting a change. We don't consider that. But we have an objective foundation.
>> That's what you're saying. But different. They would have said the same thing. They would have said, "Nope. Ours doesn't change. We're right." When when when there were Christians that were okay with slavery, they would have said what you're saying.
Can I finish Can I finish talking about >> You can I just want I don't think you were getting what you're saying. I understand what you're saying. And maybe this will kind of answer. If it doesn't, please ask again. I'm sorry. But what I was saying is let's say we both disagree on what abortion is or what if it's good or bad. Christians have. Christians still do. But what we do is as Christians, we subscribe to a moral foundation. Whether you like it or not, it's the Bible. And in the Bible, we see that when Jesus was in the womb, he was and he was next to John the Baptist who was also in the womb. They both left. So in that we see from a biblical point of view, it describes personhood in the womb. So I can look at my brother if he's against abortion. I can say brother objectively it says that there's life.
Jesus was alive in the womb. John the Baptist was alive in the womb.
Objectively as a Christian we're all made in the imo day the image of God. We should not kill these people. But then if he brings up >> sorry it no but then we have this political I'm telling him. Then he brings up, if you bring that up to him and then he brings up the part in the Old Testament where they give the woman something that will abort >> her child. Wait, it is in there.
>> If he brings that up, how the hell are we supposed to evaluate like, well, okay, you've got a verse in the Bible for your point. He's got a verse in the Bible for his point. How are we supposed to choose between which one is correct?
Which is the correct interpretation of your foundation?
>> And that's why that's why our morality is superior to that because we look at the evidence and the outcomes and the Maslo's hierarchy needs and the empathy.
We see the outcome we get better outcome.
>> Yeah. What what was that?
>> Your superior uh morality wasn't the first to abolish slavery. speak fair because you were describing the abolition of slavery within a context where no one was really at least openly an atheist back then. So >> there were atheists abist there was a whole movement in uh the early Americas that they were >> that's true and you know what they were all veerently anti-slavery Thomas Jefferson a lot of them a lot of them were anti-slavery >> he was a deist though he was a deist though he wasn't >> from Gregory of Nissa >> yeah he he was cont what I'll say I think you brought up uh this point about abortion right I would be really curious to see that verse that supports abortion >> but in the Christian sphere we see that the Bible doesn't contradict each other we see that Jesus was given in personhood while he was in the womb and John the Baptist was personhood in the womb. They reacted. Therefore, as a Christian worldview, I can make my argument. They if he has a different verse, he can make his argument. That's still basing it on just like But when you pass law ask him a question.
>> Sure.
>> You just said that um you didn't want to pay tax dollars for those babies.
>> Oh, I gladly would. It's it's the Republican party that doesn't want to fund to take care of those children. Do you think that tax dollars determines the value of life?
>> Something has to support said life.
Right. Right now in this country, we care about that kid until it's born and then what happens from there on or hands off.
>> You know what? I kind of I I I see where you're coming from. I'm I am very pro-life because I base it on that on on that morality foundation. And I would say, hey, as a Christian, I think we should continue to find ways to care for those child after they're born.
>> Yes.
>> Absolutely. So, where where I'm coming from is back to the point where like abortion, >> you have a serious problem when you say that though.
>> What do you mean?
>> Because what you just said makes sense.
>> Why don't we see it? No. No. But why don't we see it then? We see Christians in power, in control in all of the most Christianized places, the United States, even parts of the UK, Italy, they have this problem with with taking care of children and all that stuff. If Christianity is so correct and this is a more moral outcome that we make sure all these women have kids that they don't want or can't have, why is it not, as you say, more funding, more support? Why is that not the case?
>> The reason is we also have very bad we we also have Christians that don't read it. I hey and I am not going to discount your church but I'm talking by and large right you know statistically we all know that this is a problem as Justin has pointed out if you're right and abortion restrictions make outcomes better why are not the outcomes better that's a great question and I think it's because and part of the reason why I come on a show like this is not to forcibly convert somebody but I hope to inspire other Christians to actually read their text and I'll be honest there are a lot of Christians that proclaim Christianity but have not read a word of the Bible.
And so they run with this political agenda, but they have no idea where it even comes from. And so I think that they purport harm and it's not based on it. One of the reasons why I'm here is to say, guys, read your Bible. Every political action that a Christian is a part of, that Christian has the fundamental responsibility. If they say they're Christian, they have the fundamental responsibility to check with the word of God before they act politically. And I think we don't see that. And the responsibility to your point the responsibility starts with the individual right so when I like when when you ask that question I'm thinking what is my role in that like I'm not a politician and I would hate to be one but I do have a responsibility right when I as a Christian when I read that text I'm saying I have a responsibility on an individual level to care for those in my neighborhood to care for those in my city to care for my family to care for people that I don't agree with.
That's my responsibility because God has said, "Hey, you are to love one another.
You are to seek for the benefit and good of other people >> unless they don't want to have a kid."
>> No, no. I would say what it is the Christian's responsibility to make that not even a question, right?
There's a reason that there there's a reason that there's a question, right?
That's on the the Christian it's the Christian's responsibility to say for example in downtown city where I live there are a lot of women who have many many many children who probably honestly can't support them and and but here they are right the option that they're given is to have the child a lot of them are uh immigrants from other other countries right but they don't have the support. They don't have the financial bene like the financial care.
They don't have people in their communities that are loving them. And so that's actually the role of the Christian is to make it so that women that are coming that are asking this question of I can't support a child. I'm just going to I'll leave it at that with like the support thing.
It's the Christian's responsibility to support, walk, come alongside >> and care for those women. So she shouldn't have a choice on whether she has a kid or not then in in this scenario.
>> In this specific scenario, >> I hate that >> I'm trying to see how that raises human flourishing.
>> This is such a good >> the Bible is a reliable historical document. We'll start by bringing up everyone that agrees. Now, >> yeah, I believe the Bible is one of the most historical historically reliable documents, if not the most. But I'll just for the sake of the argument today just say one of the most uh because I'm not a biblical scholar I probably can't argue the most right but if you look at history you see things like the Dead Sea Scrolls uh they had the entire scroll of Isaiah and it was discovered hundreds of years even before the time of Jesus and it was like almost the same almost exactly the same as the version of Isaiah we have today. Then we have the New Testament that has over 5,000 just Greek manuscripts alone. You have like the historian Josephus. We know that Jesus is a historical figure that Pontius Pilate is a historical figure.
So when we're looking at the historical reliability and consistency of the Bible, I think it's hard for any historical document to really come close to what we have with the Bible. Add on to that, we can look at the manuscripts compared to the original where they were closely written around the same time period. And so it was easy to compare and and find those those inconsistencies to make it the same.
>> And I think that when we talk about uh with this prompt, is the Bible a historical reliable document? We have to really talk about well what is the standard for that? And I think that when we look at historical standards for an ancient text like this, we look at hey what we can verify. Does it actually check out? Do those names, do those cities, those places, do they actually check out? If Jesus said, "I was walking along in the in the land of Nod and Nod never existed," then that would go against his credibility. That would go against the credibility of the Bible.
What we see is everywhere that it makes a verifiable claim, it has checked out archaeologically. We also see that it hasn't been tampered with. We and and furthermore, we even see that from extra biblical sources that that confirm that these events exist. So I think from an ancient historical reliability standard, it doesn't only just meet the bar, it far exceeds works of its time.
>> Um, I think the Bible is is definitely reliable. Um, it was written approximately 1,500 to 2,000 years ago by over 40 different authors um within um three different continents um in I believe three different languages. And so, and it all tells one consecutive story, the story of Jesus Christ. So, I think it's pretty reliable.
>> Cool. And now it's time to bring up everyone that disagrees.
>> I want to start this one.
>> Because this is actually going to go back to my Christian roots. I think it's based on true events. I really think there is underlying truth there of things that did happen, but there's parts that don't make a lot of sense. We know that people can't live to be 900 years old. But if you impose a lunar calendar over that time period, which was very common to be used across the globe during that time period, then the math works. They'd be living to 70 80 years old solar years. So it makes sense and it's logical. Cool. You took a story and you embellished a little bit. We all do that. That's good. That's good authorship.
The problem I run into is how much was left out at the Council of Nika in 332 when the Roman Empire was deciding what books made it and what books didn't.
>> But that's actually a misconception of what the Council of Nika did. They didn't decide what books of the Bible were coming in were coming were coming out. That wasn't even the purpose of the Council of Nika. That's a common misunderstanding of the whole.
>> But every book that challenged the power of the church such as the Gospel of St. Thomas was purposely left out. Well, we had the can we had the canonical Bible as we know it before the council of Nika. So the why why works like the Gospel of Thomas were deemed as heretical and not reliable historical documents was precisely for the reason I said when you look at a historical document you look at theological consistency. You look at was it tampered with? Is there evidence of tampering?
And you look at hey what if with does it make verifiable claims and what claims that we can actually verify do those actually check out? And the Gospel of Thomas did not check out. It listed areas, locations, and times and events that were that didn't exist or didn't exist at that time.
>> And throw that out. That's cool. But we're leaving out the part that it was a dying empire who switched their entire faith system to keep from dying.
>> There's got to be some manipulation there.
>> Well, I think I think he's taking issue with I think you maybe you two said there it's not been manipulated. I think it's demonstrabably been manipulated in this way whether for good or ill legitimate or not >> to say it hasn't been manipulated or messed with.
>> Can you show the evidence for that?
>> Can I show the evidence of books that aren't in the Bible?
>> Yeah. Can you show evidence asking for negative? Can you show evidence >> edition? So I think that's kind of >> there are many translations but the Bible has not been written changed and things are >> there are many translations. Yeah, there's translal errors or like different translations.
Is that what you're saying later Mark 16 9-20. What happened was and that that's actually included in the King James version, but it's not included in the in the newer versions of the Bible. Why?
The Bible wasn't changed. It's as we make more archaeological discoveries, we find what's closer and closer to the original source document. And what we found was yes verses of Mark chapter 16 9-20 people don't believe it was maliciously added but it's almost like notes were added into the page and when it was transcribed and translated the authors at that time thought hey this actually belongs here but when we find archaeological discoveries this is the actual word of God and that was added later. That's why our newer copies we don't change it. What we've done is we've gotten closer to it >> that you're describing a change to me.
Even even if nothing had been changed, >> even if nothing had been changed, that doesn't necessarily prove that everything in it is factual. Like in 200 years, we're probably going to have extremely accurate um works of the Harry Potter series. We're going to we're going to they're going to be able to look back like even a thousand years from now, they're gonna be able historical text. You brought up the fact that like we have all these manuscripts that like they they all like we can see like they all like agree with each other. They are the same thing. The things are written that are the same.
But in a thousand years if we find that for the Harry Potter series and like oh my god look they all agree the story though. I think that's intellectually dishonest when you talk about it like that because well if I can explain right so the prompt is is the Bible a reliable historical document? When we talk about that, we have to look at for its time period. Is it actually a reliable historical document? No, I'm I'm talking about when we're talking about as a reliable historical document. For Harry Potter, it never claims to be actual truth. The author of Harry Potter never said this is actual truth.
>> So, you're saying everything in the Bible is true. It claims to be true. Is that what you're saying? Every author say in the Bible claims that what they wrote for was truth. So, that that it does make that claim.
>> It does. Oh, and I want to clarify. So, like when the sun stayed in in in the sky and they walked around Jericho, that actually happened. Earth didn't just spin away from the sun.
>> So, and pay attention to what I was what I what I'm saying here. I'm not saying that we can prove every single thing yet. I'm not saying that we can do that.
But I'm saying what we can prove and what we can check. For example, cities, times, locations, people, all of those >> different from the Quran. Then >> the Quran is theologically inconsistent.
So, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
>> The Bible is theologically >> You would have to show me a theological inconsistency. And that's part of the problem when you're arguing about a belief, which is the whole reason I won't label myself is because beliefs are unchangeable. And it always comes down to the prove it fallacy.
>> Sure. My belief changed. I was an agnostic. I'm guessing similar to your position where I didn't know. I didn't think you could prove God. So therefore, I just didn't know. I was operating in that. Well, there's no way to prove it.
>> But is that fixed? Are you never going to grow ever again? Is that just what you believe forever and ever? Like if new evidence was >> you're saying you can't change beliefs.
That's that's what you said. You can't change beliefs but I change my belief.
>> I'm saying it's extremely difficult.
>> Okay. So it's extremely difficult.
>> It is possible but it is extremely rare because you automatically are coming from the point that you are right.
That's just all of us.
>> And that point though also would point back to you cuz you're here arguing your beliefs. You also are coming.
>> Oh I'm arguing my ideas and thoughts which are malible and can change with new evidence. And we also can change with new evidence. But you're you're falling subject to your own claims right now.
>> Position. I think it's a little >> I think it's a little dishonest to pretend that we're all just floating in the wind. We're all just perfectly rational um flexible, intellectually flexible beings who can change at whatever evidence we're prevented presented. Of course, we all have biases and we all have preconceptions we're bringing into this. I I don't I don't think it's necessarily honest to pretend like that isn't the case. You know, >> I I think I understand what you're saying. All I'm saying is >> I get what you're saying.
>> I don't base my entire identity on a belief.
>> Yeah. But you did base your understanding of what books were added and not added on the belief that the council of Nika did that forc years trying to be a Christian.
>> He's saying the council spent most of my life trying.
>> He's saying that council na is evidence that the Bible may not be cited that evidence incorrectly. That's fine but it's not a belief. That's not a belief.
He's citing evidence a meeting that happened revisions that happened. He's not saying I believe it. He's saying, "No, that's evidence that the Bible may not be true in that."
>> I'm not a religious scholar. I just have something I'm a little curious about.
So, we did talk about how there is a lot of different versions of the Bible, different translations, things like that, and it has been edited and revised a lot over the time. I guess the thing I would just like to put out there is I think it's a little naive to suggest that a book that has been so dominant and culturally and politically influential was never altered intentionally.
>> Well, I think I can and I think that's a very valid and fair point to but to answer that but what we mean by that the Bible hasn't changed is it would be like as if we had a dinosaur head, right? and it's covered in mud and we to the best of our ability we uncovered as much mud as possible. That's in a museum. You could say that is a dinosaur head. Now hundreds of years later we find new technology to remove more of the mud.
Did the dinosaur head change? No. We just got rid of the mud that was on there. So when we have different translations, we h we're what we're trying to do is we're as we're discovering earlier and earlier manuscripts, we're trying to edit the versions that we have that maybe have been mistransated to get closer to the source work. So, what we're doing is we're not adding things, but we're actually subtracting things every time we make an earlier discovery of what's been earlier uh found in the manuscripts.
>> So, what do you think the most accurate version of the Bible is?
>> The one that the most accurate version of the Bible, and that's a great question, is the one that's closest in time to when it was actually written, the original source document. That document, >> it wasn't a single document.
>> You're right. It was multiple documents.
And so when we look at the book of Mark, when we look at the book of Mark or when we look at the book of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, we look at them individually and say what if we can go to the original source time that Mark was written. That's the closest that we want to say is our standard. We want to keep getting there. We don't look at, hey, the Septuagent put the whole Bible together. Now this is it. That's done.
No, we constantly try to get closer and closer. That's why you have different um translations or the the King James version has verses that the ESV does not have. But do you think do you think that the fact that for example John was written like 90 years after Jesus died it was written so much later. Does that bring any doubt at all into how accurate it could be? Like if an event happened today and then we are waiting 90 years for someone to start like writing it down.
>> We have video evidence of things that people deny happened when they watch the video. I have to imagine the 90 years.
90 years is going to make it like how can you trust that when it's been >> if it tells the same consecutive story.
>> How would you know the first one you read?
>> Well, there's four accounts, right?
There's four gospels telling the same story. And so that's that's part of the reason why they tell it in the tell it in the same >> they hit the same bullet points, but you know, you guys have to acknowledge that there are >> the different people.
>> They bring different perspectives, but there is no contradiction. But I I I want to bring back to your point because you brought up a really good point.
Okay, John written years after Jesus died. But when we look at that in the ancient historical world, that's actually extremely fast. It was with it was within his lifespan that it was written that that uh John's own lifespan that that was written which is only like it's I think the earliest fragments we have is like 8030s when we find the first fragments of John but the actual book concluded at like much later. But we still have within within all of that the whole Bible was written within a hundred years of Jesus's death. That's what we can say from a safe perspective.
That's extreme. That's extreme. No, that's extremely fast when you compare it to other worksity. When you compare it to other works and bring in factuality >> well that's because we're the prompt is is this an ancient reliable historical document and if you say the works of Caesar or the works of Kangaskhan are ancient historical reliable documents. I mean you believe that Caesar died. You believe who he was. Historians believe Not if they claim miraculous fantastical. So now you're but that's a different we can talk about that but the original line of thinking that you brought up was okay if it's if it was written so much later then it's not as accurate. Well actually the Bible for its time I think we can both agree was written remarkably fast compared to other works of antiquity where we have accuracy.
>> No and that's just for that point that I'm talking >> historians also don't look at like those other works that you said and be like yep this is definitely 100% accurate.
They're like they're pe they're going like within reason. They're going they're going within reason, but they're definitely not saying like, "Oh yeah, how it was written. This is this is definitely how it happened."
>> I I think there's two things that we're also kind of sidestepping here is you use the dinosaur head analogy, Genghaskhan, all that stuff. We don't make laws and ethics and moral claims from dinosaur heads, Genghaskhan. The Bible is in other religious texts have a special cultural and and social place that I think we have to treat it a little bit differently than we would a textbook on the ancient pottery traditions of the Mesopotamians. Right.
So I I think we need to handle that. The other part is as you touched on it's the supernatural stuff, right? We can talk about how it it accurately uh names place names and stuff like that.
Awesome. Love it. Spider-Man's set in New York City. New York City exists.
Doesn't mean Spider-Man exists, right?
Same thing. But again, if we're going to go out and say Spider-Man does exist, well, now we're saying Jesus, you know, ascended to heaven and everybody saw him. Um, we saw there's no census data that shows Jews were enslaved in in Egypt. Where's that evidence? Stuff like that. Red seas parting, that doesn't happen. All these other major central claims to the biblical story just don't have any evidence outside of the Bible.
So, how can we say that's an accurate thing?
>> I think that's factually incorrect. Real quick, I do want to say you Yeah, I'm down to let you finish. I just want to let some of the other Christians also say some stuff too. And but dude, you're doing great. I'm just saying I want to like >> Well, like Caleb said that there where where else of the Bible is the story of the Red Sea partying, of Jesus ascending to heaven, of Jews being enslaved in Egypt. Outside of the Bible, >> if I could get my phone, I can show him.
I'm sorry, not to cut you off, but there is there are um findings of like particles in the Red Sea that shows that that actually happened. And I read an article three months ago where they proved scientifically that it could happen under the right conditions.
>> Okay, I'm convinced.
>> It's kind of interesting.
>> It it is fascinating, right? Um and I want to let Caleb talk before I jump in, but there are extra biblical >> because right now we're coming from the perspective of the prompt of that the Bible is a reliable text when you compare to anything else that you accept is happening. It's it's just as reliable as those texts. And now if you're saying well we don't we don't think it's reliable because we don't believe in all these miracles that is a different question and then it would be similar back to the do do miracles happen at all right so then we would have to go back to well we are coming to this topic with different presuppositions different uh beliefs about what is or isn't possible and that's a different discussion then is the Bible reliable >> if if the writings about Caesar included fantastical supernatural events, then they wouldn't be like, "Okay, no, but we're going to believe this because we have some bias toward like they would still be like, okay, but probably not the supernatural part." Well, my issue is even atheists based on that you would have to look at evolution and the big bang as mythology because based on uh everything that I know about science like Daniel said earlier like you believe in a virgin birth of there is literally nothing in the universe and then it starts right so how is it that you're saying well I don't live based on you know things of mythology I'm based on reason but then you also as the atheist mathematical models that have been created.
>> So you're talking about quantum physics.
Is that what you're talking about? The quantum physics theory.
>> You're talking about the big bang theory and like things like that like it's just a magical like thrown out there idea.
And look, I'll cop to it. I'm not a physicist. I don't necessarily understand these concepts. I don't think any of us have a PhD in astrophysics.
No, no one in this room. But [laughter] >> love to. There are >> mathematical models created around this.
It's not just an idea that someone was like, "Oh, I think this came from actually Eugene Kunan who is the bio he is he is the leader of the national national center for bio for biotechnology institute. He is a leading evolutionist theory the theorist and he calls the field when it comes to the origin of life. He calls it by its goal and he says that it's a plain failure because there is no plausible model for the origin of earth or the for the origin of life evolution biological theory of the quantum physics theory that you're bringing up which is a theory that well something can come from nothing and I think in mathematically that in itself still relies on the definition of nothing to be to have some sort of particle or energy. My question to you then is where did that particle come from? Where did that energy come from? It still fail. It still fails.
Now, >> it fails in the same way that the God hypothesis.
>> It actually doesn't fail in the same way. But I'm but this is what what I'm telling you. If you if you discount that, you know, the virgin birth happened, you have to also discount there's a virgin. You guys also believe in the virgin birth of the universe. So, and I think we're getting off. We are not claiming [laughter] that.
>> I think that we're getting off the prompt. I would say the one thing that I would say when talking about historical is there when you look at the Bible and you look at how it's broken up, it's written up written in different literary styles, right? So there's certain parts of the Bible that are not going to be historically accurate in and of itself, but that's not the point, right? Like you look at Psalms and the point of Psalms is not history. The point of Psalms is to communicate poetry. So you read it like you read poetry.
>> And some parts are just telling stories to guide behaviors, >> right? Allegories. Yeah, parable, things like that. There's there's components that I think even Christians would disagree of certain elements of the Old Testament that could be read one way or another. So, is that the is that >> typically struggled was with the Old Testament being hard fact >> because we have scientific evidence that if some of those things were hard fact, none of us would be here today. Like, you need a minimum of 10,000 people to maintain population genetic diversity, otherwise you die out. And we have Christians that disagree on on the interpretation, but the document itself.
>> So, I think a a common question that I'll ask Christians when we're having this conversation is what is the point of the document, right? So, there's certain components of of the Bible where we we'll we might disagree on the story of Jonah, right? We we um if it actually happened or if not, but what is the point that the author was trying to make through that story is the truth that we're after, right? more than more than if it actually happened or not. Like is this truth that that story is is telling and preaching to us?
>> And it's not to be dismissive or dimminative at all, but it's like the tortoise in the hair and asop fables.
It's there's a point to the story that the author is trying to communicate. But does that make it a historical document is the problem. I I'm really struggling with your answers right now. I'm sorry.
>> It definitely has historical value. It's a one of the most important cultural documents to ever exist. Of course there's historical value to it. Um I think what I mean what we are disputing here is mostly that word reliable. Not that the we're not saying the Bible Bible has absolutely no historical value. That would be ridiculous. What we're saying what we're disputing is the absolute authority of the Bible >> and it's it's literalness.
>> Yeah. And the literal this could you say what you mean more by the word literal?
>> Yeah. Um, basically typically we will say like it the the kinds of Christian denominations that will say no the Bible is almost 100% literal. It is literal.
The earth is 6,000 years old. It evolution cannot be true. Dinosaurs lived with humans. That's the sort of thing that we kind of like really rail against. But obviously if someone is coming at it more like from your perspective, we're like, well, they're not necessarily all literal stories. But like the stories teach us things and have value, we can get behind that. It's it's when it's when you're claiming that it's literal, right?
>> And I would even go back to when you were talking about like beliefs changing. This is actually an area that I have shifted over time even in the reading and account in Genesis found in Genesis especially the first three chapters. I grew up in a context that was like seven literal days, you know, this and over time and I'm saying that knowing that they might still like my fellow Christians might still read it that way. But it took me time to look at it and be like what is the author trying to communicate and what I found was less about like the literal days and more that the author was trying to communicate to me as an audience that how the rest of scripture was going to go, right? That God would form things and then he would fill them. That's why when you even look at the creation story and how things were created, it's like, well, there was light before there was a sun. Like, it's communicating to the audience that God is a God that forms and then fills. And that's exactly when you see throughout the rest of the text what ends up happening, right, with the Holy Spirit.
>> What you're saying is really getting the crux of why I had I struggle with all of your answers is because it seems less that like it's some kind of we're refining and getting better understanding of this of this thing.
It's more we know it's not historical.
So, we're going to pick the parts that we like that as literal and that that those that we don't. And I know that is not something Christians like to hear >> and it varies from denomination.
>> But, I mean, you say, "Oh, the the silly the seven days." You say, >> "Not silly. Not silly."
>> But like, I don't believe that anymore.
Right. But the thing is, but we literally believe that Jesus rose to heaven. We literally believe even though there's no historical evidence that the Jews were enslaved in Egypt. Stuff like that. I am saying you should apply if you imagine if you apply that same level of analysis that you do to the Old Testament and the mixing of fabrics and the shellfish that a lot of people just kind of that's you know old school stuff. Imagine if you apply that same level of critical analysis to the rest of the Bible. You would see our I think our point of view that it is an interpretive text. It's a great text of poems and some history and uh wisdom allegory >> but historical reliability I think you just gave the game away that you don't think it's historical reliability.
Because you choose because you pick and choose where you >> No, no, no, no. I think that there's a there's a key. That's why I asked you back a little while ago the different like what you meant by literally, right?
Like when you're reading the Bible, you have to there's a there's a word literal and then there's the word literalistic, right? So when I read the Bible, when I read the first three chapters of Genesis, I'm reading it like if I were to read it like I'm reading a story, right? I'm not. So when I approach scripture, I'm looking at it of like, okay, what is the author trying to communicate? Not that I'm picking it apart. Not that I'm picking it apart, but that how and the the like intricacies of it. What the author is trying to communicate is not the length of time it took to create the world.
>> I I want to let you guys talk one thing.
Why are we talking about this historical document this way? But we never talk about his other historical documents about ancient Mesopotamia or the Romans in the same way. Yellow bash >> all that epic of Gil great a ba wolf all these other things >> want to talk about the epic of >> how it's cribed from it but still but I mean but I mean listen how how much we have to interweave this interpretation but we don't with other historical text we know the Bible is a specifically unhistorical text because we have to do all this analysis and revisions I think that gives it away I'm sorry >> you you always have and I understand what you're saying but what she is saying is you have to respect the literary context of its time so for example the book of Luke the the author in Luke in the very first chapters claims that this is a historical document and even other historians claim this was a first- rate historian of his time period. So the gospel of Luke is written is read and interpreted as a historical work. Now when we look at the psalms the psalmist they were not intending to communicate anything but poetry maybe real morality and things of that nature. So that's why we don't look at the book of psalms to say well how many days did uh did it take for David to do abc and d. We don't do that. But when we look at the Gospel of Luke, which does claim to be a historical document, then we read that as history.
>> Well, and the problem is time is a construct. So, we're putting our own ideas of what time is onto this thing that should be determined by God or Jesus or whatever. So, of course, there's going to be differences in what we think a day is versus what he thinks a day is.
>> Don't forget to subscribe and hit the like button. That support helps us keep building a platform where real conversations can happen. Comment what topics you want next. See you on the next one.
Related Videos
0:33
Philosophy
Open Tab is a new interview series hosted by Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie
Hypeflicksss
1K views•2026-05-21
27:53
Philosophy
Street Epistemology: Maritza (1) | Student Demands the Truth (Valuation)
magnabosco210
124K views•2019-06-27
1:18
Philosophy
Nel Noddings | Feminist philosophy and education | Whiteboard Video
studioninety9110
3K views•2019-10-13
18:20
Philosophy
LEGAL METHOD CLASS: Law, Order, Justice & Freedom | Understanding the Concept of Law in Society
LAW-MADE-SIMPLE.c
371 views•2025-11-22
1:26:44
Philosophy
Does evolution DEBUNK morality?
MajestyofReason
7K views•2025-03-06
47:07
Philosophy
How the Gospels Pass the Historical Test | Tim and Lydia McGrew
TheAaronRennShow
713 views•2025-12-02
1:03:26
Philosophy
Pluriversal Design SIG Book Club 13: bell hooks' Theory as Liberatory Practice
pluriversaldesignsig2851
777 views•2022-05-24
1:37:10
Philosophy
NICK LAND MEETS THEORY UNDERGROUND (w/ Michael Downs and David McKerracher)
PhilosophyPortal
9K views•2023-10-23
Trending
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
22:40
Business
Steam and Xbox Just Dropped The Hammer On PlayStation
OhNoItsAlexx
9K views•2026-07-23
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23
20:36
Business
SuperBike Factory Has Gone... What's Next for the Motorcycle Industry?
thatbikersimon
11K views•2026-07-22