The video offers a sharp, evidence-based challenge to Christian dogma by highlighting the clear disconnect between Old Testament prophecies and the life of Jesus. It forces a necessary confrontation with historical facts that traditional theology often tries to bypass.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
No GOOD Reason To Believe in God!! Disagree? Call Us! | The DEvangelicals w/ Thinker & Justin DZ
Added:Okay. 3 2 1 the beginning of the show.
>> Hey, welcome in friends. It is Saturday time for De Evangelicals. I'm happy to be joined tonight by my friend Thinker.
Thank how you doing?
>> I'm doing good. Justin, how are you?
doing well. I'm excited to perhaps get to do some robust uh Bible study with some callers even tonight. What do you think?
>> Oh, I ready. I've been wanting to come up on your stage. I don't know why I get so nervous when you're when you go live.
I don't know. You're so so smart.
>> Nah, not so are you.
>> No, I um I don't know. I just uh sometimes I feel like people may get tired of listening to me. I'm on live all the goddamn time. All the time.
Like, oh god, here go finger.
No, >> that would never happen. Nobody would get tired of hearing you.
>> Yeah. No, I'm excited. Hope we get some good calls today.
>> I I suspect we'll we'll get some uh for those who haven't watched the evangelicals yet. Um we are not just doing I mean obviously we're happy to talk about atheism but the goal of the show is to really get to talk about um the Christian religion. Um we would say even uh deconstructing the religion uh digging into the beliefs, the history, the biblical text. Uh getting to discuss with believers and even non-believers about uh what parts make sense, what parts don't make sense and you know whether or not the thing is even true.
Because I think at the end of the day, most people, and I know it's not everybody, most people are really concerned of whether or not it's true.
Not just like whether or not people like it. Like even if you like the religion, like thinker, if you liked, you know, Christianity, but you knew it wasn't true, what would you still be motivated to be part of it?
>> No.
>> No.
>> Me neither.
>> Like to be part of the community like if I like the people?
>> To be part of the religion?
>> No.
>> Okay. If I liked it, would I still be motivated to be part of even Yes. If I liked it, >> if I liked it and I knew it wasn't true, >> would I be motivated to still be part of the religion?
>> To be part of the community, yes. Not the religion. I couldn't promote something that I knew wasn't true as truth.
>> Does that make sense? Yeah.
>> But I I would still hang around the people, you know, at the church and I just be like, I just like y'all. I'm just here for y'all. But there was a guy on live today who literally said that like he listens to our lives and he said that we're all like believers guilty pleasure cuz we say things that believers can't.
>> Yeah.
>> And he said that he said he knows it's not true >> and he said that believers are gaslighting themselves and they have to.
But he said that he is he said he he knows that what's in the Bible isn't true, but he does believe that God exists and he believes hell is real. And so he said he still believes he still is a Christian because he doesn't want to go to hell. So he kind of keeps it as like fire insurance.
That's what Jesus is. Literally Revelation says you're neither hot nor cold. I'd rather you be hot or cold.
Therefore, I'll spit you out of my mouth. But this guy's like, "Well, I need that fire insurance." And it's like, okay, so you don't want to go to hell, but you do think getting spit out of Jesus's mouth is going to be a good time. All right.
>> Right.
>> I don't think that people realize this, but in Christianity, there's no middle ground. You can't be neutral. That's why Jesus, you know, says, "He who is not with me is against me. He who doesn't sow scatters." Oh. Which means you're either on this team or you're the enemy.
You're done. Mhm. But which is interesting because so many Christians are say that they are sinners because Paul has them thinking that it's okay to be a sinner and that grace allows, you know, them to sin and and still go to heaven. But when you tell them that Jesus was like, "No, that ain't going to work." And they like but Paul said like it's interesting how they can negate what Jesus said and take Paul what Paul said. It's all very confusing because well as you already know because of the many um contradictions right there's so many contradictions where uh you know there's only one unforgivable sin except for you know Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and then also I think there's one in Philippians perhaps uh lists all these sins like hey if you do these hey guess what you don't get to inherit the kingdom like wait a minute I thought you said that those sins are forgivable which isn't >> yeah well they you know the unforgivable sin is now forgivable today. Right.
>> Well, there's some divided opinions on the unforgivable sin. But I my opinion is that I don't think you could actually commit it. I think it was a a very specific thing that could only be committed while Jesus was on the earth.
>> Oh, really? But because we've been trying to commit it and now >> I've been doing my best, >> man. And now they done changed the rules and they're like, "Jesus still loves you even though you've, you know, blasphemed the Holy Spirit." So, I don't know.
Think we never going to get away from it.
>> We might not be able to. I If somebody has blasphemed the Holy Spirit, I I think I would count as one of them.
>> Yeah, >> that's just my opinion.
>> I think I would, too.
>> Nevertheless, hey, we've got a a caller here in the queue. Uh Jason who wants I didn't say if they're a believer or not but wants to talk about Isaiah 7:14 from a Hebrew perspective. It it could be um our buddy Jason who's like actually a Hebrew teacher or it could be somebody else. I don't know. Uh Jason uh there is a Jason in the community that is a Hebrew uh teacher that's pretty well known. But let me uh let me bring up Jason and see what we got here.
All right. Jason should be on. How you doing Jason? Are you Well, I don't have to ask if you're at least 18. This is a different show. Jason, what do you what do you want to get into with Isaiah 7:14 with Thinker and I?
>> Yeah. Uh, well, first, how are you guys doing?
>> Doing good. How are you?
>> Good, good. Uh, I'm a I'm an atheist.
Sorry. But uh sorry to break your guys' hearts about that, but uh I wanted to ask because I started learning Hebrew not too long ago and I was like revisiting some old apologetics based on the Hebrew u for Isaiah 7:14 >> and like in that verse you have halma har and I think like the the nail in the coffin is harah because >> it's pretty clearly being used as a adjective and not a verb because if it was a verb it'd be qual perfect and it'd be masculine. So, it like doesn't really make any sense to be ascribing it to the Alma.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I looked it up to see if there's ever any cases that were like that.
>> And I and I could be way off because I'm only just now learning, but in Judges 13.
>> Yep.
>> In verses like 25, five, and seven, an angel comes down.
>> Yeah. And it calls her Varote in in the second verse like she will conceive. and then like a second later, just like a sentence later, calls her harrah in verse 5 and seven. Uh, and so I didn't know what was happening there or how it worked and if there was like some little precedent that maybe someone could sneak in that same thing for uh for Isaiah 7:14.
>> Yeah. So, this is actually a really interesting passage because like I would say there's a big divide between like the Christian community and like the academic community. The academic community largely sees the the passage in Judges 13 as her getting pregnant in that moment.
>> So she she becomes with child in that moment.
>> Does that make sense?
>> That's really interesting. I thought that would be like the craziest way to take cuz I considered that like right then and there >> she was going to be pregnant then she became pregnant. But that that's really what they see happening in the text.
That's what they see happening in a text and it actually matches the grammar like that it it is like just what it says in the text, right? And so if you're a Christian, you're like, well, that doesn't, you know, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Like when it says that you shall conceive, you're like, well, what's that supposed to mean, right? That is she going to go uh do some something with uh with her husband and then conceive? Like what are we talking about here? Uh, a lot of scholars like, "No, it's it's just like a miraculous birth, like a like a like the Holy Spirit having Mary conceive."
>> That's interesting. When I was on uh Safaria, which you actually put me on to, it's such a good website. Um, but I was looking at it and the translation, I'm pretty sure it said uh in Judges that it it it translates it all the all the mentions of Harah as uh future tense uh instead of of being like that. Does it do that in the NRSVE too or or what do they do?
>> So, in the NRSV it should say something like you will conceive. That's probably how they're going to translate it. But this is a translation that's I I'll double check. I got it here. That's a translation that's largely borne out, I would say, on tradition rather than on real grammar and largely based on what you think the story is telling. like what you think the story is saying, right? So, um let me go to 13 here in uh the NRSV. This is the NRSV standard, not the updated edition. Uh and I think it's verse 7, right? So, it's going to say uh you shall conceive and bear a son. And there's probably not going to be a note on here um for that particular translation. It says Samson's mother only perceived this to be a divine being, not an angel of the Lord himself.
The Hebrew allows for the possibility that this angel has fathered Samson.
>> But isn't uh isn't the word for um isn't um uh vaat um isn't that in like perfect tense to denote that that has already happened.
>> Yes, exactly. Which is why the author in the Oxford Bible agrees with me. They're saying this reads as though she is pregnant in that moment or has become pregnant already because har is is not a verb. It's an adjective here.
>> So what it really says is uh to me behold, right? So uh behold uh pregnant it'd be actually it's we can explain it' be you are pregnant for this particular instance and bearing a child or with child >> orain but >> yeah so so verse five and seven she's already like basically miraculously conceived this child but then back in verse two that still uh preconception or no which one was it?
>> Well, >> sorry.
>> So, the story is a little bit ambiguous, right? Because it there's details that would have been helpful, but says there was a man of uh Zorah, the tribe of the Danites, whose name was Manoah. His wife was barren. So, that's past tense. Wife was barren, having borne no children.
Okay. So, she currently doesn't have any children. uh probably because she's barren. And it said which they thought was a spiritual uh situation. God was preventing you from conceiving. Says uh the angel showed up to the woman says, "Although you are barren, having borne no children, you are pregnant and shall bear a son is what it probably should say. Pregnant and bearing a son."
>> Yeah.
>> Because >> that's in uh perfect tense too, right?
Perfective cow.
>> Yep. Which is why His next thing is be careful not to drink wine or strong drink or or eat anything unclean for you. It says shall conceive and bear a son, but actually shouldn't say conceive. It says it should say something akin to you are with child and uh bearing a son. In fact, this should be verse five. Let me go back to five and make sure it is imperfect.
>> It is.
>> It is still imperfect. Yeah. So my reading of this and it agrees with the Oxford Bible is um that she is she has already pregnant as this angel either she was pregnant before the angel uh got there and just didn't know it or the angel conceived the baby in her just like um the Holy Spirit hovered over Mary or came upon Mary and then she conceived.
>> Mhm. Can you uh sorry like can you parse uh verse three like vajarote what what uh can you parse that verb for me because I don't know like is is that an imperfect or is that uh like what's happening there I guess >> let me pull it up here real quick. Uh so we got the angel appearing to the woman.
Oh it's okay.
>> Vaharit somehow >> you say vajarit or is that what you're looking for?
Oh, it's that like the it's like the third to last.
>> It should be perfect. So, um it if it's going to be if it's going to be um imperfect, it typically is going to start with like a um a tav for for you.
>> Yeah.
>> U but because it's got a vav consecutive, you actually have a perfect form, but is going to be translated imperfect, which makes it a little bit uh difficult. So it's actually a vav conjunctive perfect which typically would be translated as something akin to you shall uh conceive and bear. So in verse three in this particular instance uh it says you shall conceive and then two verses later it says that she has conceived which is why I was saying it sounds like she conceives while the angel is there.
>> Yeah that's that's pretty cool. Well, I didn't know that. My uh my SBL doesn't doesn't mention any of that. So, hopefully when my uh NASB comes in, I'll be I'll have all the all the the real notes. You know what I mean?
>> It's a wild one. Um and it's funny because people, if you're just reading it in English, they don't really catch any of this. Uh but this has been pretty well known uh to scholars of the of the Hebrew Bible for a long time because this story of Samson mirrors really well like other stories from uh from the time period of like um miraculous uh divine births. I'm trying to think uh which deity is specifically there's a it's supposed to be mimicking one of the stories of Shemesh Shemesh or Shamash is the same deity but it's like a a solar deity uh from the ancient near east and you you can see why this would be interesting because as it turns out uh Samson's name is actually really really close to the name Sheamesh and so there's there's definitely some uh let's say >> there seems to be some crossover over with the story of Samson and one of the other, you know, ancient Neareastern stories of, you know, of the sun deity.
Um, let me grab the Hebrew spelling of Samson, though, to see where the uh the similarity lies. So, yeah. Yeah. So, it's the root word Sheamesh. Uh, and then it just literally has um a holv and a a final noon at the end of it. So the root word of his name is literally shemesh the sun god.
>> Interesting. That's really interesting.
>> Yeah, it's >> all right. Well, that's pretty much it for me. I really appreciate this uh breakdown. It's been uh extremely informative.
>> Yeah, sure thing. It was it was a really good question. If you're studying Isaiah, if you're a Christian and you're studying Isaiah, you might be inclined to turn to uh Judges and be like, "Ah, smoking gun. Look, the grammar in Judges demands that it be translated differently." Actually, it doesn't. The grammar didn't change. The grammar is still the grammar. Uh what needs to actually change is your dogmatic reading of the book of Judges that are based on your beliefs, not based on the text.
Yeah, exactly. All right. Well, uh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Justin.
Uh, you guys have a good day and a good rest of the stream.
>> Thank you.
>> I sure thing.
>> Have a good one. Um, there is a write up, if I remember correctly, on uh the Torah.com website um on this particular uh situation with Samson being compared to a solar deity.
It's been a long time since I read it, but it's it's pretty interesting. It's there's a lot of crossover.
>> Interesting.
>> Yeah.
But it's fun. Like thinker, you've probably heard now apologists talk about this idea that well, especially in Isaiah, you've got this prophetic perfect. And that's why we can like ignore the grammar in uh like Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 9 and like actually it's about a future individual. It must be Jesus. And they're like, "It's the prophetic perfect."
>> You get Christians that come in here talking about prophetic perfects.
>> Yeah, it's pretty embarrassing.
>> Never have I ever had that that conversation. So, wait, what are they trying to say? They so they look at the what the blue letter Bible to see what >> so the general idea is like in a lot of the English translations you'll you'll find they'll translate uh perfect words in verbs as future uh verbs and they're like well that's because there's such there's a piece of grammar called the prophetic perfect where they talk about things in the past >> yeah yeah even though it even though it's happening in the future And like it sounds compelling because I'm like look if you read like Rashi Rashi mentions this thing that could be called a prophetic perfect so it must be real. Well the reality is there's no such thing as a prophetic perfect. Rashi uh didn't actually say that that was a thing. He's saying that it could be a thing. Uh and it's basically rejected by the wider Hebrew community. And the reality is the only reason you would do that is if there were say um promises or things in the text that you either didn't understand. It's like well it must be perfect. It must be a future because it didn't happen. Um or you just don't understand what is actually the context. And so that's why you see people like well I it doesn't make sense to me if it's in the perfect form so it must be a prediction for the future. U so like Isaiah 9 is a classic where it says unto us a child has been born u given to us so on and so forth like well obviously it's about the future uh king Jesus the Messiah it's obviously messianic so and the Messiah wasn't there yet so it means it had to been for the future like I'm sorry that's that's just your dogmatic belief you don't get to change grammar just because the thing didn't happen the way you expected >> I will say in their defense of this belief system they have a vivid imagination and they come up with the wildest things. A prophetic perfect. And it took a minute for my mind to register what you were saying cuz I'm thinking you're in my mind I hear uh like uh vow consecutive per third person perfect and like that's what I'm thinking.
But you were saying prophetic perfect the whole time. Like oh my gosh they come up with the wildest stuff.
>> That is insane. That's why I was shocked cuz I'm like wait you get Christians coming to talk to you about >> oh >> there's over there cranking the copium up to like 20. Let me get this going.
It's bad.
>> Wow.
>> I have to remind people that especially Christians some of the fanciful u Jewish interpretations of these passages are doing the same thing Christians are doing. They're saying, "Listen, if I read it for what it says, I don't like what it says. So, I need to change the meaning somehow." Right? And the the people in um the Jewish religion are not immune to that. I mean, Christians do it way more than uh uh our Jewish friends, but um they're not immune. They they do it, too, because they want it to be true, right? So, you're >> right. Yeah.
>> Kind of compelled.
I I saw you uh one time with Rebana.
I feel like whenever anytime I try to do like the with Rebana, I saw you um on live and you somebody was using uh Rashi's arguments in a conversation with you. Uh do you know what I'm talking about? What conversation?
>> Yeah, it was a couple weeks ago, I think.
>> Mhm. Yeah. And it's like they'd say I think he was trying to say that uh I forgot what his argument was but it's so much um of well a rabbi is saying it therefore it is true therefore you you can't uh dispute what a rabbi say it's their word. And I'm like hold on you're you're now wanting to say that the the Hebrew scriptures belong to the Jewish people like now now you you know what I'm saying? He's like, "They're on our side now."
>> Cuz Rabbi uh Rabbi uh Rashi said so.
Like I was like, "Fuck in the world."
>> Well, that's my my biggest confusion with a lot of the people who they've become familiar with like the the Talmid and they realize that it existed.
>> Uh and they'll say, "Well, look, this Jewish rabbi here says X, Y, and Z." And I'm like, "Okay, congrats. But like, uh, why do I care? Because there's a Jewish rabbi over here who disagrees. Right?
You can't just find one person you like and say, "Oh, well, he's Jewish. His interpretation must be correct." That's like saying, "Well, my pastor says it's true, so it must be true." That's that's not how that works. You don't get to just find one person in a community that agrees with you and then say, "Oh, well, that's it now." Because if that was such an authoritative opinion within Judaism for 2,000 years, then Jesus wouldn't have been crucified, >> right? And and that I think that's the thing too like we were told never to read those uh to read the Talmud or any other text but I think because they're just now allowing themselves to venture into that or we're pushing them to it because they have no choice but to like uh step to venture out and start uh studying other texts that were written by the the Hebrews. they they don't understand that some of the writings or the um interpretations that are in the Talmud, some of them are more modern because they're going to safaria.org and and just clicking anywhere and saying this is what the Jewish people think and they they're not taking into consideration one that these are different traditions from different rabbis and they're kind of arguing with each other, right?
And then some of this stuff is more modern interpretations and they they don't look at that. They just start quoting it as fact. Um and and like I think they just go right there looking for something that um fits whatever argument they're trying to prove at that point.
>> Right. Yeah. Well, it's um it's kind of like you've seen it before like quote mining, right? where people are like, "Listen, I need somebody with authority to say something that reinforces my opinion. So, I'm going to go and search whatever database, YouTube, chat, GPT that I need to find a scholar that says what I say, >> and then I'm just going to use that and ignore all of the rest of the scholarship." It's just it's like another version of quote mining.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, that's true.
>> You've probably seen it. It happens a lot with uh people like Inspiring Philosophy. He he did go to school for philosophy and they taught him how to do real research there. But the problem is when he does apologetics, he doesn't do any real research. He just goes and tries to like quote mine scholars while ignoring typically what they actually believe and ignoring the broader community because it's, you know, it's not really about what's true. It's about how can I defend my opinion and hope that nobody can check me on it because a scholar said it, right?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Uh I don't know who is Inspiring Philosophy. Is he on Tik Tok or I don't know.
>> Um I think he started initially on YouTube. He's got a pretty big following on Tik Tok as well. But one of the things that he he does is he does do a lot of debates, but he also does a lot of videos of like trying to I don't know use like science and archaeology to verify the the Bible. But the problem is uh he has no credentials in biblical studies. He doesn't understand the language or the culture. Um, he's just learned how to find academic resources and quote mine them. So, he sounds authoritative. He's, you know, >> he just doesn't actually know what he's talking about.
>> He's trying to use science to verify the Bible. That's interesting.
>> Yeah, it's it Well, I mean, yeah, because it's impossible.
>> It's great.
>> Uh, it doesn't really work out that well. So, science doesn't actually verify the Bible.
>> Right.
It's amazing what uh believers will believe, though. I I saw a video uh on the FIP the other day where a lady was reading the story of Daniel in the lion's den and she was like falling all over herself laughing. She's like, "The Bible was so funny."
And then she goes, "Daniel was in the lion's den and he was hungry." And the angel came and told Hab, she got she said Habaca. But my brain is going to say it right even though she said it wrong. I I'm I She said um the the angel went and told Habacook, "Go and take Daniel a bowl of soup." And Habacook said, "I don't know where Daniel is."
And she said that angel walked down there and grab uh grabbed Habacook by his hair and drug him and said, "You going to feed my boy." I'm like and she's like falling all over herself laughing and I'm like this this is this like this is the what we dealing with like this is the stuff that's keeping them attached to it.
>> Huh?
>> It's the best they got.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, I mean you were in church for a long time. Uh well before we continue, friends, we are taking calls. If you're a believer or non-believer, you're welcome to call in. It's uh 720-619-2288.
Um we do prioritize non-believers uh because we do want robust dialogue on the topics. Uh but if you're u an atheist or a previous believer or a non-believer, you're welcome to call in and ask questions. Uh Thinker and I have been in the biblical text for a very long time. And uh Thinker, you are um are you in your second semester of Hebrew now?
>> Fifth. getting ready to start our fifth semester. He bro >> Oh [ __ ] Wait, are how long are you guys' semesters?
>> Uh 3 months. Three months each.
>> Oh dang. Oh damn. My my internal clock is way off.
>> Yeah, we're coming back off a break.
>> Oh goodness. That's fun. Um I assume you're having a good time with it.
>> Oh, I love it. I love it. It's It's such a flex now.
>> It does help to be fair.
>> No flags. So, Huh.
>> It certainly does help.
>> Mhm. Yeah. I I I'm not as fluent. Uh and then because I don't really have many people that I can study with and and do the word recall. Um I have to like go really really slow when I'm trying to remember what a word means cuz I don't use it every day. But there's multiple people in the community taking first semester Hebrew right now. So once they get done, then we'll be able to do some studying together and we'll be able to recall. But um going into fifth semester is reading um uh like a the entire uh literature.
Um yeah, >> it should be fun. I think the the one we did first when I was in seminary is they had us translate all of uh Jonah and it was a short book. It you know it's only like the four chapters so it was it was like a really good exercise. Um but once you get once you get out of junior like these books get really big.
>> Yeah. Dr. B gave us nine verses. Okay.
First off he didn't tell me I didn't have to parse each word.
So, he gave us he gave us nine verses and I'm translating each verse and parsing each verb and um I'm talking about pages and pages and pages and pages. He was like, "I didn't want you to do all of that." So, I'm really good at parsing verbs now.
>> It's good exercise.
>> Mhm.
>> Yeah.
when um when I I'm not sure what your process was like, but when I was in school, our my first Hebrew professor was kind of a stickler. He was like a math teacher that was like, "You always have to show your work." So, when we did our translations, we had to we had to parse every verb, decline every noun, and it was like a whole thing. Um but it probably in the long run was good for us. It forced us to really do every single piece, you know.
>> Mhm. Yeah. It it it's definitely a lot of writing because I like I like to write mine down and and do it. Um but see because there's multiple people in the class, each one of us would get one verse and we would just parse that one verse. But I did all nine >> and then I did that.
>> You're always the overachiever, aren't you?
>> It was a lot of work.
>> I understand. that I enjoy.
>> Have you found anything that jumped out at you now that you're getting to read some of the stuff in the original languages? Like there are stories that feel like they're starting to come to life a little bit more.
>> Yeah. Um it was one I I can't think of it right now cuz my um when we have a call cuz God helped somebody named Bert um that I think we need to talk to. But I I can't think right now. But there it is something that I want to talk to you about because it what I saw in the it's a a quote of the Hebrew scriptures in the New Testament, but the way the church rewarded it. I have to go to my notes, but I did find something. Um, and I I'll we'll we'll talk about it.
>> Sure. Sure. Sure. Well, I think we've got Bert in the queue and then someone after Bert, so we we can pull up Bert and then we'll get our next caller after that.
I go. Hey, you're on Deep Vanocals with Thinker and Justin. How you doing?
>> I'm good. How are you?
>> I'm doing well. Thanks for asking.
>> Hi there.
>> Your your prompt says God is real and he helped you and um that's certainly fine.
>> What do you think I realize you had a personal experience with God? What do you think would be a good reason to believe in the God? Because like obviously we can't have access to your personal experience, right? So for us, your personal experience doesn't really mean a whole lot.
>> Well, I think if you heard it, you would be agreeing with me because it it was quite the experience, you know.
>> Well, for you, not for us. We weren't there. We have no way to verify that what you're about to tell us ever happened.
I mean, yeah, I guess you couldn't verify, which is very unfortunate because it's it's a great story, you know. Uh, I guess if you wanted to >> quantify or whatever word you want to use, you know, uh, I'd say that the caliber of just how great this act was is sort of consistent with the things he do in the Bible. And if you ever read the Bible, which I haven't, um it's it's really it consists of a lot of great stuff, you know.
>> So, you haven't read the Bible, but there's stuff in it that you know about and some of it great stuff.
>> Well, yes. And it also is consistent with my story, you know.
>> Sure. How how do you know what's in the Bible if you didn't read it?
Well, that that's the thing, though, is that you got to believe >> in what you didn't read.
>> I mean, you want to put it like that, but I'm not wrong.
>> Well, what I'm saying is if you're telling me you have not read the Bible, it just is weird that you would want to tell us what's in it.
>> Well, I think I have a pretty good belief of what's in it, you know. Sure.
Uh, what's like the first five books?
>> The first five books.
>> Yeah, >> I know one of them is Genesis, Revelations. I don't know them in any order. Um, but Okay, can I just say my story? I feel like we're getting off track.
>> You know what?
Our next caller is not done with the screening, so go ahead. Tell us your story.
All right. So, this is my story. My story is that I have two beautiful children. One of them is named uh his name is Ferguson, who I don't really like that much. And the other one is named Greg. Now, Greg Oh, sorry.
>> Okay. Greg, right?
>> Greg is >> Yeah, I hung up on him the second he said he doesn't like his son. That was >> Yeah, that's a that's a no-go.
Um well um either he's a troll or um # pray for Greg.
>> Yeah, he's a troll.
>> Yeah, got to be a troll. Genesis Revelation.
>> I wouldn't say very convincing, >> but Daniel, who was uh previously in the queue, is now um ready to be pulled in, wants to talk about TAG, which we've never heard uh tag before, so I'm sure this will be uh delightful. But uh Daniel, welcome to the Evangelicals with Thinker and Justin. How you doing?
>> How you doing?
>> Doing well.
>> I'm doing good.
Yeah, I was just uh looking to make an argument from transcendentals.
>> Okay. Yeah, this was my first question.
Go ahead. What's your What's your argument? Is it formal? Do you need to write it down or or not?
>> No, no, you don't need to if you don't want to.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> I was just going to give my perspective and see what yall thought about it.
>> Sure.
>> Um well, it's not really so much an argument as a position. And I would posit that if we have transcendentals, things like mathematics and morality and things that are subjective, then we would have to we'd have to have a subjective standard, right?
>> You mean objective standard, right?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. Sorry, I don't know why I said subjective.
>> Okay. So, >> for example, how do you have a an objective moral standard without a a a transcendent source?
So I don't and you know I don't want to speak for thinker but I have no reason to believe that there are objective morals. Why would we think that?
>> Well I would say that that's actually consistent given your position.
>> No it's not.
>> I would say it is consistent.
>> Well my position is that there's no such thing as objective morals.
>> Right. I would say that's consistent given atheism.
>> Yeah. Not existing. That's why I asked you what would be a reason to believe that objective morals do exist.
>> Well, cuz you Well, because you Well, it's not just with morals. I mean, what about mathematics? They're objective.
>> Uh, I don't believe so. I don't think mathematics is a thing that exists on its own. It's not like a platonic form.
It I don't even believe in platonism.
So, that's right out the window. So, why would mathematics has its own ontology?
>> Well, because you can't do it any other way than what we have.
>> But we invented it. That's why we we invented a language called that describes how numbers work. Like we invented it, >> right? But the numbers are still not just attached to the symbols.
>> They don't exist. We invented them.
>> No, if we invented them, then it wouldn't work.
>> Yeah, it wouldn't.
>> Look at it this way.
>> We defined what they are.
>> If you if you're building a skyscraper, can you use incorrect mathematics and have the skyscraper come out correctly?
>> You can do anything you want to. You could measure it in squares. You can measure it in cubits. Uh you can measure it in >> mathematics. Yeah, because we defined it. We define quantities.
>> Can Can I clarify just a little bit what I mean?
>> I know exactly what you mean. I just don't think you're going to say anything that would demonstrate the validity of your belief system.
>> Well, well, it's not just about belief system. It's Well, it is. is it's honestly how we observe evidence is going to be based on our epistemology and how we view the world and all kinds of things like that.
>> Mhm.
>> So if we have mathematics, you can't say 2+ 2 is five or it won't work. It doesn't work mathematically.
>> Well, you wouldn't be able to say 2 plus two because because two is a math word that we invented. So you're right. If we didn't invent math, you wouldn't say 2 plus two because two wouldn't exist.
No, no, no. That's not what I mean. What I mean is, look, if you're building a helicopter and you're using math to build it, >> the math exists outside of the symbols we assigned to it.
>> It does not.
>> It has to because the math it can't work anywhere you put it.
>> It does. Yeah. Uh the same way like just cuz we can use the word chair to represent a chair doesn't mean there's some transcendental chair out there. A chair is literally just a word describing when we put certain pieces of wood together >> or you know >> I understand that that's not what I'm saying though.
>> What I'm saying is if you're you're doing like proportions on something let's say and you're measuring angles.
Okay. If you do it wrong, if you use the incorrect numbers or patterns, you're not going to get the correct thing.
>> The the correct number is what you've defined to be that number.
>> No, it's just a symbol that's assigned to something transcendental. That's what I'm saying.
>> It's No, it's it's assigned to something that you've defined.
>> No, no, no, no, no, no. That's not correct.
>> Yeah, it is definitely correct. Yeah.
>> No, that is not correct. Mathematics are not subjective.
>> It's uh Yeah, it mathematics is defined by humans. That makes it subjective.
>> The symbols are, but not the mathematics themselves.
>> There's no mathematics out there. If I'm if I'm working out a math problem, >> symbols are describing ideas that human beings invented.
>> No, cuz mathematics actually works. It's not something that >> I know it works. Yeah, I know. I know it works the same way like language works because it's a language.
>> No, that's not the same thing because language also has transcendentals attached to it.
>> No, it doesn't.
>> Yes, it does. When you when you use a word, you're describing a concept or you're >> Okay.
>> Concepts. I don't know what to tell you.
transcendental.
>> No, I'm saying there's a transcendental existence outside. The the words are just symbols we're using to describe something that that were real. For example, I'm describing a concept in your understanding.
>> We have no way of demonstrating it.
>> I just did. If you try to build a skyscraper and you use all kinds of weird math that doesn't work, the skyscraper is not going to work.
>> It it actually, you know, you can build a skyscraper without doing any of the type of math you are thinking about, right?
I >> you can define numbers any way you want to as long as you're doing something consistently. As long as you're capable of identifying quantities, you can you can build something. And the reality is a quantity is an idea, not a transcendental existence.
>> Well, no, it's not just an idea because if you do it wrong, it's going to turn out wrong. No, >> it doesn't matter. It's not there's nothing wrong about it. A quantity is what you defined. So if you're saying a quantity, the quantity of two is whatever this uh well yeah, you can do it wrong if not everybody is using the same symbol for two. Yeah, congrats.
>> No, because if one person says that 2 plus 3 is six, that doesn't make it true.
>> Well, there you go. You just got it.
Yeah, because we already defined the >> if a million people said that, then it wouldn't mean that either. If everyone in the world said two, it wouldn't be true.
uh it wouldn't be true because now you have competing quantity uh definitions.
That's the problem. It's not because it's outside the symbol.
>> It's no, you'd be wrong.
>> The problem that you're having is you don't understand what's happening in math, right? We defined we gave a word to what we call the quantity of two is, right? Which means if everybody says two is, you know, 1 plus 1 or whatever and then somebody else comes along and says actually no, this says actually this is two. Well, that means that you're not going to get to the goal because you haven't actually agreed on what the quantity is. It's not that somebody's doing math wrong. It's that you actually all have to agree on what the quantities are, >> right? But we don't all agree.
>> Yeah, we do.
Well, on math maybe, but not on everything. For example, morals. Some people believe they're objective.
>> Well, yeah, but you can't demonstrate that they are objective. In fact, even in your world, they're not objective.
You think that morals came from God, which makes them subjective.
>> No, God is the objective standard.
That's my whole argument.
>> Nope. That's not what morals means.
Object. Well, that's not how that works.
You can say that God You can say that God grounds morals, but that doesn't make them objective.
It would if God is the creator of the morals and the standard. Yeah.
>> No, it wouldn't. Look up the definition of a you should look up the definition of objective because you now you're misusing it. To say that something is existing objectively means that it's not dependent on a mind or um say uh some sort of thought process to create it.
>> Let's just use the word if you're God.
Listen, let's just use the word ground.
Daniel, do do you want me to interrupt you or no? because >> you have I haven't even been able to get the idea about mathematics out.
>> I was three seconds from finishing my sentence and it would be helpful for you to respond to what I'm saying rather than pivoting to your next talking point.
>> So if your god decided what morals are going to be then what that means is they're subjective. Something that's subjective like morals means that they are dependent on a mind creating them.
And your god has a mind and it created morals which means they're subjective.
>> No, we wouldn't say we wouldn't say that he created morals. He's the objective standard of them.
>> What a moral is a moral. A moral doesn't have an objective standard other than another moral.
>> You do realize my argument is not that God created these things is that they proceed from him >> from his existence.
>> How does a moral proceed from an existence?
from God's existence.
>> How? Yeah. Define that legit >> because they're the standard. That's the whole argument of transcendentals.
>> No, they're not the standard. God's the standard.
>> God is not the standard. The things that are a part of God's nature.
>> God's not the moral standard. What What do you think a nature is? Cuz now you're doing a >> Well, the nature is not the person.
>> Now you're doing a logical fallacy.
You're trying to turn a description into a concrete. So nature, the word nature just refineses to a set of characteristics or values. Nature is not a thing from a nature.
>> Well, it it certainly doesn't refer to a noun.
>> So you can't proceed from a nature because a nature isn't describing a noun that anything can proceed from.
>> No, that's not what I'm saying. I don't think you're understanding my argument.
>> That's exactly what he said. thinker.
Did he not just say that morals proceed from God's nature?
>> Yeah, he did say.
>> I did say that. I didn't say I didn't say that.
>> Nothing can proceed from God's nature because God's nature isn't a thing.
>> It Yeah, but in philosophy, nature doesn't have one meaning. It can refer to common or personal attributes.
>> There you go.
>> If we're talking about the actual attributes >> and do attributes birth anything?
>> No, but they're objective. They're a standard. Oh, well, they're not objective, but the question is whether or not they birth things. Do they give life to things? Do they create things?
No.
>> Attributes are descriptions.
Descriptions, nothing proceeds from a description.
>> Correct. Correct.
>> So that means morals don't proceed from God's nature.
>> Okay, let me explain what I mean, please, without being interrupted. Can I explain?
>> Yeah, go ahead.
Okay, if we're talking about something like mathematics, you cannot just do it any way you want to do it. That does not work that way. There's a standard that exists. No, it's not wrong. Do math all [ __ ] up and you'll get a [ __ ] up [ __ ] up thing.
>> What do you think [ __ ] up means?
Because if I invent my own math system and I'm the only one using it, I'll be just fine.
>> If it if it works, if it doesn't, then no, you won't be. If you're saying 3 + 8 = 12 or 13, then no, you won't be.
>> It works because it's consistent. That's the only thing you need for a math system to work is to be consistent with whatever system you've set up.
>> Are you saying that if everybody in the world thought that 10 + 10 was 40, that would mean it was 40?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Because we defined 10.
>> Okay. So then when you came to 40 when you're using something, >> so if you're building something and you need 40, right, which exists and you don't have it, then it doesn't work. If you define 10 + 10 equaling 40, that just means 10 is half of 40. As long as everybody knows that 10 is half of 40, then yes, you can get to the same mathematical work.
>> It is 100% the way mathematic works. If if 10 plus 10, then it just always means that 10 is going to be equal to half of 40.
>> I'll be 100% honest with you. I've never heard anyone say that math is subjective. That's crazy. Well, you haven't been around too long.
>> Yeah. It's It's almost like you're not understanding that.
>> It's not It's almost like you're not understanding that what you are discussing right now is that we created the concept, right? Like the >> I understand that.
>> Well, yeah. And so like when you ask the question everybody in societ Yes, you are. Cuz when you ask the question, if everybody in society thought that 10 + 10 equals 40, right? If we define it that way, >> you would not be able to actually do math anymore.
>> Yes, you can. If that is the concept that was assigned to it, if that was the the label, the >> No, you wouldn't because 40 does not work if you're trying to get 20. You understand what I'm saying?
>> Right. And Apple is an apple, correct?
>> Well, sorry, I muted him for a second.
Um I I didn't think this was difficult.
Right. So right now you're talking about the value of 10 in a system where we get to determine what 10 is which is what thinker is talking about. And now you're bringing 20 into it. We didn't say anything about the number 20. In the system that you've just created the only numbers we know are 10 and 40. We don't know anything about 20. you're injecting a different mathematical system into the new mathematical system that we've just arrived at. That's why it doesn't work is because you're not following the mathematical standard that we're following. Because as thinker said, if we're defining the values of these words, everyone has to be using the same values.
Go ahead, maker.
>> Hello.
No, >> I think that was a good explanation.
Oh. Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to do that.
>> Hello.
>> Did Did you hear what Thinker said?
>> I was saying I think that what how Justin explained it is a a good explanation. Does that make sense now?
>> What Justin >> I understand what you guys are saying.
I've understood that we the concepts we attach to something is going to be how we determine how we use it. I understand that.
Okay.
>> Okay. But that is not the objective reality of mathematics.
>> Yeah, it is.
>> Okay. Whatever then.
>> Sorry.
>> I don't know how to I mean we can't proceed with the conversation if we disagree on basic.
>> As a guy who's done a lot of different kinds of math as an electrical engineer, I'm telling you that mathematics are entirely invented. Okay. So, you start doing them incorrectly and see how good your engineering goes.
>> There's no such thing as incorrect math.
>> Yes, there is. Because if you use incorrect numbers and proportions, you're not going to get the right outcome.
>> Incorrect just means consistent with how >> incorrect just means you're not being consistent with the values that you've assigned to the symbols. That's it.
>> Okay. Well, we're not going to agree because I don't agree that mathematics are are subjective. I'm sorry.
>> Well, maybe you should do some reading.
>> I have I I've I'm in college for philosophy.
>> Well, that that's your first uh thing you did wrong is you're getting a junk degree.
>> Well, I got it because again, I am into philosophy. It's not what I plan on doing for a career.
>> I wouldn't. You're not going to be able to do it as a career unless you want to be a philosophy professor.
>> Well, I'm not looking to. I already have a career.
>> Oh, good.
But that again was not the conversation.
My original conversation was that transcendentals exist outside of the symbols we quite >> clear. I have no reason to believe that a single transcendental exists. Not not numbers, not forms, uh not morals. In fact, in if you >> believe in that, >> you don't believe that morals are objective either. You think that morals somehow come from your god and they don't obviously proceed from God's nature because a nature isn't something that produces anything. It obviously came from your God's mind, which is why your God >> can determine why a moral applies now and why it doesn't apply later. Why a moral applies to this person but not to that person because >> but if he's morals >> to decide that presumably system morals are dependent on your god's mind which makes them subjective.
>> Okay. Even if they are that doesn't I mean what does that do for for your argument?
>> I didn't give you an argument. I'm genuinely curious.
>> Yes. Well, I've heard I'm genuinely curious as to how >> Yes, I know. But if they're subjective, how does that change the reality?
>> Well, reality of what? It just means that you can't use the objective moral, >> mathematics, whatever we're talking about.
>> That's literally that's literally all I'm responding to is the fact that you're saying objective morals need X, Y, and Z, and I don't think objective morals exist. Well, >> I don't think they need it. I think they have it. But they don't >> they don't need anything.
>> They don't exist. Objective morals don't exist.
>> I mean, for example, if morals don't exist, then >> Yeah. I mean, then that's just total nonsense. I mean, how could you make any sort of claim universal claim?
>> Whoa.
>> Because how are you making universal claims with saying that's objective?
That doesn't make >> you did. You said the way that we mathematics is going to determine how our math works. That's a universal claim.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Because it's true.
It's not a moral claim. Are you confusing moral claims with Well, I could just say because mine's true. I mean, I don't >> know the difference between between morals and definitions now.
>> Well, I didn't say anything about definitions.
>> I did. Yeah.
>> The reality is objective morals don't exist. You just want them to exist. And you want them to exist because you want to be able to say, "Listen, I've got an objective moral standard and you don't.
Therefore, I get to tell you about morals. Truly, right? And truly, well, you brought it up, not me. If you don't want to talk about moral, then stop bringing it up. So, the reality is you don't have any subjective morals. That's just an example.
>> Well, they don't.
>> I've already told you I have no reason to believe that any transcendental exists unless you can just like demonstrate that one does exist.
>> Okay? If you're building a square and you use the incorrect proportions, you're not going to get a square.
>> This is right back to the same argument with math. There's no such thing as the incorrect proportion. The only thing is whether or not you are applying.
>> If you're getting 40 and it's longer, what are you talking about?
>> No, that's called being inconsistent with your definition.
>> No, that would just be 20 at that point.
>> No, I didn't say anything about 20. You said 40.
>> I did.
>> Right.
>> Well, you should know.
>> So, even if you're doing 10 + 10 equals 40, you're still getting 20.
>> Well, now you're So, now you're back to the same thing that you didn't understand previously. Listen, if you define 20, I didn't understand it. I'm separating the symbol from the exact obviously doesn't mean the same thing, >> right? Exactly. That's my whole point.
It doesn't matter. But it doesn't mean the same thing symbolically. It's the same thing literally.
>> Every time as long as every time you use the number 10, it is always half of 40.
You're not doing math wrong.
>> Yes, you are. Yes, you absolutely are.
Cuz you're not getting the Cuz you'll get 40.
>> Yeah, you are. cuz you'll get 40, not 20.
>> You You're right. You'll get 40 every time cuz that's half 40 is 10 half of 40. So every So every time you add 10 plus 10, you'll get 40 every single time you do it because you define 10 as half of 40.
>> So if I'm building a driveway and I'm laying out concrete and I need 40 in, let's say, okay, and I do >> let's say let's say I need >> Yes. Exactly. Okay. But you're going to end up with 40, not 20. that you you said 40. You said if I want 40 inches, >> do you have a temporary amnesia? Do you not listen to the words coming out of your mouth?
>> Right. But 10 and 10 don't make 40. They make 20.
>> They do 10 as being >> Okay, I need you to stop yapping 5 seconds and listen because I'm not going to do it a third time. If you define the number 10 as being half of 40, then every time you use 10, it's always going to be half of 40. Which means every time you need 40, you can put two 10 together and get to 40. The number 20 no longer exists.
He hung up or somebody hung up on him.
>> Sounds about right. That's embarrassing to not understand like kindergarten concepts.
>> When I saw the the thing say transcendental argument, I was like, "Oh my gosh."
>> To me, the transcendental argument is like kindergartener's first philosophy uh argument.
Well, and it makes sense like if he's in college, like this is his maybe his first time trying it out.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I think it might have been one of his first.
>> I hope he didn't go to college so that he can argue on TikTok or social media like that YouTube channel.
>> Yeah. Because he said he already had a career which means like this is something he's doing on the side.
>> Oh boy.
Well, >> yeah, >> he'll learn. Uh, we've got uh Peter in the queue, though, who is saying that uh God is real. And um well, I guess we can bring Peter up and see if if that's true. Let's let's bring up Peter and we'll get the next one going.
Welcome, Ben. Peter, you're on Deangals with Thinker and Justin. How you doing?
>> I'm doing great. Thank you for um inviting me here. Um I just want to see what are your uh thoughts and philosophy and different um theories um on different view on who God is.
Okay. And I listen to >> Can you say that again? Your audio is a little bit mumbly and I don't know if I caught all of it.
>> Well, you're on the speaker.
Say what?
>> You hear me now?
>> Can you hear me now?
>> I think this says you're on speaker.
>> Yeah, us being on speaker isn't going to change your microphone. I just need you to maybe get a little closer to your mic.
>> Can you hear me now?
>> We We can hear you the whole time. This is kind of muddy.
>> Okay. Um, well, my phone is a little bit old, so I'll try my best.
>> Sure thing. So are you a believer >> in the like a particular religion or just like a generic god?
>> Um not generic god. I am a believer in a real human that has a soul, has a body, became flesh and dwell among us. Um so I am >> Yes. So I grew up with Baptist >> the Catholic background.
>> I went to a lot of atheists. I've talked to different people from around the world teaching um and talking to most philosophies out there. And so my biggest question which I don't think you could answer or she could answer is >> I'm sure that's the case.
>> Um >> thank you for that. Um is what are you living for and what are you living for?
is true that you're living for >> Did you say what are we living for that is true?
>> That's what I'm hearing. Yeah.
>> Yep. What are you living for?
>> Actually, I think this is the easiest question we're going to hear all day.
Thinker, you want to go first?
>> You're I just want to make sure I understand your question. Did you say what are we living for? That is true. Or are did you make that two different questions? country.
>> Uh there there'll be a second question after this, but I just want your answer on this and theories and some philosophy on this, please.
>> Sure. How what are you defining as true?
>> Sorry, I asked the same I asked the same question.
>> What are you looking for?
>> Yes. I don't want to play around on the I don't want to play around on the definition of true. What are you How are you defining true? It's fake.
>> Fake meaning um something it's real.
Something um it's real. Basically, it's real. Like if I have a drug, okay, and um I don't know what it is for. I can see the drug, but I don't know if that drug is really um like useful or anything like that. I don't know if that drug is really is real until I ask the sud person um who sold me the company and say hey um is this is this the medicine is real now my faith has to be on that person to not to kill me if the person kills me that's on them that's a lot >> this is a this is a a crazy analogy let's try to avoid this bad analogy okay >> so listen Um, I think what Thinker's trying to figure out is when you say true, what do you mean? Because I think we heard the same thing. You asked, "What are we living for that's true?"
And I don't think things have truth values, propositions do. So, I would say like, "Listen, I live uh for uh my son to see a smile on my son's face and to give him the best life possible." That doesn't have a truth value.
>> What do you mean doesn't have a truth value? Are you um >> a truth value is a >> is a is a quantitative uh like >> claim >> tr a truth value is an evaluation.
>> Okay.
>> So my son has existence but he doesn't have truth value.
>> Okay. Is there philosophy behind that answer?
Why does there need a philosophy?
The philosophy is I love my son.
>> Do I do I need a syllogism to tell you why that's the case?
Because hey sir, so I was talking to universal guy who was >> who >> way beyond my league and I asked him I >> heard universal guy right >> in a word he's saying >> like you're muffled really bad.
>> You need to pray to God for a better mic buddy.
>> Okay. Um hey I'm not a Greek and I don't pray to different gods. Okay. Um, so, um, >> who said different gods? I said to your god.
>> So, my god is >> apparently a speaker doesn't work either.
>> If you go through Genesis, can you hear me?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Uh, yeah, we agree. Uh, Genesis is full of nonsense. What about it?
>> So, okay. Open to any beginning. God created the heavens and the earth.
Read that three times.
>> Why >> did he Did he say read it three times?
>> Something like that.
>> Read it three times.
>> Nah, not going to do that.
>> You already said it once. We don't need to do it three times.
>> I'm so confused.
>> We heard it the first time.
>> God created the heavens and the earth.
Without him, nothing that was made that was made by him which that was made through him. So >> that's not Genesis one.
You've literally just mixed up Genesis 1 and John 1.
>> That's throughout the Genesis and John 1, too. I'm going >> That's not in Genesis. That is in John.
You said Genesis.
>> God created the heavens and the earth.
>> Well, I don't think he did. Why would we think that?
>> So, um, I want to ask you that same question.
Why do you think God is the world?
>> Because there's no reason to believe in God at all, much less your God. Your God is a walking contradiction.
>> So I have a question for you though. So what is your god?
>> I don't have a god. This is are >> This person said they were 20. They said they were 20. That's that's preposterous. This person 20. So there's no 20. There's no 20 in God. Okay.
Second of all, >> what?
>> God.
>> Did you just say there's no 20 in God?
>> That's what I heard.
>> I'm sorry.
>> How old are you for real?
>> 20.
>> You're not 20.
>> I have gone to colleges. I've debated with Cliff. Go with Cliff on YouTube.
You definitely haven't debated with with anybody.
>> What's a W2?
W2 is a form >> to do what >> for just a form >> to do what's >> got you. Just checking. So you're not 20. You're not even 18.
>> Oh my goodness. All right, sir. We're not going into W2. Okay, sir. So let's go into >> Well, you're not. I have about every year.
What about you? And who gave me the evidence that I'm not?
>> You just met me talking to me in person.
>> You just did. You just did. By not knowing what a W2 is.
>> You know W2 is. Okay. Tell me.
>> Yeah. It's a tax form.
>> You have to fill it out.
>> Okay. What tax form? What tax form?
>> It's called the W2. I just told you.
>> Okay. Where does that paper come from?
>> From the government. They issue standardized W2 forms.
>> Yeah. Who gives authority to the government?
>> The government is authority by the people in a democracy. It's a representative government.
>> Okay.
>> Say God, >> huh?
>> That's what he was. He's definitely going to say >> God God gives the authority to the government.
>> God gives people the ability to have authority because know why? Because we have a conscience, we have a feeling, we have a soul, we have a body, we can see, touch, smell.
>> How many How many times have you voted?
>> Four times.
>> And you're 20. You voted four times.
>> Okay.
You can laugh all you want. I could laugh at you guys, but that's not that would be nice. Anyways, um so um I voted from different countries. Um um anyways, >> so um >> one one in every state >> that you've lived in.
>> Oh my goodness, you guys are weird.
Okay, >> thinker, I'm sorry. I misunderstood what he was saying because we previously redefined numbers. Uh four is now uh zero.
>> Oh, okay. That makes sense. Yeah, >> that makes sense. That makes >> sense. Yeah. Yeah. Um, and I was listening to that comment. I'm like, "Oh, wow. Uh, that guy was quite correct on zero." I'm like, "0000 Z." I'm like yelling out on a phone 0.
And nobody heard me.
>> Well, now he's just a troll.
>> Anyways, so the main point is what are you living for? What are you actually looking for? Which you haven't answered yet, which is kind of >> already did, >> but >> I told you for my son >> for your son.
>> Does that son >> have a future? And >> I >> a place to go when he grows up.
>> Yeah, that's why I'm doing it.
>> Do you think Do you think that your son will be safe in the next 10 days?
Yes or no?
>> I would imagine so. Unless some maniac like you gets near him.
>> First of all, why would I do that? Second of all, I don't even know any house. Third of all, why would I go to your living person?
That is >> why the [ __ ] you talk about whether or not my son is safe right now. Are you out of your mind?
>> No, I think you're out of your mind because you're only living for your son.
What about the creation testifies who God is?
creation does not testify to anything cuz there's no creation.
>> Why do you think you're not even living?
>> Why? What >> did you just [ __ ] say? 911.
>> No. Are you living?
>> Yeah, I'm alive right now. Thinker. Are you alive?
>> No. Who created you?
>> I'm alive witnessing this. Like, dude, how old are you? 15, 16? How old are you?
>> No way. He's over 15.
>> Honestly, I'm 20 years old. I even talked to the person on the >> and they went to my background data >> background data.
>> You you definitely aren't 20. Anyone over the age of 15 on the internet knows not to hand out background data.
>> I came from from UK.
>> My age. I was from orphanage for 20 years and um >> from where >> I was I was married the patient of every I was came from Ukraine and I was from the orphanage for 20 years.
>> Oh, Ukraine. You said I thought you said UK. I like you are not from the UK. Um although I I I've got friends from Ukraine. You don't have much of Ukrainian accent.
Um >> when did you when did you move to the US?
um uh 2015.
>> So, you've only been here for about 11 years.
>> Mhm.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. So, let's uh let's actually get this we're going to get this back on track because you're you have a really stupid question. I already gave you an answer. It's obviously over your head.
You can't do anything with it. Um so, I'm just going to give you a really basic question. Why would thinker and I think or even be uh moved slightly to think that your god is real?
>> I think uh he's gone. They hung up on him.
>> Oh, call her hung up. Yeah.
>> Okay then. Definitely a troll.
>> Got to be right.
>> Oh, yeah. That there was no way that person was actually 20 or his the questions didn't make sense. They were all over the place.
Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. That was a wild one. Um, but we've got I think we got another call uh loading up in the screen room. We'll get another call in here. Uh, just a second.
Um, figure I I hope that that Peter was a troll. Otherwise, I'm very concerned about people right now.
Oh, I I think they were a a troll lying about their age, but I think what they believe was not part of the troll act.
>> You could be right, actually.
That's kind of depressing.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, I mean, uh, nevertheless, um, it's it's been we're, you know, over an hour into this thing now, and we did hear Look at the trees, basically. Um, I did as as strong as I can withstand the onslaught of the trees and remain an atheist. I assume you're still an atheist.
>> Oh, yeah. I'm still an atheist.
>> Despite the trees.
>> Despite the trees. Yeah.
>> Okay. Okay.
>> Just making sure.
>> If anyone in the audience converts at any time, you can let us know. We won't judge you for it, but we need to know how effective these trees are so we can develop an appropriate argument for it in the future.
I think there's a call. Um, >> yeah, it I was just about to say this person's name is Jason as well, uh, but spelled differently. So, the only real caller we've had so far was Jason.
>> I mean, you don't count You don't count the the transcendental argument or real call.
>> Oh, the tag guy. You're right. What was his name? I already forgot his name.
>> Let's just call him Jason. I don't know.
>> J A Y S N.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> I don't know. Hey, we can make up whatever we want and and it's whatever we >> invent the symbols.
>> Yeah.
>> All right. Well, let's get the other Jason in here. J A Y S I N. And we'll have a conversation. How you doing, Jason? You're on deband with Thinker and Justin.
>> Hi. I'm so excited.
Um, what a dream team.
>> Um, >> I just wanted to say to start off, um, for Thinker, um, I'm always excited to hear that you're you're on any show. So, yeah.
>> Thank you.
>> It's always great.
>> I don't think I don't think anyone in their right mind could get too much of you. So, yeah, >> don't be concerned in that regard.
>> Thank you.
>> Is just here for the eye candy.
Um that's not how I would have listened.
Um, so, uh, yeah, I've I've been really, um, really impressed with, um, the way that you put stuff across, Justin, with making it so clear, um, the the amazing thing that Jesus didn't um, fulfill any of them messiana prophecies and and showing how the things that are that are said to fulfill prophecy either weren't prophecies or, you know, um I I I just kind of bluffed. Um but I wondered and and I may be asking for something you've you've already done, but um I've heard more of more of you sort of refuting what's said in the New Testament rather than actually uh talking about what the actual prophecies were that that um Jesus failed um to to fulfill. So, um, if it's not too much of a of a repetition, if you don't mind going into that a little bit, that would be great to hear.
>> Yeah, I don't mind. Um, I think Thinker and I probably would be pulling from a lot of the same passages, but you're welcome to add to some of my list. uh thinker. I I would typically go to um Isaiah 2, Isaiah 11, Micah chapter 4 through5 and then Jeremiah uh 23, Jeremiah 33, Ezekiel 36 and 37, and then Ezekiel chapter 40 all the way to the end of the book. And then there's some stuff like in Zechariah chapter 8 that's really good. Um, and then even I would say like a lot of third Isaiah, but let let me just go to a couple of them to kind of illustrate what what the expectation should have been and then I'll I'll let uh >> pop in.
But in uh oops, wrong button. Let's see.
>> Ezekiel 36 through 37. All right, pull them up here. Uh, so in Isaiah 2, we get like a pretty um stock image of like what to expect in like the the time of world peace. In the days to come, the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and it shall be raised above the hills. All the nations shall stream to it. This is the same thing it says in Zechariah 8. Many people shall come and say, "Come, let us go to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways, and walk in his path.
For out of Zion shall go forth instruction in the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between many nations and arbitrate for many people.
They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks and nation shall not lift up sword against nation. Neither shall they learn war anymore. Uh and then it talks about the in gathering uh of the people in like the parallel passage in chapter 11.
So, if you go to Isaiah 11, you hear kind of some of the the same stuff uh that we heard in uh Isaiah chapter 2. Uh let me grab Isaiah 11 real quick, except I would say they kind of expound on it.
Says, "A chute shall come out from the stump of Jesse. A branch grow out of it roots." This is like a messianic lineage. The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding. So on and so forth. And then verse six, the wolf will lie down with the lamb. The leopard will lie down with the kid. the calf and the lion will feed together. So now we get this idea of like world peace. Um it says they will not hurt or destroy on my holy mountain for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the people. The nations shall inquire of him and his dwelling shall be glorious. And then talks about the in gathering of all the people. And this gets uh repeated in Micah chapter 4. So in Micah chapter 5 when it talks about the one of peace that one of peace as described in the prior chapter in the days to come the mountain of the Lord's people I'm sorry the mountain of the Lord's temple shall be established as the highest of the mountains and shall be raised up above the hills and people shall stream to it.
Many nations shall come and say it basically is literally just quoting Isaiah here and it talks about this time of of world peace where everybody will know the name of the Lord. And then the the other two uh places that I think are pretty obvious is Jeremiah 33 where it talks about the restoration of Israel and then it talks about the king. It says, "The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous branch to spring up for David.
He shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In those days, Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety." So this is a rescuing of the people. It says uh verse 17, thus sayeth the Lord, David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel. And the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to make grain offerings, and to make sacrifices for all time. And so this is like an establishment of the Levitical priesthood as well. And then we see more of that in Ezekiel 36 and 37. And in Ezekiel 36, it talks about how God's going to replace the hearts of the people and then they're finally going to obey the Lord and then he's going to restore all of their fortunes. And then 37 is a long metaphor about that restoration that ends in verse 24 through 28. My servant David shall be king over them. They shall have one shepherd. They shall follow my ordinances and be careful to observe my statutes. They shall live in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob in which your ancestors lived. and they they and their children and their children's children shall live there forever and my servant David shall be their prince forever and I will make a covenant of peace with them so on and so forth. So the the general idea is that everyone's coming back to the land. There's going to be kings. They're going to be Levitical priests. There's going to be world peace. Everyone's going to know the Lord. Um and that's that's the expectation. So if Jesus didn't do any of that Yeah.
>> Well, it just stands to reason that he he's not the Messiah.
Yeah. Yeah. So, if if I'm understanding this correctly, does that mean that um that the Messiah will be the king of of Israel, but will also sort of rule the world and bring the world to peace?
>> Yeah. Yeah. For sure. So, the the king of Israel, that's what Messiah is, the anointed, right? Yeah. I mean, even Micah 52, people will say, "Well, that's obvious about Jesus because he was born in Bethlehem." But it says that he's going to rule in Israel, which Jesus didn't do.
>> So, um, and to your point, Thinker has has been talking about this for a long time, which is in Isaiah 60. It says that the nations that don't serve Israel will be wiped out. And that means that the king of Israel will have all other nations subservient to them.
>> Yeah. Yeah. It seems like um people these days are sort of using a little bit that that the first bit of that rhetoric, but aren't aren't sort of going down the line and and thinking, you know, um like the the implication that they'll be ruled by Israel um isn't really taken up. they sort of just just latch on to that first part of, you know, we've got to be behind Israel rather than um kind of saying, well, as well, Israel is going to rule us if if the Bible's true, which it obviously isn't anyway, but anyway. Um yeah. So, and with that imagery about the mountain, is is the idea that one of the mountains in Israel will literally rise up to be higher or is is that more of a metaphor, do you think?
>> H.
Now, that's a hard one to say whether or not they envisioned an actual mountain raising. Um, it's not out of the question, but my reading of the Hebrew Bible is it's probably more of a metaphor because they use the same stuff in Isaiah talking about the exiles returning. It talks about how God's going to make a path for the exiles to return upon and all the high places will be made low and all the low places will be made high. And it uses a lot of very flowery language. It's not clear if they're being dramatic with their uh, you know, message or if they really intended that to be the case. I personally think that what they're trying to say here is that the Mount Zion, you know, the place where God's uh, throne and whatnot is going to be, it will just be superior to all over the thrones. That that's kind of how I'd read it. But I I wouldn't listen if somebody read it as being literal, I I don't know if I could say much >> to persuade them otherwise.
>> Oh, right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um and just for the just for the Mormons out there, um when they're talking about Zion and um and the seed of God's power, are they talking about somewhere in America or are they talking about Israel?
>> Oh, yeah. They're they're definitely talking about Israel and Jerusalem.
Yeah. Unfortunately, if you're a Christian, the Mormons say that, you know, the Garden of Eden and and Zion and etc. is is in in America.
>> Yeah. Well, the Mormons believe that.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Um, but yeah, the the other thing that that that I I wondered if it if it just kind of says none of these prophecies can be be fulfilled is uh the stuff about um the Levitical priesthood being retained and um and the the line of David being being retained because obviously that's been that's been broken. there isn't there isn't any sect of Judaism that still has Levitical priests um continuing or or or is there well you know my friends that are part of like Orthodox Judaism would say that yeah they they do expect the laws of Moses to be reinstituted and Levitical priests to be doing their thing. Um I don't see within obviously Judaism is pretty diverse. Not everyone believes the same thing, but within the circles that I I know um a lot of them believe that it's going to go back to what is described in the Hebrew Bible. And Christians will say, well, like obviously, you know, these promises couldn't have been um literal because look, the Jews today aren't doing what was expected of them.
And it's important to recognize like just because the Jewish people aren't doing what was expected of them doesn't mean that the promise wasn't literal.
The same way Christians don't do what they're supposed to half the time. What people are doing and what people believe isn't really a barometer of what the text is saying.
>> Yeah. the the that language of there will, you know, uh there will never Israel will never lack a liical priest or or whatever the exact term was. That seems pretty clear. Um I mean it it'd be much easier if words actually meant words, right?
>> That that is the case. Um, with Christianity, the number one rule is context only matters if it helps you.
Otherwise, you can throw it right out the window. And word meanings are completely irrelevant because everything can be interpreted spiritually.
>> Oh, same thing with science. Same thing with science. If like in in creationists, if science can bring you to within 6 to 10,000 years for the age of the earth and the universe, then that's good. If not, oh, you know, can't possibly trust them.
>> Well, that's why like you gota they got to wage the battle against like carbon dating uh you know, different things like that.
>> But it's like it's like they're trying to bail out a thinking ship with a with a um >> with a thool. Yeah. It's crazy.
>> Were you going to say thinker?
>> Yeah. I wanted to know what you thought about Mark 14 um 26 uh >> where he is quoting Ezekiel uh Zechariah 13:7 as a fulfillment of the prophecy.
>> Oh yeah.
>> And >> this one's hilarious.
>> Yeah.
>> Go ahead.
>> Okay. And so, uh Jason, I don't know if you've seen this one. This is one that I love to discuss with believers and I I haven't really seen a lot of uh scholarship that looks at it the way that I do. Dr. B, Dr. Joshua Bowen found one and K uh found one and was like, hm, she might be on to something. But I'm I'm wondering like what what you all think about this. So in uh Mark 14:26 um Jesus is um you know they're having their supper and he uh says to them, "You will all fall away for it is written, I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered." Um and he's quoting Zechariah 13:7 there. Um which is part of a prophecy. Well, first, um, do you see this as fulfillment of Zechariah 11, Dustin? Uh, Zechariah 11:15, where Zechariah >> Go ahead.
>> I'm actually a little bit unsure, but it does seem like it's parallel because in Zechariah 11, you've got like these imagery of two um like worthless shepherds, or at least one of them appears to be worthless. Um, and then you get something similar in um in Zechariah 13 because it's still kind of talking about this same concept that there are these worthless shepherds inside of, you know, Judea, right? So, to me, it sounds like they're par they're par parallel passages, but I don't know if they're intending to speak to a particular individual, if that makes sense.
>> Mhm. I think well see and my the thing is like the concept is that the shepherd there is an idol shepherd right and either one in Zechariah 11 that second shepherd is a bad shepherd that does not do good uh to the flock and when that shepherd is struck the the the flock scatters right and the Zechariah 13 the command comes to strike that shepherd >> right um And so, but and we don't I I don't know that they are the same individual, but it's referring to an idol shepherd.
>> It certainly could be the case.
>> Um, and so, let's see. And I think it was the worthless uh shepherd there. The word there in Hebrew if I'm not mistaken uh he says hold on Zechariah 11:15 um where he tells them to take once more uh the portant for a worthless shepherd in Zechariah 11.
Uh, I'm not I'm trying to find the >> Yeah, I'm going to grab it, too.
>> The the whole imagery there is because, you know, >> Oh, sorry.
>> Obviously, obviously, if they're they're saying um they're calling the leader the shepherd, then we're all supposed to be the sheep.
What's up with that?
I I couldn't I'm having a tough time making out what you're saying. I'm so sorry. Can you say that again? What did you say?
>> Oh, sorry. Um, am I coming through clearly now?
>> Yeah, it's a little muffled on my end and it could be my my earphones like they could be old. Everybody has sound muffled today for some reason. So, can you say it for me one more time?
>> Okay, sure. I was just kind of commenting on the um on that imagery of the um you know obviously the lead is the shepherd so that means all of us are supposed to be excited about being the sheep and you know >> personally I don't think that's great >> right yeah I agree I agree um Zechariah 11:17 it uses uh il um or uh the worthless shepherd.
All right. Uh it's re uh Roy um and so that that is a idol, right?
>> I mean typically it it could be used to refer to an idol. Um sometimes it just refers to something that is uh useless or in vain. like it's something that's kind of like um vapid uh something that is yeah like an idol. So you find that in some of the later parts of the Bible talk about idols being worthless >> and you'll see this word getting employed. So like it'd be like a worthless shepherd or but you could use it to refer to like a um I don't know a side a sideways way of calling somebody like a a pagan or idolatrous person.
Can I can I just ask um Thinker, are you are you saying idol as in as in not working or are you saying idol as in something that you worship?
>> As in as in a false like something false like a false uh >> uh false god or something that is uh >> yeah like a divination or uh something that's good for nothing.
>> Um like a false prophet or something.
Um, >> and so I I know that so looking at the prophecy, so um, Zechariah 11:15-17 is a prophecy cuz he's he's saying, um, a sword will be on his arm, right? Um, and his arm will be totally withered and his right eye will be blind. So the sword is going to strike the shepherd that is a associate of the god because he's saying that he's going to raise up he's going to choose and raise up this shepherd right so this shepherd is an associate it's someone this god has chosen right it's not a stranger or like a u he's raising the shepherd up right uh Zechariah 11:16 and he's a fool foolish shepherd.
Um, and then in Zechariah 13 when he when the when the command comes to strike the shepherd because he's told Zechariah to right like basically he's this is what he wants to happen because he's he's getting ready to do some type of judgment, right? So the he's setting up this shepherd so that >> when the shepherd gets struck the sheep will scatter because he's planning to >> scatter them across right through the exile. Correct.
So, Zachchariah was written uh post exile um or maybe perhaps mid-exile but um my understanding of the shepherd uh imagery is that post exile the leaders that formed um in the in the land were basically praying on the flock as opposed to leading the flock. And he wanted to put an end to them.
And so the people's scattering was on their way back from exile like um so you say Zechariah was written post exile or while they were in exile.
>> So it's a little bit difficult. So the first part of Zechariah seems to be when they're returning.
So >> on the way to the wilderness back >> slightly. So they they started coming back about 538 539. Zechariah seems to have been written about a decade maybe two decades after that. the first half of it, the second half, which has been largely debated uh because it seems like it's half-hazardly put together and it parallels other stuff from like chapters like 1 to 8. Like 1 to 8 seemed to be a unit and then 9 to the end is another unit and like 9 to 14 seems to have a lot of parallels with what's happened before it, but it seems to have been written like another couple of decades after. So, and the other thing is it's very haphazardly put together. So, like the context is lacking it from nine to the end in a lot of the passages. They seem like they just scrambled a bunch of stuff and stuck it into a book. So, it's hard to follow the order of of events if there is an order of events. And so, I would say personally like especially the shepherd passage in uh 11 and then the parallel in 13. My reading of this is that they've already formed like a new leadership inside of uh Judah Judea after the exile started coming back. Uh but they're in disarray and they're a mess which is why not too long after they have to send Ezra.
So are you saying that Ezra is the um Okay. Are you saying did you know who the second shepherd was?
Oh, no.
>> Okay. No. Well, the the two shepherds I'm aware of in chapter 11 are are um >> Zachchariah, right?
>> Representative of the entire leadership.
>> So, I I don't think one one is supposed to represent uh Judah and one supposed to represent Israel. That was my understanding.
>> So, Zachar Okay. So, um, the good So, it represents a good shepherd that led them and then a bad shepherd that didn't.
>> I think they're both semi worthless. The the first one is unclear because he abandons his post even though he kind of tried. The second one is just completely worthless, >> right? But didn't Yahweh tell him to abandon abandon it, though? Wasn't that part of the command >> to abandon it and break the covenant, right? To >> Okay. So, >> to know the covenant. Okay, so Samuel Meyer writes about this period in prophetic history. He's a professor at OSU, although I think he's retired now.
Um, this form of prophecy is what we would categorize as performative prophecy. So, he's taking up the the performance of being a shepherd, but it's actually just a performance. The performance is representing a greater reality. It doesn't have to necessarily represent a specific person, >> right? But the purpose of the performance is to anol the covenant, right? Exactly. Okay.
>> To enol the covenants. Yep.
>> Okay. Um and so the good shepherd is still somewhat semi worthless on purpose for the purposes of breaking the covenant. So Yahweh can break the covenant. Is what you're saying?
>> Well, that's what I'm saying is the first shepherd in Zechariah 11. We don't really get the idea that he is good or bad. He he literally just gives up, >> right?
>> So he he tries to he tries to do his job and then he gives up and he says, "You know what? We're not going to do this."
And then he he's told to take up the implements of a worthless shepherd. But so we're not really told if the first shepherd is actually good. You're kind of left to your own devices to figure out if that first shepherd is either good or bad. I tend to believe that it's at least a little bit negative because they abandoned their post.
>> Okay. Um H >> but it it could be referring to a good shepherd that just gave up because the people are too wicked.
>> Okay. Let's see.
>> You know what I mean? Because even God is abandoning his post. He's anulling the covenant.
>> That's what I was going to say. Cuz cuz isn't the God telling him to abandon it?
>> Yeah. That's the whole goal here is is for both the covenants to be abandoned.
>> Mhm.
Okay. So, the first shepherd is for Judah and the second covenant or the or vice versa is what you're saying.
>> Yeah. I I think one's for Israel and one's for Judah.
>> Okay. And what what gives you that understanding in the text? Because there's cuz there's going to be two staffs that are broken.
>> Mhm.
>> Okay.
>> That does that make sense? Cuz it says, "I took two staffs. One I named favor and the other I named unity. Uh and I tended the sheep. In one month I disposed of three shepherds for I had become impatient with them and they also detested me." And so he talks about uh the previous shepherds. It says um >> but he became impatient. Right. And and as the first shepherd, right?
>> Yeah. And he says, "I took my staff favor and broke it, anoling the covenant that I had made with all the people. So it was analled in that day. And the sheep merchants who were watching knew that it was the word of the Lord. Then I said to them, if it seems right, give me your wages." So on and so forth. So he takes the first step uh and then at the end of it, he says, "Then I broke my second staff, which is called unity, annoling the family ties between Judah and Israel."
>> Right? But that's before the second shepherd. So both so both both of them were broken, right? Before he took up the portance to be the for the second shepherd.
>> Mhm.
>> Right. For the foolish shepherd. So the first time that the first time that that he took on this performance as a shepherd, >> he broke he anoled both covenants.
>> Right. And then the when he took up the performance as the foolish shepherd, what is that referring to? Cuz that's what I'm trying to figure out because that shepherd, right, that's a worthless shepherd that does really bad like [ __ ] [ __ ] >> And then it c when that shepherd gets uh >> when that shepherd gets struck down, that causes the >> the people to shatter, the the Israelites to scatter. And then we see the command to strike that shepherd because it seems like to be Yahweh's plan, right? And so in in Zechariah 13, we see the command to strike that shepherd.
>> Um he says, "Awake, oh sword, against my shepherd, against the man, my uh the one my associate." And so >> we we know that the sword is the command is is we know that Zechariah 13 is about cutting off idolatry. Right. Cutting off >> Mhm.
>> Right.
But the shepherd that that is being commanded to be cut down is an associate of Yahweh's. Right.
>> It does say that my associate.
>> Yeah. Mhm. And this is what's making me think that this is the the the second shepherd that Yahweh says, "I'm going to raise up a shepher a shepherd that's going to do [ __ ] [ __ ] >> on purpose."
>> Well, I mean, that's certainly an interpretation you could make, right?
So, um there's an interpretation of chapter 11 where the first shepherd is technically Yahweh where Yahweh says, "I've had enough. These people won't follow me."
um it that gets more difficult because he he has to dispose of three other shepherds. We're like, well, what do you mean three other shepherds? Um if Yahweh is the main shepherd, right? But there's a traditional view that Yahweh was the main shepherd. He gave up on his people and abandoned um abandoned the covenant, broke the stavs, and then he sent um another would say wicked shepherd. since since he gave up on them, he says, "Okay, well, you can have this shepherd and obviously this shepherd is not going to be good to them." Um, and then eventually he he puts an end to that second shepherd, which you would say is in chapter 13, which is a viable interpretation. I think the reason why this type of storyline interpretation becomes difficult though is because it's so out of order. So, for example, chapter 12 really is supposed to be going with chapter 14, but for some reason, chapter 12 is stuck between chapter 11 and 13. Well, if the story was going to be told straight through, that means there's going to be two final battles. There's going to be uh God giving up on the people and then there's going to be a worthless shepherd or you could say God's servant giving up on the people and then there's going to be a worthless shepherd and then there's going to be a final battle where God grants victory to all of Israel and then God's going to strike down the worthless shepherd after he's already killed all of their enemies and then they're going to have another final battle in chapter 14 where he's somehow going to reproduce the same exact conditions as the first battle and then grant Israel the victory after that and and put them up. That's that would be my caution is reading a linear progression through Zachcharias seems to be um nearly impossible.
So, okay. So, uh either way, the shepherd that is being struck in I I get you. Um and and that makes sense. So, but the shepherd that's being uh struck down in Zechariah 13:7 is an idol, is a worthless shepherd. It does seem to be the case.
>> Okay. Yeah. And so >> we're not told that it's a good person >> in Zechariah 137.
>> Yeah. Yeah. We're we're not told that the that the the shepherd is good. In fact, it comes right after this discussion about the end of prophets and prophets who are going to be ashamed of the fact that they even claim to be prophets.
>> Right.
And so, >> so thinker, are you are you um are you thinking that um this idol shepherd is consistent with the stories of Jesus?
>> Well, Jesus quotes this as him fulfilling the prophecy as the shepherd that is struck.
>> I get it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, so he's actually claiming an identity of being an idol shepherd.
>> Yeah. If the shepherd in 13:7 is idol and and again like Zechariah 13 is about idolatry like Yahweh cutting off idolatry.
>> Um I get what Justin is saying and my mind is trying to wrap my like I'm going to have to like sit down with it because uh and go back and and read it cuz um I get what he's saying like reading it in a linear uh uh perspective.
Um, but I think either way, like Yahweh's goal is to strike the is to turn his hands against him, right?
Either way.
Right.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Either way, what's happening in chapter 13 is these are not good people. These these are not people that God uh loves. These are people that God's about to go [ __ ] up.
>> And this is this is used this is supposed to be Jesus. This is supposed to be a prophecy about Jesus according to Mark 14:26.
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> Either way, like it's a bad thing for Jesus because if if Jesus um was right about the prophecy, that makes him an idol shepherd.
>> And if he's wrong about the prophecy, then he [ __ ] up.
>> Right.
>> Right. Yeah. Well, well, the other thing too is if you if you read the rest of the um strike the shepherd passage, it doesn't come true. You still have to always um go to like this partial prophecy nonsense where like, oh, the part that I like >> that sounds like Jesus came true. But if you read the rest of it, it doesn't come true either. It talks about um the perishing of the Israelites, which they would say, oh that that came true. Look at what happened under Hadrien, right?
Uh but if you literally just read the rest of it, it says uh that they will call on my name and I will answer them.
I will say they are my people and they will say the Lord is their God. That didn't happen. The the the people, the ones that Yahweh didn't strike down, they didn't return to Yahweh. They got chased out of their land and God's been uh you know theoretically you know torturing them ever since. Um, this is supposed to be one of those winnowing prophecies just like what we find in the other prophetic books where uh those that are wicked are about to get destroyed and then that those that are left over will be my remnant. Then I'll be their God and they'll be my people.
But we don't see that that that didn't actually happen.
>> And do do the Christians use Zechariah 13:9 as a prophecy for them being like the ones that are being um tried through the fire like the third that's going to be cut off? that they Yeah. They think that they're the ones that are are left over, the ones that didn't get cut off.
Yeah.
>> It's pretty wild.
>> Yeah.
It seems to me like um having h having a body of literature that's so dense and hard to understand and comes from dead languages and is translated and re-transated and argued about is a horribly inefficient way for any supreme or even moderately intelligent being to convey their thoughts. But it is a really useful means for a power hierarchy to maintain its power and dominance. Um, and I think I think one of the main things that apologists have in their favor is their confidence about speaking whatever [ __ ] they can dream up about this dead body of work.
Um, and I'm just really um really glad that we have people like you two to uh to put in the work to understand this dense material and to convey it um in a way that can uh can clap back against the obvious [ __ ] that all these apologists are are spouting. It's really great.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> I I am intrigued now. thinker, if if you could reorganize Zechariah and just put chapter 12 um after chapter 13 and make it so it'd be chapter 12, chapter 13, then chapter I mean, sorry, chapter 11, 13, then 12, then 14, that would actually be a really compelling order to read this straight through as your interpretation. And the again the order of Zechariah is is not I don't think it was ordered that way on purpose. I think it was just haphazardly put together. I would be very inclined to um to see the shepherd being stricken in chapter 13 as the shepherd from chapter 11 literally if we just move the chapters around to where they should be.
>> That would Yeah, that would be interesting. I I gotta go read it that way now. Um >> yeah, ju just read chapter 11 directly into chapter 13. I was doing it while while y'all were talking. It makes a lot of sense that way.
>> Now I'm going to be up all night. I was going to go to sleep after this.
>> Sorry. That's your your dedication is amazing.
>> I love I love stuff like this though.
Like this is why like I don't have a favorite book of the Bible cuz I feel like there's so much. It's like a scavenger hunt. Um and then like I may have a theory and it may be wrong or you know but it's always interesting to to try to like dig it up and and figure it out because I learned so much along the way. Um but yeah, I'll probably be up all night now.
>> Yeah, it's really interesting.
>> Yeah.
I'm sorry. So, um, Jason, did you we kind of went on a bit of a rabbit trail there. I thought it was kind of interesting, but did you have any any other questions or anything like that you wanted to bring up?
>> Um, I did have one other thing, but it's it but it's escaped me. So, yeah, I might try and get you guys another time, but yeah, really really stoked to have uh have spoken to both of you.
Thank you for calling in.
>> Thank you for calling.
>> Awesome. Thanks so much.
>> Absolutely.
>> All right. Have a good one.
>> Now, Dicker, you've probably seen this as well. The the book of Zechariah gets quoted quite a bit in the New Testament.
They love Zechariah.
>> Mhm.
That's uh John quotes it as for Jesus saying that he is the good shepherd as well.
>> Yeah.
>> It seems to me that Zechariah is sufficiently vague enough that it makes for like really good use of like generic prophecy of like words just sound like words sometimes so they must be prophetic.
Like what word what words are you talking about?
>> Like what we find in um Zechariah or even in the gospels a type of prophecy is look here's a word like the word you know the word pierce. Oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh oh the word pierce appeared in Zechariah it must be about Jesus. And that's kind of how >> okay >> the New Testament is doing their prophecy right?
Yeah, like I find that and they also they they tend to like collapse a lot of context and like construct their own prophecies and retrofit cuz like there's one that's like three different scriptures from different books like for for example Paul let me let me it's one where it's like 15 verses for one prophet prophecies. So for him to prophesy that the reason that Jesus came was to create universal salvation for the whole world but he goes across like five maybe I'm I might be you know being hyperbolic but it's like five different books different verses that he's plucked >> to make that one prophecy.
>> And I'm and I see that >> Yeah. And I see that same thing like with the gospels. They collapse a lot of context and they um retrofit and and construct their own prophecies. And it's like one person will make the prophecies, one of them will fulfill them and the other one will expl like point them to Jesus and explain how Jesus fulfilled it. It's like they all are doing something different when it comes to the to the prophecies of trying to make Jesus fulfill prophecies.
>> Yeah. And you've seen it too because in uh in John um if you go over to chapter 19, they have this opinion that Jesus fulfilled uh the prophecy of the piercing, right? They have looked upon the one who then pierced. And John understands this as being about like the Roman soldiers piercing Jesus's body with the spear. But like you know >> when you when you read the prophecy the well the prophecy in uh you know in the actual verse in Zechariah is about what what happened during like the Armageddon end times battle. Like what do you mean?
What are we talking about here? Right?
Um, so like they're just grabbing anything they can from uh, you know, from their text of literature and they're trying to randomly assemble cuz in that same verse they also say that he fulfilled another prophecy which is uh, not not a single bone would be broken.
Like wait what? That's just rules for the Passover in Exodus 12.
>> Like what are you talking about?
>> It's one where they're like u they use for Herod. I can't think of it off the top of my head where uh he's um going after the firstborn uh children looking for Jesus and they quote where Rachel's weeping and they're like that's about >> Jeremiah 31:15. Yeah.
>> Yeah. And then later on it's like oh her children are coming back from, you know, from exile. It's like how is that about Jesus if the the dead children that she's weeping for are coming back? Like they just go and just grab stuff and just totally collapse context.
It's really bad, especially because if you look at Jeremiah 31, it's clearly talked about the the children, the pe the Israelite women's watching their children get carried away into captivity >> and saying, "Hey, they're going to come back from captivity. Don't worry, 70 years. They're they're going to be back.
It's going to be all right." But this is not about anyone dying. That those children in Bethlehem aren't coming back. They're done. They're toast.
They're gone. Like, what are we talking about here? Yeah, it's a lot of stuff that they did. And then I noticed one that Paul did was like uh boast and know that Christ is Lord.
And he uses h I can't think of the scriptures off the top of my head, but the one where Yahweh is telling the Israelites to boast in the fact that they know him and that they understand him and that he is their God.
And I I've the way Paul when Paul uses that, I don't know if the Septuagent changed it or if like if Paul was like quoting the Septuagent or if he retrofitted this, but it's like pointing from when the when the old covenant was with the Israelites, they could know and understand the God like they could have a a close relationship with him. But when the covenant changes to Jesus through the Gentiles is know both that you know he is your God not that you know and understand him like the Israelites can know and understand Yahweh.
>> Yeah. And even in Jeremiah 31 it says uh when the new covenant comes you know Jeremiah 30 to like 33 or something. It says that everyone from the youngest to greatest will know the Lord. Nobody will say know the Lord. Like wait so does everyone know the Lord now? Because if not, like how did Jesus fulfill the second covenant?
>> Yeah, >> it's it's very complicated.
>> But we got a guest in uh the guest box, Joey. Want to bring in our our next guest?
>> All right. Cool. Cool. Cool. Cool.
>> Get Joey up here. Uh Joey, you're on Dev Evangelicals with Thinker and Justin.
How you doing?
>> Hey, >> how y'all doing?
>> Doing good.
>> Doing well. Thanks for asking.
>> Yeah. Um, brought me to the topic that you need topic that I'm assuming that what I read there is you need God to be good, right?
>> Say I'm sorry. Say what?
>> Can you hear me? Can you hear me good?
>> Um, a little bit. It's just a little bit uh muddy, but I can hear you.
>> Yeah, I'm calling for the topic because it's supposedly topic was you need God to be good, right?
Oh, I actually I actually don't know. If there's a topic on on the YouTube stream, I'm not sure what it says, but if you want to talk about that particular topic, I'm more than happy to do it.
>> I'm just I just I call into the topic, but we can talk about whatever y'all want. This y is y'all show, so I mean, whatever y'all want to talk about.
>> Well, I I love the topic of whether or not you need God to be good. What What do you think? Do you think you need God to be good?
>> You don't need God to be good. as when it comes to be good as a person, you can be a good person. But uh when it comes when you're actually a person of of faith and a person of God, it's different because you have uh a moral act to be a better person, not just be good, but to be a better person.
>> Can can you elaborate? I'm not sure I know what you mean by a moral.
>> Yeah. So when it comes down to being good, yeah, you can be good, like you can be nice, you can hold a door for someone, you can, you know, you can be good, but when it comes to a person of faith, you're always trying to be better because of the fact of the teachings of Jesus and because of when you become when you get baptized and you become with the Holy Spirit, you know, it's not an obligation, but it's a morality of trying to be better, trying to, you know, restore the faith, trying to pray for somebody, you know, giving back to the poor, trying to to be the best Christian as you can be. So you not cuz for example I I was a I wasn't a Christian for 38 years of my life. I wasn't a bad person but you know I'm not perfect but when I'm when I became a Christian it was way different because you know it was more prayer more thinking about people. You know I can get into a fight. Before I was a Christian I can get into a fight with somebody throw fist and not care. You know, I was bragging about how, you know what I'm saying? How I won the fight or something like that. It's just an analogy, right? But when you're a Christian, you know, you think twice about doing something bad about and if you do do something bad, you know, is the Holy Spirit that that you know that makes you feel like, hey, you're better than what you just did. You know what I'm saying?
>> I don't know what you're saying. So, I I mean, I have the the same instincts to be a good person. I have those instincts today and they weren't much different when I was religious. I have no reason to believe that being religious is what causes you to have instincts to be a good person.
>> Um, I think there are a lot of different factors that would go into it.
>> Well, >> are you claiming some supernatural ability >> to be super?
>> No.
>> No. Not morally superior. No, not morally superior. Just to be better. Why be good when you can do better? Like when and if I might ask the gentleman uh you were you were a Christian before.
>> Yeah. Think think and I are both ex-Christians.
>> Yeah. I was a missionary. I preached for the God and Justin was a pastor.
>> You were a pastor?
>> Mhm. Yeah.
>> All right then. Um, well, I don't honestly don't know you guys' journey.
Uh, the only thing I can say is that, um, you know, I've been through a lot since I've been a Christian and, you know, thanks to the thanks through Jesus, you know what I'm saying? And through through trying God that I was able to get through all my struggles and through all the things I've been going through. So, you know, I know I could I could have left Christianity five months after I got baptized. You know what I'm saying? was there was things one after the other after after another that was going on. But you know, you know, it was through God that I was able to, you know, contain myself and to be able to have this patience and this calmness of, you know, be able to get through what I had to go through.
>> So, go ahead, Nick. Now I'm just wondering like you're saying that you need God to be better as if whatever it was that you had to go through, you could not do that without the help of your God, without the help of Jesus. Is that the claim that you're making?
>> Yeah, I would have to say that without through Jesus, I probably I probably wouldn't have be able to be able to uh to survive what I had to go through. Uh my greatest example would be my family members. They pretty much got lost through what happened and through everything through all through all my through the struggles they also were going through. And you know me as a Christian and you know through God was a was I able to find the the calmness and the tranquility that I needed to be able to keep on going.
So, are you so I asked, are you claiming some supernatural ability? Like, are you saying Jesus actually did something to give you this tranquility or are you claiming that you because you read the Bible like your your what you were reading uh inspired you and therefore you had peace that way?
>> Well, I don't know you want to claim supernatural ability. To me, supernatural ability uh I guess it'll be different. It was just through the Holy Spirit that you know it says in the Bible the Holy Spirit lives through us you know through the Holy Spirit that >> the Holy Spirit would be supernatural right the Holy Spirit is a is an external the Holy Spirit would be an external uh source that you're adding to yourself right and so you are claiming supernatural ability >> um would you be able to say why would you say it be supernatural >> where are spirits natural Well, you're talking about a you believe the Holy Spirit is a person, though.
>> No, it's not. You and I are people. A when you when you when you say spirit, a spirit is an immaterial >> Huh? No. A spirit it a spirit is an immaterial >> source, right? It's it's not material.
But but you're going to say but when you saying people me or you are people that uh but with a spirit when when a conduct talks to a person it's a person that you know is able to give order you know has feelings has all that stuff. So that would be considered a person wouldn't it?
>> Well the is it a holy person that's helping you or holy spirit? Let's let's get that down uh identified first.
Is the Holy Spirit that's that's >> okay hold on >> that's helped me that's what can I answer my question please >> no I just need to know is it holy spirit a holy person >> which is it spirit or holy >> person the holy spirit is the holy spirit is is that's the name holy spirit the spirit of god who is also consist with in the Christian in the Christian beliefs he's also he's the third person of of the trinity So he so so it's something supernatural. It's not within nature, right? What the the term >> God God is God God is a nature.
>> What do you mean God is a nature? What does it even mean?
>> The nature the nature the God when it comes to God the nature of him being God all knowing everything that God is the the the true God that's nature. Us nature is us being human. What? What does the word nature mean?
>> The nature of who you are. What what of what you are?
>> What do you think the word nature means, though?
>> I I just answered you, sir.
>> No, you can't use the word nature in your definition of nature.
>> Well, who you are? I told you who you are.
>> Like a set of characteristics maybe.
>> Yeah, characteristics.
>> Okay. So what that means is that a nature is not a thing. It's a set of qualities.
>> Well, it says right here the physical world of a phenomenal like plant like it says right here the character or essential qualities of a person or a thing.
>> You got it. So they're they're just uh qualities. They're not like things.
those area the qualities the qualities of being human qualities of being you know an animal the qualities of being god >> okay so to to get back on track you're using the word nature as though nature is like a noun which is why I thinker is trying to press a little bit deeper on weren't you all Christians though then didn't y'all like you all in Christianity didn't y'all like talk about this or >> yeah but we use words correctly when we were in Christianity at least I didn't >> I use the words incorrectly there.
>> Well, that's what he just told you that you are.
>> Well, I know.
>> But >> we also didn't say that the Holy Spirit was a person. Like you're using the word spirit.
>> You're using Hold on. You're using the word spirit.
>> I apologize.
>> Yeah. You're using the word spirit and expecting us not to understand that to be this immaterial, you know. metaphysical thing, right?
Something that is outside of nature, right? Outside of the laws of physics, right? A spirit would be outside of the laws of phys physics, outside of nature.
Therefore, it would be supernatural.
And so, if you're God's if the if the Holy Spirit is a part of the Trinity, that's supernatural, right? to the Holy Spirit, it would be supernatural. And and so you're saying that this supernatural source was added to your physical natural body. Therefore, it gave you the strength to do something um that you otherwise could not do without it.
>> Okay. May I um I hope you don't mind me asking uh like what type of denomination Christians were you guys >> in Christ like I I was church.
>> So would you pardon me? I'm sorry I interrupted you.
I apologize.
>> I didn't have a denomination.
>> I was Church of God in Christ.
>> Church of God in Christ. Okay. So, do you believe that the that the spirit can teach you anything?
>> We don't believe in the spirit.
>> Oh, you guys don't believe in the Holy Spirit?
>> No, we're a we're atheist. Um, are you asking when we were in church?
>> Yeah. Yeah, that's what I meant. My apologies.
>> Yeah, we did believe that. Well, I did believe that. Did you believe that, Justin? That the spirit teaching Yeah, we believe that.
So, so but do you believe that that when you guys were Christians, I know I know you guys are atheists. Uh do you guys believe that the Holy Spirit can teach you anything?
>> We we just said that. Yeah. When we were Christians, we did believe that the Holy Spirit could teach you some stuff. Yeah.
So Dion, so why why why all make it seem like it's so farfetched to me to believe? Like if the Holy Spirit can teach you something, why why did you all like So I hear you guys laughing and stuff like which I don't I don't mind.
>> I'm laughing.
>> No, I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at our at, you know, the time that we were Christians and things that we've talked about. Um like when I was a Christian, right, I believed that I could speak to the God in in tongues, right? And I believe that I was speaking this heavenly language and it didn't first off I had no idea that in Acts too when they received the Holy Ghost they actually were dualingoed real languages and not Babel, right? Like they could understand native tongues of the people who were in town for the Jewish festival. And they were able to speak in in the in the story.
they're able to speak these foreign languages without having studied them.
This this was a supernatural thing that happened. And here I was thinking that I'm speaking some heavenly language just saying and not saying anything. And then I had to think to myself, then I had to think to myself like, okay, if I'm talking to God in this language, but God speak English and God gonna answer me back in English, what do I need to be doing?
Like, why does he need to hear that >> from me? It didn't make it didn't make sense. And so when I started realizing that a lot of what I was saying was the Holy Spirit speaking to me was me speaking to myself.
>> Okay. Um yeah I have seen certain denomination of Christianity that do that. The ones that are more famous are the Pentecostals for doing that. They feel that you need to speak in tongues in order for uh God to hear you. I don't believe in that. Uh that's not what what uh I've learned. and been taught. But um when it comes to um when it comes to me thinking that the Holy Spirit is a person and someone that can you know help you, it's like you can see it in John 14 verse 25 where it says I all this I have spoken to you while I'm still with you but the advocate the Holy Spirit of whom the father or son in my name will teach you. Oh man, I got to go. Oh, it's actually worked. I'm so sorry. I apologize, but I'll see if I can call back in. I'm apologize.
>> No worries.
>> All right, have a good one.
>> I'm baffled thinker. How is the Holy Spirit teach? Because the Bible says Holy Spirit's going to, you know, lead all Christians in truth and whatnot. How is this happening when they can't agree on anything?
>> Exactly. Apparently, all doesn't mean all. I got into a whole entire ass argument with a Christian about the fact that I was taking all literally and all doesn't mean all. So, I don't know.
>> I literally had that same conversation recently. I wonder if we talked to the same person.
>> I I don't want to say their name. Was it a Was it a woman?
>> I I I you know, we talked to so many people. I'm not sure at this point, but I don't think it was.
>> Oh, okay. Yeah. Mine was a woman.
>> Okay. Okay.
Okay. It it is interesting to me because like there there are so many people who read the Bible and they want so badly for like a lot of stuff to be not literal cuz if it means what it says, it is it's difficult to hang on to it, you know?
>> Yeah. I think that's why spirit was cuz like we know that when they started mingling with the uh the henistic uh Greeks that the concept of spirit and soul and this vagueness with prophecy becomes a thing with them. And so I I think like that helped and and helped Christianity a lot like the concept of spirit cuz they could just dance and swim in that all day. And who's gonna who can fact check a spirit?
>> Yeah.
>> Especially one that only talks to them >> c because once it's spiritual, you know, the interpretation of something being spiritual is like it's completely unfalsifiable because like here's the thing. Um like there's no formal rules as to what it means to be spiritual, right? Yeah.
>> So, it's like, okay, if imagine there is such a thing as a spiritual interpretation, great. How do I know if your spiritual interpretation is the right one? Cuz I could do my own spiritual interpretation.
>> Yeah. I but it amazes me how it doesn't it still doesn't dawn on them that there's 50,000 different denominations and in each denomination there's multiple churches with multiple pastors who all have different interpretations and then everybody in the church has a different interpretation. Like it it doesn't it it never dawns on them like this is your problem. Like all of y'all just pointing fingers at each other saying they're not a true Christian. She's not a true Christian.
>> It's really bad. I I know one thing though. It It is true that every Christian you talk to and every Christian I talk to is the only Christian doing it right.
>> Yeah. Mhm.
>> That is a fact.
>> And they're the only ones special enough for God to talk to them.
>> Yeah. Yeah. God definitely talks to them. And the other people that think God talks to them, they're wrong. It's the devil deceiving them.
>> Yes.
>> Oh, I started. Have Have you seen start making them mad? So, here's another one of my crazy ideas. Justin, let's have it.
So I don't think atheists can be possessed by demons in their worldview in the believer's worldview because demons believe that God is one.
Demons tremble. Demons acknowledge and confess that Jesus is the son of God.
Demons must obey the God and they're under the the authority of the God, right? Because they can't disobey the authority, which is Isn't it weird that they still exist?
>> Exactly. Right. That's because Christians exist. Listen, >> what? Well, even if they didn't, God still exists and God doesn't want them here, right? Or or >> I think he does cuz listen, he >> Yeah, he must.
>> He let one stay He let one stay attached to Paul to keep Paul humble, >> right? So he's like, "Oh, one of Satan's messengers. He let it stay attached.
Paul goes, "Hey, can you get this demon off of me?" And and Jesus is like, "No, I got to keep you humble." So the demon stays and it's like, "Oh, Jesus call say, "Hey, I need one of your homeboys to to attach to to one to my homeboy cuz I got to keep them in place, right?"
>> And so it doesn't make sense for an atheist to be possessed by their demons.
We don't we don't subscribe to the authority of their god. And that means that and we don't acknowledge right the authority of the god. So if a demon was in us either we have more authority over a demon than their god does cuz we ain't obeying we and the demon can't obey when it's in us. You know what I'm saying? Or the demon because it has to obey. It would make more sense for that demon to possess someone who already agrees with it and that would be a believer. So, every time they come in my chat and they're calling me a demer, a demon, I run it down and they be so mad because they never thought they never thought about it like that.
>> Uh, well, I'll tell you what, they haven't thought about much, which is why um, Christianity fails uh, every time on like basic logistics, just every they can they can't survive it.
>> Yeah. Um, but I think we've got another callering queue uh named Buddy who wants to ask us some questions. Let's bring up Buddy and we'll keep it rolling. Uh, Buddy, you're on Divangelical Swiss Thinker and Justin, how you doing?
>> I'm good. How are you tonight?
>> Doing well. Thanks for asking.
>> Good. Cool. Can you hear me clearly?
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah.
>> Just making sure.
>> Oh, sweet. Okay. But, uh, yeah. So, I'm a Catholic. I actually find I've been watching your stream for a while. I find the both of you actually very fascinating. Um, you know, you're you're learned people.
Um, I mean, you seem knowledgeable. And if I'm correct, both of you were previous Christians and one of you were a pastor and you left the faith and the pastoral ship. Is that right?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Yeah. So, I'm fascinated by that.
>> Okay. So, you were a missionary and I I don't know your names. Um the man who who'sever the guy is. You were the pastor, correct?
>> Yeah, Justin is my name.
>> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Um and what's your name, ma'am?
>> Uh thinker.
>> Okay. Um so I I would love to hear your perspectives on why, you know, what denomination you were and why you left the faith. And I guess I don't know if you're atheists or if you pursue some sort of spiritualism, but I'd love to hear your stories. I really would.
>> Sure.
Well, I think you want to go first.
>> Yeah, I can. Um, so I I was a pastor's kid um growing up uh and my mom is an evangelist still today and in fact my entire family is religious. Um, but I was a a missionary where I preached uh for, you know, this God. And one day I had a conversation with my brother who said that he didn't think God liked black people. And it was I was happy to hear him say it because it was something that I had always been thinking. Um, and >> yeah, and so I I decided to just start really studying to make sure like to get closer to God and to find his name because uh we were taught that the closer you get to God, he will reveal his name. Um, and I find it interesting too that as much as I read, it never really dawned on me that I was saying Don and that was a title and not his name until my mom was like, "When you get to know him, he'll tell you his name." But I went looking for the name and uh I started researching the claims in the Bible like the historical events in the Bible um as I'm studying um and looking I decided to try to find them in actual history. So as I'm studying uh the claims that oh black people are the chosen and the that's this is why we're in slavery. So, as I'm studying Egypt, I decided to go and look for this historical event in history. I even looked at the Haran people and looked at their archaeology to see, you know, like uh what was uh if they could possibly have been the the Israelites, like just studying everything through and then realized that that story is was not true. Like there's no archaeological evidence for it cuz I I don't want to make definitive claims but there's no archaeological evidence for it. The records did not align like Egypt's records with Amenip who was the scribe at the time that they claimed they were there. Um and so I started to go uh oh and then the more I I studied the Bible and learned the character of the God um the slavery was a real big one.
realizing that he structured the two systems in uh ancient Israel the exactly the same as it was structured um during the transatlantic slave trade. That was a big one for me um in the misogyny.
>> Second, >> I'm sorry.
>> May I interject?
>> Sure. Go ahead.
>> Okay. So you said God structured uh let's say the slave trade back then and and this the transatlantic slave trade.
Now by structured what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean you're under the impression that okay God actually built this system right he gave he gave clear instructions on how to enslave people um how to continue slavery etc etc. Well, yeah. So, in Leviticus 25, so I'm not talking about treatment. A lot of times when I talk to believers, they conflate treatment with establishing a system, right? The structure. And so, in ancient Israel, >> I'm sorry.
>> Oh, no. You're correct. Yeah.
>> Yeah. And in ancient Israel, the Israelites were indigenous servants. They could not be bought and sold as slaves, right? And then the uh foreigners like they could acquire slaves from foreign nations.
They could make the immigrants who were living in their land um uh slaves, lifetime slaves. And then they could pass the the foreign slaves on to their children for life. There was no no pathway to manum mission for foreign uh slaves in the land of Israel.
And if we when we look at slavery during the transatlantic slave trade and how it was in America um it this structure was exactly the same. So in America the original uh uh slavery started out as Christians could not be enslaved for life. So uh Christians could be indigenous service and they were released within uh in the seventh year.
Um, and then the foreign uh slaves from West Africa were lifetime child slaves and they would not allow them to be baptized into Christianity because they were afraid they were going to lose their labor until the king changed the law and said that Christianity no longer equaled freedom. And so then they allowed them to become Christian. And when I learned that, it was it broke my heart because I really believed that I was in a relationship with this God. And I was like, how like like how am I how have I been worshiping the devil was my first thought.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, that's I mean that's you make a good point. Which king exactly are you uh referencing to? Are you referencing King James by any chance?
>> No, I think it was King Henry at that time.
>> Yeah, >> King Henry. Okay. All right, cool. Could I hear the perspective of uh Justin, I believe is his name, and why he left?
>> Yeah. So my path was kind of starting with the Bible and the question that I personally needed to um to figure out is hey um is Christianity true? And I thought that the Bible was the best starting point because I think kind of Christianity rests on um a layer of things that we would say are just true both historically but also verified by the Bible and church history. And so um >> if you start with some of the basic premises of Christianity like uh is it the case that Jesus um resurrected? Uh turns out that there's not good evidence for that but it's not critical uh to be a Christian like you there's many things you can believe as a Christian uh whether or not you can prove the resurrection. So the next thing you might ask is like, hey, is it the case that the New Testament is reliable? Like when it says things, is it true? Well, it turns out that it's very difficult to demonstrate that as well because even within the New Testament, there are all kinds of contradictions like just between the various authors. So that does become kind of an issue. Another issue is like just basic historical reliability. Well, unfortunately, historical reliability is tough as well, but you can still be a Christian with all of these problems. One of the when I started to get to the point where I I was asking questions like, okay, what is there left to hold on to with Christianity that would lead you to believe that it is in fact true? And for me I think the biggest motivator was oh well it is really like interesting especially and people will do like goofy mathematics around it that Jesus you know had fulfilled all these prophecies.
Well um I went through all those prophecies uh at some point be before I was going to Bible college even and I was like you know what I'm reading these prophecies they don't sound like they're about Jesus that's for sure. And um and as I studied the Bible professionally in Bible college and seminary uh and became very very familiar with the Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, which was my main focus um in school, um it just became too obvious to me that whether or not Jesus, even if Jesus did resurrect, there is a 0% chance that that dude was ever a messiah. Not a chance in the world.
>> So also, if to me, if he's not the Messiah, he's just a liar and a fraud.
And to believe that he resurrected from the dead is now just silly. is putting the cart before the horse. So, um that to me once I got to the point where like, oh, it's just painfully obvious that Jesus was a fraud, um well, Christianity is done at that point.
Whether you choose to believe in a god after that is a different question. I did believe in a god for a while after that. Uh before I uh converted to atheism, but to me, I could maybe perhaps one day be persuaded to believe in some kind of a god. I don't think it's likely, but I don't see a path forward for Christianity. To me, Christianity is just completely dead in the water given the fact that Jesus didn't do a single thing that the Messiah was supposed to do. And every prophecy about Jesus is really just a bald-faced lie.
>> Okay.
Well, that's a lot to take in. I'm just kind of >> That's a lot to take in.
>> Kind of a calculator. No, it's No, it's interesting. you guys are you're very respectful and uh I was like you know I' I'd love to talk to these people. Um now my question is guess I don't really have too many questions is you know you just said you'd be kind of open to the fact of believing a god.
If that's the case then why would you choose atheism and not look into any other religions?
>> Oh I didn't but I would be interested. Yeah, if Christianity is wrong, it doesn't mean that one of the other religions is right is the other problem, right? It could be true that there's God and not a single religion got it right. So once you once you leave religion, you really have to be open to we'd say other religions. You have to be open to God concepts that aren't part of any other religion or even like spiritual concepts like Buddhism. like Buddhism uh and even a lot of Japan believe in this type of um afterlife where your spirit lives on after you, but they don't really believe necessarily in a god or a creative being or things like that typically.
>> And so that certainly is on the table as well, but I I can't see a good reason to believe in any of that stuff. Uh the evidences for for them seem really really weak.
For me, if there is a God, he's doing the same thing as the Christian God.
>> Um, like making me look for him, but he hasn't shown up to me, right? He or she has not shown up to me. And if he's closed off and I got to go and read some some text to be indoctrinated by another human, he's just no different than the Christian God to me.
>> Okay. Well, you know, Christ says, you know, if you know, seek me and you shall find. Knock on the door and the door will be open. It's not like something like this would. It depends on the person really. But >> so do vampires.
>> What I'd love to point out, >> what was that? I'm sorry.
>> Vampires stand outside and have to be invited in.
>> Uh I mean, just because like I I don't understand why Jesus has to be invited in. Like if he's gone and he created us, it doesn't make sense for him to be standing outside saying, "Hey, you better come and find me." or like I'm waiting on you to let me in. Vampires chase you. Vampires wait on you to be let into.
>> Yeah, that's funny. I just don't understand.
>> Well, I mean what you just said, that's the aspect of free will, you know. I mean, um I guess I can ascertain to your previous topic when I was watching your stream was, you know, I forget the exact subject, but you know, why does why does Jesus stand outside? Why did why do I have to let him in? I mean, that that goes back to free will. Um I think the topic was demons you know demon like the Christian demons what you said right they don't have any power over us because we don't fall under their religion correct um and that's what you said >> their religion authority of the god >> the authority of the god but you know the thing is this is everyone's god whether you like him or not whether you bow him or not but that's where free will comes in when >> like you can't you can't you trying to push your faith that right like don't y'all don't understand or pay attention to the fact that like your book says that >> think about this your book says that without faith it's impossible to please your God correct >> yeah I mean I would I would say that that is correct yeah >> okay then it also says that if you doubt don't expect anything from your god >> no no no that it definitely I wouldn't say it says though. I mean, I'm sure you've read a new international.
>> We can read of scripture reading.
>> I mean, any version says it that without doubt, don't respect it. I'm sorry.
>> I'm not I'm not your typical Christian where I think, oh, all denominations are the same. I'm a lot more strict. I This might sound crazy, especially to your viewers and YouTube, but kind of the biggest people that I don't really like are Christians. Um, I know that sounds crazy and I love them, but the problem is a lot of them are led astray by this worldly understanding. And this is where I believe certain denomination comes into play. And unfortunately, I believe the both of you were introduced to a certain denomination that didn't really do its due diligence to feed you the correct >> think that I was I went to 12 years of Catholic school. Are you suggesting I just didn't have enough Catholic education?
>> Catholic school? Okay. Okay. No, that's interesting. I didn't know you went to Catholic school. Plus, I was talking to her, so I didn't really kind of bring you into this.
>> You said the You did say the both of you.
>> What What version of the Bible do you need to do you need us to read for >> the I mean, the gospels are the same in the Catholic Bible as they are in the Protestant Bible.
>> Yes and no. I'm more so of a perfectionist. So I a couple years ago I started reading from Bible to Bible to Bible and I I did notice contradictions.
I did notice changed scriptures, right?
That's when I started studying apologetics and I went >> What version do you need us to read though right quick? Can you tell us that >> so I can get if you could read from the Geneva Bible?
Anything the Geneva Bible back >> the New Testament from the Geneva Bible.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> The New99. Explain why >> the 1599.
>> Yes, ma'am.
>> Yes, ma'am. And I can explain why if you'd like.
>> Go ahead.
>> And kind of on Well, it's kind of on the topic of games, you know.
>> I've got the original. I've got the 1560 if you think that's going to help.
>> You have a copy of the 1560.
>> Yep.
>> Like an actual hard copy?
>> Yeah.
>> Oh, that's so cool. Um I mean, yeah, if you're comfortable with that.
What what do you think they're they're getting right here that everyone else got wrong?
>> Well, it's not as if what they're getting wrong, what they're getting right. It's more so, you know, if you compare something like the Geneva Bible, look at the history of why King James banished those monks from >> um >> So, would you like No, I'm just saying it still says the same thing. It just uses different words like it still says the same thing.
>> It doesn't though. That's the thing.
>> Verse seven in the Geneva Bible says verse verse six says, "But let him ask in faith and waver not. For he that waverth is like a wave of the sea, tossed of the wind and carried away.
Neither let that man think I'm sorry, I'm still reading.
>> Neither let I'm I'm sorry.
Neither let that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord. Like it says the same thing. It just reads it differently.
>> Okay. Yeah, that's fine. Do you want to stay on this topic or do you want to stay on the other topic cuz you guys >> I Well, you were the one who asked me to who you're the one who pushed back on the Bible saying that if you doubt, don't expect to receive anything from the Lord. And it says that without faith it is impossible to please your God.
Right. But you also all you just a minute ago tried to push your God on me.
>> Right. He is your God. And we get that.
Hold on. You did say he is your God whether you like it or not. You did say that.
>> And oh yes ma'am.
>> Yes you did. Right. And so what we get believers doing this to us all the time.
They'll say the good that we do is because we are God blessed us to do it.
that we can't do anything without um your God allowing it to happen. Um the your God has given us free will to do good but except we do good get good we do good we get good without having faith >> but your God has put a requirement I'm sorry can I speak please >> we do good >> thank you we do good and get good according to y'all from your God without having faith because we don't have faith in your God but yet your book says It is impossible to please him without faith.
And so we're we're getting Let me finish, please.
>> Okay.
>> We're getting good. We're getting all the good things without having faith in your God. But your God put the requirement on you all to have faith.
And if you don't, you can't get [ __ ] from them.
>> So atheists are in a better position anyway.
>> Okay. Well, this goes back to the topic.
I think it was on your stream about 20-ish minutes ago. I forget the guy's name of, you know, do actually no, this is one of the questions on your screen.
You know, do you need God to be good, right? Do you need God to be a good person?
So, I would say, you know, I I honestly would say no because society today really depends on what is good and what is bad, right? To a very certain extent. you know, I could be I could be a good person and be addicted to something like pornography or drugs, but I could still, you know, respect people and not attack people and go out and try to be a model citizen. But it's not more so the question of can I be good. It's more so the question of, you know, can I pursue holiness? Can I pursue righteousness? Can I pursue what the Lord wants me to pursue? Right?
Because again, society, I would say society is what determines what is good and bad.
So, if I as an atheist uh was on drugs and I get off of drugs without faith in your God >> Uhhuh.
>> and you as a believer were on drugs and you're begging your God to help you, but yet you have doubt and he does not help you because you have doubt. Who's in the better position?
>> Um, well, I'd say because I' I'd say neither of us at that point. I mean, well, you know what? So, are you saying like, let's say I was I was addicted to drugs. Um, but I did have faith in God, but I doubted the fact that he could help me, right?
>> Mhm.
>> Well, I'd say I'd probably have more sympathy for the believer who doubts um >> because your God would >> because your God didn't because he doubted.
>> But the atheist got help from your God without faith. Because but the atheist gets help from your God to get off of drugs >> because they don't have faith in your God. They just do it themselves. Right?
According to you all, >> the good that atheists do, your God is doing with us. Even though we don't believe in your God and we have no faith in your God, the faith is in ourselves to do it. But your but you the believer do have faith in your God and you are begging your God to take the drugs away from you and and you you doubt that your God can do it but you keep saying Lord forgive me of my doubt help my unbelief and he does not do it because he says don't expect anything from him when you waver and so then you the believer still struggling with drugs while the atheist is clean and moving on with a with a better life and regardless if you say God help the atheist do it. Okay. I mean that's you saying that but we getting from your God without faith and you have faith and you ain't getting anything who >> that's where you know you said that's where you said doubt comes into play right? You know you can have faith in God but if you doubt him you know he wants your full heart. He doesn't want he doesn't want you to be half in the door half out the door. There's no, it even says in scripture, you know, Luke something up.
>> So, he let you be a lukewarm.
>> Um, yeah. Revelation 3.
>> So, he just lets you stay on drugs because you doubt.
>> I mean, if you doubt, yeah, I mean, he doesn't want you on drugs. If you want his true help, you have to fully surrender. And that does require >> disciples doubted.
>> Doesn't require this.
>> What' you say? In Matthew 20, in Matthew 28, after Jesus resurrected, disciples still doubted. Like, why why would Christians who'd never even seen Jesus before not have some doubt?
>> What exactly are you trying to ask?
>> I'm not asking anything. I'm saying it's ridiculous to think that Christians are going to be without doubt. Everyone's going to have some doubt. Even the disciples did. Disciples who supposedly saw the resurrection.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. We all have doubt. I mean that's that's a fact. I mean we all stumble but you know the best thing we can do is continue to pick up our cross and move on and repent because you know we see it as sinful. We we do see it as sinful to doubt God.
>> That's that's the problem, right? Like calling doubt a sin. And that's what your book does. Your book calls doubt a sin. And and when your God doesn't help a person or heal a person, then that person is beating themselves up because they think that, you know, because they've not seen miracles before and they're having trouble believing that your God can supernaturally heal them from drugs, right? And then they go back to it and then you tell them it's their fault because they don't have enough faith. That's the problem with your belief system. But with an atheist, a person who is not beholden to your God's rule of without faith, it's impossible to please me. A person who has faith in uh their community, faith in themselves, faith in the processes and the tools and the strategies and works the processes and then they come off drugs because they're not beholden to your god's ego and needs to be worshiped or some [ __ ] And so the atheist is in a better position than the believer because you serve a god that will let you suffer from a drug addiction because you haven't ga ga gathered enough faith to believe that he could supernaturally take it away.
>> I mean I wouldn't necessarily say that but if that's what you believe I can't really >> that's he would let you stay. You said that he will let you stay on drugs if you don't have enough faith. And you said that doubt is a sin.
>> No, I'm sin. But if you're in a perpetual state of something negative like doing drugs >> and you know, you're not taking the necessary measures, uh, like let's say going to rehab, right? If you're not putting in the effort, you know, believing in God, believing in Christ, it's not a one-way street. It's a two-way street. you know, you do have to put in effort and you have to showcase, hey, I'm serious about this. I need your help. Um, please come help me. You know, >> what's the difference between like I find it funny that your Christian friends are calling me demonic for saying that I think it's [ __ ] up that your God would let y'all stay on drugs in the chat, but like what's the difference between >> demonic? No.
>> No. What's the diff? I said, I find it interesting that your Christian friends in the chat are calling me demonic because I don't think a person should be allowed should be made to stay on drugs just because they doubt. But what what's the difference between a person who does not have faith in your God and a person who has faith in your God going to rehab? Like what is your God doing? If both people go to rehab, what exactly is it that your God is doing to help this person come off drugs?
>> Could you repeat the question you broke up just a little bit there?
>> Yeah. If both the atheist who was on drugs and the believer who was on drugs go to rehab, what exactly is it that the god is doing to help that person come off drugs?
If they have to work the process, if both people have to work the process, right? They have to uh change their behaviors, right? Change their surroundings, their groups that they hang out with, right?
change the way they think, their habits, if they have to work the process, go through the withdrawals, what exactly is it that your God is doing for the believer to help them come off drugs that they have to believe in your God to in order to come off drugs?
I would personally say offering a state of grace thereafter because this is going to this is kind of going to dwell into the topic of you know what type of lifestyle will both people follow you know after let's say getting clean and leaving rehab that's that would be my answer >> what do you mean a state of grace I know I'm I'm confused so the the atheist comes off drugs the atheist works the process the atheist comes off drugs >> and then the believer works process, the believer comes off drugs. What do you mean state of grace afterwards? What is that state of grace? I'm confused.
>> So, a state of grace would be something like, you know, you're you're going to pursue to live a a holy lifestyle to the best of your ability, but we're humans and we stumble and we sin all the time.
It's just in our nature, unfortunately.
But the state of grace would be, okay, you know, you you faced this challenge.
Here's the plan I have for you. Whereas, you know, I guess someone like an atheist wouldn't um adhere to the teachings and commands of, you know, let's say God, let's say scripture, the Bible, right?
>> No. What? So Jesus is going to give them uh a state of grace to live a holy life, like to go to church or something like it. Do y'all not think that people come off drugs without God?
Like, do y'all do Christianity >> that the do Christian do you let me ask you, do you think it's possible for a person to come off uh to recover from addictions without believing in your God?
>> Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I've seen it in my life before.
>> Well, I'm one of those people and it's and it's in my book. I I tell everybody I'm I'm one of those people and I'm not talking about a U like I I was out there as a a young kid all the way up until I was 20 21 years old >> and and I didn't do it with your God. I had to What motivated me was my father. My father called me one day. He was so disappointed in me. I did not want to lose my relationship with him, that I flushed it down the toilet and did everything that I needed to do to make sure that I did not do that again because I was going to lose my dad and that was my motivation to not lose my father and so people can >> Your father's a pastor, correct?
>> He was my daddy first. He was always my father and I did not want to lose my dad who was my best friend. And so I what and so that was my motivation, right?
And so it wasn't a God wasn't God. Even though I was a believer at that time, it wasn't God. I was out there in the streets. I was doing some of everything, but my father was my motivation for me to to come off of the drugs, right? And so people can come off of drugs without begging God, Lord, please help me, Jesus. like Lord please like if you work the process right then you can that everybody works the process no I don't care if you give God credit or whatever every human being has to work the process to come off of of drugs >> every human being has to do that >> and and the the way that Christians try to make it seem like Christians supernaturally go through withdrawals or supernaturally like addiction is taken out of mouth.
That isn't true. But but but what you are saying is is that if a person doubts, if a person sins that a God will allow them to to um still struggle with that addiction until they get their faith up and then when they get their faith upon >> Hold on. You're saying formed if it doesn't go undergo pressure.
>> I'm sorry, what?
>> I said a diamond can't be formed unless it underos immense pressure.
>> We're not diamonds. Like just a minute ago you said that wasn't what you were saying. Now you're saying it again. Like you're justifying it. Like I think you need to make up your mind. But like you're you are literally justifying a God that will allow a person who is suffering from an addiction to continue suffering because they doubt because they don't have enough faith. That is insane to me. And then you're saying, "Hold on." And then you're saying, "Wait, wait, wait, let me finish, please. Let me finish, please." Then you're saying, >> man, you're getting very angry.
I think I'd like one second. One second.
>> I think I like you to shut the [ __ ] up and stop using the stereotypes against my uh against my co-host. So, uh you're getting a little angry and you need to pipe down. Go ahead, Thinker.
>> I'm so used to the angry black woman [ __ ] I don't I bar I didn't even hear him when he said it. But but then what you're saying is that after you get your faith up, he'll then let you uh come up come off the drugs and then he'll give you grace to live a holy life. Although you live this grace of you living a holy life and going to church and reading your Bible, you'll still [ __ ] up because we all sin. Wink wink. That's what you're saying. This this God does.
>> May I interrupt?
been doing it anyway.
>> Well, I thought you guys were different people and unfortunately I was wrong. Um I thought this was going to be a respect.
>> Well, and we thought you were going to be respectable, too, which is why I just dropped you.
>> Congrats. Uh maybe don't maybe you're not the type of person that should be doing thinking. Maybe that's the that's the case.
Oh, wow.
It always ends with Christian live, doesn't it?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Are you >> They don't They don't like Logic logical and tell me.
>> No. No. No, they don't. But hey, listen friends. We've got some uh some super chats to read that came in during the stream. So, we're going to do that. And then, uh I think that was our our last call. Uh the lines are closed. The queue is empty. I had a blast watching that go down until he started saying some [ __ ] about you. And then I I was pretty much fed up with that.
>> Oh, I'm used to it. That's all I get from especially misogynistic men and uh racist male Christians who want to put me in my place.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. You're in the right place. Uh putting these people down. That's where you're supposed to be.
>> Well, let's let's grab our super chats.
I'll I'll pop the first one up. Um and then uh we'll we'll alternate through like usual. I think I'm going to pop the first one up. Is it on on the screen or did I hit it twice?
>> How to get to it? Uh, >> I hit the send button. I don't see it up there.
>> Oh, I see it now. Okay. All right.
>> West Campbell.
>> Yeah, Weston Campbell is the first one.
>> Yeah, I see it, but I don't see it on the screen.
>> Oh, I don't think it's on the screen. I don't think they put them on the screen anymore, do they?
>> Oh, hold on. I I was just not paying attention. Sorry.
>> Oh, okay.
>> It's okay.
There we go. Hey, now we got it going.
Hey, Weston. Thank you for the super chat, friend. Says, "Rip kinship.
Although our time together was short, it was the best I've ever had with a dog.
He leaves behind him his wife uh Kayudu and daughter MGM51 Shalak.
Please give your fur baby uh pets.
Absolutely, Weston. I'm sorry to hear about your loss. I uh I do take advantage of the fur babies every time I can because unfortunately they you know like humans they don't get to live forever and they are you know parts of our families.
All right, this one is from J Mes Calabria.
Doug's prophet and the queen of thought doesn't get better. Rock hard for Doug.
What is GFJ?
>> Gay for Justin.
>> Oh, gay for Justin. SWFs.
>> Simply wet for Sharon. I know there's a lot.
>> And for baffanette, where's mine?
>> Yeah. You know what we need hashtag?
We need hashtag forthinkaker. We're gonna get we're gonna get with some good ones drummed up here. That That's a fair point.
>> And Joshua is here. Thank you. Joshua says, "Daniel is out here proving the 50th in education in record time. He's five steps behind the conversation and wonders why no one else is catching up.
That is so true. Completely lost. Had no idea what was happening."
Uh, guitar atheist says, "Justin, all we need to be concerned in the world we have now." Well, Justin, we all need to be concerned in the world we have now.
We're literally living in the movie V for Vignet.
>> I think they meant to say V for Vendetta.
>> Oh, we we just need our V.
>> It is. You might be right. We're either that or we're like we're at the beginning of idiocracy, >> but it's not it's not pretty. And Dusk, good to see you, buddy. Says, "I'm praying to false gods while sitting on the couch and eating chips. Call that idol worship." Oh, that's good use of words. Double pun.
>> I like that.
Okay. Uh, kayak. No, is it kayak? Kayak it.
>> It looks that way.
>> Okay. Thanks for the delicious pretzel stew you're serving tonight and for all the effort invested in helping these poor people get past this horror. You're welcome.
>> Yeah, it it really is uh a service to the world. Hey guitar atheist, thank you for the additional super chat. Wish me luck. Tomorrow I get to see the state dock and see if I'm crippled enough for them to draw disability benefits. Oh, guitar. I I hate the fact that we have to do this in the country we live in.
Like there are people who legitimately should be supported by some sort of robust safety net. And the reality is you never know if you're actually going to get the support that you paid into your whole life or not.
>> Yeah, that's pretty messed up.
Um, guitar atheist again. I read this during the live stream. You're going to see me cracking up.
I've been baptized five times and now I'm an atheist. There goes that argument. I saw that come I saw that come through during the live. So if you see me laughing while somebody said something serious, that's your fault.
It >> Well, the thing of it is you didn't get that Catholic baptism. So it wasn't the right one.
Billy Cypes, good to see you, friend.
Thank you so much for the $50 super chat. That's huge. It's a well-known fact that all means when it's convenient to my pre-existing beliefs. I enjoy all healthy behaviors until I see that cheeseburger, then watch out. And you know what? I would make an exception perhaps for a really, really good cheeseburger. Although, I am attempting.
I'm mostly doing well with uh switching away from uh beef, but wish me luck.
It's tough.
>> It's been a couple of years since I've eaten beef. Um let's see here.
Uh, Billy Cypes, is the devil just God's enforcer? Is a devil who God sends out to break some ankles and hands to collect on debts? I think so.
>> Actually, in complete agreement. I have no reason to believe that the devil is like the nemesis of Yahweh in the Old Testament.
>> He just doesn't seem to be.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. And uh from Mccorine, I hope I said that. Mccorine or M Corine. Hey, thank you for the super chat. Isn't studying apologetics tantamount to an admission of something awful? Plus, uh I think by perfectionist, he meant douchebag. Yeah, you're right. But words are subjective.
We can redefine whatever we need. And I think you nailed it. And apologetics to me is I don't know if it's admission something awful, but it is an admission that like you have to make excuses at a minimum. That's the apology that you're offering.
>> Yeah.
Uh says Kurt fail.
Yeah. Organizations like AA suggest giving yourself to a higher power to achieve sobriety. Why would I give credit but not also blame?
Indeed, that's a fair point.
>> Yep.
And from Case says, "Buddy is a douchebag." Hi, Thinker. Love you.
>> Thank you, coach.
>> Agreement on that front.
>> Uh, Curt Fell again. Also, Thinker with Justin is a super team. Justin, I love you, but I am in love with thinker. I love it.
>> I don't blame you. It's all right. I I more than happy to be in second place here. And from our friend guitar atheist again says, "The hardest thing about being an atheist is being honest with myself and knowing I'm not escaping death." I'm actually with you. I know not everyone agrees that for me that's the hard part. Um but you know it it is what it is. Humans have been wrestling with it for since humans have been humans. So at least you're in good company.
Oh, I like that hashtag unashamed apostate.
Do you see that?
>> Let me see. Uh, not yet. Not yet. I might have missed it.
>> It's #TFT Thursday forthinker.
>> Oh, [ __ ] Yeah, I like that. All right.
TFT is it.
>> Um, let's see. Bryce Arone.
God will let you stay on drugs because you doubt but wants you to go to rehab.
Thank you. God sounds useless. What reason would an addict have to put faith in a God who wants the addict to solve his own problems? That's my point. Thank you.
>> I need you to go to rehab, but also I'm the reason you're in rehab. It makes perfect sense.
>> Yep. And your reward is going to be you get to live a holy life in grace.
>> You nailed it. Kay says he's concussed.
Hi Thinker and Justin. Great duo.
>> Hey K.
>> Thank you.
>> It is fun. I have a great time with Thinker.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh Breeroni again. They can't standing.
They can't stand the idea of a woman calling them out and a black woman schooling them is intolerable for them.
And that's why I [ __ ] love it >> unapologetically.
>> They shrivel so fast the minute she speaks. It's fun to watch from my my perspective.
>> Uh and from Pure Form says, "Great show tonight. Thank you both and everyone supporting the show." And I would offer a second thank you y'all. These shows only exist because the supporters that are here supporting. So, uh, a round of applause for y'all because like we get to come and have fun and talk to people and, uh, get to talk to you as well through super chats and, um, we can do it because y'all supporting us. So, thank you.
>> Yes, definitely. Thank you. Appreciate y'all.
This it is [ __ ] fun.
Uh, is it is it my turn again? Oh, >> I think it is. Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh, tree thinking 666. Best to think BTT. Is this a hashtag suggestion?
>> I think it is. Yeah.
>> Oh, I like that too.
>> Best to think.
>> Yeah.
>> And uh last one from unashamed apostate uh #TFT thirsty forthinker. It is set in motion now. It is a thing. I will be expecting everybody to spread it around in all the live streams. And this is >> the the first of many thinker hashtags.
I am sure of it. But uh hey, I had a blast tonight. Thinker. Uh I'm sure >> we'll be doing this again soon since uh you're part of the the the rotation as well as I on the Saturday show.
>> So I'm looking forward to the next one.
>> Yeah, I'm excited. I'll be with on the Hang Up with Dante with uh Matt next Wednesday. Not this Wednesday, but next Wednesday. Yeah.
>> Excited about that, too.
>> And then uh for those who don't know, what's your Tik Tok and YouTube handles?
Uh think so my YouTube is think beyond dogma and then my Tik Tok is at N the letter N and growth. So in growthrowth >> yeah I need to make that easier.
>> It I mean it it help it could help.
>> Yeah. I did not start with the purposes of doing deconstruction.
>> So it'll be okay. It'll be okay. Well friends, thank you so much for being with us. Sorry, we started a little bit late. That's actually my fault. Um, so I'll take my lashings on that. I'll take up my cross on that particular issue.
Uh, but thank you so much for being here. We love you. Have a great rest of your weekend and we'll see you again soon.
>> Thank you. Bye y'all. Have a good weekend.
>> Okay. Bye.
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
9:05
Artificial Intelligence
2.4 BILLION Records Got Leaked...
DeepHumor
15K views•2026-07-22
13:25
Business
Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23
19:32
Business
Should I buy a Sawmill?
essentialcraftsman
29K views•2026-07-22
16:52
Anthropology
Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23