Відео

@@abbott5580 Adressed and resolved are not the same thing.

@@abbott5580 As always, feel free to facilitate.

Ok but you claim that honest apologists don't address this objection, which they have.

@@SamBoltonIX I don't know him.. I just made the suggestion if you were wanting to promote your channel by getting involved in debates.

@abbott5580 I never said that they've never addressed them. I said they focus more on side issues.

Your argument raises an interesting question - if Yahweh exists to help us grow morally, why does His justice system seem less developed than human justice? Many parents manage to correct their children's behavior without requiring blood sacrifice or eternal punishment. This suggests that either our understanding of divine justice needs refinement, or we should question whether these interpretations truly reflect a perfect being. ## The Moral Framework You suggest that questioning Yahweh's morality is self-defeating since He defines morality. However, this creates a philosophical puzzle: If we cannot use moral reasoning to evaluate divine actions, how do we determine whether we're following a benevolent deity? Even the ability to recognize goodness requires some independent moral framework. ## The Nature of Sin and Consequences Your point about sin being unsatisfying is interesting but sidesteps the core issue. The question isn't whether sin has natural consequences - it's whether eternal torture is a proportionate response to finite crimes, and whether punitive substitution makes ethical sense. Many people live meaningful, ethical lives without requiring threats of divine punishment. ## Divine Love and Justice The idea that Yahweh's love is demonstrated through substitutionary atonement raises questions: If He has the power to forgive without punishment (being sovereign), why is blood sacrifice necessary? If He cannot forgive without punishment, isn't He bound by rules above Himself? This seems to limit either His power or His love. Rather than claiming these questions make Yahweh evil, perhaps we should consider whether our traditional interpretations of divine justice need to evolve beyond bronze-age concepts of sacrifice and punishment. After all, if human beings can grasp more nuanced forms of justice and forgiveness, shouldn't we expect at least as much from a perfect being?

@ The main problem I see with your arguments is that you are viewing forgiveness and divinity through a very humanistic lens. Which I understand it is very hard not to considering we are humans. You obviously hold to the belief that humans have a superior moral code than God. But if God exists and his morals or absolute, then does it really make a difference whether or not you believe he is moral? It is also interesting because your argument leads me to believe you would only consider believing in a God that aligns with your own moral standard. It seems that you couldn’t believe in perfectly holy God that hates each sin as much as the next. Christians believe that God is a personal being who created us to love him and have a relationship with him. The argument about God not having the power to forgive without sacrifice is kind of paradoxical. God is the judge and makes the rules of forgiveness. When we wrong God, he doesn’t just let us spend eternity in heaven with no consequences. So he gave an alternative, in the old testament we see sacrifices and the rules for how a sacrifice should work (such as the animal has to be spotless). These sacrifices are a temporary cleansing of sin. Remember, God is a jealous God and these offerings were how we reconciled with him. And these sacrifices ended with Jesus who was the perfect sacrifice. When you say that humans are more moral because for example our parents can forgive their kids without punishment, it’s important to understand that the basis of human forgiveness hinges on the fact that we are all flawed. The reason we forgive someone is because we too have made mistakes and know it isn’t our place to be the judge. So we let their mistakes slide because they are human and are expected to make mistakes. But it couldn’t work that way in a perfectly just system because perfect justice requires someone to pay for their mistake. This is where Jesus comes in. My point about it being dissatisfying to adhere to Gods standards stems from the same POV that you are arguing from. We sinners believe our way of living is superior to Gods. But it ultimately doesn’t matter whether or not a sinner believes God is moral. We can choose life in Heaven or we can choose to live separate from God.

@BringOutTheLobster. aka - burn in hell forever - the very notion that a just and loving God would set up this absurd dichotomy should give you reason to doubt. Pure moral insanity.

@@SamBoltonIX I’m still curious about what the doubt is concerning. Are you implying that ,because Gods morals don’t align with human morals, he doesn’t exist? That’s a silly conclusion. There is no absurdity. Sacrifice has always been necessary for forgiveness which is what you fail to realize. I’d like to hear your archetype of what a perfectly just and perfectly loving god would be. At some point one has to take priority, so is it love or justice that takes priority? Should God’s love simply outweigh his justness so that we can enter heaven without due justice? That’s what happened on the cross when Jesus paid for our sins. There is no greater example of love.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. However, I must respectfully disagree with several points: ## The Nature of Divine Justice Your argument that God being both judge and sacrifice somehow resolves the moral problem actually highlights a deeper inconsistency. If God can choose to forgive without punishment (being perfectly sovereign), then the entire sacrificial system becomes unnecessary. If He cannot forgive without punishment, then He is bound by a moral law above Himself. ## The Problem of Perfect Justice You suggest that God's perfect holiness makes His justice fundamentally different from human justice. However, if human beings can understand forgiveness without requiring blood sacrifice (as many do every day), how can a perfect being be more constrained in His ability to forgive? This seems to make divine justice less perfect than human justice, not more. ## The Logic of Substitution The core issue isn't whether the judge takes the punishment themselves - it's whether punitive substitution makes moral sense at all. If I commit a crime, how does someone else's suffering (whether a third party or the judge) address my moral culpability? It may demonstrate love, but it doesn't resolve the underlying moral debt in any coherent way. ## Divine Love and Forgiveness You suggest my analogy shows I wouldn't forgive a murderer. However, the point is precisely that true forgiveness means releasing the debt, not transferring it to another party (even if that party volunteers). Many people, through grace and love, have forgiven terrible crimes without requiring blood payment - suggesting they've grasped something about the nature of forgiveness that this theology misses. The question isn't whether God loves us or made a sacrifice - it's whether the entire framework of substitutionary atonement is morally coherent and worthy of a perfect being. Perhaps there are better ways to understand Christ's death that don't require us to embrace bronze-age concepts of justice and sacrifice.

@@brianmchaney7083 Feel free to facilitate

@@ggfroggs Have you ever heard of Projection?

@@gabegallegos6496 Strawman. Do better

They're not interested in the topics, just in winning, the whole point of my video.

@SamBoltonIX congratulations on beating the algorithm 😄

I don't care. Not the point of the video.

Glad you enjoyed it

Brother, I have never felt better than after I let go of the fear of Yahweh. Abandon the blood god and your burden will be light. Promise.

@@dolyharianto What is it with Christians and insults? Nasty group of women.

@@TrueSeer-y7p interesting take

Is that a threat? 😂

I sincerely appreciate the compassion and concern evident in your words. Your desire to offer comfort and guidance is commendable, and it's clear that your faith is a source of profound meaning in your life. However, I feel it's important to clarify a misunderstanding. I haven't abandoned faith or belief in God entirely. Rather, my spiritual journey has led me to a different understanding of the divine - one that doesn't align with the specific conception of God presented in Christianity. Your suggestion to "look at what is around you" resonates with me. Indeed, the wonders of nature and the intricacies of human existence often inspire awe and point to something greater than ourselves. However, these observations don't necessarily lead to the conclusion that Yahweh, as described in the Bible, is the sole explanation for this complexity and beauty. I respect that you find truth and purpose in your belief in the Christian God. However, it's crucial to recognize that others, like myself, may find spiritual fulfillment and meaning through different conceptions of the divine or alternative philosophical frameworks. Your assertion about the reality of the spirit and its yearning for a creator is deeply personal. While I agree that there's a spiritual aspect to human existence, I've come to interpret this differently than the Christian tradition suggests. I appreciate your good intentions, but I would gently suggest that assuming someone needs to "find God again" in the specific form you understand Him can be dismissive of the thoughtful, often challenging spiritual journeys many of us undertake. I respect your faith and the comfort it brings you, I hope you can extend the same respect to those who have found different answers to life's big questions, even if those answers still involve belief in a higher power. Our capacity for spiritual exploration and mutual understanding transcends any single religious tradition.

This is a long comment and I will read it in full, but I just wanted to acknowledge that you're right. I misspoke if I came across as saying Wes isn't really a scholar. I meant that Bill Carson isn't a scholar.

I appreciate your passion, but let's unpack a few things: Wes Huff's credentials: Having a degree doesn't automatically make someone an authority. Many scholars disagree with apologetic interpretations. Apologetics: They often defend predetermined conclusions rather than following evidence objectively. That's not scholarship; it's advocacy. Biblical interpretation: Your views on creation, hell, and salvation are just one interpretation among many. Biblical scholars have diverse perspectives on these topics. Historical evidence: The existence of Jesus and early Christian persecution isn't as clear-cut as you suggest. Pliny's letter dates to 112 CE, decades after the events in question. Monotheism: Your argument for its logical necessity is... interesting. Empty tombs don't prove divinity, my friend. American Christianity: The US wasn't founded on "God's principles." Ever heard of the Establishment Clause? Exodus: Archaeological evidence actually doesn't support a literal Exodus as described in the Bible. It's more likely a cultural narrative than historical fact. Personal experience: I'm glad you found meaning, but personal experiences aren't universal truths. Look, I get it. Faith can be powerful. But let's not confuse faith with fact. There's a whole world of biblical scholarship out there that digs deeper than apologetics. Maybe give it a shot? You might be surprised what you learn. 😉

@SamBoltonIX @SamBoltonIX having a degree yes. Doesn't make you intelligent. So therefore by the same logic no scientist has any actual credentials. Plinys letter dates to 112 yes. But I never claimed it mentioned Jesus. Just the persecution of chrsitians. The us was founded on god. Ever since 1789. The president swore his oath on the bible. If it wasn't based on Christianity why was it 1 specific religious text used. You can't dispute this. We can go forever and you'd still refuse fact. Your right to point out a empty tomb doesn't mean divine. But it proves existence of the only 1 man globally known to have claimed to be a God. The exodus. What exactly proof do you think would be left behind. If a miracle that shouldn't have happened in reality happened... you don't think God could've put everything back the way it was before? If you claim we live in an objective world. Sorry not sorry. Your personal experiences are truth. For if we had no objective reality everything would be up to individuals feelings. For subjectives description is personal experience. So to say personal experience denies both objective truth and subjective truth. Which you just claimed is ironic. Just becuase someone rather change God to glorify themselves. Then to do what the bible strictly teaches in glorifying god. Denies the fact denominations change anything. There are denominations that deny parts of the Bible. Which are 98 percent accurate to the original manuscripts. Besides different spellings for example color and colour. Many denominations. 1 bible I don't think you fully understood my previous testimony. I did exactly what you said. To explore. For 7 years. Ended up in a self made cell full of lies, deciet and horror. And it ultimately brought me back to the 1 true God. Simply becuase i cannot refuse what I've witnessed in my life. After coming to Christ. Doesn't make me closed minded. It means I've seen things I will die over. The fact your sentence structures are full of self righteousness shows me you think you might upset me. But in reality. I really don't care what you believe sir. I care you come to Christ for he will truly change your life. But to tell someone to deny things they witnessed. Just asinine. I've studied many religions. And only 1 God saved me from my own self destruction. If you have a good life. Thank God for your ability to go against him. Becuase in the end. All knees will bow. Jesus objectively lived, claimed to be God. And was killed. And the bible WOULD not exist. If something major didn't happen 2000 years ago. For our whole world is shaped by Christ. Our calender which every country uses is based off the Chrsitian God. Still to this day BCE. Before Christ era, and CE. Christ era. There are undeniable things you will see and if you just mark it off as coincidence or a accident. I do in fact pity your soul. For your brain thinks it knows everything when not even science knows everything. And if science doesn't know everything. Who's limiting that knowledge. They admit there is a "supercomputer"(some source of intelligence out there that has every single aspect of life known) yet well never get to that point. For we only disagree with 1 thing. I praise God. You praise the world in faith that 1 day science will provide answers. I spent 7 years dying. And now I'm alive as I have ever been. He took my depression away any harmful thoughts. Any thoughts of despair. I used to overthink every second of the day. Now I don't. It killed me man. There is no harder religion to follow that is hard on your entire body. Then the religion of the world. God bless sir! It was a pleasure hearing a response.

@SamBoltonIX having a degree yes. Doesn't make you intelligent. So therefore by the same logic no scientist has any actual credentials. Plinys letter dates to 112 yes. But I never claimed it mentioned Jesus. Just the persecution of chrsitians. The us was founded on god. Ever since 1789. The president swore his oath on the bible. If it wasn't based on Christianity why was it 1 specific religious text used. You can't dispute this. We can go forever and you'd still refuse fact. Your right to point out a empty tomb doesn't mean divine. But it proves existence of the only 1 man globally known to have claimed to be a God. The exodus. What exactly proof do you think would be left behind. If a miracle that shouldn't have happened in reality happened... you don't think God could've put everything back the way it was before? If you claim we live in an objective world. Sorry not sorry. Your personal experiences are truth. For if we had no objective reality everything would be up to individuals feelings. For subjectives description is personal experience. So to say personal experience denies both objective truth and subjective truth. Which you just claimed is ironic. Just becuase someone rather change God to glorify themselves. Then to do what the bible strictly teaches in glorifying god. Denies the fact denominations change anything. There are denominations that deny parts of the Bible. Which are 98 percent accurate to the original manuscripts. Besides different spellings for example color and colour. Many denominations. 1 bible I don't think you fully understood my previous testimony. I did exactly what you said. To explore. For 7 years. Ended up in a self made cell full of lies, deciet and horror. And it ultimately brought me back to the 1 true God. Simply becuase i cannot refuse what I've witnessed in my life. After coming to Christ. Doesn't make me closed minded. It means I've seen things I will die over. The fact your sentence structures are full of self righteousness shows me you think you might upset me. But in reality. I really don't care what you believe sir. I care you come to Christ for he will truly change your life. But to tell someone to deny things they witnessed. Just asinine. I've studied many religions. And only 1 God saved me from my own self destruction. If you have a good life. Thank God for your ability to go against him. Becuase in the end. All knees will bow. Jesus objectively lived, claimed to be God. And was killed. And the bible WOULD not exist. If something major didn't happen 2000 years ago. For our whole world is shaped by Christ. Our calender which every country uses is based off the Chrsitian God. Still to this day BCE. Before Christ era, and CE. Christ era. There are undeniable things you will see and if you just mark it off as coincidence or a accident. I do in fact pity your soul. For your brain thinks it knows everything when not even science knows everything. And if science doesn't know everything. Who's limiting that knowledge. They admit there is a "supercomputer"(some source of intelligence out there that has every single aspect of life known) yet well never get to that point. For we only disagree with 1 thing. I praise God. You praise the world in faith that 1 day science will provide answers. I spent 7 years dying. And now I'm alive as I have ever been. He took my depression away any harmful thoughts. Any thoughts of despair. I used to overthink every second of the day. Now I don't. It killed me man. There is no harder religion to follow that is hard on your entire body. Then the religion of the world. God bless sir! It was a pleasure hearing a response.

@@SamBoltonIX I have a response. And somereason it's activating UA-cams comment removal. I will respond. Gotta figure out what UA-cam dislikes about it.

Ok Lukey, why don't you enlighten us?

Ok Sammy boy simple enough. So in your rant you are claiming that the original text says elohim and that the septuagant say yahwe elohim. So with that your not totally wrong. What you fail to comprehend is that the language changes dramatically from Hebrew to Greek and also that through time languages evolve and words are added (common practice by Greeks) to more accurately convey a central narrative. The word elohim in ancient Hebrew is used as singular form when referring to the God. It is used in plural when referring to God's "Devine council", angels and demons. The ancient Hebrew would use the plural when mockingly referring to canaanite demon or..... "gods". It's common throughout the bible for false "gods" to be mocked. In the creation story, the plagues in egypt. There were no lesser gods, there were supernatural beings and human rulers who claimed god hood. So you really have to understand the context of where elohim is being used. Take genesis 1:26 God said let us make man in our image. You have elohim God and us his Devine counsil, that dosnt mean that there are multiple Gods. I would just say if your going to try and create a channel bashing the bible and the one true God atleast do the research. If you are actually interested in understanding more scholarly bits about old testiment history check out works by michael hisser "the unseen realm" R.I.P a phd in ancient Hebrew. Honestly it seems like you are just like every other hater of the Bible and just want to rant and say that you are morally superior to christians (proving that you do not come close to understanding chrisianity)... anyways have fun farming engagement to grow your channel, whatever..

@@lukeyland9594 Wow, where do I even start? First off, thanks for the lecture, but I think you might’ve misunderstood my point-or maybe just wanted to flex your knowledge of Michael Heiser (RIP). Either way, let’s clear this up. On "Elohim" and Translation: Yes, Elohim is plural in form but often used singularly for Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible. We agree there. My point was that in Genesis 3, the Hebrew text says Yahweh Elohim ("the LORD God"), but the Septuagint simplifies this to ho theos ("God"). That’s not me "failing to comprehend" anything-it’s just how translation works when adapting Hebrew concepts for a Greek-speaking audience. So no, I’m not saying Yahweh was erased or replaced-just pointing out how languages and theological priorities shape translations. On Polytheism and Henotheism: Let’s not pretend ancient Israelite religion was monotheistic from day one. Archaeology and the Bible itself (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Psalm 82) show Yahweh was originally one god among many in a divine council. Early Israelites were henotheistic-they worshipped Yahweh exclusively but acknowledged other gods existed. Monotheism came later, likely influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism during the Exile. So yes, Elohim can refer to "gods" or "God," depending on context-but pretending Israel always had a clean-cut monotheism ignores history. On Genesis 1:26 ("Let us make man in our image"): You’re right that some interpret "us" as God speaking to his divine council (angels, supernatural beings, etc.). Others see it as a plural of majesty or even an internal dialogue within God (proto-Trinitarian). My point wasn’t to deny your interpretation-just to highlight how ancient Near Eastern cultures thought about divine beings collectively. This isn’t me "ranting"; it’s literally what scholars study. On Yahweh’s Character: Let’s be real: evangelical readings of Yahweh often gloss over his more… problematic traits. Genocidal commands (Joshua 6:21), extreme punishments (Numbers 16), and obsessive jealousy over rival gods don’t exactly scream "loving deity." These traits make sense if you see Yahweh as an ancient tribal god competing with others-but modern attempts to paint him as some perfect moral being? That’s a harder sell. On My Intentions: I’m not here to bash the Bible or Christians-I’m here to explore these texts critically and historically because they’re fascinating. If asking questions about ancient religion makes you uncomfortable, that’s on you-not me. And no, curiosity about ancient texts isn’t "hating"; it’s called thinking. So yeah, next time maybe engage with what I actually said instead of assuming I’m just farming engagement or ranting for fun. But hey, thanks for boosting my channel metrics-always appreciated! :)

@@SamBoltonIX @SamBoltonIX ok I'm glad you cleared up the issue on elohim, I wish you would have included that in your video it would have made you come across as less misleading. In response to your claim that isrealites were poly theistic it depends on what you mean by that. The religion of judiasism has always been monotheistic. However, it is true that throughout the history of the isrealites they disobeyed God and went after other gods. It literally happens from genisis to malachi that dosnt mean that judiasism was ever in nature pollytheistic. Maybe your referening to the caanaite Supreme God el. I heard arguments that judiasim borrowed from their pantheon and their creation story. Both are false. The creation story in the bible is mocking the dualism account of the creation story. There's plenty of literature to back that up. Point being after the covenant was established with Abraham there was no god but the God. Before that sure Abraham's father worshiped false gods I can conceded to that idea. Deuteronomy 32 8-9 is understood that God gave over these nation to demonic power, demon, fallen angels .... elohim. This is again would be clear to the jew and not so much to westerners in 2025. it's is understood certain nations like edom, moab ammon were given to elohim to carry the responsibility. It's also clear that the elohim (divine counsel ) (angel and demons) answered to elohim God of isreal. Psalm 82 God is taken his place in the Devine counsel... where is his place..... the judgment seat... clear that he is Supreme here not equal to. interesting about psalm 82 some scholars hold to the interpretation that the elohim rendered to here are actually earthy ruler and not supernatural being. I kind hold to the supernatural interpretation. To God's harshness. I mean this is like the most common complaint from apostates, atheist, and agnostics.... and I would just encourage to read about what these other nations of the bronze age were into and how truly evil it was. Then read joshua again. And here some things to consider. God is righteous and can't stand sin, priests had to tie ropes to each other when entering into the holy of holy because if they sinned they were dead. If they offered sacrifices in the wrong way they died. When isrealites disobeyed the died. So when nations tried to extinguish God's chosen people its not hard to imagine how it would end for them. I mean do you know what it means when it says they passed their children through the fire. Also, refer above edom, ammon etc these nation were ruled by the demonic and hedonistic. The message in the old restaurant is that yes God is righteous and may seem harsh, but he's also merciful. He sent his son as the last and perfect blood sacrifice. To your last point you didn't say anything in your video as interesting as your response to me tbh. Your main theme was that you don't like apologetics and that you don't think that christianity is a morally sound religion. You when on for some time about that. You said you were pentecostal at first. Well I was a pastors kid my dad is a pentecostal pastor. I like you became apostate at the age of 20. I never had a personal relationship with Jesus. I tried to do things my way and had alot of similar thought like you. I did my own digging and God found me and I submitted. Christian aren't called to be perfect they are required to believe Jesus is who he claimed to be and to aspire to be better. I don't mind if your channel grows with it, I just hope you wouldn't write off the bible so easily.

Yes! thank you for reminding me!

@@zabelsword It can be educational, that's fair. As far as being a hypocrite, can you elaborate? The overall point here is that Christian apologists and their fans are more interested in winning an argument than rationally considering the facts.

@@SamBoltonIX You seem to be stirring up dissent among fellow Christians. You are using similar tactics that you accuse apologists of using, except more extreme in some cases. Such as your over-the-top AI generated thumbnails which are befitting of a medieval or classical era circus poster. I think Wes embodies 1 Peter 3:15-16 rather well. He tries to be as respectful as possible in his approach. “But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” We know that Paul debated others as can be read in Acts. I don't see what apologists are doing wrong unless you can point to where it says not to debate others in the Bible. Acts 19:8-10 “Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God. But some of them became obstinate; they refused to believe and publicly maligned the Way. So Paul left them. He took the disciples with him and had discussions daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. This went on for two years so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord.” 10. 2 Corinthians 10:5 “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” Acts 18:27-28 “When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers and sisters encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. When he arrived, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. For he vigorously refuted his Jewish opponents in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Messiah.”

​@zabelsword I appreciate you engaging with the video! Let me be super clear though - you're missing my central point. I'm not just critiquing debate tactics or stirring up division. My core argument is that modern apologetics (including the theatrical debates) serves as a distraction from much deeper problems with evangelical Christian doctrine itself. Think about it - while everyone's focused on manuscript evidence and historical arguments, we're not addressing the fundamental moral issues with concepts like substitutionary atonement, eternal conscious torment, or divine command theory. These are the real elephants in the room that no amount of skilled debating can resolve. You brought up Paul - but Paul was actually engaging with the substance of theological ideas, not putting on shows to avoid the hard questions. The "bread and circuses" comparison isn't about rhetoric itself - it's about using spectacle to keep people from confronting uncomfortable truths about their beliefs. I'd genuinely love to have a deeper conversation about this with you on my stream. We could really dig into these moral challenges that apologetics tends to sidestep. What do you say? Let's move beyond comment section back-and-forth and have a real dialogue about the substance of these issues.

@@SamBoltonIX Babies need to be fed milk before they can grow and eventually eat meat and other solid foods. The way we approach an unbeliever is going to differ based on their age, education and past experiences. Many people need to hear about the evidence that supports the fact that Jesus existed and the Bible exists today as it was written thousands of years ago. Once they accept these basic ideas then they can become open to understanding the teachings of the Bible. Apologetics can be about moving people from worldly encampments toward being more favorably disposed toward Christianity. There are right ways and wrong ways of doing it. The wrong ways can lead them digging their heels in or even moving them further away from the gospels. I would argue that while the topics you mentioned should be discussed, it doesn't mean that there isn't a time and place for apologetics. I'd agree that people can get caught up in those "gotcha" moments. However, folks like Billy Carson were going around and telling lies about Jesus and the Bible. I'm glad that someone like Wes Huff was able to have a discussion with him and the result seems to be hundreds or even thousands of people turning to Christ. I think you should be more careful about slandering Huff since he is a servant of God who is planting good seed. I think apologetics can be about planting seed, but there still needs to be those who nurture and water them and eventually harvest. I appreciate the invite, but I haven't ever been on any sort of stream. I'll think about it and let you know if I decide to take you up on that offer.

​​@@SamBoltonIX wes content is entertaining. Apologetics can be entertaining... so what. Apologetics defends the truth of the bible. It also defends the Christian position. This is necessary because atheists say that Christians believe this or that, and it is always in some disparaging way. You said that atheists might say things to make christians doubt. The tactics that they use are deceptive and aren't scholarly because they don't actually consider the christian perspective. This alone make apoplectics edifying. For example you say that romans elegedly threw christians to the lions...... bro really. There plenty of literature confirming this and more. This is a common tactic from people of your ilk. You say your not atheist?? I'm assuming you must agnostic or a Satanist because you say its all about you. I also say that because the tenants of Satanism is to subvert conservative christians. In a nutshell I would argue that Apologetics has been around and is in to response of disingenuous bible haters. You say christianty morally void, it's because you haven't actually understood the Christian position position.... making Apologetics the proper response. Furthermore your understanding of the word elohim is a joke. elohim refers to divine counsel not little gods.. thats a widely known fact, septuagant and masseretic text is laughable. Everything you say is so easily refuted, stick to your day job bud. That car ain't gonna detail itsel.

@erinrocha6287 Yeah. That's essentially what I said at the very beginning of the video.

@@timperry2373 Thanks, man.

@@thothheartmaat2833 Thanks for that insight.

@@SamBoltonIX The thousand-year reprieve in Kali Yuga is called Kṛṣṇa-varṣa-sahasra (कृष्णवर्षसहस्र), meaning “the thousand years of Krishna’s influence.” According to the Brahma Vaivarta Purana, this period occurs due to the divine blessings of Lord Krishna, who ensures a temporary resurgence of righteousness (dharma), spiritual awareness, and peace within the age of decline and darkness. This reprieve is described as a “Golden Age” or a mini Satya Yuga within Kali Yuga, where humanity experiences heightened spiritual consciousness and a return to balance, driven by devotion (bhakti) and the influence of enlightened beings.

Agreed

@@countrylife04 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@SamBoltonIX 🤡🤡🤡🤡

@HopeOfChrist I'm not an atheist. Good job Not responding to anything substantial. God bless, darling.

HES NO SCHOLAR HE DOES DOES EVEN KNOW HISTORY

​@@SamBoltonIXit's true you're not an atheist but bro thought you were because they talk just like you. Maybe atheists are closet marcionites too 🤯

Love you, schnookums. ❤

Your response misses the mark entirely. Did you even watch the video? It seems like you're just regurgitating apologetic talking points without engaging with the actual arguments presented. Let's break this down: The video's core argument is that Yahweh, as depicted in certain biblical passages, cannot be the omnibenevolent God of classical theism. This isn't about "grounding morality" - it's about the logical inconsistency between Yahweh's actions and the concept of a morally perfect being. I presented several Christian responses in good faith, including the "greater good" argument and various attempts to contextualize the problematic passages. Your claim that I didn't "steel man" Christian arguments is simply false. Your assertion about Canaanite child sacrifice is based on dubious historical evidence, likely exaggerated by ancient propaganda to justify conquest. Even if true, it doesn't justify the wholesale slaughter of an entire people, including children. Divine Command Theory (DCT) is philosophically problematic. If morality is solely based on God's commands, then it becomes arbitrary and subjective. This undermines the concept of God's essential goodness and turns morality into "might makes right". Nowhere in the video did I assume there's no afterlife. This is a straw man argument on your part. I didn't "add to the Bible." I presented the text as it is written. If you believe my interpretation is flawed, provide specific examples and explain why your reading is more valid. Your response seems more like an emotional reaction than a thoughtful engagement with the video's content. I'd encourage you to rewatch it with an open mind and address the actual arguments presented, rather than falling back on pre-packaged apologetics. Your reliance on DCT is particularly troubling. This view essentially makes morality arbitrary and subjective, dependent solely on God's whims. If God can declare any action moral simply by commanding it, then concepts like "good" and "evil" lose all meaning. Consider the implications: If God commanded the torture of innocent children, would that suddenly become morally good? Most people's moral intuitions recoil at this idea, which suggests that we recognize some standard of goodness independent of divine commands. Furthermore, DCT faces the Euthyphro dilemma: Is an action moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it's moral? If the former, morality becomes arbitrary. If the latter, then morality exists independently of God, undermining the theory. Your claim about Canaanite practices is not as historically certain as you present it. Many scholars view these accounts as exaggerated war propaganda used to justify conquest. Even if true, it doesn't justify genocide. Moreover, your interpretation ignores the complex nature of these texts. Biblical scholars have long grappled with these passages, offering various interpretations that don't require a literal reading of divine-mandated genocide. The video presents a serious philosophical challenge to certain conceptions of God based on biblical texts. Instead of engaging with these arguments, you've retreated to simplistic apologetics and mischaracterizations. I'd encourage you to dig deeper into the philosophical and theological debates surrounding these issues. They're far more complex and nuanced than your response suggests.

@blakeappine Sounds like this hit you in the feels. The morality is built into the religion(s) that claim it as such...how didn't he "ground" it? Because you don't like what he is saying is not an argument. The entire religion is supposed to provide a moral ground on how to live ones' life. How about the exodus...how many of his followers were killed by him because they complained and wanted real food? Basically all of them were killed lol. His power and glory involved making millions wander the desert for 40 years to the "promised" land; a couple months away on foot at most and then killing them. Is that the almighty creator of us all? The uniting of the tribes is another example of a jealous war god (small g) guiding his "people" which YHWH is. YHWH went to ALL peoples of the earth before he finally went to the last tribe in Israel and was finally accepted. Then the slaughter begins. That was the unification of the tribes of Israel. The jealous war god got his revenge. You are assuming the life after this world is the one Christians teach, which is an either or proposition...I won't wait for you to try and tie the pretzel of how we can't understand God, but we should just think he is moral because he is and how we should look at the bible as a moral framework of how to be in the world.

@CuttinInIdaho I'm saying he did no heavy lifting in proving that any of the moral language he used throughout the video actually means anything... What do you mean God is evil? Good and evil are grounded in the character of God on a Judeo/Christian world view. How do you make claims of right and wrong? If you are athiest, then there literally is no such thing as morality, so how could you say God is good or bad. Those are meaningless words in an athiesting worldview. That's what I meant.

@@blakeappine Garbage presuppositional strawman. Abandon the blood god Yahweh and search for the true creator. Freedom is on the other side of this destructive cult. I promise.

@@tomfrombrunswick7571 Fair point. I am granting existence to show that he's an asshole.

I wouldn't say I have evidence in an empirical sense. It's just philosophical speculation. Imagine a supreme "Cosmic Coder" creating infinite simulated universes, each with different physics and rules. This Coder = God, existing outside our reality but fine-tuning every simulated universe. It explains our perfectly calibrated cosmos and links to the idea that if God exists in one possible world, He exists in all. This God-as-Programmer concept gives us: A source for consciousness across realities. Purpose in a grand cosmic design. Divine attributes like omniscience and omnipresence.

@@SamBoltonIX Science (and many/most atheists) does not rule out the existence of a creator. Simulation theory by definition rules in a "cosmic coder" as you would call it. But sciences is agnostic of a God because a god is untestable or in science speak "not falsifiable". Being able to prove something false is a basic tenet of science. Science understands it's impossible to prove anything as precisely true. Just the best explanation to date. Science is a build up of knowledge brick by brick. The Abrahamic religions however are falsifiable. Their text is gibberish written by unsophisticated men who had no knowledge of the universe. And worse written by mysoginistic men who wish to control others. Clearly you are a thinker. Use that to discover more about science. Rather than waste time on something you can't prove is true or false. The reason I try to point out the failings of the Bible is not because I have a thing against religion (most atheists don't) but because I do not believe that religious zealots should be allowed force their beliefs on others. The west will become like Iran if the religious right gets their way and we will once again return to the dark ages.

It's more than just "what if," it's a serious exploration of the possibility with scientific and philosophical underpinnings.

@@kittydaddy2023 Thank you for sharing such a thoughtful and honest comment! It sounds like you’re navigating some really deep and meaningful questions about faith, tradition, and the role of doctrine, and I want to affirm how important it is to wrestle with these ideas. The relationship between Yahweh, God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit is a profound mystery-one that theologians have been trying to articulate for centuries. I completely understand your frustration with how church traditions have sometimes layered dogma on top of Scripture in ways that feel disconnected or even forced. It’s good to question those frameworks and seek a faith that feels authentic and grounded. You raise an interesting point about how certain biblical interpretations-like the virgin birth or Isaiah’s prophecy-might have been shaped by tradition. While I think it’s worth exploring how early Christians interpreted Scripture in light of their experiences with Jesus, I’d also encourage considering that their interpretations weren’t necessarily manipulative but rather an attempt to make sense of something extraordinary. That said, it’s absolutely valid to approach these topics critically while holding space for mystery. As for AI, I hear you on the skepticism around "techbros" and the hype surrounding AI’s capabilities. You’re right that much of what we see today can feel like a glorified spell checker or a tool for reinforcing existing narratives. However, I think there’s also potential for AI to be more than that-if we approach it thoughtfully and ethically. For example, AI could be used as a tool for creativity, education, or even helping us ask better questions about ourselves and our world. It’s not perfect (and it certainly has its flaws), but rather than rejecting it outright, I wonder if we can shape its development in ways that align with human dignity and creativity. I really appreciate your perspective and the depth of thought you’re bringing to these conversations. I’m so glad to hear you’ll be in the comments section often because voices like yours make these discussions richer! Let’s keep digging into these big questions together-there’s so much more to explore. 😊

@@SamBoltonIX Bro, you sound like ChatGPT LOL

@kittydaddy2023 Naw, dawg. Just writing down my thoughts and making AI clean up the grammar.

@@wm4truth589 Thank you so much for your kind words and for sharing your thoughts! I deeply appreciate your perspective on the Platonic realm and how it might ground our 4D existence. Your intuition that our existence is an emanation of something greater resonates with many of my own reflections, especially as I’ve moved away from evangelical Christianity toward a broader, more philosophical understanding of the divine. The idea of the Platonic realm as “existential” and external to our minds is fascinating. It aligns closely with Neoplatonism’s conception of the One as the source of all being-an ultimate reality from which everything emanates. In this view, our self-awareness could be seen as a unique way of participating in this greater reality, rather than something that sets us apart entirely from the rest of creation. I think this perspective offers a profound sense of connection to the universe and its underlying order. I also appreciate your openness to constructive criticism and evidence-based discussion. While some might argue that concepts like the Platonic realm are metaphysical constructs rather than empirical realities, I think they serve as powerful frameworks for understanding existence in ways that go beyond materialism. The interplay between self-awareness, observation, and our place in this 4D “stuff” you describe is certainly worth exploring further. Thank you again for engaging with my content so thoughtfully! I look forward to diving deeper into these ideas in future videos-your insights have sparked some exciting directions for exploration. Let’s keep the conversation going!