Something that stood out to me is how Frank Turek dismissed that man immediately after disagreement. Jesus did not come for the righteous, he came for sinners, those who need saving. From a Christian standpoint, that man needed help more than anyone else in that room, and Turek decided his time was too valuable to lead someone down a better path. This has to be one of the least Christianly things I've seen him do. Quite a shame.
I didn't flesh out my negative reaction to his totally rude dismissal of the young man like you did, but yeah. All that and him obviously eager to get back to softballs.
its n0t a better path given adam and eve are fictiti0us characters ie fake, they never existed this means the faII, 0riginaI sin whatever y0u want t0 caII, it is n0nsense we cant be heId resp0nsibIe f0r the aIIeged transgressi0n 0f fictiti0us characters fr0m a st0ry in exactIy the same way we are n0t resp0sibIe f0r the murder 0nthe 0rient express but great f0r atheists t0 see even christians can see what a diservice t0 the faith turek is the gym j0rdan 0f ap0I0getics
Thank you Randal for highlighting the absurdity and incoherence of modern evangelical Christianity. This inconsistency is often overlooked and hand waved away. It’s astounding to me the level of cognitive dissonance that is replete in most Christian traditions in the US.
@@Athabrose No. There is no incoherence. When God does something, Christians argue Divine Command Theory. Randal only complains about it. He doesn't refute it. And on this take, he ignored it all together, arguing like it's just humans deciding. What's worse, he doesn't deleting children in utero or ex utero are _both_ wrong. He argues, well, since this was written as happening, then this modern thing should be allowed. That's incoherence
@@eew8060 Many Christian’s do not argue Divine Command Theory and there are actually several different versions of DCT. Also, it is a theory (just a theory) foreign to the ancient church and the early church fathers who read most of the Old Testament spiritually or allegorically. Comment blasting and throwing out DCT as a defeater is a bit naive. It’s now a modernized theory for literalist fundamentalist to explain away abhorrent OT atrocities and the contradictions between the Old and New Testament (if taken completely literal). It also cannot answer the Euthyphro dilemma which has long rendered DCT as incoherent. Maybe spend less time comment bombing and more time reading. DCT makes good and evil arbitrary in which the foundation of reality and being (God) is rendered as limited without immutability. So it just pushes the incoherent ball forward. Many Christian scholars outside of evangelical fundamentalism don’t even take DCT seriously anymore. It’s actually quite laughable and outdated. I’m a Christian btw I just don’t like weak pop apologetics. It makes us all look like idiots.
@@eew8060 divine c0mmand the0ry is imm0raI it highIights the m0raI fiexibiIity christians have t0 have in 0rder t0 accept that babies with cancer is fine because g0d c0mmands it its actuaIIy 0bscene and iIIustrates that christians wiII accept any and aII behavi0ur fr0m and in the name 0f their invisibIe man
Exactly. If I see children being killed in war, I'm going to say that shouldn't happen either. So war shouldn't happen...ever? I mean, I hate war and much of modern war is for oil, resources etc, but that doesn't mean the logic follows. This is not a logical position on Tureks part.
Ive listened to Turek for years. Turek is an awful apologetic. He constantly misdirects his answers to things that don't even relate to what is being asked.
Yeah the whole question of consistency. So abortion is wrong in all ( or almost all ) circumstances, but genocide of an entire people group is okay? And of course wholesale slaughter is fine if American interests are challenged overseas. I just don't get that kind of morality. And they wonder why we're leaving in droves..
@@eew8060 using the divine c0mmand the0ry excuse exp0ses y0ur 0wn disgustingIy fIexibIe m0raIity under this premise any and aII atr0cities are acceptabIe t0 y0u if divineIy c0mmanded divine c0mmand the0ry is an 0bscene attempt by christians t0 justify the 0bvi0us and gIaring barbarity 0f their fav0rite invisibIe man which actuaIIy makes him and them even m0re disgusting where y0u divineIy c0mmanded t0 be this ugIy a human ?
@@eew8060divine command theory is simply moral subjectivism, but instead of arbitrarily deciding right and wrong by culture you decide based on belief. It’s a hypocritical response. Most fundamentalist Christians shift their stance on morality just as much as an atheist, the difference is that one justifies it by saying, “god said”.
Simply put, the child was innocent of any crime in the former example, and the Caananites were guilty in the latter example. The former committed no crime, and the latter example, their crimes cried out to Heaven. And righteous justice was given to them all.
@@thepalegalilean but you’re not including the Canaanite children in your assessment. I don’t understand how infants or very young children are deserving of judgement. You’re also forgetting that most Christians subscribe to a doctrine of total depravity, so even aborted children are receiving “righteous judgement”, by reason of them being human. So many Christian theologies are morally bankrupt.
@@thepalegalilean so it’s based on ethnicity? Can you imagine how horrific it would be to apply this rationale to real world genocides? You’re advocating for genocide.
Turek is consistent. I'm confident he would support God taking the life of an unborn in the womb as God chooses to be with God. im sure turek would not support the death of an infant if humans choose to take the life. thus turek thinks God is in a position to choose which babies go to be with him. but humans are not right to make such choices it seems to me randal is inconsistent. what if a woman is forced into pregnancy and birth. is the woman atill ok to kill the baby if it's outside of her body? i assume he would probably at no because two wrongs don't make a right. you can't just sweep the baby under the rug becauase of the circumstances you can agree oe disagree that unborn baby inside the womb has a right to life but you shouldn't say turek is inconsistent. that's dishonest
So, all the outrage he displays about what an abortion does to the unborn wouldn't suddenly matter anymore at all if it was God who told him: "Go and perform an abortion!"? It would suddenly become meaningless? Not wrong anymore, just because God commanded it? How is that consistent?
@@DoloresLehmann there are many examples that show that god is not stupid and inconsistent. for example my grandmother was taught as a child murder is wrong but killing Hitler could have been right. now i will show you the Bible is just as logical similarly the Bible teaches not to lie but praises rahab when she did lie to protect life. the Bible praises henrew midwives for lies to the pharaoh to protect life aladdin in the Disney movie stole bread from bad guys with swords to feed hungry children. jesus says David broke gods teaching and ate the consecrated bread and was innocent Jesus says the priests worked on sabbath and were innocent circumstances can change the rules. like if you forbid your child to go out in snow without a jacket. there could be a special circumstance where they need to go out in snow and are innocent god can recognize a special circumstance too. this doesn't change fact that killing is evil. God bless you
This is NOT a pop evangelical issue- move out of the USA for a few days and get perspective! All Christian denominations (until recently) disagree with abortion and infanticide. However Old Testament violence is difficult- if judgment falls on a nation through war or direct judgment- adults die and this means their children often die too. ( plagues of Egypt) - so you either try and reconcile this in a fallen world or you don’t!
OR, you can base your understanding of God on the teachings of Christ, not on the Law of Moses. Jesus proved that the Law only brings death. "You have heard it was said to the people long ago, 'eye for eye, and tooth for tooth', _but I say to you_, do not resist an evil person. ..." Joshua is not the Gospel, thank God!
@@thepalegalilean And the Church is the Body of Christ. Progressive Christians are part of that ongoing ministry, and we serve as prophets of judgment against the sectarians and teachers of the Law, aka the Patriarchy. God alone is our Father. Christ alone is our teacher. Cf. Matt 23
@@ChristianCatboy Well, you're just telling lies then. Children listen to their fathers. And God, as a Father, gave his People Prophets, Apostles, Priests, and teachers. These are the same people you errently call the PaTrIaRcHy. Now, Jesus in His earthly ministry did as the Father God asked of Him. He obeyed God and never once made the former Prophets of no effect. Whatever Jesus is, He is not your teacher. Whatever God is, He is not your Father. If either of these People were and are who you say They are, you would listen to them. And you don't.
@@thepalegalilean Pfft. Whatever. That's... like... just your opinion, bruh. I claim Jesus as my teacher, because I am existentially committed to pursuing a life of Christian discipleship, in good conscience, according to my measure of wisdom and faith. I must obey God, not man. The Lord will judge the secrets in each man's heart at the Last Day. "As you judge, so you also shall be judged."
Another Trash take. It's a straw man to say: "the Canaanites did A and B, that's why God.." Those are only possible reasons offered. God may have a different reason altogether that's why Divine Command Theory is the best answer to such a scenario. God decides. Runaway Randal only seeks to weaken faith in God or scripture. That's his aim. He never gives an alternative idea that strengthens faith. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing
@eew8060 1 hour ago y0u p0rtay y0ur g0d quite gIeefuIIy, it seems, as viIe and imm0raI divine c0mmand the0ry vaIidates every suicide b0mber they use the same divine c0mmand the0ry t0 justify their 0bscene imm0raIity and y0ur 0nIy argument against them is they have the wr0ng invisibIe man but y0u have the c0rrect 0ne, y0ur b00k pr0ves it Imfa0 presumabIy eew is the n0ise y0u hear when y0u enter a r00m ?
Boo! If you believe that the true God of Love and Justice ever truly "commanded" ethnic cleansing as a direct moral imperative, that's NOT the God revealed in Christ. We don't need to worship a bloodthirsty, quasi-pagan Sky Father any more. That monstrous idol is the Demiurge and the Father of Lies.
Having not read Jesus Loves Canaanites, I can't speak for what the alternate ideas offered in that book might be. Speaking for myself, though, the fact that there are Christians who are willing to say that genocide is wrong - even if Scripture records God as having commanded it - not only strengthens my faith, it is what makes it possible to call myself a Christian.
@@tauronmitronion377 If it strengthens your faith to believe something that's incorrect have at it. But it's just wrong think to believe the nonsense Randal spews
Something that stood out to me is how Frank Turek dismissed that man immediately after disagreement. Jesus did not come for the righteous, he came for sinners, those who need saving. From a Christian standpoint, that man needed help more than anyone else in that room, and Turek decided his time was too valuable to lead someone down a better path. This has to be one of the least Christianly things I've seen him do. Quite a shame.
I didn't flesh out my negative reaction to his totally rude dismissal of the young man like you did, but yeah. All that and him obviously eager to get back to softballs.
its n0t a better path
given adam and eve are fictiti0us characters
ie fake, they never existed
this means the faII, 0riginaI sin whatever y0u want t0 caII, it is n0nsense
we cant be heId resp0nsibIe f0r the aIIeged transgressi0n 0f fictiti0us characters fr0m a st0ry
in exactIy the same way we are n0t resp0sibIe f0r the murder 0nthe 0rient express
but great f0r atheists t0 see even christians can see what a diservice t0 the faith turek is
the gym j0rdan 0f ap0I0getics
Turek is one of the reasons why apologetics has such a reputation of deception and dishonesty.
He's definitely one of them, but there is no shortage of apologists like Turek. Randal is one of the few honest ones.
Thank you Randal for highlighting the absurdity and incoherence of modern evangelical Christianity. This inconsistency is often overlooked and hand waved away. It’s astounding to me the level of cognitive dissonance that is replete in most Christian traditions in the US.
Fake news
@@Athabrose
No. There is no incoherence. When God does something, Christians argue Divine Command Theory. Randal only complains about it. He doesn't refute it.
And on this take, he ignored it all together, arguing like it's just humans deciding. What's worse, he doesn't deleting children in utero or ex utero are _both_ wrong. He argues, well, since this was written as happening, then this modern thing should be allowed. That's incoherence
@@eew8060 Many Christian’s do not argue Divine Command Theory and there are actually several different versions of DCT. Also, it is a theory (just a theory) foreign to the ancient church and the early church fathers who read most of the Old Testament spiritually or allegorically. Comment blasting and throwing out DCT as a defeater is a bit naive. It’s now a modernized theory for literalist fundamentalist to explain away abhorrent OT atrocities and the contradictions between the Old and New Testament (if taken completely literal). It also cannot answer the Euthyphro dilemma which has long rendered DCT as incoherent. Maybe spend less time comment bombing and more time reading. DCT makes good and evil arbitrary in which the foundation of reality and being (God) is rendered as limited without immutability. So it just pushes the incoherent ball forward. Many Christian scholars outside of evangelical fundamentalism don’t even take DCT seriously anymore. It’s actually quite laughable and outdated. I’m a Christian btw I just don’t like weak pop apologetics. It makes us all look like idiots.
@@eew8060
divine c0mmand the0ry is imm0raI
it highIights the m0raI fiexibiIity christians have t0 have in 0rder t0 accept that babies with cancer is fine because g0d c0mmands it
its actuaIIy 0bscene and iIIustrates that christians wiII accept any and aII behavi0ur fr0m and in the name 0f their invisibIe man
Exactly. If I see children being killed in war, I'm going to say that shouldn't happen either. So war shouldn't happen...ever? I mean, I hate war and much of modern war is for oil, resources etc, but that doesn't mean the logic follows. This is not a logical position on Tureks part.
Dr. Rauser are you able to get a debate with Dr. Turek? Would be awesome.
Yeah I’d watch that
@@calmingwavesjulian
He'd lose. He wouldn't do it
Agreed. This Rauser guy doesn't strike me as such a glib and oily speaker as the guy in the video either.
Ive listened to Turek for years. Turek is an awful apologetic. He constantly misdirects his answers to things that don't even relate to what is being asked.
“You have no authority to ask that question. QED”
@cdlahm7571
Why they are called 'cults.'
2:40 Aren’t these the “facts not feelings” people?
Yeah the whole question of consistency. So abortion is wrong in all ( or almost all ) circumstances, but genocide of an entire people group is okay? And of course wholesale slaughter is fine if American interests are challenged overseas. I just don't get that kind of morality. And they wonder why we're leaving in droves..
It's not genocide. Divine Command Theory addresses this point. Randal has no answer for it. Only complaints.
@@eew8060
using the divine c0mmand the0ry excuse
exp0ses y0ur 0wn disgustingIy fIexibIe m0raIity
under this premise any and aII atr0cities are acceptabIe t0 y0u
if divineIy c0mmanded
divine c0mmand the0ry is an 0bscene attempt by christians t0 justify the 0bvi0us and gIaring barbarity 0f their fav0rite invisibIe man
which actuaIIy makes him and them even m0re disgusting
where y0u divineIy c0mmanded t0 be this ugIy a human ?
@@eew8060divine command theory is simply moral subjectivism, but instead of arbitrarily deciding right and wrong by culture you decide based on belief. It’s a hypocritical response.
Most fundamentalist Christians shift their stance on morality just as much as an atheist, the difference is that one justifies it by saying, “god said”.
Simply put, the child was innocent of any crime in the former example, and the Caananites were guilty in the latter example.
The former committed no crime, and the latter example, their crimes cried out to Heaven. And righteous justice was given to them all.
@@thepalegalilean but you’re not including the Canaanite children in your assessment. I don’t understand how infants or very young children are deserving of judgement.
You’re also forgetting that most Christians subscribe to a doctrine of total depravity, so even aborted children are receiving “righteous judgement”, by reason of them being human. So many Christian theologies are morally bankrupt.
You could do an entire series on Turek. His reasoning is just terrible.
Fetuses of the Canaanites were not granted that special protection.
Correct. Because they are Caananite.
@@thepalegalilean so it’s based on ethnicity?
Can you imagine how horrific it would be to apply this rationale to real world genocides? You’re advocating for genocide.
If one is going to be pro-life then at least be consistent, Turek certainly is NOT consistently prolife
Turek is consistent. I'm confident he would support God taking the life of an unborn in the womb as God chooses to be with God. im sure turek would not support the death of an infant if humans choose to take the life. thus turek thinks God is in a position to choose which babies go to be with him. but humans are not right to make such choices
it seems to me randal is inconsistent. what if a woman is forced into pregnancy and birth. is the woman atill ok to kill the baby if it's outside of her body? i assume he would probably at no because two wrongs don't make a right. you can't just sweep the baby under the rug becauase of the circumstances
you can agree oe disagree that unborn baby inside the womb has a right to life but you shouldn't say turek is inconsistent. that's dishonest
So, all the outrage he displays about what an abortion does to the unborn wouldn't suddenly matter anymore at all if it was God who told him: "Go and perform an abortion!"? It would suddenly become meaningless? Not wrong anymore, just because God commanded it? How is that consistent?
@@DoloresLehmann God does command the abortions. He saves the ones he doesnt want aborted and they survive.
@@DoloresLehmann there are many examples that show that god is not stupid and inconsistent. for example my grandmother was taught as a child murder is wrong but killing Hitler could have been right. now i will show you the Bible is just as logical
similarly the Bible teaches not to lie but praises rahab when she did lie to protect life. the Bible praises henrew midwives for lies to the pharaoh to protect life
aladdin in the Disney movie stole bread from bad guys with swords to feed hungry children.
jesus says David broke gods teaching and ate the consecrated bread and was innocent
Jesus says the priests worked on sabbath and were innocent
circumstances can change the rules. like if you forbid your child to go out in snow without a jacket. there could be a special circumstance where they need to go out in snow and are innocent
god can recognize a special circumstance too. this doesn't change fact that killing is evil. God bless you
This is NOT a pop evangelical issue- move out of the USA for a few days and get perspective! All Christian denominations (until recently) disagree with abortion and infanticide. However Old Testament violence is difficult- if judgment falls on a nation through war or direct judgment- adults die and this means their children often die too. ( plagues of Egypt) - so you either try and reconcile this in a fallen world or you don’t!
OR, you can base your understanding of God on the teachings of Christ, not on the Law of Moses. Jesus proved that the Law only brings death. "You have heard it was said to the people long ago, 'eye for eye, and tooth for tooth', _but I say to you_, do not resist an evil person. ..." Joshua is not the Gospel, thank God!
@@ChristianCatboy
Jesus is the Law of Moses made manifest in the flesh.
@@thepalegalilean And the Church is the Body of Christ. Progressive Christians are part of that ongoing ministry, and we serve as prophets of judgment against the sectarians and teachers of the Law, aka the Patriarchy. God alone is our Father. Christ alone is our teacher. Cf. Matt 23
@@ChristianCatboy
Well, you're just telling lies then. Children listen to their fathers. And God, as a Father, gave his People Prophets, Apostles, Priests, and teachers. These are the same people you errently call the PaTrIaRcHy.
Now, Jesus in His earthly ministry did as the Father God asked of Him. He obeyed God and never once made the former Prophets of no effect.
Whatever Jesus is, He is not your teacher. Whatever God is, He is not your Father.
If either of these People were and are who you say They are, you would listen to them. And you don't.
@@thepalegalilean Pfft. Whatever. That's... like... just your opinion, bruh. I claim Jesus as my teacher, because I am existentially committed to pursuing a life of Christian discipleship, in good conscience, according to my measure of wisdom and faith. I must obey God, not man. The Lord will judge the secrets in each man's heart at the Last Day. "As you judge, so you also shall be judged."
Another Trash take. It's a straw man to say:
"the Canaanites did A and B, that's why God.."
Those are only possible reasons offered. God may have a different reason altogether that's why Divine Command Theory is the best answer to such a scenario. God decides.
Runaway Randal only seeks to weaken faith in God or scripture. That's his aim. He never gives an alternative idea that strengthens faith. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing
@eew8060
1 hour ago
y0u p0rtay y0ur g0d quite gIeefuIIy, it seems, as viIe and imm0raI
divine c0mmand the0ry vaIidates every suicide b0mber
they use the same divine c0mmand the0ry t0 justify their 0bscene imm0raIity
and y0ur 0nIy argument against them is they have the wr0ng invisibIe man
but y0u have the c0rrect 0ne, y0ur b00k pr0ves it Imfa0
presumabIy eew is the n0ise y0u hear when y0u enter a r00m ?
So subjective morality.
Boo! If you believe that the true God of Love and Justice ever truly "commanded" ethnic cleansing as a direct moral imperative, that's NOT the God revealed in Christ. We don't need to worship a bloodthirsty, quasi-pagan Sky Father any more. That monstrous idol is the Demiurge and the Father of Lies.
Having not read Jesus Loves Canaanites, I can't speak for what the alternate ideas offered in that book might be. Speaking for myself, though, the fact that there are Christians who are willing to say that genocide is wrong - even if Scripture records God as having commanded it - not only strengthens my faith, it is what makes it possible to call myself a Christian.
@@tauronmitronion377
If it strengthens your faith to believe something that's incorrect have at it. But it's just wrong think to believe the nonsense Randal spews