That portion around 33:00 minutes really hit me hard like a "Eureka!" moment. That introspection about the reality of the Problem of Evil and why we are to ponder upon the implications of evil made me tear up to. This interview with Dr. Jerry Walls is an intellectually stimulating and heart-moving one. Thank you so much for interviewing him, Cameron! May we have him for interview again about in-depth theodicy topics? Having that discussed with someone as informed and passionate as him would really give more insight for us believers who desire to impart the same message about God against evil and the hope we have in the Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you again, Cameron! God bless you and your ministry!
Theodicy in the bible has many different views on the reason for evil. Its possibly worth looking into it in more details, rather than listening to Dr Walls who has picked and chosen parts of theodicy that fits his narrative. His very poignant moment is also marred by the fact his pause to think was clearing showing him making something up with his 'eye tells' he is constructing something in his mind.
@@rooneysue The concept of Natural evil is incoherent. Dr Walls asks a very good question: why the problem of evil is a problem. It cannot be a problem if nature is all there is.
Well, for some people maybe. The greater problems are these: 1. Bogus proof texts from the Hebrew Bible 2. Contradictions among the gospels 3. False prophecies in the gospels 4. Contradictions among Paul and gospels
As an atheist and skeptic, I came away from this with these questions/reactions: Issue 1 - At 10:16 he literally says “we have gaps...that require an explanation” How is this not a god of the gaps argument? Issue 2 - If god created us with the capacity to believe in him, why didn’t he create us with a better capacity to understand him? Issue 3 - There are scientific claims in the Bible, that are demonstrably false. Why would god dictate a symbolic creation story that, as you claim, is majority false? Why not only include the bits you believe are true (that god created) and leave out the bits that you believe are not (that it happened in 6 days)? Issue 4 - I honestly don’t know how you can say such things. Otherwise, refer to the problem of evil. Issue 5 - The majority of your response was a straw man. If there is no god then yes, ‘bad things’ can, should and will happen to everyone. Too bad, so sad. It’s only a problem in the theistic world view - that an all knowing, all loving god engineered the circumstances of this universe to allow such evil.
Issue 1 - He's saying the design hypothesis is the best explanation for reality and that the 'gaps' or giant leaps of faith in scientific theory require explanation as it takes far more faith to believe a theory that defies the law of causality (that every effect must have a cause) than it does to acknowledge the evidence points overwhelmingly to design. Issue 2 - It doesn't follow that a creature with the capacity to believe ought to have the capacity to fully understand. As it happens we're made with just enough capacity to understand that we will ever need. Our problem isn't an intellectual one, it's a moral one. We don't want to be accountable to anyone. Issue 3 - There are no scientific claims in the bible. Scientific as defined as based on the principles and methods of science. Think of the primitive context that Genesis was first delivered to. You're looking down on it arrogantly with your thousands of years of accumulated information. It needed to be understandable for the original audience as well as clearly communicating what we need to know about our origin. Please don't get caught up on interpretations of our origin from scientists or theologians. What ultimately matters is what you do with Jesus. If he really resurrected like he said he would then we have every reason to believe his worldview. Revelation from a being with unlimited knowledge is the only way we can be certain the reality we perceive is objective. Issue 4/5 The problem with your issue 5 is that if there is evil there is good. If there is good and evil then there is an objective reference point by which one can differentiate between good and evil. In other words a moral law. A moral law ie reference point assumes the very being you are objecting to. So the objection self destructs. If there is no God then bad things don't happen. Pain and suffering isn't ultimately bad its just something pointless that happens which you don't particularly like. As a christian I believe that the little amount of pain and suffering we experience (that isn't in some way humanity-inflicted) works for our eternal benefit and shapes our character in a way that nothing else can.
Christianity is against gay people. (22:05): So much for Paul's words, "such were some of you" 1 Cor. 6.9-11. According to these men, "such are some of you still" ! ?
As an agnostic, this is refreshing, and has given me a lot to think about. I just can't accept the tradition on homosexuality. The scriptural command seems to come from Leviticus, which also has prohibitions on things which make no sense today (mixing fibres, growing two crops in the same field), and one verse from Romans which contains a word found in no other text. Even if the word does mean monogamous, consenting, adult homosexual activity, I also find it hard to believe Paul is infalibly relaying revelation to us. The more I try to practice faith, the more contemptable it seems to me to be against a committed gay couple. It feels like Christians are pushing me away from the divine, back towards my human prejudices
Hang on, it doesn't "come from" a book. If the only thing you can't accept is the tradition on homosexuality, but you actually accept the veracity of everything else, this should be a no-brainer. Either the books are divinely inspired or they're the ramblings of deluded humans. So it sounds like a presupposition that the books are not divinely inspired is sneaking its way into your argumentation. If the books are divinely inspired, the tradition on homosexuality doesn't "come from" a book, it's just a storage medium for a message from the creator of the universe. But the existence of such a creator is the very thing we're trying to evaluate. You can't presuppose the falsity of the religion to prove the falsity of the religion. It also isn't just some odd fluke of Leviticus. It's in several books of the Old Testament and it's reaffirmed by both Jesus and Paul. The other prohibitions that you say "make no sense today" are perfectly justifiable. The reason for these prohibitions is not to make sense. There's not some utilitarian purpose for prohibiting the eating of pigs either. People who try to argue it's because of actual hygienic reasons do us all a disservice by giving people the impression that God would trick us into doing things for our own good without telling us _why_ they're beneficial; and at the same time they give people the impression that God _must_ have some utilitarian reason for these things, or else the law is incoherent. If there were utilitarian reasons for the Jewish law, God would have included those reasons in his explication. But that's just the thing. It should be obvious, but for some reason you find people posing this as a false dilemma between utilitarian justification and complete incoherence. God doesn't need a utilitarian reason to tell people to do something, at all, full stop. But the Jewish law isn't even a good example of that, because it does have abstract functions vastly more important than hygiene. There's no need to trick the people either - they all knew the Jewish law was designed to keep them separate from the rest of the people. And it has succeeded. Haven't you ever wondered how the Jews have managed to survive as their own independent ethnic, cultural, and religious group, for thousands of years? How is it, after their homeland was systematically destroyed and they were evicted by the Romans, that the Jews spread into every land in Eurasia and beyond, becoming tiny minorities everywhere they went, and yet never assimilated into the wider culture, always preserving their unique identity and ensuring the continued existence of such an entity as "the Jews" and "the Jewish religion"? How is it that the Jews managed to survive conquest after conquest during the bronze and iron ages? The Egyptian subjugation, the Babylonian captivity, the Medo-Persian subjugation, the Greek conquest, the Roman clienthood, and finally the utter devastation of Israel. It's already pretty remarkable for so many disasters to happen to one group of people. But for that group of people to survive all of that? And then to become the central target of the largest systematic genocide in the history of the human species, and to survive that as well? How on Earth can anyone explain that except in terms of things that are simply unique to the Jews? Are we gonna conclude the Jews are genetically superior to other groups? Or could it just maybe have something to do with their religion, their culture, and indeed, their law? The Jewish law was transparently motivated by a desire to glue the people together in common contradistinction from their neighbors. The Bible itself gestures at this etiology. It also gave the Israelites the opportunity to exercise their trust in and submission to God. It's one thing to submit to God in theory, it's another to actually make sacrifices for God. That's not to say God needs sacrifices. The sacrifices are for the people's benefit, not for God's. It's participation in faith and submission, acts of the will, that cultivate radical selflessness and holiness. So it's unsurprising that God would choose sacrifices that are particularly hard. That's the point of Lent, too. It's not to sacrifice something that you already have utilitarian reasons to avoid. It's to sacrifice something that's hard for you. Something you want to do. Something you can't see any reason not to do. That way, the sacrifice is a pure act of love and trust. It's a way of putting ourselves in God's hands. That would hardly be the effect if there were simple utilitarian reasons for every injunction and admonition.
If any of us has individual prejudices against gay people, we should certainly not blame Christianity for that. The Christian tradition doesn't advocate for prejudice, it advocates for chastity for everyone. If one can be chaste for the kingdom of heaven, they should be. That is part of the message preached by both Jesus and Paul. The only reason not to be chaste, not to pursue a life of contemplation, poverty, and charity, is for the sake of perpetuating the human race. The purpose of sex isn't pleasure. It isn't for us to abuse like a drug. It's to make babies. The Christian tradition follows Thomas Aquinas on the subject of homosexuality. It has nothing to do with prejudice, and everything to do with natural law. If modern mythology was correct, and sex really is just a kind of drug, then it really would be unjust for Christians to demand that people with homosexual-only attractions abstain from sex. But that's a pretty gigantic "if." There's no reason to think secular culture is right about sexual orientation, gender identity, or any number of recent novelties governing social and sexual relations. These are the perversions of a radically materialistic, consumeristic, individualistic culture that only cares about seeking pleasure and evading pain. It's fundamentally at odds with Christianity, which is about faith in God, radical love, charity, and poverty. So of course we're going to come to very different conclusions about human nature. But I think even people who've bought into secular dogma _can_ see that there's a very giant distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships that has something to do with one being justified and the other not. Even if your origin story for sex centers on evolution, it's still easy to see that one of these relationships involves the interaction between two complementary but dimorphic parts, becoming one in an act ordered toward the fusion of the two into one member of the next generation. It's easy to see that reproduction is the ultimate end of sex. Now, not everyone is capable of reproducing at all times one might have sex. But the issue isn't simply the possibility of reproduction, it's the misuse of complementary systems. Whether those systems are designed or evolved, it's clear that they're not on par in complementarity. So, the exact way in which same-sex sexual interactions are thought to be sinful is complex. It's sinful in the sense that human sexuality is "fallen," making all human relations impure in some way. The heterosexual relationship is no exception. There are vastly more ways to do it wrong than to do it right. The majority of heterosexual relationships are probably just as sinful, if not more sinful, than a committed gay relationship. The question is, what vindicates the few that _are_ right? Is it simply being committed? Why? Because it's wrong to hurt your lover's feelings? That's a modern conception of morality. Christian tradition is rooted in Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, the concept of natural law. Instead, the thing that vindicates heterosexual relationships and that can never vindicate homosexual relationships is that men are ordered toward women and women toward men, in precisely the way necessary to fulfill God's command to "be fruitful and multiply." So whether an individual man and woman have, at any given moment, the physical capability of conceiving, they are both ordered - body and soul - toward "becoming one" with each other in the biological process of meiosis. It's easy to understand the rationale behind this if you actually engage with the tradition instead of just listening to secular invective against Christianity. This has been discussed within the Church ad nauseam for many centuries. As a former atheist and an extremely liberal (even libertine) one, I had no particular motive to accept the Aristotelian-Thomistic concepts of love and sex. I was certainly free from bias in its favor, if not biased against it. But it's very persuasive because it's rooted in the philosophical theory most likely to resolve the mind-body problem: hylomorphism. I was able to accept it because the historical evidence for Jesus was convincing enough to motivate me to investigate the tradition proper; at which point it was clear that the philosophical arguments for God's existence and for divine and natural law are overwhelmingly more cogent than their antitheses. Now, as for whether it's morally reprehensible to _judge_ people for violating the natural law, it comes down to context. Criticizing those who call themselves gay, as if it was an ends in itself (e.g., Westboro Baptist Church), serves nobody but the devil. The Christian tradition is not to harass or put down people with same-sex attractions. It is simply to proclaim the gospel to the ends of the earth, without pulling any punches. If Christianity is, in fact, true, and God does, in fact, judge us for our adherence to the natural law, then refusing to tell someone that gay sex is against the natural law is doing them a great disservice. It could mean the difference between salvation and damnation. That's why, at least in the Catholic tradition, the goal is pastoral care. We shouldn't needlessly offend people, but nor should we lie to them or omit highly consequential facts from our evangelization. So, it's essential that the Church preach chastity for all, and especially for those who have no desire for a relationship naturally ordered toward the production of children. To see that, you can read a book like _Why I Don't Call Myself Gay_ by Daniel Mattson, for example. As for your point about Paul infallibly transmitting revelation, so what? If Paul is transmitting revelation to us _at all_ in even the most dilute sense, we should take pause. If there's even a 1% chance that 1% of his words are divinely inspired, we should shut up and listen. If there is _any_ revelation in what he says _at all_ then it necessarily means that God exists and that he is behind the Christian tradition. And if that's the case, we have to ask what are the implications of that. Christians began asking that a very long time ago, of course. The Christian tradition was founded on those implications. That's where the belief in dogma and doctrine comes from. It's our expectation that the Holy Spirit will guide us, as Jesus promised, that reassures us that the Bible can be trusted in its entirety. So if Paul is even a little bit inspired, that would tend to lead us to the conclusion that God is protecting the integrity of the message preached by his chosen instruments. If you doubt that Paul was inspired even a little bit, then that's fine. But under that framework, it will be hard to explain why such an educated, well-off man would suddenly go blind, have visions of Jesus Christ, and become one of the principal leaders of a movement of which he had led the persecution just a few years prior. Like so many other things about early Christian history, it's just very hard to explain on naturalism. If none of these people were divinely inspired, if Jesus himself wasn't divine and didn't have the power to protect his Church from error, then it's hard to explain where Christianity came from, how it managed to conquer the Roman empire, how it managed to turn a bunch of peasants into master philosophers and apologists, how it created a sophisticated quasi-global hierarchy within just a few years, manned by people ready and willing to be tortured to death for proclaiming the good news. And so much more...
Also, I meant to discuss how this "ordering toward becoming one with each other" also includes the ordering of personality and will toward providing for one's children in very distinctive ways. A child needs both a mother and a father for precisely the reason that men and women have different features and behavioral tendencies that fulfill different needs of children. Again, whether we interpret this as a feature of humankind _designed_ by God, or as simply an evolutionary adaptation that persists because of its profound effects on reproductive fitness, the result is the same: men are ordered toward fathering, and women toward mothering. So, some types of homosexual relationship are wrong for the same reason no-fault divorce and single parent surrogacy are wrong. To produce a child and deny them the right to a mother and a father is a terrible crime against that child, and indeed a sin. It's not just that the man and woman are ordered in precisely the way necessary to reproduce, they're also ordered in precisely the way necessary to cooperatively and sustainably nurture human offspring. Not only can sex not be divorced from the ends of reproduction, it also can't be divorced from the psychosocial constraints of parenting. The contemporary western divorce between sex, reproduction, and parenting is a portent of a greater divorce between men and women, corresponding perfectly with the meteoric rise of actual divorce of married couples and the breakdown of the family structure in the west. The number of children deprived of a mother and father is skyrocketing every year, tragically. This also goes hand in hand with the rise in fetal abortion. We systematically dehumanize our preborn children, so it's unsurprising that we treat them as if they have no rights at all. It's also unsurprising that we can no longer agree on what a woman is, on who can become pregant, and on what it means to be a mother. This is ultimately what happens when you systematically break down all the philosophical barriers and highway rails and warning signs. I'm especially reminded of Chesterton's fence when I think about what has happened to social, sexual, and familial norms.
That 699 people could be bettering themselves right now but instead this is what they are watching instead. PS that other one doesn't count because it's his mother
Regarding the 5th objection, as Paul Washer said considering the Sinfulness of man, "the question is NOT "why do bad things happen to good people", but "why does anything good happen in the world at All" " ? Because man is so wicked. Anything good that happens in the world is because of the Goodness of God.
@@rooneysue Well, the reason why God allows the suffering of Job, is as stated in the start of the Book where the devil (literal meaning "accuser of the Brethren") says to God that the reason why Job worships and loves God is because God has blessed Job with prosperity. So to prove satan wrong, God allows Job to suffer, to show that Job Loved God, not because of his wealth, etc, but simply because he loved God. Many books have been written trying to answer the question you raise. For a simple examination of the matter may I suggest a booklet published by RBC Ministries: Out of the Ashes (God’s presence in Job’s pain) by Bill Crowder. You can go to www.discoveryseries.org and search for the booklet by name. You can order it for free or download a pdf version. You may find it helpful. www.revelation.co/2008/10/09/why-did-god-allow-job-to-suffer-to-prove-a-point-to-satan/ m.ua-cam.com/video/xQwnH8th_fs/v-deo.html
@@albinsiby729 thank you sorry ive not replied before now. I'll take a good look at your information. Just one quick point, you called him the Devil, while I am reading and checking words as I go, the part of the book of Job where god sits with his heavenly being 'sons of God hes called 'The Satan' and isn't the fallen angel described in other parts of the bible. Do you think Satan/Devil caused the suffering on Job alone?
@@rooneysue I called him the devil, because in the Bible, it's clearly stated it was satan: Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them." God asks Satan "where have you come from?" And he answers "going about to and fro" Just like the Bible warns us to be aware of the devil who walks about (to and fro) : 1 Peter 5:8 "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour." Now, the Lord says to the Devil in Job 1:12 : "And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.” So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord." That everything about Job(except) his life in in Satan's hands. So he can do whatever he wants with poor Job. Now, you asked whether Satan did it alone, and by that I'm understanding that you're asking "did Satan do it all by himself " Now the Bible doesn't exactly tells us what all powers do these angelic beings have and what all can they do, because after all, Satan was also once an angel of light. You know you keep hearing people say "oh the devil is gonna attack you", just as even the Bible says in 1 Peter 5:8, which I quoted above. That is True. But that doesn't mean that Satan is omnipresent or omnipotent or omniscient. Because when people say that, they're implying that he knows everything and is present everywhere at all times, which is not possible for anyone except God. Because only He is Omni-potent, Omni-present, Omni-scient. Hope that helps.
@@albinsiby729 I have a little issue with you saying *its the Devil, as it clearly says Satan.* In the story of Job, Satan isn't the Devil, the Hebrew word Satan in the book of Job is 'ha satan' it's used with a definite article, so it's useage is a job description. He calls to God's attention who he believes are the unworthy. YHWH has no enemies, just celestial beings that work for him. Im trying to work out where in the bible the shift of thought on the problem of suffering. Because in the early books it's definitely Mankind that is the problem. You have said its mankind and I agree with you that is in the early stories of the bible. However the shift of thought moves to an apocalytic view. Eg Good and Evil, God and the Devil. I asked if he did it alone, because I believe that it's God who helps in Job. You pointed out that God gave him rules on what not to do, boundaries. If this is The Devil as later in the bible stories it's not the same one as in Job.
I think it’s weird that the only two answers are, atheism with no meaning, or an all loving God. The mental gymnastics and logical loopholes this gentleman jumps through to prove something easily disprovable is astounding. The easiest and most reasonable answer is actually, there is a God, and it’s at best indifferent and at worst Evil. But no one really wants to reflect to hard on that one. It’s worse than nihilism.
Admittedly, I have been a non-believer for several years. Roughly 10 years. But recently I have been called back to belief. I am reading a Bible through -- the whole thing. It is resonating with me in a way like never before. But I wrestle with social topics, like LGBTQ issues, as well as abortion, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion ( don't @ me). At @ 22:07 you really made me think hard on this subject.
Simple pushback against his claim that creation and evolution are compatible: evolution requires death before sin. The scriptures are clear that Adam's sin brought death to our entire cosmos. If you have death before sin, it undermines basically the entire gospel. You'd have to say that, "The wages of sin is death...but not really because death was the very means of God's creation and development of life. Death was part of his very good original creation." This kind of thinking is a real problem. The order of creation in Genesis is also at odds with evolutionary ideas, i.e., stars are created after the earth and plant life. I know a lot of really smart Christians who go through all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to sythesize these two opposing views, and I think they just bend their logic to the breaking point. That said, I really appreciate your channel and the work you're doing. LOTS of good stuff here, and it's worth hearing different viewpoints even if I disagree.
Two things: 1) it doesn’t say that sin was brought to the whole cosmos, it just says that if they eat of the tree, Adam and Eve will die. 2) the fact that the sun is created after light, and the melodic symmetry between days 1/4, 2/5, 3/6, make it clear that this poem is just that - a poem. It shows that if you interpret this through it’s correct genre it is most likely not literal, but rather a theological song that teaches key doctrines about who God is. If this is true, then you don’t need to reconcile evolution and Genesis, because genesis is theological teaching, not historical.
The Bible teaches that? I love when young earth creationists raise their interpretation of scripture to the same level as the inspired intended message of the biblical author. There are many interpretations of Genesis 1, and to say that yours is the inspired one or the one the bible teaches is to basically claim omniscience. It would be possible to say that your view is the most probable, but to say your view is what the Bible teaches is to totally miss the complexity of interpreting scripture and pridefully assert that your view is the only possible view. Honestly, to me that seems like elevating man's word over God's word. The original intended message of the biblical author was inspired, not Ken Ham's interpretation. And side note, if you read Romans 5:12 you will see that death passes to all men, not all animals. Further, I challenge the young earth creationists to insert " All men and animals " into anywhere in Romans 5 where it says all. The result is that Jesus came and died for all animals and all men. It also says that all men and all animals sin. Incoherent. Lastly, young earth creationist is a false label. It really needs to be young earth evolutionist. To say that 4,000 years ago, all life was wiped out except for a thousand or so animals and eight people on an ark means that we need to be able to see all the present day species come as a result of microevolution from the original animals on the ark. In order to get from the thousand or so animals to the species we see today, you need insane rates of speciation and microevolution that is far faster than what even the atheist biologist posits is possible. We are talking like 10 new species a day, when even the most ambitious atheist biologist would say that you should expect a new speciation event every thousand or so years.
@@Iamwrongbut Agreed. Genesis 1 isn't "camera footage" of creation that's meant to be taken concretely. Rather, it's abstract theological messaging using temple imagery that was common back then in the ancient near east.
I’m still waiting for evidence for a god (the Christian one). How comes no one gets that I can’t believe what can’t be demonstrated to be true or falsified. What’s so hard about that? Please show me an example of god doing anything at all.
You cannot operate in the real world with only making decisions that can be empirically tested. Ergo, you DO believe things without physical, falsifiable evidence. Unfortunately, you must now pose a philisophical argument against God, instead of a naturalistic one.
Another atheist cultist positing a category error. There is a distinction between the "supernatural" and "natural", dontcha know? I asked to God to give atheist special consideration. He said, "Sorry, I don't play favorites".
The Bible says the evidence of God's existence is plainly revealed in the created order and in each person''s moral conscience. Indeed, for most people throughout human history this powerful testimony has been sufficient...
11:04 "but the catholic church, their traditional position (...) is that evolution is the way that god brought about life" nah, the catholic church tells 2 diferent stories at the same time: -That God created animals and humans (Adam and Eve) and everything else, -That evolution happens with some kind of divine direction, and the entire procces whas somehow put in place by god. They don't have a "traditional position", nor a "official position". Why would they? it's easy to preach (the chorus) about Adam and Eve as if they were real persons, and not some kind of symbolic story about creation. And it's easy to hold a debate with intelectuals if you believe in evolution. So the double discourse is practical and effective. Why change it? Why educate people about it? Ask a normal catholich priest if he believes in evolution or in Adam and Eve? Ask yourself What does this priest teachs when he preach the chorus about genesis? Does he take this "traditional position" of evolution is true or talks about Adam and Eve as if they where real people?
@@xxxmmm3812 You're commanding a random stranger online to learn a new language just to read Genesis... Are you out of your mind? Also, what do you mean when you say the "original (?) historical context" of Genesis. The book of Genesis is a compilation of texts, from different authors, in different times. It's a really controversial topic, and there is no consensus among scholars. What an ignorant troll. You didn't even respond to my comment, you just command me to study a text in an ancient language (Why people use "please" after giving an order is out of my comprehension)
Interesting read and you bring up some pondering points. For example in a Catholic University; creationism is NOT taught in the science class. Evolution is taught in biology. In the Catholic University the Taxonomy chart is used NOT the biblical "kinds". What I found most thought provoking is the idea that on an educational level Science is taught. In the churches nonsense is taught, such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
@@nathphoenix7489 Lmao that response was weak tbh. For one, Genesis is a book written by Moses alone, so you already got that wrong off the bat. 😆 Also, he's asking you to read it in Greek because he's showing that you have no sensible contextual evidence that says anything at all. Also mans really just said "why people use "'please' after giving an order is out of my comprehension" like can we appreciate how silly this is. If I say to my child hey wash the dishes please, that's completely illogical? WHAT? Alr then
5 років тому
At 0:22, what's the matter with the guys head? The one on the left? The back part of it is missing...
Lots of advances were made in algebra (an Arabic word) by Islamic scholars, yet their god can't be shown to be necessary for algebra to work. Same with the Christian god and science.
Walls makes a terribly obvious attempt at misdirection in his remarks on the problem of evil, trying to shift the focus towards the hypothetical atheist's worldview instead of answering the question. The problem of evil is an internal critique within the theological framework, it has nothing to do with what some atheist may or may not believe. In fact there isn't even a potential problem from the non-believers' perspective since the problem lies in the proposition that there is an 'overseer' who is all-loving, not that we call some things 'evil'.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28 KJV Jesus lives Jesus Christ is Lord For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23 KJV Jesus loves you repent You're a sinner in need of a Savior That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10 KJV
No, theistic evolution is an oxymoron. It’s a redundancy. Evolution, in and of itself, was formulated by materialists as an explanation for the development/diversity of life via strictly material/natural means. If such a process is adequate for the job, why include God? This is an either/or scenario.
Biblical creation is bunk. But Darwinian evolution has huge explanatory gaps. More gaps than explanation. Evolution has occurred, but Darwinian ("Blind Watchmaker") evolution hypothesis is not an adequate explanation.
@@utopiabuster There is much wrong with this mans answers. I would have to publish a book to address it. In a nut she'll, he is making assertion after assertion . Most of them are pretty bad as far as any kind of proof to rebut the arguments he's addressing.
@@utopiabuster For starters the Bible is not compatible with evolution. Furthermore he totally omits the fact the the MAJORITY of Christians fought against and denied all forms of evolution. They later conceded microevolutuion and later you had this "God and evolution " nonsense. Again my first point he makes assertions that is all. On a side note he says that non theist have no choice but evolution. False, Biocentrism is a view that could give you an answer against evolution. He just knocks down 1 dimensional straw men..... Eat your popcorn
There's a very easy answer to #4: just become LGBT affirming. Every institution is inevitably headed for doctrinal reform at some point. Any epistemology that is worth anything has room to change doctrine in light of new information. I'm willing to be that within my lifetime I'll live to see most (if not all) major denominations become LGBT affirming, as it becomes less and less defensible to be so doctrinally excluding.
Salvation is not success in behavior, it is faith alone in Jesus our Passover Lamb. When I see the blood, I will pass over you. This is the problem with Catholicism
19:52 "the resurrection of Jesus is highly certain"? A miracle is by its very nature is probably the most unlikely event in all of history or all the universe. A few guys writing 2000 years ago a guy came back from the dead is highly certain? I'll tell you what is more extremely more probable, it was a legend.
yeah yeah...we hear it all the time... 'LGBTI - alphabet' people aren' the only people who have to go through problems.. You are not defined by your sexuality ultimately.. Who you are is deeper than that.
@@MournfulMystic The LGBT community is attacked by religious morons constantly. LGBT individuals suffer from not feeling like they belong in this world and your community makes it so much worse. That's why so many of them take their lives. You can't understand the problems they face because you don't have to deal with people saying you are going to hell because you were born and who you are. Sexuality is part of who you are rather you like it or not.
Come on! How God created is central to his action. That's why its in the Bible. It sets the ontological scene and eliminates materialism (and de-personalized spiritism) as possible creative avenues. The creation account shows how the eternal interfaces with the temporal (by God sharing our existential space of configured time), and God making this thereby the domain of fellowship of God and man. As soon as you admit that the hypothesis of evolution works, you introduce God's defeater as an agent: the world can make itself, and demand long ages of chance to do the work, which God has explicitly obstructed in Genesis 1 and Hebrews 11:3. Long ages of chance is a different world-concept to Creation by the will and wisdom of God, and if Genesis 1 didn't happen, then something else did, and it is this something else that is the ontological, ethical and existential ground of our being.
In Catholicism, doctrines evolve. At the beginning, there was God the Father, Jesus who is our Savior and Lord and ONE with the Father as They are One with the Spirit. When people believe that Jesus saved them, He sends the Comforter, AKA Holy Spirit. Then Catholicism was not happy that Jesus paid it all and rose because He had justified us. They wanted a means of keeping salvation always beyond reach, because they found there was a cash cow in it preventing assurance of salvation. Indulgences help people have the church provide this security for a price, but are not scriptural and these are still around. There is a reason why the Vatican is flush with gold. Now the pope says that Jesus was a failure on the cross. And Catholics go along to get along. So much more money in it if you just get rid of Jesus in order to get along with Muslims. Any day now, we'll be praying to St. Judas Iscariot too!
I'm a protestant and I know the Catholics don't believe that... You're just making slurs without any actual evidence to prove your point. When did the Pope ever say Jesus was a Failure on the cross??? I'm pretty sure the resurrection of Jesus is central to their doctrine. OH WAIT are you talking about this www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-pope-francis-really-say-jesus-was-a-failure You clearly toke words out of context, and Jesus's life did end in failure FROM THE WORLD'S POINT OF VIEW. He died a criminal but defeated the world by raising up on the third day. If you want to discredit the Catholic church use actual evidence and scriptural support not just superstitions, assumptions, and slanders. Making claims like that aren't going to convince anyone. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ We recite the same creed So treat them as such Treat them with the love that Christ has shown you and the world Even if you do view them as your enemies are you not supposed to love your enemies because "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" Mathew 5:46 I pray you allow God to change your heart.
The Fool has said (in his heart), there is no GOD. BTW I’m a “GOD is completely sovereign” (like the Bible says) guy but I agree with Jerry on the important things of GOD, it’s not easy to come to the precipice of GOD ordains whatever comes to pass. But this is one of the most profound things to think on. Thanks
Imagine a stream flowing through the forest. You see several leaves floating along the stream like little boats towards a pond downstream. The leaves are all slightly different from each other, even if they may have come from the same type of tree. They vary in size and shape. Some are small and narrow and slip past rocks and branches easily. Others are large or irregular and more easily get caught. Other leaves are just unlucky. These may catch an unlucky current that drives them into a muddy bank or may fall on the ground and miss the stream entirely. But in the end, a few will have the right combination of factors to avoid trouble and find their way downstream to safety arrive at the pond. To some, it may almost look like the leaves had a goal to reach the pond. We might think of making it to the pond as "good" It's tempting to think that a leaf "failed" when it got snagged, or that the lucky few survivors were destined somehow to make it to the pond. We may even assign human-like qualities or traits to these leaves. "Oh, that one is determined," or "Don't give up now, leaf, you're almost there!" But the leaves are just dead bits of plant fiber. They don't really have plans or goals. In reality, this is, of course, a natural, random process -- it's we, the observers -- who assume and assign intent or meaning to what we're seeing. And it is the random variance among the leaves that helps contribute to their survival -- not the plan of any intelligent director. edit: clarity
Well then I suppose your wife and children are just leaves as well. And you have left yourself no reason to cheer them on, wish them well, hope and pray for them...
If a god exists and he designed our faculties, you would expect everybody to believe in the same god. The reality is that most people believe in a different god than you do.
No body ever experience what's after death.. If you believe in God, ur faith save u if God exist. But, if there is no God, what you lose? U've live a good life. If you are an atheis, and unfortunately there is God,, what a mess.. 🤣🤣🤣
If there's evolution it means there were no Adam and Eve which means there's no original sin so Jesus came for nothing. His task was to solve the problem that Adam created in the original sin, he brought sin to humanity. Christianity would have no goal in that case. That's why Genesis is important.
Typical Christian - skirting round the problem of Creation v evolution by saying it doesn’t really matter how God created the universe, just that he did. So- throw out all of Genesis then ....??
This whole language of "homosexuals" as a state of being that is immutable is false. Homosexuals is a word that describes a behavior NOT a state of being or an attribute. It is a behavior. This kind of thinking makes it seem as if the homosexual has only one option and that is celibacy and that is false. Many leave those behaviors and go on to a heterosexual life thanks to deliverance in christ. We know this from Paul as well who describes the sin as having existed among converts and that they "were" once among those before coming to Christ. Conversion is what Christ does.
The PoE is simple. God wants evil, therefore evil exists. If God did not want evil, it would not exist. The one that gets me is divine hiddenness. Can you not see proof of God's divine hiddenness? It is all around you!
It is absolutely insane that you would demand of all gay and lesbians to live a life without intimacy, without romantic love because of something they were born with. Especially when it's based on the most threadbare of scriptural doctrine.
We don’t demand it. God does. And it’s not something you were born with. On top of the fact that it’s insane to consider making right or wrong contingent on your feelings, there is no biological evidence for gay genes.
Is God enslave human through His laws? Human wants to be free? This is an absurd question n objection.. Even An atheis and un ruled man will make a rule for his life. He is enslave by his purpose. His purpose automatically create laws to follow. Did God trying to enslave you? Find the purpose in every law. And i dare you to point at a law that is evil for humanity.
Maksie0 This presupposes positivism, the belief that "one must have proof of or be able to demonstrate something to be the case, for something to be true" which is self refuting as that proposition has no proof of its truth claim and nobody has ever demonstrated it's truth, nor in principle could they. However sense the time of Karl Popper over 100 years ago philosophers of science have known positivism refutes itself. As such we currently work off falsification, meaning that outside of disciplines such as Mathematics and Logic "proof" so to speak does not exist. The highest truth status a scientific theory or metaphysical proposition can have is "it has yet to be falsified despite our best efforts" or "it's been falsified". Whatever has yet to be falsified, has strong explanatory power and scope, is simple to postulate and coheres to the overall data, is more plausibly true than not. God has yet to be falsified, provides strong explanatory power and broad explanatory scope. Is simple to postulate and coheres to the overall data, thus, that God exists, is more plausibly true than its negation. As such asking us for proof or to demonstrate God's existence doesn't actually do anything to refute the Christian position or even make it more plausible that he doesn't exist. It is actually a misunderstanding of modern science and philosophy of science on your part.
I'm not attempting to refute your position or claim that it's false. Just saying you're not justified in believing it until it's been demonstrated. As for falsification, how do you falsify a god claim exactly?
May I suggest the title be updated to 'Five examples showing why Christianity continues to drag humanity back into the mud of a faith based belief system'.
The 2009 Ryan Report found that thousands of children were savagely raped or molested in these homes, while thousands more were beaten and starved and forced to work. Boys described nights of terror, lying in bed waiting for priests to come and molest them. "In some schools a high level of ritualized beating was routine," the report said. A new scandal has rocked the church, with the recent discovery that up to 4,000 infants and children - many malnourished and poorly treated - had been buried in unmarked graves at homes for unwed mothers run by Catholic nuns. While xtians roleplay about invisible zombie Jews and magic, their priests keep molesting children and accumulating material wealth. Religion is disgusting and dangerous. Stop now.
People: Do bad things in the name of the Lord. Atheists: SEE! GOD IS TERRIBLE AND DISPICABLE God: What did I do? I didn't even-- Atheists: SEE HE DIDNT DO ANYTHING! God: It's not like I told them to-- Atheists: RELIGION IS TERRIBLE AND DISGUSTING People: Lmao let's do MORE bad things in the name of the Lord!
Why is that? He is showing that the church has been hypocritical concerning sexual sin. He states God loves all people and this includes gay people. He does not doubt a genuine struggle, but does not see this struggle as a reason to accept homosexual behaviours as not sinful. He agrees homosexual persons can be Christian but not practicing, just as an adulterer must repent so a homosexual must. What exactly is your point?
@@fogboquiz5700 you've answered the question for me really. Accepting gay people but they need to repent, means that you're not really accepting gay people for who they are. Adultery isn't the same as gay people, why are they the same?
@@rooneysue I am interested to know if your view of Christianity leads to no people being accepted for who they are because all Christians I have ever known have had to deny some aspect of their nature in order to follow Christ. You state in the case of homosexuals this results in the person not being accepted for who they are. What about the other things people have denied from their own nature? Does this mean no person is accepted for who they are? or is this for some reason exclusive to homosexual actions in which case I would be interested to know why.
That portion around 33:00 minutes really hit me hard like a "Eureka!" moment. That introspection about the reality of the Problem of Evil and why we are to ponder upon the implications of evil made me tear up to.
This interview with Dr. Jerry Walls is an intellectually stimulating and heart-moving one. Thank you so much for interviewing him, Cameron! May we have him for interview again about in-depth theodicy topics? Having that discussed with someone as informed and passionate as him would really give more insight for us believers who desire to impart the same message about God against evil and the hope we have in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thank you again, Cameron! God bless you and your ministry!
Theodicy in the bible has many different views on the reason for evil. Its possibly worth looking into it in more details, rather than listening to Dr Walls who has picked and chosen parts of theodicy that fits his narrative. His very poignant moment is also marred by the fact his pause to think was clearing showing him making something up with his 'eye tells' he is constructing something in his mind.
@@rooneysue The concept of Natural evil is incoherent. Dr Walls asks a very good question: why the problem of evil is a problem. It cannot be a problem if nature is all there is.
AMAZING interview bro! Wow!
Askia Jones Thanks bro!
The dilemma touched on at the 14 minute mark bears some remarkable similarities to the evolutionist noting the appearance of design in life.
Amazing interview Cameron; thank you Dr. Walls! God bless you both for your ministry!
Well, for some people maybe. The greater problems are these:
1. Bogus proof texts from the Hebrew Bible
2. Contradictions among the gospels
3. False prophecies in the gospels
4. Contradictions among Paul and gospels
This is great Cameron
As an atheist and skeptic, I came away from this with these questions/reactions:
Issue 1 - At 10:16 he literally says “we have gaps...that require an explanation” How is this not a god of the gaps argument?
Issue 2 - If god created us with the capacity to believe in him, why didn’t he create us with a better capacity to understand him?
Issue 3 - There are scientific claims in the Bible, that are demonstrably false. Why would god dictate a symbolic creation story that, as you claim, is majority false? Why not only include the bits you believe are true (that god created) and leave out the bits that you believe are not (that it happened in 6 days)?
Issue 4 - I honestly don’t know how you can say such things. Otherwise, refer to the problem of evil.
Issue 5 - The majority of your response was a straw man. If there is no god then yes, ‘bad things’ can, should and will happen to everyone. Too bad, so sad. It’s only a problem in the theistic world view - that an all knowing, all loving god engineered the circumstances of this universe to allow such evil.
77 Megapixels by what standard do you call something evil?
@@samc1432 my use of the term above denotes any 'bad thing' that occurs - generally meaning something that causes undesirable harm to sentient beings.
77 Megapixels Why is undesirable harm bad? According to who?
@@samc1432 Oh, I see what you mean, in that case, harm is bad according to Allah.
Issue 1 - He's saying the design hypothesis is the best explanation for reality and that the 'gaps' or giant leaps of faith in scientific theory require explanation as it takes far more faith to believe a theory that defies the law of causality (that every effect must have a cause) than it does to acknowledge the evidence points overwhelmingly to design.
Issue 2 - It doesn't follow that a creature with the capacity to believe ought to have the capacity to fully understand. As it happens we're made with just enough capacity to understand that we will ever need. Our problem isn't an intellectual one, it's a moral one. We don't want to be accountable to anyone.
Issue 3 - There are no scientific claims in the bible. Scientific as defined as based on the principles and methods of science. Think of the primitive context that Genesis was first delivered to. You're looking down on it arrogantly with your thousands of years of accumulated information. It needed to be understandable for the original audience as well as clearly communicating what we need to know about our origin. Please don't get caught up on interpretations of our origin from scientists or theologians. What ultimately matters is what you do with Jesus. If he really resurrected like he said he would then we have every reason to believe his worldview. Revelation from a being with unlimited knowledge is the only way we can be certain the reality we perceive is objective.
Issue 4/5 The problem with your issue 5 is that if there is evil there is good. If there is good and evil then there is an objective reference point by which one can differentiate between good and evil. In other words a moral law. A moral law ie reference point assumes the very being you are objecting to. So the objection self destructs. If there is no God then bad things don't happen. Pain and suffering isn't ultimately bad its just something pointless that happens which you don't particularly like. As a christian I believe that the little amount of pain and suffering we experience (that isn't in some way humanity-inflicted) works for our eternal benefit and shapes our character in a way that nothing else can.
Christianity is against gay people. (22:05): So much for Paul's words, "such were some of you" 1 Cor. 6.9-11. According to these men, "such are some of you still" ! ?
As an agnostic, this is refreshing, and has given me a lot to think about.
I just can't accept the tradition on homosexuality. The scriptural command seems to come from Leviticus, which also has prohibitions on things which make no sense today (mixing fibres, growing two crops in the same field), and one verse from Romans which contains a word found in no other text. Even if the word does mean monogamous, consenting, adult homosexual activity, I also find it hard to believe Paul is infalibly relaying revelation to us. The more I try to practice faith, the more contemptable it seems to me to be against a committed gay couple. It feels like Christians are pushing me away from the divine, back towards my human prejudices
Hang on, it doesn't "come from" a book. If the only thing you can't accept is the tradition on homosexuality, but you actually accept the veracity of everything else, this should be a no-brainer. Either the books are divinely inspired or they're the ramblings of deluded humans. So it sounds like a presupposition that the books are not divinely inspired is sneaking its way into your argumentation. If the books are divinely inspired, the tradition on homosexuality doesn't "come from" a book, it's just a storage medium for a message from the creator of the universe. But the existence of such a creator is the very thing we're trying to evaluate. You can't presuppose the falsity of the religion to prove the falsity of the religion. It also isn't just some odd fluke of Leviticus. It's in several books of the Old Testament and it's reaffirmed by both Jesus and Paul.
The other prohibitions that you say "make no sense today" are perfectly justifiable. The reason for these prohibitions is not to make sense. There's not some utilitarian purpose for prohibiting the eating of pigs either. People who try to argue it's because of actual hygienic reasons do us all a disservice by giving people the impression that God would trick us into doing things for our own good without telling us _why_ they're beneficial; and at the same time they give people the impression that God _must_ have some utilitarian reason for these things, or else the law is incoherent. If there were utilitarian reasons for the Jewish law, God would have included those reasons in his explication.
But that's just the thing. It should be obvious, but for some reason you find people posing this as a false dilemma between utilitarian justification and complete incoherence. God doesn't need a utilitarian reason to tell people to do something, at all, full stop. But the Jewish law isn't even a good example of that, because it does have abstract functions vastly more important than hygiene. There's no need to trick the people either - they all knew the Jewish law was designed to keep them separate from the rest of the people. And it has succeeded.
Haven't you ever wondered how the Jews have managed to survive as their own independent ethnic, cultural, and religious group, for thousands of years? How is it, after their homeland was systematically destroyed and they were evicted by the Romans, that the Jews spread into every land in Eurasia and beyond, becoming tiny minorities everywhere they went, and yet never assimilated into the wider culture, always preserving their unique identity and ensuring the continued existence of such an entity as "the Jews" and "the Jewish religion"? How is it that the Jews managed to survive conquest after conquest during the bronze and iron ages?
The Egyptian subjugation, the Babylonian captivity, the Medo-Persian subjugation, the Greek conquest, the Roman clienthood, and finally the utter devastation of Israel. It's already pretty remarkable for so many disasters to happen to one group of people. But for that group of people to survive all of that? And then to become the central target of the largest systematic genocide in the history of the human species, and to survive that as well? How on Earth can anyone explain that except in terms of things that are simply unique to the Jews? Are we gonna conclude the Jews are genetically superior to other groups? Or could it just maybe have something to do with their religion, their culture, and indeed, their law?
The Jewish law was transparently motivated by a desire to glue the people together in common contradistinction from their neighbors. The Bible itself gestures at this etiology. It also gave the Israelites the opportunity to exercise their trust in and submission to God. It's one thing to submit to God in theory, it's another to actually make sacrifices for God. That's not to say God needs sacrifices. The sacrifices are for the people's benefit, not for God's. It's participation in faith and submission, acts of the will, that cultivate radical selflessness and holiness. So it's unsurprising that God would choose sacrifices that are particularly hard. That's the point of Lent, too. It's not to sacrifice something that you already have utilitarian reasons to avoid. It's to sacrifice something that's hard for you. Something you want to do. Something you can't see any reason not to do. That way, the sacrifice is a pure act of love and trust. It's a way of putting ourselves in God's hands. That would hardly be the effect if there were simple utilitarian reasons for every injunction and admonition.
If any of us has individual prejudices against gay people, we should certainly not blame Christianity for that. The Christian tradition doesn't advocate for prejudice, it advocates for chastity for everyone. If one can be chaste for the kingdom of heaven, they should be. That is part of the message preached by both Jesus and Paul. The only reason not to be chaste, not to pursue a life of contemplation, poverty, and charity, is for the sake of perpetuating the human race. The purpose of sex isn't pleasure. It isn't for us to abuse like a drug. It's to make babies. The Christian tradition follows Thomas Aquinas on the subject of homosexuality. It has nothing to do with prejudice, and everything to do with natural law.
If modern mythology was correct, and sex really is just a kind of drug, then it really would be unjust for Christians to demand that people with homosexual-only attractions abstain from sex. But that's a pretty gigantic "if." There's no reason to think secular culture is right about sexual orientation, gender identity, or any number of recent novelties governing social and sexual relations. These are the perversions of a radically materialistic, consumeristic, individualistic culture that only cares about seeking pleasure and evading pain. It's fundamentally at odds with Christianity, which is about faith in God, radical love, charity, and poverty. So of course we're going to come to very different conclusions about human nature.
But I think even people who've bought into secular dogma _can_ see that there's a very giant distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships that has something to do with one being justified and the other not. Even if your origin story for sex centers on evolution, it's still easy to see that one of these relationships involves the interaction between two complementary but dimorphic parts, becoming one in an act ordered toward the fusion of the two into one member of the next generation. It's easy to see that reproduction is the ultimate end of sex. Now, not everyone is capable of reproducing at all times one might have sex. But the issue isn't simply the possibility of reproduction, it's the misuse of complementary systems. Whether those systems are designed or evolved, it's clear that they're not on par in complementarity.
So, the exact way in which same-sex sexual interactions are thought to be sinful is complex. It's sinful in the sense that human sexuality is "fallen," making all human relations impure in some way. The heterosexual relationship is no exception. There are vastly more ways to do it wrong than to do it right. The majority of heterosexual relationships are probably just as sinful, if not more sinful, than a committed gay relationship. The question is, what vindicates the few that _are_ right? Is it simply being committed? Why? Because it's wrong to hurt your lover's feelings? That's a modern conception of morality. Christian tradition is rooted in Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy, the concept of natural law. Instead, the thing that vindicates heterosexual relationships and that can never vindicate homosexual relationships is that men are ordered toward women and women toward men, in precisely the way necessary to fulfill God's command to "be fruitful and multiply." So whether an individual man and woman have, at any given moment, the physical capability of conceiving, they are both ordered - body and soul - toward "becoming one" with each other in the biological process of meiosis.
It's easy to understand the rationale behind this if you actually engage with the tradition instead of just listening to secular invective against Christianity. This has been discussed within the Church ad nauseam for many centuries. As a former atheist and an extremely liberal (even libertine) one, I had no particular motive to accept the Aristotelian-Thomistic concepts of love and sex. I was certainly free from bias in its favor, if not biased against it. But it's very persuasive because it's rooted in the philosophical theory most likely to resolve the mind-body problem: hylomorphism. I was able to accept it because the historical evidence for Jesus was convincing enough to motivate me to investigate the tradition proper; at which point it was clear that the philosophical arguments for God's existence and for divine and natural law are overwhelmingly more cogent than their antitheses.
Now, as for whether it's morally reprehensible to _judge_ people for violating the natural law, it comes down to context. Criticizing those who call themselves gay, as if it was an ends in itself (e.g., Westboro Baptist Church), serves nobody but the devil. The Christian tradition is not to harass or put down people with same-sex attractions. It is simply to proclaim the gospel to the ends of the earth, without pulling any punches. If Christianity is, in fact, true, and God does, in fact, judge us for our adherence to the natural law, then refusing to tell someone that gay sex is against the natural law is doing them a great disservice. It could mean the difference between salvation and damnation. That's why, at least in the Catholic tradition, the goal is pastoral care. We shouldn't needlessly offend people, but nor should we lie to them or omit highly consequential facts from our evangelization. So, it's essential that the Church preach chastity for all, and especially for those who have no desire for a relationship naturally ordered toward the production of children. To see that, you can read a book like _Why I Don't Call Myself Gay_ by Daniel Mattson, for example.
As for your point about Paul infallibly transmitting revelation, so what? If Paul is transmitting revelation to us _at all_ in even the most dilute sense, we should take pause. If there's even a 1% chance that 1% of his words are divinely inspired, we should shut up and listen. If there is _any_ revelation in what he says _at all_ then it necessarily means that God exists and that he is behind the Christian tradition. And if that's the case, we have to ask what are the implications of that. Christians began asking that a very long time ago, of course. The Christian tradition was founded on those implications. That's where the belief in dogma and doctrine comes from. It's our expectation that the Holy Spirit will guide us, as Jesus promised, that reassures us that the Bible can be trusted in its entirety. So if Paul is even a little bit inspired, that would tend to lead us to the conclusion that God is protecting the integrity of the message preached by his chosen instruments.
If you doubt that Paul was inspired even a little bit, then that's fine. But under that framework, it will be hard to explain why such an educated, well-off man would suddenly go blind, have visions of Jesus Christ, and become one of the principal leaders of a movement of which he had led the persecution just a few years prior. Like so many other things about early Christian history, it's just very hard to explain on naturalism. If none of these people were divinely inspired, if Jesus himself wasn't divine and didn't have the power to protect his Church from error, then it's hard to explain where Christianity came from, how it managed to conquer the Roman empire, how it managed to turn a bunch of peasants into master philosophers and apologists, how it created a sophisticated quasi-global hierarchy within just a few years, manned by people ready and willing to be tortured to death for proclaiming the good news. And so much more...
Also, I meant to discuss how this "ordering toward becoming one with each other" also includes the ordering of personality and will toward providing for one's children in very distinctive ways. A child needs both a mother and a father for precisely the reason that men and women have different features and behavioral tendencies that fulfill different needs of children. Again, whether we interpret this as a feature of humankind _designed_ by God, or as simply an evolutionary adaptation that persists because of its profound effects on reproductive fitness, the result is the same: men are ordered toward fathering, and women toward mothering.
So, some types of homosexual relationship are wrong for the same reason no-fault divorce and single parent surrogacy are wrong. To produce a child and deny them the right to a mother and a father is a terrible crime against that child, and indeed a sin. It's not just that the man and woman are ordered in precisely the way necessary to reproduce, they're also ordered in precisely the way necessary to cooperatively and sustainably nurture human offspring. Not only can sex not be divorced from the ends of reproduction, it also can't be divorced from the psychosocial constraints of parenting.
The contemporary western divorce between sex, reproduction, and parenting is a portent of a greater divorce between men and women, corresponding perfectly with the meteoric rise of actual divorce of married couples and the breakdown of the family structure in the west. The number of children deprived of a mother and father is skyrocketing every year, tragically. This also goes hand in hand with the rise in fetal abortion. We systematically dehumanize our preborn children, so it's unsurprising that we treat them as if they have no rights at all. It's also unsurprising that we can no longer agree on what a woman is, on who can become pregant, and on what it means to be a mother. This is ultimately what happens when you systematically break down all the philosophical barriers and highway rails and warning signs. I'm especially reminded of Chesterton's fence when I think about what has happened to social, sexual, and familial norms.
This was such a great conversation! I would love to see one like it with David Gushee.
32:24 wooh! Those are the moments true Christians have.
Excellent overview.
Excellent interview
Great stuff! The 32:12 mark hit me.
Why do you only have 700 some subscribers?! More people need to see this.
BaWare Yneb All in good time!
That 699 people could be bettering themselves right now but instead this is what they are watching instead. PS that other one doesn't count because it's his mother
Things are a lot different a year later :)
Yes, this aged well.
@@CapturingChristianity All in good time!
Regarding the 5th objection, as Paul Washer said considering the Sinfulness of man, "the question is NOT "why do bad things happen to good people", but "why does anything good happen in the world at All" " ?
Because man is so wicked.
Anything good that happens in the world is because of the Goodness of God.
Talk to me about the book of Job? Why did Job have to suffer? I'm currently reading the Book of Job and the suffering he was given?
@@rooneysue
Well, the reason why God allows the suffering of Job, is as stated in the start of the Book where the devil (literal meaning "accuser of the Brethren") says to God that the reason why Job worships and loves God is because God has blessed Job with prosperity. So to prove satan wrong, God allows Job to suffer, to show that Job Loved God, not because of his wealth, etc, but simply because he loved God.
Many books have been written trying to answer the question you raise. For a simple examination of the matter may I suggest a booklet published by RBC Ministries: Out of the Ashes (God’s presence in Job’s pain) by Bill Crowder. You can go to www.discoveryseries.org and search for the booklet by name. You can order it for free or download a pdf version. You may find it helpful.
www.revelation.co/2008/10/09/why-did-god-allow-job-to-suffer-to-prove-a-point-to-satan/
m.ua-cam.com/video/xQwnH8th_fs/v-deo.html
@@albinsiby729 thank you sorry ive not replied before now. I'll take a good look at your information. Just one quick point, you called him the Devil, while I am reading and checking words as I go, the part of the book of Job where god sits with his heavenly being 'sons of God hes called 'The Satan' and isn't the fallen angel described in other parts of the bible. Do you think Satan/Devil caused the suffering on Job alone?
@@rooneysue
I called him the devil, because in the Bible, it's clearly stated it was satan:
Job 1:6
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them."
God asks Satan "where have you come from?"
And he answers "going about to and fro"
Just like the Bible warns us to be aware of the devil who walks about (to and fro) :
1 Peter 5:8
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour."
Now, the Lord says to the Devil in Job 1:12 :
"And the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.”
So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord."
That everything about Job(except) his life in in Satan's hands. So he can do whatever he wants with poor Job.
Now, you asked whether Satan did it alone, and by that I'm understanding that you're asking "did Satan do it all by himself "
Now the Bible doesn't exactly tells us what all powers do these angelic beings have and what all can they do, because after all, Satan was also once an angel of light.
You know you keep hearing people say "oh the devil is gonna attack you", just as even the Bible says in 1 Peter 5:8, which I quoted above. That is True.
But that doesn't mean that Satan is omnipresent or omnipotent or omniscient. Because when people say that, they're implying that he knows everything and is present everywhere at all times, which is not possible for anyone except God. Because only He is Omni-potent, Omni-present, Omni-scient.
Hope that helps.
@@albinsiby729 I have a little issue with you saying *its the Devil, as it clearly says Satan.*
In the story of Job, Satan isn't the Devil, the Hebrew word Satan in the book of Job is 'ha satan' it's used with a definite article, so it's useage is a job description. He calls to God's attention who he believes are the unworthy. YHWH has no enemies, just celestial beings that work for him.
Im trying to work out where in the bible the shift of thought on the problem of suffering. Because in the early books it's definitely Mankind that is the problem. You have said its mankind and I agree with you that is in the early stories of the bible. However the shift of thought moves to an apocalytic view. Eg Good and Evil, God and the Devil.
I asked if he did it alone, because I believe that it's God who helps in Job. You pointed out that God gave him rules on what not to do, boundaries. If this is The Devil as later in the bible stories it's not the same one as in Job.
I think it’s weird that the only two answers are, atheism with no meaning, or an all loving God. The mental gymnastics and logical loopholes this gentleman jumps through to prove something easily disprovable is astounding. The easiest and most reasonable answer is actually, there is a God, and it’s at best indifferent and at worst Evil. But no one really wants to reflect to hard on that one. It’s worse than nihilism.
Admittedly, I have been a non-believer for several years. Roughly 10 years. But recently I have been called back to belief. I am reading a Bible through -- the whole thing. It is resonating with me in a way like never before. But I wrestle with social topics, like LGBTQ issues, as well as abortion, I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion ( don't @ me). At @ 22:07 you really made me think hard on this subject.
33:00 Most of evil definitions carry the pain attribute, but there are evils that don't cause you pain, but pleasure.
not in the long run
Simple pushback against his claim that creation and evolution are compatible: evolution requires death before sin. The scriptures are clear that Adam's sin brought death to our entire cosmos. If you have death before sin, it undermines basically the entire gospel. You'd have to say that, "The wages of sin is death...but not really because death was the very means of God's creation and development of life. Death was part of his very good original creation." This kind of thinking is a real problem.
The order of creation in Genesis is also at odds with evolutionary ideas, i.e., stars are created after the earth and plant life.
I know a lot of really smart Christians who go through all sorts of mental gymnastics trying to sythesize these two opposing views, and I think they just bend their logic to the breaking point.
That said, I really appreciate your channel and the work you're doing. LOTS of good stuff here, and it's worth hearing different viewpoints even if I disagree.
Two things:
1) it doesn’t say that sin was brought to the whole cosmos, it just says that if they eat of the tree, Adam and Eve will die.
2) the fact that the sun is created after light, and the melodic symmetry between days 1/4, 2/5, 3/6, make it clear that this poem is just that - a poem. It shows that if you interpret this through it’s correct genre it is most likely not literal, but rather a theological song that teaches key doctrines about who God is. If this is true, then you don’t need to reconcile evolution and Genesis, because genesis is theological teaching, not historical.
The Bible teaches that? I love when young earth creationists raise their interpretation of scripture to the same level as the inspired intended message of the biblical author. There are many interpretations of Genesis 1, and to say that yours is the inspired one or the one the bible teaches is to basically claim omniscience. It would be possible to say that your view is the most probable, but to say your view is what the Bible teaches is to totally miss the complexity of interpreting scripture and pridefully assert that your view is the only possible view. Honestly, to me that seems like elevating man's word over God's word. The original intended message of the biblical author was inspired, not Ken Ham's interpretation.
And side note, if you read Romans 5:12 you will see that death passes to all men, not all animals. Further, I challenge the young earth creationists to insert " All men and animals " into anywhere in Romans 5 where it says all. The result is that Jesus came and died for all animals and all men. It also says that all men and all animals sin. Incoherent.
Lastly, young earth creationist is a false label. It really needs to be young earth evolutionist. To say that 4,000 years ago, all life was wiped out except for a thousand or so animals and eight people on an ark means that we need to be able to see all the present day species come as a result of microevolution from the original animals on the ark. In order to get from the thousand or so animals to the species we see today, you need insane rates of speciation and microevolution that is far faster than what even the atheist biologist posits is possible. We are talking like 10 new species a day, when even the most ambitious atheist biologist would say that you should expect a new speciation event every thousand or so years.
Spiritual Death being more important than Physical Death is explicitly Biblical and directly tied to Jesus
@@Iamwrongbut Agreed. Genesis 1 isn't "camera footage" of creation that's meant to be taken concretely. Rather, it's abstract theological messaging using temple imagery that was common back then in the ancient near east.
I’m still waiting for evidence for a god (the Christian one). How comes no one gets that I can’t believe what can’t be demonstrated to be true or falsified. What’s so hard about that? Please show me an example of god doing anything at all.
You cannot operate in the real world with only making decisions that can be empirically tested. Ergo, you DO believe things without physical, falsifiable evidence. Unfortunately, you must now pose a philisophical argument against God, instead of a naturalistic one.
Another atheist cultist positing a category error.
There is a distinction between the "supernatural" and "natural", dontcha know?
I asked to God to give atheist special consideration. He said, "Sorry, I don't play favorites".
@@WhatsTheTakeaway well that's some weird logic.
Pray to GOD and ask to be shown. "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see GOD."
The Bible says the evidence of God's existence is plainly revealed in the created order and in each person''s moral conscience. Indeed, for most people throughout human history this powerful testimony has been sufficient...
11:04
"but the catholic church, their traditional position (...) is that evolution is the way that god brought about life"
nah, the catholic church tells 2 diferent stories at the same time:
-That God created animals and humans (Adam and Eve) and everything else,
-That evolution happens with some kind of divine direction, and the entire procces whas somehow put in place by god.
They don't have a "traditional position", nor a "official position". Why would they? it's easy to preach (the chorus) about Adam and Eve as if they were real persons, and not some kind of symbolic story about creation.
And it's easy to hold a debate with intelectuals if you believe in evolution.
So the double discourse is practical and effective. Why change it? Why educate people about it? Ask a normal catholich priest if he believes in evolution or in Adam and Eve? Ask yourself What does this priest teachs when he preach the chorus about genesis? Does he take this "traditional position" of evolution is true or talks about Adam and Eve as if they where real people?
nath phoenix read the book of genesis in hebrew in its original historical context please
@@xxxmmm3812 You're commanding a random stranger online to learn a new language just to read Genesis...
Are you out of your mind?
Also, what do you mean when you say the "original (?) historical context" of Genesis. The book of Genesis is a compilation of texts, from different authors, in different times. It's a really controversial topic, and there is no consensus among scholars.
What an ignorant troll.
You didn't even respond to my comment, you just command me to study a text in an ancient language (Why people use "please" after giving an order is out of my comprehension)
Interesting read and you bring up some pondering points. For example in a Catholic University; creationism is NOT taught in the science class. Evolution is taught in biology. In the Catholic University the Taxonomy chart is used NOT the biblical "kinds". What I found most thought provoking is the idea that on an educational level Science is taught. In the churches nonsense is taught, such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
@@nathphoenix7489 Lmao that response was weak tbh. For one, Genesis is a book written by Moses alone, so you already got that wrong off the bat. 😆 Also, he's asking you to read it in Greek because he's showing that you have no sensible contextual evidence that says anything at all. Also mans really just said "why people use "'please' after giving an order is out of my comprehension" like can we appreciate how silly this is. If I say to my child hey wash the dishes please, that's completely illogical? WHAT? Alr then
At 0:22, what's the matter with the guys head? The one on the left? The back part of it is missing...
2:31 angles?
Lots of advances were made in algebra (an Arabic word) by Islamic scholars, yet their god can't be shown to be necessary for algebra to work. Same with the Christian god and science.
The last thing that Jerry says doesn't have sound...
I think he just gave Forrest Gump’s speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
Thank you, Dr Walls.
Walls makes a terribly obvious attempt at misdirection in his remarks on the problem of evil, trying to shift the focus towards the hypothetical atheist's worldview instead of answering the question.
The problem of evil is an internal critique within the theological framework, it has nothing to do with what some atheist may or may not believe. In fact there isn't even a potential problem from the non-believers' perspective since the problem lies in the proposition that there is an 'overseer' who is all-loving, not that we call some things 'evil'.
Where is purgatory in the Bible?
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Matthew 11:28 KJV
Jesus lives
Jesus Christ is Lord
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:23 KJV
Jesus loves you repent
You're a sinner in need of a Savior
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
Romans 10:9-10 KJV
No, theistic evolution is an oxymoron. It’s a redundancy. Evolution, in and of itself, was formulated by materialists as an explanation for the development/diversity of life via strictly material/natural means. If such a process is adequate for the job, why include God? This is an either/or scenario.
Biblical creation is bunk.
But Darwinian evolution has huge explanatory gaps. More gaps than explanation.
Evolution has occurred, but Darwinian ("Blind Watchmaker") evolution hypothesis is not an adequate explanation.
31:47 Jerry Walls speaks the truth! Great interview Cameron!
You might think these were good answers but I disagree. There are at least 2 rebuttals for each of his answers, that I can think of.
Bob y.n.h. I’d be happy to discuss at least one of your rebuttals. Go ahead.
@@CapturingChristianity,
Eight months later and he still hasn't found that needle in the haystack.
@@utopiabuster There is much wrong with this mans answers. I would have to publish a book to address it.
In a nut she'll, he is making assertion after assertion .
Most of them are pretty bad as far as any kind of proof to rebut the arguments he's addressing.
@@kaboomgoo,
Don't need a book.
Name just one, just one.
I'll pop some popcorn.
Go!!!
@@utopiabuster For starters the Bible is not compatible with evolution. Furthermore he totally omits the fact the the MAJORITY of Christians fought against and denied all forms of evolution. They later conceded microevolutuion and later you had this "God and evolution " nonsense.
Again my first point he makes assertions that is all.
On a side note he says that non theist have no choice but evolution. False, Biocentrism is a view that could give you an answer against evolution.
He just knocks down 1 dimensional straw men.....
Eat your popcorn
What is the guys name yall keep saying during the interview ? I would like to research him " planing" something that starts with a P
Taylor Clark Alvin Plantinga!
@@CapturingChristianity thanks! Been loving the videos!
He started Going in on the problem of evil
There's a very easy answer to #4: just become LGBT affirming. Every institution is inevitably headed for doctrinal reform at some point. Any epistemology that is worth anything has room to change doctrine in light of new information. I'm willing to be that within my lifetime I'll live to see most (if not all) major denominations become LGBT affirming, as it becomes less and less defensible to be so doctrinally excluding.
Let’s hope churches resist giving in to the spirit of the age.
@@HolyTerminator sorry, they gave in to the spirit of the age a long time ago when they aligned themselves with prosperity gospel political power
Salvation is not success in behavior, it is faith alone in Jesus our Passover Lamb. When I see the blood, I will pass over you. This is the problem with Catholicism
19:52 "the resurrection of Jesus is highly certain"? A miracle is by its very nature is probably the most unlikely event in all of history or all the universe. A few guys writing 2000 years ago a guy came back from the dead is highly certain? I'll tell you what is more extremely more probable, it was a legend.
These guys can't even begin to understand the problems LGBT people have to go through.
yeah yeah...we hear it all the time... 'LGBTI - alphabet' people aren' the only people who have to go through problems.. You are not defined by your sexuality ultimately.. Who you are is deeper than that.
@@MournfulMystic
The LGBT community is attacked by religious morons constantly. LGBT individuals suffer from not feeling like they belong in this world and your community makes it so much worse. That's why so many of them take their lives. You can't understand the problems they face because you don't have to deal with people saying you are going to hell because you were born and who you are. Sexuality is part of who you are rather you like it or not.
@999YORK
The Catholic church is full of problems. Gay priest isn't a problem.
the title could have just been "5 Big Objections to religion" No questions in regard to the new testament and Jesus message.
Come on! How God created is central to his action. That's why its in the Bible. It sets the ontological scene and eliminates materialism (and de-personalized spiritism) as possible creative avenues. The creation account shows how the eternal interfaces with the temporal (by God sharing our existential space of configured time), and God making this thereby the domain of fellowship of God and man. As soon as you admit that the hypothesis of evolution works, you introduce God's defeater as an agent: the world can make itself, and demand long ages of chance to do the work, which God has explicitly obstructed in Genesis 1 and Hebrews 11:3. Long ages of chance is a different world-concept to Creation by the will and wisdom of God, and if Genesis 1 didn't happen, then something else did, and it is this something else that is the ontological, ethical and existential ground of our being.
In Catholicism, doctrines evolve. At the beginning, there was God the Father, Jesus who is our Savior and Lord and ONE with the Father as They are One with the Spirit. When people believe that Jesus saved them, He sends the Comforter, AKA Holy Spirit.
Then Catholicism was not happy that Jesus paid it all and rose because He had justified us. They wanted a means of keeping salvation always beyond reach, because they found there was a cash cow in it preventing assurance of salvation. Indulgences help people have the church provide this security for a price, but are not scriptural and these are still around. There is a reason why the Vatican is flush with gold. Now the pope says that Jesus was a failure on the cross. And Catholics go along to get along. So much more money in it if you just get rid of Jesus in order to get along with Muslims. Any day now, we'll be praying to St. Judas Iscariot too!
I'm a protestant and I know the Catholics don't believe that... You're just making slurs without any actual evidence to prove your point. When did the Pope ever say Jesus was a Failure on the cross??? I'm pretty sure the resurrection of Jesus is central to their doctrine.
OH WAIT are you talking about this www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-pope-francis-really-say-jesus-was-a-failure
You clearly toke words out of context, and Jesus's life did end in failure FROM THE WORLD'S POINT OF VIEW. He died a criminal but defeated the world by raising up on the third day.
If you want to discredit the Catholic church use actual evidence and scriptural support not just superstitions, assumptions, and slanders. Making claims like that aren't going to convince anyone.
They are our brothers and sisters in Christ
We recite the same creed
So treat them as such
Treat them with the love that Christ has shown you and the world
Even if you do view them as your enemies are you not supposed to love your enemies because "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?" Mathew 5:46
I pray you allow God to change your heart.
amen
The Fool has said (in his heart), there is no GOD. BTW I’m a “GOD is completely sovereign” (like the Bible says) guy but I agree with Jerry on the important things of GOD, it’s not easy to come to the precipice of GOD ordains whatever comes to pass. But this is one of the most profound things to think on. Thanks
Please Get Pastor/Apologist Damon Richardson on for a interview I think it would be very helpful
I am new to this themes and I wonder if theres a simple book for beginners, anyone?
Imagine a stream flowing through the forest. You see several leaves floating along the stream like little boats towards a pond downstream.
The leaves are all slightly different from each other, even if they may have come from the same type of tree. They vary in size and shape. Some are small and narrow and slip past rocks and branches easily. Others are large or irregular and more easily get caught. Other leaves are just unlucky. These may catch an unlucky current that drives them into a muddy bank or may fall on the ground and miss the stream entirely. But in the end, a few will have the right combination of factors to avoid trouble and find their way downstream to safety arrive at the pond.
To some, it may almost look like the leaves had a goal to reach the pond. We might think of making it to the pond as "good" It's tempting to think that a leaf "failed" when it got snagged, or that the lucky few survivors were destined somehow to make it to the pond. We may even assign human-like qualities or traits to these leaves. "Oh, that one is determined," or "Don't give up now, leaf, you're almost there!"
But the leaves are just dead bits of plant fiber. They don't really have plans or goals. In reality, this is, of course, a natural, random process -- it's we, the observers -- who assume and assign intent or meaning to what we're seeing. And it is the random variance among the leaves that helps contribute to their survival -- not the plan of any intelligent director.
edit: clarity
Well then I suppose your wife and children are just leaves as well. And you have left yourself no reason to cheer them on, wish them well, hope and pray for them...
Heath VanDe Why do you say that? Are you suggesting they aren’t important to me personally?
Heath VanDe I guess we should only believe in things that make us feel good then.
Disagree about evolution, but enjoyable interview overall.
how can anyone argue....free will...when there is no viable option....ask anyone if they wish to end up, in hell....
If you'd like to translate your question into English that would be helpful.
If a god exists and he designed our faculties, you would expect everybody to believe in the same god. The reality is that most people believe in a different god than you do.
Why would we expect that?
There is no such thing as purgatory
Theistic evolution means evil comes first and God said he created it all good.
we have a title here....can you say focus...
No body ever experience what's after death.. If you believe in God, ur faith save u if God exist. But, if there is no God, what you lose? U've live a good life.
If you are an atheis, and unfortunately there is God,, what a mess.. 🤣🤣🤣
Maybe the garden of Eden wasn’t that great after all.
If there's evolution it means there were no Adam and Eve which means there's no original sin so Jesus came for nothing. His task was to solve the problem that Adam created in the original sin, he brought sin to humanity. Christianity would have no goal in that case. That's why Genesis is important.
Typical Christian - skirting round the problem of Creation v evolution by saying it doesn’t really matter how God created the universe, just that he did. So- throw out all of Genesis then ....??
how about focusing on the subject....and not a bio of your life....
This whole language of "homosexuals" as a state of being that is immutable is false. Homosexuals is a word that describes a behavior NOT a state of being or an attribute. It is a behavior. This kind of thinking makes it seem as if the homosexual has only one option and that is celibacy and that is false. Many leave those behaviors and go on to a heterosexual life thanks to deliverance in christ. We know this from Paul as well who describes the sin as having existed among converts and that they "were" once among those before coming to Christ. Conversion is what Christ does.
Roman Catholicism is NOT Christianity!
The PoE is simple. God wants evil, therefore evil exists. If God did not want evil, it would not exist. The one that gets me is divine hiddenness. Can you not see proof of God's divine hiddenness? It is all around you!
try focusing on the subject.....
You actually posted this?😂 he’s open to whatever world view
5 objections to Christianity...that is your topic...
It is absolutely insane that you would demand of all gay and lesbians to live a life without intimacy, without romantic love because of something they were born with. Especially when it's based on the most threadbare of scriptural doctrine.
We don’t demand it. God does. And it’s not something you were born with. On top of the fact that it’s insane to consider making right or wrong contingent on your feelings, there is no biological evidence for gay genes.
@@davemazur2062 I would strongly advise that you educate yourself. You don't know what you don't know.
@@pnwmeditations I’d strongly advise that you substantiate your claims, otherwise it’s just gobbly goook.
Seria legal se houvesse legenda.. :(
Is God enslave human through His laws? Human wants to be free?
This is an absurd question n objection..
Even An atheis and un ruled man will make a rule for his life. He is enslave by his purpose. His purpose automatically create laws to follow.
Did God trying to enslave you?
Find the purpose in every law. And i dare you to point at a law that is evil for humanity.
Christians attempt to sophisticate their mythology. Sometimes it’s much better than a movie
How about the biggest objection: Theism still hasn't been demonstrated to be true, after all these thousands of years.
Maksie0 This presupposes positivism, the belief that "one must have proof of or be able to demonstrate something to be the case, for something to be true" which is self refuting as that proposition has no proof of its truth claim and nobody has ever demonstrated it's truth, nor in principle could they.
However sense the time of Karl Popper over 100 years ago philosophers of science have known positivism refutes itself. As such we currently work off falsification, meaning that outside of disciplines such as Mathematics and Logic "proof" so to speak does not exist. The highest truth status a scientific theory or metaphysical proposition can have is "it has yet to be falsified despite our best efforts" or "it's been falsified". Whatever has yet to be falsified, has strong explanatory power and scope, is simple to postulate and coheres to the overall data, is more plausibly true than not. God has yet to be falsified, provides strong explanatory power and broad explanatory scope. Is simple to postulate and coheres to the overall data, thus, that God exists, is more plausibly true than its negation.
As such asking us for proof or to demonstrate God's existence doesn't actually do anything to refute the Christian position or even make it more plausible that he doesn't exist. It is actually a misunderstanding of modern science and philosophy of science on your part.
I'm not attempting to refute your position or claim that it's false. Just saying you're not justified in believing it until it's been demonstrated. As for falsification, how do you falsify a god claim exactly?
Ironically, the claim that one is not justified in believing something unless it's been demonstrated has not itself been demonstrated.
@MALIK BIDDLE He does, but you must seek Him. Its really that simple.
How about the biggest objection! Atheism hasn't been demonstrated to be true, after all these, what, decades?
May I suggest the title be updated to 'Five examples showing why Christianity continues to drag humanity back into the mud of a faith based belief system'.
Purgatory?! 😂
if you conduct an interview...ask questions....let the guest answer them...
Dr. Walls chronically interrupts. It makes watching the video quite difficult to complete.
Um, no he doesn't, first of all, and second of all he is the one being interviewed...
The 2009 Ryan Report found that thousands of children were savagely raped or molested in these homes, while thousands more were beaten and starved and forced to work. Boys described nights of terror, lying in bed waiting for priests to come and molest them. "In some schools a high level of ritualized beating was routine," the report said. A new scandal has rocked the church, with the recent discovery that up to 4,000 infants and children - many malnourished and poorly treated - had been buried in unmarked graves at homes for unwed mothers run by Catholic nuns.
While xtians roleplay about invisible zombie Jews and magic, their priests keep molesting children and accumulating material wealth.
Religion is disgusting and dangerous. Stop now.
Thats a very religious statement.
People: Do bad things in the name of the Lord.
Atheists: SEE! GOD IS TERRIBLE AND DISPICABLE
God: What did I do? I didn't even--
Atheists: SEE HE DIDNT DO ANYTHING!
God: It's not like I told them to--
Atheists: RELIGION IS TERRIBLE AND DISGUSTING
People: Lmao let's do MORE bad things in the name of the Lord!
What a Horrible man. His tackling of gay people in Christianity is down right disgusting.
Why is that? He is showing that the church has been hypocritical concerning sexual sin. He states God loves all people and this includes gay people. He does not doubt a genuine struggle, but does not see this struggle as a reason to accept homosexual behaviours as not sinful. He agrees homosexual persons can be Christian but not practicing, just as an adulterer must repent so a homosexual must. What exactly is your point?
@@fogboquiz5700 you've answered the question for me really. Accepting gay people but they need to repent, means that you're not really accepting gay people for who they are. Adultery isn't the same as gay people, why are they the same?
@@rooneysue All people need to repent of something in order to follow God. Are no people accepted for who they are?
@@fogboquiz5700 I dont understand *Are no people accepted for who they are?*
@@rooneysue I am interested to know if your view of Christianity leads to no people being accepted for who they are because all Christians I have ever known have had to deny some aspect of their nature in order to follow Christ. You state in the case of homosexuals this results in the person not being accepted for who they are. What about the other things people have denied from their own nature? Does this mean no person is accepted for who they are? or is this for some reason exclusive to homosexual actions in which case I would be interested to know why.
I write lots of books about fairy tales and nonsense -- congratulations