To Louise ... love your work! “The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.” ― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
Yes, I struggled to get that personal feeling of relationship with Christ for over 40 years and served Him all that time. Now, finally by his grace I have it. He is all the World to Me now!!! I will pray for you!
CS Lewis in his essay ‘On Ethics’ argues against the notion of returning to Christian Ethics. He argues we are not in a moral sense outside of ethical systems choosing which we think is best, but rather we have all been given a moral awareness (which is universal), by God, perhaps nurtured in out upbringing. Christian morality is what we recognise to be true, because we already have this moral sense within.
@@PGHEngineer True. Even the Romans were horrified by the actions of the Celts. And the Romans found it peculiar that the Jews and later Christians did not practice infanticide which was apparently common in every other culture.
@@PGHEngineer enjoying other people’s suffering, especially if they annoy us or are our enemies does not mean we, or Romans or Celts, do not have an innate awareness of our sin. Are you suggesting all morality is socially constructed? If so how could we ever convince others on moral issues?
Again, I have to appeal to Chesterton's Orthodoxy for that middle part of the conversation - (paraphrasing him here) authentic Christianity maintains both "the white and the red" of life simultaneously and never accepts pink as an alternative... We believe in true peace and are willing to fight for it; forgiveness yes, but also repentance in order to receive it, etc... Christianity embraces the paradoxical nature of human life.
Religious not spiritual is more Christian than spiritual not religious. The former implies obedience to god’s law while the latter is generally parroted by people who want to justify doing whatever they feel like doing.
I agree. But the churches I have been to in my town are entirely spiritual. Not Christian. The Anglican church asked me not to read the King James Bible, even in private at home, because it had passages that might upset the LGBT community. And the RC church spends time thanking our pagan indigenous for allowing us to live on their land. I've seriously given up on churches. But not on God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, as I know they are real.
@@pwalk4160 🐟 12. DHARMA (LAW/MORALITY/ETHICS): PREAMBLE - LAWS VERSUS RULES: First of all, it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between laws and rules. Laws are divided into NATURAL laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere), as well as the MORAL law, which is based on the principle of non-harm (such as the prohibition of theft, murder, and adultery). Additionally, there are conceptual fields in which laws (as well as rules) may be established, such as mathematics, LOGIC, and grammar/syntax. Societal rules, on the other hand, are merely man-made edicts, such as the regulation of business practices or the convention of driving motor vehicles on one particular side of the road. Unfortunately, very few persons (hardly anyone, in fact!) are able to differentiate the inextricable, singular law of morality from the contrived rules and regulations imposed on society by self-obsessed legislators. Therefore, this supremely-valuable chapter of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, largely via its historically-established and accepted METAETHICAL definition, as opposed to the various laws of physics, which are completely superfluous to the import of this treatise. Whilst cosmological laws may transmogrify over aeons, ethics necessarily remains constant within all human societies throughout time. Never will there come a day when blatantly harmful deeds will be considered beneficial to society, or else that society will perish! Finally, it will be explained how this meta-ethical position relates to real-life situations - known as “NORMATIVE ETHICS”. Whilst the laws of physics, such as Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, are extremely difficult (if not impossible) for humans to circumvent, the moral law is easier to break than it is for a healthy fish to swim in a sea of water! In fact, there seems to be very little in common between the natural law and the moral law. Therefore, it is preferable to use the Sanskrit term “DHARMA” instead of the English word “law”, since the former word covers every conceivable facet of morality (see the Glossary entries “law” and “dharma”). Whenever dharma/law is transgressed, even to a very minute degree, the entire universe is degraded proportionately. When a man is robbed of his property, not only is the victim’s life adversely affected, but now, all humans need to be more vigilant of their belongings. Thus, the universe as a whole is marginally demeaned, just as a single cancerous cell debases one’s entire body, even if it is to a minuscule extent. In any case, the laws of physics are irrelevant here. So, to put it very succinctly, the expression “(moral) LAW” refers to an exceptionally-unique and concise idea (the formula of “ahiṃsā paramo dharma” [a Sanskrit maxim meaning “non-harm is the essence of the law”, or “non-violence is the epitome of morality”]), whereas the notion of “RULE” refers to any edict promulgated by a dominator (whether or not the person or body possesses any genuine legitimacy) that decrees or prohibits any particular action. In no way does this imply that a rule cannot be beneficial to society, nor that a rule is intrinsically immoral. Therefore, a RULE can clearly be useful and valid, even though it may not be unequivocally-concerned with LAW - just imagine the result of there being no airport authorities that govern the flight paths of aircraft in our skies! Merely due to the fact that the British government is illegitimate, does not suggest that one should erratically drive a motor vehicle on the streets of rush-hour London, simply in order to convey the fact that the English parliament possesses no actual authority over its citizens! See also the Glossary entries “authority” and “legitimate”.
@@pwalk4160morality is comes from rules and obedience. Morality is a very objective matter and it is impossible to uphold it on societal level without having a rule.
There is actually a third roadside conversion in the New Testament - please see Acts Chapter 8 from verse 26. As in this encounter between Philip and the Ethiopian, best to find a church like St Helen's Bishopsgate, that explains the truths of the Bible.
I agree with Glen that morals divorced from the story and person of Christ becomes moralism. Christian morals are a fruit not a cause. It is the only religion that is not a works religion. But it results in good works. Great discussion! I came to Christ in 1989 out of a New Age/feminist/progressive background. I learn a little bit more each day! The Holy Spirit is a great conversationalist!
In Australia in the 1970s in a government school we all said the Lord's Prayer, before reading aloud from an abridged children's version of the Bible. Even forty years ago in 1980 we were all at least nominally Christian and no parent ever complained that this was a legitimate thing for children to do at a government school. How quickly the western world has changed.
Wokeness is a secular offshoot of Christianity, that is an insight most reactionaries have, but that's general true for most moral systems in the West. Even though I follow a lot of former New Atheists turned Tradcaths I still cannot believe in the divinity of Christ. Think I am spiritually dead. Perhaps I am just too modern.
Have you started practicing Christianity? It’s not like a fix all, you will likely still have all the same doubts and hang ups but I personally found myself going from not really wanting Jesus to be divine to wanting Jesus to be divine but my rationalist brain not liking it. But I think that I’m Christian enough at that point to call myself a believer
@@mjh277I doubt the existence of God every day, but before February I was certain that there is no god and that Christianity was just silly. I had a few signposts to becoming a Christian. Tom Holland and my daughter's baptism were the main catalysts. Accepting civilisational Christianity was easy, but by the summer I felt different. I had a strange inner peace, I would also feel sad if I couldn't go to church.
@@karlj1564 exactly. Similar situation. I doubt God all the time, but it helps me identify with Jacob wrestling with him. I knew all the Christian values are right and that I didn’t want to live syllogistically and so had to at least give living Christianity a try. Still doubting but I also have so much more flourishing and love and kindness towards myself, my friends, my family, and the world in general as a result
I think the problem is that the march through the institutions, immigration policies and political correctness, means that people under 50 don't even know what God is. So if God finds them they don't recognise him. I'm Australian and grew up in the 70s and 80s when we were still a Christian country. The Bible, the Lord's Prayer, and the major facets of Christianity were still taught in government schools. And whilst our parents may have all been too hung over on Sunday mornings themselves to go to church. They certainly sent the children to church or Sunday School. Yes in our middle teens we rejected it. It didn't make logical sense. We had better ways to spend our time etc. But at least we knew what we were rejecting. Several times in my life the white light of the Holy Spirit of Jesus has comforted me in my most ultimate despair. It is only through my knowledge of Christianity that I recognised God. But if God tried to reach someone totally ignorant, how would they interpret it? A psychic manifestation? Who knows? It is also an interesting subject intellectually. For example one of the few things the gospels entirely agree upon is that Jesus did drink alcohol. Godbless you if you got this far.
I have never been able to believe it a single day in my life. I just went along with it for years because hellfire and brimstone sermons made me paranoid. I joke about how many new atheists were made because of this kind of thing. Reddit sure has a lot of similar stories.
People should be more wary about talking to this guy. For whatever reason, Louise, you have come to understand that your values have come from Christianity, but you have clearly given it deep thought and find yourself baulking at accepting the crazier aspects of the religion. Not so, this guy, who speaks in clichés and sales pitches all day long. This conversation is like listening to somebody try to describe the subtle blends and aromas of a fine wine, with flavours of this and mysterious hints of that, only to be dismissed and tutored by an ingratiate to coca-cola, determined to convince you that you're missing the point. In this guy's world, a Christian is someone that will go to heaven when they die, and you're not one of them. Nevertheless, your views are far more worth listening to
I'm assuming it's similar to Jordan Peterson's road, where a person agrees with Christian values on a societal, pragmatic scale, acknowledging that they are generally best for humanity, but come short of making a profession of faith exclusively in Christ as Lord and Savior
I've heard a couple of Louise's episodes with her hubby, when I imitate a British accent, I am exactly the same kind of nerd as both of them. Do you guys want to play D&D or something?
if you change the meaning of the word '' objective '' , yes , you can have Some Assemblance of morality , not that it's Real or anything ... what does the word objective mean ?? independent ... of ... ANY mind ... or opinion so NOPE , not an objective morality now , is it ?? you can't even MAKE A SUBJECTIVE morality out of the christian SO CALLED '' morality '' , it's not even possible all you have are DECREES or DICTATIONS , you know ... from a >> dictator
People generally need an absolute. A god-head or 'mythic literature' that ordains an orthodox 'tradition' of preset values and rules. Absolute rules that form strong traditions that are an antidote to 'mortal' anxiety. Humans without homogenous traditional values and customs, become decadent, anxious and depressed. Democracy has become the system upon which people find their rules, fight wars and find meaning. The fault or main problem with democracy in the West... is that it is a cult. For most people brought up within the cult... any other homogenous tradition is considered passé, even oppressive. The cult of democracy domineers and destroys all other systems of value. That's why Christianity has been on the wane in Europe since the end of WWII. Democracy is itself… a very powerful religious doctrine, but at its core - empty, because it is only a cult. Westerners experience this existential lack of a stable tradition as a sort of 'spiritual' hole in their lives. Which nationstate nationalism can't seem to fill, because again... the 'cult of democracy' undermines it. In the West, you aren't allowed both democracy and nationalism. Nationalism is frowned upon. The Woke or the 'born again religious' are desperate for 'righteous' moral values that form a sense of tradition and purpose within their society. Atheism is for the few, it is only for the outsiders looking in. But within the pack, within the herd... a strong awareness of 'theism' is essential. Atheists should naturally grasp this and willingly accept it. It is not only juvenile to fight it. But as a 'forever outsider' looking in... It demonstrates the fact that they don’t understand what it means to be part of the herd. This is also why the spread of democracy will never win outright. It is a failed religion, not too dissimilar to socialism.
From Australia I would add that for us this is a very recent change. Until 1980 at least we still said the Lord's Prayer every morning, before reading from an abridged children's version of the Bible every morning in government schools. That's because Australia was a Christian country. Admittedly our parents might not have gone to church frequently. But they were Christian and never objected to this being taught to their children. But our immigration policies have changed. And so has the education curriculum. Now religion is only taught in private schools. Which might be why a third of Australians make the sacrifices to send their kids to private schools. It's also manipulated by government. Until 1973, our immigration policies were that only Christians from Europe or North America could come here. And first they had to learn to speak English.
I'm a happily convinced atheist, have been since I was in primary school. Grew up in an a-religious home, my parents (Church of Ireland family history) neither encouraged nor discouraged it. There are a lot of western societal values that we can claim are derived from Christianity, but simply because there is a degree of connection to Christian teachings does not mean Christianity must be the source. To pick out an example from early in the episode, the idea of mercy is not unique to Christian society. What about non-Christian societies, is mercy absent in all but a Christian society? Christianity cannot claim to have the patent on the concept of mercy, it has appeared independently as a fundamental human trait elsewhere in the world. Civilisation is capable of determining that mercy or compassion are beneficial - and there is likely a selective pressure to guarantee the continued exhibition of these ideas in a civilised society. We can easily point out the merciful teachings of Christianity, but I think it's important to also note the centuries worth of horrific acts perpetrated in the name of Christianity, and also the horrific acts carried out in general, by ostensibly religious people. I'm not claiming that Christianity is immoral by default, only making the case that it is not the root of all that is good in Western society.
OMG I just watched Louise on Triggernometry, where she asserts that 'individualism' was invented by the UK during the Industrial Revolution. I concur with this, and found it irksome when Glen Scrivener claimed, here, that it originated with Christianity. The guy does the classic thing of retrofitting every good thing that we take for granted in our culture to Christianity. Further, in that Triggernometry interview, Louise doesn't just see it as an irrefutable good, but also points out it's disadvantages. I kid you not, this guy is so shallow
I often say that American Boomer COnservatives may say "Rugged individualism built the USA! Conformism belongs in Red China!" Then later say that only a good American buys a house, gets married, and pops out at least 2 kids. Wow, way to be individualist.
Forefathers should the SON. Already from before hanging on the cross between THEE 2? Remember know thy place and positions in FRONT! Be awake! Yes, nevertheless will find thee sleeping!
What is who can be saved? Nor why wanting to be saved? Is like How's thy shared "i" AM, came with conversations, and thy shared Feet resting upon all dry grounds? Yes, thy lives was DESIRED 1ST. Why? Creation itself will say, who else will glorify?
I'm evangelical. I appreciate my Catholic brothers and sisters but if one wants that more personal relationship you may try praying an nonscripted prayer asking for him to be known by you. Don't stop until you feel a change. You can still be catholic but a born again one.
i second that, it's very important how that young man has grown and become influential in the Christian sphere of UA-cam, he's a prime example of the incoming backlash against the moral decay of the West and the return to God and the proper application of His values
Isn't Ayaan (the great Ayaan, which I actually say with zero irony) basically just another important person who's rly saying that she's a Christian Atheist? Emphasizing the importance of the culture without the metaphysical commitments? I'll answer my own question, the answer is yes.
I don’t think so. She’s a step deeper. Practicing Christianity and its traditions whilst probably wanting Jesus to be the Son of God but having a lot of doubts. Most Christian Atheists don’t practise Christianity and most don’t really want Jesus to be God, they want to have his moral code without his divinity attached.
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy because wanting it to be true means willing to submit yourself to the full array of the values and that you must put God first. Not wanting it means you can just pick and choose which honestly makes you no different from being woke and picking whatever values you want on the day. Christian atheism is syllogistic whilst Christianity puts you in your place before God/Jesus
@@mjh277 I promise you, I'm not Woke, I'm an Atheist who could be considered culturally Christian, my values and positions don't change unless I'm presented with convincing arguments or information, and if Tom Holland and his merry band of Rechristianizers want to say Atheism is a type of Godless Protestantism, it seems a little disingenuous to me, but fine I guess.
I thought this was going to be an intellectual conversation. Turns out the guest was here to almost only proselytize. Also claiming that "Jews and Christians" had always stood against infanticide!!" WHAT?! Do you mean in the old times muslims, hindus, budhist were all like: "bring me that infant, slave, I need to complete the weekly quota of infanticide my book has ordered me to fulfill, it's 5, five infants that I need to unalive to be a good muslim, hindu, budhist etc." This utterly ridiculous, and uniquely christian, holier than though delusion is so ironically contradictory to EVERYTHING christians looooove to preach about how merciful christianity is compared to other religions. As for Ayan, I'm still baffled that people are still wondering why she converted. She cheated on her immigrant entry document when she migrated to Sweden. She's literally a third world legal "illegal immigrant" just begging to be allowed to live in a first world country. And she will do whatever it takes to reach that goal.
no, he didn't say that about Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. at most the implication was that the texts of other religious traditions don't particularly mention the value of infant life. if you'd like to share examples where they do I'm sure he'll gladly hear you out, but the tone of your comment seems to be that of having nothing to actually say. also "pagan" doesn't mean every non Christian religion, it's usually referring to religions that have pantheons of gods to whom they would devote ritual sacrifice, including humans, including infants
@@slick_Ric Bible also doesn't particularly mention the need to abolish slavery ASAP. The commenter is also right about Aayan - never in her essay she mentioned a word Jesus, her transition was simply a practical one, as the only thing that she believes can stand against Islam and wokeness. It is nothing but political Christianity, and I don't think that believing in "soft nonsense" is a good strategy against the "hard nonsense". Not in the long term, at least.
@@skylinefever that's an interesting idea, I always wanted to look more into those religions. Unfortunately, I don't see a way for any Eastern traditions to make their way into the West. There aren't tons of followers of those religions coming, and even if they did, they aren't really into prothelytizing like Christians or Muslims.
"There must be something fundamentally true abt an ideology that has produced cathedrals". Welcome back to another episode of, Let's Say Retarded Things Sometimes.
The point is that if Christianity is false, because it is a religion that makes very strong claims, it would be a *false* religion that has produced the peaks of our art and beauty. There are certainly many ways to dispute it -- all requiring disassociating truth from beauty -- but to call it retarded just shows you have hardly two brain cells to rub together.
I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence. The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics. Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial? Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses? Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral? Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous? If so, then you are objectively immoral and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.
To Louise ... love your work! “The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.” ― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
Yes, I struggled to get that personal feeling of relationship with Christ for over 40 years and served Him all that time. Now, finally by his grace I have it. He is all the World to Me now!!! I will pray for you!
glad for the return of full episodes
CS Lewis in his essay ‘On Ethics’ argues against the notion of returning to Christian Ethics. He argues we are not in a moral sense outside of ethical systems choosing which we think is best, but rather we have all been given a moral awareness (which is universal), by God, perhaps nurtured in out upbringing. Christian morality is what we recognise to be true, because we already have this moral sense within.
I like the sermon he gave in the beginning of WW2. He said we can't choose the time that God gives us. But we can choose what we do with that time.
@@PGHEngineer True. Even the Romans were horrified by the actions of the Celts. And the Romans found it peculiar that the Jews and later Christians did not practice infanticide which was apparently common in every other culture.
@@PGHEngineer enjoying other people’s suffering, especially if they annoy us or are our enemies does not mean we, or Romans or Celts, do not have an innate awareness of our sin. Are you suggesting all morality is socially constructed? If so how could we ever convince others on moral issues?
@@martynmettam9296 I sometimes wonder how much is morally constructed and how much is encoded in DNA. It is a reason for ethnats.
"values cannot forgive you, they can only judge you."
So excited for this! Thank you to Louise and Glen! God bless! ❤
Again, I have to appeal to Chesterton's Orthodoxy for that middle part of the conversation - (paraphrasing him here) authentic Christianity maintains both "the white and the red" of life simultaneously and never accepts pink as an alternative... We believe in true peace and are willing to fight for it; forgiveness yes, but also repentance in order to receive it, etc... Christianity embraces the paradoxical nature of human life.
Thank you very much indeed for this extremely helpful conversation.
Bless you both... ☝️😎
Louise is like, five podcast episodes away from becoming catholic ❤️
😅fuck yeah maybe even Protestant
or Lutheran
I got so much value out of this ♥️
Religious not spiritual is more Christian than spiritual not religious. The former implies obedience to god’s law while the latter is generally parroted by people who want to justify doing whatever they feel like doing.
I agree. But the churches I have been to in my town are entirely spiritual. Not Christian. The Anglican church asked me not to read the King James Bible, even in private at home, because it had passages that might upset the LGBT community.
And the RC church spends time thanking our pagan indigenous for allowing us to live on their land. I've seriously given up on churches. But not on God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, as I know they are real.
Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
True spitituality is where morality comes from, not from rules and obedience.
@@pwalk4160
🐟 12. DHARMA (LAW/MORALITY/ETHICS):
PREAMBLE - LAWS VERSUS RULES:
First of all, it is absolutely imperative to distinguish between laws and rules. Laws are divided into NATURAL laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere), as well as the MORAL law, which is based on the principle of non-harm (such as the prohibition of theft, murder, and adultery). Additionally, there are conceptual fields in which laws (as well as rules) may be established, such as mathematics, LOGIC, and grammar/syntax. Societal rules, on the other hand, are merely man-made edicts, such as the regulation of business practices or the convention of driving motor vehicles on one particular side of the road. Unfortunately, very few persons (hardly anyone, in fact!) are able to differentiate the inextricable, singular law of morality from the contrived rules and regulations imposed on society by self-obsessed legislators.
Therefore, this supremely-valuable chapter of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” will attempt to logically explicate moral law, largely via its historically-established and accepted METAETHICAL definition, as opposed to the various laws of physics, which are completely superfluous to the import of this treatise. Whilst cosmological laws may transmogrify over aeons, ethics necessarily remains constant within all human societies throughout time. Never will there come a day when blatantly harmful deeds will be considered beneficial to society, or else that society will perish! Finally, it will be explained how this meta-ethical position relates to real-life situations - known as “NORMATIVE ETHICS”.
Whilst the laws of physics, such as Newton’s laws of motion and gravity, are extremely difficult (if not impossible) for humans to circumvent, the moral law is easier to break than it is for a healthy fish to swim in a sea of water! In fact, there seems to be very little in common between the natural law and the moral law. Therefore, it is preferable to use the Sanskrit term “DHARMA” instead of the English word “law”, since the former word covers every conceivable facet of morality (see the Glossary entries “law” and “dharma”). Whenever dharma/law is transgressed, even to a very minute degree, the entire universe is degraded proportionately. When a man is robbed of his property, not only is the victim’s life adversely affected, but now, all humans need to be more vigilant of their belongings. Thus, the universe as a whole is marginally demeaned, just as a single cancerous cell debases one’s entire body, even if it is to a minuscule extent. In any case, the laws of physics are irrelevant here.
So, to put it very succinctly, the expression “(moral) LAW” refers to an exceptionally-unique and concise idea (the formula of “ahiṃsā paramo dharma” [a Sanskrit maxim meaning “non-harm is the essence of the law”, or “non-violence is the epitome of morality”]), whereas the notion of “RULE” refers to any edict promulgated by a dominator (whether or not the person or body possesses any genuine legitimacy) that decrees or prohibits any particular action. In no way does this imply that a rule cannot be beneficial to society, nor that a rule is intrinsically immoral.
Therefore, a RULE can clearly be useful and valid, even though it may not be unequivocally-concerned with LAW - just imagine the result of there being no airport authorities that govern the flight paths of aircraft in our skies! Merely due to the fact that the British government is illegitimate, does not suggest that one should erratically drive a motor vehicle on the streets of rush-hour London, simply in order to convey the fact that the English parliament possesses no actual authority over its citizens! See also the Glossary entries “authority” and “legitimate”.
@@pwalk4160morality is comes from rules and obedience. Morality is a very objective matter and it is impossible to uphold it on societal level without having a rule.
I love this episode! Great discussion.
Thank you for this great conversation
Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
Fantastic podcast. Glen’s book is so on point.
There is actually a third roadside conversion in the New Testament - please see Acts Chapter 8 from verse 26. As in this encounter between Philip and the Ethiopian, best to find a church like St Helen's Bishopsgate, that explains the truths of the Bible.
Louise Perry.. I hope you find a good church!!
321 from glen and co is great. Well recommended for anyone interested in looking into Christianity
I agree with Glen that morals divorced from the story and person of Christ becomes moralism. Christian morals are a fruit not a cause. It is the only religion that is not a works religion. But it results in good works. Great discussion! I came to Christ in 1989 out of a New Age/feminist/progressive background. I learn a little bit more each day! The Holy Spirit is a great conversationalist!
What does the holy spirit say to you?
In Australia in the 1970s in a government school we all said the Lord's Prayer, before reading aloud from an abridged children's version of the Bible. Even forty years ago in 1980 we were all at least nominally Christian and no parent ever complained that this was a legitimate thing for children to do at a government school. How quickly the western world has changed.
I could have heard wrongly, but doesn't Richard Dawkins have a daughter in the process of converting to Catholic Christianity?
No, not true
Forefathers shared "i" AM will say, soothe or Grieve! Don't bring colors more superior in front of thy little child born "i" AM!
Salve Regina
Wokeness is a secular offshoot of Christianity, that is an insight most reactionaries have, but that's general true for most moral systems in the West. Even though I follow a lot of former New Atheists turned Tradcaths I still cannot believe in the divinity of Christ. Think I am spiritually dead. Perhaps I am just too modern.
Have you started practicing Christianity?
It’s not like a fix all, you will likely still have all the same doubts and hang ups but I personally found myself going from not really wanting Jesus to be divine to wanting Jesus to be divine but my rationalist brain not liking it. But I think that I’m Christian enough at that point to call myself a believer
@@mjh277I doubt the existence of God every day, but before February I was certain that there is no god and that Christianity was just silly.
I had a few signposts to becoming a Christian. Tom Holland and my daughter's baptism were the main catalysts. Accepting civilisational Christianity was easy, but by the summer I felt different. I had a strange inner peace, I would also feel sad if I couldn't go to church.
@@karlj1564 exactly. Similar situation. I doubt God all the time, but it helps me identify with Jacob wrestling with him.
I knew all the Christian values are right and that I didn’t want to live syllogistically and so had to at least give living Christianity a try. Still doubting but I also have so much more flourishing and love and kindness towards myself, my friends, my family, and the world in general as a result
I think the problem is that the march through the institutions, immigration policies and political correctness, means that people under 50 don't even know what God is.
So if God finds them they don't recognise him. I'm Australian and grew up in the 70s and 80s when we were still a Christian country. The Bible, the Lord's Prayer, and the major facets of Christianity were still taught in government schools. And whilst our parents may have all been too hung over on Sunday mornings themselves to go to church. They certainly sent the children to church or Sunday School.
Yes in our middle teens we rejected it. It didn't make logical sense. We had better ways to spend our time etc.
But at least we knew what we were rejecting. Several times in my life the white light of the Holy Spirit of Jesus has comforted me in my most ultimate despair. It is only through my knowledge of Christianity that I recognised God. But if God tried to reach someone totally ignorant, how would they interpret it? A psychic manifestation? Who knows?
It is also an interesting subject intellectually. For example one of the few things the gospels entirely agree upon is that Jesus did drink alcohol.
Godbless you if you got this far.
I have never been able to believe it a single day in my life. I just went along with it for years because hellfire and brimstone sermons made me paranoid. I joke about how many new atheists were made because of this kind of thing. Reddit sure has a lot of similar stories.
People should be more wary about talking to this guy. For whatever reason, Louise, you have come to understand that your values have come from Christianity, but you have clearly given it deep thought and find yourself baulking at accepting the crazier aspects of the religion. Not so, this guy, who speaks in clichés and sales pitches all day long. This conversation is like listening to somebody try to describe the subtle blends and aromas of a fine wine, with flavours of this and mysterious hints of that, only to be dismissed and tutored by an ingratiate to coca-cola, determined to convince you that you're missing the point. In this guy's world, a Christian is someone that will go to heaven when they die, and you're not one of them. Nevertheless, your views are far more worth listening to
The Catholic Church is your home Ms Perry! Please come on in…
I was raised Catholic, we're more repressed than the Anglicans. Louise would need to download all my neuroses for that, I'll send her a floppy disc.
What is this Tom Holland road?
I'm assuming it's similar to Jordan Peterson's road, where a person agrees with Christian values on a societal, pragmatic scale, acknowledging that they are generally best for humanity, but come short of making a profession of faith exclusively in Christ as Lord and Savior
I've heard a couple of Louise's episodes with her hubby, when I imitate a British accent, I am exactly the same kind of nerd as both of them. Do you guys want to play D&D or something?
if you change the meaning of the word '' objective '' , yes , you can have Some Assemblance of morality , not that it's Real or anything ...
what does the word objective mean ?? independent ... of ... ANY mind ... or opinion
so NOPE , not an objective morality now , is it ?? you can't even MAKE A SUBJECTIVE morality out of the christian SO CALLED '' morality '' , it's not even possible
all you have are DECREES or DICTATIONS , you know ... from a >> dictator
People generally need an absolute. A god-head or 'mythic literature' that ordains an orthodox 'tradition' of preset values and rules.
Absolute rules that form strong traditions that are an antidote to 'mortal' anxiety.
Humans without homogenous traditional values and customs, become decadent, anxious and depressed.
Democracy has become the system upon which people find their rules, fight wars and find meaning.
The fault or main problem with democracy in the West... is that it is a cult.
For most people brought up within the cult... any other homogenous tradition is considered passé, even oppressive.
The cult of democracy domineers and destroys all other systems of value.
That's why Christianity has been on the wane in Europe since the end of WWII.
Democracy is itself… a very powerful religious doctrine, but at its core - empty, because it is only a cult.
Westerners experience this existential lack of a stable tradition as a sort of 'spiritual' hole in their lives.
Which nationstate nationalism can't seem to fill, because again... the 'cult of democracy' undermines it.
In the West, you aren't allowed both democracy and nationalism. Nationalism is frowned upon.
The Woke or the 'born again religious' are desperate for 'righteous' moral values that form a sense of tradition and purpose within their society.
Atheism is for the few, it is only for the outsiders looking in. But within the pack, within the herd... a strong awareness of 'theism' is essential.
Atheists should naturally grasp this and willingly accept it. It is not only juvenile to fight it.
But as a 'forever outsider' looking in... It demonstrates the fact that they don’t understand what it means to be part of the herd.
This is also why the spread of democracy will never win outright. It is a failed religion, not too dissimilar to socialism.
From Australia I would add that for us this is a very recent change. Until 1980 at least we still said the Lord's Prayer every morning, before reading from an abridged children's version of the Bible every morning in government schools. That's because Australia was a Christian country.
Admittedly our parents might not have gone to church frequently. But they were Christian and never objected to this being taught to their children.
But our immigration policies have changed. And so has the education curriculum. Now religion is only taught in private schools. Which might be why a third of Australians make the sacrifices to send their kids to private schools.
It's also manipulated by government. Until 1973, our immigration policies were that only Christians from Europe or North America could come here. And first they had to learn to speak English.
@@grannyannie2948 Megacorps want that magic dirt immigration.
@@skylinefever They don't care about magic earth either.
I'm a happily convinced atheist, have been since I was in primary school. Grew up in an a-religious home, my parents (Church of Ireland family history) neither encouraged nor discouraged it.
There are a lot of western societal values that we can claim are derived from Christianity, but simply because there is a degree of connection to Christian teachings does not mean Christianity must be the source. To pick out an example from early in the episode, the idea of mercy is not unique to Christian society. What about non-Christian societies, is mercy absent in all but a Christian society? Christianity cannot claim to have the patent on the concept of mercy, it has appeared independently as a fundamental human trait elsewhere in the world. Civilisation is capable of determining that mercy or compassion are beneficial - and there is likely a selective pressure to guarantee the continued exhibition of these ideas in a civilised society. We can easily point out the merciful teachings of Christianity, but I think it's important to also note the centuries worth of horrific acts perpetrated in the name of Christianity, and also the horrific acts carried out in general, by ostensibly religious people. I'm not claiming that Christianity is immoral by default, only making the case that it is not the root of all that is good in Western society.
Don't mind for HIS anger but for a moment!
OMG I just watched Louise on Triggernometry, where she asserts that 'individualism' was invented by the UK during the Industrial Revolution. I concur with this, and found it irksome when Glen Scrivener claimed, here, that it originated with Christianity. The guy does the classic thing of retrofitting every good thing that we take for granted in our culture to Christianity. Further, in that Triggernometry interview, Louise doesn't just see it as an irrefutable good, but also points out it's disadvantages. I kid you not, this guy is so shallow
I often say that American Boomer COnservatives may say "Rugged individualism built the USA! Conformism belongs in Red China!" Then later say that only a good American buys a house, gets married, and pops out at least 2 kids. Wow, way to be individualist.
Your saying I’m spiritual but not religious
Wise and scribes still trying yet! Murmuring among themselves who among can come in front of HIM?
Forefathers should the SON. Already from before hanging on the cross between THEE 2? Remember know thy place and positions in FRONT! Be awake! Yes, nevertheless will find thee sleeping!
What is who can be saved? Nor why wanting to be saved? Is like How's thy shared "i" AM, came with conversations, and thy shared Feet resting upon all dry grounds? Yes, thy lives was DESIRED 1ST. Why? Creation itself will say, who else will glorify?
I accept your world order
I'm evangelical. I appreciate my Catholic brothers and sisters but if one wants that more personal relationship you may try praying an nonscripted prayer asking for him to be known by you. Don't stop until you feel a change. You can still be catholic but a born again one.
Could you interview redeemed zoomer?!?! Pleeeeeeease!!!!!
i second that, it's very important how that young man has grown and become influential in the Christian sphere of UA-cam, he's a prime example of the incoming backlash against the moral decay of the West and the return to God and the proper application of His values
@@slick_Ric I saw him as another person selling the Christpill as a one size fits all cure.
Why are you whispering?
Isn't Ayaan (the great Ayaan, which I actually say with zero irony) basically just another important person who's rly saying that she's a Christian Atheist? Emphasizing the importance of the culture without the metaphysical commitments? I'll answer my own question, the answer is yes.
The answer to your question is maybe, maybe not.
I don’t think so. She’s a step deeper. Practicing Christianity and its traditions whilst probably wanting Jesus to be the Son of God but having a lot of doubts.
Most Christian Atheists don’t practise Christianity and most don’t really want Jesus to be God, they want to have his moral code without his divinity attached.
@@mjh277 How much does the wanting matter? I mean, I want a million dollars.
@@Jules-Is-a-Guy because wanting it to be true means willing to submit yourself to the full array of the values and that you must put God first.
Not wanting it means you can just pick and choose which honestly makes you no different from being woke and picking whatever values you want on the day.
Christian atheism is syllogistic whilst Christianity puts you in your place before God/Jesus
@@mjh277 I promise you, I'm not Woke, I'm an Atheist who could be considered culturally Christian, my values and positions don't change unless I'm presented with convincing arguments or information, and if Tom Holland and his merry band of Rechristianizers want to say Atheism is a type of Godless Protestantism, it seems a little disingenuous to me, but fine I guess.
I thought this was going to be an intellectual conversation. Turns out the guest was here to almost only proselytize. Also claiming that "Jews and Christians" had always stood against infanticide!!" WHAT?! Do you mean in the old times muslims, hindus, budhist were all like: "bring me that infant, slave, I need to complete the weekly quota of infanticide my book has ordered me to fulfill, it's 5, five infants that I need to unalive to be a good muslim, hindu, budhist etc."
This utterly ridiculous, and uniquely christian, holier than though delusion is so ironically contradictory to EVERYTHING christians looooove to preach about how merciful christianity is compared to other religions.
As for Ayan, I'm still baffled that people are still wondering why she converted. She cheated on her immigrant entry document when she migrated to Sweden. She's literally a third world legal "illegal immigrant" just begging to be allowed to live in a first world country. And she will do whatever it takes to reach that goal.
no, he didn't say that about Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. at most the implication was that the texts of other religious traditions don't particularly mention the value of infant life. if you'd like to share examples where they do I'm sure he'll gladly hear you out, but the tone of your comment seems to be that of having nothing to actually say. also "pagan" doesn't mean every non Christian religion, it's usually referring to religions that have pantheons of gods to whom they would devote ritual sacrifice, including humans, including infants
@@slick_Ric Bible also doesn't particularly mention the need to abolish slavery ASAP. The commenter is also right about Aayan - never in her essay she mentioned a word Jesus, her transition was simply a practical one, as the only thing that she believes can stand against Islam and wokeness. It is nothing but political Christianity, and I don't think that believing in "soft nonsense" is a good strategy against the "hard nonsense". Not in the long term, at least.
@@three_owl_night I often say that maybe some political Shintoism or Zen Buddhism would work, Japan does not buy into magic dirt immigration.
@@skylinefever that's an interesting idea, I always wanted to look more into those religions. Unfortunately, I don't see a way for any Eastern traditions to make their way into the West. There aren't tons of followers of those religions coming, and even if they did, they aren't really into prothelytizing like Christians or Muslims.
"There must be something fundamentally true abt an ideology that has produced cathedrals". Welcome back to another episode of, Let's Say Retarded Things Sometimes.
it wasn't articulated well but the point is that beautiful things can make us feel close to the divine.
The point is that if Christianity is false, because it is a religion that makes very strong claims, it would be a *false* religion that has produced the peaks of our art and beauty. There are certainly many ways to dispute it -- all requiring disassociating truth from beauty -- but to call it retarded just shows you have hardly two brain cells to rub together.
@@goncalorodrigues1964 so it is a false religion?
Ok ppl, to build a building, does not prove that Jesus is magic. Have I elucidated the retardation?
@@rovert46 No, it isn't. But why are you asking? How is that relevant to my point?
I am not really concerned about what any particular person BELIEVES. You may believe that there is an old man with a white beard perched in the clouds, that the Ultimate Reality is a young blackish-blue Indian guy, that the universe is eternal, that Mother Mary was a certifiable virgin, or that gross physical matter is the foundation of existence.
The ONLY thing that really matters is your meta-ethics, not your meta-physics.
Do you consider any form of non-monarchical government (such as democracy or socialism) to be beneficial?
Do you unnecessarily destroy the lives of poor, innocent animals and gorge on their bloody carcasses?
Do you believe homosexuality and transvestism are moral?
Do you consider feminist ideology to be righteous?
If so, then you are objectively immoral and your so-called "enlightened/awakened" state is immaterial, since it does not benefit society in any way.