And yet, according to the Bible, if having a deceitful heart is not enough to condemn someone, God can send a "lying spirit" or a "strong delusion" to make sure they are condemned.
I'm pretty drunk right now, so I cannot guarantee that it wasn't I who cursed humanity due to my impaired recall, & yet I really doubt I could be such a jerk as to do so.
He's learnt enough now to know that it all has to be bollocks, but it's partly that he's so deeply invested and partly because he makes a nice living from not actually working.
@@pineapplepenumbra Oh I know there's no escape for him, but his job isn't easy - standing up in front of roomfuls of kids when you may not actually believe it. And there are his books of course
@@littleredpony6868 unfortunately I don't possess the graphic skills to create a poster. My main focus is on calligraphy and maybe some scroll work. Images are beyond my talents.This would be a tee shirt sort of thing. And since it originated with Godless Granny I couldn't make money off it. However... I notice she has merch... hint hint hint. Which, n ow that I think on it, might be where you were going with it in the first place.
If you are resistant to belief, it is trivial compared to the power of an omnipotent being. It’s like a world class Olympic strongman trying to lift a newborn kitten who is resistant to being picked up. It’s happening regardless of what the kitten wants.
Does anyone else see a lot of what ifs in Frank’s arguments? I’m 73 and was a believer for much of that and my reasoning for leaving was simply reading the Bible, “Enough”. Thanks for your show Granny, I imagine you help lots of people.
Why do so many apologists conflate believing God exists, with worshipping him? God revealing his existence is just the bare minimum first step. Is it possibly because the process and source are much the same for both? Just take it all on authority.
Shorter Turek: "My god has put every object in its current position, every force in its current process and every person in their current state of mind, all for reasons of its own. Therefore my god exists." I have a simple but accurate two-word response to this.
13:00 That's always been one of my favorite points. If God were real, and God wanted me to believe in him, then God would know what it would take to genuinely convince me, and could easily put that into place. As I am not a believer, that only really leaves the two options. Either he doesn't want me to believe, in which case not believing is following his will, or he doesn't exist to try to convince me in the first place.
Frank's "friend of a friend of a friend" story is typical of Christian-style miracles. They rarely are nearly as miraculous in the first person. They need enough distance and retellings to become more dramatic and suitably miraculous. It also helps if they are going to be impossible to verify. Divine hiddenness was one of the things that bothered me as a Christian. It is one of the things that drove me to do decades of Bible study. I believed that God would show me answers to my questions if I studied the Bible enough. I believed that prayer and fasting would help God help me find answers. Bible study finally forced me to admit that the gospels and Acts are books that are mostly mythology, not history. I still tried to hold onto my faith. I WANTED to continue to believe. I tried to find answers to my questions. There were a hundred ways God could have shown me my understanding of the Bible was wrong. The irony of my atheism is that I did get an answer to one of my prayers. I did finally get my prayer answered to understand the Bible; the Bible is a book written by ordinary humans. If modern Christianity is true, then God wants a relationship with everyone. Then why did God allow so many problems to be put into the Bible? To accept that God allowed Satan and evil men to introduce errors does not explain the organic problems that do not appear to be tinkering by humans or Satan. If God put them there as a stumbling block, then it makes God a trickster god, and I would not worship Loki. I read the Quran twice. I was not impressed. A Muslim told me that if I had only read the Quran I had missed too much, and I needed to also read the Hadith. So I reread the Quran using a commentary for English speakers that he recommended. The book also included what the person said were the essential Hadith. After the second read with a commentary, I did understand the Quran better, and I was more convinced the Quran and Islam are the products of sixth and seventh-century Arabic culture. Recently I had a Muslim tell me that my problem is that I had read too much human addition to the Quran, and I should have only paid attention to the Quran itself. We are back to the trickster god who sets up traps, even for people who earnestly want to find truth.
Then he goes and blows it up by stating JP is not a Christian which means that JP arguments etc are not a reason to believe in Christianity or JP would be Christian.
Even if its real it shows the friend of a friend is an idiot as he converted to Christianity based on JP arguments but JP himself is not convinced or JP be a Christian.
@@mattm8870 Yup. That was my basic point. Whenever Turek uses anecdotal evidence it is impossible to believe. A friend of a friend my @rse. Is that the best Turek can come up with? It doesn't even address the question of Divine Hiddenness. I agree with you also on the matter of Peterson. He's a worm.
I remember desiring so deeply to speak in tonges that I cried asking god, I was so convinced that I wanted to be a better christian and a better son of God. And now xtians tell me "you never really believed". What can they know about me?
Thank you! I was bamboozled by theists that say God respects our free will. There is no difference between a resistant and non-resisitant non-believer.
I used to be a believer and since then the more I learn about Christianity the more problems I see with it. So I find the “god is waiting for the right time” thing to be an excuse so that believers don’t have to challenge their own beliefs.
I don't think even Jordan Peterson would use honest for himself, although he'd dance around the definition for long enough while chanting enough word salad that no one would remember what the question was.
Narrowing to non-residtant nonbelievers strengthens the argument by eliminating some possible objections. I think it's a strategic move to draw the line there when putting a formal argument in print. Give them as many concessions as possible and still show it doesn't make sense.
I also don’t draw a line between resistant and non-resistant non-believers, but for different reason: “sincerity” or “seeking” are not actually required for God to show himself, according to the Bible’s own rules. Jesus supposedly appeared to Saul, who was literally murdering Christians. If God can appear directly to someone that horrific, then he can spare a moment to do the same for me. Or am I somehow even worse?
Such a good video. It really demonstrates how apologists manipulate so their god is always real. I can’t believe he asserts that Luke believes the the Bible is true by looking at the evidence. That’s just expert gaslighting lighting
I haven't been able to fly in years because the last time I flew I had a panic attack. No amount of statistics about how safe flying is will make me get back on a plane.
The only good thing I have to say about Turek is that he went from being horrifically hateful toward LGBTQ folk to being slightly empathetic toward the community. And when I say slightly, I mean excruciatingly slightly. And that is the only speck of virtue I have ever detected in his ineloquent ramblings.
If god isn’t ready for me to be a Christian yet, there’s nothing I can do about that. All I can do is keep doing what seems right in my opinion and negotiating with other people’s opinions. Same thing if there is no god or there’s a deistic god or god has predetermined everyone’s fate. I’m not saying there is no god, I’m saying there’s no God that matters.
holy shit this is toxic af! "Luke, you just arnt important enough, like frank turek, thus i wont reveal myself to you, get some subs on youtube first or something" - god, probably How is frank able to say such a thing and not instantly barf xD
If I were ever to believe in god again, I think it would be shaped like this: "I hope there is a benevolent being in charge of my identity after I die. I'm going to actively try to understand that entity I hope exists." For now, still an Atheist. I think I'll entirely stop existing when I die 🤷
Apologists claim that everything has a cause, except for when God was the first cause. So by definition God "caused" everything that subsequently happened. Except! God is not the "cause" of you being an Atheist, because?. This is clearly total BS. Which is why people like Turek will never directly address this question.
GG, well, I'm late to everything. Great answers, a huge 'ending event' is also reading the whole bible. Most believers don't. And frank knows better, he is just making money! 👍🏼💙💙💙🥰✌
i would like to mention that not everyone with a phobia can tell you why they're afraid of what they're afraid of, all my life i've had arachnophobia, and ive never known what about spiders scares me, as spiders actually fascinate me, im just terrified of them to the point i cant even move when i find one in the room im in until someone kills it (i'd much prefer being able to spare it and just bring it outside but my parents arent any less scared of spiders apparently😅) and i have multiple other phobias where i didnt even know they were phobias because i couldnt explain to myself that i WAS scared because my own brain was like "why would i be scared of that? i cant possibly be scared of something so silly and harmless" despite the fact i was indeed scared and it's a phobia! examples of my sillier phobias: mirrors, showers & baths, the dark, closets, i think i made my point here i wont humiliate myself further 😅, i do have SOME phobias i can explain, mostly those attached to traumatic events, like claustrophobia from being locked in small empty rooms in school when i "misbehaved" (autistic tantrums mostly) and a phobia of needles i recently managed to get over, that started from an especially painful vaccine that left my arm paralyzed for days afterwards, but most of my phobias i genuinely cannot explain at all
what annoys me most about the free will get out of jail card is, if god said "i am going to end all suffering" who would say no to that? but if he said "i will end all suffering, but you will no longer have free will" would they be crying out "that's not fair, i don't want to be a robot" or just go along with god as always? my guess is that if there was no free will no one would even notice. the things people complain about aren't always the things people are really complaining about.
(there is no free will, there is one past history, that implies there will be one future history, if you join "history" at ANY point the past and the future are fixed - where is your free will in that?)
I always like "It is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven ." Why would some Omnipotent deity need subservient self aware people , not to mention a tithe ."🤔
I've talked to some believers that say the reason that there are nonbelievers is that god only selects those who are worthy of him. The rest are fodder for hell.
It bothers me that they expect nonbelievers to want to be Christians. If we have yet to grant the Christian positions as true, why should being that Christian be a priority for us? And I don't ask out of a lack of experience. I called myself a Christian nearly as long as our endearing Granny did. There is quite a lot of peer pressure to do so of course. But that's a very sketchy reason.
5:17 if there is a tri-omni God everything will always be exactly as he desires it. He's not going to say "I think I want a milkshake" and then drive to Sonic and order a milkshake. Before he even thinks that he wants something he already has it. There is no time delay between the desire and fulfilling the desire, because he is outside of time. Basically, God can't want anything because he's all powerful and outside of time.
So God hasn't allowed this dude to be a Christian YET. Ok. So Frank, has any person ever died not believing in your God? He has to say yes because other religions exist, people have existed and do exist without hearing about Jesus, and Jesus himself says more people will end up in hell than heaven. So now the question, Frank, is why didn't God reveal himself to them? You're not going to have a good answer.
12:28 I genuinely don’t understand this point. Are they *trying* to prove that they’re wrong? I thought Christian’s were supposed to be the ones who shared the Bible, but it took a non-Christian? I’m not very educated on this topic, but this doesn’t make sense to me.
32.08 "Here we are, allowing our psychology to overpower the evidence." The irony here is palpable. Of course, theists are allowing their psychology to overpower the LACK of (good, credible) evidence, but it amounts to the same thing.
Has Turek considered that the guy who became a Christian over Peterson…might not be “a real Christian”? After all, if Peterson himself is not a Christian, why assume he’d be able to “lead” anyone to god? I suppose it works, if we consider god can use any and everyone but it is a tad suspicious.
@@GodlessGranny Turek does not accept that everyone who claims to be Christian is, indeed, Christian. That is his whole gimmick and why he can claim people who fall out of the faith were never in to start with. But this guy comes to Jesus because of Peterson- who is not a Christian per Turek’s reckoning- and he just buys it without even wondering about the validity of this conversion.
I think it comes from the same pot of "reasoning" where some protestants say that catholics are not real christians, but are happy to include their number when trying to bolster totals against other religions. It's a mind state of convenience and contradictions be damned.
@@oscargr_ Turek is full of stories that you expect to end with “and the all clapped”. But this one is a bad story, I’d say. Because if non-Christians can just lead people to Jesus…it devalues actual Christians who are hard at work in this regard.
Wait he doing the friend of a friend story? With no names I going to say it made up. Also why would anyone convert to Christianity based Jordan Peterson arguments etc, as JP clearly don't buy them himself of he be a Christian.
Even if God existed, why *should* I worship him? If he's tri-omni, surely both conceiving of, and creating the entire universe cost him nothing. Including zero effort on his part. Why should I thank him? Also, lol at the Jordan Peterson bit.
Presumptuous that you haven't been "chosen" and would like G to put some effort in? Or is Frank a narcissists, because he thinks he has had the special treatment?
The underlying issue here is what is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of Unconditional Election. The Bible views the human race in a rebellious, sinful, guilty condition. "For the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." (Rom. 1:18; NKJV). Thus God would be perfectly just to condemn the entire human race to hell. But instead He chooses to save some and not others. "For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble called . . ." (I Cor. 1:26). Why? ". . . that no flesh should glory in HIs presence" (v. 29). A strong case can be argued that God has a proclivity to save everyone -- He is a God of mercy and compassion -- but a volition to save only some, so that He can display both His justice and grace at the same time, by way of contrast.
that just means that the reason someone doesn't believe is because god made them that way, instead desiring to torture them for its own pleasure ('justice'). and since there are no criteria by which god choose the few elect, salvwtion and thus belief is completely random. so there's fundamentally no explanation. evidence and reason have nothing to do with it.
@@joshridinger3407 No. God did not make them that way. They fell by their own free will. And the passage in I Corinthians seems to indicate that election is not completely random. "But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things that are mighty . . . that no flesh should glory in His presence" (I Cor. 1:27-29).
@@robertwheeler1158 He isn't real, champ. He was one of *hundreds* of gods from the ancient Near East. He's no more real than them or his father El. Scholarship below. --------------------------------------------------------- According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown." *"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)." "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.* A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"* (Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)* *"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"* (Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular. El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.) *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"* *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 34:30 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
@@ancientfiction5244 But how did modern "scholarship" arrive at its conclusions? Yes, there were a variety of pagan deities throughout the ancient Near East, including Sumeria and Ugarit. But what made ancient Israel stand out was its monotheism. The entire universe was created by one single, all-powerful Deity. The "general consensus of scholarship" is based on circumstantial evidence at best and pure speculation.
@@robertwheeler1158 what is 'free will'? either human choices are causally explained (and if god exists, it is the cause), or their choices are completely random. in the former case, everything humans do is by god's design. in the latter case, there is nothing for anyone to be responsible for anyway, only random chance. the bible is clear that election is entirely by grace and not by any merit of the elect. if there were criteria, those criteria would be merits. thus, it must be entirely random. that aside, weakness does not seem to be the measure, as christianity has tended to be militarily dominant for most of its history, with some competition from islam, which is basically the same religion but without the trinity nonsense. historical christianity and modern bible-believers (fundamentalists) both celebrate strength, masculinity, domination, etc. and mock the nonbeliever as weak, effeminate, etc. and even if god chose the weak, weakness would not be the criteria, since god is the one who decides who is weak or strong.
First, God’s sovereignty over His creation is rooted in His purpose for saving humanity. As the Creator, His actions are not arbitrary but aligned with His divine perspective, which transcends human understanding. God's omnipotence does not imply capriciousness; instead, He acts logically within His divine nature. From a human standpoint, it may seem perplexing, but this is analogous to an ant trying to comprehend the intentions of a human. Our understanding is limited to what God has chosen to reveal to us. These revelations serve a specific purpose: to guide us toward salvation, not to grant us omniscience. This is evident in the account of Adam and Eve; their pursuit of knowledge led them away from God and toward destruction, showing the dangers of human pride and disobedience. Moreover, God’s method of revelation is designed to respect human free will. He does not coerce belief but offers understanding in a way that resonates with human inclinations, such as knowledge and intellect. This approach is evident from the beginning, as seen in humanity's initial choice in the Garden of Eden. It underscores why the Bible plays a central role- it communicates God's will and purpose while leaving the choice to believe or reject Him in our hands. The Bible's core message is one of reconciliation with God, made possible only through Jesus Christ. This requires humility, a virtue that was often absent in the early Israelites and remains challenging for many today. God’s actions in history demonstrate His ability to redeem even the most flawed individuals for His purposes. Take the example of Paul, once a persecutor of Christians with a history of violence. God’s decision to blind Paul on the road to Damascus served as a profound illustration for future generations: no one is beyond redemption, and God can use even our mistakes for His glory and our betterment. This theme runs throughout Scripture, from the imperfect lineage of Jesus to the stories of flawed kings and prophets. Each account reinforces that God can transform brokenness into something good, showcasing His power and grace. Ultimately, God's purpose is not only to reconcile humanity to Himself but to demonstrate His glory and faithfulness across generations. These recurring themes in Scripture remind us that while our understanding may be limited, God's plan is perfect, purposeful, and always aimed at our ultimate good. You know the verse John 3:16, it's such a simple request for eternal implications. You are not getting any younger, do you really want to go this route that leads to destruction? I take it you are smart enough to make this decision and have lived a life that begs the question, you'll know for certain soon enough.
@@Άθελι-παιδί-του-Θεού how can 2/3 of humanity going to hell be for their ultimate good? Do you consider hell a good place? If god’s plan is to save humanity from hell, why is he so bad at it that he fails with 2/3 of the people? Finally, if your god is beyond your comprehension, what makes you think he’s good? Since he’s beyond your comprehension and that of all humans, he’s unknowable, the ultimate in hiddenness.
@@GodlessGranny Your question assumes that God’s plan and actions should conform to human standards of "success" and "goodness," which misunderstands the nature of divine sovereignty and human responsibility.. Hell is not inherently "good" but necessary for justice. God is perfectly holy and just, and sin; the rejection of His will, carries eternal consequences. The existence of hell underscores that God honors human freedom to choose or reject Him. If humanity’s ultimate good is union with God, rejecting Him means choosing separation, which is the essence of hell. It is not about God failing but about humans exercising their free will to reject the relationship He offers. God’s plan is not about coercion but about offering salvation to all. Scripture affirms that God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) but respects human autonomy. A significant portion of humanity rejecting God does not indicate a failure on His part; it actually emphasizes the seriousness of free will and the consequences of rejecting His grace. It would be contradictory for a God who values genuine love to impose salvation on unwilling hearts. That is why when we preach His word, we are simply conveying the message and planting the seed, giving you and many an opportunity to come to faith. Ultimately it is your choice to accept or reject that.. While God is beyond complete human comprehension (Isaiah 55:8-9), He is not entirely unknowable. He has revealed His nature through creation, Scripture, and most fully through Jesus Christ. We can know He is good because His actions throughout history reflect love, mercy, and justice. The ultimate demonstration of His goodness is the sacrifice of Jesus for humanity’s sins, offering a path to reconciliation despite OUR failures. Sacrifice is unfounded in any sort of secular understanding, it challenges the materialistic and physical worldview. I would not say naturalistic, simply because our nature also comes from God, while sin corrupts it. That is why humans are capable of doing all sorts of awful things and wonderful things. God’s "hiddenness" is not about being unknowable but about allowing space for faith and relationship. If God were so overtly present that belief became unavoidable, free will and genuine love would be undermined. The Bible often portrays God as drawing near to those who seek Him (Jeremiah 29:13) while also respecting those who choose to distance themselves. Lastly, I invite you to read 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 2. Hopefully you will be able to understand that those with the holy spirit are able to understand God. That is why I could not understand when I was an atheist. God's ways became less controversial because I stopped looking at it from the human perspective and more of a divine one. I could not get there on my own; neither could Peter (Matthew 16:17) However, those that take the intellectual path for example Jordan Peterson, are halfway there. Why? Because it's not about the mind, it's about the heart (Mark 12:34).
“Let me give you a very prominent example. I have a friend who has a friend…”
Who cursed humanity with a deceitful heart, Dr. Turek?
And yet, according to the Bible, if having a deceitful heart is not enough to condemn someone, God can send a "lying spirit" or a "strong delusion" to make sure they are condemned.
@@shriggs55 exactly.
I'm pretty drunk right now, so I cannot guarantee that it wasn't I who cursed humanity due to my impaired recall, & yet I really doubt I could be such a jerk as to do so.
I don’t think Dr. Turek cursed humanity with a deceitful heart I don’t even know how he would do that if he wanted to
Funny how God needs a bunch of grovelling morons to do his job for him. It’s almost like God doesn’t exist 🥺
I look at Turek & think: there's a man who doesn't really believe it any more. He seems more & more just to be going through the motions
He's learnt enough now to know that it all has to be bollocks, but it's partly that he's so deeply invested and partly because he makes a nice living from not actually working.
@@pineapplepenumbra Oh I know there's no escape for him, but his job isn't easy - standing up in front of roomfuls of kids when you may not actually believe it. And there are his books of course
@@ClementGreen I refuse to feel sorry for Frank Turek! You can't make me, Noooo....!!!
All about the Money. His real god.
"...your god can't, because he isn't." Another calligraphy endeavor for me. Thank you.
I totally would buy a fancy poster saying that
36:16
@@littleredpony6868 unfortunately I don't possess the graphic skills to create a poster. My main focus is on calligraphy and maybe some scroll work. Images are beyond my talents.This would be a tee shirt sort of thing. And since it originated with Godless Granny I couldn't make money off it. However... I notice she has merch... hint hint hint. Which, n ow that I think on it, might be where you were going with it in the first place.
If you are resistant to belief, it is trivial compared to the power of an omnipotent being.
It’s like a world class Olympic strongman trying to lift a newborn kitten who is resistant to being picked up. It’s happening regardless of what the kitten wants.
I don't know about that; kittens can be wiggly and sneaky.
@ so can unbelievers in the right situation.
Not to mention this is just Frank’s take. Calvinists that uphold TULIP, would strongly disagree as the “I” is exactly this: Irresistible Grace.
@ I remember GG doing a video featuring TULIP. Thanks for the reminder.
Does anyone else see a lot of what ifs in Frank’s arguments? I’m 73 and was a believer for much of that and my reasoning for leaving was simply reading the Bible, “Enough”. Thanks for your show Granny, I imagine you help lots of people.
Wow, the BS that apologist need to go through is astonishing. All because they refuse to say the truth. And what’s the truth?
THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW!
That’s why I like the term excusigest
Why do so many apologists conflate believing God exists, with worshipping him?
God revealing his existence is just the bare minimum first step.
Is it possibly because the process and source are much the same for both? Just take it all on authority.
I found Frank Turek to be so smart when he wants to. He is really someone who knows exactly what he's doing and how dishonest is.
Interesting. Wonder what will happen when he retires.
Frank is smart. He's smart enough to know a lot of his apologetics are bullshit and he doesn't care, probably because that's his paycheck.
Maybe Frank doesn't have faith enough to be an atheist, but is he smart enough to be one?😂
@@GodlessGranny IF there really is a God, when Frank retires for good, that God will say that it never knew him.
Franky T is so smart, & yet so stupid
Shorter Turek: "My god has put every object in its current position, every force in its current process and every person in their current state of mind, all for reasons of its own. Therefore my god exists."
I have a simple but accurate two-word response to this.
I'm guessing either "Prove it" or, and this would be my response to Turek, "F*×k off"
Turek has become so tedious.
13:00 That's always been one of my favorite points. If God were real, and God wanted me to believe in him, then God would know what it would take to genuinely convince me, and could easily put that into place. As I am not a believer, that only really leaves the two options. Either he doesn't want me to believe, in which case not believing is following his will, or he doesn't exist to try to convince me in the first place.
Another awesome video, thanks
Glad you enjoyed it
Frank's "friend of a friend of a friend" story is typical of Christian-style miracles. They rarely are nearly as miraculous in the first person. They need enough distance and retellings to become more dramatic and suitably miraculous. It also helps if they are going to be impossible to verify.
Divine hiddenness was one of the things that bothered me as a Christian. It is one of the things that drove me to do decades of Bible study. I believed that God would show me answers to my questions if I studied the Bible enough. I believed that prayer and fasting would help God help me find answers. Bible study finally forced me to admit that the gospels and Acts are books that are mostly mythology, not history. I still tried to hold onto my faith. I WANTED to continue to believe. I tried to find answers to my questions. There were a hundred ways God could have shown me my understanding of the Bible was wrong. The irony of my atheism is that I did get an answer to one of my prayers. I did finally get my prayer answered to understand the Bible; the Bible is a book written by ordinary humans.
If modern Christianity is true, then God wants a relationship with everyone. Then why did God allow so many problems to be put into the Bible? To accept that God allowed Satan and evil men to introduce errors does not explain the organic problems that do not appear to be tinkering by humans or Satan. If God put them there as a stumbling block, then it makes God a trickster god, and I would not worship Loki.
I read the Quran twice. I was not impressed. A Muslim told me that if I had only read the Quran I had missed too much, and I needed to also read the Hadith. So I reread the Quran using a commentary for English speakers that he recommended. The book also included what the person said were the essential Hadith. After the second read with a commentary, I did understand the Quran better, and I was more convinced the Quran and Islam are the products of sixth and seventh-century Arabic culture. Recently I had a Muslim tell me that my problem is that I had read too much human addition to the Quran, and I should have only paid attention to the Quran itself. We are back to the trickster god who sets up traps, even for people who earnestly want to find truth.
Then he goes and blows it up by stating JP is not a Christian which means that JP arguments etc are not a reason to believe in Christianity or JP would be Christian.
Yes, she is hiding.
I used to compare a "relationship with god" to leaning on a non-existent wall, but I think a better analogy is playing tug-o-war with a tree.
An ethereal rope attached to a transcendental tree.
Those puppies were too darn cute!!!
Great work like usual! The mindlessness is just insane in Turek!
Thanks a lot!
I honestly find Turek's first story incredible.
i.e. Impossible to believe.
Even if its real it shows the friend of a friend is an idiot as he converted to Christianity based on JP arguments but JP himself is not convinced or JP be a Christian.
@@mattm8870 Yup. That was my basic point. Whenever Turek uses anecdotal evidence it is impossible to believe. A friend of a friend my @rse. Is that the best Turek can come up with? It doesn't even address the question of Divine Hiddenness. I agree with you also on the matter of Peterson. He's a worm.
I dispared in college and finally gave up. That was 55 years ago,
Turek is such a lightweight. I don't understand how his listeners take him seriously.
9:05 a friend of a friend. So hearsay testimony. The worst form of evidence.
No, no... It is true because Nebraska is a real place and Dr.Peterson is real. /s
@oscargr_ but do we have two different books that write about green grass?
@@JasonHenderson I am not getting the reference, sorry.
@@oscargr_ look up undesigned coincidences
Even if it real Frank blows it up by saying JP is not a Christian making this friend of a friend an idiot.
Godless Granny drives the nail home evey time 💪🎯💖
32:24 theophobia? But I thought theophobia was the beginning of wisdom (oh, you beat me to it)
Good question! Now let's hear Frank's almost always word vomit he is about to spew killing everyone's brain cells in the process. 🙄
Ahh yes....Frank Turek. Grifter extraordinaire
I remember desiring so deeply to speak in tonges that I cried asking god, I was so convinced that I wanted to be a better christian and a better son of God. And now xtians tell me "you never really believed". What can they know about me?
Thank you! I was bamboozled by theists that say God respects our free will. There is no difference between a resistant and non-resisitant non-believer.
Thanks for the video and well wrought commentary. (Go Hawks!)
Glad you enjoyed it!
I used to be a believer and since then the more I learn about Christianity the more problems I see with it. So I find the “god is waiting for the right time” thing to be an excuse so that believers don’t have to challenge their own beliefs.
Poor guy wants to believe and the preacher is blaming him for not believing?
It's a bit rich of Frank talking about people becoming deeper when he's so, SO shallow!
There are many adjectives I would use for Jordan Peterson. Honest is not on that list.
I don't think even Jordan Peterson would use honest for himself, although he'd dance around the definition for long enough while chanting enough word salad that no one would remember what the question was.
ian etc: "Money-grabbing" springs instantly to mind. "Charlatan" and "huckster" follow very closely behind.
Does Turek think indigestion is enough to make or break someone’s faith? That seems like really weak faith (cue the Darth Vader meme).
Narrowing to non-residtant nonbelievers strengthens the argument by eliminating some possible objections. I think it's a strategic move to draw the line there when putting a formal argument in print. Give them as many concessions as possible and still show it doesn't make sense.
Great video!!!
Glad you liked it!
They talk about resistant vs non-resistant non-believers...what about resistant vs non-resistant believers?
Divine hiddenness is one of the 25 reasons I can no longer believe!
How does Turek follow an evil god the pays good.
14:57 I think he's comparing Luke to Peterson, which isn't fair as Luke makes sense when he speaks.
I also don’t draw a line between resistant and non-resistant non-believers, but for different reason: “sincerity” or “seeking” are not actually required for God to show himself, according to the Bible’s own rules. Jesus supposedly appeared to Saul, who was literally murdering Christians. If God can appear directly to someone that horrific, then he can spare a moment to do the same for me. Or am I somehow even worse?
Or does god not want us?
😊
Such a good video. It really demonstrates how apologists manipulate so their god is always real. I can’t believe he asserts that Luke believes the the Bible is true by looking at the evidence. That’s just expert gaslighting lighting
I haven't been able to fly in years because the last time I flew I had a panic attack. No amount of statistics about how safe flying is will make me get back on a plane.
The only good thing I have to say about Turek is that he went from being horrifically hateful toward LGBTQ folk to being slightly empathetic toward the community. And when I say slightly, I mean excruciatingly slightly. And that is the only speck of virtue I have ever detected in his ineloquent ramblings.
I started out like that. Maybe he will get to empathy.
Frank is too arrogant and abrasive. He never answers a question; he always reverses the conversation and tries to trip up the questioners,
If god isn’t ready for me to be a Christian yet, there’s nothing I can do about that. All I can do is keep doing what seems right in my opinion and negotiating with other people’s opinions. Same thing if there is no god or there’s a deistic god or god has predetermined everyone’s fate. I’m not saying there is no god, I’m saying there’s no God that matters.
Yet again, the Christian is unable to give a straight answer. Also, those puppies were absolutely adorable!
holy shit this is toxic af! "Luke, you just arnt important enough, like frank turek, thus i wont reveal myself to you, get some subs on youtube first or something" - god, probably
How is frank able to say such a thing and not instantly barf xD
If I were ever to believe in god again, I think it would be shaped like this:
"I hope there is a benevolent being in charge of my identity after I die. I'm going to actively try to understand that entity I hope exists."
For now, still an Atheist. I think I'll entirely stop existing when I die 🤷
Apologists claim that everything has a cause, except for when God was the first cause. So by definition God "caused" everything that subsequently happened. Except! God is not the "cause" of you being an Atheist, because?. This is clearly total BS. Which is why people like Turek will never directly address this question.
GG, well, I'm late to everything. Great answers, a huge 'ending event' is also reading the whole bible. Most believers don't. And frank knows better, he is just making money! 👍🏼💙💙💙🥰✌
i would like to mention that not everyone with a phobia can tell you why they're afraid of what they're afraid of, all my life i've had arachnophobia, and ive never known what about spiders scares me, as spiders actually fascinate me, im just terrified of them to the point i cant even move when i find one in the room im in until someone kills it (i'd much prefer being able to spare it and just bring it outside but my parents arent any less scared of spiders apparently😅) and i have multiple other phobias where i didnt even know they were phobias because i couldnt explain to myself that i WAS scared because my own brain was like "why would i be scared of that? i cant possibly be scared of something so silly and harmless" despite the fact i was indeed scared and it's a phobia! examples of my sillier phobias: mirrors, showers & baths, the dark, closets, i think i made my point here i wont humiliate myself further 😅, i do have SOME phobias i can explain, mostly those attached to traumatic events, like claustrophobia from being locked in small empty rooms in school when i "misbehaved" (autistic tantrums mostly) and a phobia of needles i recently managed to get over, that started from an especially painful vaccine that left my arm paralyzed for days afterwards, but most of my phobias i genuinely cannot explain at all
what annoys me most about the free will get out of jail card is, if god said "i am going to end all suffering" who would say no to that? but if he said "i will end all suffering, but you will no longer have free will" would they be crying out "that's not fair, i don't want to be a robot" or just go along with god as always? my guess is that if there was no free will no one would even notice.
the things people complain about aren't always the things people are really complaining about.
(there is no free will, there is one past history, that implies there will be one future history, if you join "history" at ANY point the past and the future are fixed - where is your free will in that?)
free will is incoherent. if determinism is false, our choices are random, not 'free'.
What do you think heaven will be? No suffering there, is there still freewill?
I always like "It is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven ." Why would some Omnipotent deity need subservient self aware people , not to mention a tithe ."🤔
I’m sick of hearing about Jordan Peterson.
The thing is Frank Turok says JP is not a Christian which means JP arguments are not a reason to believe in Christianity or JP would be Christian.
I've talked to some believers that say the reason that there are nonbelievers is that god only selects those who are worthy of him. The rest are fodder for hell.
It bothers me that they expect nonbelievers to want to be Christians.
If we have yet to grant the Christian positions as true, why should being that Christian be a priority for us?
And I don't ask out of a lack of experience. I called myself a Christian nearly as long as our endearing Granny did.
There is quite a lot of peer pressure to do so of course. But that's a very sketchy reason.
Jordan Word Salad Peterson led someone to Jesus? People be weird.
Frank is the epitome of arrogantly obtuse apologetics.
god reveals himself to me. I'm special.
If god does not reveal himself to You, then you are not special.
I Win.
5:17 if there is a tri-omni God everything will always be exactly as he desires it. He's not going to say "I think I want a milkshake" and then drive to Sonic and order a milkshake. Before he even thinks that he wants something he already has it. There is no time delay between the desire and fulfilling the desire, because he is outside of time.
Basically, God can't want anything because he's all powerful and outside of time.
So God hasn't allowed this dude to be a Christian YET.
Ok.
So Frank, has any person ever died not believing in your God?
He has to say yes because other religions exist, people have existed and do exist without hearing about Jesus, and Jesus himself says more people will end up in hell than heaven.
So now the question, Frank, is why didn't God reveal himself to them?
You're not going to have a good answer.
12:28 I genuinely don’t understand this point. Are they *trying* to prove that they’re wrong? I thought Christian’s were supposed to be the ones who shared the Bible, but it took a non-Christian? I’m not very educated on this topic, but this doesn’t make sense to me.
32.08 "Here we are, allowing our psychology to overpower the evidence."
The irony here is palpable. Of course, theists are allowing their psychology to overpower the LACK of (good, credible) evidence, but it amounts to the same thing.
Has Turek considered that the guy who became a Christian over Peterson…might not be “a real Christian”? After all, if Peterson himself is not a Christian, why assume he’d be able to “lead” anyone to god?
I suppose it works, if we consider god can use any and everyone but it is a tad suspicious.
Good question!
@@GodlessGranny Turek does not accept that everyone who claims to be Christian is, indeed, Christian. That is his whole gimmick and why he can claim people who fall out of the faith were never in to start with.
But this guy comes to Jesus because of Peterson- who is not a Christian per Turek’s reckoning- and he just buys it without even wondering about the validity of this conversion.
I think it comes from the same pot of "reasoning" where some protestants say that catholics are not real christians, but are happy to include their number when trying to bolster totals against other religions. It's a mind state of convenience and contradictions be damned.
There is a phrase in Journalism: "Truth should never stand in the way of a good story"
I think it's also true for apologetics
@@oscargr_ Turek is full of stories that you expect to end with “and the all clapped”.
But this one is a bad story, I’d say. Because if non-Christians can just lead people to Jesus…it devalues actual Christians who are hard at work in this regard.
Wait he doing the friend of a friend story? With no names I going to say it made up. Also why would anyone convert to Christianity based Jordan Peterson arguments etc, as JP clearly don't buy them himself of he be a Christian.
Even if God existed, why *should* I worship him? If he's tri-omni, surely both conceiving of, and creating the entire universe cost him nothing. Including zero effort on his part. Why should I thank him? Also, lol at the Jordan Peterson bit.
Presumptuous that you haven't been "chosen" and would like G to put some effort in?
Or is Frank a narcissists, because he thinks he has had the special treatment?
The underlying issue here is what is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of Unconditional Election. The Bible views the human race in a rebellious, sinful, guilty condition. "For the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness." (Rom. 1:18; NKJV). Thus God would be perfectly just to condemn the entire human race to hell. But instead He chooses to save some and not others. "For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble called . . ." (I Cor. 1:26). Why? ". . . that no flesh should glory in HIs presence" (v. 29).
A strong case can be argued that God has a proclivity to save everyone -- He is a God of mercy and compassion -- but a volition to save only some, so that He can display both His justice and grace at the same time, by way of contrast.
that just means that the reason someone doesn't believe is because god made them that way, instead desiring to torture them for its own pleasure ('justice'). and since there are no criteria by which god choose the few elect, salvwtion and thus belief is completely random. so there's fundamentally no explanation. evidence and reason have nothing to do with it.
@@joshridinger3407 No. God did not make them that way. They fell by their own free will. And the passage in I Corinthians seems to indicate that election is not completely random. "But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things that are mighty . . . that no flesh should glory in His presence" (I Cor. 1:27-29).
@@robertwheeler1158 He isn't real, champ. He was one of *hundreds* of gods from the ancient Near East. He's no more real than them or his father El.
Scholarship below.
---------------------------------------------------------
According to the general consensus of scholarship *(even critical Christian scholars),* YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms "divorced" them. El's pantheon in Ugarit (modern day Ras Shamra in Syria) is called the *Elohim,* literally the plural of El. Interestingly, the Biblical god is also referred to numerous times as Elohim. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"The mysterious Ugaritic text Shachar and Shalim tells how (perhaps near the beginning of all things) *El* came to shores of the sea and saw two women who bobbed up and down. *El* was sexually aroused and took the two with him, killed a bird by throwing a staff at it, and roasted it over a fire. He asked the women to tell him when the bird was fully cooked, and to then address him either as husband or as father, for he would thenceforward behave to them as they called him. They saluted him as husband. He then lay with them, and they gave birth to Shachar ("Dawn") and Shalim ("Dusk"). Again *El* lay with his wives and the wives gave birth to "the gracious gods", "cleavers of the sea", "children of the sea". The names of these wives are not explicitly provided, but some confusing rubrics at the beginning of the account mention the goddess *Athirat (Asherah),* who is otherwise *El's* chief wife, and the goddess Raḥmayyu ("the one of the womb"), otherwise unknown."
*"First, a god named El predates the arrival of the Israelites into Syria-Palestine.* Biblical usage shows El was not just a generic noun, but often a proper name for Israel’s God (e.g., Gen 33:20: “El, the God of Israel”)."
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the *sons of El.* It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the *sons of El,* plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, *solely* according to the number of the *sons of El.* *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting.*
A Sumerian hymn speaks to the goddess: “Nanshe, your divine powers are not matched by any other divine powers.” *Does this mean that Nanshe was the high goddess, that there were no gods above her? No, it does not.* Nanshe was the daughter of Enki, the high god. *In Sumerian mythology, as with Ugaritic, Israelite, Babylonian, and others, in the ancient past, the high god (Enki, in this case) divided up the world and assigned his children certain domains.* Nanshe was given a limited domain (the modern Persian Gulf) and was tasked with maintaining social justice there. *This is exactly what we see in Deuteronomy 32 with Yahweh. Yahweh is given a limited domain (Israel) and is given authority over his people, to punish them, as well as to protect and defend them against foreign enemies.* That Yahweh, like Nanshe, is said to have incomparable divine power *does not* mean that he is not subordinate to the high god who gave him his domain. *It is also of note that Nanshe, like Baal, Yahweh, and so many other deities, evolved over time. Her domain increased, and she was promoted in the pantheon (although she never became the high goddess)."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10"* - TheTorah.com
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), *which appears to be a later addition,* Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V | theyellowdart"*
(Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the *archaeological, cultural, and literary data* pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant *show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group were originally Canaanite. As the Hebrew Bible notes, the Hebrew language itself is a Canaanite language, literally the “lip of Canaan” (שְׂפַת כְּנַעַן; Is. **19:18**), and so it cannot often be distinguished by modern scholars from other Canaanite inscriptions on purely linguistic grounds.)*
*"Ugarit - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Ugaritic religion centered on the chief god, Ilu or El, whose titles included "Father of mankind" and "Creator of the creation." The Court of El was referred to as the (plural) 'lhm or ***Elohim,*** a word ***later used by the biblical writers to describe the Hebrew deity*** and translated into English as "God," in the singular.
El, which was ***also the name of the God of Abraham,*** was described as an aged deity with white hair, seated on a throne.)
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III | theyellowdart"*
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(In addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh, it appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 34:30 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
@@ancientfiction5244 But how did modern "scholarship" arrive at its conclusions? Yes, there were a variety of pagan deities throughout the ancient Near East, including Sumeria and Ugarit. But what made ancient Israel stand out was its monotheism. The entire universe was created by one single, all-powerful Deity.
The "general consensus of scholarship" is based on circumstantial evidence at best and pure speculation.
@@robertwheeler1158 what is 'free will'? either human choices are causally explained (and if god exists, it is the cause), or their choices are completely random. in the former case, everything humans do is by god's design. in the latter case, there is nothing for anyone to be responsible for anyway, only random chance.
the bible is clear that election is entirely by grace and not by any merit of the elect. if there were criteria, those criteria would be merits. thus, it must be entirely random. that aside, weakness does not seem to be the measure, as christianity has tended to be militarily dominant for most of its history, with some competition from islam, which is basically the same religion but without the trinity nonsense. historical christianity and modern bible-believers (fundamentalists) both celebrate strength, masculinity, domination, etc. and mock the nonbeliever as weak, effeminate, etc. and even if god chose the weak, weakness would not be the criteria, since god is the one who decides who is weak or strong.
First, God’s sovereignty over His creation is rooted in His purpose for saving humanity. As the Creator, His actions are not arbitrary but aligned with His divine perspective, which transcends human understanding. God's omnipotence does not imply capriciousness; instead, He acts logically within His divine nature. From a human standpoint, it may seem perplexing, but this is analogous to an ant trying to comprehend the intentions of a human. Our understanding is limited to what God has chosen to reveal to us. These revelations serve a specific purpose: to guide us toward salvation, not to grant us omniscience. This is evident in the account of Adam and Eve; their pursuit of knowledge led them away from God and toward destruction, showing the dangers of human pride and disobedience.
Moreover, God’s method of revelation is designed to respect human free will. He does not coerce belief but offers understanding in a way that resonates with human inclinations, such as knowledge and intellect. This approach is evident from the beginning, as seen in humanity's initial choice in the Garden of Eden. It underscores why the Bible plays a central role- it communicates God's will and purpose while leaving the choice to believe or reject Him in our hands. The Bible's core message is one of reconciliation with God, made possible only through Jesus Christ. This requires humility, a virtue that was often absent in the early Israelites and remains challenging for many today.
God’s actions in history demonstrate His ability to redeem even the most flawed individuals for His purposes. Take the example of Paul, once a persecutor of Christians with a history of violence. God’s decision to blind Paul on the road to Damascus served as a profound illustration for future generations: no one is beyond redemption, and God can use even our mistakes for His glory and our betterment. This theme runs throughout Scripture, from the imperfect lineage of Jesus to the stories of flawed kings and prophets. Each account reinforces that God can transform brokenness into something good, showcasing His power and grace.
Ultimately, God's purpose is not only to reconcile humanity to Himself but to demonstrate His glory and faithfulness across generations. These recurring themes in Scripture remind us that while our understanding may be limited, God's plan is perfect, purposeful, and always aimed at our ultimate good. You know the verse John 3:16, it's such a simple request for eternal implications. You are not getting any younger, do you really want to go this route that leads to destruction? I take it you are smart enough to make this decision and have lived a life that begs the question, you'll know for certain soon enough.
@@Άθελι-παιδί-του-Θεού how can 2/3 of humanity going to hell be for their ultimate good? Do you consider hell a good place? If god’s plan is to save humanity from hell, why is he so bad at it that he fails with 2/3 of the people? Finally, if your god is beyond your comprehension, what makes you think he’s good? Since he’s beyond your comprehension and that of all humans, he’s unknowable, the ultimate in hiddenness.
@@GodlessGranny Your question assumes that God’s plan and actions should conform to human standards of "success" and "goodness," which misunderstands the nature of divine sovereignty and human responsibility..
Hell is not inherently "good" but necessary for justice. God is perfectly holy and just, and sin; the rejection of His will, carries eternal consequences. The existence of hell underscores that God honors human freedom to choose or reject Him. If humanity’s ultimate good is union with God, rejecting Him means choosing separation, which is the essence of hell. It is not about God failing but about humans exercising their free will to reject the relationship He offers.
God’s plan is not about coercion but about offering salvation to all. Scripture affirms that God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) but respects human autonomy. A significant portion of humanity rejecting God does not indicate a failure on His part; it actually emphasizes the seriousness of free will and the consequences of rejecting His grace. It would be contradictory for a God who values genuine love to impose salvation on unwilling hearts. That is why when we preach His word, we are simply conveying the message and planting the seed, giving you and many an opportunity to come to faith. Ultimately it is your choice to accept or reject that..
While God is beyond complete human comprehension (Isaiah 55:8-9), He is not entirely unknowable. He has revealed His nature through creation, Scripture, and most fully through Jesus Christ. We can know He is good because His actions throughout history reflect love, mercy, and justice. The ultimate demonstration of His goodness is the sacrifice of Jesus for humanity’s sins, offering a path to reconciliation despite OUR failures. Sacrifice is unfounded in any sort of secular understanding, it challenges the materialistic and physical worldview.
I would not say naturalistic, simply because our nature also comes from God, while sin corrupts it. That is why humans are capable of doing all sorts of awful things and wonderful things.
God’s "hiddenness" is not about being unknowable but about allowing space for faith and relationship. If God were so overtly present that belief became unavoidable, free will and genuine love would be undermined. The Bible often portrays God as drawing near to those who seek Him (Jeremiah 29:13) while also respecting those who choose to distance themselves.
Lastly, I invite you to read 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 2. Hopefully you will be able to understand that those with the holy spirit are able to understand God. That is why I could not understand when I was an atheist. God's ways became less controversial because I stopped looking at it from the human perspective and more of a divine one. I could not get there on my own; neither could Peter (Matthew 16:17)
However, those that take the intellectual path for example Jordan Peterson, are halfway there. Why? Because it's not about the mind, it's about the heart (Mark 12:34).