I'm a Christian Because I'm Texan?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лип 2023
- In this episode, I sit down, in-person, with Alex O'Connor from @CosmicSkeptic to analyze 10 different slogans that atheists have put forward over the years.
Full Interview • Analyzing 10 Atheist S...
FREE STUFF -------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CCFREESTUFF
GIVING -------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on UA-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
SOCIAL -------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchristianity.com
MY GEAR -----------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
Recording/Interview Software: bit.ly/3E3CGsI
CONTACT ----------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
I would say there’s a difference between genuine Christianity and cultural Christianity. I would estimate only five to ten percent of Christians in America actually take their faith seriously, and that’s being generous. When that is taken into account, the gap isn’t as large as people think.
Well said. Any poll about basic theological beliefs and practices of Christians shows this
What is "genuine" Christianity? What does it consist of, exactly? Is it viable in this day and age, let alone the shining beacon it is made out to be? If so, how come more people aren't into it, or more receptive to it? If not, why retain it?
I submit that there could be things good for people they are either ignorant of or indifferent to. But, like amusement parks, circuses, and parades, you can scarcely find a person who hasn't heard of them, but they don't think they are missing out on their aspects like those who gush over them might insist. I myself don't think Christianity has anything to offer that is exclusive to it, but that's just me. I'm terribly sorry.
@@wet-read
The Christian faith is unique.
1. Triune God.
2. The Christian God is the only god that is both transcendent and immanent.
3. We are saved by grace through faith, not by works. This is unlike all religions.
4. It's Historical faith. The tomb is empty. The LORD is risen.
5. It is the only faith that has an answer to the question, How can God be both perfectly just and merciful? Answer: The cross of Christ.
6. Christianity stresses our relationship with God, not religion practice (ritualistic, do this, don't do that).
That's for starters.
@@kurtgundy
Every religion is unique. If any two religions are not unique they'd be the same religion.
Every religion
1. Believes this one unique thing
2. Believes this other specific point.
3. Believes it's adherents are unique.
4. Has it's unique historical claim
5. Is uniquely capable to answer the question How God can be [x].
6. Stresses it's unique relationship to God.
When you account for Cultural Islam vs. genuine Islam, cultural Judaism vs genuine Judaisn, etc. doesn't the Gap become as big as people think?
Why is there any "gap" at all?
To certain extent, yes, it absolutely does.
Do you think that causes a dilemma for either the existence of God or the morality of God (as relates to Hell and Salvation)?
@@mkl2237 Yes, I do
Yeah you're right, but that can't be used as a meaningful argument against Christianity because fallen angels exist. Lucifer can trick people into going against God and by simple nature, they will indoctrinate their children with those beliefs. The real nail on the head to that argument is the fact that Christianity is pretty much the only religion that explains why other religions exist.
@@jacoblee5796 ok
@@mkl2237
1) Yes, if this God is said to be easily known if people earnestly seek out/willingly receive It
2) Yes, if this God is supposedly *the* beacon and grounding of morality... one would think there would be near unanimous opinions about morality. But we see no such thing among believers, or anyone else, for that matter. Well, maybe modestly sized groups, that's about it.
This is why I love Alex, he really wants to steelman the Christian position. That takes work and genuineness. There's no faking that
I suppose. I don't know why he would, personally. It is classy and noble though. Like Goku allowing Frieza to get to his peak so both could see who was stronger.
Great analogy tbh. If you care about truth instead of winning thats what you do. Or if you wanna know youre the strongest dude in the galaxy you gotta fight them at their best.
lmfao what you call a "steelman" is Alex fixing LITERAL logical flaws in religious argument. if you think he's weakening the stronger argument, then tell me please, what was the stronger argument that he made weaker? can you tell me? do you know?
@@ImHeadshotSniper I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm talking about at the end, when Alex talks about what he would say about the problem of the unevangelized and about Hell if he were a Christian. That's what I mean by a steelman
Alex wants nothing more than to undermine religious fervor that's why his channel is devoted to propaganda
“Brainwash a child the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” -Proverbs 22:6; Gooftext
It worked for the Freemasons who codified naturalist philosophy and brainwashed the Christian empire by lowest common denominator appeals to sensuality through mass education and media.
Calling a religious upbringing brainwashing is just stupid. You can consider anything you dislike brainwashing. Flat earthers(akin to atheists) will say that everyone is raised brainwashed by the globe earthers. Its a non-argument, it's question begging(for naturalism), and it's simply nonsense.
@@soldier7332 cause it’s funny !
@@soldier7332 every good and perfect joke comes from God
James 1:17; Gooftext
Which translation contains "brainwash"?
I like this version of Pascal's Wager:
Pascal's Wager is whatever one's personal religious beliefs are is what they're wagering their eternity on.
This is really well done by Alex. It's a fair objection about geography, and I would extend that to the circumstances you were born into as this avoids all the objections one could raise around geography. Who were your parents? Your friends? Your town? Your local church? These factors are mostly or completely out of your control and yet they are relevant predictors for religiosity and which flavor of religiosity.
Alex also does a great job of showing how to steelman the argument. If you were interested in simply winning the debate, then you would poke holes in the question if it was posed imprecisely (i.e. committing the genetic fallacy), but Christians should not be behaving like that. Always treat questioners with charity and answer them earnestly.
Correct. If both sides are charitable, the audience learns significantly more. Debate tactics are a waste of time.
Lmao how exactly would a Christian win the debate?
I am not convinced Alex is a non resistant atheist. I recall in his debate with McLatchie him saying that even if God existed there’s no way he’d want to be with God and how he’s horrible. Mike Winger had a short on it. Now, maybe he changed his mind to some degree but I think there’s a lot more resistance than what he portrays himself or that he’s aware of.
ua-cam.com/users/shortsECNDrQK6vkU?feature=share
Alex did change his mind and he explains why, here:
ua-cam.com/video/Wu2hvtR5-5M/v-deo.html
Ok, and? A lot of Christians seem to think this is a "gotcha" of some kind, and/or indicative of faulty or misguided character.
@@wet-read Lol what? He's simply pointing out why he doubts Alex is non-resistant. He's not doing a gotcha.
As an extension to this argument, some kids grow up in a Christian home and are taught it from an early age. Of course, they may still reject their faith when they're grown, but many don't (after all, it takes a lot of work to overthrow views that were instilled in us from birth). How is it right that these kids had a head start at salvation because of the family they were born into? This is one of many reasons why I've come to think that, if there is such a thing as salvation, it must not be dependent on what someone believes. There's no way for that to be just.
Most children in the West are indoctrinated into materialism and naturalist philosophy through mass education and the mainstream media, all of which contribute to lifestyles of narcissism, hedonism and nihilism. That was my experience and upbringing.
The good news about God's kingdom was always that God has appointed His Son Jesus as the righteous ruler of the nations and the judge of mankind. There is an amnesty in place so that rebels can cease their rebellion and return to relationship with God. It won't last forever though and one day the king is coming to rule his domain. Jesus is either coming for you as a treasured member of His royal family He redeemed out of depravity or He is coming for you as an enemy and rebel of His kingdom who refuses to cease your warfare and accusation against God.
What you belief about God and who you proclaim Him to be is the most important thing about you. It will define your every choice.
I'd say to an extent but to the extent we use it to discredit another position (e.g. You're only Lutheran because your parents are Lutheran), it's utterly irrelevant.
More broadly, you can just say "You're x because your environment encouraged x" which, though true, isn't super helpful, dialectically
The larger problem is, why does God allow people to be born in places where they’ll never hear if Christianity?
@@SP-qi8ur That's a great question and one that I can't answer. Although if anything, it poses a missionary/evangelical challenge on the part of the believer.
I've always found this objection bizarre. I was born in Australia, and grew up New Age (my parents are atheists). Then when working in Thailand, I met some Christians, became friends with them, and eventually got saved.
Australia wasn't majority Christian when I grew up, nor majority new age. Thailand is majority Buddhist, and in that village you could count the number of Christians with less than 2 hands.
Still, I will say that I found this discussion interesting.
I’m not seeing the objection here. This is a fact.
@@danlopez.3592 what is?
@@danlopez.3592When there are multiple subjects in a statement, with conflicting viewpoints, a single pronoun does not adequately summarize them all. Therefore I'll assume that you're agreeing with me, and I thank you for that :)
I don't see how what you're saying here is in anyway a contradiction to what Alex says. In other words, I don't see how your experience leads to finding this "a bizarre objection"
I was born to a devout Catholic mother who sent me to a Catholic grammar school and church with morning and evening prayers, daily rosary recitation, Sunday Mass, Catholic Boy Scouts, and Catholic Youth Council activities all of which lasted twenty years, when I left home and joined the Navy.
Last time I checked on google maps, the school and church were sold and I've been an atheist for 40 years.
She did the right thing. God will do the rest. His time isn't our time. Just be open to it when it happens and know that your mom loves you and wants heaven for you.
The school may be gone but you practically live on Christian UA-cam, immersing yourself in God, teachings about God, ideas about God, Christian commentary and conversation about God.
Imagine celebrating the destruction of a part of your childhood.
What a weird, sad man you are.
I am a Muslim. And I find that because Christian Faith expects you to believe in that which is irrational and illogical, you really can't assess the situation of Belief accurately.
It doesn't really matter where you are from no one can really believe that which is Unbelievable. It doesn't matter Where you were born and what affinities you may have to the local "Beliefs".
Cosmic Skeptic is amazing, love his arguments. BTW I’m theist.
Agree. Also a theist here. And frankly he comes across as sincere when he says he’s open-minded but just not convinced (skeptical sure, but open minded). I believe him, and I recognize he’s very smart.
(That’s a sharp contrast to many atheists who comment here that really don’t seem merely unconvinced but open-minded)
He makes me think for sure
I’m an agnostic slowly leaning more and more theist and used to be strongly Atheist. Alex O’Connor and Joe Schmid are two people who helped me realize there are very good, strong arguments for God’s existence.
@@eronpowell6008 Wishing you well in your journey. Your sincerity shines through.
I'm a Theist and I've been following Alex online since 2016 back when I was a strong atheist. He's definitely highly intelligent and open minded.
@@DarkArcticTV would love to hear your story
I'm so glad Cameron became Christian.
he was always Christian I think
Hey don’t disrespect Protestants if you want them to be Catholic. You’re not helping peoples conversions by saying that. @Christianity_is_Catholic
Yes, obviously.
Interesting point regarding nominal "Christians" versus those from whom their faith has meaning and they "do the will of the Father". I think there's truth to that as many will claim to know Jesus and do works in His name but had ulterior motives and didn’t actually believe in Christ as Lord and Savior. In that case a person in Malaysia who converts to Christianity just may have a better faith than someone who is just culturally "Christian".
I would be careful here, however. It’s salvation by faith in and through Christ and not merely works which save, but the good works do follow a living and active faith.
I would like to congratulate Emmanuel on being the very first commenter here! 🎉 🎈 🍺 🍾 🎸 🎶 💪🏼 😎
That is the problem isn’t it - whether someone is willing to believe in a God. Just having the desire for an afterlife is not the same as taking the leap of faith, acknowledging that a pure logical explanation for everything may be blocking you from faith, and that it would require actions leading along that path not just desire. He presents inclusive universalism beautifully, which I understand to be the Catholic belief. And there’s the concept of conversion upon even death.
See the problem is that if the Bible is true (I believe it is), there are fallen angels controlling the narrative of what we believe, trying to deceive us at all costs. That's why it's so extremely hard to prove to an atheist that God is real. It's constantly being covered up and evidence is cherry picked to support an agenda.
I’m a practicing Catholic and study the church. Catholicism doesn’t hold to universalism at all. It’s not correct to say that hell is not eternal and God will save everyone including the devil. In other words hell is taught in the Catholic Church as being eternal.
What some Bishops like Bishop Baron pray for is the hope that hell is empty. Not the same thing.
It’s an extreme minority that held this view like Origen back in the 3rd century that all will be saved.
So if someone preaches that one only goes to hell temporary or that all souls go to heaven regardless of what they did in life and whether they repent or not, then that is in fact a heresy.
@@brianfarley926I was referring to what’s said in Lumen Gentium.
@@themobbit9061 Where within LG are you getting Universalism in that document? It’s taught as a heresy.
Not saying you’re wrong but I’d like to read where you’re pulling that from
Quick answers here but the issue with the geographical problem seems problematic from our human perspective but from God who knows all things including who would be His people “the Saints” God could easily place them whom He knew who would believe and who wouldn’t in the place and time they would be in, in order for them to hear and accept or not hear and God knowing they wouldn’t believe even if they heard it or not. It’s only a problem when you look at it from our limited knowledge. I could go in deeper with scripture but that should help. God bless you all in Jesus Christ’s Holy Name!
Why does being able to believe in His word requires living in a particular time and place for each person? Id like to think that God might have made the truth of his nature even more apparent and inavoidable, avoiding then this arbitrary geograpich distribution situation we have. Plus, this godly perspective just makes the problem worse, if God know who is going to chose him and be saved and who isnt before the creation, why even bother creating the portion of humanity that wouldnt be saved? Wouldnt be more loving for humanity just preventing the people that wouldnt believe in Him from existing in the first place, instead of putting the world in motion in a way that He knew would inevitably condemn a portion of humanity not to be saved?
To OP: Or, Social conditioning is a huge factor in one's beliefs which has been repeatedly demonstrated by social science. What is more likely here?
@@pCadavez Just as God made an example of Himself in dying an horrific, underserved death to rescue even His enemies out of sin and death, God is gong to make an example of those who hate Him. He does it with everyone to some degree but every now and then He lifts someone up to great power so that their rebellion is on display when He crushes them. He did this to pharaoh in the exodus, He did it to the invisible powers and principalities when Jesus was crucified and He will do it to antichrist at the end of this age. Even as He puts these wicked rulers on display and in position of power to cause mass oppression and misery, the people still often as not curse God, accuse His character and blame Him. God will ultimately prove that rebels get exactly what they deserve and that those who are saved deserved exactly the same fate but for God's incredible, undeserved mercy which they valued enough to repent and receive.
In the new heavens and new earth, no human will ever doubt God's character or commitment again.
What a BS cop out
@@Chad-xs2delmao Ikr?
Alex and Cameron do a good job exploring this from a current time frame perspective but seem to have left out the historical implications of the challenge.
Even granting inhalation and eternal reward for unwittingly following the will of the father, For at least 1460 years the peoples of the Americas were without the gospel.
So if the christian teachings of:
1. God is calling all men to repentance
2. God loves all men equally
3. The preaching of the gospel is the path to salvation
How could god not provide the gospel to the peoples of two whole continents for nearly 1500 years?
One may say that they could follow the will of the father, as Cameron put it, but then why is the preaching of the gospel necessary? Something seems to break in common evangelical theology.
Alex is right. It should be troubling to us.
Therefore, we should do what our Lord commanded and go make disciples of all nations, even at the cost of our very lives. God is VERY concerned for the salvation of the nations for which he sacrificed his one and only Son. His plan A is for us to tell them. If there is a plan B, he did not tell us. If he did not tell us, it is none of our business.
We can speculate all day, but if our speculations are excuses for not going and doing what our Lord said, we are deceived. He never promised it would be easy. The blood of Christians is the way the gospel has spread for two thousand years, and nothing has changed, especially our apathy and disobedience. Let the blame be on us, and only us, whenever men die having never heard about their Savior. We will give an account.
No, this god isn’t at all concerned.
@@Bomtombadi1 the cross says otherwise. He did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all. What more could he give? You sit and blaspheme the one who died for you. You despise him who made you and holds your every breath. By hating him, you hate the whole world-everything he made; you even hate yourself, but still he loves you. He who defines love. He is the only one who has ever really loved you. Every kindness you have ever experienced is from him, every sunrise, every refreshing breeze, and now he calls to back to him, if you would only listen. If you would only receive the free gift he offers you, which he purchased at great cost to himself. How will you escape if you don’t listen?
@@NomosCharisSo He killed himself for something He Himself did so He could save us from Himself? Doesnt make sense to me.
Plus he knew many would reject him and go to hell. The disadvantage was known to God all this time. He knew that by bringing in life, there was the potential of having people end up in Hell for eternity and yet chose to create the world as it is and as it will be.
Then some would tell me its all about free will and love. But what about the angels, they have free will and some disobeyed God and yet... there was no need to create this world. They seem perfectly capable of loving and hating
“So He killed himself for something He Himself did so He could save us from Himself? Doesnt make sense to me.”
Part of your answer is the Trinity. Your question ignores the Trinity and implies a kind of Unitarianism or Modalism. The truth is that the Father gave us his Son, who offered his life back to the Father as a holy sacrifice, by the power of the Spirit. They are three distinct persons, yet one God.
In response to your second point, it is sufficient to quote Scripture:
Romans 9:19-24,
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
In other words, God desires to show both his love and his justice, his judgment and his compassion, his wrath and his mercy, his power and his tenderness. Those who reject him will glorify one, and those who repent and come to him will receive the other. He has the right to do as he pleases with those who rebel against him.
It’s interesting that these are exactly the same objections he says he is struggling with today. Clearly, he’s just not convinced by the myriad Christian theologians he’s directly dialogued with. I wonder what would convince him .
God revealing himself in such a way that one would become convinced. The pro-theiest arguments, while sometimes interesting, are ultimately unconvensing to many of us.
@@tex959Because you dont want to believe
@@axderka I wish Christianity was true. it's one reason I still listen to theistic arguments.
Evidence.
It's interesting how Alex has a theology of his own that he considers the most plausible, even though he isn't a believer in that theology. That's steelmanning.
the·ol·o·gy
noun
noun: theology
the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
"a theology degree"
Alex, by definition, does NOT have a theology.... you need to freshen up your English skills.
@@ImHeadshotSniper According to the Oxford Languages which google uses as the source for their English definitions (google: "theology", and it should come up), a secondary definition of theology is: "religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed."
It is in that sense that I'm using the word here. I guess you were unaware of this sense of the word, but it's never too late to learn ;)
@@truthmatters7573 ahh pick and choose a dictionary for your convenience.
i did however look up Oxford dictionary's definition of Theology, and it says "theology
noun
/θiˈɒlədʒi/
/θiˈɑːlədʒi/
(plural theologies)
[uncountable] the study of religion and beliefs"
you're literally wrong, so who needs to learn?
@@ImHeadshotSniper Seems like you have some reading comprehension problems. I told you how to find the definition (google: theology) and google gets their definitions from oxford languages, not the oxford dictionary.
I'm not cherry picking either, merriam webster lists the same definition ( "a theological theory or system, or a distinctive body of theological opinion" ).
By now an honest person would have admitted that they were wrong and that I was correct in my usage of the wrord theology, but something about the way you replied makes me doubt you have the capacity for critical reflection. I'd be pleasantly surprised if you did admit that you were wrong and way out of line to talk so arrogantly and condescendingly, but honestly, it's fine if you want to remain ignorant and double down on your mistakes. Ignorance is bliss after all and only by basking in your ignorance can you feel superior to others.
EDIT: and even the oxford learner's dictionary lists the secondary definition of theology as : "a set of religious beliefs",
So does cambridge dictionary: "a set of beliefs about a particular religion"
So far every dictionary I've looked at includes the definition of theology that I used.
@@truthmatters7573 you are incorrectly classifying a science as a "religious" based belief system when it is not.
do yourself a favour and google "religion". it is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods."
science is not a religious belief, because it is not belief or worshipping of a superhuman being. that is what religion is.
science is the strict filtration of positive evidence based conclusions as a means of building knowledge. you can not build knowledge with faith, because faith (in a religion) is a mental forfeit and a complete rejection of reality.
This objection kind of reminds me of the ‘If God real, why evil?’ argument. I was born in India in a Hindu family and moved to Canada at age 5. My dad got saved in 2011 and my entire family got saved shortly after. We don’t know how events line up for people to get saved or why certain people have fertile soil for receiving the Gospel. That doesn’t have any bearing on the divinity of Jesus and the historical event of the Resurrection.
Yeah I think it's related also. You could almost answer it the same way the 'why evil' question is answered: if there's no God then why is there any good at all? Likewise, how do we really explain how there are Saudis who convert to Christianity at all?
@@Jim-Mc That is an absurd answer. The existence of “good” as a human concept and the non-existence of a God are perfectly compatible. The existence of “evil” as a supra-human concept and a benevolent God seem highly incompatible.
But besides that, the question remains: Why does God allow people to be born in places where the never even hear of Christianity?
@@SP-qi8ur Because the existence of anything at all is good. And evil is the absence of that. It has no existence of itself. If we 'do evil' we really just mean we fell short of good in some way. So the question is not why does evil exist, since it doesn't. The question is why does any of the good creation exist if there is no God?
@@Jim-Mc My answer is: I don’t know why “good” exists. But I don’t need to imagine a creator behind it. I can imagine how what we call good might be the mere product of chance.
What I cannot imagine is an omnipotent, benevolent being who allows for the existence of what He Himself defines as “evil”.
@@SP-qi8ur Then my answer would be he's not allowing evil, that's why the universe exists at all. Unless your position is that it's no better to exist than not exist.
Not absolutely; but maybe, generally yes? 🤔
Belief doesn't mean you know exactly. It means you live your life as if it's true, and you have faith and hope in the teachings you choose to follow. That is belief
Would love to join this discussion ... these kids are soooo naive. ...
Why is there a Hell? ... Because of the mountains of bodies the murderers have left in their wake ...
That's why ...
I love Molinism (Acts 17:26,27).
Yes, yes yes. It absolutely does. For all religions.
Including atheism
@@newglof9558 atheism is not a religion. But yeah, if your parents are atheists/secular, good chance you are too.
@@LomuHabanaatheism is the easiest religion to troll
@@newglof9558atheism isn’t a religion tho lol why do you insist on repeating something that is demonstrably false?
@@UgliestManOnEarth-69 Because deep inside their brains, they know "religion" has strong negative implications and would rather project that onto others.
ONE BILLION - 80% of HINDUS in India - confirm this.
240 MILLION - 86% of MUSLIMS in Indonesia - confirm this.
LOL
Easy there, Pradesh.
*shake the dust off*
first and foremost, Jesus was rejected, despised and even crucified to death by His own fellowmen, not just in nazareth
so, it follows that despite widespread evangelization of Christianity (including internet), Jesus will always be rejected & despised upon by various cultures & tribes
do you remember the counsel of Jesus to "shake the dust off your feet" or do not "throw the pearls to the pigs" or "give dogs what is sacred" when people are not interested to hear the gospel (the good news)?
Wow after listening to this Alex the athiest sounds more scriptural and a gospel preacher than the Christian Cam. Not that I think Alex is right, but he just seems to communicate a bit more of the Christian message than Cam in this clip.
Acts 17:26-27 says "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us"
So it seems that God creates people whom He knows will believe in Him in places where they will come to know the true God. By extension, it's possible that those who never hear the gospel would not believe in Him even if they did hear it. Scripture also teaches that the severity of judgement is proportional to the level of revelation that a person rejects (e.g. John 9:41 and John 15:22). As such, it would actually be an act of mercy to stay hidden from those whom God knows will not believe because if He reveals Himself to them and they reject Him, He will have to judge them more severely.
However, it is also worth noting that people in the old testament did not hear the gospel but trusted God and they are saved because of it. For example, Romans 4 says "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
This can be paired with what Paul says in Roman 1: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them." So given that everyone has a general revelation of God, it may be possible to be saved by seeking and believing in God even without hearing the gospel. Similarly, in Acts 17, Paul says that the men of Athens were worshipping God without knowing who He is. Worshipping doesn't mean someone is saved but it does show that you can recognize the true God without hearing the gospel.
Regarding Alex, if his unbelief is truly non resistant (which it seems to be, to me at least) then I believe that He will come to know and believe in Jesus someday. God may be using Alex's current skepticism to reach more non believers so that when God finally brings Alex to faith, it will have that much more of a salvific impact
I welcome any responses to this comment but I can't guarantee a reply your comment. Lastly, I'd like to implore anyone reading this that if you do not already know Jesus, i ask you to seek Him with sincere heart as He says "Ask and you shall receive, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be open to you'. God bless you
At the end of the day this boils down to pure fan fiction tho. It’s not shown in scripture you are extrapolating it. I feel like I could just as easily use scripture to extrapolate that everyone is saved because of Jesus and cite specific verses similarly to do so. But that’s the beauty of scripture. It’s vague so it’s easy to connect dots how people see fit.
@@Pyromancers I disagree, I have cited the verses to support the theodicy. We make inferences from data all the time, even if the data don't explicitly say it. This is not only true for theology but even other fields like science. If an inference is valid and can be shown to demonstrate a theory, there's no reason why we should reject it. You're welcome to extrapolate universalism from the Bible but I don't think it will be a valid inference.
@@KD-eh3qo at the end of the day it’s all just another set of assumptions made by another person that is sure they are right about vague verses.
@@Pyromancers You could say that about basically anything. That's not really helpful. Additionally, virtually every historian would disagree with you about that, regardless of whether they are theists or atheists
@@Pyromancers You could say that about basically anything. That's not really helpful. Also virtually every historian would disagree with you
I'm surprised that neither of you brought up the impact of evangelism on the propagation of religion. Christianity has had a mission focus from the beginning, which is why you can see such a broad geographical impact. China has one of the fasting-growing Christian churches in the world, along with other parts of Southeast Asia, simply because there has been a steady influx of Christian missionaries. Moreover, Buddhism is also a proselytizing religion. Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism. While Hinduism has never had a missionary focus, Buddhism felt the need to establish itself in India and elsewhere, which led them to begin aggressive missionary activity almost from the outset. This enabled Buddhists to distinguish themselves in the midst of a geographically Hindu country.
Good point. Christians are commanded to spread and are therefore more likely to have more aggressive missionary goals which translates into more converts around the world.
That's one reason we don't see Judaism spreading across the globe since there is zero pressure to evangelize.
This rather only shows that missionaries accepted in their hearts the fact that God completely failed in making connection with most people in the world and this has to be corrected. It's of course a futile correction as most people will die before the "true word" is spread to them by missionaries.
@@piotr.ziolo. From the beginning in the garden, God appointed humans in priestly roles and partnered with them, sharing His rulership of creation, rulership with real consequences for obedience and disobedience alike. That carries through the entire biblical text to the present where the nations are called by God to proclaim the good news that God has appointed His Son as the king who will judge all people. Furthermore, they are called to love God in a way that provokes our Jewish brethren to jealousy. Nonetheless, anyone who refuses to submit to king Jesus - Jew and gentile alike - will be held accountable for his rebellion against the rightful king and judge. Instead of faux-worry about those who haven't heard this good news, you should focus on making the right response to God since you have heard it.
God has always revealed Himself to those who considered Him worth knowing and many former-Muslims with no connection to Christians will attest Jesus revealing Himself to them in dreams and visions. Those who despise God never seem to find Him though and spend their days on Christian UA-cam proclaiming their lack of belief in a god and yet perpetually misrepresenting God's character and distorting the relatively simple biblical narrative.
@@MichaelWilliams-eq4kt Well, no, he did not reveal himself. That's the whole point. You can live in denial, but this way you will not help those people who are open to the possibility of God existing, yet finding only his silence and no evidence for his existence, despite listening to many Christians and reading a lot (much more than most Christians in fact).
@@piotr.ziolo. Sure He did - at many times and in many ways, throughout history and down to this present day. God resists the proud so you being here online whining about "no evidence" instead of admitting your rebellion to Jesus in your room like He said you should is a good indicator that you aren't interested in what God is offering, which is amnesty for your crimes against Him and His kingdom. Either admit that you are a rebel, you need God's forgiveness and grace to obey His righteous commands, or just admit that you have no intention of repenting and stop pretending that you want to find God. Only sick people want the doctor so are you sick or what?
WOW. Cameron says you can be saved without conscience knowledge and belief?!
One step closer to agnostic? 😂
@@tex959
We'll see. Supposedly he became Catholic. That might have influenced him.
@@kurtgundyGood possibility. I don't know how accurate this is but I've always considered Catholics to be a bit more liberal with theology.
@@tex959That's not a step closer to agnostic. It's actually not that crazy of a view for Christians to have historically speaking.
The inhabits of North Sentinel Island have entered the chat!
Yes.
I really appreciate Cameron's last comments about the updated Pascal's Wager in response to a "unresistant non-believer". Such a person could essentially live as a Christian and potentially be saved eventually.
The question then is why an "unresistant non-believer" doesn't do that if they'd really like Christianity to be true or even wish it were true?
Given atheism, Christianity would mostly just be one way to live amongst many, but certainly, there wouldn't be anything wrong with living as a Christian anyway. Indeed, there couldn't be.
Pascal's Wager can be applied to any religion.
@trevornunn3285 No, it can't. Buddhism, for example.
@@thoughtfulpilgrim1521 That would be a highly blasphemous position for a Christian. You would basically justify Islam that way
@@SP-qi8ur What's blasphemous about it? That I say "Oh, taste and see that the Lord is good!"? (Psalm 34:8a ESV)
Besides, I'm not using it as a justification but a choice of how to live. Not that it matters in atheism (which is nihilistic that way). I also happen to reject Islam on factual and logical grounds (See plethora of material by Acts17Apologetics, Dr. David Wood).
That’s why Christians have missionaries to spread the faith.
Spread the mass delusion.
Not only missionaries, there used to be plenty of swords, too.
@@Chad-xs2debrilliant chad. Anything else
@@bit7389 yes sometimes you need swords to spread the faith when there are hostile powers against you.
@@filibosan Missionaries + swords. Some people would call that cultural genocide. But I suppose it depends on your point of view. If you really believe you are saving souls from eternal hellfire, any means seem justified, I guess. How you work in "turn the other cheek", I don't know.
He gave a big pie to one group so that group can share the half with the other group. That's called 'love'.
If you perceive things in a way that being born in Xian family as gifted, try to see it as 'missionary calling to show True Love' to others. If not, you failed. If you think God was not fair, you failed.
First viewer here.
And first to make a comment.
Attaboy!!!! Congratulations!!! Woot !!!!
@@mkl2237 Way to go sport! Keep it up lil guy!
@@electrical_cord I think you meant that for Emmanuel
@@mkl2237 Just egging on with you lol
@@electrical_cord 💜
People are stubborn and stone hearted. It is basic in this world alex
Religion is 100% spread as any meme is spread… through culture. If you were never introduced to Christian teachings, there is a ZERO percent chance that you will spontaneously become one. The only way an individual adopts a religion is that they 1) are introduced to one, 2) finds that religions’ myths more compelling than others they may have been introduced to, and 3) is able to suspend their disbelief in spite of facts, evidence, and common sense to the contrary.
Some serious flaws with not believing and yet being saved from the Judgement to come. Jesus distinctly says if you are not for Him, you are against Him. Another part is what are you being saved from? Non-existence? You really do not stop existing since your soul, that breath of life God gives you is imparted from Him is Life and eternally exists. So many issues with not believing Jesus and still think you are saved is just incoherent in itself when Jesus says you must be born again to receive the Kingdom of Heaven or that relationship with Jesus. It is clear that the guest on this show is not a believer and is not saved from the Judgement to come.
Cam, you’re not a Christian because you’re a Texan.
You’re a Texan because you’re a Christian.
You have to be a Christian to be called a Texan?
@@philb4462 No. God in His omniscience knew that if He put Cam in a certain place (in this case Texas) at a certain point in time, he would become a Christian.
So God did it, and Cam became a Christian.
Because he was born in Texas.
Alex is wrong. Our birthplaces are not random.
Our birthplace doesn’t dictate our beliefs.
Our beliefs dictate our birthplace.
“From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and He determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their lands.
“God intended that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us.” (Acts 17:26,27)
@@Mark-cd2wf
"Our beliefs dictate our birthplace."
Do you have any evidence for that?
@@philb4462 The verse I just quoted.
@@Mark-cd2wf Seriously? A verse from the Bible is evidence? You have phenomenally low standards for evidence.
Why would god(s) hide themselves? You can’t counter the geographic argument. As this conversation just proved.
assuming that one experiences never ending hell if they fail to acquire the right beliefs and attitudes prior to physical death (which I reject a la Talbott, Parry, Reitan/Kronen etc)
still, a defender of the original view might say (a la Craig) that those unsaved people in other places, WERE they in the “right” circumstances, still would not have accepted Christ.
13:53 ermmmmmm..... if someone is only 50% sure that God exists, why in the world would they devote 100% of their effort to worshipping them? the bar for truth doesn't need to be lowered, that's stupid. the bar needs to be raised to 100%, because that's the ONLY way anyone can be sure of ANYTHING.
Absolute certainty is an illusion. Humans are highly influenced by their genetics and environment. Tons of psychological and sociological studies, support that claim.
Then, pile on to that, the fallibility of human reasoning and highly influential cognitive biases.
If*** certainly gives you psychological comfort, then, fine... All the best for you 👍
I don't like the way Alex formulated it. We don't know who was not saved, so it cannot be statistical indicator.
Hes fooling himself if he thinks hes not resistant. He apparently knows the scriptures well enough to know that
1. the human heart is deceptive. (Jer 17:9).
2. No one naturally wants or seeks God. Rom 3:11.
3. No has an excuse for their unbelief. (Rom 1:20).
4. God is a just judge. (Gen 18:25). No one in hell will ever say, i don't deserve to be here. Just as the rich man is Jesus parable didn't complain about injustice (Luke 16). It may have been CS Lewis who said "the gates of hell are locked from the inside."
Alex doesn't assume or have a good reason to believe that man-authored theology is divine or inerrant.
Correction: 'man-written' rather than 'man-authored.'
@@tex959
For all his intelligence he's making a lot of fallacious assumptions. As you seem to be also.
@@tex959
Nothing I said above is man authored theology.
@@kurtgundy Fair point. I should have said man-written rather than man-authored.
On your other point, you're welcome to point out a specific fallacy.
@@tex959
For example, he says...if I were a Christian....the implication there is that he understands Christian theology. He does seem to have a good understanding of somethings. But he says he's non resistant. Really? Does he claim to understand himself better than God himself? Scripture says NO ONE seek God. Rom 3:11. And the human heart is deceptive. Jer 17:9.
0:43 false. to claim that Christians are the only religion which is "not centralized" is completely false. there Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. in several other countries, possibly every single country. (which has religious freedoms)
even if Christianity was the LEAST centralized religion, how exactly does this prove that it did not originate from a central location?
I agree but it would also add to what you say. Christianity is highly focused on proselytizing and missionary work. The religions that put the most focus on those things are sure to be the ones that spread. Judaism does not spread, globally, because there is zero theological incentives for Jews to spread that religion to anyone in any country.
Summary; if proselytizing is the focus of a particular religion it will be much more likely to spread, especially today, given modern technology.
If God is unarguably the most important issue in anyone's life and you don't know God is the creator of the creation surely is because the cult wants you ignorant believing in the impossible to hurt you. Does the intelligent creator of the creation exist? The right answer is always God is eternal because the creator is uncreated. Reality is eternal, something always existed. If you believe the idea of God is fantasy is because you are deceived. The idea of God belongs to philosophy or rational thinking and all cultures have an understanding of the intelligent creator of the creation, that atheists don't believe exists. I was atheist too many years and atheists keep saying that i don't know what is atheism being ridiculous. Atheism is blind faith in the impossible, the belief inmune to arguments that all reality is the universe. Atheists with unchangeable minds don't know what is God and believe it is impossible to be wrong. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. God is easy to explain and impossible to understand. God is nothingness that created everything from self from eternal existence, a miracle by nature impossible to understand because we can not comprehend infinitude. God is the Mind Healer that experience everything because is everything that ever existed, exist and would exist, the perfect living entity that the kalam cosmological argument talks about.
Just waking up for the day, but didn't have to be bothered or think too hard on this. The Great Commission is about going out and spreading the Gospel. It's also a direction from Jesus Himself, which directly implies awareness of unreached groups in different regions of the world from the start of Christianity. That awareness is part of Christian Scripture. People in unreached areas converted. People in just about every place on this planet are still converting to Christianity, and it's not just how they were raised or where they were raised.
Might as well say that atheists are atheists because of those around them who raised them to believe and think in certain ways. On some level it too can be predictable. Does that bother your atheism a bit? That nurture and indoctrination impacts your own beliefs? But does that really mean that you don't have any valid reasons for believing what you do? What about those who were atheists and are now theists and even Christians? 🤔
Yes, I am almost certainly an atheist because I was born into an atheist family. Nurture and indoctrination must have a large bearing on my belief. And that doesn’t make atheism any less logically consistent.
Your belief is absurd because an omnipotent, all-loving being apparently decided to drop large groups of the population in places where they’ll never hear of Christianity nor have a chance to decide for themselves.
My atheism being a product of my environment (or even my indoctrination) is, indeed, a piece of evidence in its favor
I am a Muslim. And I find that because Christian Faith expects you to believe in that which is irrational and illogical, you really can't assess the situation of Belief accurately. This also applies to any other belief as well as Atheism.
It doesn't really matter where you are from no one can really believe that which is Unbelievable. It doesn't matter Where you were born and what affinities you may have to the local "Beliefs".
@@Toronado2 islam is irrational too
@SP-qi8ur
I "think" you are not putting on your thinking cap. There is a difference between Irrational/Illogical and Not Believable.
@SP-qi8ur
This is not necessarily for you but for others. For instance One can believe or Not believe in Aliens. But it would not mean that to Believe in Aliens, would be Irrational or Illogical. But those things that ARE Irrational and Illogical can NOT be Believed in, even though the claimant may swear up and down that they Believe in it. That would not make them credible. Example; Lots of people running around claiming they are Jesus.
I'm an Indian Christian
yes.. you speak english becuase you are in english speaking country.
You didn't quite get salvation right. Philip told the Ethiopian eunuch exactly how to get saved. Acts 8:37 NKJV. Read all of Acts 8 for more context. The King James Bible can still be trusted. The secular world is messing around with a lot of very bad translations. The proper translations are getting fewer. Philip told the eunuch that he must believe that Jesus is the Son of God and in His resurrection. Hell is a place people choose as there are two options Heaven & Hell. Hell is the total absence of every good thing that God does for us, for His glory. He said you must accept faith like a child, in the manner children except gifts. They don't ask mom or dad why he/she is getting gifts. They know it's something you have not earned, but given by loving parents. God imparts grace that way. He died on a cross that our transgressions would be blotted out. All you have to do is what Philip told the Ethiopian. Jesus wants us to choose Him, so He can give us eternal life in a paradise that we can't comprehend on earth, as Paul said after he was given a glimpse of Heaven. Jesus is love. That's part of His character. The Bible makes a clear distinction between that and God's exercising of love, which is described in John 3:16. Love being part of Him necessitates that those who He made must have free will to choose Him, for love can't be forced on someone. Jesus walked out of that tomb as evidence that he was resurrected. More than 500 witnesses saw Him after the crucifixion, even showing Thomas a hole in His hand where a nail was driven through. He wants us to live forever with us. We are dust unfit to even be in the presence of God the Father, or this body will die. That's why Jesus is also giving us new bodies that can do anything His resurrection body can do. We will just never come close to understanding all of God. Jesus will be the King for eternity. He wants to give you a real paradise. Hell was not created for humans, but for lucifer and his angels. Humans go there because they refuse to acknowledge that Jesus is who He says He is. Jesus will tell the Father on judgment day that He knows you (if you repented), and you are protected from punishment through the righteousness of Jesus. Those who despise Him and never repent of that chose the cruelest of places. They are under the impression that their lack of belief in God, Heaven, and Hell will excuse or extract them from even the existence of Hell. It's real, whether someone believes it or not.
At the very end of the conversation, there are comments that border on a works-based notion of salvation. I noted that too.
Thx for sharing your thoughts
@@mkl2237you’d need to define works. Most Protestants can’t even agree what a work is.
Within Catholicism works is far more nuanced. Like works of the law vs works in response to Gods Grace vs works of Christian obedience etcetera
@@brianfarley926 fair enough. I hear ya. Not worth the energy to pursue it that much but of course, it’s not as easily characterized as I did. Fair enough
Thank goodness you are here to give us the proper translation. 😂
More analysis should be done on the purpose of the slogans. The purpose of the "birthplace dictates religion" slogan is to stereotype, belittle, and dehumanize believers as mindless sheep wholly shaped by outside social forces and pressures and incapable of independent or nuanced thought. It's a hostile maneuver designed to marginalize and discredit believers in the eyes of society at large and should be recognized and dealt with as such.
But this "slogan" is true. The correlation is so high, any statistician would love to see such a strong relation in their data. Moreover, in this case we know this is causation, which is even rarer. You shouldn't be so offended by a fact.
The meaning that you read from that is correct. Most believers are mindless sheep, just like most non-believers where they are the majority. People just did not evolve to ponder on such questions. They evolved to believe what their social group believes.
Ans still your conclusion from this fact is not the only one. The second conclusion is what Alex said. And this is the one that is truly troubling for those non-sheep believers.
@@piotr.ziolo. Even if it is statistically factual, it is anti-religion propaganda because it omits the part about birthplace dictating non-belief as much as it does belief. I would argue that "non-sheep believers" (your words) are in fact "truly troubled" by increasing, tangible efforts to marginalize and stigmatize them, and many are ready and willing to fight back in concrete ways. The time is up for Christians being secular culture's doormats.
@@dirtydevil I clearly stated why I used the word "propaganda."
@@dirtydevil Read the thread for context. The obvious propagandistic double standard being employed against religious people and the development of their belief is discussed therein.
@@dirtydevilwho said propaganda can't be factual?
Does being a you tuber dictate wether you pull stupid faces?
1.The fact that there are any Christians in Thailand or Saudi Arabia at all is a miracle. 2. Skeptic has a latent underlying worldview that society is effectively God. Which like many, colors the way they interpret data.
But there are also Muslims in Thailand and America, is that also a miracle?
The ting is, everyone would be Christian if it weren't for those pesky fallen angels. In fact, Christianity wouldn't even exist in its current state because there would be no need for a Christ. We would all just be living in paradise like Adam and Eve forever.
Of course, God knows that even if that were the case, some people would sin just like Lucifer and the other angels, but they would do so on their own accord without deception involved, so they would not be saved. That's why God calls Judgment day a "harvest" because He will separate the bad apples from the good apples.
@@jacoblee5796, no. Religious freedom is a core tenant of America. It isn't of countries like Saudi Arabia.
@@jacoblee5796I don't mean miracle like walking on water, I mean it's an outlier that needs accounting for. And yeah Muslims there need accounting for too because they're also outliers.
@@flyingphoenix113 There are also gay people is Saudi Arabia, does that count?
I don’t think annihilationism fixes the problem Alex. If I go to heaven and my friends are annihilated god is still a douche not really taking seriously the idea that none should be lost and heaven then sucks. The idea that skepticism is the only truly unforgivable sin is nuts to me. You could be a murderous child abuser and go to heaven just not a skeptic.
Salvation is not based on being a good person or any of our own merit. If righteousness came by the works of the law then Christ died in vain. Also, He did die for everyone including those who don't know that He did.
That's dumb.
Those who don’t know that he did are going to burn in hell. Wouldn’t that make his death in vain?
Well no, a people in a place make a culture. I'm a Cajun from southern Louisiana, but I'm a Pagan.
You're a pagan because you have access to the internet, not because of your Cajun culture.
@@newglof9558 it was a books a million in Houma, I didn't have internet til I was much older.
His eyes have not been opened yet. Romans 1:22. God has a plan and if you earnestly seek Him and not seek to know everything of God from a logical standpoint (because we are not God and cannot ever fully comprehend His ways) you may be saved and receive the Holy Spirit. This is where faith comes in. I may not fully understand every single thing in the Bible, but I do know we have a Creator and I do believe He came down in the person of Jesus to take on our sin so we may be forgiven. When I earnestly cried out to God, I felt His spirit. I pray He will reveal himself to you. Because you do know the gospel but you choose to reject it based on the fact that you don't fully understand it and I believe God will judge that as a rejection of Him. Pray and ask for eyes to see and ears to hear. Lean not on your own understand for our understanding is finite.
Sure it does.😂
Not a single atheist is generous come on lets be actually generous here theyre only at least somewhat less of an asshole when theyre in person who knows Christianity more than the regular doer of small Christianity compulsively. True with alex o connor and Drew Mccoy and Jonathan long haired guy. They really don't come off as nice nor charitable. But im feeling charitable today so at least when in debate theyre just a tea spoon nicer and a cup less condescending but its still there. Im surprised to see Alex'O Connor actually well mannered when in front of Justin From Premier Unbelievable and Here with Cameron Burtuzzi.
What would it take for an atheist to be generous?
@@bdnnijs192not that I've seen including Aaron Ra. That's just by their obviously viewable behavior. And Matt dillahunty they get agitated as if another man took his cake so he can't win the argument/discussion. What would it take though? Objectively not be resistant as Alex'O Connor is and Of course I meant to say "The New Atheism" There is one other atheist that's a classical atheist forgot his name but this old man rejects that Christ's resurrections for his own several points. But he judges Richard Dawkins and Christopher hitches that they'd fail A Simple Theology course of Christianity or any even Islam. The "Popular Apologetics Christians Ministers" they're well endowed in Philosophy so as to not miss the mark intellectually with atheism Islam Christianity and every other religion by skimming mainly other religions apart from where the Christian was born usually. I don't know of many broadly Atheisms that would be generous conservatively to learn of Christianity more than your average "Christian" who labels themselves which doesn't make them a Christian. Im judging by Christ's standard and of course we all obviously fail. But on the merit in which they exude hatred and vitriol? I can at least give credit where credit is due and say Alex'O Connor was as I describe most atheists but he's changed though I haven't seen his recent videos so idk how he puts on difference in attitudes when Infront of Christians or talking to his camera but I'm just glad to actually see a Popular atheist willing to look at if Christianity is true he probably become to the conclusion theism creationism is true but many not Christianity.
@@IsraelCountryCube
That's a long comment without structure. I think I recognise 2 points what it takes for someone to be generous. (And I think Christians fail both)
1. Knowing more about Christianity than Christians. Most Christians don't understand their own religion, and understand atheism even less. Not even mentioinng Islam and other religions. And Christian apologetics usually have a poor grap of atheism AND probably fail a basic science course.
2. Spewing Vitrol.
Honestly even the new atheists are very polite. As far as i know it's actually devout Christians who freely spit vitroll by claiming anyone not Christian deserves to burn in hel (and gloating over this claim) and the general demanor towards 'sinners' like homosexuals.
@ OP:
Do you consider psychological and sociological studies that repeatedly demonstrate this fact: ..... if people are challenged on deeply-held beliefs, those individuals are much more likely to infer negative intentions and agendas from those that are challenging their beliefs?
You may consider yourself rationally charitable especially considering angry atheists (anti-theists) like Matt dillahunty or Aaron Ra; however, are you considering all the psychological factors rooted in our interpretation of one's intentions and motivations when we are directly challenged on deeply-held beliefs?
Dude is too smart for his own good, good Insight but the design of Christianity is salvation is based on faith
I don't have a definition of that "line" of who is saved and who isn't, my suggestion is to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and spread the good news of what He did for us, without that faith in Jesus, I can't tell you for sure who is saved and who isn't
Let's say that the concept of "Faith" is a good thing or even a virtuous thing; however you choose to define the word. If so, why not allow Faith to be a good thing for other religions or belief systems, in general?
If you don't allow Faith to be a good thing outside of Christianity then you're operating with a double standard. Of course you won't see a double standard because as a you believe, as other religions believe, which is that every individual, in their own mind, has the "true" belief system.
@@tex959 I challenge you to search out the Biblical definition of "faith", only 1 place in the Bible is it referred to in the sense that you are talking about, as a tool, the concept of faith goes deeper than how people understand it today
@@Clbhrdwck I appreciate the reply and with all due respect, the definition of faith is completely irrelevant to my point. My point is one of a potential double standard. I'm happy to Grant any definition you like because that is not the argument that I was attempting to make.
@@tex959 and much respect in return, but I guess I don't get the point your trying to get at, I agree that people in other religions can personally benefit from having "faith" (as it is modernly understood). But believing something or in something for the sake of just believing it, is not at all what the Bible calls for us to do, yes it can be a gift that's distributed by God, where we choose to believe something is true, and in turn that belief gives that person a driving force to persist towards a goal, regardless of the trueness of the initial reason for that faith. That being said, the Biblical definition, that is predominant in the Bible, equates faith with knowledge, reason, fact, understanding. As your knowledge of God increases, your faith in God increases. When you gain more logical reasons for God to exist, your faith in God will increase. In the case of Alex though, his knowledge of the Bible is extensive, but what is lacking is that (in my opinion) he is refusing to put his faith in God. We all have the ability to choose to have faith, regardless of the extent of our knowledge.
The way you all readily accept Alex's fake humility and passive aggressiveness is quite amusing. The man is a Humanist, plain and simple. He has come to the conclusion that morality is subjective, and his primary objective is to convince others to adopt his perspective on morality. He pretends to genuinely seek the truth of Christianity, but in reality, he has already concluded that it cannot be true. However, he recognizes that he will be more persuasive if he appears to be sincerely searching for religious truth. The whole reason for him studying theology was to have better arguments against it. By combining his British accent with his gentle demeanor, he has concocted a formula to effectively influence many individuals with his Humanist views.
Your perception of fake humility and passive aggressiveness is likely a result of your bias.
Alex has softened his view on theism and seems genuinely interested in an honest dialogue.
But why dissect his arguments when you can simply attack the person and Poison the well from the very beginning?
@@tex959Claims I "poison the well." Starts your critique of me with said tactic.
Which argument should I address? The current state of the discourse is that Alex has received responses to his moral concerns regarding Christianity, but he remains “unconvinced”. Thus, we find ourselves at an impasse.
I didn’t arrive at my conclusion of him out of nowhere. He believes there is no objective morality, but he also wants his subjective morality to be the norm. So his approach involves criticizing others' worldviews as incoherent and unjustifiable, while being aware that his own position is equally, if not more, unjustifiable. Consequently, he engages in arguments, armed only with his subjective moral arguments, and yet attacks opposing positions as if he believes in an objective morality.
@@CovocNexus You completely missed the point of his arguments. He always points to inconsistencies to other people's views. For instance, assuming that your Christian view of morality is true, then here and here in the Bible you find something which contradicts this view. Or another example - assuming that you're a humanist, then your view on hurting animals is in contradiction with your other views because... And so on. This is what he points to in his discussions.
Does he have his own moral code? Of course. But it's not something he imposes on people. He only says - if you share this moral code with me, then... And on top of that I think he is not a moral relativist. He rather accepts to some extent the view of Sam Harris that we all share an evolutionarily based moral code.
Well I think Cameron accepts and respects Alex for his candor.
I doubt he'd regularly be having Alex about if Alex was being disingenuous etc.
Move along bud.
@@piotr.ziolo. Trust me, I understand the method of critiquing the “internal logic” of a position. If it was just an external logical critique, then the moment anyone gives any logical answer to the problem, then then the critique is no longer valid. This doesn't mean that he has to adopt that particular position, but his argument about the incoherence of the Christian position loses its validity.
You speak as though he isn't attempting to impose his beliefs on others. Have you watched his channel? The primary purpose of his channel is to persuade others to adopt his moral stances on various issues. If you are critiquing someone's position as unjustifiable, then the position you propose should also not be unjustifiable. However, that's precisely what he does; he searches for flaws in other people's morality while being aware that his own position faces similar challenges. This is a common approach taken by subjectivists-they engage with individuals they know to be objectivists and employ logical and emotional arguments to make them question their stance, even though they are aware that their own position is equally unjustifiable.
The thing is, morality is something that, once you believe in it, almost inevitably becomes all-encompassing. It becomes difficult not to impose your morality on others. How can a government be formed, whose purpose is to enforce morality, if you do not desire your morality to be imposed?
Yes. Richard Dawkins said it best. If you were born in India you’d be a Hindu…etc etc etc
Gods not real but some cultures retain a vague belief in God(s) so they will often culturally adopt the beliefs of their culture
All the gods are real and hold dominion in the earth, only the Uncreated Creator Most High God is sovereign and worthy of worship.