Dan Barker v Martin Kuhrt: Is the biblical God a malevolent, misogynistic, sadomasochistic bully?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лют 2025
- Richard Dawkins famously describes the God of the Old Testament as ‘jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully’.
Dan Barker and Rev Martin Kuhrt have both published books defending and refuting Dawkins’ description. They debate three of the charges on today’s show.
For Dan Barker: ffrf.org/about...
For Martin Kurht: www.amazon.co....
USA listeners check out our new USA website for exclusive resources and to support us: www.unbelievabl...
Everywhere else, subscribe to our newsletter and receive the free Unbelievable? e-book ‘In Conversation With…’ www.premier.or... and support the show: resources.prem...
For more faith debates visit www.premierchri...
Facebook / unbelievablejb
Twitter / unbelievablejb
Insta / justin.brierley
I was raised by christian parents. When I started doubting, I really read the bible for the first time, not only the few nice parts I was shown as a child. And it worked, I am an atheist now.
How's it like to perpetually bear the burden of opinion?
You're a foolish heathen. There's a wonderful spot for you in Hell.
nothing makes more atheists than (really) reading the bible.
@@dany_fgI am almost done but still Christian
@@heathersnyder8789ah ok, well there's plenty in Revelation to turn your stomach and mind.
I was a believer and sunday school teacher for many years including taking every bible study class I could and the book of Job was my last. The pastor's wife was leading the study and I asked her how god could do all these things to "his child" just to prove a point to satan? Her only reply was "to prove his power above satan's and besides, god replaced what he allowed satan to take by sevenfold". I'm thinking "Are you kidding me"?! Just like Dan said, "How can you replace 1 child for another"? As a parent, I could not imagine allowing anything bad to happen to my child for any reason. This was when my eyes and mind were opened and I'm happier than I've ever been in my life and secure in knowing that it is all manmade. Job well done Dan Barker! Thank you!
Book v Job well done too
Carl JUNG wrote a book Answer to Job. V interesting
We don't even replace a pet for our kid when one dies. And whenever we do in a sitcom or drama it's always the wrong answer.
Was a believer for thirty years and the sermonizing of the Biblical God’s horrors was a full time job. Dan did a great job
You're both heathen idiots. Your prize awaits in. Hell.
I don’t see how anyone can argue with Dan’s logic. That story about Job is insane
Martin Kuhrt dances around and deflects (makes unrelated, separate points), but he really had no answer to Dan Barker's articulate description and characterization of the Job story. For someone who doesn't presuppose the truth of the Bible, it's clear and obvious that apologists are just rationalizing and defending things for which they have no good answer. The true conclusion is obvious: the Bible is entirely manmade, and the Christian (and Jewish) God is pure fiction. What's notable is that a reasonably good group of fiction writers and philosophers, today, could get together and draft a really good fictional "Bible" for a brand new God, in a completely new religion, and avoid the blatant contradictions and moral problems in the actual Bible----and the new Bible/New Religion would be just as fictional as the actual Bible/Christian God, but the new Bible/New Religion would just be a lot harder to impugn. We're fortunate that the actual Bible's creators/writers/compilers did such a poor job, and so it's very easy to see, as a modern reader, that it's pure fiction.
This is all about where one starts:
#1. If you start from the position that you don't know whether some purported deity is moral or immoral and then go to examine its purported actions/commands, then you can possibly make a determination based on what it purportedly said and did.
#2. If you start from the position that the deity in question can do no wrong and all it says or does MUST be moral, then it doesn't matter what the deity said, commanded or condoned, the conclusion has already been set.
On the other hand, if a person starts from #2 there doesn't seem to be much point in having a conversation about it in the first place since anything anyone suggests to the contrary will inevitably be rejected.
I found this debate and thought the same thing, whats the point of dan even trying. Dan used to be a number two as well which says a lot. I prefer listening to ex believers in these debates than atheist speakers who never believed.
Yes, but you are grossly assuming that those who go with number 1 have an infallible moral compass in everything and that everything they find objectionable ultimately is wrong. This is the height of hubris.
@@ManoverSuperman Yes, it would be, but since it isn't something you've demonstrated, you've just assumed that I've assumed such a thing when I haven't, it's not a problem - at least not for me.
@@ManoverSupermanstop being disingenuous. There are some things that are universally morally not permissible no matter someone’s moral compass. Rape, blatant murder etc.
The point: remember when you feel hopeless, is that maybe and that maybe is high probablity, maybe someone else will hear or see what YOU heard and saw and shake their heads like a dog and free their minds from this stuff. It's not easy if it was taught to you very young, and if you have a good lfe, you think it's your rewards.
I remember the preachers used to say that the poor and down trodden wish for jesus to return the most because they wished for the glorious world he offered. While the rich were having their cake.
But another thing that happens is the poor and down trodden have their eyes opened easier because they know how much they bellieved and none of the bible promises came true. and the upper middle class think they did . And they say you're poor because you don't believe. And it is hard to convince them otherwise when your personal life is not profitable.
Why would god be in favor of capitalism?
Is the biblical God a malevolent, misogynistic, sadomasochistic bully?
YES, YES IT IS.
Luckily, for all of us. It is IMAGINARY
You spelled "Absolutely not" completely wrong.
Martin is like a defense attorney here. He is giving some sort of justification for bad things about God that are indeed depicted in scripture. How sad that a God needs a defense attorney to make himself look good. If he really was All powerful, he could simply explain himself clearly in the first place.
Or maybe people like you are just really bad at interpreting ancient literature and understanding the truth….But no, it must be that God is bad because your feelings are your ultimate guide, and obviously feelings are the ultimate path to all truth….
Thankyou Dan for promoting rational enquiry and critical thinking.
If you call Poisoning the well, showing that you’re incapable of engaging anything related to Christianity remotely beyond the most superficial fundamentals level possible, lying constantly being called out for your mistakes and then doing nothing with double down on those mistakes. Critical thinking then I guess so, if Dan Barker is like the bar for critical thinking we are doomed as a society.
So god makes an entire peaceful group of people flee from their homes so HIS people can take over, and if they fight back they die. THAT is moral to you??!?!
Only if they believe in the same God that gave them the land. So it will never be moral to you, and it was always be moral to them.
Huh America?
Guess everyone needs to go back to Europe Africa etc….
That's exactly why they created this God to justify their devastating other cities and towns and murdering the inhabitants
Of course it’s terrible, the Christian god is a character made up by a toxic patriarchal culture. This god shows that he would murder my daughter for a stupid game, and expect me to worship him anyway.
Christians that delude themselves into believing this is just need some serious mental health assessment, truly that is sociopathic thinking. Don’t trust Christians with anything, they will be the first to start raping and killing the second they stop believing in magical genie god, so maybe we are safer if they stay believing…
I love Job- God side steps with the best of em, when Job asks why? God points out how great God is, but he doesn’t answer the question, why because he’d have to admit he gambled with Satan- a horrible fictional story
I went into this episode as neutral as I could and have not listened to content like this in a while.
But I found some of the responses to Dan Barkers points absolutely frustrating. I don't know how he kept such a calm!
Dan Barker, thank you for pointing out about Job’s children being wiped out and God just replacing them with new ones without remorse, and like the first ones didn’t even matter. I thought I was the only person who thought of that; I’m so glad I’m not the only one! Also, why did God have to prove anything to Satan anyway?!?! And use a faultless innocent man to prove it his point? Uggghh, I hate that book!
This was fascinating! Martin had nothing to offer that negated Dan’s points. As Dan said, all he did was preach and pontificate, desperately flailing around searching for some- any- way to squirm out of the accusations. Good job, Dan! And Justin was a very good mediator
I've always suspected that seminary school taught new preachers to couch their bullshit in cozy language. I'm so glad to see Dan using it defending reality.
All Dan did was show how incompetent he is in interpreting Biblical literature. Only the gullible and biased could honestly find his takes from Job convincing and forceful.
@@ManoverSuperman Wow. Projection at it's finest.
@@davex444
Wow, That's right on the mark
It's people like @keatsiannightingale that scare the living sh!t out of me
Or to say it otherwise
I fear no "God" , Because there is no "God"
But by "God" I do so fear "his / her" messengers
Of any & all religions
Theocracies are spreading across the globe
Televangelists are sucking money from the elderly & poor
with empty promises of an imaginary heaven
I too was a true believer in my childhood and later teens
brainwashed in the Dutch Reformed Church
When I was a child, I believed as a child
I am a child no more
Luckily saw the light at the end of the sixties
Been a happy go lucky Atheist ever since
I was once a Muslim and the more I read the Quran and the Bible it became crystal clear to me that the stories in these books were fables. It’s been proven that Moses was a fictional character and he’s mentioned more in the Quran than the Prophet Muhammad. If Moses was sham then the entire book is. I’ve been done with religion for years and I will NEVER return to any of them! MY WIFE AND I ARE VERY PROUD ATHEISTS!💯✊🏿💪🏿👍🏿
Atheist?
Jesus paid a price at the cross for a reason
@@kronos01ful that's not a valid an argument specially for an atheist who doesn't believe Jesus rose from the dead, if you want to prove a point, your arguments have to be stronger, Jesus "paying the price" won't convince anyone who's isn't already a believer.
There's no evidence Moses existed but I'm not sure how anyone can prove he never existed either.
The Egyptians never took the Israelites or Hebrews as slaves if they did they would have recorded it they were meticulous record keepers
Dan Barker always makes sense, the apologists on the other never do, they just agree the book is sick and think it’s what’s best at the time because god says so. Absolute nonsense, to think how far our knowledge of the sciences and the universe has come yet we are still talking as if a god may exist? Utter madness, wake up already
It would be fascinating to see how much longer Martin was allowed to speak compared to Dan. I know it's petty AF. But it seemed asymmetrical at best
Although I always enjoy any chance to hear Dan speak, I found this "debate" frustrating because Martin seems unable to comprehend the questions Dan raises and goes on to wax eloquent about some possible general good that could be found if the reader already had a moral framework. A moral framework superior to the one put forth in the specific passage.
I'm reminded of the passage: I once was blind but now I see". Martin is blind, perhaps willfully.
I suppose the real debate is who has the gift of "site"? Humans long for an athority to settle this question but the answer lies within.
The TLDR summary of Martin - "We must not take terrible passages literally, even if it's sensible to do so, and also I can interpret any passage in a positive light, therefore God is good and all is well"
i.e. a coward boot licker
Barker is great! There is nothing like a former believer revealing the weakness of theistic arguments.
"God is a meany therefore he doesn't exist." Such science. So logic.
@@philo3407 The fact that you are dismissive on this issue reveals your religious bias and inability to hold a conversation about challenges to your faith. Just keep believing in that faith crap.
@@vilicus77 weak arguments don't scare me or challenge my faith. Guess what, you're a meaning so you don't exist. I win.
@@vilicus77 You don't actually give any reason for saying 'Barker is great!' Why would you say so?
@@mensetens6391 He has a powerful deconversion story and his books have been very helpful to many people.
I always wondered why God had to kill all the first-born children in Egypt when he sent the plagues so that Moses would be freed. Even the first-born children of the hapless slaves were not spared. I mean, these were innocent children and had nothing to do with Moses. When i asked religious people about this, all they said to me was "Don't question the wisdom of God".
It's too easy for them to answer this way. That's because they do not know. Or at most they say it's the mystery of god, mystery of faith. I answer it was an event perfectly explainable as a natural phenomena, and it was taken as source by the Israelites and romanticized, emphasizing as it were deeds of their elohim Yahweh.
This natural phenomena occurred twice again, featuring almost every plague mentioned in the biblic event.
@@lepidoptera9337
Yes. Apparently, God had to go through the "screenplay" of 10 plagues to punish the Pharaoh.
I mean if you are a Being with infinite power that created the entire Universe, why would you go to such trouble of sending 10 plagues at all? You can just will something and the entire country of Egypt will be instantly dissolved out of existence.
However, if that was the case, then i guess the Book of Exodus would probably be just 1 paragraph long. LoL
Even in an unfair lopsided format , Dan still beat his arse. You can tell the mediator favored his Christian beliefs and didn’t give Dan half the time he gave Martin . Martin just makes up chit
@Unbelievable @Justin I just wanted to say how much I enjoy this show. I'm an atheist and found out about it from you having cosmic skeptic on. I really wanted to give my feedback but didn't know the best place so I'm leaving it here.
First off I want to say while I'm an atheist, I have the utmost respect for this show. To elaborate, I really like how this show exposes the general public to these ideas. I think Justin does an amazing job as the host and moderator. Many times moderators can hinder a conversation more than help, but I find Justin does an amazing job of remaining largely neutral (even though I'm fine with him giving his own thoughts and think that can often add to the conversation), keeping the dialog moving, and summarizing or making more concise the ideas and arguments for those who are less familiar with them and philosophy in general.
I think discourse on these ideas are very important and bennaficial, and that gives me gratitude for this show and the work of those involved with it.
P.s. I recommended to atheist friends as well as my brother who is a Methodist and enjoys philosophy of religion as well as Christian history. Also as an aside, I know it's a Christian show but I would love to see some other religions get some representation. Maybe you could do episodes where you have a Hindu or Muslim etc. on and discuss differences as well as common ground, or why they believe their particular religion as opposed to others. I'm looking forward to watching through more of your content, and want to say thank you again to everyone working to produce this show.
Thanks for being one of the good ones. 😁
I am an atheist and completely agree with what you wrote. Justin does an amazing job as moderator. The conversations are great.
I find it slightly interesting but having these discussions putting both sides forward as equally valid is wrong . One side is based on 21st century knowledge and understanding the other is Bronze Age myths and ignorance . Like the thousands of other ‘stories’ from thousands of other cultures the Christian one has the same legitimacy as the rest and deserves the same revilance .
Why would god feel jealous? He could always just make more people? And why give us brains? If all he wants is worship?
The is what religion does... You can no longer distinguish between love and abuse. Your deity is definitionally good, so any abuse must go through the apologetic process to excuse it. They all sound like the abused wife trying to excuse away the bruises left by their spouse.
Apt given the title of bride given to Israel. Tough most times the punishments are more like reaping what you sow kinda deals.
You’re absolutely right. Barker definitely killed it in this debate.
The rose colored glasses have think tint. We have our own perceptual filters naturally but when they put the God glasses on and filter out genocide and rape and tribalism to say “well God is the creator so he reserves the right to end life or violate and women and children”. Sigh
N like the EVIL PSYCHOS THE YARE. I was a DUPOE, didn't read the book AT ALL. I found christendumb2, his first video he shows that YWH BOOKK IS ATATED BY YWH TO BE ALL TRUE
HE STTAED JUST ONE THAT THAT'S NOT TRUE, MAKES IT AL A LIE. I QUIT. I played most of the rets of his videos and I WA SDISGUSTED. many I CAN'T PLAY
slavery, TORT, what they do to PREGNANT WOMAN,, CHILDREN ANIMALS. I was like what EVILPSYCHOS. follow,, wrote this garbage
You sure?
The Christian apologist stammers for minutes over Yahweh telling Satan that he allowed him to destroy Job "FOR NO REASON"! AMAZING!
Kurht’s defence of what God did to Job is pathetic.
ask him about KEEP ALL THE VIRGINS, GENOCIDE THE CITIES, FIRSTBORNS, WATER GENOCIDE, SLAVERY. STONE WOMAN and CHILDREN . what to do with pregnant woman withs swords, suckling infants with rocks, put me on this show I CALL THIS PSYCHO A EVIL PSYCHO.
We sound foolish and immoral when we doggedly treat the Old Testament the same as the New. We don't refuse to update our notions of science, mathematics, music theory, etc, and yet we don't think that this makes mathematics unbelievable, or that there's no reason to read Archimedes or Galen. Dan is clearly correct: the implied values of parts of the OT do not match modern values in ways which make them less holy.
So god can declare SOME laws, just not monogamy!? Can't ban slavery!? He can say don't steal and murder, but can't say don't buy slaves!? Come on...
I would love to see a Christian apologist respond to this point.
@@Stealth797 here’s how they respond:
1) it’s not the same as antebellum slavery!!!!!! It was much nicer (as if certain types of slavery are okay).
2) they got to go free after 6 years, so it’s really like indentured servitude. This is true in Exodus 21 but not in Leviticus 25:44-46.
If you talk with an apologist, make them focus on Leviticus 25:44-46 and foreign slaves. Don’t let them dodge with the indentured servitude passages.
@@Iamwrongbut
On the old timey definition, our prison population would be all classified as slaves, specially if they do some manual labour witch many of them do.
The passage @I am wrong but refers to is not that bit of a gold nugget against believers. It simply states that perpetual slaves are to be taken from other peoples, never Israelites, as israelites are specifically tasked with being servants of God.
But even those get freed if they are harmed:
“An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth."
@@handler8838 the “harm” passage you refer to only refers to excessive punishment. After all, if you beat your slave and they recover within a few days, they do not get freed.
Further, how are you okay with perpetual slaves in any regard? How is it ever morally okay to own another human being? Your point about prison sounds a lot like what Southern slave owners used to say before the civil war...
Can you marvel at the imagination of the human being? The stories and excuses that oone can come up with be they from the Jewish rabbi to this current Priest. Remember the disco song: Lies, Lies, Lies.
It was exactly apologetics like Martin that made me leave Christianity when i was doubting
What sorts of doubts were you having?
Honestly, I can see why here .....but there are much better responses available, so would encourage you to search a little more if you are open to that. But based on the responses given here, I got pretty frustrated myself, as he basically didn't answer the questions and seemed evasive.
@@clarad7669 he wasn’t being evasive, he was realizing he had zero answers that wouldn’t be able to immediately be demolished by logic
@@clarad7669 and i assume you’re a woman... and you want to DEFEND the stuff that’s in the bible that informed all the bigotry (that’s described in this discussion) against woman throughout history?!?!?
@@dkirk_official how did you come to the conclusion that the Bible informed bigotry throughout history?
A thoroughly unconvincing apologetic. Not sure what a good one would look like.
No such thing as “good apologetics” from what I’ve seen.
@Paul Morgan I agree his arguments here were poor, however I am not sure you could blame the mess in the world on Christian thought, which is a call to defend the poor, uphold justice and stand against wickedness through love. Atheist thought is behind some of the most awful atrocities in human history, and a lack of fearing God has the ability to create selfish, 'all about me' power systems. Not saying atheists are all like that, just that the basis of atheism allows for justification of those behaviours way more than bible based teaching. What exactly do you see in Jesus that makes you say that?
@Paul Morgan I think the majority of people would agree that was Hitler and the Nazis, and that is my view. You?
@Paul Morgan I would say that anti-semitic thought and action stems from a person's view that people are not all made in the image of God, and that there are 'lesser' humans. This kind of thought springs from a heart turned away from God, producing hate for others and pride, that begins as thoughts and when 'full grown' leads to awful things like holocausts.
Where do you see this kind of action and belief about Jewish people (or other groups of people, or individuals) coming from? Is it not from the heart of a person?
@Paul Morgan I did know that. Do you think they were being 'Christian'? Because I would submit to you that people can say things about themselves and act in ways that do not align with what they say. Where in the bible do you see the basis of their actions?
You just can't compete with someone who was a former believer for years
Justin kept saying, the glass is half full for Martin but half empty for Dan, but the point is, why would the glass be only half-way filled if this god really existed?
And why would you want to look for the half full version abuse??? Do people say hey, my spouse only hits my 3 days a week, so really look at how much they love me 4 days a week.
So allowing suffering and humiliation of good people is justified because it make for good literature.
Which good people do you have in mind?
@@barry.anderberg In the Bible, both God and the demon He was betting with agreed that Job was a good, godly, and pious man. It is taught in most churches that the story of Job represents how good, pious, godly people should behave in the face of adversity, tragedy and pain.
@@estuchedepeluche2212 So is it good literature or does it represent the truth?
@@barry.anderberg The truth that God make people suffer for no good reason?
@@estuchedepeluche2212 How did you conclude that suffering is for no good reason?
Justin gave a couple of minutes to Dan and then 15-20min to the Christian, and helped in the arguments against Dan. The most lopsided episode I’ve ever seen. Seems like Justin has dropped all pretence of being a fair debate or discussion between theists and atheists. Justin - what are you doing? Where will this lead you?
Agreed. His bias was giving away
I love listening to how Christians justify god's immorality. I am so glad I no longer have to worry about this.
Well, not me. I am a Christian who realized from studying the Bible that the God of the old testament was the devil.
As a christian I rarely read the bible, and so didn't really think/worry about these issues!!! Probably like most Christians, I would wager. Now I'm an atheist because of actually reading the bible, and know 10x more about it.
Even Justin was cringing to some of the Martin's laughable justifications of the various God's misogynies like the impurity of the women giving birth to daughters vs sones.
why is that misogynistic?
@@user-pv9pv4xf9c Daughters make the mother impure and sons don't? hello?
@@TopoTopaco but what does it actually mean if a mother is impure? Perhaps the birthing process is a little different whether or not a woman gives birth to a boy or girl. I know my one coworker's daughter had a bowl movement while in her womb during the delivery process, and it was a bit of a complication. But nothing modern medicine can't fix. Maybe girls are more likely to do that.
@@user-pv9pv4xf9c I seriously doubt that is more likely the case with female babies than Male babies, and I seriously doubt that's why they claim that a mothers more impure after delivering a female than a male.
@Paul Morgan We see everything in very short term. I've never had to suffer like that and if I did it would probably not seem like a short time and would be pretty unbearable, but if we can endure pain our character is stronger. An easy life with comforts and no difficulties can't make us noble and righteous and truly good, which is what God's most interested in. If we seek his kingdom and righteousness and are prepared to suffer for it, something much greater and eternal awaits beyond the short span that is our lives. God wanting our worship isn't for him, it's for us. It's what we need most
The short answer; YES!
The longer answer; Well Of Course He Is!!!
You spelled "Absolutely not" completely wrong.
Good job Martin!!! Seek God while He may be found and you have breath.
I was very disappointed with Martins responses. He was not very direct in answering the questions. And didn’t seem to at all in some cases. Dan does a good job at asking very good and pointed questions. However lacking in some contextual understanding.
In short, yes!
I’m a Christian, but I do believe Dan Barker did a better job with this debate
May I ask why you stay a Christian? Please don't take it as a negative. I happen to be agnostic but am interested to know WHY people see truths and evidence against their position, but keep their position.
@@seanodowd4085 Well, I just read a lot of books and study both sides and I just came to the conclusion that Christianity is true. Nothing more and nothing less.
@@swiftsea6225 cool! Can you offer any suggestions where I can see the evidence of truth? I appreciate it!
@@seanodowd4085 Well I think you should compare evidence on both sides. I I would recommend starting with the debate between Richard Swinburne and Graham Oppy the debate was something like “Does God Exist?”
Then you can look up the 7 hour resurrection debate between Mike Licona and Bart Ehrman, but that cost $50 to see, but it’s worth it. Then I suggest you should read books by professional philosophers who are both Theists and Atheists. But please STAY AWAY from Pop-Apologists and Atheists.
Apologists: Frank Turek, Lee Strobel, and J Warner Wallace
Pop-Atheist: Dan Barker, Richard Dawkins, or any other of the four horsemen of atheism. They’re not bad people, they just overestimate their case and are uncharitable to the other side.
Lastly, this is unrelated to religion, but you should read regular or classic fiction books and poetry, just to rest your mind for a bit, trust me it’s good for you. I recommend either Catcher In The Rye or Fahrenheit 451 (my personal favorite).
But trust me, the hardest thing about this journey is to accept the fact that your questions will take time to satisfy, months maybe even years if you’re really devoted.
Source is trust me bro😂😂😂
Maybe this god should know not to put a couple of forbidden trees in the middle of a garden with people who don't know right from wrong yet, and a talking serpent that they will actually listen to instead of running away from it scared sh*tless since serpents can't talk.
It is like a parent putting a baby in a crib with a loaded gun, telling the baby not to use the gun, and then putting their sibling in the room to show them how to use it. Whose fault is that when they get shot?!?!?
Maybe someday we will be able set aside the ancient superstitions. Just not the years 2020/2021 apparently. Actually sad to see so many believe such crazy falsehoods.
Thank you dan barker for pointing job. God is not loving at all he allowed unnecessary suffering.
40:00 Starting here everything this guy says id BULL $HIT. Excuses for what their *filthy book* REALLY SAYS.
Sorry, but towards the end of Job, didn't God rebuke Job when He said Where were you when I formed the mountains and the rest of creation? If Job never sinned and remained blameless, why did God take him to task about that?
While I have absolutely no doubt that Martin is a lovely person and a well-loved minister, he is, in my opinion, a classic example of how Christians have spent the last 2,000 years fitting a square peg into a round hole. Apologetics is now a well oiled machine. Martin of course is just one of a long line of Christain apologists, who over the centuries try to rationally explain universal suffering and the utterly unChristian nature of God. Although I was brought up in a devout Christian home, I now cannot understand why anyone would want to worship the God of the Old Testament.
Agree 100%
Case closed.
Numbers 5:11-31
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray(A) and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her,(B) and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy(C) come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure-or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure- 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a](D) of barley flour(E) on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy,(F) a reminder-offering(G) to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair(H) and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy,(I) while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse.(J) 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray(K) and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse(L) not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray(M) while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”- 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse(N)-“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water(O) that brings a curse(P) enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.(Q)”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll(R) and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord(S) and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering(T) and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.(U) 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray(V) and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy(W) come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences(X) of her sin.’”
Dan Barker played a major part in guiding me realistically and logically, into an atheist position. I've never been happier ! Thank you Dan Barker
He's up there among my favorites
Dan Barker is a complete joke. Watch his debate with James White. That guy is laughable.
@@manne8575 I did. He massacred White. Dan doesn't lose debates. Atheists don't lose god debates. All Theists reuse stale, debunked arguments
@@JnWayn "Dan doesn't lose debates. Atheists don't lose god debates."
Haha, nice job proving your ignorance and bias. I won't even bother responding to you anymore, you just made it clear that there's no point in trying to help your deluded mind.
@@manne8575 yeah, post your comment then run away, cuz eventually, only I could back up my claim. Only you need an excuse. Have at it. Bye
The god of the new testament is even worse: he promises to burn me for ever and eternity.
OT jahweh at least limited the suffering to maybe a couple of minutes in drowning, slaughtering by his fanclub or maybe somewhat longer in stoning. And Job suffered a couple of weeks. But he got special attention, being jahweh's homie.
Why do you say "worse"? That implies there is a better condition, which means you have an absolute standard for how things ought to be. Please tell me what is your standard or ultimate authority before you start comparing conditions as better or worse.
@@ProverbsOne-Seven so without God telling me which is better or worse I cant say putting my hand on a burning stove is worse than my putting it on a pillow?
I guess you should repent and believe the gospel.
@@ProverbsOne-Seven
My standard is well being. Makes things easy isn't it? No god, no goodbook required.
There is no absolute standard by the way. Maybe in your good book, not in reality. Stealing is wrong? Always? Also if you steal to feed a starving child?
And you don't need an absolute standard to judge whether someting is better or worse: being burnt for ever and eternity is worse than 3 hours on a cross.
The new testament teaches conditional immortlaity. That is the unsaved will perish or cease to existnot burn in hell for all of eternity. I suggest you check out the rethinking hell website. Also Bart Ehrman who is not a chrsitian but a new testament scholar agrees with this and even wrote a book about it.
Dan Barker v Martin Kuhrt: Is the biblical God a malevolent, misogynistic, sadomasochistic bully?
YES he is and/or IT is that is God is a Bully....
God = UNBELIVABLE
Is there anyone who's seen someone defeat Dan Barker's arguments against God?
No and there never will be. Unless God reveals himself/herself/ itself 😁
Trent Horn
@@chrisobrien6254 Trent Horn couldn't defeat a bacon cheeseburger.
@@rembrandt972ify 🤣
Yes dr james white listen to the debate 👌
Have to say Dan did a better job of providing good argument for his point than the theist that tried to hand wave away the obviously immoral character of the biblical god. Well done Dan!
Yes, next question
Wrong answer. Now what?
It's like the song says with friends like that Lord you don't need enemies.
Thank you for your work. You are bringing enlightenment to christians.
It's funny that I don't know if you are theist or Atheist when you say that haha
My parents never brainwashed me to believe in religion and deity, I'm thankful every day. I've always been fascinated by theists and have spent far too much of my time researching wether their may be merit in their faith. Bottom line is that sadly the human race needs religion and God belief but to think it's more than superstitious beliefs is just stupid and proposterous. Thankfuly as we evolve there is becoming less need for the discipline and fear tools God brings but sadly some of the behaviours we see every day remind us why religion and God were invented by man.
It's amazing to hear someone in the 21st. century talk about 'Satan' as being a real thing, and I use the word 'thing' as being preferable to referring to Satan as a person, something that I've found ridiculous since I stopped believing in Santa Claus 50 plus years ago. I've never really thought of myself as an atheist but as a humanist.
One other point I hate in discussions of the bible is that debaters as brilliant as Hitch', mention the great literature in the bible; this is nonsense. If you've read great literature, you quickly realise that it is not apparent in the bible. The 'literature' as such is turbo charged by the flowery, opaque biblical language. If you want literature start with Keats of Shakespeare, they both write at a level that the misogynistic biblical writer could hardly imagine, so constrained by their beliefs as they were.
There's some good parts in the Bible, but they're mostly ancient Near East myths or folk-tales taken and retold to fit this crazy OT god, which has lead to complete incoherence for what the OT even is.
I wish you were kidding.
_I've never really thought of myself as an atheist but as a humanist._
Those are not opposed. Whether you 'think of yourself' as something does not mean that you are not that thing.
_debaters as brilliant as Hitch_
Christopher Hitchens was not 'brilliant.' He as an enjoyable, quick-witted debater who unfortunately was also intellectually lazy (he would not research Mother Teresa before he wrote his hatchet-job on her. There are no footnotes or bibliography in the slim --- 195 pages in my copy --- volume), and when called on it in a debate, reminding him that he hadn't even been to Calcutta, his only defense was, 'Well, there was no guarantee of finding her in, was there?' There were no telephones, no post in his time? He couldn't have scheduled a visit?
His history was selective, his facts one-sided and limited. The only thing he had going for him was presentation, not sufficient for 'brilliance.'
_The 'literature' as such is turbo charged by the flowery, opaque biblical language_
'Now art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make itself artistic' (Oscar Wilde)
To complain about 'the language' is a schoolboy's indolent objection. The Bible was not written to you but to your longfathers (poetically speaking). Learn that language the way we have to learn Shakespeare's or Chaucer's.
_the misogynistic biblical writer_
Really? Who? You don't give any examples in your post, you know, only assertions.
There are a ton of atheist and/or humanists out there with great ideas, and you are not one of them.
Plus the rampant elitism "I hereby declare that one work of literature created over 2000 years later tan the other and influenced by the first one, is more complex".
@@LordJagd Are there really that many inconsistencies with OT God? He is basically always portrayed as loving and somewhat permissive but very jealous.
@@handler8838 Incoherent insofar that he is mostly a collage of either different perspectives on god from different eras in Israelite history or he is from two very different traditions altogether. The scholars pointing out the J and E and P sources of the OT have done a great job at showing this difference, and how sheerly stark it is at times.
I just want to say, from the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU for saying "titled".
“Murder has to be avenged for justice”, good one, but not all “sinner” commit murder, some just have a lustful thought, steal when hungry or curse in the trusts of rage.
OK. Now what? What conclusion should we draw from this?
@@mensetens6391 I really don’t know, but, to an extent, I agree with traditional legal theory that stipulates that the punishment has to fit the crime.
@@estuchedepeluche2212 Yes. Where are you going with this?
@@mensetens6391 a conclusion.
Any debate about Jewish behaviors inserting the anti-Semitism trigger-word instantly looses any merit.
It is amazing how Martin knows exactly what god meant, his interpretations fully confident and one can not help but feel like god has personally talked to Martin, not......
Yeah because barker presents his similarly biased views with extreme humility and no boasting or confidence.
Anyone else thought of Mary Poppins? “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” lol
Love this series! 👍💯
Mr Kuhrt, do you have any physical evidence for a physical JC?
I am so disappointed with Martin’s responses, in this debate, although I am a christian, I have to say that the atheist did much better.
Yeah, especially with the book of Job. He pretty much didn’t give answer at all. The accusation of God in Job is fair; it’s a difficult text and I was hoping for a more scholarly explanation of the opening section.
Atheists have no moral foundation. It was kind of cute watching him try to bd morally outraged
@Miriam Novo. I'm not sure it's possible to do much better than Martin to be honest. That Old Testament deity character is seems pretty indefensible.
@@adamcraig1468 "Atheists have no moral foundation. It was kind of cute watching him try to bd morally outraged" That's just you parroting apologists. Lot's of studies on meta-ethic studies on naturalist morality having been refuted. Theists like you just go about making bald assertions you can't actually back up.
@@elawchess sorry, no objective moral foundation. There.
God Is Not Great is also an excellent book.
Well if you have to ask...
It's not bullying when god does it. Because we can only judge this one particular god in this special way that absolves him of any wrongdoing.
Special pleading? Sure, but there's scriptural precedence for that.
@@Iverath there is no prescient for logical fallacies. They simply can not exist in your argument and simultaneously claim you have a good argument
Yes an argument based on a category error is fallacious and not good. The god described in the Old Testament is not the same type of thing as gods described in other religions nor as humans and it doesn’t even make sense to the judge it as though it were either of those.
@@49perfectss Vortex Harmonics is the Proof.
@@sammcknight8671 For lasers ya. God? Nope. Wait are you that moron who thought the water wheel was super advanced because you have almost no education? Hahaha guy you're too dumb to address further so don't expect me to read your next reply as you clearly don't know what you're talking about lol
As humanity evolves emotionally n morally, so does OT Father God. By NT we have the Jesus God and his development of Law. Next we have the Holy Spirit God which guides personally each of us. God is all psychology now and meditation. Next what the psychadelic God. Ha ha maybe where it all began. Mushroom God.
18:50 terrible response
TY Dan.
Dan Barker kicks butt
This Martin does not respond directly to Dan's allegations vs God. He cannot respond directly because Dan quote from the bible. So, as a usual tactic of of apologists, Martin talks about the birds and the bees in defense of his god in attempt to muddle the subject of the discussion.
Loving the Advent purple, Justin.
Biblical God is mirror of the society when this book was first written. Bronze and iron age Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean.
Justin desperately trying to help out......so so many times.
It's his show, he can be biased and team up with the Christian however much he wants.
Perhaps he does not realize it makes everybody see that the host himself thinks that the Christian *needs* saving - every time.
Not every time. Sometimes the Christian defeats the non Christian. William Lane Craig is hard to beat when he is on form, for example. But in this case, I am sorry to say, and it is no ad hominem attack at all, the Christian speaker really was floundering.
@@machyndman9933 WLC can indeed be formidable. Are you aware of William Craig's response to the murder of the midianites? He destroyed himself there.
@@LASLAY13 No. interested if you can send a link., However I am more and more convinced (what a silly phrase that is) that these debates change nobodies points of view, to wit, they only confirm what people already think. Doesn’t stop me enjoying them!
@@machyndman9933 The part that I found truly disgusting is how WLC justifies that the Israeli soldiers who were ordered to do the killings were the real victims.
Dan you have the patience of a saint, pun intended🙏
I'm thirty mins in. Does the Christian guy ever give an answer? Before I watch the rest of it
Starting at 0:36 - That about sums it up. The God of the Old Testament, is a MONSTER!
If only we atheists understood the context of the repugnant parts of the Bible. We just don’t understand! 🙄
Interesting fyi for anyone interested in the history of Christianity. I believe it was a sect called the cathars that believed the God of the new testament was a completely different God than that of the old. The viewed the God of the old testament as an evil God, and Jesus with the God of the new testament came to defeat him.
Unfortunately the cathars were and their ideas were wiped out for being "heretical", but there is still some info out there for anyone interested.
And they were likely not the only ones, either, considering Gnosticism and further, @Eugene Coleman .
Like many Gnostic style groups, the Cathars were kind of messed up about embodiment and sensuality/sexuality, though.
Sounds like Marcionism
@@djfrank68 idk much about marcian or his writings, but I'm pretty sure there were a few early christian sects that had this dualistic view. It's an interesting take on the bible and and interesting way to reconcile the new and old testament. I find this topic pretty interesting.
It always baffles me, to see the length a believer, especially the educated ones goes to defend this fictional monster. What's wrong with these people.
It really makes no sense. It seems that these people NEED this god to exist, but why?
It always baffles and amazes me the legnth that educated atheists will go to disprove bronze age fairy tales.
Martin: it’s absurd to think that bad thinks happen because of luck = typical Christian apologist dishonesty
Very interesting topic. Thank you, I really enjoyed watching this episode. 🙂
God bless you
@Paul Morgan how so? If Christianity is worth its salt that it should be able to stand up to scrutiny and questioning. I found this discussion very helpful and enlightening content from both perspectives - and I speak as a Christina minister.
@Paul Morgan Hi Paul, thank you for your feedback. I actually found it very interesting that even before starting the discussion; one must know that as an Athiest you actually dont have a good foundation or framework to Support your idea of morality. I find it quite interesting how the athiest side even BEGIN to raise the question! While athiest do not even believe in an objective morality?
I definately agree on the Christian side. GOD IS GOOD. 🙂
@Paul Morgan seconded. Well being gives an objective measurement for morality. Theists on the other hand can't even agree what in the Bible should be a part of their moral code and thus have no objective morality.
Also the Bible condones slavery while secular raining prohibits it. Just saying secular reasoning is clearly better than what bronze age misogynists thought
@Paul Morgan obviously you disagree with slavery which is great.
But what about people being a slave to sin. Do you believe that sin exist? and that the evil that happens in the world is a reflection of our sin?
Wouldnt you agree that Jesús teachings lead us towards the opposite direction of sin?
Wether we obey Jesús teachings or not; His Love towards us, and His Word will always be absolutely perfect; and it is unchanging. People change, however God's character will never change.
@@carlosuchuya6036 Take some jesus and go and have a lie down.
If these ‘Christians’ truly followed JESUS’ ( not just Paul’s) words, they’d EXPECT comments by people against their belief system, and not respond with such vitriol. Going through the comments section, it’s difficult to see any love or ‘fruits of the Spirit’ (Ye shall know them by their fruit). But, of course you’re forgiven automatically by this behavior, just Like Bundy and Gacy who were ‘saved’ merely due to a belief. And Christians, along with the victims of these serial killers get to cohabitate forever
I don’t know whether Dan is serious or just pretending that he doesn’t understand imagery or figures of speech in literature...
Well said by Martin.. If Dan and Dawkins truly believe that Bible will lead people to become atheists.. Please donate to Bible society...
Of course Dan understands that. When it comes to the character of the deity described in the bible and its actions you can't get away with calling it figure of speech. That's either really stupid or just dishonest.
@@samael5782 Nobody is getting away...
Dan agrees that there is no endorsing but descriptive... Also the skirt part- Dan agree it’s a warning..
So all his terms he gave to God are based on descriptive and warning stuff... which is nothing related to nature of God..
I can warn you with my utmost harsh words so that you won’t get hurt.. but that doesn’t make me a terrible person.. Don’t you get it??? Hope Dan has some common sense to understand such silly stuffs ...
it's halarious how apologist have to change the context of what is written to make them look like liers just to believe this fictional book.
my goodness, this discussion is absurd. The book of Job is a story, manufactured by people! yes, you can discuss any fictional story and maybe learn a lesson from it, but it is still a fictional story. Why do we not discuss the lessons learned from Harry Potter?
If this story is true, then it reflects terribly on any god, that claims to be loving.
the whole creation story is also totally absurd, totally debunked.
We are not "lost" and no-one needs a "savior" Get over it
Dan is member of Lenape tribe. I am very interested in revival of native american languages. Especially eastern tribes.
what a lunacy - to judge God treating ancient peoples through today's legislation and modern European ethics that have but little to do with Christianity nowadays .)
So why bother worshipping that god?
@@rovert46 certainly: wood for hell is to be supplied
@@humbleman7196 wood in hell?!
@@rovert46 yeah, to keep the fire..)
This Christian is on his own christian planet ....
When I started to read The God Delusion I found it to very boring and unscholarly. In other places he had foot notes. But for his description of God, he had none. The Bible is a large book from which he could have found all the examples that he wanted. Maybe he did later, but, as I said, the book bored me, I stopped reading after 3 chapters.
If God is fictitious why are they making such a big deal. No one writes books criticising Santa or the Tooth Fairy. They know that God is real; they just want to find reasons to hate him and rebel against him.
You express yourself as a 10 year/old kid.
People who believe in this fictitious god have a large effect on our culture and society. It makes sense to point this out and criticize false beliefs that effect so many people.
You can't even have a good make believe friend. Why do you defend this turd?
The tooth fairy an santa aren't massively impactful on our lives like religion is. With religion you have people killing each other and legislating based on it. No one writes books about how santa isn't real because no one is making a serious assertion that he is real. Also doesnt make much sense to deliberately rebel and hate a being that you don't think even exists. I hope you will reexamine your comment and actually think about what you're saying
@@eugenecoleman8525 Ok, death cults are great. The world needs deluded fools to poison education ,politics and justice systems. I despise these people that molested those close to me. The lies , cover ups and stupidity the Corona virus exposed in these bigoted hate filled grubs. And they won't apologise or admit fault. Fuckem until they cry and tell them it's their fault. Karma.
You didn't interview even 1 woman for this?
get the feeling Martin wont's to "Hide"something.
Feelings are not thoughts. They aren't even facts beyond their mere existence.
Atheists can only see God as small as them. They cannot see that God as
A Father- acts as loving Father
A Saviour- died for our sins and forgives us
A Healer- heals us of our sicknesses
A Judge- he will judge righteously and will not tolerate sins
An earthly Judge sends criminals to Jail
An earthly Judge sends criminals even to death
Atheists don't believe a god even exists. Not that he's small, he just straight up doesn't exist.
It is sad (and even pathetic) to see believers rationalizing in such a way. - To justify the immoralities of the bible is immoral in itself.
yes, and these immoral people need to be re-educated or we must end their existence as not to befoul the purity in the rest of us, right?
@Sombre Cynic cynicism is not wasted on you, is it sunshine?
@Pisstake no
@@silalumen643 Yes, you said it.
@@Elaphe472 Yes, I understand that weak people who cannot
tolerate other viewpoints, have a need to systematically degrade, but much rather eliminate those other viewpoints.
Thankfully, in modern day, those weak fools will never attain the position of power to do so.
the moderator needs to stop talking & trying to discount or minimize Dan's very strong and valid points & let them debate. He's hogging the time. A moderator is not suppose to hog the conversation.