Not even close. See Proverbs 25:21-22, or the the second millennium BCE Babylonian text Counsels of Wisdom, which says "Do not return evil to the man who disputes with you; requite with kindness your evil-doer... smile on your adversary." or the Instruction of Amenemope: "Row that we may ferry the evil man away, For we will not act according to his evil nature; Lift him up, give him your hand, And leave him [in] the hands of god; Fill his gut with your own food That he may be sated and ashamed"
@@tomasrocha6139 the proverbs passage you gave says to do good for your enemy, but you could still do good to your enemy and hate your enemy, as verse 22 of Proverbs would suggest. Also, of the Babylonian quotes you give, was wondering how these quotes applies to when the Babylonian empire conquered and laid waste to neighboring cities, cultures, and civilizations; and brought the Israelites into many years of captivity. How do your quotes apply in loving your enemies when it comes to the brutal and savage things the Babylonians did to others?
Yeah people go into tribalism instead of actually judging the debate properly. Happens on any side of a debate unfortunately. The truth is more important than what your favourite debater says, right! ✝️
The idea that Christianity uniquely developed science and its methodology is older than you might think. I first discovered the argument in a book called "From Athens to Jerusalem" by Stephen R L Clark, which was published in 1984.
Excellent, Thank you. The Chinese until ar 2000 years ago did observe the concept of one supreme God. They then came under the influence of Buddhism, ans Taoism.
Which Stoic authors say to love thy enemy? And what do they mean by love, Is it the same meaning as what Christians say? I ask because my friend is a Christian and he didn't seem to think the dispassionate teachings of the Stoics is refering to the Agapic love of what he claims Christians teach. Do you have any thoughts on this?
@@AndrewBorrill-q4c It seems you are being nitpicky just because you don't like the conclusion. Did you notice how it started with love for neighbors/strangers, now you jumped to enemies? Social harmony was important for stoics, so they would not disagree with being compassionate. It is a well known fact that Christianity borrowed much from the Stoics (e.g. the Golden Rule). In fact, Christianity (like it or not), is a syncretic religion, evolving from Hellenistic Judaism. It's not a surprise you find Greek philosophy in there with as dash of unique flavor.
Hello, thank you for your response. I have no intention of nitpicking, I only hope to get closer to Truth. To read what you say in as charitable light as I can I will of course, acknowledge that I have my biases and idiosyncratic history that may distort my pursuit of Truth, despite my best efforts. I also think you hit the nail on the head when you say Christianity is syncretic. That is precisely what I am interested in delineating. Let me perhaps restate my point.This is a a sincere question and is not intended as a gotcha to catch you out. To what extent can Christianity take credit for the views of other schools that It has taken up and transformed and how do you determine your answer to that question? I don't know the answer, but I am interested as I think this would help sharpen the point Glen makes. Maybe, as a poor analogy, it might be like asking to what extent can apple pie be seen as a unique addition to humanity? In some sense it is completely new, but can it really take credit for it's "apple" flavouring? What of those who think that apply pie is good for transferring apple flavouring but can't take credit for the apple flavour? (You can push this further, but as I say it's an analogy I just cooked up now, and hopefully it illustrates my point). Cheers.
Hi Angus, which world view do you subscribe to? I’m a Secular Humanist, and a Liberal Social Democrat, who is of the atheist conclusion that there is not a shred of credible objective evidence for the existence of any of the alleged gods.
Pretty sad that the moderator didn't give the full time for rebuttals to Holland's list. Grayling was able to respond nevertheless but sadly was interrupted so we didn't get to hear his full answers
@@HearGodsWord Hi, I presume you haven't watched the whole video as that won't help as Justin deliberately stopped the conversation before Grayling could complete his response and the answer Grayling attempted was constantly interrupted by Holland, whereas Grayling listened politely to Hollands list and generalisations. The point is correct - we did not hear a full response from Grayling as Justin stopped the conversation just when it really got to the heart of the matter, and he should have let Grayling respond in full and then let Holland and Grayling bat it back and forth for a while. It was poor moderation.
@@HearGodsWord Fair point. Have you watched the entire Holland/Grayling discussion? I note that you have not disputed the point of both my and iwersonschi’s comments that Grayling was prevented from responding in the way he let Holland respond and that it was poor moderation on Justin’s part which resulted in the conversation being terminated before Grayling could respond in the way Holland got to respond and so watching the whole thing does not mean you get to hear a full answer from Grayling.
I think this is interesting because this is mostly what I think brought me to my faith. I grew up in a more traditional but secular household. Pretty much I was in school for Physical Therapy at the time. I remember I always liked helping people or the service esque jobs. It was until a series of incidents where I would have to call emerency services for someone who Overdosed on campus, a fight broke out, or an autistic person was severely concussed and injured. At the time I kind of thought "why are all these bad things happening around me?" I remember everytime I helped, there was a bystander effect. I ironically, despite being non religious and constantly criticizing "fake christians" always tried to act like I could do it better. Later down the line I started questioning why exactly anyone did anything. More importantly, why did I do anything? I didnt know any of these people. I always liked science, but I thought if I am just doing what I am biologically programmed to do, shouldn't I have just done nothing? Why risk it? These people were ill, disabled, or poor. If its just my feelings, what value do my feelings really have in the grand scheme of things? I eventually realized I had a religious belief that couldn't be justified in my view: that people have value regardless of my feelings, or their situation. I recognized that I still had to hold onto an intuition that all people bearer the image of God, yet I couldnt explain or justify things through a Naturalist view. I currently am going for my Bachelor's in Nursing now. However this video reminded me how typically people say bad things happening pulls them away from God. From my experience, bad things ultimately led me to my faith in God. Despite being years afo, I still struggle on the relationship/personal aspect of things.
The Good Samaritan remains one of the most powerful short stories in history. To go from bystander to interventionist carer is not natural, it’s “super-natural”. And ultimately it’s Jesus who is the Good Samaritan - intervening in nature to lift us up. Amazing to hear your story, thank you
I've been trying to "find God" for a good number of years now and I feel like I've come to an answer of sorts, though it isn't a sure fire solution either, nor is it very nice. For many years I've been an atheist, mostly because it made sense to me at the time. I'm a simple kind of guy, I never really gave god a deep thought, I just followed the flow of my life and felt no need for a divine explanation for things. Eventually I did start banging against walls of my meaningless reason and I did start despairing when I found no purpose for anything I had been doing across my life. That's when I went back and started listening the arguments for god and long story short, here I am, a fairly happy believer and a stumbling follower of Christ. Now, here's what I think is the key in "finding god". God is so pervasive in everything we do in our lives, that he is essentially the air we breathe, the water we drink, the rock we stand and build on. We live on god, but we can't perceive this, because god is so omnipresent. So, if you want to "find god", you have to turn away from him. You have to drink the cup of atheism to the bottom and not spare a single drop. This doesn't mean you just say to the world that you're an atheist and never bother going to church. No, you have to follow atheism to it's logical conclusions. There is no such thing as sacred, there is no such thing as meaning, there is no right or wrong, all is allowed, nothing is disallowed and there is no justice at the end. Do this as thoroughly as possible, or as thoroughly as you can bear, and my guess is that your life, along with the lives of those around who care for you, will become so miserable, that you will either run to church to look for god, or you will destroy yourself and probably a good portion of the world with you. That's more or less how I believe god is found. You have to suffer godlessness. Personally I just scraped the surface of real atheism and that was enough to frighten me to church and there I remain happily.
@@wispfire2545 Fair enough. That was, overall... your free choice. Freer than many medieval Jews, Africans and Indians ever got, as it were. Now you get to clutch 2 Samuel 24, 2 Samuel 12:18, Leviticus 25:46 - and Deuteronomy 21:11... Close to your chest at night... and find comfort in them. Or in Exodus 21, in entirety... too. Then Romans 9, in entirety, and every messy bit of 2 Corinthians, and it's extra imported god, I suppose? I am trying not to be too acerbic here, but your commentary was very snotty, and presumptuous, and also presumes people cannot find meaning anywhere along the road you just described. As opposed to giving a custom made, delusionally proud, unhappy angel - his hunting and roaming rights, post exile. And sticking humans sabotaged since birth, in there.
So, believing in the value of a human being isn't a faith statement, or a theological statement, and doesn't require a belief in objective morality. Secular Humanism promotes human flourishing. It can be routed in empathy, and it can be routed in reason, but neither of those require a belief in a supernatural being to accomplish it. Also, not even theists believe "all human beings are worthy of provision and protection", Matt was simply being honest about something both he and his interlocuter accepts. Any honest theist will admit that there are people who attempt heinous acts that make their provision and protection forfeit. Whether they accept it via theistic reasoning or secular reasoning.
Very bad arguments, empathy and "reason" whatever that is for you are not good enough arguments for your moral system, what if a whole society loses their empathy for a certain group? Does that make it good for you to opress them? Like nazies with jews or southern america with blacks? And reason is nothing if you don't believe in universal truths, for example Dillahunty himself believes that men can become women by believing they are women, does that sound reasonable?
So how can the belief that humans have objective value be posited rationally from a naturalistic worldview? You can't find an ought from an is. Remember, secular humanists disagree on what "human flourishing" might be, so you still have disagreements. For example, abortion. In that case, the liberty and pursuit of happiness of the mother somehow trumps over the right to life of the baby. Is that human flourishing? Why should I care about human flourishing anyways? Dillahunty always posits its perfectly reasonable to have a society based on selfishness, but the only reason I would ever view another human being with value in that worldview is if they bring some benefit to me.
1. The issue at hand is that, ultimately, secular humanism cannot justify why exactly we shouldn't do the exact opposite. You cannot justify these things without appealing to your own sense of morality or the society's definition of morality. Even appealing to survival is just as vapid. Why should we love our neighbor as ourselves? Why would we care about the human rights of others? What even is human rights? What is empathy? Why should empathy stop me from hurting someone if I stand to benefit from it? 2. Pointing to the hypocrisy of theists doesn't really change the premise of the point. Also, this argument you present doesn't account for consequences. Yes, all human beings are innately worthy of provision and protection, but from that all humans are also responsible for each other in some sense, which is where consequences come from. Your innate rights are not born in isolation.
@@mannythegrandfather2291 1:Secular humanism does justify why people should behave in certain ways, it just doesn't assert that morality is objective. Secular humanism states it's goals, and if you agree with those goals, then it tells you how to accomplish them. If you ask the question: Why shouldn't I do the opposite, the justification is "Because that's counterproductive to Secular Humanism." It's literally that simple. Literally. You don't go to Burger King and ask the manager "But why serve burgers instead of sushi?" 2:It does when the assertion is that Christianity solves a problem that secular humanism can't. I also did take consequences into consideration because a person losing their right to provision and protection IS a consequence of their actions.
@@ryan27229I'd argue that Christianity also has no "objective morality". For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Matthew:7:2 Sounds rather subjective to me.
To be fair to Grayling, he did listen quietly while Holland listed his response to Grayling’s question. When Holland reached a natural end to his list, Grayling started to respond only to be stopped by Justin’s hand and then Grayling continued to listen politely as Holland continued with some generalisations. After Holland had finished and Grayling started refuting Holland’s list, Holland continually interrupted him and deflected and then Justin closed the conversation before Grayling could properly respond, just as it was getting to a fundamentally important aspect of the topic that the rest of their conversation had not dealt with. That was very poor moderation by Justin. He cut off what would have been the most interesting part of the conversation, as indicated by Glen specifically picking on this section of their conversation, which Justin did not allow to be completed. Grayling politely allowed the show to end when he was within his rights to give balance and properly respond so we could see his response and then be able to evaluate both their positions. My philosophy discussion group actually watched and discussed this particular Holland/Grayling edition of Big Conversation last month and we did discuss Holland’s list in a way denied to Grayling and we all found Holland’s list to be not relevant or unimpressive pedantry and easily refuted. Introducing a new definition or name for an existing practice or value is not the same as introducing that practice or value. Holland did not give a worthwhile response so it’s not surprising that Grayling was unimpressed. I would like to see Holland and Grayling discuss this again and for Grayling to be given the uninterrupted time to respond fully and then to see them bat it back and forth.
Glen my brother in Christ I love the way u articulated the photo of the man to how valuable he is cuz he is made in the image of God love you man keep up the good work God bless you ❤️✝️
I had to subscribe. You have a GREAT way of presenting your arguments. Also, we seem to have a very similar way of thinking about these issues though I am not nearly as well read or educated on some of these topics. I especially have come to the realization of just how much atheists take for granted a lot of things in society or concerning morality that have a Christian underpinning. I just like and appreciate the way you think. 👍🏾.
I’ve been saying that for sometime my wife used to be a Christian I kind of doubt that she truly believed but she has said she did she went to Christian school even though she’s never heard of the rapture or even not being married to your spouse you have now but being married to the church of Christ and she did not like that at all when I told her we would not be married in heaven but she has progressively gotten further and further from Christ I can’t even talk about god or Christ without her getting triggered from her past which her father was a horrible Christian used god and bible to his narcissistic control on his kids which is a big reason she fell and when we met I wasn’t doing what I should have been doing as a Christian and about 7 months ago I truly came back to Christ and felt my entire mind eyes open and felt the truth from the Bible hit me like a ton of bricks and changed my ways immediately which scared her we’ve had multiple fights about it and she won’t listen to anything I say or videos I’d like her to watch she’s told me she’s afraid I’m going to try to become a pastor and try to evangelize everyone I have a chance to which I hate that word it sounds bad I’m trying to help people see the truth that Jesus was a real man things that were written about him are true he died for our sins and was resurrected and there are thousands of documents and manuscripts about all of the eyewitnesses I truly feel the rapture is coming soon not idk when but god says look for sign and you will know the season so when I felt god speaking to me thru the Bible I felt it hit me of the years I wasted not doing gods work and that I could have saved her from all these horrible things that’s happened because I was half asleep I just pushed her further down depression and thought in her head she shouldn’t have had and now she thinks that I’ve become an extreme Christian and thinks from her wrong teachings that I’m just going to sin and leave her instead of stay and make sure I do my best to show her the truth the light and how Jesus can save you from all the problems you have
6:22 Tom was so extraordinary in this debate. As a non christian (at that time at least) he had so many mic drop moments it was just coherent and historically founded.
Also, what dod the speaker at the start, (Tom Holland?) mean when he stated that Christianity introduced the idea of Heterosexuality and Homosexuality? perhaps he meant that it introduced the idea that Homosexuality was a sin? But it certainly didn't introduce the idea that those are immutable identities. That is the opposite of the Christian world view.
@marchess286 He means as distinct concepts since sexual proclivity was way more fluid in Roman culture. This is what enables excesses of Emperors like Tiberius. :/ His book, Dominion, covers these things well. :)
@@FuddlyDud - thanks for your response. respectfully, "distinct concept" is a bit vague. Also, contrary to the trad Christian view, as I understand it: there are men and women and the only acceptable sex is w/in traditional marriage. Behavior outside that is sinful. To argue that people have an inherent sexual nature and fit into some category (gay, lesbian, straight, etc.) is "essentialist", rather than Christian. So, in the Christian world view, there can be homosexual behavior but not homosexuals (or hetrosexuals), from what I understand.
@@marchess286 It’s a bit vague because my memory is only so good. Sorry about that. :P You’ve just delineated the 2 concepts quite well though, for you’ve identified “homosexual” behavior apart from heterosexual behavior, that is what is not sinful. In Roman culture, there was no such distinctions. Every hole was fair game for sexual proclivity with desires dictating what one did. There was no wrong or right types of sexual activity in how Christians would come to categorize them later. Tom Holland describes this well since he was an expert in Roman history prior to his work on Dominion. :) Part of the confusion now is how modern sexual identity has distinguished homosexuals as a class of people. That is most likely wrongheaded as you described, but it’s wrongheaded because of said behaviors being distinguished which was not a thing before Christianity made it so. Does that help better? :)
@@FuddlyDud - thanks for your response. Perhaps I'm mis- reading your response, but isn't it accurate that trad Christianity considers not just homosexual relations sinful but also hetro relations, outside of marriage? Please excuse me now. I'm a Jew and have to get ready for Yom Kippur.
@@marchess286 You’re good, good luck in your preparations! :) Also yes, heterosexual relations outside of marriage would also be counted as part of this distinction. That said, that is more of a continuation of certain practices that are rooted in Judaism as you likely know well. :)
Equality, if there is a God, is not a transcendent value. Does God favour only those who are Christians? What about non Christians? Are those who are going to hell through no fault of their own equal to the Christians who worship God? What you call Christianity is a construct from Christians. Man made. Not God made.
Between your debate and Michael Jones it was a pretty bad time for Dillahunty. He is the epitome of the secular humanist. "I want to believe as many true things and as few false things" but then showed when the data didn't go his way he didn't care. You are right, when you start to look at everything, it is so reliant on Christianity to get the world we see today in the west, and the world we want can only be achieved under Christianity and the return of the lord. I saw something recently makong the comment that every human saught utopia was really just a distopia, something explored to some extent in books like animal farm, and also shows like Star Trek. But the utopia of the Lord is a true utopia indeed
I like this approach Glen, however, I do think this is missing a discussion thread that compares what Christianity specifically brings to this argument and what Greek thought, particularly the Stoic and Platonic/Neoplatonic schools. I realise these schools of thought are intertwined with Christianity but I think it is a conversation that is needed to bolster this argument. For example, Neoplatonism clearly sees the world as having unity derived from the One at it's core, which would be grounds for a support for science. I'd say the real unique addition of Christianity is Agapic love, but how that fits into the claims you and Tom Holland make would be very interesting (at least to me).
Christopher Hitchens was the same, he had a fanatical cult like following that literally worshiped the guy. The irony of how religious the followers of New Atheism are, has always been lost on them though.
As an atheist lmao@@longllamas We just like people who can vocally better express our reasoning. If we find some other person we would appreciate that one as well. But it's not necessary that we will agree with everything they say.
Thank you for speaking life. You have given me a piece of God's help through the power of the Toung and to answer the question of why it is good be a light no matter what.
Civilisation and permanent settlements were created across the globe by the agriculture revolution around 10,000 years ago which was the methodical application of agriculture science and it developed all the major domesticated plants and animals that still feed us today. Our distant ancestors were doing agriculture science and whatever they might have called it, it was agriculture science and they were using what we call the scientific method of artificial selection and it enabled them to give up hunter gathering and live in permanent settlements. Introducing a new definition or name for an existing practice or value is not the same as introducing that practice or value. The efforts of our pre-Christian and pre written history ancestors seem to go without notice and we take them for granted because humans have always built on the generations that came before them.
A very large elephant in Holland’s Dominion room is the d in Joseph Henrich’s term weird - democracy. When asked to nominate something that Christianity had uniquely given civilization, Holland could not mention the single most defining characteristic of the West that we live in - democracy. Holland couldn’t mention Liberal Social Democracy, the greatest story the West has told, because it is not a Christian idea, it predates Christianity by 500 years and Christianity is also inherently anti-democratic and is, along with the other Abrahamic theisms, a totalitarian political ideology when applied politically. Religion is politics by another name. What is it that Christians like Glen Scrivener need that only Christian authoritarianism can supply? What utility does Christian authoritarianism supply that can’t be found in other socio-political ordering principles? The reason people want to migrate to the West is because we are democracies and despite democracy’s flaws, they would still rather live here than in the totalitarian theocracies and secular dictatorships that they currently live in where they could also be industrialized, educated and rich, and in places Christian, but not democratic.
Christianity isn't anti-democratic. It has no political ideology in and of itself. If course the church tried to gain political power. In that sense you could say it's anti-democratic. But the new testament itself has no political ideology. Religion isn't "politics with another name". That's semantics. If it was, we wouldn't need two words.
@@MrSeedi76 Hi Mr Seedi, politics is power relationships be they in the home, work, sport, public, civil government or religion. Christianity wields power over people. It wields political power in the public square. It used to have totalitarian power over people in the west and in places it can still do that. Christianity has a top down power structure - its alleged god at the top, then his son and on earth the clerical representatives and down the bottom, the congregation who take instruction from the clerics. Top down political structures are called authoritarian. God is a maximal Big Brother. The Vatican is still a country, a fully fledged state recognised by governments around the world. Its government is unelected by lay Catholics and unaccountable to lay Catholics. Much the same happens in other Christian denominations except they don’t have their own country. In Anglicanism, the religion Glen is a cleric for, members of the Anglican clergy are members of the English parliament. They are not elected by the British people and are not accountable to them. This is the exercise of political power and it’s all anti-democratic. Sexism is politics by another name. Racism is politics by another name. Whether you like it or not, there are different names for politics. That’s not semantics, it is all about power relationships.
So what you've done is created a framework for how a fair God would operate. The kinds of things an all loving, all just, all merciful God would create foundationally. All God is, is an anthropomorphization of the values, virtues, YOU...(by you I mean mankind) find valuable. Again, all you have is a narrative written by men. Who presumed to know of a God. That embodies the values YOU hold. Just like humanism :) Even if there is a God you don't have a clue what values this God holds, if any. Your faith in God is underpinned by your faith in what biased, believing men wrote about God. All you have are narratives. Same goes for any other representation of God.
Don Richardson's _Eternity in Their Hearts_ (rev. ed., 1984), following the _Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics_ (vol. 6, p. 272), states on p. 63, states that "the first reference in Chinese history to any kind of religious belief specifies Shang Ti [Shang Di] alone as the object of that belief." Shang Di, the Creator, the "Lord of Heaven," was majestic and holy, and according to Richardson was probably analogous to Hananim in Korea, Koro in the Central African Republic, Y'wa in Burma, possibly Yahweh and El Shaddai in the Bible, and more. A power play by the Chinese nobility and emperor choked out the worship of Shang Di and paved the way for Confucianism and Buddhism. I highly recommend _Eternity in Their Hearts_ and Don's other bestsellers _Peace Child_ and _Lords of the Earth_.
Surely the Buddha was first in noting the universality of the human condition. How we are all equal in our capacity to suffer and therefore equal in how this suffering need be addressed. Also the bodhisattva figure in Buddhism puts all sentient beings (not just human life) first, before their own salvation. This focus on compassion equals anything professed by Jesus. Buddhism was the first truly universalist religion that required no special birthright or social status to practice. It also wasn't exclusive in its view of what was sacred - life in all forms was worthy of respect and care with humans an intrinsic part of that whole.
Lifelong monogamy, according to Holland, is apparently a unique Christian contribution to civilisation. Glen nods his Anglican head in agreement. Well, stone the crows. An Anglican waxing about lifelong monogamy when it’s common knowledge that Anglicanism was created for the sole purpose of abolishing lifelong monogamy. Anglicans are Anglicans because that Christian king, Henry VIII, Defender of the Faith, wanted to be a serial bonker with women who he was not married to. Anglicans are a cheer squad for being anti lifelong monogamy. Perhaps Grayling was unimpressed because he understands English history. Humans are not the only animals that can have a single lifelong partner and humans are not the only animals who can have serial partners. There may be an evolutionary advantage in monogamy or else so many of those animals wouldn’t do it. Holland has not shown that before Christianity, no one had lifelong partners as he knows they did, which was Grayling’s original point, that Christianity’s contributions are not unique to Christianity. Giving a new name to an existing practice or value is not the same as introducing that practice or value. While Henry VIII changed partners purely for political reasons so he could get a male heir as Christendom did not consider women equal to men or worthy of promotion to monarch ahead of men, people do grow apart and should be able to separate and find partners better suited to them and people should not have to remain in abusive relationships, they should be free to leave and find a loving partner instead of being forced to endure violent abuse. So Holland strikes out here too.
Christianity gave equality of human dignity. Not the abolition of distinctions and functions. There is still Hierarchy there is still Thrones even of the Spiritual variety both Benevolent "Divine Council or Bene Elohim" and demonic.
Ah, yes, the roads. Those brilliantly engineered non-Christian Roman roads that enabled Paul and the apostles to travel so far, so rapidly and so safely. So how did the Romans build those roads? Did they randomly bush bash their way across the empire, randomly placing stones as they went? No, with great efficiency and careful design, they methodically applied the science of road building without any need of Christianity, by applying their reasoning ability to trial and error and so spent hundreds of years building sophisticated roads criss-crossing Europe and the Mediterranean, some of which are still being used today and the others are now the major transport routes of Europe and the Mediterranean, widened and macadamised. Yes, the Romans didn’t use the term “scientific method” but they did invent the word science and everything they did using knowledge (science) building those roads, and the other infrastructure like buildings, shipping, the aqueduct, irrigation, medicine, sanitation, a water system, etc etc was done by what we now term the scientific method. Issues and practices can exist for a very long time before someone comes up with a clever name to describe them. Introducing a new definition or new name for an existing practice or value is not the same as introducing that practice or value. Instead, for centuries the Romans just got on with educating very large numbers of engineers who methodically used their science to build thousands of miles of structurally sound and practical roads and do all the other things the Python’s mentioned, with the Pythons using comedy to factually point out that most of the air we breathe in the West is of Pagan origin. The Greeks methodically built major infrastructure and created maths as did the Indians, without Christian input. The Chinese methodically built the Great Wall without Christian input. The Egyptians methodically build the Pyramids without Christian input, as did the Mayans. Etc etc etc Christianity introducing a new definition or name for an existing practice or value is not the same as introducing that practice or value. Holland has to resort to his science concept being introduced in the 18th century, post Renaissance and Enlightenment, a concept that went unnoticed in the previous 1800 years of Christian dominance.
Un mundo mejor para tus hijos inocentes y vulnerables es posible con más conocimiento. Censurar conocimiento es estúpido. ¿Quién censura conocimiento y cuales son las consecuencias? ¿Por qué se censura conocimiento útil para generaciones futuras? ¡Y se lo dices y les da igual! Te han hecho el máximo daño posible engañándote con la idea de Dios y te quiero sacar del engaño para que vivas bien. Para entender el engaño y salir del círculo primero tienes que entender Dios existe. Si entiendes Dios existe ya tienes un pie fuera del círculo. ¡No estás protegido dentro del círculo, tienes que encontrar la verdad!. Dios existe porque lógicamente es imposible la existencia de la creación o finitud sin el creador o infinitud. ¿Te enseñaron el argumento cosmológico de kalam en la iglesia o mezquita? Lo que tiene un principio de existencia tiene una causa porque de la nada no puede ser creado algo. Lógicamente es imposible la existencia de un número infinito de causas, por lo tanto tiene que existir una primera causa no causada que creó lo que tiene un principio de existencia. ¿Entendistes por qué Dios existe? Tu entendimiento es tu salvación y libertad. Dios existe porque no toda la realidad puede ser creación o tener un principio de existencia. Lógicamente lo que tiene un principio de existencia tiene que ser creado por lo que es eterno. La verdad que te abrirá los ojos es la Segunda Guerra Mundial y el Holocausto nazi pasó después de que Spinoza descubriese la naturaleza de Dios. Te estoy contando lo que no contarán a tus hijos inocentes y vulnerables en la escuela. Para no desperdiciar este poema de amor digo el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. ¿Entendistes la falacia lógica atea? El ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es "papá celestial" y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. ¿Eres ucraniano? Para acabar la guerra el descubrimiento que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica tiene que ser noticia. ¡Emergencia! Si entiendes eres infinitamente importante. Gracias.
Humans are made in the image of God Says who? The Jewish writer of Genesis. Wait... a Jew came up with this idea, so this is not a unique Christian contribution, it’s a Jewish one. The best Holland can do is say that Christians share this idea. But it is still not unique to Christianity and for Christians to try to claim it as their own is just another example of Christians treating Jews with contempt. It is also not self-evident that humans are made in the image of the alleged Christian god. And what is this image exactly? Is this alleged god inscrutable? If so, then it’s just your subjective speculation about your alleged god’s image. And there is no agreement on what this Jewish writer meant. Different Christians have different ideas on what it means but it seems people can generally agree with an unsubstantiated answer that the image of this alleged god is immaterial and omni everything. Whereas humans are very material and definitely omni nothing. So, we are not then in the image of this alleged god. And anyway, since this is a Jewish idea in the book of Genesis, it cannot be a unique idea that Christianity introduced, so Holland strikes out again.
The Supposed Wise Men - Turn Away From THE LORD - BIG BLUNDER!
Isaiah 19:11-16 The Wise Men of Egypt - And The Many Wise Men of Today
11 Surely the princes of Zoan are fools, the counsel of the wise counsellors of Pharaoh is become brutish: how say ye unto Pharaoh, I am the son of the wise, the son of ancient kings?
12 Where are they? where are thy wise men? and let them tell thee now, and let them know what the Lord of hosts hath purposed upon Egypt.
13 The princes of Zoan are become fools, the princes of Noph are deceived; they have also seduced Egypt, even they that are the stay of the tribes thereof.
14 The Lord hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof, as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit.
15 Neither shall there be any work for Egypt, which the head or tail, branch or rush, may do.
16 In that day shall Egypt be like unto women: and it shall be afraid and fear because of the shaking of the hand of the Lord of hosts, which he shaketh over it.
18 Thine heart shall meditate terror. Where is the scribe? where is the receiver? where is he that counted the towers?
The Apostle Paul quotes from The Prophet Isaiah and Makes Application for Today...TODAY!
1Corinthians 1:17-29 Not Many WISE... Not Many MIGHTY... Not Many NOBLE...
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Those that put Man's Wisdom Higher Than God's Truth are BLUNDERRING!
Just Like in The GARDEN....
Genesis 3:1-6 The SERPENT DECEIVED The Woman in THE GARDEN - and ADAM was DECEIVED
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Everyone who has the slightest interest in this topic has Bible Gateway on their phone. What you should have focused on is explaining why anyone should take any notice of these verses.
@@buukkreider544 Vacuous bloviated sophistry that any theist of any religion could say of their holy book. You provide no reason as to why anyone should accept what is your holy book over what you reject in theirs.
@@downenout8705 You atheists have a PRIDE issue. You expect God to bow down to you and to your demands. He is THE CREATOR and we are the clay. The sad truth about 'most' atheists is making demands that God has to prove himself. If you were to approach an earthly king you would know to approach with much reverence and caution. God is higher than any earthly ruler, and yet he is treated as if he is nothing. Now, don't be stupid, but think clearly and try to remove the PRIDE from your heart and realize that if The God of The Holy Bible is the True God... then even if I don't believe it as of yet, at least let me seek him with reverence and respect: not in PRIDE and terrible accusations.
@@buukkreider544 Don't be silly, no atheist expects anything from a deity they believe is imaginary. Writing in capitals isn't evidence that what you wrote is true. Proof is for math the question of a god's existence is not math. What atheists are asking for is evidence that the god or gods that a theist is asserting is real, is actually real. I treat the Christian god with the same reverence as you treat Vishnu, none. Again you are doing nothing more than every Muslim or Hindu who also assert, without evidence, that it's the atheists fault that they don't believe in their god. You, just like them, never consider that it's yours and their failure to provide sufficient evidence to justify a belief in yours and their particular god or gods that is at fault. The supreme arrogance that all gods are false except the one the theist believes in, is what is keeping you from the truth.
Wow....the strawman....or is it strawmen? Regardless the utility of christian moral ideas, there is little evidence that these ideas are unigue or originate with christianity. Buddhism predates Christianity by centuries and emphasis every moral concept listed. Yet another completely unimpressive presentation given by Christian apologetics.
Eh no it doesn't, not at all. Especially in regards to human dignity and all humans being equal . People are very unequal in Buddhism and that's just a fact. I was Buddhist for 10 years and even went and stayed at remote temples in Nepal and Thailand etc. It leads to certain thought patterns that make human rights, progress, and justice almost impossible. I should write a book because there's a lot I have to say about this.
The worship of Shang Di/Shang Ti predates Buddhism. According to Don Richardson in _ Eternity in Their Hearts_ , referencing the _Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics_ (vol. 6, p. 272), "the first reference in Chinese history to any kind of religious belief specifies Shang Ti alone as the object of that belief." Shang Ti was the majestic, holy Creator who "must never be represented by idols." Richardson considers him to be analogous to Hananim in Korea, Koro in the Central African Republic, Y'wa in Burma, possibly Yahweh and El Shaddai (two biblical names for the Creator), and more. I highly recommend Don's award-winning bestseller _Eternity in Their Hearts_, along with another of his bestsellers _Peace Child_. His son Steve carries on his groundbreaking work.
"love your enemies" is definitely an exclusively new Jesus value introduced that was not parallel anywhere else
It’s so extraordinary. Not even Christians believe it most of the time (I know I struggle!)
@@SpeakLifeMedia The fact we struggle with it to this day shows how revolutionary it truly is.
Not even close. See Proverbs 25:21-22, or the
the second millennium BCE Babylonian text Counsels of Wisdom, which says "Do not return evil to the man who disputes with you; requite with kindness your evil-doer... smile on your adversary." or the
Instruction of Amenemope:
"Row that we may ferry the evil man away,
For we will not act according to his evil nature;
Lift him up, give him your hand,
And leave him [in] the hands of god;
Fill his gut with your own food
That he may be sated and ashamed"
@@tomasrocha6139 the proverbs passage you gave says to do good for your enemy, but you could still do good to your enemy and hate your enemy, as verse 22 of Proverbs would suggest. Also, of the Babylonian quotes you give, was wondering how these quotes applies to when the Babylonian empire conquered and laid waste to neighboring cities, cultures, and civilizations; and brought the Israelites into many years of captivity. How do your quotes apply in loving your enemies when it comes to the brutal and savage things the Babylonians did to others?
@@fernandoformeloza4107 The same way that Christian Empires have done all sorts of brutal and savage things
The debate vs Dillahunty, in my opinion, was pretty devastating to his Secular Humanism, where some humans are more equal than others.
That’s not what most of the comments section on that video thinks, but I’m with you 😃
@@SpeakLifeMediathat’s because Dillahunty fanboys always flood the comments.
Yeah people go into tribalism instead of actually judging the debate properly. Happens on any side of a debate unfortunately. The truth is more important than what your favourite debater says, right! ✝️
why would you say that?
@franciscopalacios4638 Sorry, I'm not really sure what you are asking.
brilliant! gotta be one of my favourite videos you've done
Just a terrific video!
The idea that Christianity uniquely developed science and its methodology is older than you might think. I first discovered the argument in a book called "From Athens to Jerusalem" by Stephen R L Clark, which was published in 1984.
Very good Glen. I loved the closing paragraph and pray that many people will see Jesus calling them. Well done
Tears in my eyes at the summary at the end
Tremendous as always
Brilliant Glen. Thank you brother
32:47 That simultaneous chuckle 😂
Really good video
Excellent, Thank you. The Chinese until ar 2000 years ago did observe the concept of one supreme God. They then came under the influence of Buddhism, ans Taoism.
Hmmm, where did, "Love Thy Neighbor" and "Love The Stranger", among other things, come from? Judean Peoples' Liberation Front?
From stoic philosophy.
Which Stoic authors say to love thy enemy? And what do they mean by love, Is it the same meaning as what Christians say? I ask because my friend is a Christian and he didn't seem to think the dispassionate teachings of the Stoics is refering to the Agapic love of what he claims Christians teach. Do you have any thoughts on this?
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 - did Epictetus write Leviticus?
@@AndrewBorrill-q4c
It seems you are being nitpicky just because you don't like the conclusion. Did you notice how it started with love for neighbors/strangers, now you jumped to enemies?
Social harmony was important for stoics, so they would not disagree with being compassionate.
It is a well known fact that Christianity borrowed much from the Stoics (e.g. the Golden Rule). In fact, Christianity (like it or not), is a syncretic religion, evolving from Hellenistic Judaism. It's not a surprise you find Greek philosophy in there with as dash of unique flavor.
Hello, thank you for your response. I have no intention of nitpicking, I only hope to get closer to Truth. To read what you say in as charitable light as I can I will of course, acknowledge that I have my biases and idiosyncratic history that may distort my pursuit of Truth, despite my best efforts. I also think you hit the nail on the head when you say Christianity is syncretic. That is precisely what I am interested in delineating.
Let me perhaps restate my point.This is a a sincere question and is not intended as a gotcha to catch you out.
To what extent can Christianity take credit for the views of other schools that It has taken up and transformed and how do you determine your answer to that question? I don't know the answer, but I am interested as I think this would help sharpen the point Glen makes.
Maybe, as a poor analogy, it might be like asking to what extent can apple pie be seen as a unique addition to humanity? In some sense it is completely new, but can it really take credit for it's "apple" flavouring? What of those who think that apply pie is good for transferring apple flavouring but can't take credit for the apple flavour? (You can push this further, but as I say it's an analogy I just cooked up now, and hopefully it illustrates my point).
Cheers.
….and that is why the secular humanist worldview ultimately undermines itself.
Hi Angus, which world view do you subscribe to?
I’m a Secular Humanist, and a Liberal Social Democrat, who is of the atheist conclusion that there is not a shred of credible objective evidence for the existence of any of the alleged gods.
Pretty sad that the moderator didn't give the full time for rebuttals to Holland's list. Grayling was able to respond nevertheless but sadly was interrupted so we didn't get to hear his full answers
You can find the link to the full video in the description if you want to watch the whole thing.
@@HearGodsWord Hi, I presume you haven't watched the whole video as that won't help as Justin deliberately stopped the conversation before Grayling could complete his response and the answer Grayling attempted was constantly interrupted by Holland, whereas Grayling listened politely to Hollands list and generalisations. The point is correct - we did not hear a full response from Grayling as Justin stopped the conversation just when it really got to the heart of the matter, and he should have let Grayling respond in full and then let Holland and Grayling bat it back and forth for a while. It was poor moderation.
@@alanmill793 you presume wrong, which is why you shouldn't presume.
@@HearGodsWord Fair point. Have you watched the entire Holland/Grayling discussion?
I note that you have not disputed the point of both my and iwersonschi’s comments that Grayling was prevented from responding in the way he let Holland respond and that it was poor moderation on Justin’s part which resulted in the conversation being terminated before Grayling could respond in the way Holland got to respond and so watching the whole thing does not mean you get to hear a full answer from Grayling.
I think this is interesting because this is mostly what I think brought me to my faith.
I grew up in a more traditional but secular household. Pretty much I was in school for Physical Therapy at the time. I remember I always liked helping people or the service esque jobs. It was until a series of incidents where I would have to call emerency services for someone who Overdosed on campus, a fight broke out, or an autistic person was severely concussed and injured. At the time I kind of thought "why are all these bad things happening around me?" I remember everytime I helped, there was a bystander effect. I ironically, despite being non religious and constantly criticizing "fake christians" always tried to act like I could do it better.
Later down the line I started questioning why exactly anyone did anything. More importantly, why did I do anything? I didnt know any of these people. I always liked science, but I thought if I am just doing what I am biologically programmed to do, shouldn't I have just done nothing? Why risk it? These people were ill, disabled, or poor. If its just my feelings, what value do my feelings really have in the grand scheme of things?
I eventually realized I had a religious belief that couldn't be justified in my view: that people have value regardless of my feelings, or their situation. I recognized that I still had to hold onto an intuition that all people bearer the image of God, yet I couldnt explain or justify things through a Naturalist view. I currently am going for my Bachelor's in Nursing now. However this video reminded me how typically people say bad things happening pulls them away from God. From my experience, bad things ultimately led me to my faith in God. Despite being years afo, I still struggle on the relationship/personal aspect of things.
The Good Samaritan remains one of the most powerful short stories in history. To go from bystander to interventionist carer is not natural, it’s “super-natural”. And ultimately it’s Jesus who is the Good Samaritan - intervening in nature to lift us up.
Amazing to hear your story, thank you
I've been trying to "find God" for a good number of years now and I feel like I've come to an answer of sorts, though it isn't a sure fire solution either, nor is it very nice.
For many years I've been an atheist, mostly because it made sense to me at the time. I'm a simple kind of guy, I never really gave god a deep thought, I just followed the flow of my life and felt no need for a divine explanation for things. Eventually I did start banging against walls of my meaningless reason and I did start despairing when I found no purpose for anything I had been doing across my life. That's when I went back and started listening the arguments for god and long story short, here I am, a fairly happy believer and a stumbling follower of Christ.
Now, here's what I think is the key in "finding god". God is so pervasive in everything we do in our lives, that he is essentially the air we breathe, the water we drink, the rock we stand and build on. We live on god, but we can't perceive this, because god is so omnipresent.
So, if you want to "find god", you have to turn away from him. You have to drink the cup of atheism to the bottom and not spare a single drop. This doesn't mean you just say to the world that you're an atheist and never bother going to church. No, you have to follow atheism to it's logical conclusions. There is no such thing as sacred, there is no such thing as meaning, there is no right or wrong, all is allowed, nothing is disallowed and there is no justice at the end.
Do this as thoroughly as possible, or as thoroughly as you can bear, and my guess is that your life, along with the lives of those around who care for you, will become so miserable, that you will either run to church to look for god, or you will destroy yourself and probably a good portion of the world with you.
That's more or less how I believe god is found. You have to suffer godlessness. Personally I just scraped the surface of real atheism and that was enough to frighten me to church and there I remain happily.
@@wispfire2545 Fair enough. That was, overall... your free choice.
Freer than many medieval Jews, Africans and Indians ever got, as it were.
Now you get to clutch 2 Samuel 24, 2 Samuel 12:18, Leviticus 25:46 - and Deuteronomy 21:11...
Close to your chest at night... and find comfort in them.
Or in Exodus 21, in entirety... too.
Then Romans 9, in entirety, and every messy bit of 2 Corinthians, and it's extra imported god, I suppose?
I am trying not to be too acerbic here, but your commentary was very snotty, and presumptuous, and also presumes people cannot find meaning anywhere along the road you just described.
As opposed to giving a custom made, delusionally proud, unhappy angel - his hunting and roaming rights, post exile. And sticking humans sabotaged since birth, in there.
As someone once said: "Christianity is the wokeness of the ancient age"
The sermon on the mount is definitely woke.
So, believing in the value of a human being isn't a faith statement, or a theological statement, and doesn't require a belief in objective morality. Secular Humanism promotes human flourishing. It can be routed in empathy, and it can be routed in reason, but neither of those require a belief in a supernatural being to accomplish it.
Also, not even theists believe "all human beings are worthy of provision and protection", Matt was simply being honest about something both he and his interlocuter accepts. Any honest theist will admit that there are people who attempt heinous acts that make their provision and protection forfeit. Whether they accept it via theistic reasoning or secular reasoning.
Very bad arguments, empathy and "reason" whatever that is for you are not good enough arguments for your moral system, what if a whole society loses their empathy for a certain group? Does that make it good for you to opress them? Like nazies with jews or southern america with blacks? And reason is nothing if you don't believe in universal truths, for example Dillahunty himself believes that men can become women by believing they are women, does that sound reasonable?
So how can the belief that humans have objective value be posited rationally from a naturalistic worldview? You can't find an ought from an is. Remember, secular humanists disagree on what "human flourishing" might be, so you still have disagreements. For example, abortion. In that case, the liberty and pursuit of happiness of the mother somehow trumps over the right to life of the baby. Is that human flourishing? Why should I care about human flourishing anyways? Dillahunty always posits its perfectly reasonable to have a society based on selfishness, but the only reason I would ever view another human being with value in that worldview is if they bring some benefit to me.
1. The issue at hand is that, ultimately, secular humanism cannot justify why exactly we shouldn't do the exact opposite. You cannot justify these things without appealing to your own sense of morality or the society's definition of morality. Even appealing to survival is just as vapid. Why should we love our neighbor as ourselves? Why would we care about the human rights of others? What even is human rights? What is empathy? Why should empathy stop me from hurting someone if I stand to benefit from it?
2. Pointing to the hypocrisy of theists doesn't really change the premise of the point. Also, this argument you present doesn't account for consequences. Yes, all human beings are innately worthy of provision and protection, but from that all humans are also responsible for each other in some sense, which is where consequences come from. Your innate rights are not born in isolation.
@@mannythegrandfather2291 1:Secular humanism does justify why people should behave in certain ways, it just doesn't assert that morality is objective. Secular humanism states it's goals, and if you agree with those goals, then it tells you how to accomplish them. If you ask the question: Why shouldn't I do the opposite, the justification is "Because that's counterproductive to Secular Humanism." It's literally that simple. Literally. You don't go to Burger King and ask the manager "But why serve burgers instead of sushi?"
2:It does when the assertion is that Christianity solves a problem that secular humanism can't. I also did take consequences into consideration because a person losing their right to provision and protection IS a consequence of their actions.
@@ryan27229I'd argue that Christianity also has no "objective morality".
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Matthew:7:2
Sounds rather subjective to me.
To be fair to Grayling, he did listen quietly while Holland listed his response to Grayling’s question. When Holland reached a natural end to his list, Grayling started to respond only to be stopped by Justin’s hand and then Grayling continued to listen politely as Holland continued with some generalisations. After Holland had finished and Grayling started refuting Holland’s list, Holland continually interrupted him and deflected and then Justin closed the conversation before Grayling could properly respond, just as it was getting to a fundamentally important aspect of the topic that the rest of their conversation had not dealt with.
That was very poor moderation by Justin. He cut off what would have been the most interesting part of the conversation, as indicated by Glen specifically picking on this section of their conversation, which Justin did not allow to be completed. Grayling politely allowed the show to end when he was within his rights to give balance and properly respond so we could see his response and then be able to evaluate both their positions.
My philosophy discussion group actually watched and discussed this particular Holland/Grayling edition of Big Conversation last month and we did discuss Holland’s list in a way denied to Grayling and we all found Holland’s list to be not relevant or unimpressive pedantry and easily refuted.
Introducing a new definition or name for an existing practice or value is not the same as introducing that practice or value. Holland did not give a worthwhile response so it’s not surprising that Grayling was unimpressed. I would like to see Holland and Grayling discuss this again and for Grayling to be given the uninterrupted time to respond fully and then to see them bat it back and forth.
Glen my brother in Christ I love the way u articulated the photo of the man to how valuable he is cuz he is made in the image of God love you man keep up the good work God bless you ❤️✝️
I had to subscribe. You have a GREAT way of presenting your arguments. Also, we seem to have a very similar way of thinking about these issues though I am not nearly as well read or educated on some of these topics. I especially have come to the realization of just how much atheists take for granted a lot of things in society or concerning morality that have a Christian underpinning. I just like and appreciate the way you think. 👍🏾.
I’ve been saying that for sometime my wife used to be a Christian I kind of doubt that she truly believed but she has said she did she went to Christian school even though she’s never heard of the rapture or even not being married to your spouse you have now but being married to the church of Christ and she did not like that at all when I told her we would not be married in heaven but she has progressively gotten further and further from Christ I can’t even talk about god or Christ without her getting triggered from her past which her father was a horrible Christian used god and bible to his narcissistic control on his kids which is a big reason she fell and when we met I wasn’t doing what I should have been doing as a Christian and about 7 months ago I truly came back to Christ and felt my entire mind eyes open and felt the truth from the Bible hit me like a ton of bricks and changed my ways immediately which scared her we’ve had multiple fights about it and she won’t listen to anything I say or videos I’d like her to watch she’s told me she’s afraid I’m going to try to become a pastor and try to evangelize everyone I have a chance to which I hate that word it sounds bad I’m trying to help people see the truth that Jesus was a real man things that were written about him are true he died for our sins and was resurrected and there are thousands of documents and manuscripts about all of the eyewitnesses I truly feel the rapture is coming soon not idk when but god says look for sign and you will know the season so when I felt god speaking to me thru the Bible I felt it hit me of the years I wasted not doing gods work and that I could have saved her from all these horrible things that’s happened because I was half asleep I just pushed her further down depression and thought in her head she shouldn’t have had and now she thinks that I’ve become an extreme Christian and thinks from her wrong teachings that I’m just going to sin and leave her instead of stay and make sure I do my best to show her the truth the light and how Jesus can save you from all the problems you have
I love it when you do this Glen
6:22 Tom was so extraordinary in this debate. As a non christian (at that time at least) he had so many mic drop moments it was just coherent and historically founded.
Also, what dod the speaker at the start, (Tom Holland?) mean when he stated that Christianity introduced the idea of Heterosexuality and Homosexuality? perhaps he meant that it introduced the idea that Homosexuality was a sin? But it certainly didn't introduce the idea that those are immutable identities. That is the opposite of the Christian world view.
@marchess286
He means as distinct concepts since sexual proclivity was way more fluid in Roman culture. This is what enables excesses of Emperors like Tiberius. :/
His book, Dominion, covers these things well. :)
@@FuddlyDud - thanks for your response. respectfully, "distinct concept" is a bit vague. Also, contrary to the trad Christian view, as I understand it: there are men and women and the only acceptable sex is w/in traditional marriage. Behavior outside that is sinful. To argue that people have an inherent sexual nature and fit into some category (gay, lesbian, straight, etc.) is "essentialist", rather than Christian. So, in the Christian world view, there can be homosexual behavior but not homosexuals (or hetrosexuals), from what I understand.
@@marchess286
It’s a bit vague because my memory is only so good. Sorry about that. :P
You’ve just delineated the 2 concepts quite well though, for you’ve identified “homosexual” behavior apart from heterosexual behavior, that is what is not sinful.
In Roman culture, there was no such distinctions. Every hole was fair game for sexual proclivity with desires dictating what one did. There was no wrong or right types of sexual activity in how Christians would come to categorize them later. Tom Holland describes this well since he was an expert in Roman history prior to his work on Dominion. :)
Part of the confusion now is how modern sexual identity has distinguished homosexuals as a class of people. That is most likely wrongheaded as you described, but it’s wrongheaded because of said behaviors being distinguished which was not a thing before Christianity made it so.
Does that help better? :)
@@FuddlyDud - thanks for your response. Perhaps I'm mis- reading your response, but isn't it accurate that trad Christianity considers not just homosexual relations sinful but also hetro relations, outside of marriage? Please excuse me now. I'm a Jew and have to get ready for Yom Kippur.
@@marchess286
You’re good, good luck in your preparations! :)
Also yes, heterosexual relations outside of marriage would also be counted as part of this distinction. That said, that is more of a continuation of certain practices that are rooted in Judaism as you likely know well. :)
Equality, if there is a God, is not a transcendent value. Does God favour only those who are Christians? What about non Christians? Are those who are going to hell through no fault of their own equal to the Christians who worship God?
What you call Christianity is a construct from Christians. Man made. Not God made.
Between your debate and Michael Jones it was a pretty bad time for Dillahunty. He is the epitome of the secular humanist. "I want to believe as many true things and as few false things" but then showed when the data didn't go his way he didn't care.
You are right, when you start to look at everything, it is so reliant on Christianity to get the world we see today in the west, and the world we want can only be achieved under Christianity and the return of the lord.
I saw something recently makong the comment that every human saught utopia was really just a distopia, something explored to some extent in books like animal farm, and also shows like Star Trek. But the utopia of the Lord is a true utopia indeed
I like this approach Glen, however, I do think this is missing a discussion thread that compares what Christianity specifically brings to this argument and what Greek thought, particularly the
Stoic and Platonic/Neoplatonic schools. I realise these schools of thought are intertwined with Christianity but I think it is a conversation that is needed to bolster this argument.
For example, Neoplatonism clearly sees the world as having unity derived from the One at it's core, which would be grounds for a support for science.
I'd say the real unique addition of Christianity is Agapic love, but how that fits into the claims you and Tom Holland make would be very interesting (at least to me).
Yay! I'm bonkers to the rest of the world!! Great line Glen
To this day, one of life's biggest mysteries is how Dillahunty managed to garner such a large, sycophantic fanbase.
Christopher Hitchens was the same, he had a fanatical cult like following that literally worshiped the guy. The irony of how religious the followers of New Atheism are, has always been lost on them though.
As an atheist lmao@@longllamas
We just like people who can vocally better express our reasoning.
If we find some other person we would appreciate that one as well. But it's not necessary that we will agree with everything they say.
It’s his style
@@longllamasI think Hitchens would have quit new atheism if he were around the past few years.
He declared for the trans cause.
Justin is, in my opinion, NOT annoying 😂!! Go, Justin!!
Big Justin fan here!
Thank you for speaking life. You have given me a piece of God's help through the power of the Toung and to answer the question of why it is good be a light no matter what.
Seems unfair taking snippets and adding on ones own edits of fleshed out points and reframings without inviting the other side to do the same
There's links to the original videos in the description if you want to go and watch them
lol, thats the first time I've heard "Jesus is Lord, bad luck, your a Christian, it sneaks up on you." 46:28
Civilisation and permanent settlements were created across the globe by the agriculture revolution around 10,000 years ago which was the methodical application of agriculture science and it developed all the major domesticated plants and animals that still feed us today. Our distant ancestors were doing agriculture science and whatever they might have called it, it was agriculture science and they were using what we call the scientific method of artificial selection and it enabled them to give up hunter gathering and live in permanent settlements.
Introducing a new definition or name for an existing practice or value is not the same as introducing that practice or value.
The efforts of our pre-Christian and pre written history ancestors seem to go without notice and we take them for granted because humans have always built on the generations that came before them.
A very large elephant in Holland’s Dominion room is the d in Joseph Henrich’s term weird - democracy.
When asked to nominate something that Christianity had uniquely given civilization, Holland could not mention the single most defining characteristic of the West that we live in - democracy.
Holland couldn’t mention Liberal Social Democracy, the greatest story the West has told, because it is not a Christian idea, it predates Christianity by 500 years and Christianity is also inherently anti-democratic and is, along with the other Abrahamic theisms, a totalitarian political ideology when applied politically. Religion is politics by another name.
What is it that Christians like Glen Scrivener need that only Christian authoritarianism can supply? What utility does Christian authoritarianism supply that can’t be found in other socio-political ordering principles?
The reason people want to migrate to the West is because we are democracies and despite democracy’s flaws, they would still rather live here than in the totalitarian theocracies and secular dictatorships that they currently live in where they could also be industrialized, educated and rich, and in places Christian, but not democratic.
Christianity isn't anti-democratic. It has no political ideology in and of itself. If course the church tried to gain political power. In that sense you could say it's anti-democratic. But the new testament itself has no political ideology. Religion isn't "politics with another name". That's semantics. If it was, we wouldn't need two words.
@@MrSeedi76 Hi Mr Seedi, politics is power relationships be they in the home, work, sport, public, civil government or religion.
Christianity wields power over people. It wields political power in the public square. It used to have totalitarian power over people in the west and in places it can still do that. Christianity has a top down power structure - its alleged god at the top, then his son and on earth the clerical representatives and down the bottom, the congregation who take instruction from the clerics. Top down political structures are called authoritarian. God is a maximal Big Brother.
The Vatican is still a country, a fully fledged state recognised by governments around the world. Its government is unelected by lay Catholics and unaccountable to lay Catholics. Much the same happens in other Christian denominations except they don’t have their own country. In Anglicanism, the religion Glen is a cleric for, members of the Anglican clergy are members of the English parliament. They are not elected by the British people and are not accountable to them. This is the exercise of political power and it’s all anti-democratic.
Sexism is politics by another name. Racism is politics by another name. Whether you like it or not, there are different names for politics. That’s not semantics, it is all about power relationships.
Does your information come from a book with a talking donkey?
Says the guy who thinks donkeys are descended from fish 😅
@@nickhanne1716 You deny evolution?
God can make a donkey talk.
@@nickhanne1716 i find that more plausible than the talking donkey
The vicissitudes & varieties of values & their relativities.
So what you've done is created a framework for how a fair God would operate. The kinds of things an all loving, all just, all merciful God would create foundationally. All God is, is an anthropomorphization of the values, virtues, YOU...(by you I mean mankind) find valuable.
Again, all you have is a narrative written by men. Who presumed to know of a God. That embodies the values YOU hold. Just like humanism :) Even if there is a God you don't have a clue what values this God holds, if any. Your faith in God is underpinned by your faith in what biased, believing men wrote about God. All you have are narratives. Same goes for any other representation of God.
Don Richardson's _Eternity in Their Hearts_ (rev. ed., 1984), following the _Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics_ (vol. 6, p. 272), states on p. 63, states that "the first reference in Chinese history to any kind of religious belief specifies Shang Ti [Shang Di] alone as the object of that belief." Shang Di, the Creator, the "Lord of Heaven," was majestic and holy, and according to Richardson was probably analogous to Hananim in Korea, Koro in the Central African Republic, Y'wa in Burma, possibly Yahweh and El Shaddai in the Bible, and more. A power play by the Chinese nobility and emperor choked out the worship of Shang Di and paved the way for Confucianism and Buddhism. I highly recommend _Eternity in Their Hearts_ and Don's other bestsellers _Peace Child_ and _Lords of the Earth_.
Surely the Buddha was first in noting the universality of the human condition. How we are all equal in our capacity to suffer and therefore equal in how this suffering need be addressed. Also the bodhisattva figure in Buddhism puts all sentient beings (not just human life) first, before their own salvation. This focus on compassion equals anything professed by Jesus. Buddhism was the first truly universalist religion that required no special birthright or social status to practice. It also wasn't exclusive in its view of what was sacred - life in all forms was worthy of respect and care with humans an intrinsic part of that whole.
Lifelong monogamy, according to Holland, is apparently a unique Christian contribution to civilisation.
Glen nods his Anglican head in agreement.
Well, stone the crows. An Anglican waxing about lifelong monogamy when it’s common knowledge that Anglicanism was created for the sole purpose of abolishing lifelong monogamy.
Anglicans are Anglicans because that Christian king, Henry VIII, Defender of the Faith, wanted to be a serial bonker with women who he was not married to. Anglicans are a cheer squad for being anti lifelong monogamy.
Perhaps Grayling was unimpressed because he understands English history.
Humans are not the only animals that can have a single lifelong partner and humans are not the only animals who can have serial partners. There may be an evolutionary advantage in monogamy or else so many of those animals wouldn’t do it.
Holland has not shown that before Christianity, no one had lifelong partners as he knows they did, which was Grayling’s original point, that Christianity’s contributions are not unique to Christianity. Giving a new name to an existing practice or value is not the same as introducing that practice or value.
While Henry VIII changed partners purely for political reasons so he could get a male heir as Christendom did not consider women equal to men or worthy of promotion to monarch ahead of men, people do grow apart and should be able to separate and find partners better suited to them and people should not have to remain in abusive relationships, they should be free to leave and find a loving partner instead of being forced to endure violent abuse.
So Holland strikes out here too.
Christianity gave equality of human dignity. Not the abolition of distinctions and functions. There is still Hierarchy there is still Thrones even of the Spiritual variety both Benevolent "Divine Council or Bene Elohim" and demonic.
Because all dogs go to heaven.
Ah, yes, the roads. Those brilliantly engineered non-Christian Roman roads that enabled Paul and the apostles to travel so far, so rapidly and so safely.
So how did the Romans build those roads? Did they randomly bush bash their way across the empire, randomly placing stones as they went?
No, with great efficiency and careful design, they methodically applied the science of road building without any need of Christianity, by applying their reasoning ability to trial and error and so spent hundreds of years building sophisticated roads criss-crossing Europe and the Mediterranean, some of which are still being used today and the others are now the major transport routes of Europe and the Mediterranean, widened and macadamised.
Yes, the Romans didn’t use the term “scientific method” but they did invent the word science and everything they did using knowledge (science) building those roads, and the other infrastructure like buildings, shipping, the aqueduct, irrigation, medicine, sanitation, a water system, etc etc was done by what we now term the scientific method.
Issues and practices can exist for a very long time before someone comes up with a clever name to describe them. Introducing a new definition or new name for an existing practice or value is not the same as introducing that practice or value.
Instead, for centuries the Romans just got on with educating very large numbers of engineers who methodically used their science to build thousands of miles of structurally sound and practical roads and do all the other things the Python’s mentioned, with the Pythons using comedy to factually point out that most of the air we breathe in the West is of Pagan origin.
The Greeks methodically built major infrastructure and created maths as did the Indians, without Christian input. The Chinese methodically built the Great Wall without Christian input. The Egyptians methodically build the Pyramids without Christian input, as did the Mayans. Etc etc etc
Christianity introducing a new definition or name for an existing practice or value is not the same as introducing that practice or value.
Holland has to resort to his science concept being introduced in the 18th century, post Renaissance and Enlightenment, a concept that went unnoticed in the previous 1800 years of Christian dominance.
0:17 The Scientific Method.
More unsupported claims and assertions. The life of Brian totally was making fun of religion.
Un mundo mejor para tus hijos inocentes y vulnerables es posible con más conocimiento. Censurar conocimiento es estúpido. ¿Quién censura conocimiento y cuales son las consecuencias? ¿Por qué se censura conocimiento útil para generaciones futuras? ¡Y se lo dices y les da igual! Te han hecho el máximo daño posible engañándote con la idea de Dios y te quiero sacar del engaño para que vivas bien. Para entender el engaño y salir del círculo primero tienes que entender Dios existe. Si entiendes Dios existe ya tienes un pie fuera del círculo. ¡No estás protegido dentro del círculo, tienes que encontrar la verdad!. Dios existe porque lógicamente es imposible la existencia de la creación o finitud sin el creador o infinitud. ¿Te enseñaron el argumento cosmológico de kalam en la iglesia o mezquita? Lo que tiene un principio de existencia tiene una causa porque de la nada no puede ser creado algo. Lógicamente es imposible la existencia de un número infinito de causas, por lo tanto tiene que existir una primera causa no causada que creó lo que tiene un principio de existencia. ¿Entendistes por qué Dios existe? Tu entendimiento es tu salvación y libertad. Dios existe porque no toda la realidad puede ser creación o tener un principio de existencia. Lógicamente lo que tiene un principio de existencia tiene que ser creado por lo que es eterno. La verdad que te abrirá los ojos es la Segunda Guerra Mundial y el Holocausto nazi pasó después de que Spinoza descubriese la naturaleza de Dios. Te estoy contando lo que no contarán a tus hijos inocentes y vulnerables en la escuela. Para no desperdiciar este poema de amor digo el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. ¿Entendistes la falacia lógica atea? El ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es "papá celestial" y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. ¿Eres ucraniano? Para acabar la guerra el descubrimiento que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica tiene que ser noticia. ¡Emergencia! Si entiendes eres infinitamente importante. Gracias.
Regardless of all of it, Justin has to be a true annoying religious character on the internet.
Nah, he’s a gem!
7mins+ - seven things‽ I only wanted one - see‽ you couldn't come up with "just one" ;)
Humans are made in the image of God
Says who?
The Jewish writer of Genesis.
Wait... a Jew came up with this idea, so this is not a unique Christian contribution, it’s a Jewish one. The best Holland can do is say that Christians share this idea. But it is still not unique to Christianity and for Christians to try to claim it as their own is just another example of Christians treating Jews with contempt.
It is also not self-evident that humans are made in the image of the alleged Christian god.
And what is this image exactly?
Is this alleged god inscrutable? If so, then it’s just your subjective speculation about your alleged god’s image.
And there is no agreement on what this Jewish writer meant. Different Christians have different ideas on what it means but it seems people can generally agree with an unsubstantiated answer that the image of this alleged god is immaterial and omni everything.
Whereas humans are very material and definitely omni nothing.
So, we are not then in the image of this alleged god.
And anyway, since this is a Jewish idea in the book of Genesis, it cannot be a unique idea that Christianity introduced, so Holland strikes out again.
The Supposed Wise Men - Turn Away From THE LORD - BIG BLUNDER!
Isaiah 19:11-16 The Wise Men of Egypt - And The Many Wise Men of Today
11 Surely the princes of Zoan are fools, the counsel of the wise counsellors of Pharaoh is become brutish:
how say ye unto Pharaoh, I am the son of the wise, the son of ancient kings?
12 Where are they? where are thy wise men? and let them tell thee now, and let them know what
the Lord of hosts hath purposed upon Egypt.
13 The princes of Zoan are become fools, the princes of Noph are deceived; they have
also seduced Egypt, even they that are the stay of the tribes thereof.
14 The Lord hath mingled a perverse spirit in the midst thereof: and they have caused Egypt to err in every work thereof,
as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit.
15 Neither shall there be any work for Egypt, which the head or tail, branch or rush, may do.
16 In that day shall Egypt be like unto women: and it shall be afraid and fear because of
the shaking of the hand of the Lord of hosts, which he shaketh over it.
Isaiah 33:18 Where are The Wise Men?
18 Thine heart shall meditate terror. Where is the scribe? where is the receiver? where is he that counted the towers?
The Apostle Paul quotes from The Prophet Isaiah and Makes Application for Today...TODAY!
1Corinthians 1:17-29 Not Many WISE... Not Many MIGHTY... Not Many NOBLE...
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words,
lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world?
hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God
by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen
the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen,
yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
Those that put Man's Wisdom Higher Than God's Truth are BLUNDERRING!
Just Like in The GARDEN....
Genesis 3:1-6 The SERPENT DECEIVED The Woman in THE GARDEN - and ADAM was DECEIVED
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman,
Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said,
Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened,
and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired
to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Everyone who has the slightest interest in this topic has Bible Gateway on their phone. What you should have focused on is explaining why anyone should take any notice of these verses.
@@downenout8705 The Word of God speaks for itself. If The Spirit of God does not quicken a man's heart... that man will not respond accordingly.
@@buukkreider544 Vacuous bloviated sophistry that any theist of any religion could say of their holy book. You provide no reason as to why anyone should accept what is your holy book over what you reject in theirs.
@@downenout8705 You atheists have a PRIDE issue. You expect God to bow down to you and to your demands. He is THE CREATOR and we are the clay.
The sad truth about 'most' atheists is making demands that God has to prove himself.
If you were to approach an earthly king you would know to approach with much reverence and caution.
God is higher than any earthly ruler, and yet he is treated as if he is nothing.
Now, don't be stupid, but think clearly and try to remove the PRIDE from your heart and realize that if The God of The Holy Bible is the True God... then even if I don't believe it as of yet, at least let me seek him with reverence and respect: not in PRIDE and terrible accusations.
@@buukkreider544 Don't be silly, no atheist expects anything from a deity they believe is imaginary.
Writing in capitals isn't evidence that what you wrote is true.
Proof is for math the question of a god's existence is not math. What atheists are asking for is evidence that the god or gods that a theist is asserting is real, is actually real.
I treat the Christian god with the same reverence as you treat Vishnu, none.
Again you are doing nothing more than every Muslim or Hindu who also assert, without evidence, that it's the atheists fault that they don't believe in their god. You, just like them, never consider that it's yours and their failure to provide sufficient evidence to justify a belief in yours and their particular god or gods that is at fault. The supreme arrogance that all gods are false except the one the theist believes in, is what is keeping you from the truth.
Wow....the strawman....or is it strawmen? Regardless the utility of christian moral ideas, there is little evidence that these ideas are unigue or originate with christianity. Buddhism predates Christianity by centuries and emphasis every moral concept listed. Yet another completely unimpressive presentation given by Christian apologetics.
Yet, Buddism and Christianity are hugely different so the supposed strawman doesn't exist.
Yeah Buddhism is about as different to Christianity as you can get.
Eh no it doesn't, not at all. Especially in regards to human dignity and all humans being equal . People are very unequal in Buddhism and that's just a fact. I was Buddhist for 10 years and even went and stayed at remote temples in Nepal and Thailand etc.
It leads to certain thought patterns that make human rights, progress, and justice almost impossible.
I should write a book because there's a lot I have to say about this.
The worship of Shang Di/Shang Ti predates Buddhism. According to Don Richardson in _ Eternity in Their Hearts_ , referencing the _Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics_ (vol. 6, p. 272), "the first reference in Chinese history to any kind of religious belief specifies Shang Ti alone as the object of that belief." Shang Ti was the majestic, holy Creator who "must never be represented by idols." Richardson considers him to be analogous to Hananim in Korea, Koro in the Central African Republic, Y'wa in Burma, possibly Yahweh and El Shaddai (two biblical names for the Creator), and more. I highly recommend Don's award-winning bestseller _Eternity in Their Hearts_, along with another of his bestsellers _Peace Child_. His son Steve carries on his groundbreaking work.