“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world it's pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We're on the wrong road. And if that is so we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.” -C.S. Lewis I think this quote is a great summary of this video.
I wouldn't say it's a summary of the video, I would say it's a refutation of this video. Zoomer is saying we should adopt the philosophies and methodologies of the world and do theology from there, where CS Lewis is correctly saying we should go back to what was right and where we made the wrong turning and correct from there.
This is a common view, but I actually disagree. I agree in that going back is not an option. Learning from principles, and ideas from the past to bring to the present is at least viable. You can't reset what has been culturally learned except to teach something new.
The choice of quote is a bit odd, seeing as Lewis's criticism of the followers of Barth (i.e. neo-orthodoxy) were that they were too stern, too conservative and too calvinist.
@@ChaoticNeutralMatt What is the difference between teaching something new and teaching something old? In either case, you're teaching something different from the current understanding. If we're going to pick what to do, why in all Hell would we pick to teach stuff where our foundation is secular, liberal, modernist philosophy? And to clarify here, this is the same thing in my view as "learning from principles, and ideas from the past". I see no difference. We obviously can't literally go back in time, so all that's left to do is make society more or less similar from those past times in whatever way or ways we deem right and proper to do so. To end, Jesus said this: Luke 6:47-49 47 Every one that cometh to me, and heareth my words, and doth them, I will shew you to whom he is like. 48 He is like to a man building a house, who digged deep, and laid the foundation upon a rock. And when a flood came, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and it could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock. 49 But he that heareth, and doth not, is like to a man building his house upon the earth without a foundation: against which the stream beat vehemently, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great. Let's pick the rock (historical orthodoxy), and not the weak foundation (neo-orthodoxy).
8:40 , it's worth pointing out that Immanuel Kant is the father of German Idealism, not modern philosophy as a whole. While German Idealism got proliferated throughout Europe (esp. after Husserl developed phenomenology), the Anglo-American school of Analytic Philosophy has really hardly been influenced by Kant at all. Of course, most Americans are more familiar with continental/German philosophy because of the adoption of Critical Theory by our universities. The point of this is just to say that there's actually some really wonderful work being done philosophically in America right now, and Orthodox Christianity has seen a philosophical renaissance in the Anglosphere over the last half century. For particular examples, I'd recommend looking into Alvin Plantinga, Alexander Pruss, Robin Collins and William Lane Craig. Also, in regards to Bart Ehrman, I recommend reading the work of Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, as well as reading William Lane Craig's various criticisms of Ehrman's claims.
Kant did influence German idealism but that movement took a direction that was highly critical of Kant; for one, it moved from transcendental and critical idealism to absolute idealism. Analytical philosophers like Wittgenstein were highly influenced by idealists like Kant and Schopenhauer (the latter was both fond and critical of Kant while also extremely critical of German idealists Fichte, Schelling and Hegel). German idealism was not monolithical. When it comes to Husserl: while he was later on a transcendental idealist, it would also be fair to say that his school of thought and influences (including his own phenomenological philosophy) were critical of both British empiricism and psychologism Kantians and German idealists (in fact, the philosophy of his contemporaries precede the continental/analytic-divide). Husserl's biggest influences (his mentor Franz Brentano and Bernard Bolzano), his contemporaries that were indirect (Frege) or direct followers of those influences (Meinong), and he himself, were all vital for Both the analytical and the continental "camps" (Frege influenced Husserl; Husserl influenced Gödel (although not in a major way) and Carnap; Bolzano influenced (via Husserl and the Lvov-Warsaw School) Tarski; Meinong and Frege influenced Bertrand Russell; Husserl and Meinong influenced Gilbert Ryle). None of this even takes into account the American pragmaticism (which had Hegelian influences via Peirce) and Frankfurt School's critical theory (which was actually against Husserlian phenomenology). To further close the gap between "continental" and "analytical" philosophy: Franz Brentano (who was anti-Kantian, Aristotelian and had constant dialogue with empiricists like John Stuart Mill), one of the key influences of analytical philosophy of mind and Husserl's phenomenology, was also a mentor of Sigmund Freud, whose psychoanalysis was vital for critical theory. All of these relations make sense when it is understood that the schools of thought that would be called "continental" and "analytical" - especially after the wars - originally worked together, had critical dialogue and engaged in mutually stressing issues of philosophy. All of these schools of thought and all of these philosophers were motivated by questions that Kant, too, posed - questions that, in turn, were motivated by problems posed by Hume, Leibniz etc. None of these schools, movements or individuals existed or worked in isolation (or "in their own bubble"). It seems to me that the reasons to muddle these interconnections, reasons to cause division by misrepresenting and oversimplifying the complex canon of philosophy, were an unfortunate yet perhaps understadable result of the World Wars. Lastly, when it comes to the philosophy of religion in the continental side: phenomenology of Husserl, (Saint) Edith Stein (a remarkable thomist), Roman Ingarden etc. greatly influenced the Pope John Paul II. This is only one example, but it would be safe to say that the exact status and scope of "current (not just continental) philosophy of religion" remains largely invisible and unknown (especially in Anglo-American departments) because of the fragmented state of current philosophy.
Kant did make it acceptable for philosophers everywhere to write poorly. Also, check out this other guys comment. Pretty legit, though I think there is a pretty real analytic-continental divide
This video is exactly why I love Apologetics. If we don’t fight back (philosophically) then the progressives win by default. Edit: that conclusion was 🔥 Makes me think of my favorite LOTR quote, “I wish none of this had happened…so do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.”
I believe the internet defines the difference between our generation and the last. Fifty years ago, if somebody wanted to know why the sky was blue, that'd involve a lot of intense research with very little fruit. It might ultimately rely on a few pieces of evidence, fought for with countless hours at the library, or the word of somebody who is supposedly an expert in the field. Now, we're spoiled for choice. In seconds, I can have access to millions of pieces of research, not just at random, but all sorted and filtered to better fit my query. I have access to the teachings of others who have already studied the topic, and compiled the relevant facts. It's refreshing to hear someone of my own generation speak freely about these topics, not because you're an expert in every field, but because you've been made aware of the great number of fields that exist. You openly admit your ignorance, speak confidently about your own beliefs, and accept no one answer as the absolute truth.
True Orthodoxy is accepting the fact that there are some things (well, more like a lot of things) that the human mind will never be able to understand about GOD & his creations. If you try to solve everything about GOD, you just might find yourself abandoning GOD. That’s where science is right now. You said it yourself, it was supposed to be a means of understanding to the best of our ability how GOD does what he does, now it rejects the idea of Christ at all.
Science is trying to solve everything about God??? Only people steeped in promoting wacky anti-science nonsense believe that. The vast majority of true scientists are only interested in how the observable cosmos works, and none of them think they know it all, ever. There may be wacko pseudo-scientists that think God can be investigated that way but ya gotta be as nuts as they are to spend a lot of time worrying over what they think.
@redeemedzoomer you should upload your videos as podcasts. My family has ignored when I send them your videos because it's a Minecraft video. 😂 But I think your thoughts are fantastic. I want to be able to share them with the boomers!
@@X_manoah yes, because that will go viral. Releasing these as a podcast would increase his potential audience. I want to see his content grow to more than just my own family. I think there's ripe opportunity for these ideas in the podcast space.
I know you made a video about it but im having a hard time figuring out how to join. is it multiplayer or realms? if anyone could provide some instructions, id be grateful.
Have you heard of Rene Girard? I think he gives a good answer to the discussion between the chasm created between pressupositionnism and classical philosophy.
The way I would describe history of humanity is what happens with a moving snowball. A snowball picks up things as it moves forward in time and those things or ideas becomes part of the snowball but is not the snowball, in and of itself. The snowball expands, morphs, and is always moving somewhere. If we fail to understand the snowball, we fail to have any influence of where the snowball should or should not go, and perhaps picks up things that can be detrimental to the snowball. I am sure there can be a better metaphor, but that is how I see it as an Alaskan native.
Just curious, have you watched the video about the Interpretation Argument? I think your understanding of Scripture and your willingness to engage with atheist arguments could be a helpful resource for debunking it, and I hope you make another video about that argument specifically.
I have, and you can realize how its actually a proof of a personal God. If God laid everything out perfectly with only 1 interpretation, we could get to traditionalistic and nearly ritualistic and lose a relationship with him, and 2, it allows him ot not be a 2 dimensional character, but a being you can engage with. Is that satisfactory? if not I can explain it more in depth, just putting out a quick answer now.
This is a pretty good start but I'd like to see Zoomer make a video on it. I also linked it to Orthodox Kyle; he's more the type of person to debunk it. @@aydentrevaskis8390
Amazing video, paying attention to and answering modern questions is important. Ignoring them leads to more progressives who see Christianity as an archaic and obsolete faith. Great points
Do you have a plan/vision for Christianity beyond earth? The exciting new frontier for humans is space exploration. Many other religions are too earth bound in their traditions/beliefs.
Christianity isn't bound to the earth like alot of other religions, and its already basically colonised a new planet with the new world, so we'll be fine.
Big Bang supports Christianity. People literally denied the Big Bang theory because it went against the idea of an eternal universe which was popular at the time (also a Catholic priest literally made the theory)
@@FromElsewhear deleted my first comment because I misread you. Scripture is clear that death came through Adam and not before. Sad that zoomer doesn’t believe the Bible here
Quantum physics specifically describes things that are smaller than atoms. That's why they called the Marvel movie that. The reason it was so revolutionary is because things that are smaller than atoms don't follow Newtonian physics.
I hold a young earth view. There are plenty of flaws with macroevolution, which can be shown through revisions to the theory, and lack of evidence for the processes that underwent between supposed kinds. From a theological point of view there's the fundamental problem of death before Adam's sin. It's ones interpretation of geology that's the foundation of macroevolution, and the young earth view is that the interpretation is wrong either due to not considering Noah's Flood, possible changes in processes over time, and how long term turbulatuon of soil and rock works. Plenty of videos, scholars, and books explain possible young earth explanations. Obviously, an easy way to accept macroevolution is to be someone who rejects the idea that animals have souls. Then you simply say humans were put here at a point where God being timeless and transcendent felt it was ready for them. The problem is that requires adding or reinterpreting a lot of scripture in figurative ways that isn't shown or intended to be figurative.
"There are plenty of flaws with macroevolution, which can be shown through revisions to the theory..." Revisions and changes are the mechanisms through which science progress. We had Newtonian physics for quite a while before Einstein came along, and now we have general and special relativity. We use to think that the atom was the smallest indivisible building block of material, but particle physics would have something to say about that. This, however, does not, mean that there is no such thing as atoms, or that Newtonian physics no-longer describe the motion of slow-moving low-density objects perfectly adequately. As we uncover new data and discover new theoretical frameworks, we should, and do, update our models of reality. Some frameworks, such as the idea that light propagate through ether, is discarded, and others, such as evolution, is refined. This is just how sound scientific practice works. "...and lack of evidence for the processes that underwent between supposed kinds" This use to be true when Darwin first proposed the theory. We have since discovered a myriad of transitory fossils, including many precursors of modern humans. "From a theological point of view there's the fundamental problem of death before Adam's sin." What may this problem be? A literal reading of the text is not self-consistent. Consider that there was a Tree of Life in the garden, by which man could obtain eternal life. If there was no literal death before the fall in a linear timeline, then why the need for a Tree of Life. Moreover, taking a literal reading of the text causes inconsistency between the creation accounts in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. Lastly, taking the literal reading of any part of the Bible should be well considered, given that the authors of the Bible came from a high contexts culture, this is to say that their writing, and their speech, conveyed meaning through implication and not just through literal meaning. To discount this would be to ignore the context in which the Bible was written, which in turn implies that the Bible was inspired in such a manner as to be understood only by people of low context cultures (e.g. anglophones) and not by the people who wrote it nor the original audience. This seems highly improbable.
Well said! The problem is that few are taught anything more than "Trust in Jesus!" and when they face hard questions, they stumble. Then some people become extremely academic studying everything but scripture itself. They begin to study the study of scripture more than what God is trying to tell them through it, and it seems they often drift to atheism in all but name, considering God subject to human understanding of the world, scripture simply a collection of wise writings and Jesus a nice spiritual leader. I HIGHLY recommend people check out Creation International for YEC studies in an easily digested format. They have thousands of articles, publish a scientific periodical but also magazines that are very good for the casual reader or for leaving out so people can skim for an article they find interesting and learn something. Then there's Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham absolutely has passion and has a strong team he works with, though their fervor needs some tempering. They often scoff and mock right back at the scoffers, which isn't how we SHOULD be teaching and reaching people. Though understandable given the unrelenting abuse they receive.
@@uilspieel99 The last part of your comment seems to support a six day creation, while the rest tried to claim that science being provisional means macroevolution can withstand all scrutiny. The last part said the ancient people should have understood it, and they would have understood parts like Exodus 20 to mean six days of creation, and a six day work week. Only modern eisegesis comes to the types of conclusions old earth creationists claim. As for evolutionary flaws there are actual dead ends both with fossils and living creatures that have never been joined. Theropods having no ancestral ties, the jump from single celled organisms to four-celled, and that's only with modern algae, the emergence of groups like mammals and birds before what they thought were their ancestors, no evidence for chemical evolution to a cell, etc.
@@litigioussociety4249 Look into Inspiring Philosophy's videos on the topic. Also, please explain why its inconsistent with scripture and the problems with it?
We are no longer in the modernist conservative debate and the neoorthodox synthesis. Post modernity makes all claims of truth illusory, post liberal theologies such as radical orthodoxy or narrative theology can also offer convincing alternatives.
I remember my last effort as a protestant. I had lost 1 of the five points of calvinism... when christ weeps for jerusalem he does so because no matter how bad he wanted to save them, they would not allow him to do it. If christ destined these people for destruction, why would he weep? Why would he admonish them if they had no choice? Eventually another point fell for me. Unconditional election... from the same line of logic... So i figured id go back to the reformation. Maybe Luther was right where calvin was wrong... or zwingli or smyth. So i said well lets go back to the beginning. The word protestant means one who is in protest. Protest of what? The catholic church... i realized everything i believed about that church was negative and figured id just go down the 95 thesis and see what the catholics have to say for themselves. I figured id find a reformer i more closely adhered to but it didnt happen at all. One by one, every doctrine i believed about the catholic church was adjusted, reversed, and extremely well explained. Every doctrine that i was decieved into believing about the church was overturned. I felt lied to by guys like james white, doug wilson, john macarthur, and pretty much every online calvinist. Plenty of other protestants like michael brown, ray comfort, mike gendron, and wretched radio also constantly lie about what catholics believe. I was stunned by this... how far can you gonwith misrepresenting the other side before it gets sinful. I like the mission of this channel, to align yourself with historical values but the chances of restoring the mainline is bleak. Like you said progressive doctrines are the only ones that advance. If you guys all join a progressive church, theyll take your money and use it become even more progressive. To turn the direction of the boat the path needs to fail. If you join up, theyll see their progressive changes as the reason so many joined. Theyll take it as a green light to keep butchering the bible for sheer numbers. I suggest checking out the catholic church. Its still extremley conservative, shows no signs of altering its dogmas or doctrines to get numbers. Without doing that the the church has increased its membership by 500 million members worldwide over the last 10 years. Continues to be the most charitable organization in history, and it does make sense theologically. We make a huge impact for christ... wed love to have more intelligent presbys challenge oir beliefs and correct people on the multitude of misconceptions that many have about the church. Theyve had 2000 years of apologetics built up to defend each belief. Many protestant churches dont even require any credentials to become a minister. I have a friend who got his ministers license just to do weddings. He hasnt even been to church in a decade. Catholic priests are required to do 8 years of seminary. If you want historical evidence read the didache. Its the oldest christian catechism and is contemporary with revelation. The church fathers are almost entirely catholic sounding. Even augustine is obviously far more cstholic than calvinist. Trust me, if theres a belief that we hold that you guys think is heretical, look it up on catholic answers. They literally have articles covering every topic top to bottom and i havent found anything remotely confusing. I got confirmed this past easter and i cant tell you how on fire i am for the lord now that everything makes sense.
@ChaoticNeutralMatt well the only thing older than catholicism is Samaritan and Ethiopian Judaism. Modern rabbinic Judaism is like a restoration effort and comes hundreds of years after catholicism. Eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox both broke away from catholics as well.
@@knockoutfever4 lol nah they left the catholics. How else do explain the coptics having a pope? So when the coptics broke away from the orthodox they went on to invent the same office as the western latin church? C’mon, that makes ZERO sense. The orthodox once believed in papal infallibility, they once submitted to the bishop of the first see, how else would he be able to excommunicate 2 patriarchs without a council? The true church has always been in a state of debelopment, the oriental orthodox broke away in 451 but retained the idea of a papacy. The eastern orthodox broke away 600 years later. The Protestants 400 years later. What do they all have in common? They no longer agreed with the direction of development that was coming from Rome. This basic set of facts all but confirms the latin church was the true church and the rest of the churches stopped agreeing with that development. Its so simple
“Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.” ― C.S. Lewis Neo-Orthodoxy is a mistake and there is no value in trying to address nonsense questions like "you can't know what thing is only your perception of it" There isn't an answer because the question itself rules out objective truth and God is objectively true. How do you know this isn't a computer simulation? How can you prove you aren't insane in an asylum somewhere rocking back and forth imagining all this? Stoner philosophy isn't worth addressing. Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." 1 Timothy 6:20-21 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith." Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." 2 Timothy 3:12-17 12 "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons." 2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." 1 Timothy 1:6-10 "Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine" We are to cling to the old ways and be a preservative. Not to progress to error. Matthew 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men. " Jude 1:17-23 "But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life." Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear-hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh. Jeremiah 6:16-20 "Thus says the Lord: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Give heed to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not give heed.’ Therefore hear, O nations, and know, O congregation, what will happen to them. Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing evil upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not given heed to my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it. To what purpose does frankincense come to me from Sheba, or sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me."
Amen! An issue I'm seeing more and more frequently is Christians who spend more time studying the false wisdom of Man than they do of God. They begin to try to shape God to fit their presuppositions based on Man's reasoning, but these things are folly. All human wisdom is foolishness. We should try to understand the world as a means to glorify God, not try to make God fit our understanding of the world.
What translation of the Bible are you quoting? In your quote of 1Timothy 20 the translation is rendered as "...science falsely so called..." Using this particular word may give the impression that the Bible is disavowing modern day science here. The Greek reads "...ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως..." (pseudōnymou gnōseōs). This can be translated as "falsely called knowledge". Note that the word for knowledge, gnōseōs, has a soewhat more widly used form, γνώσης (gnosis). These words are often used to describe knowledge of a particular kind, namely knowledge gained through personal experience. Contrast this with ἐπιστήμη (epistime), which is knowledge of the kind that is gained through study and reason. You can see why this might better refer to what we understand as science.
@@uilspieel99 Modern "science" says a man can become a woman and men can give birth. It doesn't really matter if you call it science or knowledge the meaning is not changed much.
RZ, do you believe God or Satan rules the world? I know a lot of people believe God rules the world, but it's very easy to look at the world and conclude that it is Satan's domain. (This would also be a good video idea)
Neo-Orthodox theology is like a balance beam. Imagine two sides of the beam, each representing important aspects of faith. On one side, there's the recognition of the mystery and transcendence of God. Neo-Orthodox thinkers emphasize that God is beyond human comprehension and cannot be fully grasped by human reason. On the other side of the beam, there's the importance of engaging with the world and living out one's faith. Neo-Orthodox theologians believe that Christianity should have a real impact on people's lives and the world around them. Basically, Neo-Orthodox theology sees a tension between these two sides of the beam. It suggests that human attempts to neatly explain everything about God and faith can fall short. Instead, they propose that encountering God involves a "dialectical" or back-and-forth process. This means embracing the tension between the mystery of God and the call to live out one's beliefs in the world. So, Neo-Orthodox theology emphasizes the importance of faith being more than just intellectual understanding. It's about engaging with God in a way that acknowledges the limits of human understanding while still living a meaningful and purposeful life based on Christian principles.
Given that you are of a Jewish background, I want to know your thoughts on Messianic Judaism. Jews would say it's Christian. Christians would say it's Jewish. Where do you think it falls on that scale?
Moses changes God's mind multiple times. That doesn't mean any change is an improvement or regression. There doesn't need to be a value judgment in God doing something other than what He says at first.
Do you watch/are you a fan of Whatifalthist? i find that you both will say similiar points, have a similiar vadence and a similiar interest in the conservation of conservative Judeo-Christian values in USA.
I am indeed a fan of whatifalthist and he has influenced me. One big difference between me and him. He believes Judeo-Christian values should be promoted cuz they’re good for society. I agree, but I also think Christianity specifically is the truth and that everyone who wants to have eternal life must know that
@@redeemedzoomer6053 For sure, his is for a more impersonal utility reason, while yours is for faith/belief reasons, as well as recognizing the benefits. Thanks for answering my question! I've been following your content and although I'm not Christian, I've been watching out of interest in your scholastic approach to Christianity. Keep up the good work!
I think that people tend to have a bias toward progressive/liberal thinking, or conservative/traditional thinking, in fact it’s actually somewhat demonstrable psychologically. I also think that there is a tension between these two that represents something important. We need people who think both ways and should acknowledge that. Conservatives say that we need structure, and progressives say we need to build new structures. Both are partly true. Saying “society and culture are always progressing” is fundamentally a, or perhaps THE progressive view. There is no inherent reason that’s more true than saying “culture is the representation of everything that has survived all of history until now.” Some things change, but some don’t. We have an unchangeable God, and there is nothing mew under the sun (human nature hasn’t and isn’t changing). The only example of perfect doctrine and human existence was 2000 years ago, and we are never going to progress past that. We need conservatives to defend doctrine so we don’t lose the baby with the bathwater. Even Zoomer is very conservative on some issues, like the historic ecumenical creeds. Those are extrabiblical documents, why aren’t they “outdated”? Shouldn’t we write new ones and get rid of the old ones since we know better now? No, clearly we shouldn’t. Some things need to be conserved. So maybe let’s not demonize conservatives so much, eh?
I think Zoomer did a fair criticism on conservatives as a whole, just like progressives need to be criticized on progressing so much that society essentially goes into chaos and loss of tradition. He’s not saying that conservatives need to die out and give up their mentality of preserving good, but he’s saying that conservatives need to adopt the mindset of understanding and being challenged by their opponents and have meaningful conversations while also holding onto the importance of orthodoxy.
I don't know about demonize, but honestly they need a bit of fire under the ass. Otherwise, general agreement on the need for both. People are scared to lose important things in the changing tides, but that doesn't mean you should stagnate. On the other hand careful consideration before choosing a path forward is wise
You aren’t wrong when you say that they teach us that the answer to everything is Jesus. It’s not even just in Sunday school, if someone in my family or some religious families I know are asked a tough question, sometimes they respond with Jesus or something similar
There is only one thing I do not understand: If you want to go back to the orthodoxy, you don't go back to "old protestantism". You are either going to Catholithism, to straight to the real Orthodox Church, the oldest ome
I mean I believe that God created a mature earth that had billions of years of life crafted into it a few thousand years ago, but I don't know if that's what you're asking
I think you have a hard sell saying philosophical essentialism (Plato, Aristotle) is a zombie not worth reviving. We can reform bad moves in philosophy, which cause the issues of today without trying to rewind the clock. We start where we are and reintroduce forgotten ideas to help solve modern problems. Because, remember, there is a difference between refusing to accept the world you live in (denial) and refusing to accept the broken rules of a game you didn't agree to play (wisdom). For e.g. we don't repristinate Neoplatonism, we develope "neo-neoplatonism." And more seriously, if you regard the loss of classical philosophy as acceptable, you lose the worldview of the New Testament and Creed. Not everything should progress. Some things should be preserved.
I'm a very conservative Christian, specifically in the way of young earth creationism. I don't see how evolution fits with the Bible. The only true way for this to work would be that the story of the world's creation and Adam and Eve were parables. I see "Old Earth" geology and ask why God couldn't just make the Earth that way? I look to the book of Job and wonder where we were during the creation of the Earth? If the Bible says 7 days, my inclination is not to refute that. The rest of the narrative Bible is not written in parables, why is this the exception?
Quantum physics = study of the smallest things in the universe, so small that they are the smallest discrete amount of energy matter, time etc. That can be measured (aka quantized) so it actually makes sense when Ant-Man gets really small and goes into the quantum realm
Your should read orthodox philosophers that you apparently don't know exist rather than liberal people who achieved nothing even though they compromised everything like Barth. One cursory reading of Philosophia Christi or the likes of The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, JP Moreland and Alvin Plantinga and Reformed Epistemology already engages philosophical issues more robustly and formally without compromising the faith than the mumbojumbo generator that came out of liberal continental theologians. You might not believe it but several christian philosophers have rigorous works published by leading universities and it's been a thing since the 70s at least. Not the majority of philosophers, since most follow the culture, but if you're so elitist you'll only read people who are universally praises by the world when they're alive you'd have to discard most church fathers and early apologists too.
I went from believing in evolution to now being a young earth creationist. I understand evolution fairly well and all the flaws with it. I see flaws in young earth creationism as well but I find it a much more accurate according to Genesis. Evolution contradicts Genesis.
@@TitusCastiglione1503 Evolution says God didnt make man, snd that man evolved from apes and all things evolved from other things (that they were never made just as they are today)
Boi this video's about to be about evolution. I'll save the remarks for the other one if I can find it though. Ken Ham, love him or hate him (And you shouldn't hate a brother in Christ) points out the problem you did; Kids are only being taught "Trust in Jesus!" and not given the tools to answer hard questions they encounter, apologetics. That said though, isn't it strange you need to verify from Man what you can trust in God regarding? Or that you feel God's word MUST fit the views of man? I do agree though that we can't simply wind back the clock, though we needn't appeal to contemporary views. See every church and effort that appealed to the world to try and reach it, they became like the world instead. Ask God what he wants of you and do it. As for being compatible with science, are you saying it needs to agree with every contemporary "I Love science!" message?
I see this all the time, both in person, and online. Good people losing faith because their parents and/or church taught them a criminally absurdly simplified form of christianity that can't compete even with the basic kinds of arguments teenage reddit atheist comes up with. It's sad and irritating.
I think.. God must change. What comes across to me is the potential for him to be the very top, and yet always be pushing those limits. It might appear to be the same, but it's somewhat different. There are unwavering and unchanging aspects, but I think this is a fair addition. I'm not entirely sure why 'must' comes to mind though
God is impassible. There are no "limits" for him to break. if you make God changeable then God is contingent on a past God. God would then not have the attribute of necessity. And if God must be changing to an ever more powerful state then God is never omnipotent because the next moment he will be closer to the ever farthing "top." Honestly, there are so many problems with God being able to change. I do see where you're coming from tho.
I would reject Karl Barth as a credible source of information because of his gross immorality regarding his cohabitation with his secretary and his wife. I believe his thinking was corrupted due to his sexual sin and that is why it is murky and confused. Former admirers of Barth have said that he used some of the same reasoning process that he used to justify his sin in his theology. I am not familiar enough with Barth to comment on this, but conceptually I believe his grievous sin of adultery contaminated any intellect that he may have exhibited earlier in life. Regarding whether it is possible to "go back" to a better time, the consummation does involve a return to the Garden of Eden in a glorified sense...the sense that the man in Christ will no longer be alienated from God, fellow man, nature and his own body. Regarding biblical "error", knowledgeable evangelicals believe that the original writings were inerrant. Through analysis of manuscripts, we believe God enabled the creation of a composite text which is very close to the originals. In some cases, minor details such as numbers may not correlate but this likely reflects scribal errors that are not easy to reconcile completely because there are no variants that allow a reconciliation. Regarding culture and faith, the Bible contains concepts which can be leveraged to argue against any philosophy of man that contradicts the word of God. Hermeneutics involves understanding the original context and what it meant to the author and audience, and then transcending this context to apply the principles to cultural issues that are faced today. In principle, the word of God addresses any philosophy that will present itself. I don't think man and his "progress" aids the believer in any way, except possibly forcing the believer to think deeper about the underlying issues from a biblical worldview, using the Scriptures as the mirror to examine culture. Culture can never become the lense with which to view Scripture, it is the other way around. Regarding your respect for "science", I would agree with it assuming that what we are talking about is true science. However, the problem with scientific method is that the observer is not unbiased and neutral in his thinking. Often he reads the conclusion into his observations. Since Reformed theology teaches that unconverted man is hostile towards God, his conclusions will likely reflect his worldview. And, I believe there are other explanations for the phenomena that you attribute to macroevolution that you are not considering. I am not necessarily a "young earther" but I reject any view that denies the literal persons of Adam and Eve and the literalness of the Fall, as well as the concept of macroevolution where a "kind" or family (using standard taxonomy) has a common parent with another "kind" or family. Regarding Bart Ehrman, James White has dealt with his claims through debating him. Worthwhile viewing.
Culture is always the lens we view Scripture with, unless purposefully looking at it differently. We look at it with our modern eyes. We can also measure our culture and lives against Scripture, but I thought it fair to point out that detail.
@@ChaoticNeutralMatt Proper exegesis of Scripture involves reading it in light of the culture of the author and audience, and then transcending this cultural context to derive principles that can be applied today in our culture. If we read Scripture without considering the culture of the author and audience, we run the risk of misunderstanding Scripture. And, in principle, the Bible provides the answers we need for godly living. That is my conviction and I am sticking to it. "Progressive Christians" would likely claim differently and seek to apply their own reasoning to the issue at hand. That is why "Progressive" churches are largely going along with the culture of this world and its sinfulness. I would include PCUSA, UCC, ELCA, MCUSA, Episcopalians, Universal Unitarians and United Methodists in this group of so-called "Progressive" churches. I am sure there are other smaller denominations, and a few faithful churches, pastors, etcetera in the mix. If I have correctly understood Redeemed Zoomer, his view of Scripture and its inerrancy is much weaker than the Particular Baptists I associate with. But, he is a young guy and perhaps he will come to better conclusions. He might even become a good credobaptist Particular Baptist someday.
As a German my problem with neo orthodoxy is: Mostly all of them were socialists, Barth, Moltman, Gogarten was national socialist, except Bultmann (if you count him, who had obviously the most terrible theology of them). It is quite difficult to raise modern questions without impliying modern solutions or former modern solutions, which will agains lead to today.
@@cormundum_o Great. But I would say that both are distinctly modern in their thinking, so I don't view national socialism as some fallback into premodern barbarism.
@@willhelmi2095 Both are equally evil and bad, I would just go as far to say it’s not even worth discussing about which one is better because they are both horrible in their own way.
I think we should study the saints instead of our own understanding of Scripture, ever since the Great Schism, and even before that, when people calling themselves Christians starting deviating from other Christians and murdering Jews and people like Hypatia, in the late 4th century, and early 5th century, Christianity has constantly shot itself in the foot optically, and we can't understand the Bible without learning from others, this is why I have no faith in the absolute doctrine of sola fide, sola scriptura. Since it's inception as the state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire in 380, Christianity has been on the wrong path in my opinion.
The Protestant branch in specific? There is definitely value in studying old teachers, although to deny independent thought is odd. I do think Sola Scriptura is lacking in the sense that I don't feel the reality of the crafted world is properly accounted for.
@@Corpoise0974 I admire it because no one has ever oppressed anyone in the name of Oriental Orthodoxy for the most part compared to other denominations as they have almost always been oppressed by Muslims and whatnot thus they seem like very humble and some of the best most wholesome Christians as a result and the Aramaic and Arabic liturgies are beautiful
13:58 Well you just said it right there: girl. I dont think youll get many women interested in a theological debate or even listening to a well crafted argument for anything theological. Just not a lot of women interested in theology or philosophy or anything concretely logical. Especially the listening part is being disparaged nowadays.
Who needs the Dream SMP? I got my Christian Minecraft server.
Still waiting for the catholic crusade arc to start
Fr😂
@@joenathan8059 For the Holy Land
Get an Orthodox one. then i’ll be impressed
@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded Agreed ☦️☦️☦️
Neo-Ortodoxy makes me think of a cyberpunk setting where cyborgs with beards preach the gospel while destroying robots with laser communion spoons.
Based af
Sounds like something straight out of CDPR's Cyberpunk 2077.
@greglejacques1094 iconoclast like that one faction from out worlds💀💀
The Mechanicus! Praise be to the Omnissiah!
You’re channel is a blessing to the church and so many young people especially
Zoomer: i need to treat my animals humanely. also Zoomer: has chickens in a pond floating around
Chickens can float tho
Well you see, these chickens are actually ducks. Why do they make chicken noises? Nobody knows
they have evolved into ducks!
@@jtraptor7776
@@jtraptor7776agnostic detected
@@jtraptor7776
It’s a divine mystery!
“We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man. There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world it's pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We're on the wrong road. And if that is so we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.” -C.S. Lewis
I think this quote is a great summary of this video.
I wouldn't say it's a summary of the video, I would say it's a refutation of this video. Zoomer is saying we should adopt the philosophies and methodologies of the world and do theology from there, where CS Lewis is correctly saying we should go back to what was right and where we made the wrong turning and correct from there.
This is a common view, but I actually disagree. I agree in that going back is not an option. Learning from principles, and ideas from the past to bring to the present is at least viable. You can't reset what has been culturally learned except to teach something new.
The choice of quote is a bit odd, seeing as Lewis's criticism of the followers of Barth (i.e. neo-orthodoxy) were that they were too stern, too conservative and too calvinist.
@@ChaoticNeutralMatt What is the difference between teaching something new and teaching something old? In either case, you're teaching something different from the current understanding. If we're going to pick what to do, why in all Hell would we pick to teach stuff where our foundation is secular, liberal, modernist philosophy? And to clarify here, this is the same thing in my view as "learning from principles, and ideas from the past". I see no difference. We obviously can't literally go back in time, so all that's left to do is make society more or less similar from those past times in whatever way or ways we deem right and proper to do so.
To end, Jesus said this:
Luke 6:47-49
47 Every one that cometh to me, and heareth my words, and doth them, I will shew you to whom he is like.
48 He is like to a man building a house, who digged deep, and laid the foundation upon a rock. And when a flood came, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and it could not shake it; for it was founded on a rock.
49 But he that heareth, and doth not, is like to a man building his house upon the earth without a foundation: against which the stream beat vehemently, and immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.
Let's pick the rock (historical orthodoxy), and not the weak foundation (neo-orthodoxy).
8:40 , it's worth pointing out that Immanuel Kant is the father of German Idealism, not modern philosophy as a whole. While German Idealism got proliferated throughout Europe (esp. after Husserl developed phenomenology), the Anglo-American school of Analytic Philosophy has really hardly been influenced by Kant at all. Of course, most Americans are more familiar with continental/German philosophy because of the adoption of Critical Theory by our universities.
The point of this is just to say that there's actually some really wonderful work being done philosophically in America right now, and Orthodox Christianity has seen a philosophical renaissance in the Anglosphere over the last half century. For particular examples, I'd recommend looking into Alvin Plantinga, Alexander Pruss, Robin Collins and William Lane Craig. Also, in regards to Bart Ehrman, I recommend reading the work of Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, as well as reading William Lane Craig's various criticisms of Ehrman's claims.
Kant did influence German idealism but that movement took a direction that was highly critical of Kant; for one, it moved from transcendental and critical idealism to absolute idealism. Analytical philosophers like Wittgenstein were highly influenced by idealists like Kant and Schopenhauer (the latter was both fond and critical of Kant while also extremely critical of German idealists Fichte, Schelling and Hegel). German idealism was not monolithical.
When it comes to Husserl: while he was later on a transcendental idealist, it would also be fair to say that his school of thought and influences (including his own phenomenological philosophy) were critical of both British empiricism and psychologism Kantians and German idealists (in fact, the philosophy of his contemporaries precede the continental/analytic-divide). Husserl's biggest influences (his mentor Franz Brentano and Bernard Bolzano), his contemporaries that were indirect (Frege) or direct followers of those influences (Meinong), and he himself, were all vital for Both the analytical and the continental "camps" (Frege influenced Husserl; Husserl influenced Gödel (although not in a major way) and Carnap; Bolzano influenced (via Husserl and the Lvov-Warsaw School) Tarski; Meinong and Frege influenced Bertrand Russell; Husserl and Meinong influenced Gilbert Ryle).
None of this even takes into account the American pragmaticism (which had Hegelian influences via Peirce) and Frankfurt School's critical theory (which was actually against Husserlian phenomenology). To further close the gap between "continental" and "analytical" philosophy: Franz Brentano (who was anti-Kantian, Aristotelian and had constant dialogue with empiricists like John Stuart Mill), one of the key influences of analytical philosophy of mind and Husserl's phenomenology, was also a mentor of Sigmund Freud, whose psychoanalysis was vital for critical theory.
All of these relations make sense when it is understood that the schools of thought that would be called "continental" and "analytical" - especially after the wars - originally worked together, had critical dialogue and engaged in mutually stressing issues of philosophy. All of these schools of thought and all of these philosophers were motivated by questions that Kant, too, posed - questions that, in turn, were motivated by problems posed by Hume, Leibniz etc. None of these schools, movements or individuals existed or worked in isolation (or "in their own bubble"). It seems to me that the reasons to muddle these interconnections, reasons to cause division by misrepresenting and oversimplifying the complex canon of philosophy, were an unfortunate yet perhaps understadable result of the World Wars.
Lastly, when it comes to the philosophy of religion in the continental side: phenomenology of Husserl, (Saint) Edith Stein (a remarkable thomist), Roman Ingarden etc. greatly influenced the Pope John Paul II. This is only one example, but it would be safe to say that the exact status and scope of "current (not just continental) philosophy of religion" remains largely invisible and unknown (especially in Anglo-American departments) because of the fragmented state of current philosophy.
Kant did make it acceptable for philosophers everywhere to write poorly.
Also, check out this other guys comment. Pretty legit, though I think there is a pretty real analytic-continental divide
@@ZioBlader Thanks for the clarification!👍
Greetings from Germany. 👍
First semester of Philosophy and theology beginning next week in Würzburg💪
I thought you said carl marx😂😂😂, had my head scratching for a while
Fantastic vid, Zoomer! The Neo approach to the inerrancy/infallibility issue is what I believe but I've had trouble articulating it. Thanks!
This video is exactly why I love Apologetics. If we don’t fight back (philosophically) then the progressives win by default.
Edit: that conclusion was 🔥
Makes me think of my favorite LOTR quote, “I wish none of this had happened…so do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.”
Fantastic video, for those interested in more I would recommend Jordan B Cooper's series on Protestant liberalism.
I believe the internet defines the difference between our generation and the last.
Fifty years ago, if somebody wanted to know why the sky was blue, that'd involve a lot of intense research with very little fruit. It might ultimately rely on a few pieces of evidence, fought for with countless hours at the library, or the word of somebody who is supposedly an expert in the field.
Now, we're spoiled for choice. In seconds, I can have access to millions of pieces of research, not just at random, but all sorted and filtered to better fit my query. I have access to the teachings of others who have already studied the topic, and compiled the relevant facts.
It's refreshing to hear someone of my own generation speak freely about these topics, not because you're an expert in every field, but because you've been made aware of the great number of fields that exist.
You openly admit your ignorance, speak confidently about your own beliefs, and accept no one answer as the absolute truth.
True Orthodoxy is accepting the fact that there are some things (well, more like a lot of things) that the human mind will never be able to understand about GOD & his creations. If you try to solve everything about GOD, you just might find yourself abandoning GOD. That’s where science is right now. You said it yourself, it was supposed to be a means of understanding to the best of our ability how GOD does what he does, now it rejects the idea of Christ at all.
If God doesn't want to be abandoned by us, then why does he keep playing peek-a-boo?
There's a good number of Christian Scientist. I don't really care what it says one way or another, it's focus is on observation and theory.
Science is trying to solve everything about God??? Only people steeped in promoting wacky anti-science nonsense believe that. The vast majority of true scientists are only interested in how the observable cosmos works, and none of them think they know it all, ever. There may be wacko pseudo-scientists that think God can be investigated that way but ya gotta be as nuts as they are to spend a lot of time worrying over what they think.
Incredibly brilliant analysis!
Does your map have a Dutch reformed town? Or as South Africans call it, Neder-Duitse Gereformeerde Kerk (NG). If not it would be fun to build one
Yes. It's called Kamperland
@@redeemedzoomer6053thanks for response, I might join the discord and build church or something lol
@redeemedzoomer you should upload your videos as podcasts. My family has ignored when I send them your videos because it's a Minecraft video. 😂 But I think your thoughts are fantastic. I want to be able to share them with the boomers!
You can just download the video and extract the audio.
@@X_manoah yes, because that will go viral. Releasing these as a podcast would increase his potential audience. I want to see his content grow to more than just my own family. I think there's ripe opportunity for these ideas in the podcast space.
I know you made a video about it but im having a hard time figuring out how to join. is it multiplayer or realms? if anyone could provide some instructions, id be grateful.
RZ, have you read "Theology After Wittgenstein" by Fergus Kerr?
Nobody actually lives their lives like what Kant said is true. We all assume things to be like they seem to us
Have you heard of Rene Girard? I think he gives a good answer to the discussion between the chasm created between pressupositionnism and classical philosophy.
I looked into him and watched some lectures about him, but can you recommend specific videos or articulate your point more please?
The way I would describe history of humanity is what happens with a moving snowball. A snowball picks up things as it moves forward in time and those things or ideas becomes part of the snowball but is not the snowball, in and of itself. The snowball expands, morphs, and is always moving somewhere. If we fail to understand the snowball, we fail to have any influence of where the snowball should or should not go, and perhaps picks up things that can be detrimental to the snowball. I am sure there can be a better metaphor, but that is how I see it as an Alaskan native.
Just curious, have you watched the video about the Interpretation Argument? I think your understanding of Scripture and your willingness to engage with atheist arguments could be a helpful resource for debunking it, and I hope you make another video about that argument specifically.
I have, and you can realize how its actually a proof of a personal God. If God laid everything out perfectly with only 1 interpretation, we could get to traditionalistic and nearly ritualistic and lose a relationship with him, and 2, it allows him ot not be a 2 dimensional character, but a being you can engage with. Is that satisfactory? if not I can explain it more in depth, just putting out a quick answer now.
This is a pretty good start but I'd like to see Zoomer make a video on it. I also linked it to Orthodox Kyle; he's more the type of person to debunk it. @@aydentrevaskis8390
I converted to orthodox in February. The depth of the traditions and history within the church is profound. Best decision Ive made CHRISTO ANESTI
Amazing video, paying attention to and answering modern questions is important. Ignoring them leads to more progressives who see Christianity as an archaic and obsolete faith. Great points
Ya'll needa build the New Jerusalem
what’s the song at 18:51 ?
I wrote it
Do you have a plan/vision for Christianity beyond earth? The exciting new frontier for humans is space exploration.
Many other religions are too earth bound in their traditions/beliefs.
We just need to make sure that if we ever make it off of this planet that there is a strong Christian presence everywhere we go.
@@landrypierce9942let's hope it isn't space Mormonism because those guys would get us involved in a intragalactic war against a insectoid hive mind.
There was a Russian astronaut that brought an icon on the ISS
Christianity isn't bound to the earth like alot of other religions, and its already basically colonised a new planet with the new world, so we'll be fine.
@@crocidile90Is this supposed to be a reference to something? It is strangely specific.
YASSIR!!! New Zoomer vid!
Console version of KC when?
If you except evolution, do you automatically except the big bang in the idea that everything is always expanding?
Why not?
And do you further have to accept that there was death before Adam?
Big Bang supports Christianity. People literally denied the Big Bang theory because it went against the idea of an eternal universe which was popular at the time (also a Catholic priest literally made the theory)
@@ExNihiloComesNothing If you watched his video he does believe death existed before Adam.
@@FromElsewhear deleted my first comment because I misread you.
Scripture is clear that death came through Adam and not before. Sad that zoomer doesn’t believe the Bible here
Quantum physics specifically describes things that are smaller than atoms. That's why they called the Marvel movie that. The reason it was so revolutionary is because things that are smaller than atoms don't follow Newtonian physics.
I hold a young earth view. There are plenty of flaws with macroevolution, which can be shown through revisions to the theory, and lack of evidence for the processes that underwent between supposed kinds. From a theological point of view there's the fundamental problem of death before Adam's sin. It's ones interpretation of geology that's the foundation of macroevolution, and the young earth view is that the interpretation is wrong either due to not considering Noah's Flood, possible changes in processes over time, and how long term turbulatuon of soil and rock works. Plenty of videos, scholars, and books explain possible young earth explanations.
Obviously, an easy way to accept macroevolution is to be someone who rejects the idea that animals have souls. Then you simply say humans were put here at a point where God being timeless and transcendent felt it was ready for them. The problem is that requires adding or reinterpreting a lot of scripture in figurative ways that isn't shown or intended to be figurative.
"There are plenty of flaws with macroevolution, which can be shown through revisions to the theory..." Revisions and changes are the mechanisms through which science progress. We had Newtonian physics for quite a while before Einstein came along, and now we have general and special relativity. We use to think that the atom was the smallest indivisible building block of material, but particle physics would have something to say about that. This, however, does not, mean that there is no such thing as atoms, or that Newtonian physics no-longer describe the motion of slow-moving low-density objects perfectly adequately. As we uncover new data and discover new theoretical frameworks, we should, and do, update our models of reality. Some frameworks, such as the idea that light propagate through ether, is discarded, and others, such as evolution, is refined. This is just how sound scientific practice works.
"...and lack of evidence for the processes that underwent between supposed kinds" This use to be true when Darwin first proposed the theory. We have since discovered a myriad of transitory fossils, including many precursors of modern humans.
"From a theological point of view there's the fundamental problem of death before Adam's sin." What may this problem be? A literal reading of the text is not self-consistent. Consider that there was a Tree of Life in the garden, by which man could obtain eternal life. If there was no literal death before the fall in a linear timeline, then why the need for a Tree of Life. Moreover, taking a literal reading of the text causes inconsistency between the creation accounts in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis.
Lastly, taking the literal reading of any part of the Bible should be well considered, given that the authors of the Bible came from a high contexts culture, this is to say that their writing, and their speech, conveyed meaning through implication and not just through literal meaning. To discount this would be to ignore the context in which the Bible was written, which in turn implies that the Bible was inspired in such a manner as to be understood only by people of low context cultures (e.g. anglophones) and not by the people who wrote it nor the original audience. This seems highly improbable.
Well said!
The problem is that few are taught anything more than "Trust in Jesus!" and when they face hard questions, they stumble. Then some people become extremely academic studying everything but scripture itself. They begin to study the study of scripture more than what God is trying to tell them through it, and it seems they often drift to atheism in all but name, considering God subject to human understanding of the world, scripture simply a collection of wise writings and Jesus a nice spiritual leader.
I HIGHLY recommend people check out Creation International for YEC studies in an easily digested format. They have thousands of articles, publish a scientific periodical but also magazines that are very good for the casual reader or for leaving out so people can skim for an article they find interesting and learn something.
Then there's Answers in Genesis, Ken Ham absolutely has passion and has a strong team he works with, though their fervor needs some tempering. They often scoff and mock right back at the scoffers, which isn't how we SHOULD be teaching and reaching people. Though understandable given the unrelenting abuse they receive.
@@uilspieel99 The last part of your comment seems to support a six day creation, while the rest tried to claim that science being provisional means macroevolution can withstand all scrutiny. The last part said the ancient people should have understood it, and they would have understood parts like Exodus 20 to mean six days of creation, and a six day work week. Only modern eisegesis comes to the types of conclusions old earth creationists claim.
As for evolutionary flaws there are actual dead ends both with fossils and living creatures that have never been joined. Theropods having no ancestral ties, the jump from single celled organisms to four-celled, and that's only with modern algae, the emergence of groups like mammals and birds before what they thought were their ancestors, no evidence for chemical evolution to a cell, etc.
@@litigioussociety4249 Look into Inspiring Philosophy's videos on the topic. Also, please explain why its inconsistent with scripture and the problems with it?
Amen🎉❤❤😊🎉😊
2:52 My boy really just immune!
We are no longer in the modernist conservative debate and the neoorthodox synthesis. Post modernity makes all claims of truth illusory, post liberal theologies such as radical orthodoxy or narrative theology can also offer convincing alternatives.
Where tf you get that much calcite
Do you have a video on Bible inerrancy and contradictions? If not, one would be cool.
I'm Catholic
i'm in the path
@@planteruines5619??
Neo-Orthodoxy?
I remember my last effort as a protestant. I had lost 1 of the five points of calvinism... when christ weeps for jerusalem he does so because no matter how bad he wanted to save them, they would not allow him to do it. If christ destined these people for destruction, why would he weep? Why would he admonish them if they had no choice? Eventually another point fell for me. Unconditional election... from the same line of logic... So i figured id go back to the reformation. Maybe Luther was right where calvin was wrong... or zwingli or smyth. So i said well lets go back to the beginning. The word protestant means one who is in protest. Protest of what? The catholic church... i realized everything i believed about that church was negative and figured id just go down the 95 thesis and see what the catholics have to say for themselves. I figured id find a reformer i more closely adhered to but it didnt happen at all.
One by one, every doctrine i believed about the catholic church was adjusted, reversed, and extremely well explained. Every doctrine that i was decieved into believing about the church was overturned. I felt lied to by guys like james white, doug wilson, john macarthur, and pretty much every online calvinist. Plenty of other protestants like michael brown, ray comfort, mike gendron, and wretched radio also constantly lie about what catholics believe. I was stunned by this... how far can you gonwith misrepresenting the other side before it gets sinful. I like the mission of this channel, to align yourself with historical values but the chances of restoring the mainline is bleak. Like you said progressive doctrines are the only ones that advance.
If you guys all join a progressive church, theyll take your money and use it become even more progressive. To turn the direction of the boat the path needs to fail. If you join up, theyll see their progressive changes as the reason so many joined. Theyll take it as a green light to keep butchering the bible for sheer numbers.
I suggest checking out the catholic church. Its still extremley conservative, shows no signs of altering its dogmas or doctrines to get numbers. Without doing that the the church has increased its membership by 500 million members worldwide over the last 10 years. Continues to be the most charitable organization in history, and it does make sense theologically. We make a huge impact for christ... wed love to have more intelligent presbys challenge oir beliefs and correct people on the multitude of misconceptions that many have about the church.
Theyve had 2000 years of apologetics built up to defend each belief. Many protestant churches dont even require any credentials to become a minister. I have a friend who got his ministers license just to do weddings. He hasnt even been to church in a decade. Catholic priests are required to do 8 years of seminary. If you want historical evidence read the didache. Its the oldest christian catechism and is contemporary with revelation. The church fathers are almost entirely catholic sounding. Even augustine is obviously far more cstholic than calvinist. Trust me, if theres a belief that we hold that you guys think is heretical, look it up on catholic answers. They literally have articles covering every topic top to bottom and i havent found anything remotely confusing. I got confirmed this past easter and i cant tell you how on fire i am for the lord now that everything makes sense.
Passionate, but I'm curious; why not go older?
@ChaoticNeutralMatt well the only thing older than catholicism is Samaritan and Ethiopian Judaism. Modern rabbinic Judaism is like a restoration effort and comes hundreds of years after catholicism. Eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox both broke away from catholics as well.
You are almost back at the root…. orthodoxy
@@knockoutfever4 lol nah they left the catholics. How else do explain the coptics having a pope? So when the coptics broke away from the orthodox they went on to invent the same office as the western latin church? C’mon, that makes ZERO sense.
The orthodox once believed in papal infallibility, they once submitted to the bishop of the first see, how else would he be able to excommunicate 2 patriarchs without a council?
The true church has always been in a state of debelopment, the oriental orthodox broke away in 451 but retained the idea of a papacy. The eastern orthodox broke away 600 years later. The Protestants 400 years later. What do they all have in common? They no longer agreed with the direction of development that was coming from Rome. This basic set of facts all but confirms the latin church was the true church and the rest of the churches stopped agreeing with that development. Its so simple
Dang. I didn't think I was going to have to rethink my political ideas today
“Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer.
If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”
― C.S. Lewis
Neo-Orthodoxy is a mistake and there is no value in trying to address nonsense questions like "you can't know what thing is only your perception of it" There isn't an answer because the question itself rules out objective truth and God is objectively true. How do you know this isn't a computer simulation? How can you prove you aren't insane in an asylum somewhere rocking back and forth imagining all this? Stoner philosophy isn't worth addressing.
Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."
1 Timothy 6:20-21 "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith."
Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
2 Timothy 3:12-17 12 "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; and that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
1 Timothy 4:1 "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons."
2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths."
1 Timothy 1:6-10 "Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions. Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine"
We are to cling to the old ways and be a preservative. Not to progress to error.
Matthew 5:13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men. "
Jude 1:17-23 "But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life." Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear-hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
Jeremiah 6:16-20 "Thus says the Lord: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Give heed to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not give heed.’ Therefore hear, O nations, and know, O congregation, what will happen to them. Hear, O earth; behold, I am bringing evil upon this people, the fruit of their devices, because they have not given heed to my words; and as for my law, they have rejected it. To what purpose does frankincense come to me from Sheba, or sweet cane from a distant land? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing to me."
Amen!
An issue I'm seeing more and more frequently is Christians who spend more time studying the false wisdom of Man than they do of God. They begin to try to shape God to fit their presuppositions based on Man's reasoning, but these things are folly. All human wisdom is foolishness.
We should try to understand the world as a means to glorify God, not try to make God fit our understanding of the world.
It's like we were warned about these things
What translation of the Bible are you quoting? In your quote of 1Timothy 20 the translation is rendered as "...science falsely so called..." Using this particular word may give the impression that the Bible is disavowing modern day science here. The Greek reads "...ψευδωνύμου γνώσεως..." (pseudōnymou gnōseōs). This can be translated as "falsely called knowledge". Note that the word for knowledge, gnōseōs, has a soewhat more widly used form, γνώσης (gnosis). These words are often used to describe knowledge of a particular kind, namely knowledge gained through personal experience. Contrast this with ἐπιστήμη (epistime), which is knowledge of the kind that is gained through study and reason. You can see why this might better refer to what we understand as science.
@@uilspieel99 Modern "science" says a man can become a woman and men can give birth.
It doesn't really matter if you call it science or knowledge the meaning is not changed much.
@@braedenh6858 We were warned, but few heed them.
RZ, do you believe God or Satan rules the world? I know a lot of people believe God rules the world, but it's very easy to look at the world and conclude that it is Satan's domain. (This would also be a good video idea)
In some sense it's both. God allows Satan to rule this age, but every action that occurs is still determined by God
AMEN and HALLELUJAH 🙏✝️❤️
30:01
Neo-Orthodox theology is like a balance beam. Imagine two sides of the beam, each representing important aspects of faith. On one side, there's the recognition of the mystery and transcendence of God. Neo-Orthodox thinkers emphasize that God is beyond human comprehension and cannot be fully grasped by human reason. On the other side of the beam, there's the importance of engaging with the world and living out one's faith. Neo-Orthodox theologians believe that Christianity should have a real impact on people's lives and the world around them. Basically, Neo-Orthodox theology sees a tension between these two sides of the beam. It suggests that human attempts to neatly explain everything about God and faith can fall short. Instead, they propose that encountering God involves a "dialectical" or back-and-forth process. This means embracing the tension between the mystery of God and the call to live out one's beliefs in the world. So, Neo-Orthodox theology emphasizes the importance of faith being more than just intellectual understanding. It's about engaging with God in a way that acknowledges the limits of human understanding while still living a meaningful and purposeful life based on Christian principles.
Given that you are of a Jewish background, I want to know your thoughts on Messianic Judaism. Jews would say it's Christian. Christians would say it's Jewish. Where do you think it falls on that scale?
Moses changes God's mind multiple times. That doesn't mean any change is an improvement or regression. There doesn't need to be a value judgment in God doing something other than what He says at first.
Do you watch/are you a fan of Whatifalthist? i find that you both will say similiar points, have a similiar vadence and a similiar interest in the conservation of conservative Judeo-Christian values in USA.
I am indeed a fan of whatifalthist and he has influenced me. One big difference between me and him. He believes Judeo-Christian values should be promoted cuz they’re good for society. I agree, but I also think Christianity specifically is the truth and that everyone who wants to have eternal life must know that
@@redeemedzoomer6053 For sure, his is for a more impersonal utility reason, while yours is for faith/belief reasons, as well as recognizing the benefits.
Thanks for answering my question! I've been following your content and although I'm not Christian, I've been watching out of interest in your scholastic approach to Christianity. Keep up the good work!
I think that people tend to have a bias toward progressive/liberal thinking, or conservative/traditional thinking, in fact it’s actually somewhat demonstrable psychologically. I also think that there is a tension between these two that represents something important. We need people who think both ways and should acknowledge that. Conservatives say that we need structure, and progressives say we need to build new structures. Both are partly true.
Saying “society and culture are always progressing” is fundamentally a, or perhaps THE progressive view. There is no inherent reason that’s more true than saying “culture is the representation of everything that has survived all of history until now.”
Some things change, but some don’t. We have an unchangeable God, and there is nothing mew under the sun (human nature hasn’t and isn’t changing). The only example of perfect doctrine and human existence was 2000 years ago, and we are never going to progress past that. We need conservatives to defend doctrine so we don’t lose the baby with the bathwater.
Even Zoomer is very conservative on some issues, like the historic ecumenical creeds. Those are extrabiblical documents, why aren’t they “outdated”? Shouldn’t we write new ones and get rid of the old ones since we know better now? No, clearly we shouldn’t.
Some things need to be conserved. So maybe let’s not demonize conservatives so much, eh?
I think Zoomer did a fair criticism on conservatives as a whole, just like progressives need to be criticized on progressing so much that society essentially goes into chaos and loss of tradition.
He’s not saying that conservatives need to die out and give up their mentality of preserving good, but he’s saying that conservatives need to adopt the mindset of understanding and being challenged by their opponents and have meaningful conversations while also holding onto the importance of orthodoxy.
I don't know about demonize, but honestly they need a bit of fire under the ass. Otherwise, general agreement on the need for both.
People are scared to lose important things in the changing tides, but that doesn't mean you should stagnate. On the other hand careful consideration before choosing a path forward is wise
Wake up babe, new Zoomer vid just dropped!
You aren’t wrong when you say that they teach us that the answer to everything is Jesus. It’s not even just in Sunday school, if someone in my family or some religious families I know are asked a tough question, sometimes they respond with Jesus or something similar
On God please organize your inventory/storage
My brother in Christ, wear some armor, organize you inventory, and enchant everything please
There is only one thing I do not understand:
If you want to go back to the orthodoxy, you don't go back to "old protestantism". You are either going to Catholithism, to straight to the real Orthodox Church, the oldest ome
What kind of Gen Z are you? 1999-2003, or 2004-2008?
He’s in his early twenties
@@blackgingersunited5851 That makes sense
Reform and keep reforming, that's a great plan. Till it's about Jesus.
Do you know any people that believe that planet earth is like age 8 thousand years old?
I was for the longest time believing in alchemy being real but enter my parents and the periodic table
And believed that the earth itself is age 360 thousand years old where have I been?
@@nathanericschwabenland88888🤨
I mean I believe that God created a mature earth that had billions of years of life crafted into it a few thousand years ago, but I don't know if that's what you're asking
1 John 5:7 explains The Trinity
Comment, for the algo
I get confused when people don’t believe in fossils.
My brother in Christ you need to write a Book! Simply explaining Christianity
Zoomie 6:52
I think you have a hard sell saying philosophical essentialism (Plato, Aristotle) is a zombie not worth reviving. We can reform bad moves in philosophy, which cause the issues of today without trying to rewind the clock. We start where we are and reintroduce forgotten ideas to help solve modern problems. Because, remember, there is a difference between refusing to accept the world you live in (denial) and refusing to accept the broken rules of a game you didn't agree to play (wisdom).
For e.g. we don't repristinate Neoplatonism, we develope "neo-neoplatonism." And more seriously, if you regard the loss of classical philosophy as acceptable, you lose the worldview of the New Testament and Creed. Not everything should progress. Some things should be preserved.
I'm a very conservative Christian, specifically in the way of young earth creationism. I don't see how evolution fits with the Bible. The only true way for this to work would be that the story of the world's creation and Adam and Eve were parables. I see "Old Earth" geology and ask why God couldn't just make the Earth that way? I look to the book of Job and wonder where we were during the creation of the Earth? If the Bible says 7 days, my inclination is not to refute that. The rest of the narrative Bible is not written in parables, why is this the exception?
Quantum physics = study of the smallest things in the universe, so small that they are the smallest discrete amount of energy matter, time etc. That can be measured (aka quantized) so it actually makes sense when Ant-Man gets really small and goes into the quantum realm
Your should read orthodox philosophers that you apparently don't know exist rather than liberal people who achieved nothing even though they compromised everything like Barth. One cursory reading of Philosophia Christi or the likes of The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, JP Moreland and Alvin Plantinga and Reformed Epistemology already engages philosophical issues more robustly and formally without compromising the faith than the mumbojumbo generator that came out of liberal continental theologians. You might not believe it but several christian philosophers have rigorous works published by leading universities and it's been a thing since the 70s at least. Not the majority of philosophers, since most follow the culture, but if you're so elitist you'll only read people who are universally praises by the world when they're alive you'd have to discard most church fathers and early apologists too.
I went from believing in evolution to now being a young earth creationist. I understand evolution fairly well and all the flaws with it. I see flaws in young earth creationism as well but I find it a much more accurate according to Genesis. Evolution contradicts Genesis.
What evidence has led you to this conclusion?
@@TitusCastiglione1503 Evolution says God didnt make man, snd that man evolved from apes and all things evolved from other things (that they were never made just as they are today)
@@crispminer can you provide a relevant quote and page number where evolution explicitly say this?
@@TitusCastiglione1503 Its literally the whole basis of evolution.
@@crispminer Ok, then it should be easy to provide a relevant quote and page number from a credible source.
Boi this video's about to be about evolution. I'll save the remarks for the other one if I can find it though. Ken Ham, love him or hate him (And you shouldn't hate a brother in Christ) points out the problem you did; Kids are only being taught "Trust in Jesus!" and not given the tools to answer hard questions they encounter, apologetics.
That said though, isn't it strange you need to verify from Man what you can trust in God regarding? Or that you feel God's word MUST fit the views of man?
I do agree though that we can't simply wind back the clock, though we needn't appeal to contemporary views. See every church and effort that appealed to the world to try and reach it, they became like the world instead. Ask God what he wants of you and do it.
As for being compatible with science, are you saying it needs to agree with every contemporary "I Love science!" message?
I see this all the time, both in person, and online. Good people losing faith because their parents and/or church taught them a criminally absurdly simplified form of christianity that can't compete even with the basic kinds of arguments teenage reddit atheist comes up with. It's sad and irritating.
@@CoffeeConsumerZoomerfr, but this next generation is gonna be good tho… hopefully
@@matnic_6623 Hopefully :)
I think.. God must change. What comes across to me is the potential for him to be the very top, and yet always be pushing those limits. It might appear to be the same, but it's somewhat different. There are unwavering and unchanging aspects, but I think this is a fair addition.
I'm not entirely sure why 'must' comes to mind though
God is impassible. There are no "limits" for him to break. if you make God changeable then God is contingent on a past God. God would then not have the attribute of necessity. And if God must be changing to an ever more powerful state then God is never omnipotent because the next moment he will be closer to the ever farthing "top."
Honestly, there are so many problems with God being able to change. I do see where you're coming from tho.
Neo-Orthodoxy is an oxymoron. Orthodox means believing what Jesus taught and the Apostles preached. Neo-Orthdoxy is ret-conning.
I would reject Karl Barth as a credible source of information because of his gross immorality regarding his cohabitation with his secretary and his wife. I believe his thinking was corrupted due to his sexual sin and that is why it is murky and confused. Former admirers of Barth have said that he used some of the same reasoning process that he used to justify his sin in his theology. I am not familiar enough with Barth to comment on this, but conceptually I believe his grievous sin of adultery contaminated any intellect that he may have exhibited earlier in life.
Regarding whether it is possible to "go back" to a better time, the consummation does involve a return to the Garden of Eden in a glorified sense...the sense that the man in Christ will no longer be alienated from God, fellow man, nature and his own body.
Regarding biblical "error", knowledgeable evangelicals believe that the original writings were inerrant. Through analysis of manuscripts, we believe God enabled the creation of a composite text which is very close to the originals. In some cases, minor details such as numbers may not correlate but this likely reflects scribal errors that are not easy to reconcile completely because there are no variants that allow a reconciliation.
Regarding culture and faith, the Bible contains concepts which can be leveraged to argue against any philosophy of man that contradicts the word of God. Hermeneutics involves understanding the original context and what it meant to the author and audience, and then transcending this context to apply the principles to cultural issues that are faced today. In principle, the word of God addresses any philosophy that will present itself.
I don't think man and his "progress" aids the believer in any way, except possibly forcing the believer to think deeper about the underlying issues from a biblical worldview, using the Scriptures as the mirror to examine culture. Culture can never become the lense with which to view Scripture, it is the other way around.
Regarding your respect for "science", I would agree with it assuming that what we are talking about is true science. However, the problem with scientific method is that the observer is not unbiased and neutral in his thinking. Often he reads the conclusion into his observations. Since Reformed theology teaches that unconverted man is hostile towards God, his conclusions will likely reflect his worldview.
And, I believe there are other explanations for the phenomena that you attribute to macroevolution that you are not considering. I am not necessarily a "young earther" but I reject any view that denies the literal persons of Adam and Eve and the literalness of the Fall, as well as the concept of macroevolution where a "kind" or family (using standard taxonomy) has a common parent with another "kind" or family.
Regarding Bart Ehrman, James White has dealt with his claims through debating him. Worthwhile viewing.
Culture is always the lens we view Scripture with, unless purposefully looking at it differently. We look at it with our modern eyes. We can also measure our culture and lives against Scripture, but I thought it fair to point out that detail.
@@ChaoticNeutralMatt Proper exegesis of Scripture involves reading it in light of the culture of the author and audience, and then transcending this cultural context to derive principles that can be applied today in our culture. If we read Scripture without considering the culture of the author and audience, we run the risk of misunderstanding Scripture. And, in principle, the Bible provides the answers we need for godly living. That is my conviction and I am sticking to it.
"Progressive Christians" would likely claim differently and seek to apply their own reasoning to the issue at hand. That is why "Progressive" churches are largely going along with the culture of this world and its sinfulness.
I would include PCUSA, UCC, ELCA, MCUSA, Episcopalians, Universal Unitarians and United Methodists in this group of so-called "Progressive" churches. I am sure there are other smaller denominations, and a few faithful churches, pastors, etcetera in the mix.
If I have correctly understood Redeemed Zoomer, his view of Scripture and its inerrancy is much weaker than the Particular Baptists I associate with. But, he is a young guy and perhaps he will come to better conclusions. He might even become a good credobaptist Particular Baptist someday.
Everyone uses circular logic the distinction is which circular logic holds to the preconditions of intelligibility.
As a German my problem with neo orthodoxy is: Mostly all of them were socialists, Barth, Moltman, Gogarten was national socialist, except Bultmann (if you count him, who had obviously the most terrible theology of them). It is quite difficult to raise modern questions without impliying modern solutions or former modern solutions, which will agains lead to today.
I don’t like either but even I know national socialism isn’t socialism lol
@@cormundum_o I agree and didn't want to communicate that.
@@willhelmi2095 Oh I see
@@cormundum_o Great. But I would say that both are distinctly modern in their thinking, so I don't view national socialism as some fallback into premodern barbarism.
@@willhelmi2095 Both are equally evil and bad, I would just go as far to say it’s not even worth discussing about which one is better because they are both horrible in their own way.
Eastern Orthodoxy> Neo-Orthodoxy
Things I know:
1. God is real.
Everything else has been told to me by other humans.
I think we should study the saints instead of our own understanding of Scripture, ever since the Great Schism, and even before that, when people calling themselves Christians starting deviating from other Christians and murdering Jews and people like Hypatia, in the late 4th century, and early 5th century, Christianity has constantly shot itself in the foot optically, and we can't understand the Bible without learning from others, this is why I have no faith in the absolute doctrine of sola fide, sola scriptura. Since it's inception as the state religion of the Eastern Roman Empire in 380, Christianity has been on the wrong path in my opinion.
Orential Orthodoxy is the truth.
The Protestant branch in specific? There is definitely value in studying old teachers, although to deny independent thought is odd.
I do think Sola Scriptura is lacking in the sense that I don't feel the reality of the crafted world is properly accounted for.
@@Corpoise0974 I admire it because no one has ever oppressed anyone in the name of Oriental Orthodoxy for the most part compared to other denominations as they have almost always been oppressed by Muslims and whatnot thus they seem like very humble and some of the best most wholesome Christians as a result and the Aramaic and Arabic liturgies are beautiful
Quantum physics? Neo orthodoxy? Wrong compliment, neo orthodoxy is just a twisted theory of a nerd..😂
Eastern > neo
true but ...
Eastern>neo>oriental
@@matijas7994Cringe
13:58 Well you just said it right there: girl. I dont think youll get many women interested in a theological debate or even listening to a well crafted argument for anything theological. Just not a lot of women interested in theology or philosophy or anything concretely logical. Especially the listening part is being disparaged nowadays.