The Difference Between Islam and Christianity - Jordan Peterson
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2024
- Watch the full, two-hour conversation: • Navigating Belief, Ske...
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- VIDEO NOTES
Jordan B. Peterson is a clinical psychologist and one of the world's most famous public intellectuals.
- SPECIAL THANKS
A special thanks to my top-tier supporters on Patreon:
Tom Rindell
James Younger, DDS
- CONNECT
My Website: www.alexoconnor.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
TikTok: @CosmicSkeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@alexoconnor.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
"I thoroughly dislike Jordan Peterson"
- Winston Churchill
😂
@@dodumichalcevski 🤣🥳
Although I think the equivocation of the logos in Christianity and the Qur'ān is fascinating, it leads to an epistemological problem for Christians.
The Muslims can rightfully claim an unchanged Qur'ān (despite the clamour from Christian polemicists), but the Christians are left with the problem that Bart Ehrman dines out from.
2:17
lol
Peterson is turning into a supervillain. Dresses like The Joker, talks like The Riddler.
Dresses as a Canadian nonbinary metrosexual, talks with both emotional egotistical assertions and cries of "Good question! I don't know!"
Jordan Peterson's dress sense is the most admirable thing about him.
I mean… at least the Riddler's riddle had answers. JP just has waffle.
I was thinking more like "what if Willie Wonka were an angry right-wing culture warrior? Ta-dah, JP!"
@@njhoepner what an low IQ comment. Will Wonka was an entrepreneur so he’d already be right wing
"Islam and Christianity are basically the same thing"
- Winston Churchill, probably
Well they are both fiction, so in that sense they are identical.
@@Andre_XX billions of people in the world take it as a literal fact. Think about that for a second, literal adults not capable of questioning themselves. It's a massive cult.
@@Andre_XX That is entirely true. But Chirchil thought Islam particularly poisonous in the moder day. There is a speech or address he wrote about it somewhere likening "mohameedism" to a lethal disease.
@@Andre_XX dang,facts doe
@@Andre_XXFor a moment I thought you were referring to Winston Churchill and Jesus because I'm at that part of the video and I was like "you're joking right?"
Not sure I've ever seen Peterson so engaged 😃
I never would’ve imagined Alex ever meeting JP.
More like struggling
Getting to talk about secret meanings in stories seems to be JBP's passion, whether they're real or not.
Any apologist arguments in favor of lessen the burden/onus on Christianity will get him excited. 😂
Either you've seen little Peterson or you just like dick riding Alex.
I feel like Jordan has been spiraling for the last few years
i agree since like 2017-2018 :(
4:19 whats he doing with his hands
Well thats what happens when you go down the right wing rabbit hole,
He was never good anyways, “clean your room” isnt even an original idea
@@SA-pi3zm It doesn't have to be original. Like many of the things Peterson brought back to the forefront, no one was talking about it. It was forgotten.
That's what happens to all deep thinkers. Though all aren't recorded, eventually you will go so deep into the mine that you refuse to give up on your pursuit of truth. I like Peterson because he's like the deepest and most annoying part of my deep thoughts put into words, and in some ways, it makes sense to me.
Someone needs to pin JP down on the use of generalizations and yes or no answers to questions. If you ask him “how’s your day going?” He’ll easily be able to answer “decent” or “good” etc. but when you ask him about god, he pretends to suddenly not speak English or understand the use of generalizations
It's because if he actually takes a stance on any of those questions he's afraid he'll lose followers and earn less money. He knows what his audience likes and his audience is fairly dumb since they can't see past his weak, redundant, non-committal "arguments." And he knows this.
@@DanielGarcia-rx3kt oh I completely agree! Just saying someone needs to actually point this out to his face. They need to make him explain the use of generalizations
Of course that's the case because he doesn't feel that his deepest purpose in life is to change the world's understanding of how his day is going... If you're an artist who's driven every day to change how the world sees art, of course you wouldn't answer art related questions with "its good lol".
A painter doesn't know if his art is good or bad??@@bike4aday
@@bike4adaygood point
I think Peterson learned something about the Quran in this discussion
he knew nothing about it beforehand clearly, he's a scalper
Okay
@@med_ayhem_benabda Islam is worse than Xianity today by far; more murderous followers and completely morally bankrupt in how it treats women. Thats just a a few highlights in how bad it is being practiced in the world today. If you're woman, the worst place to be born is in countries like Iran. Fuck religion, and fuck Islam even more.
@@med_ayhem_benabda...you don't write sentences very often, huh
I hope everyone did. The Quran is dangerous because of its supposed literal infallibility.
Why are we talking about Islam and Christianity but not Judaism? The jews were the OGs who started the whole abrahamic religion trend
Because the Israelites of the bible plainly don't exist anymore; While it can be argued that Rabbinical Judaism is a continuation of Pharisaic Judaism, the fact that Judaism has been so influenced by both Christianity and Islam, especially with Protestant Christianity as both use the same version of the Old Testament, The Masoretic Text.
So while we can speak to Rabbis, what they believe isn't what the Israelites of the bible believed, for a start modern Jewish people are strict monotheists, but the biblical Israelites believed in two persons of God, the Father and the Spirit, called the Two Powers in Heaven.
There's many reasons why a conversation with a Rabbi can be enlightening, but both Christianity and Islam are far closer to their original beliefs, than what Judaism today is, to the Judaism of the bible. It's like a different religion entirely.
those two are the most popular religions and Judaism is like number 6 in popularity or something
religious jews are a very small minority compared to the other religions so it just isnt as relevant i guess
zoorastrians started monotheistic religion,,,
Why not talk about Norse mythology, way more interesting.
"The difference between Christianity and Islam is the metaphysical subtrate of which the Western ethos is ontologically and inextricably bound and out of which we derive our moral hierarchy of values."
-- Jordan Peterson, probably
😄😄😄
Thats a decent answer to the question. Not even that wordy or pedantic if you assume the speaker wishes to be thorough.
And yet a thorough examination of the religious baseline is the orientation of faith and claims
Islam is making the claim that they received God's very word. Orthodox Christians are claiming to have witnessed God personally and that the person of Jesus is traced to the inception of humanity
Islam wants to take you into new game plus territory. Christianity is asking you to work through the game in order to put your name in at the end screen
From what I've seen Islam is exclusive while claiming to be open to all, Christianity is providing inclusivity for all should you maintain consistency to remain "holy and acceptable"
Narrow is the gate
The part I don't exactly understand is for a man who is simply a prophet, why does Jesus speak in such an esoteric way that essentially puts it on the reader? As a Christian myself I believe that God calls me friend and cares what I have to say about my human experience
My observation about Allah and Islam is that of a puppet master system. People who claim to be able to do nothing apart from him, but are also predictably human in this striving to be the mouthpiece of their infallible creator
To me, if I knew that I was royalty, I would have no problem asserting my heritage. I would also delight in the premise that I could identify with others regarding that same heritage. That no one is above one another, but that we all come bearing different gifts, we don't *have* to quarrel with one another politically when we recognize each other as sovereign beings
Islam doesn't seem to want to discuss anything along those lines. Yet finds its way to solidarity somehow. To me that structure bears no difference if you were to put Krishna or Buddha in the position of Allah. A supreme being who utilizes it's subjects as dice or plays marbles with them. God is perfect, I am imperfect, but my role is what exactly?
Christianity as it ties in with Abraham, in my interpretation at least, puts the man in the orientation of a mile marker (milestone essentially) I don't know exactly what Abraham was doing in his day to day, but it would seem that his claim to fame is that he "obeyed" God and it was "counted unto him as righteousness" alignment and deviation from that way point are just a series of offshoots for the WAY a person utilizes their humanity
What should be said of you is what you did to point back to the creator as a reference point and is warranted by your testimony. It's like being a town crier who tells of the King's coming
Anyone who subsists within a hierarchal structure should bear some sentiment in this. As you are compensated based on your allegiance and contribution to the fiscal campaign. Sure Islam also does this, but they resign to the idea that nothing they do can rearrange the integrity of their king. Meanwhile extremist groups are making history
At least as a Christian I acknowledge that my part is in the tapestry of the living and that by virtue of breathing I affect the world around me. Better be careful of how I tread. I could be a misrepresentation of my sovereign leader
@@Nunya7211 Look, I hear you, but have you also considered that the postmodern critique of grand narratives may fundamentally undermine the ontological substrate of our collective axiomatic frameworks, leading to a disintegration of the transcendent moral structures that underpin Western civilization?
@@Joshua-dc1bs Indeed, without shared mythological journeys of deontological archetypes how are we to secure order from chaos and clean our rooms?
Jordan Peterson is a man who confuses big words with big thoughts. 😀
Just say you struggle to understand him 😂 that's okay
@@nigelnyoni8265 I don't "struggle to understand him". He mostly talks nonsense. But because he uses big words people don't tend to notice. He's really a very small minded man.
He doesn’t actually use that many big words, so I’d say that’s your first mistake. You just wanted to say something that would make for a snappy sound bite, and who cares if it was true or not, eh?
Jordan Peterson, the clinical psychologist and tenured psychology professor, was an expert in his field with important things to say. He took concepts from CBT and gave lectures on how individuals could apply those to their own lives in order to get some of the benefits. He was a little conservative in his views on a few things, but overall he had something useful to give.
Jordan Peterson, the culture warrior and philosopher, is a wild nut who doesn't know what he's talking about. His viewpoint has been fed by a toxic loop where one side laps up everything he says and the other side hates him, so he's incentivized to pander to the side he likes him and point hatred back at the side that hates him. It's made him more and more incoherent.
The fact of the matter is, subject expertise in one area does not grant expertise in another area. Ben Carson is another great example of this--brilliant surgeon who also believes the pyramids were built by Joseph to store grain.
@@Essex626 I am talking about the public persona Peterson, who is, as you say, a certifiable nutcase in dire need of psychologial asistance. 😀
This was one podcast where I felt nothing happened Jordan just couldn't answer a yes or no question to save his life
That’s on brand for him tbh
That's his M.O. unless he's speaking with a "friendly" person, meaning a person within his little bubble.
It's infuriating, really
MMA Guru gangg
I learned more in this one than most in spite of his avoidance of yes/no questions. I don't think you're interested by new information
Debating Jordan Peterson is like a cow's proctology exam, It's largely an unpleasant thing, difficult to watch, and it's important someone qualified does it, or you get bullshit everywhere.
Haha, he looks like he's enjoying talking with Alex in this short clip.
oof savage. Here I am, playing chess with a pidgeon 😆
Best explanation I've read hahaha you hit the nail on the head
This wasn't a debate
Noice one :D
Not sure I've seen Peterson less bombastic.
I absolutely love seeing two massively disparate sides of the political and religious spectrum agreeing so consistently on so many things. I think that's one of Alex's strongest suits, and it really allows him to connect with people you'd expect him to find very little common ground with.
They both have a genuine interest to learn more, and that quest for understanding is more important than their different opinions.
@@stephenk1004 JP isn't looking to "learn more". That's not how his con works.
@@jursamaj what's his con exactly? He sells a few books? You can learn all of that free from his online lectures anyway. How about you open your damn eyes and stop being a prejudiced little sod.
Alex is so good at making sure his guests don't feel like they are being attacked and then risking losing out on people's best effort to engage in an argument or conversation because they are offended or become disinterested.
Obviously Peter Hitchens is immune to these charms but even a broken clock is always wrong if you consider that it should not depend on when you look at it to actually trick you into thinking that it can do what it is supposed to.
This isn't Alex's podcast tho, he is a guest on Jordan's show
wait, what? I thought the first part made sense but the second paragraph didn't.
@@me1ody69 Are you sure?
@@wendyleeconnelly2939 If we can be sure about anything in life, yes. if not, no. but u can watch the full discussion if you want to check
Peter Hitchens reaction might have more to do with the fact that he can't cope with being triggered by someone who knows how to put sentences together rather than Alex's personality or the topic at hand.
You're not allowed to have a picture of Jordan smiling in the thumbnail he's supposed to look like he's getting a mugshot for a boxing match.
It's rare to catch him smiling, they've gotta showcase it somehow.
Well, those were certainly words.
JP admitting the New Testament is like garbage thrown at a wall. Progress!
"That depends on what you mean by "difference"..."
"This sounds like something Winston Churchill might have said" - Winston Churchill
Ever since Some More News did their 3+ hour takedown of Jordan Peterson and Cody went DEEP into his issues, JBP has been absolutely impossible to take seriously.
3+ hours is a lot of time to not take someone seriously.
If you take that “some more news” channel seriously, you’ve got bigger problems.
That is nothing but far left garbage. There is plenty to criticize JBP about, but they are absolutely dishonest.
@@theunknownatheist3815point to their dishonesty.
Peterson was once considered a promising researcher who did useful work studying familial alcoholism. If you live in most any Western culture, you know that this is a significant social problem.
It is sad to see him transformed into a circus carny.
He's diving into topics that is not in his field. Hes a way better psychologist than a philosopher
@hopeintruth5119 is that why he lost his license?
@@Nick-o-time May I simply quote from a news source.
“Peterson rose to prominence through his polarizing TH-cam videos critiquing liberal culture and since at least 2018, the governing body of Ontario's psychologists - of which Peterson has been a registered member since 1999 despite having stopped seeing patients in 2017 - has received complaints regarding Peterson's comments.
“The college's complaints committee has said that some of Peterson's online commentary on a range of issues, from gender transition to climate change, posed a moderate risk of harm to the public and undermined public trust in the profession of psychology.
“Justice Paul Schabas wrote in the court's August decision that the college's order that Peterson undergo a program on professionalism in public statements balanced its mandate to regulate the profession, "is not disciplinary and does not prevent Dr. Peterson from expressing himself on controversial topics."
“Peterson had said his statements were not made in his capacity as a clinical psychologist, but instead were "off-duty opinions" - an argument the court rejected.
“The college's committee previously noted that during an appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, Peterson identified himself as a clinical psychologist before demeaning a former client.
“The college's ethics code requires members to use respectful language and not engage in "unjust discrimination." “
Obviously, Peterson feels he has no further recourse. He has called on the members of the College to apologize to him and resign.
Promising researcher to what standards? TH-cam? Even when he wasn't in media that much, lik 15 years ago, was he really a promising researcher?
@@hopeintruth5119 He just wants his far-right ideas to be spread about asmuch topics as possible. Well, usually it's just about hierarchy, the 'radical' left, communism, blaming women for something, giving advice to clean (up) your room, and so on. He isn't a professional, he isn't a scientist, he is a TH-camr. And yes, despite some positive things about TH-camrs, TH-camrs aren't very reliable people. Contrarily, Alex is one of the minorities who are reliable.
Love how Peterson came to the interview cosplaying as Will Smith in Fresh Prince
Do you believe in Christianity?
Peterson: The large conundrum of the oblivious state of creed worship brought upon by theological denominations utterly leads to the metaphorical exceed devoid of reasoning within a social context in the case of the so-called fallacy of steadiness.
*Most people: Is that a yes or a no?
If you ask a loaded question, expect a loaded answer.
@bike4aday No.
Now this is a new one for me: Churchillian drift. For years I’ve taken the position, without any real evidence, that the same thing has been happening to Einstein.
Anyone in history with a well-known reputation will become a quote magnet. Abraham Lincoln, Lenin, Washington, Jefferson, on and on. Anyone with something to sell or an ideological axe to grind will happily invent such a quote and use it.
It's such a weird conception that the Bible is somehow the "first book" or "everything is based on the Bible". As if the Bible was based on nothing at all. And it is at this point that you realize that literature, stories, have been evolving all along. The Bible is just one stepping stone. Why should we treat it as the first and final?
If i were to hazard a guess, it's because it's still relevant and widely read to this day. It's not literally the first book, but it's one of the oldest books we know of that is still referred to by so many
@@TooneySA I see nothing wrong with what you've wrote there. The Bible has obviously been important (whether or not it's deserved is a different matter). But to go from "one of the most important" to "everything is based on this" is the massivest of massive leaps. That's when you get crazy stuff like "Christianity invented science".
The Bible does not claim to be the “first book”. The “Bible” is a collection of scriptures collected by the church and named and unfortunately referred to as the “word of God” by many moderns (even though the scriptures themselves testify that Jesus is the Logos of Creation and the Word of God made flesh). In ancient Jewish religion and early Christianity, the term “scripture” was used much more loosely. The epistle of Jude references the Book of Enoch, for example. Paul calls a Greek poet a “prophet”, which would imply that even his work would be considered scripture. As a Christian, I certainly consider the Tao Te Ching, for example, to be scripture.
Paul, in his letter to Timothy, says: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness”. Anything that fits this category can be rightly called “scripture”.
@@junfour it's the unfortunate element of Western European frame of reference in which everything is discussed.
Scholars know that the bible as we have it now is a derivative work.
What they are referring to as "Islam" here is actually Sunni Literalism (a.k.a Athari, Hanbali & Salafi traditions). The Mu'tazilites, Ismaili Shi'is, many Sufis and even some Sunni scholars of Ashari-Maturidi tradition would disagree with the literalist interpretation of the nature of the Word of God.
What are their ideas? Can you explain?
Is that the case though? If you dont believe the Quran is the Word of God most would argue you are not a muslim. The main debate between those groups is how to interpret Gods Word. Correct me on that though Im not entirely sure.
The prophet said : Islam will be divided into 72 sects . all of them in the hellfire except one . And ofc that one is the sunna(90% of Muslims)
@@jonoc3729 you're right.
@@anisrajabov1725 The Muʿtazilites believed that God could not “speak” like humans, hence the Quran was not the literal word of God, but instead a metaphor of His will. The Muʿtazilites are known for rejecting the doctrine of the Quran as uncreated and co-eternal with God. The Ash’aris and Maturidis regarded the angel Gabriel not merely a transmitter of verbatim speech of God, but rather a “translator” who transmuted the word of God into the comprehensible form of human language. This idea is based on the Ashʿari-Maturidi distinction between kalām nafsī (divine speech in its essential form) and kalām lafẓī (divine speech translated into human speech). Refer to ‘The Vernacular Qur'an’ by Travis Zadeh for more details. For Imam Abu Hanifa, the founder of Hanafi school of Sunni jurisprudence, the Qur'an consisted only of its meaning, not its expression in Arabic. He even permitted the recitation of the Qur'an in Persian language in the ritual prayers.
Khalil Andani mentions in his paper ‘Shi’i Ismaili Approaches to the Qur'an’, the Ismaili interpretation of the idea of Revelation. To quote th Fatimid Caliph al-Muʿizz li-Dīn as reported in the works of the Fatimid Ismaili jurist Abū Ḥanīfa al-Qāḍī al-Nuʿmān :
“God sent down the Light [ nūr ] upon the heart of Muhammad. The Prophet conveyed to the believers only the meanings of the inspiration [ waḥy ] and the light - its obligations, rulings and allusions - by means of utterances composed with arranged, combined, intelligible, and audible letters. Thus, the Qur’an is the Speech of God [ kalām Allāh ] and the word of the Messenger of God [ qawl rasūl Allāh ].”
This wasn't a debate. O'Connor has studied theology and is well aware that literal, historical truth in the Bible was never its primary purpose. Peterson sees it similarly and had a lively conversation with O'Connor over it, touching also on Islam.
In the Gospels there is a kind of trend, Mark and Matthew were almost certainly meant as allegory and weren´t meant to be taken literally (at least among fairly high ranking Christians, among lay Christians there is another argument). Luke-Acts seems to want to be taken as literal history, as does John.
I disagree with Alex r.e literalism being a big difference between Christianity and Islam. In practise, many Muslims are not Koranic literalists and Muslim scientists never had an issue with statements contradicting the Koran, i.e the world being a sphere and more recently evolution.
I tend to think it´s simply the case that in countries that are socially and economically advanced you get a mix of religion becoming more liberal and people leaving it, whereas in societies with relatively low levels of education etc literal belief will be more common.
If you went to Spain in 1950, a country which was under a fascist catholic dictatorship and economically and socially backwards, you would find plenty of people who were extremely conservative catholics, many who probably believed everything was literally true. Now in Spain that kind of belief is confined to about 15-20% of the population max.
I personally have no problem with non-literalists, if that is what they actually doing. But most Christians do not actually do that. There are many that want to have their cake and eat it too. They would read the bible and pick and choose what is literal or not, depending on what is convenient. They will push their views on other based on what the bible says as if it is objective truth, claim certain things are historical and that everyone should follow their religion. But then if you point something that is not convenient, they hide behind the it is not literal defense, some even become condescending with you, when they were taking it literally moments ago.
@@Minimmalmythicistwhere in the Quran you see flat earth?
@@Minimmalmythicist ... As far as the Old Testament is concerned, literal historical truth was not involved. Why? Because literal truth had not even been invented yet. That came with the Greeks perhaps a thousand years after the Old Testament was first created. The ancient Hebrew notion of truth was if a story conveyed the right moral, it was true.
Now some of the Gospels were written in ancient Greek, but they were derived from oral traditions from the time of the life and death of Jesus. Even though Jesus existed after the great Greek thinkers, it is accepted by historians that Greek thought had not yet spread into what we today call Israel.
I do not disagree with you on where literal biblical (or koranic) interpretation has been most widespread in more recent times. I was merely noting it was all but entirely unknown in ancient Judea.
😂😂😂😂😂
WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE
😅
Fundamentalist Islamists calls the Quran "infallible," and Fundamentalist Christians call the Bible "inerrant." Completely different!
And I call them both bs
Quran has actually been historically preserved while the Bible hasn’t.
@@CrescentCrusader99 That is an assertion, not a fact.
It also clearly has not been.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana
its literally a fact proven by western technology; carbon-dating. go look at the Quran manuscript found at the Birmingham university. take an Arabic Quran with you and an Arabic speaker and compare the manuscript.
@@muslimresponse103 That is less than 2 surahs.
And it doesn't even align with the modern version in those parts.
🙄
I really enjoyed this entire conversation. I felt you managed to tease out more than many have from JBP, and you engaged with the material in a manner befitting of its complexity. It's a shame that some of the commenters on this video are getting het up on the less interesting questions - "but it's just not true" etc.
Looking at his attire with that jacket and short pants, Petersen appears to now be visible in his transmogrification into a clown.
No sincerely religious person would wear a jacket of religious icons.
Why not?
@@pmaitrasm because it has an air of disrespect about it. It treats something that is supposed to remind you of the sacred too casually.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs, Someone took care to make those paintings and someone took care to print them out on a jacket and someone took care to sew the jacket to make everything look good. I fail to see the alleged air of disrespect in it. I see reverence and dedication.
@@pmaitrasm those images may have been created with care, but it’s disrespectful to drape yourself in them. Those images were designed for prayer and meditation in temples, churches, and perhaps a dedicated spot in the home. Meanwhile, Peterson has them hanging on the hook of the bathroom door every time he takes a dump. And what of the ego to drape oneself in the images of saints for all to see? Perhaps you would think nothing of him wearing matching underwear?
Alex, your beard suits you well
He needs it. Yes
She has a name (jk)
He is trying so hard to not be feminine it backfires imo
Alex, your suite beards you well
@@jozefwoo8079 thanks
It's amazing how little Peterson actually brings to the table, and it shows in the way he allows the host to lead the conversation. Peterson constantly just latches on to specific things when he feels there's something to contribute, but ultimately just ends up adding nothing of substance.
I very much can be wrong here, but the idea that the bible can be wrong or have contradictions feels like a very new and more liberal concept. Especially in a lot of the churches I attended in my youth, they would say the bible is the word of god, not Jesus.
I've met a lot of biblical literalists as well.
It seems to me that more loose takes on the bible has been a newer development that's been necessary because of the enlightenment era. People were less likely to just accept some of the stories like the tower of babel and Noah's ark, so there was a need in order to keep the faith going to allow for broader interpretation.
The Bible has been on a slow retreat from literalism to metaphor for hundreds of years. People just need to pluck up the courage to extend it all the way to its logical end point: that God "himself" is only a metaphor.
Well, questions about it go back pretty far. The contradictions in the Bible were one of the Catholic church's arguments against the way that Protestants use the Bible, back when the Reformation first took place. They argued that it can't be taken literally word-for-word, and certainly can't left to individuals to interpret, that it requires professionals. They understood the Bible as a creation of the early Church, put together by themselves as a theological tool. I don't know enough about it to tell you what they made of its contradictions but they were definitely awake to the fact that they pose a problem.
Yes, outside of the mainstream discussion the vestiges of biblical literalism still exist in large but dwindling numbers. However at this point such views are no longer a part of the public discussion because it's on the same level of as Flat Earth-ism and Young Earth Creationism because it isn't taken seriously anymore. Just like how some of the New Atheist nonsense about the history of science and religion is no longer taken seriously but that's what they get for using material that's been debunked for at least half a century in the first place.
Reading the Bible less than literally has been around as long as the texts of the Bible have existed... the only newer side to being looser with interpretation is to drop the belief in the literal reading and that's been going on for centuries by now as others have already pointed out.
@@EyeLean5280 I know part of the formation of the US had to do with religious freedom for certain Christian sects. That's where a lot of my knowledge is coming from. Growing up in the US's bible belt, it was very much common to have religious legal restrictions and churches commonly preached literalism. "New Atheism" was my introduction to a lot of Christian apologetics and these discussions of different interpretation of the bible.
I just have a skewed cultural perspective.
Your youth was pre enlightenment? LMAO
this was such a good episode
"The Quran is infallible" is the most terrifying thing I've ever heard
Why is it terrifying?
The pope is supposedly infallible when deciding on theological issues. So what?
Lmao why is it terrifying? You believe book is gonna come alive and walk and start doing crazy things? I swear you soy atheists say anything just to sound “edgy” 🤦🏾♂️😂
glad i left islam a year already
@@bladdnun3016 that's actually an interesting point, why is the modern Pope seemingly not as prominent a religious figure as popes of the past, even among Catholics?
its such a delight to see how much you've grown through the years, Alex. I wish you the best.
I'm new to Alex O'Connor's channel, and watching this seemingly intelligent and productive segment has made me excited to view the whole discussion, as it's hard to find non-Christian thinkers who don't only shallowly bash religion and strip functions away from society without stating why they're there in the first place.
This comment section, however, is rather discouraging for future viewing of the channel, as there seems to be a heavier echo chamber effect than I was thinking there would be, than what's often found in spheres hosted by JP, where there's discussion without common fallacies that's commonly indicative of cliché Internet discourse. Here it just seems like people don't like JP because of his wide nuance and use of big words, which is okay to not like if you don't have the bandwidth to digest those.
Does anyone have any recommendations for non-religious thinkers who don't brand themselves as blithe religion-haters, and consistently promote exploratory discussion on complex topics with communities reflective of that pursuit?
When this debate first dropped I actually couldn’t believe it
where is it?
We've been seeing Alex growing up from small TH-cam channel commentator to a respected and brilliant podcast intelectual intelectual that it's still mind-blowing for us to see him going head to head with the big ones.
I'm so proud of him 😊❤️
i found it nvm
@@Mr.MHenriques_23 well jordan is a big dangerous lunatic, that's for sure
I'm sorry but what precisely about the debate was so far removed from reality that you couldn't believe it?
The problem is it’s impossible to take any of Jordan says with any sincerity, since he backs up views like this with a politics that hugely marginalises Muslims just trying to live their lives. It’s very hard to tell if it’s a coincidence that he holds these views, and is also a bigot, or if his bigotry is the driving force behind his critique of Islam.
I am NOT saying you cannot critique Islam. What I’m saying is that disentangling legitimate critique from prejudice is extremely difficult, and that really we should be looking to those who aren’t also espousing bigotry to ensure we’re getting an honest insight.
I have held this same opinion for a long time. To me it is unlikely to be a critique if the same standards are not applied to all faiths but only to one and the people associated with it.
You say: "he backs up views like this with a politics that hugely marginalises Muslims just trying to live their lives".
I don't understand what this means. What "politics that hugely marginalises Muslims"?
@set666abominae is there anyone who you view as a particularly legitimate and non-bigoted critic of Islam?
@@jesan733I'd like to know as well. Such politics would be a good thing actually.
Islam marginalises every non Muslim - and since it is a political ideology, that will never change.
We just have to look at what they did in Africa, India, and Europe for proof.
The problem with that 'big difference' is... It's not intrinsic to Christianity... It's a difference that has been imposed on Christianity by the secular state. Without it the Bible would still be viewed as infallible, rather than only by a minority of Christian adherents.
For some reason, I feel like "If you throw enough shit at the wall, you get the shape" perfectly encapsulates JP's method
Not the William Lane Craig grin as the thumbnail
Right? My first thought when I saw it was, “He’s turning into William Lane Craig.”
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs William Lane Craig is a materialist and rationalist at heart. He plays their game while trying to defend a worldview that is completely opposed to it.
Peterson's drip is on point xD
You have awful taste
Alex you forgot to put your patreon in the video description.
When Jordan ordered his jacket he meant to say “regular black jacket” but ended up delving into the metaphorical substrate and is wearing the result of the tailor’s (and JP’s) confusion
the suit 💀💀💀
I loved this discussion because I learned so damn much. It was nice to see these two engage with one another, both respectful and well educated actually sharing ideas in order to find out more. Total joy to watch, thank you Alex!
Yeah this was a great conversation, a lot of bots in these comments claiming otherwise.
Alex brings the spirit ov mr hitchens in every debate...he's so good...
I grew up in a Southern Baptist family, and I was always taught as a kid that the Bible is the literal and perfect word of God with no flaws or inaccuracies, so I guess Baptists are like the Islamists of Christianity.
Well that's a terrible analogy... SBC is just Mormons but southerns
And they're not the only ones.
I'm not remotely religious and I think god is Santa Claus for adults....but I would totally wear that jacket Jordan has on.
AI is GOD. santa will surprise you soon.
@@robotheism - Nice try, Skynet. Not fooling me!
U have to be a benzo addict too sorry
Ikr, the more Insane he became the more drip he exhibits!
His recent jackets are my favorite thing about him.
“Jordan Peterson is my least favorite comedian”- Winston Churchill
I see distinct different degrees of awareness in these two gentleman. Personally, one aligns more with Mr O'Connor's perception and mental acuity.
The word "infallible" is intended to indicate something that is without error or incapable of making mistakes. However, its use can be almost ambiguous because it makes an absolute claim of perfection, suggesting that no errors are possible. In reality, very few things, if any, are truly without error, which leads people to question or challenge the term. Our understanding and interpretation of "infallible" are influenced by human perception and judgment, which are fallible by nature. This creates a paradox where declaring something infallible may itself be seen as a subjective or potentially erroneous judgment. Additionally, the application of "infallible" can vary depending on the context, highlighting its potential ambiguity. For example, a religious text might be considered infallible by believers but not by skeptics. Philosophically, the assertion of infallibility can lead to debates about the nature of certainty and truth. Critics might argue that claiming infallibility is an error in itself, as it overlooks the complexities and limitations of human knowledge. Therefore, while "infallible" is meant to denote something free from error, its absolute nature and the inherent fallibility of human interpretation can make its use appear almost ambiguous or even paradoxical. This highlights the challenges of making absolute claims in a world where context and perception play significant roles in understanding and communication.
At the end of the day, if you're comparing which of the two religions is more likely to be true or worth following based on whether their holy book contains the word of God or IS the word of God, it's about as on the same level as trying to argue whether the Alan Scott Green Lantern is more or less likely to be a real person than the Hal Jordan Green Lantern because the former's ring came from magic and the latter's ring is from an alien galactic law enforcement agency.
Well, yeah. But it’s Hal Jordan, clearly.
@@Direwolf1771 “Oh, so you believe that there is an intergalactic cosmic space police that stops space crime with green power rings?” - Christianity vs Islam debate
@@angryretailbanker5103 If only
Funny because, I always thought there were three Abrahamic religions?
He never seems to have much to say about one of them ever.
At least three once you get to the more modern fan fiction.
🤫
true. He was completely incapable of addressing the JQ when asked at a live event. People are waking up to this now and its great to see. The longer JP and alex ignore this stuff the more it shows them up as to who they really represent and defend. Its not white christian westerners
@@finestPlugins All of them are fanfiction. Current Judaism is an offshoot of Second Temple Judaism, which is an offshoot of Cananite religion+Zoroastrianism+Babilonian religion+Egyptian religion+Hellenism. Israelites did pray to other gods than Yahweh
"Delete this social media post you disgusting little evil rat of a man! Satan! Beezlebub!"
If anyone's confused about Peterson's appearance, he's styling himself after two Canadian celebrities. Don Cherry and Rex Murphy. Both obnoxious, but one has a vocabulary.
Woild love more videos on islam
Jordan's jacket is epic! Is it a DIY religious themed shower curtain project gone horribly awry? 🤨 This beats the Jerry Seinfeld "puffy shirt" episode six ways from Sunday. Call me a weirdo, but I can envision dressing a child up in a Jordan P. costume for Halloween and giving incoherent ramblings as part of their "thank you" to the treat givers.
🤣🤣🤣,,,recurring
JP is just a clown manifesting increasingly into more clownish forms
That depends on what you mean by “trick?” And what you mean by “or?”. And what you mean by “treat?” 😂
The fact that there are differences is an indicator of poor evidence for a god.
If there was an all-powerful, knowledgeable god that interacted with humans, there would be no doubt that it existed, and we'd likely all agree.
Also, if it did exist, then it would not be supernatural - it would be natural - and arguably unremarkable.
But I was born into the right religion and everyone else is being dishonest/stupid (lol)
God exists in relation to humans only by self-limitation. It is necessarily so - it is impossible to interact with the infinite. It is true that God is the natural. The physical world operates by natural law, the Logos. The idea that there is a “supernatural” in conflict with the natural really comes about from the materialist worldview. God exists in “heaven” i.e. meaning, idea, thought, consciousness, and on “earth” i.e. the physical world.
Sounds like a whole lot of emotional reasoning. And how did you come to the conclusion that God would be natural? I am really curious about your explanation.
@@chrisgagnon5768 He came to that conclusion because many in the scientific culture today often espouse a kind of philosophy of ontological naturalism and scientific realism that people accept without 'realising' (no pun intended) it.
One of the main tenents of that philosophy is "there are no supernatural entities", so if God exists then it must be natural by implication.
@@thomaspickin9376 so that would mean the cause of nature is natural? That doesn’t seem to work
I really want to see that debate
My mother was a liberal Muslim, my wife is a liberal Christian. Love and compassion are their North Star. I know some fundamentalist Christians and Muslims and their attitudes are very similar. I even know some fundamentalist atheists and as far as I'm concerned the problem is with I know the only truth vs love, compassion, and caring for others.
Fundamentalism, in any religion, is a product of fear, no matter how confident they may seem to be.
Uhm seems like an oversimplification of the islamic hermeneutical tradition and an abstraction of both christian and islamic traditions from the historical and cultural contexts and respective evolution through time. No, any historical contradiction in their sacred text is not per se more serious to an islamic person than for a christian person, especially if you don't specify what kind of Islam and what kind of Christianity. Too much abstraction to make such a comparison useful.
In terms of their main books, I'd say it's fairly accurate. The Quran is supposed to be the literal word of God, while the Bible is supposed to be inspired by God but written by humans about him. Therefore humans are allowed to get things wrong in terms of historical accuracy, but it'd make no sense if God did. The hadiths would ofc, be considered less reliable, but they specifically mentioned the quran here, so that seems fine.
@@sympunny8636 nope, not really. Let's start with the Bible: inerrancy has been considered a feature of the text for centuries. The idea that the inspired human could still "fail" in writing the truth is very recent and still not accepted by all christian confessions: evangelists nowdays believe in the Bible inerrancy and catholics, up to this day, end the reading of the Bible during masses saying "word of God".
As for Islam: shi'ite Islam (the second largest denomination of Islam) take a non-literal reading of the text, considering that the Quran reveals religious truth, no mundane one. Historical inaccuracies are no more of a problem to them than to a christian because historical accuracy is not considered the point.
As you can see, different denominations (none of them small) have different perspectives, to the point that the claim in the video has more exceptions than confirmation.
The main difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christians admit their scriptures were written by humans, albeit, as some Christians insist, inspired by God, whereas the Qur'an is literally the revealed word of Allah. This intrinsic point is why Islam has been able to resist change throughout its history. You cannot, after all, contradict or even challenge the will or speech of God. This claim is what makes Islam uniquely problematic and dangerous.
I agree Islam is one of few handful last true practiced faith on Earth. We ain’t changing for no other ideology or how many isms you westerners want to come up with 🤷🏾♂️😁
@@MohamedShou Your complete inability to accept change does not prove the validity of your religion. You are stubbornly stuck following a false prophet, and you think your dedication to him is somehow admirable. There is literally no difference between you and a follower of a cult.
@@MohamedShouif only that said religion wouldn’t stop trying to impede its will onto other countries. Since the respect on religion and god is valued and should be shared across their own ideology.
Islam is basically a copy of Old Testament along with mixture of some other ancient adjacent non-Abrhamic practises.
Especially upon careful study i concluded that these 2 are Islam & Christianity are not even religions rather desert arab political cults.m, through & throughout.
Lets Go!!!!🥳🥳🥳@@MohamedShou
Jordan Peterson seems so animated, engaged and....well, happy. He seems to have found a sort of kinship with Alex. :)
3:35 Here's Peterson saying a sufficient number of mistakes magically become truth at some point.
Alex is like an innocent intern at the philosophy education firm; looking clean and happy. Peterson is like the crazy janitor there who has rummors around his past that he used to be the manager.
He’s a slightly more eloquent Terrance Howard.
Fax
No. Not even remotley true. He's just far from the usual debate and looks at thinks in a very broad concept. Take his view on Christianity: The bible teaches concepts like optimism, charity, delayed gratification, striving for an ideal and how derivations have consequences. The bible is true in the way that these core beliefs really are objectively the best strategies in a game theretical view, same as the tit for tad is an objectively good strategy and the nash equilibrium really exists. Peterson sees the storys in the bible as an effective way to teach fundamental truths about life and that they therefore should be regarded as trueto form a stable society. Also If following the biblical code leads to the promised result, it acts as if it would be true. For Peterson that is enough to regard it as true
@@wiseguy9225 Something being useful does not make it factually true.
@@wiseguy9225 You can express all of those moral virtues without mythology or religion. Philosophy has done so for far longer than Christianity has, and is far better at it. Dismiss the superfluous nonsense and keep the underlying truth. Get rid of religion and you are better off because the underlying moral ideas remain the exact same without the mythical nonsense. Religion is obfuscation and nonsense added onto legitimate philosophy. Religion is useless.
Magnificent discussion!
Has Alex or Connor or Jordan Peterson ever acknowledged Joseph Campbell, who spent most of his life comparing and contrast religions?
Quite the eye-opener for me. I know so many Christians that don't care about the Bible or dislike the Church, but try to follow Jesus ideals.
Almost all Muslims that I know, regularly read or recite the Al'Quran, and are much less interested to discuss possible interpretations of the text.
Yes. Even as an ex muslim atheist it never occurred to me how differently the Christians view their holy text. As a muslim any contradiction in Qur'an (of which there is a ton of) is really damning, perhaps enough to shake your belief to the core. Afterall there is no way that the "Literal Word of God" got something wrong.
@@steppedonmyglassesWhat kind of Muslim were you to begin with? I see a lot of ex Muslims making this claim but they’re from Shia/Sufi backgrounds. So can you provide proof of your claim?
@@steppedonmyglassesgive me one contradiction ?
All this tells me is that christianity is utterly non-existent, unlike Islam.
@@steppedonmyglasses Researches show life may be originated from clay minerals [Quran 15:26].
All creatures came from water [Quran 21:30]
The Expansion of the Universe: The Quran mentions the heavens (which are parallel to the universe) being "stretched out" [Quran 51:47]. This resonates with the modern scientific concept of the expanding universe.
Mountains and their role: The Quran describes mountains as "pegs" [Quran 78:6-7], which aligns with their role in stabilizing the Earth's crust.
Embryonic Development: Quranic verses on creation [Quran 23:14] are describing stages of embryonic development.
The problem is if the bible is inspired by god it shouldn't contain contradictions
Key word “if”
Also since it does contain contradictions, theres reason to think this is NOT the word of god
@Druid75 wouldn't the next logical step be why believe anything in it?
@@9snaga thats what im saying
"Inspired by God," however, doesn't make the humans who wrote it infallible. That's the position of several Christian sects, and it was pretty much the position of the medieval church, up until the counterreformation, when they were forced into a new direction.
@@EyeLean5280if any part is wrong then no part can be believed without a way to differentiate the wrong from the correct.
I thought you photo edited all the Russian religious icon into his suit. It turns out, it's a real suit filled with icons... damn
Kermit would be proud of JPs wardrobe though
Warlord vs Empath
Diplomatic victory vs military victory
I remember the 'empath' calling for destruction of cities that denied him
Sociopath vs psychopath
Autoimmunity vs IBS
Lol what, Christianity was spread by the sword. In was a posh urban cult that the ruling elite literally imposed on the people. Most of the crusades were to force convert or kill other Europeans who still practiced their ancestral religion.
I mean, doesn't the bible have a verse claiming that it is the complete and unalterable word of god
Not to my knowledge. Maybe cite the verse before making unsubstantiated claims? But even if it had, a Christian could just read that as another contradiction, another inconsistency, another bit of noise.
Maybe you should read the bible cover to cover again.
I couldn't find any that directly say that the bible is the 'complete' and unalterable word of god but there are some that have a similar message
Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV):
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” 1
2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV):
“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, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
Hebrews 6:17 (NASB):
“In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath.”
My apologies, it has been a long time since I read the bible and I don't have access to one. I might have been thinking of revelations 22 18&19. However, on rereading, that appears to directly speak of the prophecies in revelations. I stand corrected on my statement
Today’s Meditation
"People often think of Christian morality as a kind of bargain in which God says, ‘If you keep a lot of rules I’ll reward you, and if you don’t I’ll do the other thing.’ I do not think that is the best way of looking at it. I would much rather say that every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a heavenly creature or into a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow-creatures, and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is heaven: that is, it is joy and peace and knowledge and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us at this moment is progressing to the one state or the other." -C. S. Lewis, p. 92
An excerpt from Mere Christianity
Once you listen to his kermit version. Its like you can never hear Peterson in his own voice again. I just hear kermit if he got into religion and philosophy.
Isnt it difficult for you to have debates with people about things like religion while those people probably have values that you would presumeably strongly disagree with?
Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and people alike them have made very quite bigotted Statements about things such as abortion, gay and transrights as well as being mouthpieces for various other rightwing-ideas.
I understand that in a good debate you might want to focus on the topics that have been set up and not trying to attack or get influenced by your opponents differing beliefs in unrelated issues, but still-
Do you have a thought-process about these things?
who does one debate if not people one disagrees with?
@@sabelch someone with my same beliefs, so we can circle jerk. duh
Even if they supported abortion and were anti LGBT right, Alex would still strongly disagree with them, because they are religious.
1:23 In practise I don´t think there´s much difference. Both teach that the Bible and the Koran are the literal word of God, but there are plenty of Christians and Muslims who argue that doesn´t mean every word is to be taken literally.
Indeed, in Iran, an Islamic theocracy the theory of evolution is actually obligatory in secondary schools. Indeed, Muslim astronomers in medieval times had no problem at all with a round Earth, even though the Koran says it´s flat like a carpet.
I think that the Gospels being fiction is a big problem for Christians and Jesus was probably very heavily mythologised before Mark was written, in fact, we know that´s true because of Paul.
Can you show where the Quran says earth is flat?
The Bible is not the word of God, its inspired by God. The Quran is the word of God, it was narrated. This makes the draconian moral laws in the Quran far more dangerous and difficult to get rid off than in christianity or judaism.
It says the earth is spread out like a carpet it does not say the shape of the earth is flat like a carpet.
@@kkunknownkk ok, but if it´s described like a carpet, but not like a ball, that probably is implying it´s flat
@@Minimmalmythicist But you're assuming it is describing the shape of the earth and not the surface which we traverse on.
You're right to say that some muslims probably believed that the earth was flat because of this verse but there are also verses that imply that the earth is round that are also not definite. Which imo I think is interesting because whatever the dominant view that is held in society can be corroborated by the Quran in some way. After all the Quran wasn't revealed to help us with scientific discoveries so it cleverly stayed neutral.
Would you interview James O'Brien?
As much as I think this guy is an utter midwit. James O'Brien is certainly beneath him.
hi alex
The question is why would the god man himself Jesus allow a book full with errors and wrong sayings represent him? Your excuse only works if Jesus was just a normal man and a philosopher and not the logos that spoke the world into existence.
If a godman cant even get a book that is suppose to speak for him in his absence, to teach the most important message ever, then Occams razor and every other logical standard you can come up with will point to that the godman was not a godman at all and the religion is garbage.
The funniest thing about this interview was seeing Jordan holding back on using the phrase "biblical corpus "
Depends on what you mean by 'difference'...
4:22 "…I don't like the over-concretized questions…" No Jordan, you don't like concrete questions because they require concrete answers, and that's the *last* thing you'd ever give. Your nonsense *requires* room to waffle.
Jordan is intense, is he on something?
It's part of his thinking. He places a high value on being "tough" and integrating the "shadow". He takes that in kind of a socially awkward direction though i gotta. To be fair he started to become more socially awkward after his intense illness...
@@youlig1 He got hooked on prescription drugs before. Wouldn't surprise me if he's tweaking on more meds again
Try saying 'I believe in Jesus without having a clue if he is real' without actually saying that, it makes you look like you are on something too ;)
The smell of his own farts?
He's being outclassed
When did he get his doctorate in religious studies?
OH, he doesn't have one? Then he should stick to psychology.
Appeal to authority?
CARL JUNG
No no we can't do this
so I bet you don't have a doctorate in anything, so, stick to TH-cam comments. OH! You already do.
(im just kidding around)
Yeah, only a doctorate makes you an authority of any kind. You're downright stupid.
For anyone who has seen Men in Black 3 (I promise I have a relevant point!).
There is a throwaway line in that film that 'Time travel is illegal' which is why Will Smith's character didn't know it was possible.
Anyway, my point is that I think if it ever became possible it probably WOULD be outlawed as people would be able to prove categorically whether certain historical claims, by which various global groups assert 'Divine Right', did or did not happen.
The powers that be (terrestrially) would not want their authority challenged or even undone with the ability to prove/disprove the validity of their proclaimed right to power.
Why are you making him and his vaneers look so happy with that thumbnail?
Jordan Peterson looks grossly inadequate next to Alex.
Is Alex not an atheist?
@@Native_Man123 I believe he's an agnostic, strictly speaking, but I'm not sure how your question follows stinger4712's comment. How does it pertain?
Replace looks with is and its spot on!
@@EyeLean5280 Agnostic and atheist are compatible. You can be a gnostic theist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist. The majority of atheists would say that they are agnostic, meaning they live like there is no god, they believe there is no god but they are open for evidence.
Your dark green S avatar is inadequate next to mine.
"If you had Jesus in front of you, you can't contradict him." Interesting line from Alex given that the entire Christian religion is based around contradicting Jesus. Jesus being God was an idea created by those who came after Jesus. The entire religion is based on what people came to believe about Jesus, not what Jesus believed about himself.
No, actually it's about people claimimg to know what Jesus said, what he meant and how to apply that to the present.
So Alex is right on the level of ideas. Jesus was the word, the Bible is the book that gives us what Jesus said. But Jesus is the real deal. But then obviously he doesn't live anymore and that's where the theology and the different strains of Christianity come into play...
You can only enter heaven by accepting Jesus as your one true god. Don’t think that allows for you to contradict Jesus.
This is one of the most dumbest comments I have seen this year and I have seen a lot of dumb comments
True that. I would go further and point out that every denomination of Christians has their own version of Jesus (that's over 1100 different Jesuses, and counting), and most every church within each denomination tweaks that version to suit their congregation, and every member of each congregation does the same...and each of these levels makes changes over time as well. At this point Jesus is basically play-do...each one squeezes and twists and mushes him into whatever shape suits them the most on any given day.
Truth and utility are two different things.
I find its strange that Alex is downplaying the significance of contradictions in the Bible given that he had tried to use these contradictions as evidence that the Bible is false in his debate with Dinesh D'Souza.
Then you don’t understand what they are talking about . You literally missed the whole point .
@@Feodor1418Guide.
Alex why has Jordan got his jacket on inside out?
Contradictions in the Bible no small thing, especially those concerning the resurrection, on which many base their belief.
Respectful as always and genius
Not a Muslim, but if you take the idea that God wants to communicate with humans then it seems pretty self-defeating to allow a bunch of untruths and contradictions to enter your message and so you really do need infallibility in your text. What is the alternative? that you take some of the text as essential and others as mythological? who decides which is which? it is a can of worms.