This video was voted for by my supporters on Patreon, who also had early access to this video. To learn more about supporting the channel, click here: www.patreon.com/CosmicSkeptic
Hi, Alex. Did your course include anything on how people in Biblical times conceived of heaven/paradise? I think it’s interesting to consider that the everyday life for many of us - in the UK, at least - far surpasses any ancient notion of heaven: we have antibiotics, rapid transportation, food from around the world in arm’s reach, and Radio 4.
Emanuele Aurora: "When you want to prove your point so much that you get a degree in what you criticize the most" It is the mark of an intelligent mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. There are many people who are highly qualified in the field of theology who criticise it.
Atheists often get criticized for not taking the deep theological positions of theists seriously. But when you read this stuff as an outsider, it really does sound like Tolkien deciding why one wizard is more powerful than another and why you have to take a boat to get to Valinor
Having studied theology before reaching the conclusion that Atheism makes more sense I find that many attack the lowest common denominator and tend to emphasise that Evangelical Protestantism is "true Christianity" so I kind of agree about theologians not being taken seriously. There are core issues that take down theism, but often the nuances and questioning of what things really mean is treated like it doesn't exist. Just like the town drunk outside church yelling isn't representative of the Scientific objections to theism and Christianity in particuler
@@discoverrealityclover9620 I wasn't and you should make some effort to know what people are talking about before insinuating you know what they think and how they approach topics
@@jasonmullinder i spoke so clearly, it must be the reader's fault. Your statement *clearly* mixes science with religion when you talk about *scientific* objections to *theism*
@@dozog I wasn't talking about scientific objections, I was talking about failing to differentiate between a range of people that hold similar opinions
@Anish Poddar, An atheist has no need to judge a good deed on something else than its good nature and effect. No need to question the moral or ethical beliefs of the deed doer. This also means there's no need for an atheist to go into lengthy discussions about the merits and justification of good deeds. Just do it and walk away in peace.
@@cacauldr I wasn't specifically about doing good deeds. People want certain things for themselves, and they build systems of morality to justify taking actions to get what they want. Everybody does this. Also, you seem to be assuming that certain deeds have an inherently "good" nature. That requires some basic underlying anthropocentric assumptions about human worth.
I took a couple of theology courses in college. IIRC all of my professors happened to be religious, but one of them said as he was getting his theology degree he asked a lot of his professors if getting their theology degree strengthened or weakened their faith. It was about a 50/50 split according to him!
When I went to a conservative Christian college one of the professors lamented that a lot of people lost faith after moving on to seminary, which in the US is like Bible graduate school. He then told us, "Only get as much education as you can keep sanctified." Imagine having to tell people to keep themselves ignorant so the indoctrination doesn't wear off.
@@luf.7648 Do we lose what we never had? Imagine for a moment you were the creator of the universe and everything in it would you be losing sleep over what people thought about you when you know they are totally dependent upon you for “…every breath they take…”?
Second year BTH student here. Started studying theology to understand my athiest friend's questions about Christianity. Thought it would strengthen my faith and I'd be able to answer him more clearly. Boy was I wrong. When I finish my degree I will definitely ask my professors if they are theists or not because holy shit I don't know how more than half of them could be with what I have studied.
I think it depends if you're at the age of accountability I would normally would say around 12 depends but the more you know the more u are accountable for.
Fun History Fact: During the 4th century, Athanasius competed in three consecutive Olympic games and took the Gold medal every time. For... mental gymnastics!
"If you disagree with somebody you ought to be able to state their case better than they can, and at that point you've earned the right to disagree with them. Otherwise you should just stay quiet." (Charlie Munger). Alex is doing an awesome job here.
Delusional. The rhetoric Alex is using is shot through with connotations and framings that are aimed at persuading the listener subliminally to regard the terms of the arguments in a more ridiculous or unworthy light. Beginning with the actually video title. This dilutes the substance of the terms, which you can only appreciate if you approach it with a charitable reading. And *that* is what sophistry really is. As someone who doesn't believe in Original Sin but is interested in questions of what past and present human communities have believed and why, I feel nauseated by this sort of pseudo-intellectual approach with its liberal bias to somehow take offence and look contemptuously at the various imaginative ways humans have tried to express and reason out the metaphysics behind the human condition.
@@AquarianX @me-qn6bh nah, he's definitely saying something worth saying, especially when the majority of O'Connors audience could take a position purely on the basis of this video.
fantastic- from a 69 year old atheist organist ( perfect to listen to during the sermon:) keep them coming. You should do one for each of the seasons , and major feast days. And ones on the less well know feasts such as Feast of the circumcision and Feast of fools.
He very clearly misrepresented the teachings of St. Athanasius, I can't tell if this was due to ignorance or malice. He equated the concept of Ancestral Sin with Augustinian original sin, two vastly distinct ideas
Regarding “Original Sin”: In the late 17th century, Puritan kids in New England were reading Benjamin's Harris’ 1690 _New England Primer_ which taught “In Adam’s fall, We sinned all.” Meanwhile in China the kids were reading the Confucian-based 三字經 _Three Character Classic_ (dating from the 13th century): 人之初 People at birth, 性本善 Are naturally good. 性相近 Their natures are similar, 習相遠 Their habits make them different.
He does not have a degree yet. He has 1 year of school under his belt and he is processing. If he is "wrong" about the works, please give specific points and refences to counter examples. Just be carefull your evidence does not contratict itself within the same work.
One does not need a "degree" in theology to understand theology. "Theology" is the study of God. Like assholes and opinions, everybody has one about God. If you don't like CosmicSkeptic's opinion, move on.
@@SeaScoutDan is this specific enough for you. Literally every single point he started out with, he got wrong. Catholicism isn't "Christianity"or even more than half of the Christians in the world. How do you "KNOW" Genesis is a conglomerate of myths and plagiarisms? Unsubstantiated claims and assertions, are just that... unsubstantiated claims and assertions. Wrong. Infants and children all go to heaven, until they reach the age of accountability. Then they must make atonement for their own sins. Hell. God doesn't send anyone to hell. He lets you send yourself to hell. But he affords you the means of staying out of hell, by accepting Jesus. And do you expect God to permit anyone who rejects Jesus into Heaven. No sin can enter into Heaven. It's not a dilemma of God's creation. He gave Adam and Eve one restriction.... do not eat from the tree of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL (I notice you conveniently failed to mention the tree of knowledge was referring to knowledge of good and evil). Its a matter of Adam and Eve's disobedience. I stopped watching at this point because I just couldn't stomach any further mischaracterization
@@dashlamb9318 I neither like nor dislike his opinions about God. I just want him to acknowledge that they ARE opinions ONLY and not state them as facts, as he so often is apt to do, all while getting virtually every single point wrong.
As usual Christianity have co-opted. Karma. Good karma/bad karma is intended as lessons in growth, not a fearful punishment. Christianity has often chosen whip rather than reward.
@@calebknieper Your Bible was written by men, 2000+ years ago and is based off of older religions by yet more scientifically illiterate males who were trying to make sense of things like lightening, thunder death, etc. and tried explaining it as various things such as a “god’s anger” or “disapproval”, but how do you know it’s truly the word of any god? There is no real compelling evidence that any of it is true, it is only something you can believe based on faith/ hope. Back 2000-4000 years ago, almost nobody could read and owning a book was beyond their ability to afford. They had to trust the guy who could read it and if he was a dishonest man, an indoctrinated one and/or an excessively controlling man, how trustworthy could those kinds of men’s teachings be? The “ chain of custody” on the veracity of the scriptures being the true word of any god, over that many generations of religious men, is completely broken and it’s highly unreliable. Think of the standards of evidence that are demanded in a Court of Law! This level of generational verbal telling of stories about what a god’s expectations for us are, told by wannabe leaders, and then later in time written down and then rewritten in different versions ( yes, the Bible has Versions!), how could this be considered to be reliable? We’ve all heard of the Telephone game. Ask yourselves, why would a supposedly intelligent God choose to communicate such important information to us in this flawed and unreliable manner? The obvious answer is, that it is all man made and built upon by generations of men who wanted control and power in their societies. It’s simple common sense. New religions have sprouted up in my lifetime alone and will possibly be the new dominant religions of the masses in the future. Men like Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, David MisCavige, they can’t seem to help themselves, because it’s such a lucrative and easy power grab for them. This has been happening since the dawn of mankind. In the King James Version of the Bible, for one example, it has 613 commandments, supposedly by a god. Wouldn’t you think there would we be at least one of those commandments that says something to the effect of, “ thou shall not ever rape a child”? There isn’t any mention of it. According to the Bible, if you rape a young women, it is only a crime against the girl’s father - the Bronze Age men of that time felt that a daughter was her father’s property and so he was due some compensation because she was a bartering piece of his property back then. We are more moral than the Bible nowadays, thank goodness.
"I have nothing but respect for the way theology tortures my University." That's what I first heard when you said that you respect how it is TAUGHT IN your University. I was briefly confused.
@@djhogan65 to argue against thiest doctrine and thinking, its important to understand theology and thiest thinking. This young man is one of a new generation of athiest thinkers and biblical challengers. Christopher Hitchens would be delight to know athiest like this young man were going where he went.
As a Christian, Alex is by far my favourite Religious critic. Him actually being familiar with Theology makes his criticism all the more potent and worth considering.
It's great, when he gets things right. But his treatment of Athanasius is absurd and missed all of his point - let alone the fact his misunderstanding of Genesis 1-2 (let alone the rest of "the Fall" up to the flood). He didn't even mention the most oft quoted statement from Athanasius - "God became man so that man might become God". I dislike Anselm's atonement anyway soo I have nothing to say on that lol
Thank you for having a brilliant mind open to challenge. I'm a Christian that has grappled with is exact issue and have never made peace with it. I love who Jesus was but the who savior thing.. not so much.
Hi Alex, thank you for your video and your excellent interviews. I think that there are some issues with your critiques of Athanasius. I believe the problem lies in looking at early eastern church figures like Athanasius through much later western theological debates (fact vs myth, inherited guilt, the nature of death, Hell). So here are a couple of points. 1) Athanasius very likely didn't believe in the literal factuality of the garden story. On the Incarnation is the second half of a 2 part work. In the first half, Contra Gentiles, he refers to the garden story as a myth (or words to that effect. I can't recall at the moment, but I remember being surprised when I read it.) And this wasn't really an issue for the early fathers. It is now since people started taking the Bible as a science textbook, but very few people read that way in the early church. Some took it literally. Most of the big names didn't though, like Origen, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil of Caesurea. Christians and Pagans alike were trained to read allegorically, which is very foreign to our modern approach to texts. Orgien, for example, sees Scripture as having layers. Sometimes there is a literal layer, sometimes not. But we should always read spiritually with a Christocentric approach. 2) Athanasius didn't believe in original sin in the way you describe it. The prevailing metaphor for sin in the early church and still in the eastern church is that of inherited disease, not inherited legal culpability for Adam's sin. We are born into a fallen world with a predisposition to sin, but we are only responsible once we actually sin. We are not guilty for people's sins that preceded us. Augustine invented that doctrine in the 400s because of a mistranslation of Romans 5 from Greek into Latin (Augustine never learned Greek). But in the eastern church it never was taught because they could read the original Greek. And when other theologians heard about it they were shocked and distured by its break with traditional doctrine. 3) I think Athanasius uses legal metaphors to describe God's penalty of death, but I think he thinks of it in a more organic way. Death is not an arbitrarily decided legal punishment by God. God in his nature is Life, Being, Joy, Love, etc... To choose to turn away from God is thus to approach death and suffering. There is a natural, intrinsic order to the world. It's not ad hoc. 4) Surprisingly, Athanasius very possibly didn't believe in an eternal Hell. While there certainly are places where he describes punishment for the wicked, there are numerous places were he says that all humanity will be ultimately saved. Thus (though it is debateable) his view is God's use of punishment is temporal, remedial, and redemptive. And again, for the early theologians, this wasn't an issue like it was to become later. The scholar Illaria Ramelli documents how numerous early church figures were explicitly or implicitly universalist. For example, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, St. Anthony, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and others. Origen was explicitly a universalist, and Athanasius was a big fan of Origen. 5) The reason Athanasius comments about Christians being eager for death is because of how contrary it is to our human nature. It is a given that we all fear death. We flee it, ignore it, and bemoan it. We are born Death's slaves. But, if Christ rose from the dead, we can have a confident hope that we also will rise. Athanasius is making a startlingly anthropological observation. Christians don't fear death anymore, and this is really really weird. His explanation is that this only makes sense because of the Resurrection and the good news that spread after it.
Top tier comment and important point. I always thought of the bible etc. as a way to formulate the workings of human experience. So this was really amazing to read. I think I would agree with Athanasius on some matters and I'm actually quite bewildered of how much your comment differs from the perspective presented. Crazy how some information can make or break the output of interpretations
Thank you for this comment. Very educational! From what I recall from my studies, Origen proposed three ways that you can interpret a text : 1) the literal way (the event happened as described), 2) the alegorical (the event is a metaphor for sth else) and 3) the spiritual way.
I was looking for a measured response like this, wow, as others have stated, we are looking forward to your TH-cam channel, I've subscribed just incase you post something
Brilliant video, I think it's essential to learn about the things you would generally argue against. Like you've previously mentioned about admitting your own biases so that you can compensate for them.
I was tormented with the idea that I deserved to go to hell as a child and it filled me with self loathing that I still struggle with today. Even now, I feel like I'm so vile that I deserve to be among worst of the worst in hell. I consciously remind myself that this is irrational, but the feeling still lingers. He's right about that being one of the most cruel things you could tell a child. The one good thing to come of it is that I haven't indoctrinated my own child.
have you considered that perhaps its not that you "deserve" to go to hell, it is a case that hell is our DEFAULT destination? Sounds horrible doesn't it? yep, we ARE drowning. and yet call the God that offers us a life saving jacket and YANK us out of the water at the end of days evil is a mystery to me. Thats why the GOSPEL (the Good NEWS) is such good news. Seek God. and Trust in Jesus.
@@kaizze8777 Of course I don't deserve to go to hell, literally no one deserves to go there. It's our default position because God decided it should be that way even for good people. Reframe it however you want, God made Hell with the intention of having good people sent there for failure to credulously grovel. In your analogy, God is the one who threw me out to drown. He's threatening me with eternal torture if I don't do what he wants. That's abusive, emotionally, psychologically, and physically. Further, it destroys morality by endorsing vicarious redemption. It says you don't have to take responsibility for your wrongs because an innocent person was tortured to death for you. The despot may demand on penalty of eternal anguish that I must accept this. I will not. It's an abomination.
The actual traditional view is simply that hell is the presence of God. Ultimately though we are quite sinful, but what you are describing is despair, not repentence which isn't good for obvious reasons. As hell is the presence of God then it simply depends upon if you have attempted to move towards God through working with him (synergeia). Salvation is thusly a process were you become more and more like God without becoming God. It's not about going there because you're "failing". The whole point is that as long as one has faith, you will be saved. So what does that mean? That you must have a strong intellectual belief to go to heaven? No of course not. Faith is in this sense not an intellectual belief, faith is putting one's trust in God and working together with him. You may recognize that you are a sinner and that you should improve, but you do not sit there and grovel in your sins. You fall down, dust yourself off and continue. If anything, despair is almost what hell is in many ways.
@@callefolin To say "the traditional view" is misleading because there are many different traditions and some definitely include an eternal hell of anguish. There are also different traditions on heaven, salvation, repentance, etc. To claim only yours is correct is to commit a clear no true Scotsman fancy. The only way to determine the correct view of things is for God to show up and provide a demonstration, but we all know that isn't happening. You can't just brush away other people's religious traditions by saying they aren't THE traditional view. I really don't need the religious to continue condescending to me about how I don't actually understand anything because I wasn't brought up with their version of the "real" Christianity. What I'm describing is psychological abuse perpetuated against a child by otherwise good people who were corrupted by religion. Repentance was obviously part of my indoctrination as well, but that part wasn't relevant to the comment. It's not like all our church services centered on us bewailing the existence of hell. Children don't always take away only the message you want them to take away. They wanted me to feel happy that Jesus had come to save us and so we didn't need to fear hell anymore. I highly doubt their intention was that I should focus on the part of the doctrine that said its inherently what I deserve. I know people don't go there for failing. That's part of the horror of it all. Simply by being a human, I'm condemned because my very biology makes it literally impossible to meet God's demands. You hit the nail on the head. "As long as one has faith, you will be saved." It isn't about being a good person, bettering the world, helping your fellow man, a person can do all that and God still decides they're worthy of hell. Reverse wise, a person can be a monster, raping and murdering, defrauding and stealing, manipulating and lying, then find faith at the end and God finds them deserving of heaven. It rather destroys the idea of moral accountability, particularly in the only life that we actually know we have. I know you meant hell is the absence of god, but the fact that you twice wrote that it's the presence of God gave me a real chuckle. In a lot of ways, I think the eternal presence of god would be hell for some people.
@@kaizze8777 Lmao, I don't the religious hoard who actually are like can, from this comment onward, claim they *aren't* mentally depraved lunatic cultists.
This thinking was central to my doubts as a child in church. There was just something clearly unfair and nonsensical about how God and hell worked. The adults around me only ever answered things like “It’s not for us to understand.” “It’s arrogant for us to judge God’s plan according to our own logic.” or “It doesn’t matter if you like it or not. That’s not how it works.” I couldn’t put it into words as a kid certainly though. Thanks your awesome content Alex.
@@travelsouthafrica5048 Well for one thing you go to hell for thought crimes. So a lot of good and virtuous people would be in hell which is awfully strange.
I couldn't agree more & I remember like it was yesterday sitting in Sunday School & thinking this just doesn't make sense it doesn't ring true. And honestly as silly as it sounds what pushed me over the edge back then was discovering that they practiced animal sacrifice, burnt offerings. Which God had ordained. For me it was "Thank you, I'll get my coat"
@@J._-_-._-._-._-._-._-._-._S999 good and virtuous people ? according to what standard do you judge that they are "good" and 'virtuous' ? allow me to explain your predicament here th-cam.com/video/YNY1khF5WKE/w-d-xo.html
Hi CosmicSkeptic, random internet Christian here. Love your content! And please don’t, because I’m a Christian, interpret what I’m saying as “oh look a Christian just trying to LOOK LIKE he loves his enemies like he’s told to do.” I genuinely really enjoy your videos. They have been inspiring me to do proper research into the whole theism vs atheism debate but also to question and look into the validity behind my own beliefs, which I think we all must do! Enjoyed your debate with a Frank Turek a couple years ago too, considering doing a masters in apologetics myself :) Keep researching and I would personally say let’s be committed to the pursuit of truth. Wishing you all the best
god is the antagonist and the protagonist of the story so he makes a problem and fixes it and wants praise for fixing the shit that he broke in the first place.
I think that this is pretty profound and I pretty much agree. Suffering might be a precondition for sentience. That sounds pretty true to me. So god is to blame for our suffering, true. I remember when my daughter was born, I realized that I had to take responsibility for everything, since I helped bring her into this world. I never expected praise from her, but I yearned for her love, freely given. At least this metaphor works for me.
Earth created humans, then humans used intuition to create the GODS. Then humans used science to create A.I. How long before we have an anti A.I. Jesus waging a holy war? The gods will battle! 😀
I swear: everytime I hear the word entail, I think back to the debate you had with Mohammed Hijab where you asked, "If P entails Q, and P is necessary, is Q necessary" to which he replies, "no" then "it does not have to be." One of the funniest moments of that event
I kinda laughed at Ineffable right there. Indeed, under what circumstances does it not have to? And besides, how "It doesn't have to" differ from "No" when the question is about matters of necessity?
@@AR15ORIGINAL Keep laughing..the laugh is on you. That's right its about the necessity of the necessary existent thing. How is what entails also necessary related to the misquote of Hijab. Comedian.
I really believe the quickest way to become an atheist is to learn about world religions and to study theology teachings. I once was asked by a couple of JW (they always seem to travel in pairs) why I was an atheist, hadn’t I read the Bible? My response dumb founded them, “it was reading the Bible that helped me become an atheist.” “Really” was their response. They said they would pray for me. I found their response amusing. So far their prays have had no affect. I wish I had had your questions to ask Jehovah Witness back then, perhaps it could have lead to a more interesting and extended dialog, but then, not likely.
1 Church believes ignorance to be a virtue. Is that so everywhere in the Ecumenical Church? Is it still the case? Have alternative societies were fallen into the same error? Like Communism, for instance, no? 2 Tree of knowledge means scientific knowledge, according to you? The full name is the Tree of knowledge good and evil". Maybe that allegory you provided wasn't what the Bible meant. If Christian Church is inherently opposite to science, why than Christians studied Aristotle? 3 Establishing the death penalty for eating from the three. Was there any other way for God to provide an autonomous creature with the ability to become God? Was it just an arbitrary decision, or a necessity? 4 First people never existed? Why is it because evolution is collective? But, was there a non-human ape who had born the first fully human?
yeah but you ignore those 3 odd bad ones and religion suddenly is a very wholesome thing. its not the fault of religion that we took the 3 least usefull and made them so popular that we mixup religion with abrahameic madness.
One of the most evil things about this concept of original sin meant that parents who suffered the tragedy of losing a baby before it could be baptised had to believe that that baby would go to hell until the church invented the udea of limbo, a sort of bleak nowhere.
well i don’t know about catholics, but most non-denominational christians believe in a “free grace when acceptance is impossible” sort of approach, as those who cannot understand the idea of salvation cannot accept the grace of God and are therefore saved through grace because they are not denying the salvation of God.
No, because as far as I know there has always been the belief that babies or children up to a certain age, I think 7 not sure, do not go to hell if they die, they go straight to heaven.
@@madelynhernandez7453 The traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church is that unbaptized babies go to hell. Now, this is not based on scripture (not even in the slightest), but it is their 'apostolic tradition.'
I saw CosmicSceptic on the street of Oxford week or two ago. He looked like a normal person... just going about doing regular people stuff! Didn't dare to approach and now regretting it a bit. Anyway you are awesome CosmicSceptic!
This reminds me of one very special evening when I saw Peter Rabbit... At first glance, I thought he was just a regular rabbit, doing regular rabbit things.. eating clover, with an “ear” on his surroundings. I asked “hey, are you a regular rabbit, doing normal rabbit things like eating clover in the evening?” He glanced at me, turned, and released a few droppings. I knew at that moment that this was no regular rabbit! I thought of asking him some important rabbit questions that only Peter rabbit would know.. But I was so afraid he would think me rude; or worse, particularly insipid for imposing my rabbit queries on perhaps the most famous Peter of all time. I think of that day every time I am forced to eat a salad. Or have a loose stool.
@@stylis666 You may be free to go against your conscience, but that doesn't mean your conscience doesn't start bothering you after choosing to do so. So how free are you really to go against your conscience?
Wow... Rawlings here has an ego the size of Darth Dawkins. Good to know that the whole 'humility thing that Christians claim is so important is so strongly represented among apologists, right?
It's innacurate to say that the New Testament hadn't been compiled and canonised by the time Athanasius as a broad consensus was already firmly established by the 2nd century, which is evidenced in the Muratorian Canon (yes there are differences in dating) and the decisive response against Marcion's Canon. This was possible because a canon was already liturgically in place (this necessitates compilation) with which one could base ones theological judgements. Yes, certain books had an uncertain status till much later e.g. shepherd of Hermas, Revelation... Thus Athanasius is not creating a canon in 367, but merely restating the existing Church practice.
Some his writings point to other views of hell such as annihilationism etc. Not only does he not mention that the Saint had different views but it seams the Bible it self does. And he goes over none of them. Just the one he wants a rouse from which is the most extreme case of ECT. And none of the sub views in it.
Yes Anthanasius simply states in his 39th festal letter of the 27 works (NT). This simply shows us that the canon had been formed by 367, because that is the first listing we have.
I was raised with all of this, even studied at seminary, and recently left it all once I could no longer paper over the contradictions and Cruelty of this theology. Initially I was going to call out some pretty major omissions in your overview, but then I realized: your larger points are valid and important. I want to highlight, for example, your comment regarding children growing up desiring death: these teachings taught me, from as early as I can remember, that death is something to be both yearned for but also impossibly afraid of (since we're told that it's so easy to condemn ourselves to hell). Also, your closing point about the sophistry required to navigate these theological jumbles is spot on.
The reading lists are really helpful - please keep posting them as you continue on your course. Whilst I live and think on the opposite end of the religious/theological spectrum, I appreciate the articulate and intelligent way that you express what you've studied. Good luck with your studies in the future!
@Phoenix Rising Are you an atheist? Why don't you take a look at my "mini" theology class if you are so interested? It's free....... cheaper than cambridge...... These are pretty GREAT arguments I found other Christians using as evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible, can you ignore these? GOD IS REAL AND CAN BE PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW!!! The biologically immortal organisms that lack senescence are already extremely great proof for God and his design but if you want more..... The 3 main forms of evidence that would be acceptable and legitimate in a court of law for the existence of God would be.....
"Life after Death experience studies where people witness a creator God- " iands.org/resources/education/recommended-reading.html " " time.com/68381/life-beyond-death-the-science-of-the-afterlife-2/ ", .......... = "Both sides of the argument!" Multiple Studies on the effectiveness of prayer from multiple religions involving a creator God like in the book "The Divine Matrix by Gregg Braden" " www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_13?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=divine +matrix+gregg+braden&sprefix=divine+matrix%2Cstripbooks%2C195&crid=3BXKVNJABO9OK " along with other such studies proving a positive co-relation, ...... Positive co-relation to prayer in a peer reviewed study.......... jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/485161 ............ and scientific facts mentioned in the Bible before their human discovery by a divine influence, www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html ....... For example….. 1. The singing stars. Job 38:7 declares the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy. It sounds like a bit of Bible poetry but not much more. After all, stars shine, not sing, right? Well, it turns out scientists have been able to convert patterns from start light into audio wavelengths, according to Discovery News. The “amount of hiss” in the audio reportedly allows scientists to measure the surface gravity on a star and gauge where it is in its stellar evolution. 2. Weight of the winds. In Job 28:25, we are told that God weighed out the wind. This one may be no more self-evident to us than it was to an ancient Israelite reader of this text. But, we know from modern science that air, since it does have mass, weighs something. You might be surprised to know how much though: an estimated one ton of air is weighing down on shoulders, according to this science site (which explains that we don’t feel it because the air is exerting its force in all directions). This is pretty basic stuff for modern scientists, but it’s quite a credit to the inerrancy of Scripture that the author of Job got it right so long ago (approximately in the second millennium BC). 3. A massive fountain of water deep beneath the Earth!!! Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." www.thesun.co.uk/news/2242110/scientists-discovered-water-from-biblical-great-flood-in-worlds-deepest-hole/ www.express.co.uk/news/weird/733026/Russia-science-Kola-borehole-Noah-floodwater-Bible-Genesis-theory-of-12 creation.com/oceans-of-water-deep-inside-the-earth "Scientists dig the world’s deepest hole - and find ‘water from NOAH’S FLOOD’ at the bottom The revelation also reportedly "disproves the myth" that the earth is made up of dry rocky layers" All these would stand the scrutiny of a judge and jury for the case of a creator Gods existence and the legitimacy of the Christian Faith!!! But I am feeling generous so I will give you two more great forms of evidence, how about this book where a forensic officer who is atheist studies and researches the Bible to see if it proves a historical Jesus and if he was murdered wrongfully? Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696, afterward he became Christian!!! Also, why don't you just pray to God yourself and ask him if he is real? What more can I say??? Then you would have personal evidence and proof of Gods interaction yourself..... I mean, there is actually way way way more evidence for God than this but it either would go over your head or you would not understand it properly and you would question it, but this is really solid evidence and proof I have given you up above that would hold up in a court of law........... if you decide to RUN from it, at least admit to yourself that is what you are doing........ Do you believe your life, body, family and the ground you walk on are all a gift or something else? If you believe they are all something else then what do you think they all are then?
@@heropld Can you tell me what your exact problem with it is or the problem that you find is the biggest? I said evidence that could be used in a court of law and that is exactly what I gave, it is consistent and is not just ramblings"When I copy and paste things on to youtube it may get a bit scrunched". There is nothing on there that is weak and there is nothing that you can prove to be false at all. Did you see how I had a link to a scientific study on prayer and a book on how scientific experiments were done on prayer from different religions and spiritual practices and that they all found a positive co-relation.....? That is extremely fascinating evidence that "someone" or "something" is answering that prayer. Can you explain it without some kind of God or religious aspect? I would love to hear you try.....
@@heropld Why don't you talk to me about it then? Convince me, or run away and be weak. You believe life came from non-life by itself, to me you are more religious and more filled with faith than any religion you look down upon as ignorant, you are more religous than them!!! You just have not admitted it to your self.... How is this scientific article misinformation.....? jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/485161
Alex. thank you for the video. The more I read, the more I learn I have to read, and at 48 I still love to learn. That is why I love your channel. You are a man learned beyond your years. Thank you.
I'm a former Anglican priest, and trained in Oxford. It was an experience that was both wonderful and ghastly. I'm the last person in the world to defend the Church, but I think you give an incomplete picture here in a few places - particularly the nuances of the differences in the concept of Original Sin between Eastern and Western traditions. (Briefly and crudely, the Eastern tradition takes a less personal and more cosmic view.)
Can you expand on this? Your prospective as an former priest is probably very unique. I’d also like to know how and why you left your position if you want to talk about it. (I’m Giovanni, I’m 27, Italian, atheist, but I love this subject)
In the East, original sin is rejected, but they understand that we are sinners because we are born into a sinful world. Kids learn to steal, be selfish, etc. This is consistent with Athanasius. Homie who made the video is applying later theological categories onto the text. He doesn’t really put forward a theory of original sin (although based on what he writes, if someone described it to him I think he’d accept it wholeheartedly) but rather sees sin and death as powers at work in the human race. After sin enters the world, death does as well, and it affects all who are touched by the power of sin. So it’s not about inherited guilt (that’s a category developed about 100 years later by Augustine) but about these powers that are at work in our bones
@XY ZW fine. I'll bite the bullet. What does it refer to? And what was its purpose other than ultimately punishing every human to ever come for something god knew in advance?
I am not a biblical scholar but from what i know the tree of knowledge was a metaphor for not to play god. As in deciding who lives and dies etc. Also knowledge is said to be one of the gifts of the holy spirit. I have never heard any catholic accademic endorse the view that ignorance was a virtue.
Sin is ones separation from God, it is not merely the breaking of a set of rules, but a rejection of the Lord. The natural consequence of separation from God is spiritual death, it is not an imposed punishment but a byproduct of being apart from the Divine which is our source for spiritual life.
As a person who's lived in a Catholic environment (I'm atheist btw) all his life, the first theory seemed pretty normal to me having been exposed to that for 20 years hahaha
@@heedmydemands Original Sin was probably the first thing we were taught... in MIDDLE SCHOOL in Eastern Europe (Orthodox Christians...). My catholic friends know about it too, but it could be a local thing(Romania)... curious
@@joanabug4479 yeah that's interesting. Like I was told the Adam and Eve story and Eve was tempted by the serpent and ate of the tree of knowledge but it wasn't made a big deal. I don't remember more being said about it than that story. We were all assumed sinners, I just thought it was because no one is perfect not that we were guilty when we were born
Catholics don't go as hard at this "hereditary sin" thing as protestants do though. As a chaplaine once told me (I'm also from a Catholic background), one of the main central differences between catholics and protestants is that catholics believe that due to Jesus dying for our sins, humans are now born without sin and can thereby be happy. Directly after the sacrament of penance they are actually viewed as completely free of sin. Protestants on the other hand believe that humans are still born with sin and thereby need to spend their lifes doing penance constantly and will always remain sinners. Martin Luther was rejected by many catholic theologians not only because he disagreed with the sale of indulgences but also because his theology was too bleak for them. Of course, I still think that catholic theology is still horrific, though. It's just not as bad in that regard.
I was raised Catholic and we were taught about original sin all the time. I thought it was pretty normal for a Christian upbringing. I didn't take it to mean that we're all inherently evil, just that we are imperfect and we all desire to do things that God does not want us to do. I really don't think it's that big of a deal or DISGUSTING as the title of this video suggests. As an atheist now I can still accept the theory behind it. Human beings are flawed and do immoral things to each other that's the reality of life whether you put a religious spin on it or not.
To your point at 8:45, I remember thinking the same as a child. I figured if Heaven existed and was the best thing ever then why was everyone in our church not just killing themselves right now? I also figured that it was better to do it sooner than later cuz being a kid I would be a shoe-in for Heaven. Related to that, I was also terrified of dying of old age. I knew that when people got old their brains stopped working and they couldn’t remember things or think properly. In most media spirits are shown as how the person was when they died, so I was scared of being stuck as senile for all eternity basically.
as a child....your position is certainly that of a child. Anyone aware of heaven is likely to have heard of the commandments, one of which is 'you shall not kill', including yourself. Heaven in the Christian sense is intellectual enlightenment, not senility. Check Boethius and Aquinas.
@@philcoppa "Heaven in the Christian sense is intellectual enlightenment, not senility." Sorry, but we disagree on that one. And quoting two Christian men doesn't change that. I have a brain that works.
@@philcoppa even if they shouldn’t Jill themselves, the mentality would definitely rally you against safety and self preservation, which isn’t a great idea to teach children.
I think suicide is frowned upon and considered a bad thing since life is God's gift so you taking your life away is rejecting God's gift so why should you be given free pass to Heaven that way.
@@B30pt87 Actually in theory, heaven is great. For Christians it means immortality, the lack of death, sickness and decay, reunion with loved ones, and endless access to knowledge and the universe. It is enlightenment in the sense that only will there be spiritual closeness with their Creator but also unlocking the secrets of knowledge that men know nothing about. We only just found out about many things in science, and there is much more yet to be discovered. And before you say, science/knowledge and religion do not mix please remember that the reason many are literate today is because of religion especially during the years of the Reformation, and that MUCH of the information that scientists study and utilize today, that are taught in schools, were contributed by religious people who believed in the God of the Bible. There are brilliant aethists but there are also brilliant theists, and belief in God or a diety does not equal dumb.
God: On the day of you eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you will die. Adam: What does 'die' mean? God: Oh... err.... It's like... the process of death. Die, dying, dead... y'know? Death. Adam: What does 'death' mean? God: Oh right... Of course. Well, it hasn't been invented yet. But I can tell you that death - is not good. Adam: What does good mean? God: Oh... right... errrr... Its like... the exact opposite of bad... Adam: What does 'bad' mean? God: Err...... It's like, when something... really... um... shit happens... like.... Adam: Like death? God: Yes! Exactly! Like death. Adam: So what is death again? God: Um... Hey... why don't you go and talk to that snake over there...
what God means you will die. is that you are not longer immortal and not welcome in the garden bcoz the garden is like heaven. sin do not belong in heaven. sadly ur poor understanding is laughable
That was one of the first things I couldn't understand even as a child. We are all born sinners. Why? No, we're not. How could I progress in that religion? So I always suspected the adults telling me this even as a child. Also the narcissism of that god. If you don't worship and adore it, ignoring all the others, then it will torture you in some kind of a hell. So it creates human beings supposedly as sinners. It's just ridiculous to me
@@kathleen5237 Thanks for your honesty. You need to be skeptical about every claim. But some people have a cynical arrogant attitude . Hope you not one of them!😆 Let me ask you..What is it that you doubt about God : ( I'm not talking about any God in specific) I mean God by a mind outside the human mind responsible for everything we experience, ( universe, laws of gravity ,stars ,cosmos everything...) , if is Possible to know him or her? Is an energy or a person ? What is it that you wrestle with about God ?
Not at all. When people perform ballet, it hurts nobody. When Christians use their theology to create laws and social policy, it has consequences for everyone, so it is important to point out their "facts" are not facts at all.
If, on the other hand, he was to criticize Christianity while not being in possession of all the facts, you would accuse him of not being qualified to argue. You can't have it both ways. What the hell is a ballerino?
This was yet another one of your GREAT videos, where you so eloquently, intelligently and honestly share with us all your knowledge. You didn't have to, yet you did share that with us, so thank you. Which makes me even more sad seeing the comment section filled with either christian apologetics or people who totally missed the point of the video and just make silly jokes...
Man was given free will (freedom to choose actions). That is the reason that Jesus had to sacrifice Himself because there is not one single human who has followed the Law completely. What you are calling “inheritable sin” does not mean that we are all born already sinful but does mean that we are not capable of perfection as required by the Law. To me, that is a big difference and is not horrible but rather very merciful of God to provide a way for us to be in His presence one day.
Let me start of by saying that my field of study is not theology, but religious studies, therefore my knowledge extends to all the world religions (Including ancient Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian and Egyptian religion). So its safe to say that i'm not specialized in the great theological discourses through the centuries. But i do feel its necessary to point out an error i spotted in this video. First of all, Athanasius is certainly an important figure within the orthodox faith. However, he did not put forward the concept of original sin. What he did was to draw out the full implications of the key word in the Nicene Creed: homoousios, one in essence or substance. But while Athanasius emphasized the unity of Father and son - the Cappadocians stressed Gods threeness: Father, Son and the Holy spirit are each a person (hypostasis). When it comes to the concept of original sin, the two major strains of Christianity (orthodox and catholic) diverges quite a bit from each other. The orthodox church believes that "Adam fell, not from a great height of knowledge and perfection, but from a state of underdeveloped simplicity; hence he is not to be judged too harshly for his error" (Timothy ware, The orthodox church, page 217). The catholic's approach to original sin is accredited to Augustine. Augustine believed we inherited adam's sin by simply being born, which is something most orthodox theologians reject since humans from their perspective are born perfect, and our sinful nature only comes into play when we are old enough to distinguish between what is right and wrong. "And Orthodox have never held (as Augustine and many others in the west have done) that unbaptized babies, because tainted with original guilt, are consigned by the just God to everlasting flames of hell." (Timothy ware, The Orthodox church, page 218). Thus humans according to the orthodox faith do not inherit Adams's guilt, but his corruption and mortality.
I was under the impression that being born into sin meant merely that we're imperfect (sin meaning to miss the mark). Perhaps I'm being too charitable but the interpretation is valid, I think.
Yeah original sin does not imply that everyone is “as bad as bad can be” but instead explains that nothing is untouched by sin. There’s imperfection, but it is possible to work toward as close to perfection as possible.
The problem is that sin is sin, just off the bullseye or hitting the wall - it doesn't matter and as the scripture says, the wages of sin is death. Being just off the mark is no less scary. This is why the sacrifice of Jesus is a huge deal. Without him, no one could be saved. (I'm currently agnostic - but was raised as a Christian, still young and trying to figure this crazy world out)
@@user-wi5gv8gs3e The general consensus in my circles is that we are to do Gods will - not because he needs us but because we need him. Jesus does count on us, in the sense that he wants us to commit to his will, but if we choose not to commit, its to our own determent not God, if he wants something done it will be done if not by you then someone else and they will reap the benefits of that commitment instead. (Job 35, Acts 17:25 and the like) Christians are agents of God on earth, prayer is important but as you said prayer is not all we are supposed to do. (James 2:14-17) After all Christ himself was a prayerful man, but that by no means stopped him from doing a lot of work, teaching, healing etc. So yes, I agree with you, scripture makes it clear that prayer alone is insufficient.
@@storyworld414 If we are one of God's creations, then we are children of God. We are not the "devil's children". However, we have free will so we can choose to follow God or take the other path.
My friend and roommate at uni studied Theology and said that the majority were Catholics or otherwise Christian, a couple of people of other religions and then a couple of atheists / agnostics. Don't know what it's like in Alex's class but that's what she experienced.
@@JohnCena8351 Yeah I would have thought that as well, although I think Catholic priests are strongly encouraged to take degrees in Theology, and maybe Christian ministers as well so maybe that explains the disproportionate demographic breakdown.
Well theres a few presuppositions that are had in order to make this assertion. The first, and most self indulgent one is that IF there is a god that created all of existance, and ascribes all meaning including moral meanings(entertain the premise for argument) then it makes no sense to think you, a portion of the created existance, has a right to tell the creator how to do things, or what should be considered right, or wrong. At the end of the day, your one person out of countless generations, with limited experience in your own life, let alone the knowledge it would entail to be the literall source of everything. The second thing is more a prospect to do with doctrine we have now. And that is that its stated in the video that we were made to be immortal, and happy. Which is just wrong. Pretty much all of christian doctrine says the primary purpous of our creation was that we were supposed to share in agency with god over creation, and to be someone, and something to talk to/have a meaningful relationship with. The fall of man is the result of humans abandoning that purpous to pursue purposes of our own design. In light of that it makes a little more sense that there would be a toll for sin. After all if a computer stopped working properly, and you couldn't have it fixed, youed probably throw it away. Or at least scrap it for parts. The computer was created to fulfill a purpousand now cannot do so.
@@barryallen2123 as a athiest he is perfectly capable of being a theologian. Unlike his Christian colleagues he is untainted by doctrine. Try praying for the weak and unfeed of this world and not a well educated young man.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 But we aren't computers, why did he then give us "free will" to make our own choices and already knew what our choices would be to purposely accuse us of not doing what he asked us to do?... I see it this way. I'm god, I create billions of humans and I put them in an insignificant rock within a vast univers and I tell them: I'm your creator, I give you the ability to choose, I want you all to love me and worship me... but if you decide no to do so I will subjugate you all to an eternal existence of torture and suffering... but I'm an old loving god, by the way. I created this whole reality, but I will get offended if you don't go to church every week and worship me... THAT'S WAY TOO SADISTIC AND CHILDISH I'm literally nothing compared to the entire univers, yet he seems to get too overly offended if I don't do what he tells me to do (and I don't kill, I always try to be honest, I'd say I'm a very loving friend and family member... so what's the point?) xd that's ridiculous.
Mennonites told me I don't need to be happy because I died to myself for Christ. I get a better happiness. The fake kind where I get to gaslight myself and feel guilty about not having enough faith.
@@lizzard13666 well there are types of mental gymnastics bro. I mean one thing is to say something without any basis and just "thinking" ur way the conclusion, like feminists do lmao. And another thing is thinking as u say. Don't really think that title applies to theology tbh
@@lizzard13666 “Thinking,” also known as something that you quite obviously don’t do. Learn the definition of mental gymnastics. “Mental gymnastics” is a TYPE of thinking that draws conclusions or creates connections with a lack of logic and evidence.
Most people dont even realize what the bible actually says about hell. I laugh everytime I hear "you will burn in a lake of fire for all enternity". They say it but cant show you where it actually says that.
'total corruption' sounds like Calvin. Not all Christians agree. Original sin merely means sin goes back to the origin, it's not something we commit. It is something we suffer from - darkness in the intellect, weakness in the will. We are not as bright as we might be and we don't have a lot of willpower.
"Moral perfection, I think you'll agree ladies and gentlemen, with only a hint of mental gymnastics thrown in for .. flair" I could easily imagine Hitch smiling down from his celestial cloud.
@@bubbleburster2813 I actually listed 25 things in other places in the comments. -In short. His dates are off. - those saints he mention are also viewed by actual scholars as holding Annhilation and UnIversalism as well. He omits this. - he omits that there are other views such as anihilation and universalism completely. - he generalizes all of Christianity as western Catholicism and fundamental evangelicals. Not gnostics or Eastern or orientals, unversalism or any liberal sects etc Anyway. If you are interested pick up some scholarship on the saints he mentions. Because I found 4 sources from Different universities. arguing the opposite of what he said. And he makes no mention of that.
@@bubbleburster2813 What is wrong with this video. Lots. > New Testament was compiled by the time Athanasius see: Marcion's restricted canon. > The Word Hell is never in the Bible. Instead it is Gehenna, Shoel, Hades and Tartaróō . "Gehenna" place for bad people is typically represented as literal place on earth. and Shoel is the place for every soul, even Christians go to Sheol. Tartaróō is for angels. These are distinct locations. The word hell is very poor word. Good theologians don't use it. > There are 5 major views of hell. Eternal Conscious Torment, Universalism, Annihilation, CS Lewis's Self-Made Hell, Hell being a literal place on earth. Not only that there are many sub views. Is there purgatory? is there multiple layers of Gehenna? is there repentance in Gehenna? etc. Good theologians mention this. He never mentions these. And the Saints he quotes hold multiple different views. See below. > Athanasius didn't Just hold ECT view of Hell but also Annihilation. He held Several views. Cosmic Skeptic was deceitful in pegging Athanasius as ECT when he talked about Annihilation. > Anselm likewise did talk about ECT but following Anselm's other arguments, one could conclude that he is actually for Universalism. Cosmic Skeptic didn't follow Anselm's Ontological arguments and never mentions universalism. > There was a first man. First off, there had to be a point where the Chromosomes Changed from 48 to 46 etc. and was Stable. This occurrence is very rare as there are billions of people on the earth now and many chromosomes changes, we don't have new species of human popping up. most chromosomal changes are catastrophic. However, if one did occur, scientists predict that chromosomal change would radically change the DNA and would make its own Species. Second of all there is the idea. Mitochondria Eves where we all descend from one woman, (there are several actually). Most Christians along with Jews also find Genesis to be Mythic History and thus meant to be taken metaphorically. Never mentions that at all. It just seems like he uneducated on these things or deceitful. He picks a Saint's Writings who held multiple different views. Picks the worse view and rants about it for 30 minutes. Never discusses their other views or where their logic leads or what other scholars think. Never discusses other views. Very narrow minded and misleading at best. Not a scholar on the subject for sure.
Hi Cosmic, great video.. anyway, the thing is that for centuries, people had no TH-cam and were happy to live their lives believing in some kind of myth. Only after Copernicus, Newton, Existentialism, Industrial revolution, the world started to wake up again and in fact....we 're still in the midst of that awakening state. When i think back of even the 1970s where i grew up as a Christian i still remember it all to be a lot more living with the Bible as the Word of God. Only due to the existence of hippies connecting all around the globe it became more secular.
It's so weird, I was taught this theology almost from birth and didn't realize until my teens how messed up it is. It's not great for a kid's self-esteem.
Also, Anslem is considered a heretic by the Orthodox Church by the very fact that his ideas were nonsense. I am not surprised that @CosmicSkeptic has no idea about the Orthodox theology, but some videos by Jay Dyer might shed a light on that.
at 4:25 - Church considers ignorance to be a virtue? How do you square that with the universities which grew out of the cathedral schools in the Middle Ages? The Scholastics were noted for having a culture of vigorous debate - the Disputationes.
Thank you for your service! I appreciate your summary of the history of the doctrine so I don't have to slog through it myself. As a nonbeliever, I could skip it altogether, but as a retired person I can pursue my curiosity about where the ideas came from. Earlier this year I read about money and debt. Debt and sin become equated very early in civilization. Strange.
I don’t see your issue with debt and sin being equated. The courts hold men accountable for not providing for their children and get imprisoned for their debt to their children
May be putting words in his mouth, but he is starting under the assumption that God does not exist as there is no proof of his existence (as many atheists believe), which is a great way to start imo. If the arguments in terms of religion are compelling then he may be persuaded otherwise, however if he is looking at everything through the lens that they are true and morally good then there is very little to add to the conversation
The Plague Doctor It has been 3 weeks since I watched the video, so I don’t recollect all of the details. But one major error I do remember, is him conflating the Augustinian understanding of original sin with that of Athanasius. Which is frankly a rather problematic error to make for a theology student.
As I listen to you describe the inheritance of Original Sin, it came to mind how curious (convenient) it is that absolution is not inheritable. If a woman is forgiven before she conceives, why must Original Sin persist in her offspring? Why is it that Original Sin is inheritable but not absolution? Quite convenient for the preservation of the church.
Impressive. I’m glad Oxford still teaches Theology rather than the cop out Religious Studies, as you are still required to think. For the sake of brevity, I’d suggest an existentialist approach viz the dilemmas described by Athanasius and Anselm are internal conflicts we can all recognize, just as reading Dante is an inner rather than an outer journey. Great work and strength to your efforts.
How can you say you don't believe in something, if you don't know anything about it? Of course you have to study it. I have been researching Christian origins (and religion, in general) for over 40 years and am also an atheist. The more you study, the more ridiculous it seems. The study is worthwhile because religion has such a grip in the world. We all need to know what it is all about but religious people seem to be the least informed.
Sixteen years of Catholic education. My problem was that I used the gift that God gave me, the gift of Reason. When I asked Why? I was told to just believe. I had many of the questions he raised but I never got answers. The only thing I did get a big dose of was Guilt. Guilt for everything, even a passing thought was enough to send me to eternal damnation. After watching a huge number of videos of NDEs I realize that it is going to be OK. Do your best, correct your mistakes and love as many people as possible.
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth-in a word, to know himself-so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves" - Pope John Paul II in his encyclical, Fides et Ratio. Those who did not engage your rational questions did wrong. The Church however embraces reason. A resource I'd recommend is Catholic Answers - they engage arguments with reason and really dive into the "why." I especially recommend Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn. The answers to your questions are out there my friend. The people who refused to engage your questions or at least point you in the right direction are not representative of Catholicism. Take care.
@ManyProphets OneMessage They basically tried to use the same words with different meanings in different occasions...they did not agree about the definition of the words they were using and also one of their statements about the composition of matter and their conclusions about it totally had no sense. Mathematics and logic are completely opposed to this argument.
I'm not Catholic nor do I agree or adhere to Catholicism, but you haven't "learned anything in 7 minutes"... You've just latched on to some dude who's giving to permission to not believe what you didn't want to believe in the first place. You could have bossed up 9 years ago and at least been honest with yourself and whomever it was that you were trying to please and said, "I just don't want to believe because I want do what I want to do with no accountability..." SMH.
@@SOULSafeProductionZ Not believing in God isn't "I want to do what I want to do with no accountability". It's more like, "I don't want to be forced to act somehow with no other reason then people telling me a supernatural force wants me to act like that and otherwise I'll be eternally punished" or "I don't see why should believe this but shouldn't believe the tooth fairy or Santa"
It is easy to believe in original sin. Thoughts are mostly random, so many are sinful by just about any reasonable definition of "sin". Actions derive from thoughts and are still somewhat chaotic, and therefore partially against any sensible purpose one might imagine, and therefore sinful. We were born this way, hence the sin is original. The connection with God and Hell and Jesus seems bogus, though. I used to be reluctant to upgrade my operating system. When I realised the old OS version is born into a state of buggyness (sin), it became easier to believe that upgrades are likely to be an improvement. Fortunately I arrived at this mostly by reading about other people's machines getting remotely exploited.
Considering that a lot of people in my family have pursued the study of theology -- albeit at bible colleges, not Oxford -- I greatly appreciate your well organized criticism of it.
I think you are misreading Athanasius here. The Eastern Church Fathers don't teach "original sin" in the sense that you are thinking of it. That's more of an Augustinian/Western perspective, based mostly on a mistranslation of a Greek verse into Latin. You should check out the essay "Ancestral Sin" by John Romanides, for a better understanding of the Eastern/Greek understanding. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East-the churches with the most direct lineage to the church to which Athanasius belonged-don't have any concept of inherited guilt even to this day. The Greek/Eastern Christian perspective is not so much that guilt or culpability is inherited but rather that a tendency towards sin is inherited and, to a large extent, that death itself causes sin. Because death is a fault in our nature, inherited from our ancestors, we tend to strive for self-preservation, which is the root cause of sin. It's more that mortality is inherited and our mortal nature drives us to behave in sinful ways. Also, there's a tendency to view death not as a punishment but as a natural consequence. Also, it's hard to understand the Greek Church Fathers without understanding hesychasm. Early Christian monks would experience the self as "uncreated light" as a result of hesychastic meditation practices (identical experiences are reported in Zen Buddhism with a non-theistic interpretation, but also reported by Hindu and Sufi mystics). A lot of Greek theology is about re-interpreting Christianity in the light of this hesychast experience. They see a light that they interpret as God and then the light illuminates their own body. They interpret this as becoming deified (uniting to God), so their chief concern was showing that this sort of union was possible without assuming some sort of pantheism. Hence Athanasius' dictum "God became man so that man could become God." For the record, I'm an atheist, but I've got a background in Eastern Orthodoxy and some personal experience with hesychast and zen meditation.
@I'M -not- alone I wouldn't go that far. To be clear, all of the views he described were taught by leading theologians at some point. And those views were extremely common in the West, especially around the Protestant Reformation and a few centuries leading up to it.
@@anchorthesun3438 I read Karl Popper's works on the epistemology of science and Charles Darwin on evolution (also Stated Clearly on TH-cam is a good channel with videos on the evidence for evolution). Then I also read John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism" and Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" and Larry Arnhardt's "Darwinian Natural Right." That all culminated in the recognition that the only convincing argument for Christianity (which would be Cornelius van Til's presuppositional argument) is just invalid. There's no intelligent design behind the human body and mind. There's no need for God to explain ethics/morality.
This video was voted for by my supporters on Patreon, who also had early access to this video.
To learn more about supporting the channel, click here: www.patreon.com/CosmicSkeptic
It's great to have you back looking forward to this summer 😀
Hi, Alex. Did your course include anything on how people in Biblical times conceived of heaven/paradise? I think it’s interesting to consider that the everyday life for many of us - in the UK, at least - far surpasses any ancient notion of heaven: we have antibiotics, rapid transportation, food from around the world in arm’s reach, and Radio 4.
Can you update the reading list on your website please? Thank you in advance
More of this content please. Fascinating stuff.
He should do a video on this guy th-cam.com/video/o2v0Nxge4e0/w-d-xo.html
When you want to prove your point so much that you get a degree in what you criticize the most
@Max Grassfed I feel you too
Admirable to say the least.
Or, it's just a primary interest and the TH-cam videos are just a byproduct of that interest.
Emanuele Aurora: "When you want to prove your point so much that you get a degree in what you criticize the most"
It is the mark of an intelligent mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. There are many people who are highly qualified in the field of theology who criticise it.
Let's get a degree... you know... just for the laughs Xd
Atheists often get criticized for not taking the deep theological positions of theists seriously. But when you read this stuff as an outsider, it really does sound like Tolkien deciding why one wizard is more powerful than another and why you have to take a boat to get to Valinor
Having studied theology before reaching the conclusion that Atheism makes more sense I find that many attack the lowest common denominator and tend to emphasise that Evangelical Protestantism is "true Christianity" so I kind of agree about theologians not being taken seriously.
There are core issues that take down theism, but often the nuances and questioning of what things really mean is treated like it doesn't exist. Just like the town drunk outside church yelling isn't representative of the Scientific objections to theism and Christianity in particuler
@@jasonmullinder You shouldn't muddle science together with theism....the 2 do not mix.
@@discoverrealityclover9620 I wasn't and you should make some effort to know what people are talking about before insinuating you know what they think and how they approach topics
@@jasonmullinder i spoke so clearly, it must be the reader's fault.
Your statement *clearly* mixes science with religion when you talk about *scientific* objections to *theism*
@@dozog I wasn't talking about scientific objections, I was talking about failing to differentiate between a range of people that hold similar opinions
What I learned from theology:
1. Pick the conclusion you want.
2. Build your argument around that.
The end.
Like a politician
Well, that's what everyone does, including atheists. It's just that not everyone is explicit about it.
@Anish Poddar, An atheist has no need to judge a good deed on something else than its good nature and effect. No need to question the moral or ethical beliefs of the deed doer.
This also means there's no need for an atheist to go into lengthy discussions about the merits and justification of good deeds. Just do it and walk away in peace.
@@cacauldr I wasn't specifically about doing good deeds. People want certain things for themselves, and they build systems of morality to justify taking actions to get what they want. Everybody does this.
Also, you seem to be assuming that certain deeds have an inherently "good" nature. That requires some basic underlying anthropocentric assumptions about human worth.
@Donald Trump Are you talking to me? Yes, my mind is open to evidence and reason.
I took a couple of theology courses in college. IIRC all of my professors happened to be religious, but one of them said as he was getting his theology degree he asked a lot of his professors if getting their theology degree strengthened or weakened their faith. It was about a 50/50 split according to him!
I feel like ot depends on your previous beliefs.. Or may be how smart you are ahaha
50/50+- not to bad when most attend biased-
When I went to a conservative Christian college one of the professors lamented that a lot of people lost faith after moving on to seminary, which in the US is like Bible graduate school. He then told us, "Only get as much education as you can keep sanctified." Imagine having to tell people to keep themselves ignorant so the indoctrination doesn't wear off.
@@luf.7648
Do we lose what we never had? Imagine for a moment you were the creator of the universe and everything in it would you be losing sleep over what people thought about you when you know they are totally dependent upon you for “…every breath they take…”?
Second year BTH student here. Started studying theology to understand my athiest friend's questions about Christianity. Thought it would strengthen my faith and I'd be able to answer him more clearly. Boy was I wrong.
When I finish my degree I will definitely ask my professors if they are theists or not because holy shit I don't know how more than half of them could be with what I have studied.
As a kid I did want to die because I knew that if you die as a child you’ll automatically go to heaven.
I want to die regardless
@@windmillwilly teen edgelord
same
@@rag.animations Ok weirdly adamant atheist
I think it depends if you're at the age of accountability I would normally would say around 12 depends but the more you know the more u are accountable for.
Fun History Fact: During the 4th century, Athanasius competed in three consecutive Olympic games and took the Gold medal every time. For... mental gymnastics!
Sounds like an athletic guy
hey holy koolaid cool to see you here use to watch your videos :) love em
I enjoyed his performance in the Theological Rhythmic Dance.
This is obviously Fake News (or Fake History). As a Christian, Athanasius would never have participated in pagan games.
@@pouncerlion4022 I think his performance in Synchronized Sophistry was even better.
The ad that played before this video was a guy with a whiteboard yelling at me not to go to college.
Just thought you'd ought to know.
Excellent advice! I wish someone would have told me how hellish (so to speak) college is before I went.
If you go, at this point, you deserve the debt you will be saddled with.
Sounds more interesting than my add for an amusement/water park 900 miles from my house.
@Scooters Videos I'm not american , but even I know trump was a rich arsehole almost his whole life.
I don't get ads. Now I feel left out.
"If you disagree with somebody you ought to be able to state their case better than they can, and at that point you've earned the right to disagree with them. Otherwise you should just stay quiet." (Charlie Munger). Alex is doing an awesome job here.
Delusional. The rhetoric Alex is using is shot through with connotations and framings that are aimed at persuading the listener subliminally to regard the terms of the arguments in a more ridiculous or unworthy light. Beginning with the actually video title. This dilutes the substance of the terms, which you can only appreciate if you approach it with a charitable reading.
And *that* is what sophistry really is.
As someone who doesn't believe in Original Sin but is interested in questions of what past and present human communities have believed and why, I feel nauseated by this sort of pseudo-intellectual approach with its liberal bias to somehow take offence and look contemptuously at the various imaginative ways humans have tried to express and reason out the metaphysics behind the human condition.
@@thescholiast5118how did you manage to say literally nothing despite using so many words
@@thescholiast5118 Sounds like you're the only pseudo-intellectual here. Good job on saying absolutely nothing.
Yeah, I disagree and I ain't shutting up
@@AquarianX @me-qn6bh nah, he's definitely saying something worth saying, especially when the majority of O'Connors audience could take a position purely on the basis of this video.
Well done for getting to Oxford. It’s no mean feat. The workload is crushing to many but well worth the effort. Stay strong. Wish you success.
The nice thing about having an Oxford degree is "so would you like a job, then?"
fantastic- from a 69 year old atheist organist ( perfect to listen to during the sermon:)
keep them coming. You should do one for each of the seasons , and major feast days. And ones on the less well know feasts such as Feast of the circumcision and Feast of fools.
He very clearly misrepresented the teachings of St. Athanasius, I can't tell if this was due to ignorance or malice. He equated the concept of Ancestral Sin with Augustinian original sin, two vastly distinct ideas
Regarding “Original Sin”:
In the late 17th century, Puritan kids in New England were reading Benjamin's Harris’ 1690 _New England Primer_ which taught “In Adam’s fall, We sinned all.”
Meanwhile in China the kids were reading the Confucian-based 三字經 _Three Character Classic_ (dating from the 13th century):
人之初 People at birth,
性本善 Are naturally good.
性相近 Their natures are similar,
習相遠 Their habits make them
different.
Yes, couldn't be more different, could it?
People are not naturally good. It takes training to get any good out of any good.
Would mind posting your email ? Best wishes
@Lex Bright Raven idk where you seen those cause I only see children tormenting other children when they are crying.
@@lucas4177 those kids must be particularly cruel lol.
Dude : you don't know any of these! you're not a scholar, how can you say that!
Alex : *actually gets a major in theology*
No he didn't. No one... literally NO ONE... can get a theology degree and literally be wrong on virtually every single statement.
He does not have a degree yet. He has 1 year of school under his belt and he is processing. If he is "wrong" about the works, please give specific points and refences to counter examples. Just be carefull your evidence does not contratict itself within the same work.
One does not need a "degree" in theology to understand theology. "Theology" is the study of God. Like assholes and opinions, everybody has one about God. If you don't like CosmicSkeptic's opinion, move on.
@@SeaScoutDan is this specific enough for you. Literally every single point he started out with, he got wrong.
Catholicism isn't "Christianity"or even more than half of the Christians in the world.
How do you "KNOW" Genesis is a conglomerate of myths and plagiarisms?
Unsubstantiated claims and assertions, are just that... unsubstantiated claims and assertions.
Wrong. Infants and children all go to heaven, until they reach the age of accountability. Then they must make atonement for their own sins.
Hell. God doesn't send anyone to hell. He lets you send yourself to hell. But he affords you the means of staying out of hell, by accepting Jesus. And do you expect God to permit anyone who rejects Jesus into Heaven. No sin can enter into Heaven.
It's not a dilemma of God's creation. He gave Adam and Eve one restriction.... do not eat from the tree of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL (I notice you conveniently failed to mention the tree of knowledge was referring to knowledge of good and evil). Its a matter of Adam and Eve's disobedience.
I stopped watching at this point because I just couldn't stomach any further mischaracterization
@@dashlamb9318 I neither like nor dislike his opinions about God. I just want him to acknowledge that they ARE opinions ONLY and not state them as facts, as he so often is apt to do, all while getting virtually every single point wrong.
I think the concept of Original Sin is attractive because it speaks to that part of man which realizes that we can never fully live up to our ideals.
@@user-wi5gv8gs3e You need to stop watching The History Channel
As usual Christianity have co-opted.
Karma. Good karma/bad karma is intended as lessons in growth, not a fearful punishment.
Christianity has often chosen whip rather than reward.
@@user-wi5gv8gs3e Sure you do
@@justanotherhappyhumanist8832 why not? It's cool to study history, I dont have the patience for it 😭
@@user-wi5gv8gs3e I've heard pretty much everything in the bible is plagiarized from platonists and stuff
I'm a Theology student at Cambridge and literally just studied original sin. Your treatment of these ideas is really insightful!
I'm in highschool and interested in these kinda stuff. Is the degree worth it ? How's it going ?
@@Jamuakarrumput open your bible and pray.
Don’t go to a college and get taught by a liberal theology professor who doesn’t know God.
What's you thoughts on it?
@@calebknieper bruh i was raised a muslim
@@calebknieper Your Bible was written by men, 2000+ years ago and is based off of older religions by yet more scientifically illiterate males who were trying to make sense of things like lightening, thunder death, etc. and tried explaining it as various things such as a “god’s anger” or “disapproval”, but how do you know it’s truly the word of any god? There is no real compelling evidence that any of it is true, it is only something you can believe based on faith/ hope.
Back 2000-4000 years ago, almost nobody could read and owning a book was beyond their ability to afford. They had to trust the guy who could read it and if he was a dishonest man, an indoctrinated one and/or an excessively controlling man, how trustworthy could those kinds of men’s teachings be? The “ chain of custody” on the veracity of the scriptures being the true word of any god, over that many generations of religious men, is completely broken and it’s highly unreliable. Think of the standards of evidence that are demanded in a Court of Law! This level of generational verbal telling of stories about what a god’s expectations for us are, told by wannabe leaders, and then later in time written down and then rewritten in different versions ( yes, the Bible has Versions!), how could this be considered to be reliable? We’ve all heard of the Telephone game.
Ask yourselves, why would a supposedly intelligent God choose to communicate such important information to us in this flawed and unreliable manner? The obvious answer is, that it is all man made and built upon by generations of men who wanted control and power in their societies. It’s simple common sense.
New religions have sprouted up in my lifetime alone and will possibly be the new dominant religions of the masses in the future. Men like Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, David MisCavige, they can’t seem to help themselves, because it’s such a lucrative and easy power grab for them. This has been happening since the dawn of mankind.
In the King James Version of the Bible, for one example, it has 613 commandments, supposedly by a god. Wouldn’t you think there would we be at least one of those commandments that says something to the effect of, “ thou shall not ever rape a child”? There isn’t any mention of it. According to the Bible, if you rape a young women, it is only a crime against the girl’s father - the Bronze Age men of that time felt that a daughter was her father’s property and so he was due some compensation because she was a bartering piece of his property back then.
We are more moral than the Bible nowadays, thank goodness.
"I have nothing but respect for the way theology tortures my University."
That's what I first heard when you said that you respect how it is TAUGHT IN your University. I was briefly confused.
Me too!
I cant help but ask, why on earth would you subject yourself to studying theology?
@@djhogan65 to argue against thiest doctrine and thinking, its important to understand theology and thiest thinking.
This young man is one of a new generation of athiest thinkers and biblical challengers. Christopher Hitchens would be delight to know athiest like this young man were going where he went.
@@davidvarley1812 for your average atheist just reading the bible and listening would be enough but good enough isn’t what the dedicated do
Me too
As a Christian, Alex is by far my favourite Religious critic. Him actually being familiar with Theology makes his criticism all the more potent and worth considering.
Same here.. though I don't like his spontaneus pessemistic Hitchen-ism that reeks of personal resentment and constant "life is pain" compulsions
It's great, when he gets things right. But his treatment of Athanasius is absurd and missed all of his point - let alone the fact his misunderstanding of Genesis 1-2 (let alone the rest of "the Fall" up to the flood). He didn't even mention the most oft quoted statement from Athanasius - "God became man so that man might become God".
I dislike Anselm's atonement anyway soo I have nothing to say on that lol
Thank you for having a brilliant mind open to challenge. I'm a Christian that has grappled with is exact issue and have never made peace with it. I love who Jesus was but the who savior thing.. not so much.
he is a snotnosed kid , Barth Ehrman is much much better and Gary Habermas is great if you like the opposite opinion which is the right one obviously
@@travelsouthafrica5048 "he is a snotnosed kid"... "the opposite opinion which is the right one obviously"
Hi Alex, thank you for your video and your excellent interviews. I think that there are some issues with your critiques of Athanasius. I believe the problem lies in looking at early eastern church figures like Athanasius through much later western theological debates (fact vs myth, inherited guilt, the nature of death, Hell). So here are a couple of points.
1) Athanasius very likely didn't believe in the literal factuality of the garden story. On the Incarnation is the second half of a 2 part work. In the first half, Contra Gentiles, he refers to the garden story as a myth (or words to that effect. I can't recall at the moment, but I remember being surprised when I read it.) And this wasn't really an issue for the early fathers. It is now since people started taking the Bible as a science textbook, but very few people read that way in the early church. Some took it literally. Most of the big names didn't though, like Origen, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil of Caesurea. Christians and Pagans alike were trained to read allegorically, which is very foreign to our modern approach to texts. Orgien, for example, sees Scripture as having layers. Sometimes there is a literal layer, sometimes not. But we should always read spiritually with a Christocentric approach.
2) Athanasius didn't believe in original sin in the way you describe it. The prevailing metaphor for sin in the early church and still in the eastern church is that of inherited disease, not inherited legal culpability for Adam's sin. We are born into a fallen world with a predisposition to sin, but we are only responsible once we actually sin. We are not guilty for people's sins that preceded us. Augustine invented that doctrine in the 400s because of a mistranslation of Romans 5 from Greek into Latin (Augustine never learned Greek). But in the eastern church it never was taught because they could read the original Greek. And when other theologians heard about it they were shocked and distured by its break with traditional doctrine.
3) I think Athanasius uses legal metaphors to describe God's penalty of death, but I think he thinks of it in a more organic way. Death is not an arbitrarily decided legal punishment by God. God in his nature is Life, Being, Joy, Love, etc... To choose to turn away from God is thus to approach death and suffering. There is a natural, intrinsic order to the world. It's not ad hoc.
4) Surprisingly, Athanasius very possibly didn't believe in an eternal Hell. While there certainly are places where he describes punishment for the wicked, there are numerous places were he says that all humanity will be ultimately saved. Thus (though it is debateable) his view is God's use of punishment is temporal, remedial, and redemptive. And again, for the early theologians, this wasn't an issue like it was to become later. The scholar Illaria Ramelli documents how numerous early church figures were explicitly or implicitly universalist. For example, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, St. Anthony, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and others. Origen was explicitly a universalist, and Athanasius was a big fan of Origen.
5) The reason Athanasius comments about Christians being eager for death is because of how contrary it is to our human nature. It is a given that we all fear death. We flee it, ignore it, and bemoan it. We are born Death's slaves. But, if Christ rose from the dead, we can have a confident hope that we also will rise. Athanasius is making a startlingly anthropological observation. Christians don't fear death anymore, and this is really really weird. His explanation is that this only makes sense because of the Resurrection and the good news that spread after it.
Wow, amazing knowledge here thanks, i dont think he bothers to read his comments
Top tier comment and important point.
I always thought of the bible etc. as a way to formulate the workings of human experience. So this was really amazing to read. I think I would agree with Athanasius on some matters and I'm actually quite bewildered of how much your comment differs from the perspective presented.
Crazy how some information can make or break the output of interpretations
Thank you for this comment. Very educational! From what I recall from my studies, Origen proposed three ways that you can interpret a text : 1) the literal way (the event happened as described), 2) the alegorical (the event is a metaphor for sth else) and 3) the spiritual way.
Thank you so much for this. We are waiting for your TH-cam channel.
I was looking for a measured response like this, wow, as others have stated, we are looking forward to your TH-cam channel, I've subscribed just incase you post something
Brilliant video, I think it's essential to learn about the things you would generally argue against. Like you've previously mentioned about admitting your own biases so that you can compensate for them.
@Trolltician Oh dear, your logic seems to be severely lacking here but I imagine with such a name, you're a bit dim anyway.
@Trolltician I'd say it's more accurate than sad but this will be the last reply because honestly, you're not worth any further effort.
@@IanD-ut4dy it’s actually quite sad.
I was tormented with the idea that I deserved to go to hell as a child and it filled me with self loathing that I still struggle with today. Even now, I feel like I'm so vile that I deserve to be among worst of the worst in hell. I consciously remind myself that this is irrational, but the feeling still lingers. He's right about that being one of the most cruel things you could tell a child. The one good thing to come of it is that I haven't indoctrinated my own child.
have you considered that perhaps its not that you "deserve" to go to hell, it is a case that hell is our DEFAULT destination?
Sounds horrible doesn't it? yep, we ARE drowning. and yet call the God that offers us a life saving jacket and YANK us out of the water at the end of days evil is a mystery to me.
Thats why the GOSPEL (the Good NEWS) is such good news.
Seek God. and Trust in Jesus.
@@kaizze8777 Of course I don't deserve to go to hell, literally no one deserves to go there. It's our default position because God decided it should be that way even for good people. Reframe it however you want, God made Hell with the intention of having good people sent there for failure to credulously grovel.
In your analogy, God is the one who threw me out to drown. He's threatening me with eternal torture if I don't do what he wants. That's abusive, emotionally, psychologically, and physically. Further, it destroys morality by endorsing vicarious redemption. It says you don't have to take responsibility for your wrongs because an innocent person was tortured to death for you. The despot may demand on penalty of eternal anguish that I must accept this. I will not. It's an abomination.
The actual traditional view is simply that hell is the presence of God. Ultimately though we are quite sinful, but what you are describing is despair, not repentence which isn't good for obvious reasons. As hell is the presence of God then it simply depends upon if you have attempted to move towards God through working with him (synergeia). Salvation is thusly a process were you become more and more like God without becoming God.
It's not about going there because you're "failing". The whole point is that as long as one has faith, you will be saved. So what does that mean? That you must have a strong intellectual belief to go to heaven? No of course not. Faith is in this sense not an intellectual belief, faith is putting one's trust in God and working together with him. You may recognize that you are a sinner and that you should improve, but you do not sit there and grovel in your sins. You fall down, dust yourself off and continue.
If anything, despair is almost what hell is in many ways.
@@callefolin To say "the traditional view" is misleading because there are many different traditions and some definitely include an eternal hell of anguish. There are also different traditions on heaven, salvation, repentance, etc. To claim only yours is correct is to commit a clear no true Scotsman fancy. The only way to determine the correct view of things is for God to show up and provide a demonstration, but we all know that isn't happening. You can't just brush away other people's religious traditions by saying they aren't THE traditional view. I really don't need the religious to continue condescending to me about how I don't actually understand anything because I wasn't brought up with their version of the "real" Christianity.
What I'm describing is psychological abuse perpetuated against a child by otherwise good people who were corrupted by religion. Repentance was obviously part of my indoctrination as well, but that part wasn't relevant to the comment. It's not like all our church services centered on us bewailing the existence of hell. Children don't always take away only the message you want them to take away. They wanted me to feel happy that Jesus had come to save us and so we didn't need to fear hell anymore. I highly doubt their intention was that I should focus on the part of the doctrine that said its inherently what I deserve.
I know people don't go there for failing. That's part of the horror of it all. Simply by being a human, I'm condemned because my very biology makes it literally impossible to meet God's demands. You hit the nail on the head. "As long as one has faith, you will be saved." It isn't about being a good person, bettering the world, helping your fellow man, a person can do all that and God still decides they're worthy of hell. Reverse wise, a person can be a monster, raping and murdering, defrauding and stealing, manipulating and lying, then find faith at the end and God finds them deserving of heaven. It rather destroys the idea of moral accountability, particularly in the only life that we actually know we have.
I know you meant hell is the absence of god, but the fact that you twice wrote that it's the presence of God gave me a real chuckle. In a lot of ways, I think the eternal presence of god would be hell for some people.
@@kaizze8777 Lmao, I don't the religious hoard who actually are like can, from this comment onward, claim they *aren't* mentally depraved lunatic cultists.
This thinking was central to my doubts as a child in church. There was just something clearly unfair and nonsensical about how God and hell worked. The adults around me only ever answered things like “It’s not for us to understand.” “It’s arrogant for us to judge God’s plan according to our own logic.” or “It doesn’t matter if you like it or not. That’s not how it works.”
I couldn’t put it into words as a kid certainly though. Thanks your awesome content Alex.
unfair ? how do you know it is unfair ? what is fair in your opinion ? what side of this is fair ? th-cam.com/video/e5QWRQJKWIo/w-d-xo.html
@@travelsouthafrica5048 Well for one thing you go to hell for thought crimes. So a lot of good and virtuous people would be in hell which is awfully strange.
Yes I can relate. But even if it were all true, it is still a disgusting abhorrent system.
I couldn't agree more & I remember like it was yesterday sitting in Sunday School & thinking this just doesn't make sense it doesn't ring true. And honestly as silly as it sounds what pushed me over the edge back then was discovering that they practiced animal sacrifice, burnt offerings. Which God had ordained. For me it was "Thank you, I'll get my coat"
@@J._-_-._-._-._-._-._-._-._S999 good and virtuous people ? according to what standard do you judge that they are "good" and 'virtuous' ?
allow me to explain your predicament here
th-cam.com/video/YNY1khF5WKE/w-d-xo.html
It feels so good to watch a video that doesn't have music in it. Wow I didn't realize how many videos have music in them Until right now.
Hi CosmicSkeptic, random internet Christian here. Love your content! And please don’t, because I’m a Christian, interpret what I’m saying as “oh look a Christian just trying to LOOK LIKE he loves his enemies like he’s told to do.” I genuinely really enjoy your videos. They have been inspiring me to do proper research into the whole theism vs atheism debate but also to question and look into the validity behind my own beliefs, which I think we all must do! Enjoyed your debate with a Frank Turek a couple years ago too, considering doing a masters in apologetics myself :) Keep researching and I would personally say let’s be committed to the pursuit of truth. Wishing you all the best
I enjoyed your comment
I am an atheist and I like your comment
Like your mindset.
@missing sig I think we all must judge our own beliefs at some point. Self-awareness prevents ignorance and delusion! :)
Genuine question: how are you still Christian?
god is the antagonist and the protagonist of the story so he makes a problem and fixes it and wants praise for fixing the shit that he broke in the first place.
God is a dumbass , I guess.
God is basically me tbh
I think that this is pretty profound and I pretty much agree. Suffering might be a precondition for sentience. That sounds pretty true to me. So god is to blame for our suffering, true. I remember when my daughter was born, I realized that I had to take responsibility for everything, since I helped bring her into this world. I never expected praise from her, but I yearned for her love, freely given. At least this metaphor works for me.
This is a very anthropomorphic understanding of deity
Wonder where we got the idea from?
Want to hear more about your degree? Absolutely!
I agree
as someone whos gone to catholic school her whole life, this is incredibly thought provoking
Follower Of Duck, may I be the second Follower Of Duck?
Sir Follower of Duck, may i be the third Follower of Duck?
This guy's a moron. Don't abandon God.
@@phithegamer5787 So because you think he's moron, all his arguments are dismissed?
@@user-wi5gv8gs3e I stopped reading the moment you mentioned annunaki. Get help please
It's interesting to learn the process by which, Man created God.
Check out my content
Did you tried "Sapiens: A brief history of humankind" by Yuval Harari?
@Rawlings The same way J.R.R. Tolkien created Lord of the Rings.
Earth created humans, then humans used intuition to create the GODS. Then humans used science to create A.I. How long before we have an anti A.I. Jesus waging a holy war? The gods will battle! 😀
Rawlings bc we make him up, so he exists bc people believe it
I swear: everytime I hear the word entail, I think back to the debate you had with Mohammed Hijab where you asked, "If P entails Q, and P is necessary, is Q necessary" to which he replies, "no" then "it does not have to be." One of the funniest moments of that event
He didn't just say no, he followed by saying "it doesn't have to". So at least be honest. You're proud about a strawman?
That's the funniest moment.
@@Lifeistransitory1 can you give me an example where the statement I quoted is not true?
I kinda laughed at Ineffable right there. Indeed, under what circumstances does it not have to? And besides, how "It doesn't have to" differ from "No" when the question is about matters of necessity?
@@LilVukie
Because Hijab said "its doesn't have to be" You on the other-hand limited Hijabs response to "No".
You do see the difference?
@@AR15ORIGINAL
Keep laughing..the laugh is on you.
That's right its about the necessity of the necessary existent thing. How is what entails also necessary related to the misquote of Hijab.
Comedian.
I found myself silent clasping for a second when you said you finished your first year. I’m happy for you! And in Oxford no less.
I really believe the quickest way to become an atheist is to learn about world religions and to study theology teachings. I once was asked by a couple of JW (they always seem to travel in pairs) why I was an atheist, hadn’t I read the Bible? My response dumb founded them, “it was reading the Bible that helped me become an atheist.” “Really” was their response. They said they would pray for me. I found their response amusing. So far their prays have had no affect. I wish I had had your questions to ask Jehovah Witness back then, perhaps it could have lead to a more interesting and extended dialog, but then, not likely.
JWs have their own book, anyway.
1 Church believes ignorance to be a virtue.
Is that so everywhere in the Ecumenical Church? Is it still the case?
Have alternative societies were fallen into the same error? Like Communism, for instance, no?
2 Tree of knowledge means scientific knowledge, according to you? The full name is the Tree of knowledge good and evil". Maybe that allegory you provided wasn't what the Bible meant. If Christian Church is inherently opposite to science, why than Christians studied Aristotle?
3 Establishing the death penalty for eating from the three. Was there any other way for God to provide an autonomous creature with the ability to become God? Was it just an arbitrary decision, or a necessity?
4 First people never existed? Why is it because evolution is collective? But, was there a non-human ape who had born the first fully human?
@@catholicmilitaryassociationthey don't. They made their own translation however.
Jehovahs are not Christians ☦️
yeah but you ignore those 3 odd bad ones and religion suddenly is a very wholesome thing. its not the fault of religion that we took the 3 least usefull and made them so popular that we mixup religion with abrahameic madness.
The more I learn about this stuff, the more I can’t believe I actually believed it.
then stop wasting your energy, if its consuming so much of you, oh there's a new religion,YOU.
@@Fish-vs6jf enjoying Cosmic Skeptic videos is a waste of energy?? Nahhh.
Well said, friend.
@@Fish-vs6jf go flop around on the ground like a fish out of water.
Me too. ...Me too.
thank GOD for another video finally ... Oh wait
Praise jesus
Amen brother!
Hallelujah 🙏👏
Thank SCIENCE*
@@seaweedglob science damn you, you beat me to it
To be fair. alex could make a video about arranging his sock draw and i would still watch it.
*drawer
Maybe he should, so you can learn how to spell the damn word...
@@llort147 rude!
@@Leviathan123456 yeah, people suck 😞
You mean a video about arranging the contents of his sock drawer, don't you? :)
One of the most evil things about this concept of original sin meant that parents who suffered the tragedy of losing a baby before it could be baptised had to believe that that baby would go to hell until the church invented the udea of limbo, a sort of bleak nowhere.
well i don’t know about catholics, but most non-denominational christians believe in a “free grace when acceptance is impossible” sort of approach, as those who cannot understand the idea of salvation cannot accept the grace of God and are therefore saved through grace because they are not denying the salvation of God.
No, because as far as I know there has always been the belief that babies or children up to a certain age, I think 7 not sure, do not go to hell if they die, they go straight to heaven.
@@madelynhernandez7453 never heard of that. where in the book is this dlc?
@@madelynhernandez7453 The traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church is that unbaptized babies go to hell. Now, this is not based on scripture (not even in the slightest), but it is their 'apostolic tradition.'
it comes from saint augustin, however you can disagree on that , protestant do
I saw CosmicSceptic on the street of Oxford week or two ago. He looked like a normal person... just going about doing regular people stuff!
Didn't dare to approach and now regretting it a bit.
Anyway you are awesome CosmicSceptic!
Yes people do things that people do, amazing but true.
This reminds me of one very special evening when I saw Peter Rabbit... At first glance, I thought he was just a regular rabbit, doing regular rabbit things.. eating clover, with an “ear” on his surroundings. I asked “hey, are you a regular rabbit, doing normal rabbit things like eating clover in the evening?” He glanced at me, turned, and released a few droppings. I knew at that moment that this was no regular rabbit! I thought of asking him some important rabbit questions that only Peter rabbit would know.. But I was so afraid he would think me rude; or worse, particularly insipid for imposing my rabbit queries on perhaps the most famous Peter of all time. I think of that day every time I am forced to eat a salad. Or have a loose stool.
@@marklandis5794 loose stools? easily fixed with a good quality screwdriver and the liberal application of glue.
Maybe he is a normal person!?
Mark - Very good! HAHAHA.
It's goning to be nice when we can eventually quote "secular theologist Alex O'Conner". 🤣
@Rawlings There are rational Alex O'Connor fans, having fun discussions. And then there are you Alex Jones fans...
@Rawlings I think you're confusing us with the fake liberals who pretend to be atheist... you'll find them under virtue signaling videos.
@Rawlings
The fact that you throw around insults and generalizations make it harder to take you seriously.
@@stylis666
You may be free to go against your conscience, but that doesn't mean your conscience doesn't start bothering you after choosing to do so.
So how free are you really to go against your conscience?
Wow... Rawlings here has an ego the size of Darth Dawkins. Good to know that the whole 'humility thing that Christians claim is so important is so strongly represented among apologists, right?
It's innacurate to say that the New Testament hadn't been compiled and canonised by the time Athanasius as a broad consensus was already firmly established by the 2nd century, which is evidenced in the Muratorian Canon (yes there are differences in dating) and the decisive response against Marcion's Canon. This was possible because a canon was already liturgically in place (this necessitates compilation) with which one could base ones theological judgements. Yes, certain books had an uncertain status till much later e.g. shepherd of Hermas, Revelation...
Thus Athanasius is not creating a canon in 367, but merely restating the existing Church practice.
Some his writings point to other views of hell such as annihilationism etc. Not only does he not mention that the Saint had different views but it seams the Bible it self does. And he goes over none of them. Just the one he wants a rouse from which is the most extreme case of ECT. And none of the sub views in it.
Yes Anthanasius simply states in his 39th festal letter of the 27 works (NT). This simply shows us that the canon had been formed by 367, because that is the first listing we have.
I was raised with all of this, even studied at seminary, and recently left it all once I could no longer paper over the contradictions and Cruelty of this theology.
Initially I was going to call out some pretty major omissions in your overview, but then I realized: your larger points are valid and important. I want to highlight, for example, your comment regarding children growing up desiring death: these teachings taught me, from as early as I can remember, that death is something to be both yearned for but also impossibly afraid of (since we're told that it's so easy to condemn ourselves to hell).
Also, your closing point about the sophistry required to navigate these theological jumbles is spot on.
The reading lists are really helpful - please keep posting them as you continue on your course. Whilst I live and think on the opposite end of the religious/theological spectrum, I appreciate the articulate and intelligent way that you express what you've studied. Good luck with your studies in the future!
Everyone poops.
Everyone sins.
Sins = poops.
- My Theology PhD
...lol, exactly!
Yeah except that's sadly not how a conclusion works
Lynx rufus woooosh
@@plants_before_people5329 - That's OK. It makes as much sense as theological logic.
@@spinav8r guess you're right about that, lol
There seems to be a correlation between an education in philosophy and ruffled hair.
Not all people with ruffled hair study philosophy - but all people who study philosophy have ruffled hair.
There certainly is correlation, but is there causation?
Do you have a study showing a correlation between an education in philosophy and ruffled hair?
It's due to the brain boiling inside the head.
It's because they do not let you study philosophy unless you have ruffled hair
As a believer I found this interesting, makes me want to read more theology.
5:41
*_Alex:_*_ Have you ever heard..._
*_My brain:_*_ the tragedy of Darth Plagueis the Wise?_
*_Alex:_*_ of anything more cruel and disgusting?_
Yes.
This. This.
YES!!! We want to hear more about your Theology Classes.
@Phoenix Rising
Are you an atheist? Why don't you take a look at my "mini" theology class if you are so interested? It's free....... cheaper than cambridge......
These are pretty GREAT arguments I found other Christians using as evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible, can you ignore these?
GOD IS REAL AND CAN BE PROVEN IN A COURT OF LAW!!!
The biologically immortal organisms that lack senescence are already extremely great proof for God and his design but if you want more.....
The 3 main forms of evidence that would be acceptable and legitimate in a court of law for the
existence of God would be.....
"Life after Death experience studies where people witness a creator God-
" iands.org/resources/education/recommended-reading.html "
" time.com/68381/life-beyond-death-the-science-of-the-afterlife-2/ ", .......... = "Both sides of the argument!"
Multiple Studies on the effectiveness of prayer from multiple religions involving a creator God
like in the book "The Divine Matrix by Gregg Braden" "
www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_2_13?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=divine
+matrix+gregg+braden&sprefix=divine+matrix%2Cstripbooks%2C195&crid=3BXKVNJABO9OK " along with
other such studies proving a positive co-relation, ...... Positive co-relation to prayer in a
peer reviewed study..........
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/485161 ............
and scientific facts mentioned in the Bible before their human discovery by a divine influence,
www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html .......
For example…..
1. The singing stars. Job 38:7 declares the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy. It sounds like a bit of Bible poetry but not much more. After all, stars shine, not sing, right? Well, it turns out scientists have been able to convert patterns from start light into audio wavelengths, according to Discovery News. The “amount of hiss” in the audio reportedly allows scientists to measure the surface gravity on a star and gauge where it is in its stellar evolution.
2. Weight of the winds. In Job 28:25, we are told that God weighed out the wind. This one may be no more self-evident to us than it was to an ancient Israelite reader of this text. But, we know from modern science that air, since it does have mass, weighs something. You might be surprised to know how much though: an estimated one ton of air is weighing down on shoulders, according to this science site (which explains that we don’t feel it because the air is exerting its force in all directions). This is pretty basic stuff for modern scientists, but it’s quite a credit to the inerrancy of Scripture that the author of Job got it right so long ago (approximately in the second millennium BC).
3. A massive fountain of water deep beneath the Earth!!! Genesis 7:11 "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."
www.thesun.co.uk/news/2242110/scientists-discovered-water-from-biblical-great-flood-in-worlds-deepest-hole/
www.express.co.uk/news/weird/733026/Russia-science-Kola-borehole-Noah-floodwater-Bible-Genesis-theory-of-12
creation.com/oceans-of-water-deep-inside-the-earth
"Scientists dig the world’s deepest hole - and find ‘water from NOAH’S FLOOD’ at the bottom The revelation also reportedly "disproves the myth" that the earth is made up of dry rocky layers"
All these would stand the scrutiny of a judge and jury for the case of a creator Gods existence
and the legitimacy of the Christian Faith!!!
But I am feeling generous so I will give you two more great forms of evidence, how about this
book where a forensic officer who is atheist studies and researches the Bible to see if it proves
a historical Jesus and if he was murdered wrongfully?
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels
www.amazon.com/Cold-Case-Christianity-Homicide-Detective-Investigates/dp/1434704696,
afterward he became Christian!!!
Also, why don't you just pray to God yourself and ask him if he is real? What more can I say??? Then you would have
personal evidence and proof of Gods interaction yourself.....
I mean, there is actually way way way more evidence for God than this but it either would go over
your head or you would not understand it properly and you would question it, but this is really
solid evidence and proof I have given you up above that would hold up in a court of law........... if you decide to RUN from it, at
least admit to yourself that is what you are doing........
Do you believe your life, body, family and the ground you walk on are all a gift or something else? If you believe they are all something else then what do you think they all are then?
@@j0hncon5tantine Delusional theses with misinformation and inconsistent rumbling and weak points proven false. Good luck next time!
@@heropld
Can you tell me what your exact problem with it is or the problem that you find is the biggest? I said evidence that could be used in a court of law and that is exactly what I gave, it is consistent and is not just ramblings"When I copy and paste things on to youtube it may get a bit scrunched". There is nothing on there that is weak and there is nothing that you can prove to be false at all. Did you see how I had a link to a scientific study on prayer and a book on how scientific experiments were done on prayer from different religions and spiritual practices and that they all found a positive co-relation.....? That is extremely fascinating evidence that "someone" or "something" is answering that prayer. Can you explain it without some kind of God or religious aspect? I would love to hear you try.....
@@heropld "proven false"... riight. Claiming this is basically a bad atheist Meme at this point. There's never any meat behind the claim.
@@heropld
Why don't you talk to me about it then? Convince me, or run away and be weak. You believe life came from non-life by itself, to me you are more religious and more filled with faith than any religion you look down upon as ignorant, you are more religous than them!!! You just have not admitted it to your self....
How is this scientific article misinformation.....?
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/485161
Alex. thank you for the video. The more I read, the more I learn I have to read, and at 48 I still love to learn. That is why I love your channel. You are a man learned beyond your years. Thank you.
I'm a former Anglican priest, and trained in Oxford. It was an experience that was both wonderful and ghastly. I'm the last person in the world to defend the Church, but I think you give an incomplete picture here in a few places - particularly the nuances of the differences in the concept of Original Sin between Eastern and Western traditions. (Briefly and crudely, the Eastern tradition takes a less personal and more cosmic view.)
Can you expand on this? Your prospective as an former priest is probably very unique. I’d also like to know how and why you left your position if you want to talk about it.
(I’m Giovanni, I’m 27, Italian, atheist, but I love this subject)
In the East, original sin is rejected, but they understand that we are sinners because we are born into a sinful world. Kids learn to steal, be selfish, etc. This is consistent with Athanasius.
Homie who made the video is applying later theological categories onto the text. He doesn’t really put forward a theory of original sin (although based on what he writes, if someone described it to him I think he’d accept it wholeheartedly) but rather sees sin and death as powers at work in the human race. After sin enters the world, death does as well, and it affects all who are touched by the power of sin. So it’s not about inherited guilt (that’s a category developed about 100 years later by Augustine) but about these powers that are at work in our bones
I envy your studies in Oxford, slightly. All the best for you! Hope you'll find everything you are looking for!
"The tree of knowlede; forbidden, naturally, since the church considers ignorance to be a virtue"
Beautifully said.
@XY ZW fine. I'll bite the bullet. What does it refer to? And what was its purpose other than ultimately punishing every human to ever come for something god knew in advance?
I am not a biblical scholar but from what i know the tree of knowledge was a metaphor for not to play god. As in deciding who lives and dies etc. Also knowledge is said to be one of the gifts of the holy spirit. I have never heard any catholic accademic endorse the view that ignorance was a virtue.
cbren my question is: how does eating an apple give anyone the power to decide who lives and who dies?
@@ValoPlay724 as i said its a metaphor. Prior to reading and writing people learned via stories via the oral tradition.
cbren that is not taught is any church establishment, nor does it make much sense.
Sin is ones separation from God, it is not merely the breaking of a set of rules, but a rejection of the Lord. The natural consequence of separation from God is spiritual death, it is not an imposed punishment but a byproduct of being apart from the Divine which is our source for spiritual life.
As a person who's lived in a Catholic environment (I'm atheist btw) all his life, the first theory seemed pretty normal to me having been exposed to that for 20 years hahaha
Wow that's a trip, I grew up as a Christian but not Catholic, I don't remember original sin being talked about really
@@heedmydemands Original Sin was probably the first thing we were taught... in MIDDLE SCHOOL in Eastern Europe (Orthodox Christians...). My catholic friends know about it too, but it could be a local thing(Romania)... curious
@@joanabug4479 yeah that's interesting. Like I was told the Adam and Eve story and Eve was tempted by the serpent and ate of the tree of knowledge but it wasn't made a big deal. I don't remember more being said about it than that story. We were all assumed sinners, I just thought it was because no one is perfect not that we were guilty when we were born
Catholics don't go as hard at this "hereditary sin" thing as protestants do though. As a chaplaine once told me (I'm also from a Catholic background), one of the main central differences between catholics and protestants is that catholics believe that due to Jesus dying for our sins, humans are now born without sin and can thereby be happy. Directly after the sacrament of penance they are actually viewed as completely free of sin. Protestants on the other hand believe that humans are still born with sin and thereby need to spend their lifes doing penance constantly and will always remain sinners. Martin Luther was rejected by many catholic theologians not only because he disagreed with the sale of indulgences but also because his theology was too bleak for them.
Of course, I still think that catholic theology is still horrific, though. It's just not as bad in that regard.
I was raised Catholic and we were taught about original sin all the time. I thought it was pretty normal for a Christian upbringing. I didn't take it to mean that we're all inherently evil, just that we are imperfect and we all desire to do things that God does not want us to do. I really don't think it's that big of a deal or DISGUSTING as the title of this video suggests. As an atheist now I can still accept the theory behind it. Human beings are flawed and do immoral things to each other that's the reality of life whether you put a religious spin on it or not.
I can't even tolerate my theology classes, Alex has an entire course resting on theology. What a guy.
"For God is not the author of confusion..."
Confusion seems to have been the author of God.
:D
.....
:D :D :D
@@OctyabrAprelya yes, but just as we leave aside shoes that are small or worn-out religion, too, should be treated as such.
@Joshua K
What are you confused about? Would you like me to explain it to you?
@@j0hncon5tantine What are you not confused about? Do you think you really have explanations?
@Emily Barclay Thanks, I am aware of that :D This is, in fact, exactly my point.
@@OctyabrAprelya is this like a flat earth thing. Like they said, earth must be flat, cuz I haven't seen the other side
To your point at 8:45, I remember thinking the same as a child. I figured if Heaven existed and was the best thing ever then why was everyone in our church not just killing themselves right now? I also figured that it was better to do it sooner than later cuz being a kid I would be a shoe-in for Heaven. Related to that, I was also terrified of dying of old age. I knew that when people got old their brains stopped working and they couldn’t remember things or think properly. In most media spirits are shown as how the person was when they died, so I was scared of being stuck as senile for all eternity basically.
as a child....your position is certainly that of a child. Anyone aware of heaven is likely to have heard of the commandments, one of which is 'you shall not kill', including yourself. Heaven in the Christian sense is intellectual enlightenment, not senility. Check Boethius and Aquinas.
@@philcoppa "Heaven in the Christian sense is intellectual enlightenment, not senility." Sorry, but we disagree on that one. And quoting two Christian men doesn't change that. I have a brain that works.
@@philcoppa even if they shouldn’t Jill themselves, the mentality would definitely rally you against safety and self preservation, which isn’t a great idea to teach children.
I think suicide is frowned upon and considered a bad thing since life is God's gift so you taking your life away is rejecting God's gift so why should you be given free pass to Heaven that way.
@@B30pt87 Actually in theory, heaven is great. For Christians it means immortality, the lack of death, sickness and decay, reunion with loved ones, and endless access to knowledge and the universe. It is enlightenment in the sense that only will there be spiritual closeness with their Creator but also unlocking the secrets of knowledge that men know nothing about. We only just found out about many things in science, and there is much more yet to be discovered. And before you say, science/knowledge and religion do not mix please remember that the reason many are literate today is because of religion especially during the years of the Reformation, and that MUCH of the information that scientists study and utilize today, that are taught in schools, were contributed by religious people who believed in the God of the Bible. There are brilliant aethists but there are also brilliant theists, and belief in God or a diety does not equal dumb.
God: On the day of you eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you will die.
Adam: What does 'die' mean?
God: Oh... err.... It's like... the process of death. Die, dying, dead... y'know? Death.
Adam: What does 'death' mean?
God: Oh right... Of course. Well, it hasn't been invented yet. But I can tell you that death - is not good.
Adam: What does good mean?
God: Oh... right... errrr... Its like... the exact opposite of bad...
Adam: What does 'bad' mean?
God: Err...... It's like, when something... really... um... shit happens... like....
Adam: Like death?
God: Yes! Exactly! Like death.
Adam: So what is death again?
God: Um... Hey... why don't you go and talk to that snake over there...
Complete nonsense from you. If anyone invented something, it's you!
Danyael You're not very bright, are you? 😅
@@llort147
What's that supposed to mean?
pathetic understanding
what God means you will die. is that you are not longer immortal and not welcome in the garden bcoz the garden is like heaven. sin do not belong in heaven. sadly ur poor understanding is laughable
That was one of the first things I couldn't understand even as a child. We are all born sinners. Why? No, we're not. How could I progress in that religion? So I always suspected the adults telling me this even as a child. Also the narcissism of that god. If you don't worship and adore it, ignoring all the others, then it will torture you in some kind of a hell. So it creates human beings supposedly as sinners. It's just ridiculous to me
Hi ! Does evil exist?
@@kronos01ful I don't see the relevance of your question, sorry
Hi ! Do you think that there's God (an intelligent mind outside human mind ) ?
If he does, what do you think he will he be like ?
@@kronos01ful No, I very much doubt it
@@kathleen5237 Thanks for your honesty. You need to be skeptical about every claim. But some people have a cynical arrogant attitude . Hope you not one of them!😆
Let me ask you..What is it that you doubt about God : ( I'm not talking about any God in specific) I mean God by a mind outside the human mind responsible for everything we experience, ( universe, laws of gravity ,stars ,cosmos everything...) , if is
Possible to know him or her? Is an energy or a person ? What is it that you wrestle with about God ?
Love the channel . This kind of content is really important. Provides context to a lot of the wider themes discussed on the channel. Fair play man
The Apostles' writings were always seen as divinely inspired-- I'm not sure that it's accurate to say there was no orthodoxy early on.
This is like Mark Wahlberg's character in The Other Guys learning ballet just to make fun of ballerinos
Not at all. When people perform ballet, it hurts nobody. When Christians use their theology to create laws and social policy, it has consequences for everyone, so it is important to point out their "facts" are not facts at all.
I understood the reference, and I appreciated it as an Other Guys fan. 😀
If, on the other hand, he was to criticize Christianity while not being in possession of all the facts, you would accuse him of not being qualified to argue. You can't have it both ways. What the hell is a ballerino?
@@tcrown3333 A male ballerina? Lol Idk
Dude that reference is hilarity. Underrated
This was yet another one of your GREAT videos, where you so eloquently, intelligently and honestly share with us all your knowledge. You didn't have to, yet you did share that with us, so thank you. Which makes me even more sad seeing the comment section filled with either christian apologetics or people who totally missed the point of the video and just make silly jokes...
That’s what you would see, as the comment section is and will be censored.
I’m a theology student at Charles University, thank you very much for posting your reading list
Man was given free will (freedom to choose actions). That is the reason that Jesus had to sacrifice Himself because there is not one single human who has followed the Law completely. What you are calling “inheritable sin” does not mean that we are all born already sinful but does mean that we are not capable of perfection as required by the Law. To me, that is a big difference and is not horrible but rather very merciful of God to provide a way for us to be in His presence one day.
Let me start of by saying that my field of study is not theology, but religious studies, therefore my knowledge extends to all the world religions (Including ancient Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian and Egyptian religion). So its safe to say that i'm not specialized in the great theological discourses through the centuries. But i do feel its necessary to point out an error i spotted in this video.
First of all, Athanasius is certainly an important figure within the orthodox faith. However, he did not put forward the concept of original sin. What he did was to draw out the full implications of the key word in the Nicene Creed: homoousios, one in essence or substance. But while Athanasius emphasized the unity of Father and son - the Cappadocians stressed Gods threeness: Father, Son and the Holy spirit are each a person (hypostasis).
When it comes to the concept of original sin, the two major strains of Christianity (orthodox and catholic) diverges quite a bit from each other. The orthodox church believes that "Adam fell, not from a great height of knowledge and perfection, but from a state of underdeveloped simplicity; hence he is not to be judged too harshly for his error" (Timothy ware, The orthodox church, page 217). The catholic's approach to original sin is accredited to Augustine. Augustine believed we inherited adam's sin by simply being born, which is something most orthodox theologians reject since humans from their perspective are born perfect, and our sinful nature only comes into play when we are old enough to distinguish between what is right and wrong. "And Orthodox have never held (as Augustine and many others in the west have done) that unbaptized babies, because tainted with original guilt, are consigned by the just God to everlasting flames of hell." (Timothy ware, The Orthodox church, page 218). Thus humans according to the orthodox faith do not inherit Adams's guilt, but his corruption and mortality.
You sound like a biased catholic to me... 🍻
It would make more sense if you called me a biased orthodox, since i didn't exactly put the catholic faith in a favourable light.
very well put it. Thank you!
Well done sir.
@@FromKhaos26 it should be noted most Protestants also believe children under a certain age do not go to hell generally speaking anyway.
I was under the impression that being born into sin meant merely that we're imperfect (sin meaning to miss the mark). Perhaps I'm being too charitable but the interpretation is valid, I think.
Yeah original sin does not imply that everyone is “as bad as bad can be” but instead explains that nothing is untouched by sin. There’s imperfection, but it is possible to work toward as close to perfection as possible.
I always interpreted that "being born into sin" meant we became slaves to sin and the devil's children.
The problem is that sin is sin, just off the bullseye or hitting the wall - it doesn't matter and as the scripture says, the wages of sin is death. Being just off the mark is no less scary. This is why the sacrifice of Jesus is a huge deal. Without him, no one could be saved. (I'm currently agnostic - but was raised as a Christian, still young and trying to figure this crazy world out)
@@user-wi5gv8gs3e The general consensus in my circles is that we are to do Gods will - not because he needs us but because we need him.
Jesus does count on us, in the sense that he wants us to commit to his will, but if we choose not to commit, its to our own determent not God, if he wants something done it will be done if not by you then someone else and they will reap the benefits of that commitment instead. (Job 35, Acts 17:25 and the like)
Christians are agents of God on earth, prayer is important but as you said prayer is not all we are supposed to do. (James 2:14-17)
After all Christ himself was a prayerful man, but that by no means stopped him from doing a lot of work, teaching, healing etc.
So yes, I agree with you, scripture makes it clear that prayer alone is insufficient.
@@storyworld414 If we are one of God's creations, then we are children of God. We are not the "devil's children". However, we have free will so we can choose to follow God or take the other path.
alex my favourite sith lord back with a new video, much entertaining
As a child I thought. ‘Wait a minute, if I don’t get baptised I’m damned to burn forever?’ That’s a gun to your head right there.
Thanks for the catch up and respect for the torture you put yourself through with this BS
I'm curious, are most students that study theology with you atheists, or at least agnostics as well just like you or are you just a rare example?
My friend and roommate at uni studied Theology and said that the majority were Catholics or otherwise Christian, a couple of people of other religions and then a couple of atheists / agnostics. Don't know what it's like in Alex's class but that's what she experienced.
@@katie6384 Interesting. I would've assumed that there would be more atheists since this generation becomes more atheistic overall. Cool to know tho!
I study theology and it's mostly Christians :/ they seems to be the only people interested in talking about god
@@JohnCena8351 Yeah I would have thought that as well, although I think Catholic priests are strongly encouraged to take degrees in Theology, and maybe Christian ministers as well so maybe that explains the disproportionate demographic breakdown.
@@katie6384 Interestingly, Charles Darwin had a degree in Christian theology.
It's like eternally thanking god for putting out the fire that HE purposely started in the first place.
As an atheist, you are not qualified or capable of being a competent theologian. I will be praying for you.
Well theres a few presuppositions that are had in order to make this assertion.
The first, and most self indulgent one is that IF there is a god that created all of existance, and ascribes all meaning including moral meanings(entertain the premise for argument) then it makes no sense to think you, a portion of the created existance, has a right to tell the creator how to do things, or what should be considered right, or wrong. At the end of the day, your one person out of countless generations, with limited experience in your own life, let alone the knowledge it would entail to be the literall source of everything.
The second thing is more a prospect to do with doctrine we have now.
And that is that its stated in the video that we were made to be immortal, and happy. Which is just wrong.
Pretty much all of christian doctrine says the primary purpous of our creation was that we were supposed to share in agency with god over creation, and to be someone, and something to talk to/have a meaningful relationship with.
The fall of man is the result of humans abandoning that purpous to pursue purposes of our own design.
In light of that it makes a little more sense that there would be a toll for sin.
After all if a computer stopped working properly, and you couldn't have it fixed, youed probably throw it away. Or at least scrap it for parts.
The computer was created to fulfill a purpousand now cannot do so.
@@barryallen2123 as a athiest he is perfectly capable of being a theologian. Unlike his Christian colleagues he is untainted by doctrine. Try praying for the weak and unfeed of this world and not a well educated young man.
Hell is a discussionpoint even within christianity
@@anthonypolonkay2681 But we aren't computers, why did he then give us "free will" to make our own choices and already knew what our choices would be to purposely accuse us of not doing what he asked us to do?... I see it this way. I'm god, I create billions of humans and I put them in an insignificant rock within a vast univers and I tell them: I'm your creator, I give you the ability to choose, I want you all to love me and worship me... but if you decide no to do so I will subjugate you all to an eternal existence of torture and suffering... but I'm an old loving god, by the way. I created this whole reality, but I will get offended if you don't go to church every week and worship me... THAT'S WAY TOO SADISTIC AND CHILDISH
I'm literally nothing compared to the entire univers, yet he seems to get too overly offended if I don't do what he tells me to do (and I don't kill, I always try to be honest, I'd say I'm a very loving friend and family member... so what's the point?) xd that's ridiculous.
Mennonites told me I don't need to be happy because I died to myself for Christ. I get a better happiness. The fake kind where I get to gaslight myself and feel guilty about not having enough faith.
If the olympics would have a medal for mental gymnastics, athanasius and anselm would get gold medals
Well, they would have a very tough competition from e.g. Calvin with his doctrine of predestination.
and feminism
"Mental gymnastics", also known as "thinking", is a classic sport, I don't think they give out "medals" so much as "certificates", "degrees" etc.
@@lizzard13666 well there are types of mental gymnastics bro. I mean one thing is to say something without any basis and just "thinking" ur way the conclusion, like feminists do lmao. And another thing is thinking as u say. Don't really think that title applies to theology tbh
@@lizzard13666 “Thinking,” also known as something that you quite obviously don’t do. Learn the definition of mental gymnastics. “Mental gymnastics” is a TYPE of thinking that draws conclusions or creates connections with a lack of logic and evidence.
*Any god that made a Hell,* would be the most evil being in the universe.
Zorastrianism does hell better
Yes, per the definition of “hell”, it’s an infinitely evil being.
hell is just the absence of good.
Like dark is the absence of light.
God never created hell.
Most people dont even realize what the bible actually says about hell. I laugh everytime I hear "you will burn in a lake of fire for all enternity". They say it but cant show you where it actually says that.
@@alexanderTheVegan I thought god created everything though?
Idk how, but I listened to every word intently. Sir, you had my attention 👏
Sour Power. It was because he was feeding your ears and mind with what you want to hear and believe.
?
I want truth not mythology.
'total corruption' sounds like Calvin. Not all Christians agree. Original sin merely means sin goes back to the origin, it's not something we commit. It is something we suffer from - darkness in the intellect, weakness in the will. We are not as bright as we might be and we don't have a lot of willpower.
"Moral perfection, I think you'll agree ladies and gentlemen, with only a hint of mental gymnastics thrown in for .. flair" I could easily imagine Hitch smiling down from his celestial cloud.
Doubt he would be smiling since, by his own reasoning he has ceased to exist.
With each upload, it’s endearing to see how much Alex has grown intellectually. ❤️👍🏻
This video was so inaccurate it made my head hurt. Hopefully your right.
@@sonicrocks2007 Nice absence of any counter argument.
@@bubbleburster2813 I actually listed 25 things in other places in the comments.
-In short. His dates are off.
- those saints he mention are also viewed by actual scholars as holding Annhilation and UnIversalism as well. He omits this.
- he omits that there are other views such as anihilation and universalism completely.
- he generalizes all of Christianity as western Catholicism and fundamental evangelicals. Not gnostics or Eastern or orientals, unversalism or any liberal sects etc
Anyway. If you are interested pick up some scholarship on the saints he mentions. Because I found 4 sources from Different universities. arguing the opposite of what he said. And he makes no mention of that.
@@bubbleburster2813 What is wrong with this video. Lots.
> New Testament was compiled by the time Athanasius see: Marcion's restricted canon.
> The Word Hell is never in the Bible. Instead it is Gehenna, Shoel, Hades and Tartaróō . "Gehenna" place for bad people is typically represented as literal place on earth. and Shoel is the place for every soul, even Christians go to Sheol. Tartaróō is for angels. These are distinct locations. The word hell is very poor word. Good theologians don't use it.
> There are 5 major views of hell. Eternal Conscious Torment, Universalism, Annihilation, CS Lewis's Self-Made Hell, Hell being a literal place on earth. Not only that there are many sub views. Is there purgatory? is there multiple layers of Gehenna? is there repentance in Gehenna? etc. Good theologians mention this. He never mentions these. And the Saints he quotes hold multiple different views. See below.
> Athanasius didn't Just hold ECT view of Hell but also Annihilation. He held Several views. Cosmic Skeptic was deceitful in pegging Athanasius as ECT when he talked about Annihilation.
> Anselm likewise did talk about ECT but following Anselm's other arguments, one could conclude that he is actually for Universalism. Cosmic Skeptic didn't follow Anselm's Ontological arguments and never mentions universalism.
> There was a first man. First off, there had to be a point where the Chromosomes Changed from 48 to 46 etc. and was Stable. This occurrence is very rare as there are billions of people on the earth now and many chromosomes changes, we don't have new species of human popping up. most chromosomal changes are catastrophic. However, if one did occur, scientists predict that chromosomal change would radically change the DNA and would make its own Species. Second of all there is the idea. Mitochondria Eves where we all descend from one woman, (there are several actually). Most Christians along with Jews also find Genesis to be Mythic History and thus meant to be taken metaphorically. Never mentions that at all.
It just seems like he uneducated on these things or deceitful. He picks a Saint's Writings who held multiple different views. Picks the worse view and rants about it for 30 minutes. Never discusses their other views or where their logic leads or what other scholars think. Never discusses other views. Very narrow minded and misleading at best. Not a scholar on the subject for sure.
@@bubbleburster2813 nice absence of any counter argument
Hi Cosmic,
great video..
anyway, the thing is that for centuries, people had no TH-cam and were happy to live their lives believing in some kind of myth.
Only after Copernicus, Newton, Existentialism, Industrial revolution, the world started to wake up again and in fact....we 're still in the midst of that awakening state.
When i think back of even the 1970s where i grew up as a Christian i still remember it all to be a lot more living with the Bible as the Word of God. Only due to the existence of hippies connecting all around the globe it became more secular.
It's so weird, I was taught this theology almost from birth and didn't realize until my teens how messed up it is. It's not great for a kid's self-esteem.
when you do not see the world as a fairy tale , everything is always messed up
Self control builds more self respect than self esteem ever will.
Well congrats, I didn’t see it until my 30s 🤦♀️😂
you shouldnt decide how good an argument is based on its effects on your self esteem
I'm 71 and I'm still suffering.
It sounded like you said: "I have Brandy and merchandise."
CosmicSkeptic brand Brandy, for the discerning skeptic.
Hitchens would probably approve.
@@MyReligionIs2DoGood Mr Cocktail himself
CosmicSkeptic's Brandy - don't believe in spirits, unless you can taste them.
As an atheist growing up in a Christian orthodox family, I must admit you made lots of mistakes while trying to explain Athanasios writings...
What mistakes?
@@RealHogweed Athanasios never talks about the original sin in the essay he references.
I believe that original sin came from Augustine,who came a little later.
Also, Anslem is considered a heretic by the Orthodox Church by the very fact that his ideas were nonsense. I am not surprised that @CosmicSkeptic has no idea about the Orthodox theology, but some videos by Jay Dyer might shed a light on that.
@@lupusdivinorum4673 Yahweh is still a myth
That's a great start to the summer. As a thorough ignoramus, I thoroughly enjoyed this. Thank you.
at 4:25 - Church considers ignorance to be a virtue? How do you square that with the universities which grew out of the cathedral schools in the Middle
Ages? The Scholastics were noted for having a culture of vigorous debate - the Disputationes.
I believe in hell, I've been to gary indiana.
I believe in hell, it was called:
"Grave of the Fireflies"
"Starwars Sequel Trilogy"
"Steven Universe"
Yatter Yatter Yatter...
can't be that bad, can it? have you been to Newark, NJ?
I've heard about Gary. I think it has most amount of crime in the US?
“Hell is other people” - Sartre
I live in Arizona. Hell is real!
Listening to you makes this old, arthritic body feel like doing somersaults, I love your sanity. Good luck with your studies!
Thank you for your service! I appreciate your summary of the history of the doctrine so I don't have to slog through it myself. As a nonbeliever, I could skip it altogether, but as a retired person I can pursue my curiosity about where the ideas came from. Earlier this year I read about money and debt. Debt and sin become equated very early in civilization. Strange.
I don’t see your issue with debt and sin being equated. The courts hold men accountable for not providing for their children and get imprisoned for their debt to their children
Not that weird, the beginning of the idea of fairness comes from material trade. The Genealogy of Morals covers this.
If you want to study theology, it helps to not assume that it's false, made up, and/or evil.
May be putting words in his mouth, but he is starting under the assumption that God does not exist as there is no proof of his existence (as many atheists believe), which is a great way to start imo. If the arguments in terms of religion are compelling then he may be persuaded otherwise, however if he is looking at everything through the lens that they are true and morally good then there is very little to add to the conversation
Quarantined and with final exams to finish... I am taking a theology introductory course and I literally needed this information! Love your videos! :D
Camille Girault Be careful, the video is not without errors in it.
@@HappyCatholicDane it's not research if you don't double check someone else's work, after all. Research rule number one.
HappyDane And what might those errors be?
The Plague Doctor It has been 3 weeks since I watched the video, so I don’t recollect all of the details. But one major error I do remember, is him conflating the Augustinian understanding of original sin with that of Athanasius. Which is frankly a rather problematic error to make for a theology student.
I'm still gonna be watching when my boy has a PhD.
Jordan Peterson is the professor you need to see
As I listen to you describe the inheritance of Original Sin, it came to mind how curious (convenient) it is that absolution is not inheritable. If a woman is forgiven before she conceives, why must Original Sin persist in her offspring? Why is it that Original Sin is inheritable but not absolution? Quite convenient for the preservation of the church.
Yup, classic conman trick. Convince people they are sick, then sell them the cure.
@@Zaprozhan The world is sick...look around
@Zechariah12.10 youre a con man if you use isolate negative events and use them to schlep a bunch of obvious mythology to dumb people.
Impressive. I’m glad Oxford still teaches Theology rather than the cop out Religious Studies, as you are still required to think. For the sake of brevity, I’d suggest an existentialist approach viz the dilemmas described by Athanasius and Anselm are internal conflicts we can all recognize, just as reading Dante is an inner rather than an outer journey. Great work and strength to your efforts.
How is Religious Studies a cop-out?
Well done! Great insight. I appreciate you.
Also, Congrats on graduating, ma dude!
Am I the only one who thinks Alex is genuinely good looking , maybe just because i've watched all his videos again while waiting for uploads xD
It's that awesome accent!
@@TheRealEddieBrock His accent gets me evey time lol
Honestly, he probably fucks
Same to be honest.
Everything about him is attractive! His looks,his brains, his personality, his kindness, and logic. I love everything about him!
Studying theology as an atheist feels like a medicine student coming to morgue everyday just to discover that patient is still dead.....
More like a medical doctor studying homeopathy ;)
@@Christoph-Dietz Still not working? Dilute again 4 more power ;)
How can you say you don't believe in something, if you don't know anything about it? Of course you have to study it. I have been researching Christian origins (and religion, in general) for over 40 years and am also an atheist. The more you study, the more ridiculous it seems. The study is worthwhile because religion has such a grip in the world. We all need to know what it is all about but religious people seem to be the least informed.
A waste of money, if you ask me.
@@lynnewebb4573 True, it poisons everything....
Sixteen years of Catholic education. My problem was that I used the gift that God gave me, the gift of Reason. When I asked Why? I was told to just believe. I had many of the questions he raised but I never got answers. The only thing I did get a big dose of was Guilt. Guilt for everything, even a passing thought was enough to send me to eternal damnation. After watching a huge number of videos of NDEs I realize that it is going to be OK. Do your best, correct your mistakes and love as many people as possible.
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth-in a word, to know himself-so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves" - Pope John Paul II in his encyclical, Fides et Ratio.
Those who did not engage your rational questions did wrong. The Church however embraces reason. A resource I'd recommend is Catholic Answers - they engage arguments with reason and really dive into the "why." I especially recommend Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn. The answers to your questions are out there my friend. The people who refused to engage your questions or at least point you in the right direction are not representative of Catholicism. Take care.
Brilliant! 20 minutes of ripping apart religion, just like the good old days. This is the Cosmic Skeptic I love!
I'm in the green spot too of that political "map" by the way😂... Just a little bit lower and a little bit more at right.
@ManyProphets OneMessage They basically tried to use the same words with different meanings in different occasions...they did not agree about the definition of the words they were using and also one of their statements about the composition of matter and their conclusions about it totally had no sense. Mathematics and logic are completely opposed to this argument.
you've explained something to me in 7 minutes (so far) that 9 years of catholic schooling couldn't lol
skyliner114 you should check out catholicanswers on TH-cam! It’s questions and answers with style with people who call in :)
I'm not Catholic nor do I agree or adhere to Catholicism, but you haven't "learned anything in 7 minutes"... You've just latched on to some dude who's giving to permission to not believe what you didn't want to believe in the first place.
You could have bossed up 9 years ago and at least been honest with yourself and whomever it was that you were trying to please and said, "I just don't want to believe because I want do what I want to do with no accountability..."
SMH.
@@SOULSafeProductionZ Not believing in God isn't "I want to do what I want to do with no accountability". It's more like, "I don't want to be forced to act somehow with no other reason then people telling me a supernatural force wants me to act like that and otherwise I'll be eternally punished" or "I don't see why should believe this but shouldn't believe the tooth fairy or Santa"
Going to Catholic school doesn't make one an expert on their religion so...
I can’t concentrate anymore... Alex has become such a snack
Sanningen
I definitely thought this from the moment I found his channel haha
I second this
A zombie snack maybe. Boy looks like emoism kick him in the face
🤔🤨🧐
It is easy to believe in original sin. Thoughts are mostly random, so many are sinful by just about any reasonable definition of "sin". Actions derive from thoughts and are still somewhat chaotic, and therefore partially against any sensible purpose one might imagine, and therefore sinful. We were born this way, hence the sin is original.
The connection with God and Hell and Jesus seems bogus, though.
I used to be reluctant to upgrade my operating system. When I realised the old OS version is born into a state of buggyness (sin), it became easier to believe that upgrades are likely to be an improvement. Fortunately I arrived at this mostly by reading about other people's machines getting remotely exploited.
Considering that a lot of people in my family have pursued the study of theology -- albeit at bible colleges, not Oxford -- I greatly appreciate your well organized criticism of it.
It’s been a while. Thanks for the video!
I think you are misreading Athanasius here. The Eastern Church Fathers don't teach "original sin" in the sense that you are thinking of it. That's more of an Augustinian/Western perspective, based mostly on a mistranslation of a Greek verse into Latin. You should check out the essay "Ancestral Sin" by John Romanides, for a better understanding of the Eastern/Greek understanding. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East-the churches with the most direct lineage to the church to which Athanasius belonged-don't have any concept of inherited guilt even to this day.
The Greek/Eastern Christian perspective is not so much that guilt or culpability is inherited but rather that a tendency towards sin is inherited and, to a large extent, that death itself causes sin. Because death is a fault in our nature, inherited from our ancestors, we tend to strive for self-preservation, which is the root cause of sin. It's more that mortality is inherited and our mortal nature drives us to behave in sinful ways. Also, there's a tendency to view death not as a punishment but as a natural consequence.
Also, it's hard to understand the Greek Church Fathers without understanding hesychasm. Early Christian monks would experience the self as "uncreated light" as a result of hesychastic meditation practices (identical experiences are reported in Zen Buddhism with a non-theistic interpretation, but also reported by Hindu and Sufi mystics). A lot of Greek theology is about re-interpreting Christianity in the light of this hesychast experience. They see a light that they interpret as God and then the light illuminates their own body. They interpret this as becoming deified (uniting to God), so their chief concern was showing that this sort of union was possible without assuming some sort of pantheism. Hence Athanasius' dictum "God became man so that man could become God."
For the record, I'm an atheist, but I've got a background in Eastern Orthodoxy and some personal experience with hesychast and zen meditation.
@I'M -not- alone I wouldn't go that far. To be clear, all of the views he described were taught by leading theologians at some point. And those views were extremely common in the West, especially around the Protestant Reformation and a few centuries leading up to it.
@I'M -not- alone no, they are inherently silly...
How does someone so knowledgeable such as yourself become an atheist friend?
@@anchorthesun3438 I read Karl Popper's works on the epistemology of science and Charles Darwin on evolution (also Stated Clearly on TH-cam is a good channel with videos on the evidence for evolution). Then I also read John Stuart Mill's "Utilitarianism" and Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape" and Larry Arnhardt's "Darwinian Natural Right." That all culminated in the recognition that the only convincing argument for Christianity (which would be Cornelius van Til's presuppositional argument) is just invalid. There's no intelligent design behind the human body and mind. There's no need for God to explain ethics/morality.
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
הן־בּעוון חוללתּי וּבחטא יחמתני אמּי׃
Psalm 51 (5)