How can this even be a debate? God has to sacrifice himself, to himself, to create a loophole for a system he made, b/c he can't forgive without shedding blood.
But he didn't create any "loophole". That's the joke about it. I mean sins are still sins and you go to "Hell" if you commit them. Christians don't really read the Bible. At the end Christ's second coming is happens when he Judge everybody and send the sinners to "Hell" and punishing them forever. Basically takes the job of the devil. Christianity is evil. Most of the churchgoers simply don't have enough knowledge about the "Holy book".
mclatchie's kinda daft. he's nver taken on board anyone else's arguments in the few years i've listened to his debates, his skull thickness must be enormous.
@@Kastled5 Actually, it's kind of the opposite. A True Believer would listen to the other side and engage with them. People who preach, aren't engaging in an honest dialogue, which implies that they know what they are saying is BS, and are falling back on rhetoric they are familiar with. Anyone can repeat something they've said 1000 times. Not to make this a political thing, but take any politician, and ask yourself if they "sincerely believe" what they're saying? Or whether they're just regurgitating from a script? Ask yourself if you find it persuasive? Preachers don't preach to people to convince them that they're right. Doing that takes dialogue, the perfect forum for which, is a debate. If your closing speech isn't a victory lap summarizing the last hour, reiterating the points you scored, highlighting the weaker points from the other side, then you aren't debating. If you could deliver the exact same speech in an empty room, facing a wall, that's not something to be admired. It certainly doesn't reinforce the validity or the sincerity of the arguments.
It's been 4 years now and the longer I am out of Christianity (Catholicism in my case), the more batshit crazy, not to mention horribly toxic, the whole thing sounds!
@@gonzalomelano8002 You say you are a new Catholic, what convinced you that such remarkably outlandish claims were true? Also, how do you morally reconcile the fact that the Catholic Church have been hiding known paedophiles from justice, just in an attempt to protect the name of their sinking ship? You wanted to hear more from the original poster, but he obviously does not wish to converse with you, it's akin to an ex convict speaking to a convict through the fence of a prison yard, in fact it's worse, because you have volunteered to be imprisoned. The one the must explain your choices is you, not the other way around, after all, you have made the extraordinarily ridiculous choice of becoming a Catholic.
@@WhoThisMonkey Well, first I wanna make this disclaimer I'm not a theologian or even someone who has been in the religion for much so I'm not an expert at all in the field. My faith is rather an initial one like when Saint Peter affirmed that Jesus is Christ (Matthew 16:16). Making that clear I'm gonna answer your questions as I can. Firstly, why do I believe in Catholicism? well, it's a long story. I've tried out different religions and beliefs like atheism or even Islam. But honestly, I could never really be convinced by them because I found some contradictions problems, especially with Islam. Then by reading about the history of the Holy Church and going to mass, I got fascinated, this religion is so superior. God isn't just someone who created us like a great architect but rather he is love itself "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us (1 John 4, 7-12). This religion is so crazy indeed, God loves us so much he even became a human and suffered for us so as we can reach paradise. He is so humble that he spoke our language by becoming a human." The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1, 14). He gives us this unique message that as the lamb of God died for our sins and was killed by the unjust for their salvation we must do the same. "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you" (John 15, 12). "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit (1 Peter 3, 18). Now you may ask me why I became a Catholic but not another Christian like a Protestant, for example, honestly, I've always found Protestantism untenable. As you have already realized for me the Bible is a source of authority as it's the word of God but I don't think we can interpret it all by ourselves. If we just let people interpret the Bible how they feel that would lead to conflicts and misinterpretations. I like how this verse somewhat touches upon that topic. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."(2 Peter 2,10 ). Then I don't think that just by reading the Bible you can know all that Jesus did and apparently Saint John thinks so. "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" (John 21, 25). A bit later I'm gonna continue answering.
You do realize that something can be ridiculous and still be true, right? I also don't really understand how following a certain lifestyle equals being a slave. Unless you think working for an employer makes you a slave?
Its not just that its ridiculous, its ridiculous and completely unsupported. Look into quantum mechanics, its ridiculously complicated and weird but its well supported and factual.
@@TheTenCentStory Nobody who's ever employed me in my life has had the power to shape reality to their will. That's why they need people to help them in the first place.
I love the hitch coming out at the beginning when you strung the last couple of words in your first sentence to the next sentence for rhetorical effect. That was great!
If the crucifixion was all part of God's plan why do Christians vilify the people who helped bring it about, Judas, Pilate, the Jewish crowd. Surely they just helped the plan along and should be thanked for their contributions.
Surely they should also be thanking Satan and the demons for tempting them and testing them as well to make them better people through trial or scaring them by supernatural experience into believing in the Christian god. Perhaps they should too be thanking Pontius Pilate and the Jewish crowd for executing Christ, after all it is THEIR decision to execute him is what saved us. If not he wouldn’t have died for our sins. Looks like Christians are shunning the wrong crowd of people.
It’s crazy having been a Christian and now being on the other side. I’m not necessarily an Atheist tbh, but I’m definitely an agnostic. Once you leave the mindset of a group, it’s crazy what you find on your own. There’s so many beliefs that get projected over experience, when in reality, nothing is as weird as they make it sound
So what makes you hang on to believing that a god is credible, now that you rejected Christianity? People think that god answers the question of why there is something rather than nothing, but in reality it just pushes the question one step back and makes it vastly harder to answer: Why is there a super complex omni everything monstrosity rather then nothing? Back in reality complex things, such as our brains are constructed from simpler things by iterations of the laws of physics over time.
Agnostic means you're open to being convinced/ believe that there is insufficient evidence to make a Gnostic claim (I know vs I don't know) Atheist is the term that describes a person's position specifically in relation to a given theology (usually christianity, but every claim must be evaluated independently.) These are not exclusive terms. You can be an Agnostic Theist (I believe there is a god, but I don't KNOW there is a god) or an Agnostic Atheist (I do not believe there is a god, but I don't KNOW that there is no god.) You can also be a climate change agnostic, a round earth agnostic, a chicken came first agnostic, etc. People who try to draw a distinction between agnostic and atheist are usually doing so because they aren't comfortable describing their beliefs as atheist due to social stigma, or used to dishonest apologists who willfully misunderstand concepts like this to create confusion.
". . . when in reality, nothing is as weird as they make it sound." Actually, it's even weirder than they make it sound. But -- as Pope Benedict so frequently asks -- what if it is true?
Instead of forgiving or coming up with another way to combat sin, God takes on human form and sacrifices himself to himself to serve as a loophole for rules he made. Why go through all that complexity?
@@johncalebkwawoo1678 the free world wouldn't exist without the bible just a fact even In the west atheists are trying to force there belief on other's and use moral justification for forcing there beliefs veganisum or infinite gender theory nutters or socialism all are oppressive. Look at China committing genocide north Korea a slave nation both atheist USSR before they went back to Christianity mass genocide. The truth is there's no evidence a free world can exist without the bible it's clear other's who do judge and don't forgive will cancel culture you
I can’t believe I was ever stupid enough to believe this nonsense. It’s an irrational, delusional logical contradiction when you actually turn your brain on and think about it.
I think it's good to push back on theological claims. The skeptic community almost exclusively focuses on grounding beliefs and first principles, which is good, but those simply aren't religion as it is experienced by the religious. The palpable ridiculousness of what is preached just isn't addressed; there is SOOOOO much room for critique that doesn't have to come with forcing people who aren't good at philosophy to think philosophically.
Honestly so true. Most people don't have a background in questioning their own epistemology and dealing with these issues on that front really doesn't do it for them.
I disagree. It isn't as though atheists haven't tried this. The problem is that when you pick apart these outlandish claims, they just point at another and another and another and you end up in a big circle. Watch a debate with Kent Hovind in it. He is unbelievably frustrating because he keeps the debate in that wheelhouse. When they are arguing beliefs, you can't disprove them. When they are arguing what's in their book, you can't disprove them. In the end it always comes down to the final true position that differentiates Atheism and Theism. God(s). But if you want to feed into those religious rhetoric talking points, be my guest. But it hasn't ever gotten anyone anywhere.
@@RavenGlenn , that's a good point. I think what I said should come with the caveat that the audience understands that these more fundamental beliefs are rejected as well, even if they aren't the focus. I'll also say that your right about the danger of getting "sucked into" these topics, where you get pulled down to their level. That's why I don't think this topic should be treated with philosophical rigor, it's the place that comedians like Bill Burr, George Carlin, Bill Maher fit best, as well as rhetoricians like Hitchens and yt channels like Darkmatter's.
I, for one, am terrible at philosophically. So when I hear something nuts, I keep thinking that it must be nuts to people what have really thought about it.
I disagree. I don't disagree with the frustration with religious people like the gentleman in this video, who doesn't seem to have applied enough thought to his beliefs. I do disagree with the idea that there is no benefit to having these discussions. If atheist are interested in the truth about reality, which some admittedly are not, but for the ones that actually do want to grasp as much as possible about what is going on they should be open to analyzing the phenomena of religion and why the evolution of consciousness has lead to this. Heck even consciousness itself is a pretty mysterious one. Why did evolution even lead to what we are experiencing as consciousness? And then why do conscious beings start trying to find a creator(s). I don't think that it is as easy as some atheist think to write this off, as solved or pointless. I am admittedly a theist, and the reason i believe that the main argument always seems to end up at atheism vs theism is because that is the main question about reality. There is a chance that science will never get to the bottom of it, and there is also a chance that human experiential history has already has gotten to the bottom of it. So questioning religious claims like these are immensely important in my opinion. If we can rule out intellectually whether God actually came to earth in the form of a human man, and sacrificed himself for so called 'sins' of the world.....Well, it sounds ludicrous, but if there is actually a God behind this reality, the reality itself seems quite ludicrous without religion, or humans for that matter. We are hurtling through a vacuum faster than the speed of light....for some reason. If i were to tell someone from 2 thousand years ago the story that we are experiencing now, they would ask 'Why would we be hurtling through a vacuum faster than light?' and probably dismiss me as talking nonsense. Either way reality makes little sense without much much more explanation, so why rule out religious claims without careful consideration. Now I don't agree that all religious claims are exempt from scrutitny like most religious people do. I think that they should be understandable, and should make sense, because even Jesus is quoted critiquing the thoughts of those who opposed him. He must have expected them to be using logic, or some intellect in what they decided to believe and do. How else can it make sense for morality to exist, or for our actions to be judged at all, if we aren't supposed to think! I just would challenge the atheist to broaden their thinking a bit, and not get trapped in the naturalist mind games as much as religious people get trapped in the religious ones.
Apologetics: not about defending faith but defending flawed scripture against uneasy questions, ie. apologizing for the represented amount of ignorance, errors and obvious fabrications it consists of, but without the intellectually honest appreciation of that fact.
Protestant theology is distastefully servile. The problem with debating theologians is that since it’s all made up anyway the goal can just keep being shifted. And the Protestant theologian isn’t in accord with the Eastern Orthodox etc, so fighting with one fiction is like chopping off one head of the hydra.
@@michaelroditis1952 Sigh. The " burden of proof" argument only applies in a court of law -- and for some very good reasons. With religion, we err if we subject it to that same standard.
@@thomasthompson6378 how can a logical fallacy apply only at a specific place? If I say that lord of the rings is real the burden of proof would be on me wherever I currently am.
I've never heard someone convincingly say that they believe they are wicked, fall short of the glory of God, and deserve hell. How could anyone with even an ounce of dignity and self respect actually believe an eternity of conscious torture in fire is what they deserved if they had not repented. Don't believe me? Ask a Christian if they think you, an unbeliever, are deserving of hell. What do they always say? "That's not for me to decide." They can't even say it. It's too revolting a thing to say to another person. Are we really then supposed to believe they value their dignity less than that of a stranger? Do they really believe they deserve infinite punishment because of the actions of one man 6000 years ago? I submit that no person is capable of such groveling prostration and servility.
@@frederickfairlieesq5316 One man's sin 6000 years ago has resulted in all the sin, crime, and death that has occurred ever since, and man in himself has no way to stop it. So the natural result of his sin is an infinity of suffering and misery. And we have all sinned since then, so we are all as guilty as him. So how can you possibly say you and I do NOT deserve conscious torture forever? It is the fruit of our sin. It is evident, we need a Saviour.
Any religion or ideology or world view that considers a newborn baby, the most pure and innocent thing that we know and of in existence to b born in sin because of the actions of people thousands of years ago who may or may not have existed is not one worth following let alone believing. Imagine someone saying, 1000 years ago one of your ancestors was Adolf Hitler, therefore you are guilty. Even as bad as Hitler was, nobody would think that fair or just, but when it comes to Christianity nobody thinks twice. And all eve did was eat from the tree of knowledge, not exactly gassing 6 million Jews and several million more other groups
Some Christian religions posit that we are not "born in sin," though they would also posit that we will, inevitably succumb to certain sinful temptations. (That would, for example, be the LDS view). All Eve did was disobey one of the first and therefore primal commandments of God, who instructed her Himself. And Adam followed suit.
Putting that to one side, if the Christians are attempting to undermine the Qur’an’s claim that Jesus Christ was saved, by pointing to the testimonies of the Jews and the Romans (his alleged killers) then I cannot conceivably think of a greater theological and historical self-ownage. Not only is the Qur’an taking the beliefs of the Jews and the Romans as a given and is directly and consciously engaging with them, but to point to the statements of Jesus’ killers and assert that “hehe you see now our messenger did get unjustly murdered, you guys are wrong that God saved him” is quite frankly the biggest cuckholded move in polemical history. And speaks volumes to their cross-worshipping martyrdom complex. They genuinely take pleasure in and appreciate the thought of God/His messenger being murdered by his enemies to such a degree that they’ll actively cite the testimonies of said enemies to argue in favour of it. It’s funny because the author of the Qur’an isn’t even responding to the Christians when He denies the death of Jesus Christ. He’s responding to the Jews and the Romans who take pride in having murdered him. So the fact that the Christians (followers of Christ) energetically take their side and vigorously defend the testimonies of those prophet rejectors is indeed somewhat ironic.
As James Thomson (B.V.) said: If any human soul at all Must die the second death, must fall Into that gulph of quenchless flame Which keeps its victims still the same, Unpurified as unconsumed, To everlasting torments doomed; Then I give God my scorn and hate, And turning back from Heaven's gate (Suppose me got there!) bow, Adieu! Almighty Devil, damn me too.
@@thomasthompson6378 I don't think you need to be a great thinker to reject eternal torture. You only need to have some compassion towards others, something the Bible in its better moments also encourages.
I am honestly surprised McLatchie continues to do debates even though he clearly loses every time. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wasn’t even aware just how badly he loses.
There were two people up there. Who exactly are you referring to? Jonathan McLatchie was the 1st speaker in this clip, and he was asserting claims other preachers and people who believe in his one "true" understanding of his one "true" religion and preaching those asserted claims of which there is no sufficient evidence outside his one "true" version of his one "true" holy book without making any valid points. the 2nd speaker was Alex O'Connor, who just used logic, reason, critical thinking and common sense.
Religious people, please learn the origins of the Abrahamic god. It all goes back to the fictional Canaanite god El. *Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El.* Even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that *“the Most High, El,* gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity). *The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel's development in Canaan.* *It is generally accepted in the modern day, however, that Yahweh originated in southern Canaan as a lesser god in the Canaanite pantheon* and the Shasu, as nomads, most likely acquired their worship of him during their time in the Levant. *Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon* The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel' (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). *El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:* When the *Most High [El]* gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text). The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. *In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god.* Yahweh, according to Amzallag, was transformed from one god among many to the supreme deity by the Israelites in the Iron Age (c.1200-930 BCE) when iron replaced bronze and the copper smelters, whose craft was seen as a kind of transformative magic, lost their unique status. *In this new age, the Israelites in Canaan sought to distance themselves from their neighbors in order to consolidate political and military strength and so elevated Yahweh above El as the supreme being and claimed him as their own.* His association with the forge, and with imagery of fire, smoke, and smiting, worked as well in describing a god of storms and war and so Yahweh's character changed from a deity of transformation to one of conquest. *As the Israelites developed their community in Canaan, they sought to distance themselves from their neighbors and, as noted, elevated Yahweh above the traditional Canaanite supreme deity El.* They did not, however, embrace monotheism at this time. The Israelites remained a henotheistic people through the time of the Judges, which predates the rise of the monarchy, and throughout the time of the Kingdom of Israel (c.1080-c. 722). Google *"Yahweh - **WorldHistory.Org.**"* Watch Dr Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Read the article linked in the description of the video. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."* ("The study in Cell not only establishes that the ancient Israelites were ***descended from the Canaanites,*** but also establishes that the Canaanite people across the separate city-states of the southern Levant, and over a period of 1,500 years, were a genetically cohesive people.") Google *"The Canaanites weren't annihilated, they just 'moved' to Lebanon - The Times of Israel."* Google *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopaedia."* (Read about Canaanite religion and El the chief or most high god of the Canaanite pantheon and the relationship of Canaanite religion to Israelite religion) Google *"Ancient Canaanite religion explained - **everything.explained.today**"* Google *"Archeology of the Hebrew Bible - NOVA - PBS"* ("Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites *were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites,* displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.") Google *"Origins of Judaism explained - **everything.explained.today**"* ("According to the current academic historical view, the origins of Judaism lie in the Bronze Age amidst polytheistic ancient Semitic religions, ***specifically evolving out of Ancient Canaanite polytheism,*** then co-existing with Babylonian religion, and syncretizing elements of Babylonian belief into the worship of Yahweh as reflected in the early prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. (The Torah)". *Refer to the bibliography at the bottom of the page)* Google *"Canaanite languages - Britannica"* ("Group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including ***Hebrew,*** Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic.") Google *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V - theyellowdart"* ("Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the archaeological, cultural, and literary data pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group *were originally Canaanite.")* Google *"El - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "El Outside the Bible" and the fact that the Israelites were originally *indigenous or displaced Canaanites)* Google *"El (deity) explained - **everything.explained.today**"* (Refer to section "Ugarit and the Levant" and the fact that the ancient Israelites were originally *indigenous or displaced Canaanites* and see how El, later conflated with Yahweh (Yahweh-El(ohim)) is fictional) Google *"The Gods and Goddesses of Canaan - Essay - The Metropolitan Museum of Art - Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History"* Google *"His Name is Allah, History of Truth"* (The fictional Abrahamic god El that the Israelite patriarchs worshipped is the same fictional god of the Muslims) Google *"Canaanite Phoenician Origin of the God of the Israelites."* Google *"The Phoenician (Canaanite) God Resheph in the Bible - Is That in the Bible?"* Google *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) Google *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* Google *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."* Google *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* Google *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) Google *"How the Jews Invented God and Made Him Great- Archaeology - Haaretz."* Google *"The Invention of God - Maclean's"* Google *"The Boundaries of the Nations - Yahweh Elohim."* Google *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* Google *"How Did the Bible’s Editors Conceal Evidence of Israelite Polytheism - Evolution of God by Robert Wright."* Google *"A Theologically Revised Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Ancient Hebrew Poetry."* Google *"Biblical Contradiction #3: Which God is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth: Yahweh or El?"* Google *"Biblical Contradiction #27. Are Yahweh and El the Same God or Not?"* Google *"Biblical Contradiction **#294**, **#295**, **#296**. Which god liberated Israel from Egypt: Yahweh or El?"* Google *"When Jehovah Was Not the God of the Old Testament. Part II - theyellowdart"* Google *"Mark Smith: "Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh's Ascendancy - Lehi's Library."* Google *"Quartz Hill School of Theology - B425 Ugarit and the Bible."* Google *"The Origins of Yahweh and the Revived Kenite Hypothesis - Is That in the Bible?"* Google *"Yahweh, god of metallurgy - Fewer Lacunae."* Google *"Polytheistic Roots of Israelite Religion - Fewer Lacunae."* Google *"Biblical Polytheism - Bob Seidensticker."* Google *"Combat Myth: The Curious Story of Yahweh and the Gods Who Preceded Him - Bob Seidensticker."* Google *"Religious Studies: El, Yahweh and the Development of Monotheism in Ancient Israel."* Google *"Decoupling YHWH and El - Daniel O. McClellan."* Google *"Yhwh, God of Edom - Daniel O. McClellan."* Google *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III - theyellowdart"* Google *"Elyon Explained - **everything.explained.today**"* Google *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* Google *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? - Dr. Steven DiMattei"*
I as Christians belief in multiple god as elohim or spiritual beings, which is a concept which is present trough whole the bible. But the idea that there is an evolution from polytheism to monotheism is problematic. Why wouldn't the scribes edit the polytheistic texts to make it all support this 'new' monotheism. The chapter which states that there are no other Gods like Yahweh, it is not a denial of other gods existing. This is just oversimplifying the issue.
Christ behaved perfectly regarding the subjective morality he invented himself? These apologists adhere to an absurd religion and make themselves look like mouth breathers, trying to defend this nonsense.
That whole thing of God came here as Jesus Christ to absorb all of our sins. My sins? I wasn't alive then nor was anyone alive today so why do we pay for sins of our forbears who were made,designed in God's image. That's God's fault for designing flawed individuals and giving us a sense of self. I don't believe in any of this trash it's an imaginary friend for adults to abdicate responsibility.
The story of Jesus coming and saving us from our sins is false, in the way religions present it. It is true in a sense that Jesus saved us from sin because he showed us how to live by first loving God and then loving our fellow humans. Each of us is responsible for our own sin and God will not magically wash them away but we can clear away the causes of why we sin, with God's help. When the cause for something is removed, the sin will automatically no longer be engaged. God actually designed us perfect, but humans through the use of their free will decided to imbibe sin and error, by choosing to be unloving. So God designed the potential of error entering humanity, not the error itself. The error is mankinds decision.
@@jamessherlock6912 I thought my comment was obvious, what I was trying to explain was that God does exist but he is not correctly portrayed in the Bible nor in any other religious texts.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 As I pointed out there is as much evidence for Wotan or Odin as most know him as as there is for the God of Christianity and that would be none.
It seems that for as long as a person is unable to see the beauty of the atonement, they will reject any propositional presentation of it. The rationalistic Gospel presented here fails to penetrate because it is backward in its approach. Until someone can see the beauty of a man willingly submitting himself to the violent injustice of humanity and forgiving them at the height of their wickedness, they will never "understand" what this act means or does. Beauty guides us into what is good, and through participating in the good we come to know truth. Christ is so much more than a topic of historical reflection or ethical pondering. He is the fullness of God eternally bound to humanity and near to those whose heart is open to receive Him. Alex consistently frames the atonement in the ugliest way. No wonder he does not desire it or understand it. But his framework is more of a reaction against post-enlightenment theological development than anything in the Bible. Read the Gospels for yourself without reading particular atonement models into the text. You will encounter a beautiful person if you are courageous enough to stand it.
“Christ spent every single moment of his life: worshipping God as he ought to be worshipped, praising God as he ought to be praised, serving him as he ought to be served” I also try to be like Christ and worship, praise and serve myself everyday.
Here is my prediction about Alex O'Connor: within the next year or two, he will have such a profoundly mystical experience that he will give up, forever, his atheism. Wait for it. You heard it here first.
3:22 There’s something very important Alex missed in this story, the other big mistake of Alex is he took decision too quickly regarding this topic to the point that he started to speak openly about his stand in the authenticity of Jesus. There is another thing which alex doesn't know about this subject.
4:12 what a stupid analogy, imagine studying theology in college and still having the understanding of religion of an edgy 13 year old. Is this the quality of education at Oxford? It will be nice if atheists actually understood the concept of God
*It will be nice if Atheist actually understood the concept of god* Most Atheist come from a theistic background so they are pretty familiar with the concept, they’re just not as gullible as you to belief and accept it as such.
Richard Carrier has an excellent presentation that you should be able to find a TH-cam video about where he breaks down not just the crucifixion but the history surrounding it. He breaks down that though we don't necessarily know whether it happened why the event itself is supposed to be significant. She goes over the history of religious blood rituals stemming from Persian traditions as well as others and the idea of scapegoating and how all of these methods for ridding a society or a tribe of dark spirits or the like would usually be considered temporary solutions that would have to be repeated hence consistent and repetitive sacrificing of animals and sometimes people. And he breaks down that the idea of a human blood sacrifice especially one that is supposed to have divine implications is kind of a one-all end-all solution. Now my explanation here is a very poor summary of his presentation but definitely fascinating them the less and how he breaks down the crucifixion.
Exactly. "When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"*
@@LM-jz9vh exactly, I think one of my favorite ironies of the various supernatural Jesus myths is the immaculate conception considering the Hebrew word Alma, has been clarified by several rabbis as well as others to simply mean young girl. It doesn't give any specification to virginity, the word simply refers to a young girl. so the whole idea of the virgin birth is completely made up afterwards and pretty much obviously derived from the numerous other immaculate conception stories of previous religions. Two of my favorite examples are Genghis Khan and Anakin Skywalker lol. As well, Aron Ra has put out a number of videos addressing subjects like the history of Jesus entirely. He also has a number of videos you can find here on TH-cam delving into the lack of a better term the evolution of the concept of the Western abrahamic God and how it was derived from previous Persian myths and associated with pagan beliefs as well as many other things.
@@LM-jz9vh also my apologies if my response isn't super coherent I just did the voice to text on a quick break at work so forgive any grammatical errors.
"No one is without Christianity, if we agree on what we mean by the word. It is every individual's individual code of behavior by means of which he makes himself a better human being than his nature wants to be, if he followed his nature only. Whatever its symbol -- cross or crescent or whatever -- that symbol is man's reminder of his duty inside the human race. Its various allegories are the charts against which he measures himself and learns to know what he is. It cannot teach man to be good as the textbook teaches him mathematics. It shows him how to discover himself, evolve for himself a moral code and standard within his capacities and aspirations, by giving him a matchless example of suffering and sacrifice and the promise of hope." -- William Faulkner, in The Paris Review Interviews
Jesus was the only begotten son of God. God is the ultimacy of reality. The transcendentally necessary and PRIMARY UNIVERSAL precondition, of all dependent states of affairs, and especially of human experience and intelligibility.
@@ChessArmyCommander so Jesus is the son of God, God is his Father, so that's why he was praying to God, his Father. That I can get. But then how can Jesus then be God, when his Father is God? Again, I'm being genuine.
The thing about jesus suffering for us on the cross, he is jesus that can do miracles. I'm sure he can make it that he himself can feel no pain. And he was back in heaven 3 days later. Not that much of a sacrifice is it?
Well, Peter Ramsey, what you have to understand is that Jesus was both "true man" and "true god." In his godly aspect he can, of course, fully embrace human suffering -- and he can do the same in his manly aspect, too.
@@thomasthompson6378 I still do not think it was much of a sacrifice. He did not die, to die means forever, he was back in heaven in a few hours. Offer me a million dollars and I'd suffer what he supposedly went through. I've had worse toothaches.
"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"*
Everything you say here is precisely what has made the story of Jesus an archetypical reality in the lives of so many. It's a theme that recurs over and over again throughout recorded history. And why? Perhaps, because it takes humankind so very long to finally "get" it.
If I would believe in God, then I would claim that God is not almighty in the sense that he can't circumvent the possible fact that suffering is necessary for consciousness. Then, one might see all these lunatic moves as kind of a shortcut to consciousness - mitigating all this necessary brutal suffering in the world.
Hi, suffering is not God's creation but rather God created the potential for suffering when He gave mankind the gift of free will. Suffering is the result of people using their will in a unloving manner, out of harmony with God's laws. If we decided to use our will in harmony with the law, there would be no suffering, just pleasure and happiness.
@@DianaCHewitt Yup, They highlight the tiniest good thing and generalise or ignore bad things All that falls like a deck of cards once one reads the OT God of Love and mercy my a** , Lol Yahweh makes the Greek gods look Benevolent
@@Phoenix-King-ozai Are we going that route seriously? Is Yahweh comparable to Zeus that would take human form to r*pe women? All the stories of the greeks gods messing with humans for the sake of it, by suggestion of Zeus sometimes? Caanaite gods of war that take pride in being bathed in the blood of their enemies for the sake of it? The Aztecs or Mayans pantheons? Yeah the OT has a lot of strange ''problematic'' stuff and the Bible in general but diving into mythology and taking away ''Yahweh is the worst of the bunch'' is quite a difficult take to take seriously even from a informed skeptical position, is just taking pride in a strawman that only uninformed people on comparative religion would do. There's a reason there has been so little advancement in the these debates for like a decade now.
@@cristianfernandez1874 It depends how you judge rape vs condoning ethnic cleansing/slaughter of civilians. People on all sides are prone to hyperbole and I personally don't think ranking how evil something is is very useful. Its best to avoid hyperbole in general.
@@DianaCHewitt hyperbole and strawmanning is what popular debates around these topics is what we have left sadly, and is the reason that both groups are echo chambers in social media right now. But enough of ranting from my part I guess...
Why do these people go into a debate spouting the same tired old rhetoric? Do they not think that it will be debunked twice as easily as last time, when they just repeat it?
This is the one thing i never understood about christianity. Why did jesus need to be crucified? It makes no sense, unless he did it simply to show off his ability to withstand torture? Look at me, im nailed to a cross, and theyre gonna embalm me and put me in a tomb, but this is all part of the magic show!
Q: Was the Crucifixion of Jesus Immoral? A: No. He know he would be back in a few days. That was his one real job and he never has to do anything again. I would take that deal and you wouldn't even have to make me God.
tbh I always didn't get why should Jesus of Nazareth necessarily be resurrected to be a God and also, why must this human sacrifice be a proof that God is all-good? why should God be all-good? it doesn't make sense to me tbh
“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 5:6-21 KJV
_Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior._ Titus 2:9-10 Shush slave.
@@Paolo8772 thousands of years of people “thinking for themselves and they all end up dead in the grave as God has foretold, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23 KJV
When Jesus was alive two thousand years ago, his Mission was to enlighten the minds of people who had taken on and into themselves, a religion part pagan - part mystical. The people, who had so imbued themselves, were arrogant and convinced they were the chosen people of God - Jehovah - whom they ardently believed in but who does not exist. Their Prophets spoke of their mystical perception of some transcendent spiritual consciousness. Their Prophets used imaginative language to describe this GOD. Their Prophets created mental images of greatness and grandeur. Their Prophets also produced the desired effect of controlling the people by fear of reprisals from Heaven in the shape of personal loss, disease, deprivation, pests and climatic disasters. The purpose behind Jesus' life was to teach the Jews that their perception of the CREATOR was entirely wrong. But their fanatical adherence to their treasured religious beliefs were impenetrable, so instead of Jesus achieving his purpose on earth, he was crucified because of them.
The debate is good and I am glad everyone can do it. I want to say some things. Please ask questions if you want A big problem I hear is that people think God is punishing people for something that is his fault. God created us to be able to make choices, to accept Him or not. If someone believes in right and wrong, then there has to be something bigger than us to decide that. Furthermore, I think we can all agree that we are not perfect and all have done wrong things. All that God says is that sins must be punished. But God, out of love, took that punishment. It takes more faith that the earth, space, and all its balance was all by chance and not by God.
So God took a punishment for me to thousand years before I even existed or even lifted a finger. Not only does that sound like a fairytale, but it is completely immoral, it is also signing me up to a contract which I never agreed to and can’t get out of. Which again, is immoral. You also can’t say God gave us free will but then also gives us punishment, that’s like a mob Boss giving you an offer you can’t refuse and claiming you have a choice in the matter. Also, a lot of the things that God will punish us for seem to be things he programmed us to instinctively do, which seems awfully convenient. More importantly, the Bible, which is the actual text where you got even the notion of a christian God from completely contradicts everything you just said. So it is not us who has the wrong idea, you either haven’t read your bible, or you have picked and chose a part of it that sits better or worse with you and discarded others, proving that you have your own internal morality regardless of God
"God created us to be able to make choices, to accept Him or not" That's the problem. Is it moral to create humankind, knowing full well that 'wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." ? - Seems to me like the bad outweighs the good when you believe in eternal conscious torment. Tons of people roasting while only a few Christians worship God in heaven. I'm not sure of your flavor of Christianity, but God could have just chosen to not make the people he knew would suffer and die, and only create those who at the end of their life would be saved. "If someone believes in right and wrong, then there has to be something bigger than us to decide that." - Citation needed. You can't just claim that there has to be something bigger than us without providing sufficient justification. Seeing as objective vs. subjective morality is still undecided in philosophical circles, I can't imagine that you have a solid defense of this claim. "All that God says is that sins must be punished." - Why? God can create the entire universe, but can't stand to be around sin? Why would God create a world where sin was even possible, if he is so averse to sin? Is he a masochist? "It takes more faith that the earth, space, and all its balance was all by chance and not by God." - No, it takes way less faith. As a nonbeliever, I don't have to have faith in a personal, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, disembodied mind that somehow affected the nothingness of the nonexistent universe into existence.
Do you believe in right and wrong. We are all sinful, I am sinful; have you ever lusted, watched porn? Those things are not right. I used to have an addition, God is the only way I overcame it. I challenge you to pray for one week. If there is no God then it doesn't hurt. Please :) Hope you're doing well
@@invisiblegorilla8631 I appreciate you taking the time to right a respectful response. I’ll be honest I’m only 16 and don’t have answers for everything - I only have faith that God knows much more than I could possibly fathom. I know you didn’t claim it, but I want you to know that Christians, (I can only speak for myself and what Jesus Christ teaches) don’t hate people who don’t agree with us. I try to do the exact opposite. I’ll really think and study about the questions you asked and try to give a good answer. Thank you for your response
I still can't get past the part where god turns into a human and "perfectly" worshipped himself. God needs a life coach, he apparently has low self-esteem.
You do not "get past" it because you do not want to. If you did want to, you would understand this much at least: that there are mysteries to the realities we all must live in that escape our every attempt at rational analysis. There is sophisticated science, sure, and that has given us evolutionary truths, quantum mechanics, and a deeper understanding of the reality we must live in. God, however, does not have to live in that reality. But we cannot really understand that deeply paradoxical proposition. It's like Paul somewhere says: "For now we see only as through a glass, darkly; but then face to face."
This is my opinion. While I cn see it as a very noble thing for a person to offer themselves as a sacrifice to save others, the concept of sacrifice for redemption of wrong doings or sins IS ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL no ifs and or butts, because it's the fact that the judge who demands sacrifice has to be immoral to demand that an innocent life be interrupted and mercilessly slaughtered because a group of wrong doers need to make up for their wrong doings. Any judge who demands such a perverted way f redemption like this deserves to be blinked out of existence. Why should any innocent life be taken for the wrong doings of others, and how the hell can anyone not see the injustice of this? I'm sorry, but a god who demands that harm comes to the innocent for what the guilty have done is not a good god, that is a disgusting god to say the least...... Jesus' sacrifice in the story is a very tragic story, not one to celebrate.....
Jesus's story had to be dramatic enough for the story to span the globe. God didn't require or instruct anyone to torture and kill Jesus. We did that on our own. God knew we had become so wicked that if He sent his son to preach the Gospel, we would kill him. So He used our own wickedness for His greater purpose.
@@TheTenCentStory Which four? Do you mean the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip and other such Gospels? And what version of the Gospels will point to the path to what version of Christianity?
What kind of "Supreme Being" creates laws such that the violation of them requires a blood sacrifice in order to make things right?? It seems to a natural man like myself, that an all powerful Being could have brought about a reality where even "free-will" would not necessitate such a barbaric remedy
@@thomasthompson6378 Sounds like "Christianity" is "God," from the above description -- especially if the "God of all there is" is Himself in ANYWAY the servant of laws/principals above Him. Why call Him "God"??
@@trapez77 It's not highly probable, or practical. You can make the claim a creator exists, but you must provide evidence for that claim. You have the burden of proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For it to be 'highly probable' the evidence for the existence of a creator god must be so overwhelming, that nobody could dispute it. But that isn't the reality of this particular playing field at all.
@@WhoThisMonkey that’s like assuming everyone you met doesn’t have parents. You don’t because that would be highly improbable. Everything you have ever known to exist has been created but for some reason you think it’s more likely that the universe just appeared into existence?
@@trapez77 No, we know for a fact that our parents created us, we don't know for a fact that the universe was created. That's called a false equivocation fallacy. You then went on to commit a strawman fallacy, by saying that I believe everything came from nothing. Firstly, I don't need give a counter proposal to disbelieve your claim of a creator god, I only need to highlight that that claim does not have sufficient evidence to warrant that as a conclusion. Secondly, I don't say the universe came from nothing, I actually say "I don't know." because we haven't got sufficient information to say whether or not the universe had a beginning or not, it could have always been, and just goes through periodic cycles of expansion and contraction. Then again, we don't even know what is beyond our universe, there could be a multiverse which is inside an omniverse. We have no way of knowing such things at our current place on the Kardashev scale, and anybody who is claiming they do have such answers is lying or completely foolish.
Religion: We are awful wicked disgusting disobedient children of god, the only way to repent is with 10% of your income payable to me. Atheists: Uhh no thank you, I prefer to have self confidence and not abuse myself for no reason. Religion: PRIDE IS EVIL YOU CAN ONLY LOVE GOD NOT YOURSELF OR OTHERS YOU ARE GOING TO HELL…..unless you repent with a one time lower offer of 8% of your income the first month and 10% after, payable to me. Atheist: Uhh have fun with that Religion: Time to reform education so no one asks questions anymore, DAMN YOU BRAIN
Psychologically speaking there had to be sacrifice in order to lay the foundations of religion that replace Hellenism. That does suggest premeditation. However it did succeed. Therefore it could have been manufactured. Gospels that appear three hundred years after the fact. Eloquent sophisticatedly argued Gospels using metaphor and rhetoric. Simple fisherman? If you say so. These days so totally anachronistic.
@@margaretbarrett6087 Ask the average North Korean, in NK, and in public...what they think of KIm Jong-un.... and see if it doesn't sound like the average evangelical Christian who thinks "God is watching how I respond."
Yes it was. The only reason Jesus died is was because his teachings were stirring up the political and religious system at that time and the people in power wanted to stop him, before the systems they created crumbled. Also, his death(his blood) meant nothing in terms of saving people from their sins, as it is evident that sin is still around, maybe even more so then in the past. God is a far more loving parent than how He is described in the Bible so sacrifice of any kind would not be something God would desire. Love is equal, so love does not sacrifice.
I don’t know how you know that God is a much more loving parent than how he is described in the Bible, when his entire description only exists in the Bible. So where exactly are you getting your information. It’s the equivalent of saying that actually Harry Potter didn’t wear glasses, when the books says he wore glasses
If Jesus lived a perfect life while he was mortal....was that because God tinkered with him or was it because mortal Jesus just tried to be perfect and was successful? If God had nothing to do with it, then I'd wager other mortals could do the same....otherwise I feel like the gospels left out some of the parts where mortal Jesus failed at being perfect....just like the rest of us.
@@TheTenCentStory I have....but if Jesus is God then Jesus was never really mortal, and the crucifixion and resurrection was just another elaborate show to con the masses.
@@mrb532 Jesus literally proclaimed to be God in almost every chapter of the Gospels. I'll give you a few examples. 3. During Christ’s trial, the chief priests asked Him point blank, “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” And He said, • “I am.” (Mark 14:60-62) • “Yes, it is as you say.” (Matthew 26: 63-65) • “You are right in saying I am.” (Luke 22:67-70) Matthew 16:13-17 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. I mean really. I could keep going yet that seems silly.
As I look over the comments, it doesn't seem like atheism makes you a humble and magnanimous person. If Jesus's rule is to treat others as you wish to be treated, the atheist rule is to tear down people whose worldview is religious. If Jesus says, love your enemies, atheists say, crush those who aren't as smart and scientific as you are. Mockery, disgust toword the religious, and a tangible feeling of superiority are in evidence. Humility and compassion for others? Not so much. There seems to a certain glee about seeing someone get "Hitch-slapped." Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but the vibe of the new atheists and their followers is just not that attractive to me.
Yeah, same reason I come less to see videos from the other side of the aisle, is mostly trashtalking the other side nowadays. Alex clearly had the rhetorical upperhand in the closing argument, still is a rehearsal of not really great arguments among more mature theologians and agnostics thinkers, you would expect see discussion around that, but nope just trashtalking.
Actually, it's because of the harm that Religions have caused to people based on unsupported beliefs that has brought disgust towards Religion. At least atheists are not burning people on the stake while opposing unsupported beliefs. Plus there is no reason to be magnanimous and humble when debating unsupported destructive beliefs systems. Should we be magnanimous to Jihadists as well? Look at the atrocities and regress caused by religion historically and currently, all the while claiming to be a religion of love and compassion. Thats the reason why many people are leaving religion. Please remove the log in your eye first.
@@kevdeeA Atheists are not burning people at the stake? You do realize the Chinese are putting religious people in reeducation camps, right? And this is a basic routine for atheist societies.
@@kevdeeA Can we group every atheist with secularist ideologies of the 20th century and compare which group did more damage to humanity per time invested in their ideology? Even without taking time into account is quite difficult to make the case a secular world is better. If we throw the not so bright parts of enlightment thinkers the picture gets worse, or even worse if we take the new wave of secularist thinkers using science for pure ideological reasons, both sides can nitpick the other for another century. But thinking still that the slogan "religion is the source of all evil, atheist and secularist are incapable of atrocities" is quite naive. Taking the moral high ground is quite hypocrital when you call out the other side for that exact reason.
6:32 🔔🔔🔔 Alex here had gone terribly wrong, this shows that Alex wants to put himself and his intelligence next to God. He even goes on to say that even if God exists i don't want to believe in him. This statement is completely due to the feeling of superiority over God himself. Alex had been naivety spoken like teenage whose blood is really hot. He shouldn't said instead "if God exist i would want to ask him the answer to this genocide why he did so". But to say as far as to say evennif he exists i don't want to believe in him then then it's completely childish and immatured. Didn't he see throughout the Bible God spoke all about love???? Didn't Alex see that God says do not kill??? Didn't alex see that Jesus even allowed himself to be sacrificed for humans???? What got alex so mad that he even dare to say i wouldn't believe even if he exists????
What are the odds this universe would have all the right conditions for us to exist? Consider that if just one fundamental force were slightly altered, maybe gravity for instance, the universe would be such a different place it'd be unlikely we would exist within in. The odds are astronomical that we can exist given the apparent random circumstance that is the universe. You can argue multiverse to try and get around this, if there are multiple universes then the chances increase as the number of universes increases. However all this does is set the question back further. What are the odds a multiverse would exist that has all the right conditions to form multiple universes? You eventually come to the conclusion everything is perfectly setup for us to exist and it being an accident is incredibly slim, so much so it's far wiser to believe in God.
Unfortunately you don't have another universe to compare this one with, thus making your argument baseless because you don't know how likely it would be that life would exist in a different universe. You don't even know how likely it exists elsewhere in this one.
This whole argument doesn't make sense in a deterministic worldview Also, no matter what kind of universe exists, the odds of it existing just the way it does are always low, that also counts for a universe without life. If we throw tens thousands of letters on the ground and they end up forming a poem perfectly predicting the weather for the next 5 years, we might go "what are the odds of that?!" but the odds of the letters arranging that way are the exact same as them arranging in any other way. Just because we ascribe meaning to a certain outcome (weather-predicting poem, life-containing universe) doesn't mean that that outcome is any less likely than any other one (assuming there could have been other outcomes, which again, doesn't go with the deterministic worldview)
Your argument for "the right conditions" is for a deistic god - the cosmos is designed to function like clockwork (which is what we observe). An interactive, 'meddling' god doesn't need to set up anything in advance.
We really lack the data to derive any such conclusions from the seemingly unlikely set of conditions that led to our existence. Essentially it's like saying winning the lottery is impossible without some type of fraud because the odds of winning are so incredibly low. Yet one person among millions always wins. And in the same way among an unimaginable number of stars in trillions of galaxies, it was at least in our solar system, where everything fell into place in the right way for life to evolve. So we know that life is possible due to our own existence and we also know that it requires an insanely unlikely combination of different factors to be possible and we also know that the universe is so enourmous that the chances are high that it is bound to happen somewhere. There is also the concept of survivors bias: It's only to be expected that the only ones who are able to ponder about their existence are struck by the astronomically low odds of their existence, as everywhere else where the conditions for life were not met, there is of course no one to think about their less lucky fate. Last but not least, theoretically there could still be millions of inhabitated planets spread across the milky way and we are not that special to begin with. And even if we assume there is a sentient creator responsible for this whole mess, why would you assume that this or that specific ancient textbook from 2000 years ago has figured it all out and knows exactly what this deity is, what his morals and expectations of humanity are? It seems incredibly arbitrary to trust in the bible or the quran, when they look so suspiciously like man made fiction.
This is an oft-raised argument that both Christians and Muslims use to "prove" God, but it makes a huge logical leap: Existence is unimaginably complex -> Almighty single creator god must have done it all! More reasonably we would have something like: Existence is unimaginably complex -> There is likely still much we don't understand Could that mean that there is an almighty god controlling everything? Perhaps, but that is only one of many possibilities. Even upon following this possibility, it becomes iffier when trying to believe a specific narrative, e.g. the Bible, as Bible verses provide evidence against the Christian god being all-loving (e.g. killing babies), all-knowing (e.g. wrong predictions), or all-powerful (e.g. losing to other gods). Not to mention the creation myths and cosmology (e.g. the firmament that God created on the 2nd day) being rather silly now.
Well Jesus was not really a human sacrifice in the sense of human sacrifice in pagan tradition ,he was wrongfully accused and handed over by his own people to the Romans to be crucified.the Jews themselves did not "sacrifice" Jesus as they would a lamb or goat.but they did hand him over to save themselves so to say.as Aninias the high priest said it was better for one man to die than the whole nation perish.Jesus was a threat to the nations very existence ,just as Jesus today is a threat to the fake Israel occuping palestine.
Because it's so much easier to believe that the universe just popped into existence from nothing than to believe a God created it and wanted a family. You atheists are so wise in your own eyes. It has nothing to do with your arguments about God. If God is real, you have no arguments against Him. Just stupid human ideas. If He is real He is more above your ability to fathom than a human is above an ant. You literally have no ground to stand on. There is absolutely no reason to believe that everything just popped into existence on it's own than to believe someone created it. None.
Atheists dont claim that the Universe popped into existence you are the one making false claims about what you think Atheists so your argument is just a red herring. In fact most scientists, cosmologists and atheists would claim they dont know the Universe emerged and propose scientific investigation based on physical observations rather than claiming a God popped the universe into existence in 7 days as claimed in the Bible. Sorry your argument is a Straw-man fallacy.
@@kevdeeA LOL. Really? LOL So then it was created? It has to be one or the other. You're funny. Besides which I only stated that believing either/or is no less scientific.
@@kevdeeA Don't play word games as if it means something. It is one or the other. There are no other options. It's a simple binary result. Either the universe popped into existence all on it's own or it didn't.
@@inmyopinion_3672It's not a simple binary result, you are the one claiming that its is when you have no way of knowing so. Plus logical fallacies are not word games, if you may understand something it doesnt make it invalid.
Silly me. When I read the title of this video, I supposed the topic would be whether it was moral for the Roman state to execute Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish eschatological prophet. It was obviously immoral. Instead, the topic appears to concern mythological literary characters and mythological events. So, what’s tomorrow’s question? Did Helen and Paris cause the Trojan War?
There are over 20,000 copies of the new testament manuscripts as of 2009. The original manuscripts were written within one generation of Jesus's life, so it couldn't have been myth or legend.
@@kennethortiz3845, the scholarly consensus is that the historical Jesus was a Jewish eschatological prophet, not the character depicted in the NT. Those 20,000 manuscripts you reference are not independent attestations. I believe the number of those is around 5,000. The earliest gospel, Mark, was written around 70 CE, forty years after Jesus’ death. The last, John, which is the one that best accords with what we call traditional Christianity, was written around 90 CE, or sixty years after Jesus’ death. You need to update your facts.
@@Steve-hu9gw What are your sources? "Simon Kistemaker, professor of New Testament emeritus at Reformed Theological Seminary, writes, “Normally, the accumulation of folklore among people of primitive culture takes many generations; it is a gradual process spread over centuries of time.”'
@@kennethortiz3845, one of my degrees is in biblical studies. In actuality, myth can spring up in an instant. I refer you to the story of the the young groom who dies during his wedding procession as told in Mircea Eliade’s _The Myth of the Eternal Return_ for a rather astonishing example. For consensus views in biblical studies, any proper and current academic introduction to the NT or OT should do fine. A very popular and much used introduction to the NT in universities is Bart Ehrman’s, which I highly recommend. Quite a standard textbook for the OT is John Collins’ introduction, also highly recommended. Get the current editions of both.
No kidding human sacrifice is evil. God didn't crucify Jesus; WE did. God sent His Son into the world knowing that we would, out of which He would show two things. It would show us what we really are, evil, despite how we flatter ourselves that we're good. And this is the condemnation of the devil. Secondly, by shedding His perfect life in the form of His blood, Jesus made atonement for all the sins of the world. With His one perfect life, poured out in perfect love and obedience to His Father, He made intercession for the transgressors. And then by His resurrection from the dead, He makes new all those who believe in Him, with the gift of righteousness and eternal life, so that now men can be "good with God."
@@mrb532 sending someone on mission in which they are guaranteed to die is the definition of sacrificing them. You literally gave an argument against yourself.
@Nate Lately can you not see the contradictions in your statement? You are saying God didn't sacrifice Jesus yet he's the one who knowingly sent Jesus on a suicide mission. You say human sacrifice is obviously bad and yet a necessary aspect of God's plan is the shedding of Jesus blood for our sins. I think Christians even call it the ultimate sacrifice while referring to Jesus as the sacrificial lamb. It is literally a human sacrifice for the sake of forgiving sin. As a God he could have easily forgiven sin without the need for the spilling off innocent blood but instead he intentionally chose this elaborate plan.
@@Theomatikalli I'm countering the arguement that God required a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. Jesus forgave the prostitute before he was murdered. All God requires for forgiveness is repentance.
If Jesus was god, why is he praising himself everyday? I get that Jesus’ teachings were massively influential in history but I think even Christian’s should accept that Jesus isn’t god it just doesn’t make any sense.
Hi Sam, Jesus is not God and has never claimed to be God. What he was saying is that he became At-One with God, through a process of having a personal relationship with God in which he received a substance from God, God's Love, which made him capable of reflecting God's feelings and truth to others. This is a potential for all of us, that is what he taught as "The Way".
Alex, I still don't get how you can call anything immoral under an atheistic worldview. Anything you say regarding morality is subjective and holds no real value.
Everything is subjective, technically, therefore would we say that nothing holds real value? Morals are necessary for group co-operation, even atheistic societies like Japan, China, Vietnam, Thailand etc... have them because no society could survive without them. The objective grounds for morality is survival advantage by communal co-operation. There is, of course, many ways we could go about that, which is a challenge; but what ever promotes the most wellbeing and social communion is what we go with. Atheism only refers to an opinion on one topic of whether or not God exists. Humanism is the framework atheists have to agree on, or discuss moral claims. The declaration of universal human rights is an example of its ways.
@@boxman_ninja0819 Alex is able to call things immoral because he is working with his own moral system which he has defined. The pursuit of a "correct" moral system is fruitless, even if god exists he is just operating under his own moral system, his power doesn't make him right.
@@tyruskarmesin5418 God is all knowing and therefore his commandments are equivalent to morality. Also to my point Alex can't say anything is objectively immoral, he can only say he personally feels this way. Others may agree or disagree and there's no way to combat this (from his perspective).
@@boxman_ninja0819 Due to evolution. People who can trust each other can spent their energy helping each other out for every aspect of living and better survive and reproduce. Thus, moral capacities are selected for. If everyone magically lost their moral codes tomorrow, they would just make more soon after by instinct. Also, I wouldn't say God's morality is objective. God is not accessible other than through subjective revelations. No matter the seeming absolute truth these present, they always come through human subjective perception. Their veracity is just an assertion from feeling. This orientation is from Dr. Craig I believe, it's always felt weird to me. It effectively just says it's an unmovable grounding post that we can't change on a whim, so valuable due to it's power for pushing us all onto the same page. But this is all based on authority claims from metaphysics and revelation. It's just agreement based on belief, like money, except it's an assertion of perfectly omniscient knowledge that presumes to include moral understanding. I can see the practical value of this for tribes in the desert thousands of years ago to persuade everyone to do good under terrible circumstance with little to no enforcement power, which doesn't make it true, however. But now with modern legal systems of agreement as to moral limits enforced by police, however imperfect; Practically speaking, it's unnecessary.
The argument that 'human sacrifice is immoral' is not a topic of debate. Christian's and atheist both should know that human sacrifice is immoral. It is written in scripture that God HATES human sacrifice. So how did we get here arguing about this? Well atheist see it as a shoe-in to disprove the veracity of the Christian gospel via contradiction. Well if God is all knowing and all good, and all smart, then why would he contradict himself by sacrificing a man for everyone else to please himself. The problem with this line of debate is that one side, or both sometimes, is not interested in finding truth. They just want to prove their point which they have already adopted as THE truth. I am a Christian, but I am fully convinced that Christians are confused about the gospel that they live by. The gospel that we have today was not immediately understood by Jesus' disciples, and there is a good chance that we still don't understand what the hell we are talking about. Essentially, the whole thing could be made up regarding WHY Jesus died, as could the trinity, and many other mysteries for which the explanation went undocumented. My position on it, is that we may not have to understand it anymore, at least not the way people needed to understand it 2000 years ago. The society was totally different, and the spiritual cares of people were quite different. Today our spirits are all but dead in the sense that ancient people might think of them, and have been ever more merged with naturalistic views of the universe. Sin, forgiveness, etc......We have little need for these terms anymore with respect to God. I'm not saying that to be heretical, but I think its valid to acknowlege where society is when constructing a gospel. Jesus, from what was written, acknowledged his society and addressed the spiritual need of the time period. We only see him answering and teaching on the questions that people came to him with. Obviously we don't see him talking about cosmology, genetics, medical science, etc. He was the answer to humanity at the time. But the reason i believe in Jesus, is because he also answered the main question of humanity for all time. Unfortunately the current gospel that the church peddles is not that related to the timeless gospel that Jesus brought and taught. Lets focus on why the true gospel is Jesus' death and resurrection, rather than the forgiveness of sin or sacrifice. Sacrifice and the forgiveness of sin was a message to Jewish people who wanted to be free of that super oppressive, classist, and legalistic mindset of how to be right with God. Sin represented a separation from God which was both physical and spiritual, and the only way to make it right was through sacrifice. Jesus came to make it clear to those people, for one reason or another, that this is misguided and should not continue. No more sacrificing animals, or casting people outside the city walls for being sick, or having female cycles. This was a wise thing to do, and he did it in a way that made sense to people who wanted the right thing. First of all, apparently, he demonstrated that he could do miracles, so people wouldn't get caught up in religious debate too much, since he is demonstrating that he has the authority to make these corrections. He told them he was the last sacrifice. I think our imaginations ran wild from that point. The gospel is philosophy, and it is either philosophy because Jesus invented it while he was alive, or it is a philosophy because his followers were inspired to invent it after he died. As a person who believes in divine inspiration, this does not discredit the gospel either way. But the idea that it is a philosophy means it should certainly be subject to philosophical scrutiny, ethics, all levels of intellectual analysis. Jesus' death and resurrection are the timeless message that apply to all ages, because we all experience death, and we will always have the desire to overcome it. Nowadays, the forgiveness of sin is less important, but the fellowship with God is most important. Jesus demonstrated and invited humanity to a fellowship with God, and one that will ensure that you will live forever. It was an invitation to live forever, while acknowledging that not everyone cares to live forever. Declaring that his way was the only way to God, is the gospel that is immortal in its relevance. As Jesus stated many times, that he is not here to judge anyone, but to warn people that the forgiveness of sin has nothing to do with outward impressions but only to do with the content of ones heart, and their desire to be with God. So why did he die? Well since most of us do not care about our sins being forgiven, nor can we justify ehtically or intellectually a place called hell to torment souls for eternity for temporal wrong doing, we are more focused on whether God is a person that I can know and live life with now, and forever. Is there purpose for my existence? and is there a familiar entity at the cause of it? Jesus says yes, and being a good person is the way to knowing this entity, infact if you have known me, then you already know the creator of the universe. So, why did Jesus die for bringing such a message? No, he was not sacrificed by God like some kind of animal offering. Even though it is useful to see it that way if you are trying to convert an ancient Jewish person to fellowship with God in the manner that God desired to fellowship. Jesus died for the same reason all righteous people die. They sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Jesus just happened to know what the greater good actually is. It is that all humans have the ability and freedom to fellowship with him. Those who truly fellowship with God become good people. They don't stop doing what is right, even when people threaten their lives, because they believe in the cause more than the safety. How does evolution lead to this? how does surivival of the fittest lead to self sacrifice? Well we know why God came in the form of an evolved man, and not an ancient ape. We finally have reached the capacity to do such things, and we are likely finished evolving. That is likely why God came when he came, and demonstrated what he demonstrated. Live and die for love, and what is right and you will live forever. God's gospel is that this is who he is. He will let the world tear him to pieces rather than back down from what is right and loving, and he is saying that this is the attitude that it takes to stand him, or to stand eternal life.....make your choice. I don't see many philosophical or ethical holes in that gospel, so that is my gospel. Why did God let Jesus die on a cross? I will answer, 'because God wants good people to know what it takes to make a difference for others, when that difference actually matters, and that he was willing to do what all good people are sometimes called to do ultimately, or daily.'
Wait a minute...did God "let" Jesus die on the cross. Or was it "God's plan" to have Jesus die on the cross? One's a passive the other is a compulsory action.
@@mashah1085 If God wants to express himself by letting people kill him for doing the good works he planned to do.... then he planned it as well as let it happen. So the answer is both.... Both passive and compulsory. The philosophy of it will set you free if you can accept it. Standing for what is right, with love in your heart even for your enemies is the perspective that leads to eternal life and eutopia called heaven. There is no other way to paradise. So can you find anything wrong with such a gospel?
Jesus is crucified by Sinners who didn't love him They crucified a man who did nothing wrong ! But we know that his sacrifice is a divine intelligent of God that humanity can't understand . All glory to Jesus christ
Jesus is the logos of God. So it was God's doctrine that was put to death. And 2000years later God will rise this understanding in the minde of his elect
In-fiction? Of course it was, executing someone for talking nonsense? Very immoral. In reality? The guy probably didn't even exist, let alone get executed.
Human sacrifice, blind adherence to an invisible authority, and killing for something that there is no evidence for should be loathed. Yeah, it was really "inevitable" that a human sacrifice would have to happen in a small corner of the world where nobody would hear about it for a thousand years. Makes perfect sense.
@@adamlangton1967 I said: "Hearing the loathing in the voice of the second speaker, the crucifixion of the incarnate God was inevitable." I make a point about the speaker demonstrating that (his) human nature also entails putting down, destroying and belittling what they do (he does) not desire to accept or understand or study. The gospel is not about 'human sacrifice' (crucifixion was a common punishment), 'blind adherence' (the apostles were not blind) to an 'invisible authority' (Jesus stood before them) and 'killing for something that there is' (no idea what you mean). It is no by acting sarcastic or claiming the moral high ground that you will get one iota closer to understanding the information in the gospels. It is a narration. It follows the rules of narrations, all layers included.
@@adamlangton1967 Yes it is true many do not know their own religion. i.e. read the pyramid texts and you'll understand church liturgy better. But calling a thing false or plagiarism because it is based on earlier traditions isn't very impressive. A religion is a collection and recollection of traditions and whether this is know by the believer is irrelevant to their preservation. A Roman intervention is a mere footnote in this redactory process. The interesting question is figuring out what exactly these and the other religious traditions try to protect throughout the ages, including B.C., which they all do. The remarkable thing is that these traditions have been preserved.
Both of you got the sacrifice thing very wrong. Jesus died as a martyr not as a sacrifice per se. Of course that He knew that it was going to be killed, as many prophets that where sent before Him, but a sacrifice to God was not His crucifiction but rather His life. We dont have forgivness of sins because He died, but rather because we are trying to live as he did. In all the NT we are taught that salvation comes in the name of Jesus IF we are obedient to Him. "Thy will be done" is the prayer, but how many do obey God? we should have ended all wars by now, having cures for all illneses, only if we truly loved eachothers as God did. for exemple the saints from the communist prisons, whom sacrificed themself for the good of others. Was that sacrifice imoral? Anyway, in Genesis, God granted to mankind the rulership of this planet, but in Revelation He will take it back. Why? Because mankind loved more the darkness and by obeying the sinful nature we delivered the planet to Satan. And that is we still have evil and bad things happens to good people.
Since perfection in human terms of the abstracted construction as life unwavering without variation or exception does not exist, the expectation of moral perfection is doomed to failure. The christian brainwashing cult proceeds from the assumption of the moral perfection of one person in the storybook fantasy form of a nonexistent character of Jesus, the Christ who's moral perfection condemns him to serve as a human sacrifice who is murdered to preserve the right of humanity, who is not only morally imperfect, but hopelessly corrupt from birth, who is redeemed not by correcting their defects and failures, but merely by the wishful thinking and fantasy of belief in a nonexistent person who personified a nonexistent moral perfection. This condition of presumption sets the stage for the guilt and shame of humanity who can never measure up to Fictional Jesus fictional moral perfection, especially in the light of the fact that he allowed himself without any real resistance to be sacrificed for the salvation of humanity, which is a difficult, if not impossible act to follow because it is a delusion that stands against the categorical imperative of life which is to live, the instinctual biological drive to survive, to fight, flight, hide, evade or negotiate. Once the shame and guilt are implanted and indoctrinated, the “believers” souls are owned by the church which is a brainwashing cult engineered to parasitically drain their resources, so the upper echelons of the clergy can live opulent lives of wealth and pleasure and covertly and deceptively without the moral burden the brainwashed cult members are forced to carry for the church's corruption and exploitation.
How can this even be a debate? God has to sacrifice himself, to himself, to create a loophole for a system he made, b/c he can't forgive without shedding blood.
"but he loves you"
@@carlmetz1019 "and he needs money"
@@kevinqwen221 he always needs MONEY
Wow. Very well put!!!! Cheers from Canada. ❤️🌱❤️🌱❤️
But he didn't create any "loophole". That's the joke about it. I mean sins are still sins and you go to "Hell" if you commit them. Christians don't really read the Bible. At the end Christ's second coming is happens when he Judge everybody and send the sinners to "Hell" and punishing them forever. Basically takes the job of the devil. Christianity is evil. Most of the churchgoers simply don't have enough knowledge about the "Holy book".
It's kind of telling that the Christian's closing statement sounded a lot more like a sermon than the closing statement of a debate.
mclatchie's kinda daft. he's nver taken on board anyone else's arguments in the few years i've listened to his debates, his skull thickness must be enormous.
@@Kastled5 Actually, it's kind of the opposite. A True Believer would listen to the other side and engage with them. People who preach, aren't engaging in an honest dialogue, which implies that they know what they are saying is BS, and are falling back on rhetoric they are familiar with. Anyone can repeat something they've said 1000 times.
Not to make this a political thing, but take any politician, and ask yourself if they "sincerely believe" what they're saying? Or whether they're just regurgitating from a script? Ask yourself if you find it persuasive? Preachers don't preach to people to convince them that they're right. Doing that takes dialogue, the perfect forum for which, is a debate. If your closing speech isn't a victory lap summarizing the last hour, reiterating the points you scored, highlighting the weaker points from the other side, then you aren't debating. If you could deliver the exact same speech in an empty room, facing a wall, that's not something to be admired. It certainly doesn't reinforce the validity or the sincerity of the arguments.
It's been 4 years now and the longer I am out of Christianity (Catholicism in my case), the more batshit crazy, not to mention horribly toxic, the whole thing sounds!
I feel the same way about islam! 😂😂
So interesting. As a new Catholic, I'd be glad to hear about that.
I agree 100% worse than madcow desease.👍
@@gonzalomelano8002
You say you are a new Catholic, what convinced you that such remarkably outlandish claims were true?
Also, how do you morally reconcile the fact that the Catholic Church have been hiding known paedophiles from justice, just in an attempt to protect the name of their sinking ship?
You wanted to hear more from the original poster, but he obviously does not wish to converse with you, it's akin to an ex convict speaking to a convict through the fence of a prison yard, in fact it's worse, because you have volunteered to be imprisoned.
The one the must explain your choices is you, not the other way around, after all, you have made the extraordinarily ridiculous choice of becoming a Catholic.
@@WhoThisMonkey Well, first I wanna make this disclaimer I'm not a theologian or even someone who has been in the religion for much so I'm not an expert at all in the field. My faith is rather an initial one like when Saint Peter affirmed that Jesus is Christ (Matthew 16:16). Making that clear I'm gonna answer your questions as I can.
Firstly, why do I believe in Catholicism? well, it's a long story. I've tried out different religions and beliefs like atheism or even Islam. But honestly, I could never really be convinced by them because I found some contradictions problems, especially with Islam. Then by reading about the history of the Holy Church and going to mass, I got fascinated, this religion is so superior. God isn't just someone who created us like a great architect but rather he is love itself "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us (1 John 4, 7-12). This religion is so crazy indeed, God loves us so much he even became a human and suffered for us so as we can reach paradise. He is so humble that he spoke our language by becoming a human." The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1, 14). He gives us this unique message that as the lamb of God died for our sins and was killed by the unjust for their salvation we must do the same. "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you" (John 15, 12). "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit (1 Peter 3, 18).
Now you may ask me why I became a Catholic but not another Christian like a Protestant, for example, honestly, I've always found Protestantism untenable. As you have already realized for me the Bible is a source of authority as it's the word of God but I don't think we can interpret it all by ourselves. If we just let people interpret the Bible how they feel that would lead to conflicts and misinterpretations. I like how this verse somewhat touches upon that topic. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."(2 Peter 2,10 ). Then I don't think that just by reading the Bible you can know all that Jesus did and apparently Saint John thinks so. "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written" (John 21, 25).
A bit later I'm gonna continue answering.
To me, the idea I have to basically be a slave and suffer my whole life to "earn" a comfy place in the next is absolutely ridiculous.
You do realize that something can be ridiculous and still be true, right? I also don't really understand how following a certain lifestyle equals being a slave. Unless you think working for an employer makes you a slave?
That's how they get you. You'll be a slave in the next life as well.
Its not just that its ridiculous, its ridiculous and completely unsupported. Look into quantum mechanics, its ridiculously complicated and weird but its well supported and factual.
@@TheTenCentStory Nobody who's ever employed me in my life has had the power to shape reality to their will. That's why they need people to help them in the first place.
@@cryora ..."a celestial North Korea..." - Christopher Hitchens.
I love the hitch coming out at the beginning when you strung the last couple of words in your first sentence to the next sentence for rhetorical effect. That was great!
Why would you love the "hitch"coming out? Poor guy ! If only he was more original.thats not something to love in my oppinion.
If the crucifixion was all part of God's plan why do Christians vilify the people who helped bring it about, Judas, Pilate, the Jewish crowd. Surely they just helped the plan along and should be thanked for their contributions.
Very logical
Surely they should also be thanking Satan and the demons for tempting them and testing them as well to make them better people through trial or scaring them by supernatural experience into believing in the Christian god. Perhaps they should too be thanking Pontius Pilate and the Jewish crowd for executing Christ, after all it is THEIR decision to execute him is what saved us. If not he wouldn’t have died for our sins. Looks like Christians are shunning the wrong crowd of people.
Not just Christians. Jesus does it too. He said something like it would have been better for judas if he had never been born.
You made me laugh and it made my day. Thanks
Search for molonism, for one of the possible solutions.
I'm a loan shark. I forgave everyone's debts by breaking my son's legs because I am perfectly just.
It’s crazy having been a Christian and now being on the other side. I’m not necessarily an Atheist tbh, but I’m definitely an agnostic. Once you leave the mindset of a group, it’s crazy what you find on your own. There’s so many beliefs that get projected over experience, when in reality, nothing is as weird as they make it sound
So what makes you hang on to believing that a god is credible, now that you rejected Christianity? People think that god answers the question of why there is something rather than nothing, but in reality it just pushes the question one step back and makes it vastly harder to answer: Why is there a super complex omni everything monstrosity rather then nothing? Back in reality complex things, such as our brains are constructed from simpler things by iterations of the laws of physics over time.
Continue your journey with truth
Agnostic means you're open to being convinced/ believe that there is insufficient evidence to make a Gnostic claim (I know vs I don't know)
Atheist is the term that describes a person's position specifically in relation to a given theology (usually christianity, but every claim must be evaluated independently.)
These are not exclusive terms. You can be an Agnostic Theist (I believe there is a god, but I don't KNOW there is a god) or an Agnostic Atheist (I do not believe there is a god, but I don't KNOW that there is no god.) You can also be a climate change agnostic, a round earth agnostic, a chicken came first agnostic, etc.
People who try to draw a distinction between agnostic and atheist are usually doing so because they aren't comfortable describing their beliefs as atheist due to social stigma, or used to dishonest apologists who willfully misunderstand concepts like this to create confusion.
". . . when in reality, nothing is as weird as they make it sound." Actually, it's even weirder than they make it sound. But -- as Pope Benedict so frequently asks -- what if it is true?
@@thomasthompson6378 It's not a what if proposition.
Instead of forgiving or coming up with another way to combat sin, God takes on human form and sacrifices himself to himself to serve as a loophole for rules he made. Why go through all that complexity?
Don't forget, scapegoating is immoral as well.
Because it was most probably a made up story
@@johncalebkwawoo1678 the free world wouldn't exist without the bible just a fact even In the west atheists are trying to force there belief on other's and use moral justification for forcing there beliefs veganisum or infinite gender theory nutters or socialism all are oppressive.
Look at China committing genocide north Korea a slave nation both atheist USSR before they went back to Christianity mass genocide.
The truth is there's no evidence a free world can exist without the bible it's clear other's who do judge and don't forgive will cancel culture you
@@davidevans3223 lol, sure buddy
@@davidevans3223 that was an impressive gish gallop.
The religous in debates aren't trying to win. They're trying to maintain those who still believe. No rational person buys their flawed arguments.
False
@@lennyface2586 I forget to mention those who are just that dumb as to think those arguments are rational, my bad
@@User24x Interesting
@@lennyface2586 What a great argument you presented. I am ready to convert. LOL
@@sanjeevgig8918 ok
I can’t believe I was ever stupid enough to believe this nonsense. It’s an irrational, delusional logical contradiction when you actually turn your brain on and think about it.
Don't worry, most people here have had the exact same situation, or are yet to realise the incoherence of their faith.
Is it? Have you ever been in love? How could you ever be stupid enough to believe in that nonsense?
I think it's good to push back on theological claims. The skeptic community almost exclusively focuses on grounding beliefs and first principles, which is good, but those simply aren't religion as it is experienced by the religious.
The palpable ridiculousness of what is preached just isn't addressed; there is SOOOOO much room for critique that doesn't have to come with forcing people who aren't good at philosophy to think philosophically.
Honestly so true. Most people don't have a background in questioning their own epistemology and dealing with these issues on that front really doesn't do it for them.
I disagree. It isn't as though atheists haven't tried this. The problem is that when you pick apart these outlandish claims, they just point at another and another and another and you end up in a big circle. Watch a debate with Kent Hovind in it. He is unbelievably frustrating because he keeps the debate in that wheelhouse.
When they are arguing beliefs, you can't disprove them. When they are arguing what's in their book, you can't disprove them.
In the end it always comes down to the final true position that differentiates Atheism and Theism. God(s).
But if you want to feed into those religious rhetoric talking points, be my guest. But it hasn't ever gotten anyone anywhere.
@@RavenGlenn , that's a good point. I think what I said should come with the caveat that the audience understands that these more fundamental beliefs are rejected as well, even if they aren't the focus.
I'll also say that your right about the danger of getting "sucked into" these topics, where you get pulled down to their level. That's why I don't think this topic should be treated with philosophical rigor, it's the place that comedians like Bill Burr, George Carlin, Bill Maher fit best, as well as rhetoricians like Hitchens and yt channels like Darkmatter's.
I, for one, am terrible at philosophically. So when I hear something nuts, I keep thinking that it must be nuts to people what have really thought about it.
I disagree. I don't disagree with the frustration with religious people like the gentleman in this video, who doesn't seem to have applied enough thought to his beliefs. I do disagree with the idea that there is no benefit to having these discussions. If atheist are interested in the truth about reality, which some admittedly are not, but for the ones that actually do want to grasp as much as possible about what is going on they should be open to analyzing the phenomena of religion and why the evolution of consciousness has lead to this. Heck even consciousness itself is a pretty mysterious one. Why did evolution even lead to what we are experiencing as consciousness? And then why do conscious beings start trying to find a creator(s). I don't think that it is as easy as some atheist think to write this off, as solved or pointless.
I am admittedly a theist, and the reason i believe that the main argument always seems to end up at atheism vs theism is because that is the main question about reality. There is a chance that science will never get to the bottom of it, and there is also a chance that human experiential history has already has gotten to the bottom of it. So questioning religious claims like these are immensely important in my opinion. If we can rule out intellectually whether God actually came to earth in the form of a human man, and sacrificed himself for so called 'sins' of the world.....Well, it sounds ludicrous, but if there is actually a God behind this reality, the reality itself seems quite ludicrous without religion, or humans for that matter. We are hurtling through a vacuum faster than the speed of light....for some reason. If i were to tell someone from 2 thousand years ago the story that we are experiencing now, they would ask 'Why would we be hurtling through a vacuum faster than light?' and probably dismiss me as talking nonsense. Either way reality makes little sense without much much more explanation, so why rule out religious claims without careful consideration.
Now I don't agree that all religious claims are exempt from scrutitny like most religious people do. I think that they should be understandable, and should make sense, because even Jesus is quoted critiquing the thoughts of those who opposed him. He must have expected them to be using logic, or some intellect in what they decided to believe and do. How else can it make sense for morality to exist, or for our actions to be judged at all, if we aren't supposed to think! I just would challenge the atheist to broaden their thinking a bit, and not get trapped in the naturalist mind games as much as religious people get trapped in the religious ones.
I appreciate you putting in his argument as well not only for context but to show him the respect of having his argument heard
I appreciate you dont say who you mean
Apologetics: not about defending faith but defending flawed scripture against uneasy questions, ie. apologizing for the represented amount of ignorance, errors and obvious fabrications it consists of, but without the intellectually honest appreciation of that fact.
Protestant theology is distastefully servile. The problem with debating theologians is that since it’s all made up anyway the goal can just keep being shifted. And the Protestant theologian isn’t in accord with the Eastern Orthodox etc, so fighting with one fiction is like chopping off one head of the hydra.
That exactly is the reason why the burdain of proof argument exists
I feel that you are right because protestants can always change the meaning of the Bible to fit their interest or argument.
@@michaelroditis1952 Sigh. The " burden of proof" argument only applies in a court of law -- and for some very good reasons. With religion, we err if we subject it to that same standard.
@@thomasthompson6378 how can a logical fallacy apply only at a specific place?
If I say that lord of the rings is real the burden of proof would be on me wherever I currently am.
I've never heard someone convincingly say that they believe they are wicked, fall short of the glory of God, and deserve hell. How could anyone with even an ounce of dignity and self respect actually believe an eternity of conscious torture in fire is what they deserved if they had not repented. Don't believe me? Ask a Christian if they think you, an unbeliever, are deserving of hell. What do they always say?
"That's not for me to decide."
They can't even say it. It's too revolting a thing to say to another person. Are we really then supposed to believe they value their dignity less than that of a stranger? Do they really believe they deserve infinite punishment because of the actions of one man 6000 years ago? I submit that no person is capable of such groveling prostration and servility.
Nonsense, I tell people they should repent and follow Christ all the time. Now, you can figure out a better argument.
@@TheTenCentStory if i dont, do i deserve to be consciously tortured in fire for all eternity?
@@frederickfairlieesq5316 One man's sin 6000 years ago has resulted in all the sin, crime, and death that has occurred ever since, and man in himself has no way to stop it. So the natural result of his sin is an infinity of suffering and misery. And we have all sinned since then, so we are all as guilty as him. So how can you possibly say you and I do NOT deserve conscious torture forever? It is the fruit of our sin. It is evident, we need a Saviour.
Nowhere in the Bible is eternal torture ever suggested
@@frederickfairlieesq5316 Hell is described as an absence of God for eternity. You seem like the type that wouldn't have a problem with that.
Any religion or ideology or world view that considers a newborn baby, the most pure and innocent thing that we know and of in existence to b born in sin because of the actions of people thousands of years ago who may or may not have existed is not one worth following let alone believing. Imagine someone saying, 1000 years ago one of your ancestors was Adolf Hitler, therefore you are guilty. Even as bad as Hitler was, nobody would think that fair or just, but when it comes to Christianity nobody thinks twice. And all eve did was eat from the tree of knowledge, not exactly gassing 6 million Jews and several million more other groups
Some Christian religions posit that we are not "born in sin," though they would also posit that we will, inevitably succumb to certain sinful temptations. (That would, for example, be the LDS view). All Eve did was disobey one of the first and therefore primal commandments of God, who instructed her Himself. And Adam followed suit.
He wasn't sacrificed. He laid down his own life because no one couldve taken it from him otherwise.
Putting that to one side, if the Christians are attempting to undermine the Qur’an’s claim that Jesus Christ was saved, by pointing to the testimonies of the Jews and the Romans (his alleged killers) then I cannot conceivably think of a greater theological and historical self-ownage.
Not only is the Qur’an taking the beliefs of the Jews and the Romans as a given and is directly and consciously engaging with them, but to point to the statements of Jesus’ killers and assert that “hehe you see now our messenger did get unjustly murdered, you guys are wrong that God saved him” is quite frankly the biggest cuckholded move in polemical history. And speaks volumes to their cross-worshipping martyrdom complex.
They genuinely take pleasure in and appreciate the thought of God/His messenger being murdered by his enemies to such a degree that they’ll actively cite the testimonies of said enemies to argue in favour of it.
It’s funny because the author of the Qur’an isn’t even responding to the Christians when He denies the death of Jesus Christ. He’s responding to the Jews and the Romans who take pride in having murdered him. So the fact that the Christians (followers of Christ) energetically take their side and vigorously defend the testimonies of those prophet rejectors is indeed somewhat ironic.
As James Thomson (B.V.) said:
If any human soul at all
Must die the second death, must fall
Into that gulph of quenchless flame
Which keeps its victims still the same,
Unpurified as unconsumed,
To everlasting torments doomed;
Then I give God my scorn and hate,
And turning back from Heaven's gate
(Suppose me got there!) bow, Adieu!
Almighty Devil, damn me too.
James Thomson was an adequate enough poet; but he was not a great thinker.
@@thomasthompson6378 I don't think you need to be a great thinker to reject eternal torture. You only need to have some compassion towards others, something the Bible in its better moments also encourages.
I am honestly surprised McLatchie continues to do debates even though he clearly loses every time. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wasn’t even aware just how badly he loses.
This guy has been preaching all the way through without making any valid points.
There were two people up there. Who exactly are you referring to? Jonathan McLatchie was the 1st speaker in this clip, and he was asserting claims other preachers and people who believe in his one "true" understanding of his one "true" religion and preaching those asserted claims of which there is no sufficient evidence outside his one "true" version of his one "true" holy book without making any valid points. the 2nd speaker was Alex O'Connor, who just used logic, reason, critical thinking and common sense.
@@Paolo8772 I'm referring to the one preaching.
@@carlmetz1019 Oh, good.
Religious people, please learn the origins of the Abrahamic god. It all goes back to the fictional Canaanite god El.
*Although the biblical narratives depict Yahweh as the sole creator god, lord of the universe, and god of the Israelites especially, initially he seems to have been Canaanite in origin and subordinate to the supreme god El.* Even the biblical Book of Deuteronomy stipulates that *“the Most High, El,* gave to the nations their inheritance” and that “Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob and his allotted heritage” (32:8-9). A passage like this reflects the early beliefs of the Canaanites and Israelites in polytheism or, more accurately, henotheism (the belief in many gods with a focus on a single supreme deity). *The claim that Israel always only acknowledged one god is a later belief cast back on the early days of Israel's development in Canaan.*
*It is generally accepted in the modern day, however, that Yahweh originated in southern Canaan as a lesser god in the Canaanite pantheon* and the Shasu, as nomads, most likely acquired their worship of him during their time in the Levant.
*Yahweh in the Canaanite Pantheon*
The biblical narrative, however, is not as straightforward as it may seem as it also includes reference to the Canaanite god El whose name is directly referenced in `Israel' (He Who Struggles with God or He Who Perseveres with God). *El was the chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon and the god who, according to the Bible, gave Yahweh authority over the Israelites:*
When the *Most High [El]* gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the Sons of God. For Yahweh's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage. (Deuteronomy 32:8-9, Masoretic Text).
The Canaanites, like all ancient civilizations, worshipped many gods but chief among them was the sky-god El. *In this passage from Deuteronomy, El gives each of the gods authority over a segment of the people of earth and Yahweh is assigned to the Israelites who, in time, will make him their supreme and only deity; but it is clear he existed beforehand as a lesser Canaanite god.*
Yahweh, according to Amzallag, was transformed from one god among many to the supreme deity by the Israelites in the Iron Age (c.1200-930 BCE) when iron replaced bronze and the copper smelters, whose craft was seen as a kind of transformative magic, lost their unique status. *In this new age, the Israelites in Canaan sought to distance themselves from their neighbors in order to consolidate political and military strength and so elevated Yahweh above El as the supreme being and claimed him as their own.* His association with the forge, and with imagery of fire, smoke, and smiting, worked as well in describing a god of storms and war and so Yahweh's character changed from a deity of transformation to one of conquest.
*As the Israelites developed their community in Canaan, they sought to distance themselves from their neighbors and, as noted, elevated Yahweh above the traditional Canaanite supreme deity El.* They did not, however, embrace monotheism at this time. The Israelites remained a henotheistic people through the time of the Judges, which predates the rise of the monarchy, and throughout the time of the Kingdom of Israel (c.1080-c. 722).
Google *"Yahweh - **WorldHistory.Org.**"*
Watch Dr Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards and lecture 8 from 12:00 to 19:00 minutes.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Read the article linked in the description of the video.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Google *"Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites - Biblical Archaeology Society."*
("The study in Cell not only establishes that the ancient Israelites were ***descended from the Canaanites,*** but also establishes that the Canaanite people across the separate city-states of the southern Levant, and over a period of 1,500 years, were a genetically cohesive people.")
Google *"The Canaanites weren't annihilated, they just 'moved' to Lebanon - The Times of Israel."*
Google *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopaedia."*
(Read about Canaanite religion and El the chief or most high god of the Canaanite pantheon and the relationship of Canaanite religion to Israelite religion)
Google *"Ancient Canaanite religion explained - **everything.explained.today**"*
Google *"Archeology of the Hebrew Bible - NOVA - PBS"*
("Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites *were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites,* displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.")
Google *"Origins of Judaism explained - **everything.explained.today**"*
("According to the current academic historical view, the origins of Judaism lie in the Bronze Age amidst polytheistic ancient Semitic religions, ***specifically evolving out of Ancient Canaanite polytheism,*** then co-existing with Babylonian religion, and syncretizing elements of Babylonian belief into the worship of Yahweh as reflected in the early prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible. (The Torah)".
*Refer to the bibliography at the bottom of the page)*
Google *"Canaanite languages - Britannica"*
("Group of Northern Central or Northwestern Semitic languages including ***Hebrew,*** Moabite, Phoenician, and Punic.")
Google *"Polytheism and Ancient Israel’s Canaanite Heritage. Part V - theyellowdart"*
("Of course, much of this [i.e., that Israel worshiped El and Asherah alongside YHWH] is really to be expected given that recent syntheses of the archaeological, cultural, and literary data pertaining to the emergence of the nation of Israel in the Levant show that most of the people who would eventually compose this group *were originally Canaanite.")*
Google *"El - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "El Outside the Bible" and the fact that the Israelites were originally *indigenous or displaced Canaanites)*
Google *"El (deity) explained - **everything.explained.today**"*
(Refer to section "Ugarit and the Levant" and the fact that the ancient Israelites were originally *indigenous or displaced Canaanites* and see how El, later conflated with Yahweh (Yahweh-El(ohim)) is fictional)
Google *"The Gods and Goddesses of Canaan - Essay - The Metropolitan Museum of Art - Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History"*
Google *"His Name is Allah, History of Truth"*
(The fictional Abrahamic god El that the Israelite patriarchs worshipped is the same fictional god of the Muslims)
Google *"Canaanite Phoenician Origin of the God of the Israelites."*
Google *"The Phoenician (Canaanite) God Resheph in the Bible - Is That in the Bible?"*
Google *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
Google *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
Google *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."*
Google *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
Google *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
Google *"How the Jews Invented God and Made Him Great- Archaeology - Haaretz."*
Google *"The Invention of God - Maclean's"*
Google *"The Boundaries of the Nations - Yahweh Elohim."*
Google *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
Google *"How Did the Bible’s Editors Conceal Evidence of Israelite Polytheism - Evolution of God by Robert Wright."*
Google *"A Theologically Revised Text: Deuteronomy 32:8-9 - Ancient Hebrew Poetry."*
Google *"Biblical Contradiction #3: Which God is the Creator of the Heavens and Earth: Yahweh or El?"*
Google *"Biblical Contradiction #27. Are Yahweh and El the Same God or Not?"*
Google *"Biblical Contradiction **#294**, **#295**, **#296**. Which god liberated Israel from Egypt: Yahweh or El?"*
Google *"When Jehovah Was Not the God of the Old Testament. Part II - theyellowdart"*
Google *"Mark Smith: "Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh's Ascendancy - Lehi's Library."*
Google *"Quartz Hill School of Theology - B425 Ugarit and the Bible."*
Google *"The Origins of Yahweh and the Revived Kenite Hypothesis - Is That in the Bible?"*
Google *"Yahweh, god of metallurgy - Fewer Lacunae."*
Google *"Polytheistic Roots of Israelite Religion - Fewer Lacunae."*
Google *"Biblical Polytheism - Bob Seidensticker."*
Google *"Combat Myth: The Curious Story of Yahweh and the Gods Who Preceded Him - Bob Seidensticker."*
Google *"Religious Studies: El, Yahweh and the Development of Monotheism in Ancient Israel."*
Google *"Decoupling YHWH and El - Daniel O. McClellan."*
Google *"Yhwh, God of Edom - Daniel O. McClellan."*
Google *"God, Gods, and Sons (and Daughters) of God in the Hebrew Bible. Part III - theyellowdart"*
Google *"Elyon Explained - **everything.explained.today**"*
Google *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
Google *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"*
Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? - Dr. Steven DiMattei"*
I as Christians belief in multiple god as elohim or spiritual beings, which is a concept which is present trough whole the bible. But the idea that there is an evolution from polytheism to monotheism is problematic. Why wouldn't the scribes edit the polytheistic texts to make it all support this 'new' monotheism. The chapter which states that there are no other Gods like Yahweh, it is not a denial of other gods existing. This is just oversimplifying the issue.
Christ behaved perfectly regarding the subjective morality he invented himself? These apologists adhere to an absurd religion and make themselves look like mouth breathers, trying to defend this nonsense.
That whole thing of God came here as Jesus Christ to absorb all of our sins. My sins? I wasn't alive then nor was anyone alive today so why do we pay for sins of our forbears who were made,designed in God's image. That's God's fault for designing flawed individuals and giving us a sense of self. I don't believe in any of this trash it's an imaginary friend for adults to abdicate responsibility.
The story of Jesus coming and saving us from our sins is false, in the way religions present it. It is true in a sense that Jesus saved us from sin because he showed us how to live by first loving God and then loving our fellow humans. Each of us is responsible for our own sin and God will not magically wash them away but we can clear away the causes of why we sin, with God's help. When the cause for something is removed, the sin will automatically no longer be engaged. God actually designed us perfect, but humans through the use of their free will decided to imbibe sin and error, by choosing to be unloving. So God designed the potential of error entering humanity, not the error itself. The error is mankinds decision.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 God doesn't exist, There is as much evidence for Wotan as there is for the God of Christianity.
@@jamessherlock6912 I thought my comment was obvious, what I was trying to explain was that God does exist but he is not correctly portrayed in the Bible nor in any other religious texts.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 As I pointed out there is as much evidence for Wotan or Odin as most know him as as there is for the God of Christianity and that would be none.
It seems that for as long as a person is unable to see the beauty of the atonement, they will reject any propositional presentation of it. The rationalistic Gospel presented here fails to penetrate because it is backward in its approach. Until someone can see the beauty of a man willingly submitting himself to the violent injustice of humanity and forgiving them at the height of their wickedness, they will never "understand" what this act means or does. Beauty guides us into what is good, and through participating in the good we come to know truth. Christ is so much more than a topic of historical reflection or ethical pondering. He is the fullness of God eternally bound to humanity and near to those whose heart is open to receive Him.
Alex consistently frames the atonement in the ugliest way. No wonder he does not desire it or understand it. But his framework is more of a reaction against post-enlightenment theological development than anything in the Bible. Read the Gospels for yourself without reading particular atonement models into the text. You will encounter a beautiful person if you are courageous enough to stand it.
A+++++++++++++++ for that; many thanks.
Cosmic Skeptic, Alex, oh his closing was awful! You sounded great. Disgusted as I felt, but great!👍🥰💖✌
Your cadence of speech is just like Hitchens', so much so that you really sound like him sometimes.
“Christ spent every single moment of his life: worshipping God as he ought to be worshipped, praising God as he ought to be praised, serving him as he ought to be served”
I also try to be like Christ and worship, praise and serve myself everyday.
You know that if you praise him in the wrong way, you go to hell anyway.
Then your only mistake, perhaps, is in your failure to grasp the second great commandment.
@@thomasthompson6378 I’m not sure what that has to do with my comment.
Next Debate: How much should the Tooth Fairy leave under your pillow in exchange for your tooth?
Indeed. Debating supernatural fairy tales is always pointless.
Just....yep, what Alex said.
Here is my prediction about Alex O'Connor: within the next year or two, he will have such a profoundly mystical experience that he will give up, forever, his atheism. Wait for it. You heard it here first.
@@thomasthompson6378 or not
EVERY Xtian parent look at his/her new born child and says: You wretched SINNER. You need to REPENT.
LOL
3:22 There’s something very important Alex missed in this story, the other big mistake of Alex is he took decision too quickly regarding this topic to the point that he started to speak openly about his stand in the authenticity of Jesus.
There is another thing which alex doesn't know about this subject.
Great job Alex
4:12 what a stupid analogy, imagine studying theology in college and still having the understanding of religion of an edgy 13 year old. Is this the quality of education at Oxford? It will be nice if atheists actually understood the concept of God
It would be nice if theists knew their own doctrines and actually had common sense. You're seriously so ridiculous.
@@Daniel-wr9ql what makes you think I don’t know doctrines?
*It will be nice if Atheist actually understood the concept of god*
Most Atheist come from a theistic background so they are pretty familiar with the concept, they’re just not as gullible as you to belief and accept it as such.
Richard Carrier has an excellent presentation that you should be able to find a TH-cam video about where he breaks down not just the crucifixion but the history surrounding it. He breaks down that though we don't necessarily know whether it happened why the event itself is supposed to be significant. She goes over the history of religious blood rituals stemming from Persian traditions as well as others and the idea of scapegoating and how all of these methods for ridding a society or a tribe of dark spirits or the like would usually be considered temporary solutions that would have to be repeated hence consistent and repetitive sacrificing of animals and sometimes people. And he breaks down that the idea of a human blood sacrifice especially one that is supposed to have divine implications is kind of a one-all end-all solution. Now my explanation here is a very poor summary of his presentation but definitely fascinating them the less and how he breaks down the crucifixion.
Exactly.
"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse."
*Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.*
*Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.*
*Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.*
Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"*
Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"*
Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"*
Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"*
Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"*
Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"*
@@LM-jz9vh exactly, I think one of my favorite ironies of the various supernatural Jesus myths is the immaculate conception considering the Hebrew word Alma, has been clarified by several rabbis as well as others to simply mean young girl. It doesn't give any specification to virginity, the word simply refers to a young girl. so the whole idea of the virgin birth is completely made up afterwards and pretty much obviously derived from the numerous other immaculate conception stories of previous religions. Two of my favorite examples are Genghis Khan and Anakin Skywalker lol. As well, Aron Ra has put out a number of videos addressing subjects like the history of Jesus entirely. He also has a number of videos you can find here on TH-cam delving into the lack of a better term the evolution of the concept of the Western abrahamic God and how it was derived from previous Persian myths and associated with pagan beliefs as well as many other things.
@@LM-jz9vh also my apologies if my response isn't super coherent I just did the voice to text on a quick break at work so forgive any grammatical errors.
"No one is without Christianity, if we agree on what we mean by the word. It is every individual's individual code of behavior by means of which he makes himself a better human being than his nature wants to be, if he followed his nature only. Whatever its symbol -- cross or crescent or whatever -- that symbol is man's reminder of his duty inside the human race. Its various allegories are the charts against which he measures himself and learns to know what he is. It cannot teach man to be good as the textbook teaches him mathematics. It shows him how to discover himself, evolve for himself a moral code and standard within his capacities and aspirations, by giving him a matchless example of suffering and sacrifice and the promise of hope."
-- William Faulkner, in The Paris Review Interviews
The Midianites did what before God condemned them to death ? And there was no sexual slavery.
I don't understand. How could Jesus worship God exactly as God wanted, if he is God himself? Was he worshipping himself? Genuine question.
Jesus was the only begotten son of God.
God is the ultimacy of reality. The transcendentally necessary and PRIMARY UNIVERSAL precondition, of all dependent states of affairs, and especially of human experience and intelligibility.
@@ChessArmyCommander so Jesus is the son of God, God is his Father, so that's why he was praying to God, his Father. That I can get. But then how can Jesus then be God, when his Father is God? Again, I'm being genuine.
The character of Jesus was retconned as needed.
@@iosoi3145 He isn't God.
@@ChessArmyCommander agreed. But how do people who believe he is, believe he is. I don't understand it.
Timestamp please?
The thing about jesus suffering for us on the cross, he is jesus that can do miracles. I'm sure he can make it that he himself can feel no pain. And he was back in heaven 3 days later. Not that much of a sacrifice is it?
Well, Peter Ramsey, what you have to understand is that Jesus was both "true man" and "true god." In his godly aspect he can, of course, fully embrace human suffering -- and he can do the same in his manly aspect, too.
@@thomasthompson6378 I still do not think it was much of a sacrifice. He did not die, to die means forever, he was back in heaven in a few hours. Offer me a million dollars and I'd suffer what he supposedly went through. I've had worse toothaches.
Hi Peter, this might interest you : th-cam.com/video/IJ3-uBBhfgI/w-d-xo.html
"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse."
*Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.*
*Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.*
*Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.*
Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"*
Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"*
Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"*
Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"*
Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"*
Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"*
Everything you say here is precisely what has made the story of Jesus an archetypical reality in the lives of so many. It's a theme that recurs over and over again throughout recorded history. And why? Perhaps, because it takes humankind so very long to finally "get" it.
If I would believe in God, then I would claim that God is not almighty in the sense that he can't circumvent the possible fact that suffering is necessary for consciousness. Then, one might see all these lunatic moves as kind of a shortcut to consciousness - mitigating all this necessary brutal suffering in the world.
Hi, suffering is not God's creation but rather God created the potential for suffering when He gave mankind the gift of free will. Suffering is the result of people using their will in a unloving manner, out of harmony with God's laws. If we decided to use our will in harmony with the law, there would be no suffering, just pleasure and happiness.
Anyone else getting major hitch vibes with the accent, inflection and cadence at the start.
All that hyperbole about God
These people are talking about Yahweh, right ?
Do they even read the Bible
Don't they realise what a monster he is
Pretty much all that hyperbole comes from Platonism. As Nietzsche said Christianity is just Platonism for the masses.
@@DianaCHewitt Yup, They highlight the tiniest good thing and generalise or ignore bad things
All that falls like a deck of cards once one reads the OT
God of Love and mercy my a** , Lol
Yahweh makes the Greek gods look Benevolent
@@Phoenix-King-ozai Are we going that route seriously? Is Yahweh comparable to Zeus that would take human form to r*pe women? All the stories of the greeks gods messing with humans for the sake of it, by suggestion of Zeus sometimes? Caanaite gods of war that take pride in being bathed in the blood of their enemies for the sake of it? The Aztecs or Mayans pantheons? Yeah the OT has a lot of strange ''problematic'' stuff and the Bible in general but diving into mythology and taking away ''Yahweh is the worst of the bunch'' is quite a difficult take to take seriously even from a informed skeptical position, is just taking pride in a strawman that only uninformed people on comparative religion would do. There's a reason there has been so little advancement in the these debates for like a decade now.
@@cristianfernandez1874 It depends how you judge rape vs condoning ethnic cleansing/slaughter of civilians. People on all sides are prone to hyperbole and I personally don't think ranking how evil something is is very useful.
Its best to avoid hyperbole in general.
@@DianaCHewitt hyperbole and strawmanning is what popular debates around these topics is what we have left sadly, and is the reason that both groups are echo chambers in social media right now. But enough of ranting from my part I guess...
Why do these people go into a debate spouting the same tired old rhetoric? Do they not think that it will be debunked twice as easily as last time, when they just repeat it?
This is the one thing i never understood about christianity. Why did jesus need to be crucified? It makes no sense, unless he did it simply to show off his ability to withstand torture? Look at me, im nailed to a cross, and theyre gonna embalm me and put me in a tomb, but this is all part of the magic show!
Q: Was the Crucifixion of Jesus Immoral?
A: No. He know he would be back in a few days. That was his one real job and he never has to do anything again. I would take that deal and you wouldn't even have to make me God.
Look up "Danzig's book collection" and you'll hear about Jesus being quite evil
Then you will hear a lie.
tbh I always didn't get why should Jesus of Nazareth necessarily be resurrected to be a God
and also, why must this human sacrifice be a proof that God is all-good? why should God be all-good? it doesn't make sense to me tbh
"God is" = "My idea of a God is"
Never quite understand why Christians don't celebrate Judas.
Without the Crucifixion there would be no Christisnity.
“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 5:6-21 KJV
Quit quoting scripture nobody here believes in just because you can't think for yourself.
_Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior._
Titus 2:9-10
Shush slave.
@@Azarilh will you ever break free from your enslavement to sin?
@@Paolo8772 thousands of years of people “thinking for themselves and they all end up dead in the grave as God has foretold,
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23 KJV
@@japexican007 I am free, unlike you.
When Jesus was alive two thousand years ago, his Mission was to enlighten the minds of people who had taken on and into themselves, a religion part pagan - part mystical. The people, who had so imbued themselves, were arrogant and convinced they were the chosen people of God - Jehovah - whom they ardently believed in but who does not exist.
Their Prophets spoke of their mystical perception of some transcendent spiritual consciousness. Their Prophets used imaginative language to describe this GOD. Their Prophets created mental images of greatness and grandeur. Their Prophets also produced the desired effect of controlling the people by fear of reprisals from Heaven in the shape of personal loss, disease, deprivation, pests and climatic disasters.
The purpose behind Jesus' life was to teach the Jews that their perception of the CREATOR was entirely wrong. But their fanatical adherence to their treasured religious beliefs were impenetrable, so instead of Jesus achieving his purpose on earth, he was crucified because of them.
The debate is good and I am glad everyone can do it. I want to say some things.
Please ask questions if you want
A big problem I hear is that people think God is punishing people for something that is his fault.
God created us to be able to make choices, to accept Him or not.
If someone believes in right and wrong, then there has to be something bigger than us to decide that. Furthermore, I think we can all agree that we are not perfect and all have done wrong things. All that God says is that sins must be punished. But God, out of love, took that punishment.
It takes more faith that the earth, space, and all its balance was all by chance and not by God.
So God took a punishment for me to thousand years before I even existed or even lifted a finger. Not only does that sound like a fairytale, but it is completely immoral, it is also signing me up to a contract which I never agreed to and can’t get out of. Which again, is immoral. You also can’t say God gave us free will but then also gives us punishment, that’s like a mob Boss giving you an offer you can’t refuse and claiming you have a choice in the matter. Also, a lot of the things that God will punish us for seem to be things he programmed us to instinctively do, which seems awfully convenient. More importantly, the Bible, which is the actual text where you got even the notion of a christian God from completely contradicts everything you just said. So it is not us who has the wrong idea, you either haven’t read your bible, or you have picked and chose a part of it that sits better or worse with you and discarded others, proving that you have your own internal morality regardless of God
"God created us to be able to make choices, to accept Him or not"
That's the problem. Is it moral to create humankind, knowing full well that 'wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." ?
- Seems to me like the bad outweighs the good when you believe in eternal conscious torment. Tons of people roasting while only a few Christians worship God in heaven. I'm not sure of your flavor of Christianity, but God could have just chosen to not make the people he knew would suffer and die, and only create those who at the end of their life would be saved.
"If someone believes in right and wrong, then there has to be something bigger than us to decide that."
- Citation needed. You can't just claim that there has to be something bigger than us without providing sufficient justification. Seeing as objective vs. subjective morality is still undecided in philosophical circles, I can't imagine that you have a solid defense of this claim.
"All that God says is that sins must be punished."
- Why? God can create the entire universe, but can't stand to be around sin? Why would God create a world where sin was even possible, if he is so averse to sin? Is he a masochist?
"It takes more faith that the earth, space, and all its balance was all by chance and not by God."
- No, it takes way less faith. As a nonbeliever, I don't have to have faith in a personal, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, disembodied mind that somehow affected the nothingness of the nonexistent universe into existence.
Do you believe in right and wrong. We are all sinful, I am sinful; have you ever lusted, watched porn? Those things are not right. I used to have an addition, God is the only way I overcame it. I challenge you to pray for one week. If there is no God then it doesn't hurt. Please :) Hope you're doing well
@@invisiblegorilla8631 I appreciate you taking the time to right a respectful response. I’ll be honest I’m only 16 and don’t have answers for everything - I only have faith that God knows much more than I could possibly fathom. I know you didn’t claim it, but I want you to know that Christians, (I can only speak for myself and what Jesus Christ teaches) don’t hate people who don’t agree with us. I try to do the exact opposite. I’ll really think and study about the questions you asked and try to give a good answer. Thank you for your response
The first two minutes are pure torture. How delusional.
That was my immediate response too lol.
And presented with utmost certainty as settled facts. LOL
The crucifixion happened and it was a parable. Correct he never understood it. You are right he is delusional
Yes, the answer is yes.
I still can't get past the part where god turns into a human and "perfectly" worshipped himself. God needs a life coach, he apparently has low self-esteem.
You do not "get past" it because you do not want to. If you did want to, you would understand this much at least: that there are mysteries to the realities we all must live in that escape our every attempt at rational analysis. There is sophisticated science, sure, and that has given us evolutionary truths, quantum mechanics, and a deeper understanding of the reality we must live in. God, however, does not have to live in that reality. But we cannot really understand that deeply paradoxical proposition. It's like Paul somewhere says: "For now we see only as through a glass, darkly; but then face to face."
This is my opinion. While I cn see it as a very noble thing for a person to offer themselves as a sacrifice to save others, the concept of sacrifice for redemption of wrong doings or sins IS ABSOLUTELY IMMORAL no ifs and or butts, because it's the fact that the judge who demands sacrifice has to be immoral to demand that an innocent life be interrupted and mercilessly slaughtered because a group of wrong doers need to make up for their wrong doings. Any judge who demands such a perverted way f redemption like this deserves to be blinked out of existence. Why should any innocent life be taken for the wrong doings of others, and how the hell can anyone not see the injustice of this? I'm sorry, but a god who demands that harm comes to the innocent for what the guilty have done is not a good god, that is a disgusting god to say the least...... Jesus' sacrifice in the story is a very tragic story, not one to celebrate.....
Well said exactly the way it is,only a brainwashed idiot support blood magic sacrifices.
Jesus's story had to be dramatic enough for the story to span the globe. God didn't require or instruct anyone to torture and kill Jesus. We did that on our own. God knew we had become so wicked that if He sent his son to preach the Gospel, we would kill him. So He used our own wickedness for His greater purpose.
Wow that's a good point
Why is it that one version of Christianity is the path to heaven and all the others are paths to hell?
Maybe you should read the Gospel and find out. It only takes a few days to a month.
@@TheTenCentStory Which Gospel?
@@noelpucarua2843 All four Gospels are referred to as The Gospel. If you read them then you will find out why.
@@TheTenCentStory Which four? Do you mean the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Philip and other such Gospels?
And what version of the Gospels will point to the path to what version of Christianity?
@@noelpucarua2843 You can read the Gospel of Philip and you will see the major contradictions compared to the real Gospel.
What kind of "Supreme Being" creates laws such that the violation of them requires a blood sacrifice in order to make things right?? It seems to a natural man like myself, that an all powerful Being could have brought about a reality where even "free-will" would not necessitate such a barbaric remedy
Christianity posits laws which are universally applicable -- which means they also apply to God -- which means that even God is subservient to them.
@@thomasthompson6378 Sounds like "Christianity" is "God," from the above description -- especially if the "God of all there is" is Himself in ANYWAY the servant of laws/principals above Him. Why call Him "God"??
The god of the Bible might be the being that created our universe but not the creator of existence
Possibility does not signify probability.
@@WhoThisMonkey I think it’s highly probable that the creator or creators of our universe have interacted with its creation or at least observed it.
@@trapez77
It's not highly probable, or practical.
You can make the claim a creator exists, but you must provide evidence for that claim.
You have the burden of proof.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
For it to be 'highly probable' the evidence for the existence of a creator god must be so overwhelming, that nobody could dispute it. But that isn't the reality of this particular playing field at all.
@@WhoThisMonkey that’s like assuming everyone you met doesn’t have parents. You don’t because that would be highly improbable. Everything you have ever known to exist has been created but for some reason you think it’s more likely that the universe just appeared into existence?
@@trapez77
No, we know for a fact that our parents created us, we don't know for a fact that the universe was created.
That's called a false equivocation fallacy.
You then went on to commit a strawman fallacy, by saying that I believe everything came from nothing.
Firstly, I don't need give a counter proposal to disbelieve your claim of a creator god, I only need to highlight that that claim does not have sufficient evidence to warrant that as a conclusion.
Secondly, I don't say the universe came from nothing, I actually say "I don't know." because we haven't got sufficient information to say whether or not the universe had a beginning or not, it could have always been, and just goes through periodic cycles of expansion and contraction.
Then again, we don't even know what is beyond our universe, there could be a multiverse which is inside an omniverse.
We have no way of knowing such things at our current place on the Kardashev scale, and anybody who is claiming they do have such answers is lying or completely foolish.
I've heard similar reasoning when I vas in the kindergarten.
Religion: We are awful wicked disgusting disobedient children of god, the only way to repent is with 10% of your income payable to me.
Atheists: Uhh no thank you, I prefer to have self confidence and not abuse myself for no reason.
Religion: PRIDE IS EVIL YOU CAN ONLY LOVE GOD NOT YOURSELF OR OTHERS YOU ARE GOING TO HELL…..unless you repent with a one time lower offer of 8% of your income the first month and 10% after, payable to me.
Atheist: Uhh have fun with that
Religion: Time to reform education so no one asks questions anymore, DAMN YOU BRAIN
Psychologically speaking there had to be sacrifice in order to lay the foundations of religion that replace Hellenism. That does suggest premeditation. However it did succeed. Therefore it could have been manufactured. Gospels that appear three hundred years after the fact. Eloquent sophisticatedly argued Gospels using metaphor and rhetoric. Simple fisherman? If you say so. These days so totally anachronistic.
0:25 I don't know Walt, you've been seeming kinda sus lately.
IOIGDI - It's Okay If God Does It....is the usual response to God doing immoral things in the Bible.
Just like any other despicable dictator then.
@@margaretbarrett6087 Ask the average North Korean, in NK, and in public...what they think of KIm Jong-un....
and see if it doesn't sound like the average evangelical Christian who thinks "God is watching how I respond."
@@mashah1085 Exactly 👍
Yes it was. The only reason Jesus died is was because his teachings were stirring up the political and religious system at that time and the people in power wanted to stop him, before the systems they created crumbled. Also, his death(his blood) meant nothing in terms of saving people from their sins, as it is evident that sin is still around, maybe even more so then in the past. God is a far more loving parent than how He is described in the Bible so sacrifice of any kind would not be something God would desire. Love is equal, so love does not sacrifice.
I don’t know how you know that God is a much more loving parent than how he is described in the Bible, when his entire description only exists in the Bible. So where exactly are you getting your information. It’s the equivalent of saying that actually Harry Potter didn’t wear glasses, when the books says he wore glasses
@@conors4430 Hi, I'll gladly answer your question but first can you tell me why do you think that God does not exist?
If Jesus lived a perfect life while he was mortal....was that because God tinkered with him or was it because mortal Jesus just tried to be perfect and was successful?
If God had nothing to do with it, then I'd wager other mortals could do the same....otherwise I feel like the gospels left out some of the parts where mortal Jesus failed at being perfect....just like the rest of us.
Mortal Jesus is still God. Have you read the Gospels?
@@TheTenCentStory I have....but if Jesus is God then Jesus was never really mortal, and the crucifixion and resurrection was just another elaborate show to con the masses.
@@manitobuckles I think you would have to explain how Jesus couldn't be God and mortal. Considering, God can do anything.
@@TheTenCentStory Jesus never claimed to God. He claimed to be the messiah, son of man.
@@mrb532 Jesus literally proclaimed to be God in almost every chapter of the Gospels.
I'll give you a few examples.
3. During Christ’s trial, the chief priests asked Him point blank, “Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” And He said,
• “I am.” (Mark 14:60-62)
• “Yes, it is as you say.” (Matthew 26: 63-65)
• “You are right in saying I am.” (Luke 22:67-70)
Matthew 16:13-17 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
I mean really. I could keep going yet that seems silly.
Do xtians ever hear themselves speak?
Ten seconds in and I'm 🙄 already lol.
As I look over the comments, it doesn't seem like atheism makes you a humble and magnanimous person. If Jesus's rule is to treat others as you wish to be treated, the atheist rule is to tear down people whose worldview is religious. If Jesus says, love your enemies, atheists say, crush those who aren't as smart and scientific as you are. Mockery, disgust toword the religious, and a tangible feeling of superiority are in evidence. Humility and compassion for others? Not so much. There seems to a certain glee about seeing someone get "Hitch-slapped." Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but the vibe of the new atheists and their followers is just not that attractive to me.
Yeah, same reason I come less to see videos from the other side of the aisle, is mostly trashtalking the other side nowadays. Alex clearly had the rhetorical upperhand in the closing argument, still is a rehearsal of not really great arguments among more mature theologians and agnostics thinkers, you would expect see discussion around that, but nope just trashtalking.
Actually, it's because of the harm that Religions have caused to people based on unsupported beliefs that has brought disgust towards Religion. At least atheists are not burning people on the stake while opposing unsupported beliefs. Plus there is no reason to be magnanimous and humble when debating unsupported destructive beliefs systems. Should we be magnanimous to Jihadists as well?
Look at the atrocities and regress caused by religion historically and currently, all the while claiming to be a religion of love and compassion. Thats the reason why many people are leaving religion. Please remove the log in your eye first.
@@kevdeeA Atheists are not burning people at the stake? You do realize the Chinese are putting religious people in reeducation camps, right? And this is a basic routine for atheist societies.
@@kevdeeA Can we group every atheist with secularist ideologies of the 20th century and compare which group did more damage to humanity per time invested in their ideology? Even without taking time into account is quite difficult to make the case a secular world is better. If we throw the not so bright parts of enlightment thinkers the picture gets worse, or even worse if we take the new wave of secularist thinkers using science for pure ideological reasons, both sides can nitpick the other for another century. But thinking still that the slogan "religion is the source of all evil, atheist and secularist are incapable of atrocities" is quite naive. Taking the moral high ground is quite hypocrital when you call out the other side for that exact reason.
@@cristianfernandez1874 I challenge you to go ahead make the comparison about the damage caused by secularism or atheism vs religion as long as you
Greetings from Honduras, Central America!
@Jo Sm I'm from Tegucigalpa! It's great you liked baleadas. Were did you visit us from?
@Jo Sm Thank you for your kind words about Honduras. Rural areas are beautiful and people are nice with each other, it's very peaceful.
6:32 🔔🔔🔔 Alex here had gone terribly wrong, this shows that Alex wants to put himself and his intelligence next to God. He even goes on to say that even if God exists i don't want to believe in him. This statement is completely due to the feeling of superiority over God himself. Alex had been naivety spoken like teenage whose blood is really hot. He shouldn't said instead "if God exist i would want to ask him the answer to this genocide why he did so".
But to say as far as to say evennif he exists i don't want to believe in him then then it's completely childish and immatured.
Didn't he see throughout the Bible God spoke all about love???? Didn't Alex see that God says do not kill??? Didn't alex see that Jesus even allowed himself to be sacrificed for humans???? What got alex so mad that he even dare to say i wouldn't believe even if he exists????
It was Mary on that cross!!!! (Aka jessina christiana
What are the odds this universe would have all the right conditions for us to exist? Consider that if just one fundamental force were slightly altered, maybe gravity for instance, the universe would be such a different place it'd be unlikely we would exist within in. The odds are astronomical that we can exist given the apparent random circumstance that is the universe.
You can argue multiverse to try and get around this, if there are multiple universes then the chances increase as the number of universes increases. However all this does is set the question back further. What are the odds a multiverse would exist that has all the right conditions to form multiple universes?
You eventually come to the conclusion everything is perfectly setup for us to exist and it being an accident is incredibly slim, so much so it's far wiser to believe in God.
Unfortunately you don't have another universe to compare this one with, thus making your argument baseless because you don't know how likely it would be that life would exist in a different universe. You don't even know how likely it exists elsewhere in this one.
This whole argument doesn't make sense in a deterministic worldview
Also, no matter what kind of universe exists, the odds of it existing just the way it does are always low, that also counts for a universe without life.
If we throw tens thousands of letters on the ground and they end up forming a poem perfectly predicting the weather for the next 5 years, we might go "what are the odds of that?!" but the odds of the letters arranging that way are the exact same as them arranging in any other way. Just because we ascribe meaning to a certain outcome (weather-predicting poem, life-containing universe) doesn't mean that that outcome is any less likely than any other one (assuming there could have been other outcomes, which again, doesn't go with the deterministic worldview)
Your argument for "the right conditions" is for a deistic god - the cosmos is designed to function like clockwork (which is what we observe). An interactive, 'meddling' god doesn't need to set up anything in advance.
We really lack the data to derive any such conclusions from the seemingly unlikely set of conditions that led to our existence. Essentially it's like saying winning the lottery is impossible without some type of fraud because the odds of winning are so incredibly low. Yet one person among millions always wins. And in the same way among an unimaginable number of stars in trillions of galaxies, it was at least in our solar system, where everything fell into place in the right way for life to evolve. So we know that life is possible due to our own existence and we also know that it requires an insanely unlikely combination of different factors to be possible and we also know that the universe is so enourmous that the chances are high that it is bound to happen somewhere. There is also the concept of survivors bias: It's only to be expected that the only ones who are able to ponder about their existence are struck by the astronomically low odds of their existence, as everywhere else where the conditions for life were not met, there is of course no one to think about their less lucky fate.
Last but not least, theoretically there could still be millions of inhabitated planets spread across the milky way and we are not that special to begin with.
And even if we assume there is a sentient creator responsible for this whole mess, why would you assume that this or that specific ancient textbook from 2000 years ago has figured it all out and knows exactly what this deity is, what his morals and expectations of humanity are? It seems incredibly arbitrary to trust in the bible or the quran, when they look so suspiciously like man made fiction.
This is an oft-raised argument that both Christians and Muslims use to "prove" God, but it makes a huge logical leap:
Existence is unimaginably complex -> Almighty single creator god must have done it all!
More reasonably we would have something like:
Existence is unimaginably complex -> There is likely still much we don't understand
Could that mean that there is an almighty god controlling everything? Perhaps, but that is only one of many possibilities. Even upon following this possibility, it becomes iffier when trying to believe a specific narrative, e.g. the Bible, as Bible verses provide evidence against the Christian god being all-loving (e.g. killing babies), all-knowing (e.g. wrong predictions), or all-powerful (e.g. losing to other gods). Not to mention the creation myths and cosmology (e.g. the firmament that God created on the 2nd day) being rather silly now.
Well Jesus was not really a human sacrifice in the sense of human sacrifice in pagan tradition ,he was wrongfully accused and handed over by his own people to the Romans to be crucified.the Jews themselves did not "sacrifice" Jesus as they would a lamb or goat.but they did hand him over to save themselves so to say.as Aninias the high priest said it was better for one man to die than the whole nation perish.Jesus was a threat to the nations very existence ,just as Jesus today is a threat to the fake Israel occuping palestine.
GOD = Game Of Delusions!!!😁😁😁
The Wizard of Oz = Game of Delusions. But what is behind those delusions?
Man oh man do you guys not read the Bible itself and know anything about the religion your attacking… how “truthful”
Because it's so much easier to believe that the universe just popped into existence from nothing than to believe a God created it and wanted a family. You atheists are so wise in your own eyes. It has nothing to do with your arguments about God. If God is real, you have no arguments against Him. Just stupid human ideas. If He is real He is more above your ability to fathom than a human is above an ant. You literally have no ground to stand on. There is absolutely no reason to believe that everything just popped into existence on it's own than to believe someone created it. None.
Atheists dont claim that the Universe popped into existence you are the one making false claims about what you think Atheists so your argument is just a red herring. In fact most scientists, cosmologists and atheists would claim they dont know the Universe emerged and propose scientific investigation based on physical observations rather than claiming a God popped the universe into existence in 7 days as claimed in the Bible. Sorry your argument is a Straw-man fallacy.
@@kevdeeA LOL. Really? LOL So then it was created? It has to be one or the other. You're funny. Besides which I only stated that believing either/or is no less scientific.
@@inmyopinion_3672 It doesn't have to be one or the other.Presenting the false dilemma is a logical fallacy.
@@kevdeeA Don't play word games as if it means something. It is one or the other. There are no other options. It's a simple binary result. Either the universe popped into existence all on it's own or it didn't.
@@inmyopinion_3672It's not a simple binary result, you are the one claiming that its is when you have no way of knowing so. Plus logical fallacies are not word games, if you may understand something it doesnt make it invalid.
Silly me. When I read the title of this video, I supposed the topic would be whether it was moral for the Roman state to execute Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish eschatological prophet. It was obviously immoral. Instead, the topic appears to concern mythological literary characters and mythological events. So, what’s tomorrow’s question? Did Helen and Paris cause the Trojan War?
There are over 20,000 copies of the new testament manuscripts as of 2009. The original manuscripts were written within one generation of Jesus's life, so it couldn't have been myth or legend.
@@kennethortiz3845, the scholarly consensus is that the historical Jesus was a Jewish eschatological prophet, not the character depicted in the NT. Those 20,000 manuscripts you reference are not independent attestations. I believe the number of those is around 5,000. The earliest gospel, Mark, was written around 70 CE, forty years after Jesus’ death. The last, John, which is the one that best accords with what we call traditional Christianity, was written around 90 CE, or sixty years after Jesus’ death. You need to update your facts.
@@Steve-hu9gw What are your sources?
"Simon Kistemaker, professor of New Testament emeritus at Reformed Theological Seminary, writes, “Normally, the accumulation of folklore among people of primitive culture takes many generations; it is a gradual process spread over centuries of time.”'
@@Steve-hu9gw th-cam.com/video/UZAPFKXMy_Y/w-d-xo.html
@@kennethortiz3845, one of my degrees is in biblical studies. In actuality, myth can spring up in an instant. I refer you to the story of the the young groom who dies during his wedding procession as told in Mircea Eliade’s _The Myth of the Eternal Return_ for a rather astonishing example. For consensus views in biblical studies, any proper and current academic introduction to the NT or OT should do fine. A very popular and much used introduction to the NT in universities is Bart Ehrman’s, which I highly recommend. Quite a standard textbook for the OT is John Collins’ introduction, also highly recommended. Get the current editions of both.
I don't think if the first guy was crucified it would be too immoral would it?
Who is this we I haven’t done shit
Nice sermon from the preacher
Boring, tired arguments.
No kidding human sacrifice is evil. God didn't crucify Jesus; WE did. God sent His Son into the world knowing that we would, out of which He would show two things. It would show us what we really are, evil, despite how we flatter ourselves that we're good. And this is the condemnation of the devil. Secondly, by shedding His perfect life in the form of His blood, Jesus made atonement for all the sins of the world. With His one perfect life, poured out in perfect love and obedience to His Father, He made intercession for the transgressors. And then by His resurrection from the dead, He makes new all those who believe in Him, with the gift of righteousness and eternal life, so that now men can be "good with God."
THANK YOU. I always thought that I'm the only one who realized that God never instructed anyone to kill Jesus.
God knew we would kill him and used our own wickedness to further His divine agenda.
@@mrb532 sending someone on mission in which they are guaranteed to die is the definition of sacrificing them. You literally gave an argument against yourself.
@Nate Lately can you not see the contradictions in your statement? You are saying God didn't sacrifice Jesus yet he's the one who knowingly sent Jesus on a suicide mission. You say human sacrifice is obviously bad and yet a necessary aspect of God's plan is the shedding of Jesus blood for our sins. I think Christians even call it the ultimate sacrifice while referring to Jesus as the sacrificial lamb. It is literally a human sacrifice for the sake of forgiving sin. As a God he could have easily forgiven sin without the need for the spilling off innocent blood but instead he intentionally chose this elaborate plan.
@@Theomatikalli I'm countering the arguement that God required a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of our sins. Jesus forgave the prostitute before he was murdered. All God requires for forgiveness is repentance.
Why do people believe this crap. Sad, sad people
it didnt happen
If Jesus was god, why is he praising himself everyday? I get that Jesus’ teachings were massively influential in history but I think even Christian’s should accept that Jesus isn’t god it just doesn’t make any sense.
That is a dangerous road to go down. You are just supposed to accept what they say and consider if it makes sense.
Hi Sam, Jesus is not God and has never claimed to be God. What he was saying is that he became At-One with God, through a process of having a personal relationship with God in which he received a substance from God, God's Love, which made him capable of reflecting God's feelings and truth to others. This is a potential for all of us, that is what he taught as "The Way".
@@jamesparson That just sounds like being gullible 😂
Alex, I still don't get how you can call anything immoral under an atheistic worldview. Anything you say regarding morality is subjective and holds no real value.
Everything is subjective, technically, therefore would we say that nothing holds real value? Morals are necessary for group co-operation, even atheistic societies like Japan, China, Vietnam, Thailand etc... have them because no society could survive without them. The objective grounds for morality is survival advantage by communal co-operation. There is, of course, many ways we could go about that, which is a challenge; but what ever promotes the most wellbeing and social communion is what we go with. Atheism only refers to an opinion on one topic of whether or not God exists. Humanism is the framework atheists have to agree on, or discuss moral claims. The declaration of universal human rights is an example of its ways.
@@paulgoddard5535 why is survival the basis for morality
@@boxman_ninja0819 Alex is able to call things immoral because he is working with his own moral system which he has defined. The pursuit of a "correct" moral system is fruitless, even if god exists he is just operating under his own moral system, his power doesn't make him right.
@@tyruskarmesin5418 God is all knowing and therefore his commandments are equivalent to morality. Also to my point Alex can't say anything is objectively immoral, he can only say he personally feels this way. Others may agree or disagree and there's no way to combat this (from his perspective).
@@boxman_ninja0819 Due to evolution. People who can trust each other can spent their energy helping each other out for every aspect of living and better survive and reproduce. Thus, moral capacities are selected for. If everyone magically lost their moral codes tomorrow, they would just make more soon after by instinct.
Also, I wouldn't say God's morality is objective. God is not accessible other than through subjective revelations. No matter the seeming absolute truth these present, they always come through human subjective perception. Their veracity is just an assertion from feeling. This orientation is from Dr. Craig I believe, it's always felt weird to me. It effectively just says it's an unmovable grounding post that we can't change on a whim, so valuable due to it's power for pushing us all onto the same page. But this is all based on authority claims from metaphysics and revelation. It's just agreement based on belief, like money, except it's an assertion of perfectly omniscient knowledge that presumes to include moral understanding.
I can see the practical value of this for tribes in the desert thousands of years ago to persuade everyone to do good under terrible circumstance with little to no enforcement power, which doesn't make it true, however. But now with modern legal systems of agreement as to moral limits enforced by police, however imperfect; Practically speaking, it's unnecessary.
The argument that 'human sacrifice is immoral' is not a topic of debate. Christian's and atheist both should know that human sacrifice is immoral. It is written in scripture that God HATES human sacrifice. So how did we get here arguing about this? Well atheist see it as a shoe-in to disprove the veracity of the Christian gospel via contradiction. Well if God is all knowing and all good, and all smart, then why would he contradict himself by sacrificing a man for everyone else to please himself.
The problem with this line of debate is that one side, or both sometimes, is not interested in finding truth. They just want to prove their point which they have already adopted as THE truth. I am a Christian, but I am fully convinced that Christians are confused about the gospel that they live by. The gospel that we have today was not immediately understood by Jesus' disciples, and there is a good chance that we still don't understand what the hell we are talking about. Essentially, the whole thing could be made up regarding WHY Jesus died, as could the trinity, and many other mysteries for which the explanation went undocumented.
My position on it, is that we may not have to understand it anymore, at least not the way people needed to understand it 2000 years ago. The society was totally different, and the spiritual cares of people were quite different. Today our spirits are all but dead in the sense that ancient people might think of them, and have been ever more merged with naturalistic views of the universe. Sin, forgiveness, etc......We have little need for these terms anymore with respect to God. I'm not saying that to be heretical, but I think its valid to acknowlege where society is when constructing a gospel. Jesus, from what was written, acknowledged his society and addressed the spiritual need of the time period. We only see him answering and teaching on the questions that people came to him with. Obviously we don't see him talking about cosmology, genetics, medical science, etc. He was the answer to humanity at the time. But the reason i believe in Jesus, is because he also answered the main question of humanity for all time. Unfortunately the current gospel that the church peddles is not that related to the timeless gospel that Jesus brought and taught.
Lets focus on why the true gospel is Jesus' death and resurrection, rather than the forgiveness of sin or sacrifice. Sacrifice and the forgiveness of sin was a message to Jewish people who wanted to be free of that super oppressive, classist, and legalistic mindset of how to be right with God. Sin represented a separation from God which was both physical and spiritual, and the only way to make it right was through sacrifice. Jesus came to make it clear to those people, for one reason or another, that this is misguided and should not continue. No more sacrificing animals, or casting people outside the city walls for being sick, or having female cycles. This was a wise thing to do, and he did it in a way that made sense to people who wanted the right thing. First of all, apparently, he demonstrated that he could do miracles, so people wouldn't get caught up in religious debate too much, since he is demonstrating that he has the authority to make these corrections. He told them he was the last sacrifice. I think our imaginations ran wild from that point.
The gospel is philosophy, and it is either philosophy because Jesus invented it while he was alive, or it is a philosophy because his followers were inspired to invent it after he died. As a person who believes in divine inspiration, this does not discredit the gospel either way. But the idea that it is a philosophy means it should certainly be subject to philosophical scrutiny, ethics, all levels of intellectual analysis. Jesus' death and resurrection are the timeless message that apply to all ages, because we all experience death, and we will always have the desire to overcome it. Nowadays, the forgiveness of sin is less important, but the fellowship with God is most important. Jesus demonstrated and invited humanity to a fellowship with God, and one that will ensure that you will live forever. It was an invitation to live forever, while acknowledging that not everyone cares to live forever. Declaring that his way was the only way to God, is the gospel that is immortal in its relevance. As Jesus stated many times, that he is not here to judge anyone, but to warn people that the forgiveness of sin has nothing to do with outward impressions but only to do with the content of ones heart, and their desire to be with God. So why did he die? Well since most of us do not care about our sins being forgiven, nor can we justify ehtically or intellectually a place called hell to torment souls for eternity for temporal wrong doing, we are more focused on whether God is a person that I can know and live life with now, and forever. Is there purpose for my existence? and is there a familiar entity at the cause of it? Jesus says yes, and being a good person is the way to knowing this entity, infact if you have known me, then you already know the creator of the universe. So, why did Jesus die for bringing such a message? No, he was not sacrificed by God like some kind of animal offering. Even though it is useful to see it that way if you are trying to convert an ancient Jewish person to fellowship with God in the manner that God desired to fellowship. Jesus died for the same reason all righteous people die. They sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Jesus just happened to know what the greater good actually is. It is that all humans have the ability and freedom to fellowship with him. Those who truly fellowship with God become good people. They don't stop doing what is right, even when people threaten their lives, because they believe in the cause more than the safety. How does evolution lead to this? how does surivival of the fittest lead to self sacrifice? Well we know why God came in the form of an evolved man, and not an ancient ape. We finally have reached the capacity to do such things, and we are likely finished evolving. That is likely why God came when he came, and demonstrated what he demonstrated. Live and die for love, and what is right and you will live forever. God's gospel is that this is who he is. He will let the world tear him to pieces rather than back down from what is right and loving, and he is saying that this is the attitude that it takes to stand him, or to stand eternal life.....make your choice. I don't see many philosophical or ethical holes in that gospel, so that is my gospel. Why did God let Jesus die on a cross? I will answer, 'because God wants good people to know what it takes to make a difference for others, when that difference actually matters, and that he was willing to do what all good people are sometimes called to do ultimately, or daily.'
Wait a minute...did God "let" Jesus die on the cross. Or was it "God's plan" to have Jesus die on the cross? One's a passive the other is a compulsory action.
@@mashah1085 If God wants to express himself by letting people kill him for doing the good works he planned to do.... then he planned it as well as let it happen. So the answer is both.... Both passive and compulsory. The philosophy of it will set you free if you can accept it. Standing for what is right, with love in your heart even for your enemies is the perspective that leads to eternal life and eutopia called heaven. There is no other way to paradise. So can you find anything wrong with such a gospel?
@@cecilmcintosh864 How can something be both passive...and compulsory?
Jesus is crucified by Sinners who didn't love him They crucified a man who did nothing wrong ! But we know that his sacrifice is a divine intelligent of God that humanity can't understand . All glory to Jesus christ
Jesus is the logos of God. So it was God's doctrine that was put to death. And 2000years later God will rise this understanding in the minde of his elect
He just had a back weekend.
All loving god sends you to hell if you dont worship him. Sounds very mercyfull 🤦
He'll just means disconnected from God. Nowhere in the Bible is eternal torture ever suggested
In-fiction? Of course it was, executing someone for talking nonsense? Very immoral. In reality? The guy probably didn't even exist, let alone get executed.
There probably was a preacher, it feel like it was common in those days.
This christian still lives in a fairy tale.
Hearing the loathing in the voice of the second speaker, the crucifixion of the incarnate God was inevitable.
Human sacrifice, blind adherence to an invisible authority, and killing for something that there is no evidence for should be loathed. Yeah, it was really "inevitable" that a human sacrifice would have to happen in a small corner of the world where nobody would hear about it for a thousand years. Makes perfect sense.
@@adamlangton1967 I said: "Hearing the loathing in the voice of the second speaker, the crucifixion of the incarnate God was inevitable." I make a point about the speaker demonstrating that (his) human nature also entails putting down, destroying and belittling what they do (he does) not desire to accept or understand or study.
The gospel is not about 'human sacrifice' (crucifixion was a common punishment), 'blind adherence' (the apostles were not blind) to an 'invisible authority' (Jesus stood before them) and 'killing for something that there is' (no idea what you mean).
It is no by acting sarcastic or claiming the moral high ground that you will get one iota closer to understanding the information in the gospels. It is a narration. It follows the rules of narrations, all layers included.
@@adamlangton1967 Yes it is true many do not know their own religion. i.e. read the pyramid texts and you'll understand church liturgy better. But calling a thing false or plagiarism because it is based on earlier traditions isn't very impressive. A religion is a collection and recollection of traditions and whether this is know by the believer is irrelevant to their preservation. A Roman intervention is a mere footnote in this redactory process. The interesting question is figuring out what exactly these and the other religious traditions try to protect throughout the ages, including B.C., which they all do. The remarkable thing is that these traditions have been preserved.
Wow Alex is so intelligent that it's kinda sexy!
😳
Both of you got the sacrifice thing very wrong. Jesus died as a martyr not as a sacrifice per se. Of course that He knew that it was going to be killed, as many prophets that where sent before Him, but a sacrifice to God was not His crucifiction but rather His life. We dont have forgivness of sins because He died, but rather because we are trying to live as he did. In all the NT we are taught that salvation comes in the name of Jesus IF we are obedient to Him. "Thy will be done" is the prayer, but how many do obey God? we should have ended all wars by now, having cures for all illneses, only if we truly loved eachothers as God did. for exemple the saints from the communist prisons, whom sacrificed themself for the good of others. Was that sacrifice imoral?
Anyway, in Genesis, God granted to mankind the rulership of this planet, but in Revelation He will take it back. Why? Because mankind loved more the darkness and by obeying the sinful nature we delivered the planet to Satan. And that is we still have evil and bad things happens to good people.
Incoherent baby talk from McLatchie!
People have been locked up for spouting less gibberish!
Since perfection in human terms of the abstracted construction as life unwavering without variation or exception does not exist, the expectation of moral perfection is doomed to failure. The christian brainwashing cult proceeds from the assumption of the moral perfection of one person in the storybook fantasy form of a nonexistent character of Jesus, the Christ who's moral perfection condemns him to serve as a human sacrifice who is murdered to preserve the right of humanity, who is not only morally imperfect, but hopelessly corrupt from birth, who is redeemed not by correcting their defects and failures, but merely by the wishful thinking and fantasy of belief in a nonexistent person who personified a nonexistent moral perfection.
This condition of presumption sets the stage for the guilt and shame of humanity who can never measure up to Fictional Jesus fictional moral perfection, especially in the light of the fact that he allowed himself without any real resistance to be sacrificed for the salvation of humanity, which is a difficult, if not impossible act to follow because it is a delusion that stands against the categorical imperative of life which is to live, the instinctual biological drive to survive, to fight, flight, hide, evade or negotiate.
Once the shame and guilt are implanted and indoctrinated, the “believers” souls are owned by the church which is a brainwashing cult engineered to parasitically drain their resources, so the upper echelons of the clergy can live opulent lives of wealth and pleasure and covertly and deceptively without the moral burden the brainwashed cult members are forced to carry for the church's corruption and exploitation.