I thoroughly enjoy the dynamic that these two have in these conversations. As a Christian, I've always admired Alex a great deal in that he's unwavering in his criticisms and observations of Christianity and theism, but that he truly listens to the other side of the conversation and is never interested in misrepresenting anything.
It has always struck me as odd, that on the assumption that Christianity is supposedly the one true religion, how only approximately one third of the world's population follow it, after 2000 years.
Alex is incompetent. He claims to have studied theology and doesn’t even know the basics of the bible; for crying out loud. He interviews scholars with a much higher education without a basic understanding of those people’s expertise. He gives the impression of a primary school kid asking a professor basic questions.
This is the joke God was waiting for. Out of all these billions, you're the only one who deserves to go to heaven. The purpose of this universe is complete. Commence apocalypse.
@@XJRSuper no I’ve watched Mike before. he’s cool. He just has that expression a lot during debates and deep conversations. I think it’s a concentration thing.
The nature of this debate was so civil. Thank you for the opportunity to hear complex, thought out arguments instead of tactics and sarcasm. I love IPs channel and it was very cool to hear someone else’s thought process as well.
I love how someone could listen to the talk and conclude what the above commenter does. It's like that bicycle meme where they put a stick in the spokes of their wheel then blame someone else for them falling@@LeadedNevada
As a Christian, this is a rather interesting topic. Good to know both sides of the aisle continue to have young minds who are open to listening and understanding perspectives from both sides.
I too find it unreasonable to believe in things with no good evidence, like something from nothing, order from chaos, life from non- life, consciousness from non- consciousness, etc.
@@Illycrium "I too find it unreasonable to believe in things with no good evidence, like something from nothing" Cite me ANY peer reviewed paper that purposes this. "order from chaos" What do you mean? If you are talking about our universe, it is by no means order. It is extremely chaotic. We see entire star systems that perished billions of years ago in huge cataclysmic events. " life from non- life" What do you mean here? Everything is made of the same things. Atoms , carbon etc. Define life. "consciousness from non- consciousness," This literally happens to every human and animal ...
@@Longtack55 How can you prove that anything exists outside of your own mind? Isn’t it irrational to believe in something without direct evidence or verification?
I've loved both of these channels for a long time and I'm really happy to see this conversation It almost feels like every guest you get is one I needed more than the last!
@@areyoumad8224 sorry your comment is unintelligible. Maybe try again with better wording? Maybe you could be more clear. Are you trying to respond to me or what? I’m happy to talk to you but maybe try and form a sentence that makes sense.
I have never heard of the idea that hell was temporary. As a Catholic, the whole “refinement for heaven” seemed a lot more like purgatory than hell doctrine. I’m not a Catholic anymore, but I really liked this argument for Christianity (and hell) presented here. I consider myself agnostic and (through absolutely nothing but wishful thinking) would like to believe that the afterlife is just a place where everyone becomes their best selves automatically. This depiction of hell seems much more in line with that thinking and I very much appreciated it.
What I love the MOST of all these debate videos. It is that both leave rooms for the other to speak, untill both are finished with there points. Its shamefully rare in a debate, that we get to have this kind of calm debates. Such a shame in my mind. Its one of the biggest reason I must force myself, to watch sometimes politic debates on tv etc etc. (Specially under a election year) This comes from a person who loves debates, from small to bigger tophics overall. No wonder most people hate most "debates", if grown adults act like children while debating. Not even just so called "adults" but but grown people who runs/wants to run the bloody country :).
What we've seen was a conversation, or discussion, not a debate. Main trouble with debates is that participants don't listen to each other with the goal of to try understand what the other is talking about but mainly listen to find something they can provide a counterargument for (often fallacious).
Wow, I never thought I'd see this debate in my life. As an InspiringPhilosophy watcher but also a CosmicSkeptic watcher due to his vegan content (as a vegan myself), this is awesome to see, and a pleasant surprise indeed provided it is a problem I have always had as a Christian - the doctrine and subsequent justfiication of Eternal Hell. I simply cannot believe an omnibenevolent God would allow us to experience eternal suffering, even if we choose it, so hopefully this debate enlightens me to some degree. Thanks guys!
It helps that the idea of hell is unclear even among clergy and church fathers, however I believe it is enough to have faith in Gods love. What if hell is spending eternity as a disembodied spirit lamenting the lost opportunities to love and worse the times one knowingly hurt others? A ghost no longer is tempted by fleshly desires like food or sex or fatigue so maybe they are left with regret. Maybe that is what purgatory is, forgiving yourself for failing to love. Lord only knows.
@@SydneyCarton2085 Any time someone posits an eternal punishment for finite crimes is not thinking clearly. God tells us to use our brains (come and reason) when considering evidence. The evidence is clear: Jesus is love. Jesus is God. Therefore, God is love. Nobody is going to be punished eternally for crimes committed over the course of, at most, 100 years. The words of the Bible have been distorted by Satan and evil men to sow fear and doubt in the minds and hearts of human beings (just like he did in the Garden of Eden when deceiving our first parents). But our job is to dispel these lies: we are to be stronghold demolishers, destroying the lies about God's nature and character. And the worst lie ever foisted upon gullible men is that a "God of love" will torture His children forever in fire. It's a gross mischaracterization of how God will handle selfishness (sin) in unrepentant sinners.
@@cklesterwell I do believe that God torturing us by sending us to hell is wrong. The Bible says that not only will some people will go to hell, but everyone deserves to go to hell. Thats the whole point of Jesus's sacrifice. The bible clearly says that our sin nature is an anathema to the purity of God and only through the sacrifice of his son and infinite grace can we be pure enough to be in his presence. To think unrepentant sinners will go to heaven is to say Jesus's sacrifice is unnecessary and that is heracy. God is love, but he is also justice, and without being under the tent of his sons sacrifice hell being the furthest most distant place from God is the only just place for humanity to go.
@@tman040496tb It seems pretty clear that most (if not all) human beings will have a Gehenna experience. The question becomes, what is the Gehenna experience? If you listen to the father of lies, he will tell you that Gehenna is a place of eternal burning of human beings for the sins they committed over the course of at most 100 years. This idea makes God out to be worse than Hitler. Thankfully, it cannot be reasonably supported from scripture. (Anybody can twist any scripture to make it say anything when taken out of context. Keep everything in context, and everything remains neat and tidy.) But if you watch Jesus and read the Bible, you will conclude that God is love, and a God of love would never do something so unjust, especially to those He loves so deeply. God says in Jeremiah 19:5: "They have built pagan shrines to Baal, and there they burn their sons as sacrifices to Baal. I have never commanded such a horrible deed; it never even crossed my mind to command such a thing!" God is not for burning anybody. > The bible clearly says that our sin nature is an anathema to the purity of God and only through the sacrifice of his son and infinite grace can we be pure enough to be in his presence. If this is true, how was Jesus in the presence of human beings? How was God present with Israel through their desert experience? Unrepentant sinners will not go to heaven. Nobody is suggesting they will. I used to say "God is love, but he is also justice," as well. Do some research as to what God's justice in the Bible means. What is God's wrath? It is not like human wrath. Regardless, is it just to torture a mortal, finite being in burning agony for eternity for sins committed over a finite time? No, it is not. So, no, your concept of hell is not "justice" in any sense of the word. Arbitrary vengeance? Sure. Psychotic retaliation? Yeah. Justice? No.
@@cklester for better or worse, the fear of eternal hellfire has undoubtedly deterred some from committing atrocities like murder and grape. Lord knows even though for the most part I am averse to the idea of hurting others there have been times when the fear of Gods punishment has kept me from doing so. Maybe it is providence that this healthy fear exists, and it is a healthy fear. At worst it results in some scrupulosity that can turn into serenity knowing that true repentance in reconciliation retroactively atones for sins. For example, many crimes are avoided in society because of legal consequences and since we are born into sin many are inclined to crime. Beyond the insatiable hole left by disordered appetites of the flesh, there really is no incentive for crime anyways. A person has at least two motives to avoid sin, moving away from hell/punishment AND towards heaven/love/reconciliation. Hell is non-Heaven and Heaven is non-hell.
I've always said, if god exists and is perfectly just, then I have nothing to fear. I've come to my atheism honestly and with the evidence and arguments made available to me.
When you look at what religious people do and what they say, who could seriously fault someone for drawing the conclusion that it was all a contrived vehicle for craven asshole humans to exert control over other people via what is fundamentally a threat.
The evidence made available to you includes countless historical documents, geographical proof, and personal accounts from people - including former atheists and agnostics, who have no reason to lie - sharing their personal encounters with you. It's good that you're able to accept that God is just and that your choice to actively reject the evidence provided to you is completely willful.
@@samuelsprings7245 People are either convinced or they're not. It's not a choice. I spend a great deal of time studying the bible and reading scholarship on the bible and the history of christianity and I've yet to find anything convincing.
@@samuelsprings7245 have you considered all the historical documents, geographical proof, and personal accounts from people of ALL religions? That's the only way to really be sure, right? Especially considering there are older religions than Christianity, Hinduism for example, which therefore must have a longer history with more documents, more personal accounts having been recorded etc. I'm not disagreeing with you that it's important to try and take in all the evidence available for such an important topic, but it's difficult enough (if not impossible) to genuinely do this critically and rigorously for one religion unless you become a scholar and dedicate your life to it, let alone to do it for all the major religions, which is the only way to REALLY be sure
Alex, I suggest you get David Bentley Hart on the podcast at some point. He’s an Eastern Orthodox Christian who makes an arguably compelling case for Christian Universalism, an idea seemingly foreign to mainline denominations that is nonetheless worth exploring.
He's notably disrespectful, self-conceited in his own ideas and haughtily dismissive of everybody who does not agree with him, particularly on the issue of universalism. A very unpleasant individual with a very wrongheaded, even contradictory idea, who oozes contempt through every pore when referring to dissenters. He is also remarkably smart, with a prodigious command of the English language (at which he most distinctly excels when hurling invectives carefully crafted to inflict the highest possible degree of humiliation on his adversaries). In other words, a veritable theistic version of a hybrid between Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. 😂
He’s certainly conceited, yes, even at his own admission, but to call his universalist stance “wrongheaded” seems a bit much when weighing it against your typical evangelical, traditionalist Christian defenses of eternal perdition. A comparing him to Dawkins and Hitchens was just an added insult to his intelligence, lol
I believe universalism to be self-evident from a proper reading of The Bible and it to me is the God that I believe in. All are loved unconditionally and all are ultimately redeemed.
I am a Christian, and I enjoy listening to Alex O'Connor. A very intelligent and resoanble atheirst. I have been listening to Michael Jones for about a year now, and I really enjoy him a lot. As a believer, I learn tons from him! Good job both!
Best philosophers/debaters of their respective beliefs. Though William Lane Craig has some sick arguments too. He just needs to nail the TH-cam shorts like Michael 🤣
He sends people to hell based upon their own moral decisions but atheists want to reject autonomy and accountability when it suits them. Atheists: why should I go to jail for killing that man Me: did you desire to do it?, did you use the weapon, did you have the ability to walk away? Atheist: yes Me: Then you chose to do the crime that sends you to jail
@@ReformedR Well, well, well. Tell us in more detail how hell is connected with responsibility. And also about the purpose of imprisonment and the purpose of being sent to hell, well, since you made such an analogy.
I only went in for 5 mins 40 seconds and Michael already disappoints. Hell is a real place, with fire, without the ability to escape and you get a new body all the time to keep on receiving pain. Of course you can go on a visit, but then you weren’t judged to be there yet. All people going there know they belong there.
I don't see why pride alone would be a determining factor as to whether you go to hell or not in the first place. If one is a kind person at heart, offering help and love to those around them, but at the same time doesn't wish to prostrate themselves for all eternity. Why must such a person be condemned to hell?
Great conversation! My only gripe is that we didn't get to hear much of Alex's stand on these topics as most of it is rather implied through his questions.
@@SteveVanWinkle except it only turned to an circle jerking. Think very few Christian thought Micheal did an bad job at answering. Look at his channel comments. That people that follow this channel think Michael did an bad job is not surprising, only living up to the expected bias.
Alex's interview strategy is to ask the kinds of questions that could reveal or highlight inconsistencies in someone's belief. While there are moments where his personal beliefs shine through, such as the non-existence of free will, he still provides evidence for why a person might have not had agency over particular aspects of their life. I do like the interview format because the guest can always explain their view and have the opportunity to defend it, if it is defendable.
Great conversation. I am convinced that this is way better, and actually gives more intellectual food for thought, than a fully moderated and heated debate. There is a great focus on the actual substance, instead of trying to quote unquote win.
One of the most baffling things about Christians/apologists is their ability to confidently list the characteristics of God and heaven like, "God is all loving, God is perfectly just, God doesn't send you to hell, you must be sanctified before entering heaven, the fire of hell is within....etc". The question I keep asking myself is how? How do you know all of this? How did you obtain all this information that seems impossible to obtain unless you went to heaven/hell and met God? I was very surprised when jones said "I don't know", when asked whether or not sinners are given better information before going to hell. Like... really? You spent 10 minutes painting a vivid picture of hell and heaven and God, and describing the exact process by which God operates before condemning a person to hell, but you can't tell me if God will correct my misinformation before I go to hell? That's the specific point at which you knowledge is limited? And he tries to act humble like "I don't know, nobody knows" - dude everything that you just said about God and hell and heaven is also stuff that you couldn't possibly know. Really at the end of the day, God's silence on this topic is deafening. I'm teird of listening to guys like Jones while God keeps quiet. Everything, literally everything that jones has said could be wrong and God would just sit back and keep quiet.
Literally my exact thoughts while listening to him. I feel like this was an argument Jones could only lose, because at best he could demonstrate his views of hell aren't an absolutely contradictory mess (which I'm not sure he even completely managed). But even in that case, I just listen to him and wonder why in the world I would believe him vs Hindus or Muslims or Catholics or any other person making confident claims about what happens after death on nothing more than claims God happened to reveal the truth to them and/or those they quote.
Based on your comment it seems like you have to personally observe something in order for it to be true. I understand it’s not convincing enough for you but he is basing it off what the Bible says about God’s character and Hell. Notice how Alex doesn’t press him on this because your question is very obviously answered. Even Sam Harris arrogant enough to say God doesn’t exist, you can be 99% sure but in the same way Jone is just being intellectually honest. I don’t understand the litany of comments just like this, why listen to the discussion in the first place, because if he said I know for sure you’d be upset cuz “how could he know” but he says idk and then it’s “how could he possibly believe this if he doesn’t know”.
@@mikesingh6099 it’s a fruitless pursuit to discuss specific details about an entity whose very existence you can have no direct knowledge of. These conversations are at best mental masturbation, but more often are simply a window into the psyche of the one who claims to be a believer.
I love how near the beginning he fights back against Alex saying that people can’t choose what compels them but then later says he wishes Universalism was true but doesn’t necessarily believe it
Sure, but a person may not always choose what they believe based on personal feelings. A person may choose what compels them because they really do think it's most in agreement with truth.
@@hyreonkthat’s exactly what many atheists do with belief in god… yet I see so many believers claiming that atheists “choose” to disbelieve god. This is one of the biggest points Michael seemed to miss in this conversation… if atheists aren’t choosing not to believe, then how is it justified to send them to hell?
@@Vulcan_GamingYT right, as Michael explained before, and in this video, he believes in repentance after death - so nonresistent nontheists will likely end up on the right side of eternity. Even if it takes them a bit of catching up (purgatory). I don't agree, but I only know myself. I deserve hell. I now live in repentance. Thank God for the gospel. If you're anything like me - and you are the same species, so you probably are - then Jesus died for your sins, too. I'd be happy to discuss any objections you may have.
@@hyreonkwhat about the chinese man that lived two thousand years before jesus did? does he deserve hell forever despite not having the same opportunities as you to repent?
@@tommytwo-times9053 The Catholic church affirms with the early Christian writer Justin Martyr that "We have been taught that Christ is the First-born of God, and we have suggested above that He is the logos of whom every race of men and women were partakers. And they who lived with the logos are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and people like them." In short: Jesus is the Word. Some non-Christians came to acknowledge the existence and dedicate their life to the Word. In a real sense, they are Christians. They not only had the same opportunity to repent - they took it.
michael Jones is the king of making stuff up to make his religious belief seem less obviously incoherent, and ending up with something even more incoherent. as an example, literally the first assertion he makes - that 'hell is metaphorical since we lose our physical bodies, and how would fire hurt you' - completely undermines his belief that the material world is non existent in reality and that the physical is the product of the mental. If the 'mental' is all that exists, then whatever he asserts is actually being represented by what we call the physical realm is just as metaphorical as the supposed Hell he imagines. So in one foul swoop he's contradicted his entire worldview, just to pretend that the Biblical Hell is not what it seems to be.
Bibliolatry is bibliolatry, regardless of which canon, version, or edition the pagan-mind descendant chooses. Will it be the one from King James of England? Will it be the American Catholic Bishiops' NABRE version? The Greek Orthodox Septuagint, that includes apocrypha? The Ethiopian canon with many more apocrypha than others? And there are many more.
@@chrisgray7737 yeah, there was a couple of years where all the American apologists quoted Lewis - Americans are easily impressed by an English accent. They don't tend to rely on him these days since atheists weren't impressed.
@@bengreen171 I have noticed that even firsthand with a friend of mine that is pastor. He said to me “CS Lewis was right, huh?” I replied “Bertrand Russell I thought was right”
The fallacy of Michael Jones is that he believes that people have free will and can make free choices. He believes that people could have done/choosen otherwise in their live. It’s a misconception…
This whole conversation felt like listening to a Marvel movie fan telling you his original script of how they would make Phase 4. It may sound entertaining at first but after 15mint you want to check out because is just one person's self-indulgence.
For those interested in a very good critique of annihilationism, there is a good essay by Eastern Orthodox theologian Sergius Bulgakov called “The Problem of ‘Conditional Immortality.’” It was recently translated in a collection called The Sophiology of Death. Bulgakov takes not only a theological stance but a philosophical one as well to critique the implications of either God annihilating persons or persons annihilating themselves. As someone who is a universalist, Bulgakov also puts forward a sound argument for the salvation of all, including Satan and the demons. While I appreciate Michael’s stance against an eternal hell, I think he runs into the same logical and theological issues with God’s omnipotence and maximum love when he posits that God would allow his own creatures to annihilate themselves. The free will of a person is only free if it chooses the Good in which it was made for, so any person to reject the Good to the point of metaphysical suicide doesn’t indicate free will, but insanity. An insanity in which he is a slave to in a way which would implicate God as his maker. Does the image of God reside in a creature like that? If we don’t earn salvation in earthly life, then any life after this would have the same asymmetrical relationship in which God comes after the person in love to save them. But if he desires for the salvation of all (which is theosis by the way) but even one is annihilated, then I’m what sense has he not failed?
The x-tian believer etc. has a deep seated subconscious Fear of the ending of their ego's= the conditioned christianized ego cannot/willnot face the very real possibility that it will face extinction like any other mortal being and die...
How do you reconcile (libertarian) free will with hard universalism? What's to stop me or someone else from sinning if all ultimately go to heaven? Btw, I'm familiar with Bulgakov and I have a copy of Sophiology of Death.
@@ObsidianTeen simple i don’t believe in libertarian free will and “hard” universalism is a misnomer. Free will is not the ability to pick between options as in a gnomic will but to be that which you were made to be. We were made to desire God, so true freedom will always be to desire God and nothing else.
@@JAWesquire373, surely you believe in libertarian free will in order to account for the first evil choice ever made. Otherwise God or God's decree necessitated the first evil choice. Hard universalism is not a misnomer; it's the view that all will be saved necessarily. On soft universalism all are saved contingently. Hard universalism requires that of necessity, a person stops making evil choices. Hard universalists have to bite the bullet that at least sometimes, an evil person can choose/will good without an alternative. But then why was there the option of evil to begin with, and how, apart from stability in good (Mary, Jesus, Saints in heaven), can one be necessitated to will good?
Can you really be a nice guy with his kind of views?. He seems okey i guess, but also seem to think people deserve to go to hell for very silly things.
@@johanahonen8627in this SPECIFIC case I think yes because he is really defending a sort of non-Hell Hell that is much more metaphorical and also exclusively thought up by more modern Christian apologetics. He mentioned CS Lewis almost as much as he quoted the Bible. I honestly like his position a lot and think it should be more wide spread among Christians but also think it's pretty disingenuous to argue something that for almost 2000 years would have been seen as Hersey and wishful thinking by the leaders and scholars of his religion.
@@johanahonen8627 It's his belief, I can see past that. Strong beliefs hinder the ability to think clearly and logically. Everyone has cognitive barriers. I pay more attention to the way he talks, I can detach that from the details of his beliefs. The way he talks gives me an image of someone who is really convinced that what he believes is the truth. I can't read minds, but I know from my own experience that I have often spoken out about something in the past, when in essence I didn't really know what I was saying exactly. It is a fact that as humans we can be trapped in emotion and feelings, and therefore say strange and/or illogical things and at the same time be very convinced that we are right. His beliefs may not be directly related to his personality and true nature, in my experience he has fallen prey to indoctrination.
@@brandwijkggChristians could say the exact same things about atheists. There are millions of former atheists and agnostics - myself included - as well as people from different religions, who have converted to Christianity because they had personal encounters with Jesus Christ. Eventually, there needs to be accountability taken on the side of the atheist. Either millions of people have lied and are still lying for some reason, they're all clinically insane (unless they believe exactly what you believe), or Jesus Christ is real. You have to pick one of those three options.
@@brandwijkggConsidering Michael was an atheist and converted to Christianity in his early adult hood through a round about way (studying Egyptology and ancient religions, his atheist friends said Jesus was basically Horus, knowing this was false, it lead him to research Christianity) I don't think the "indoctrination" or cradle Christian thing can really work.
My takeaway, an hour later: To resolve the obvious tension between the notion of an all-loving god and the idea of (nearly?) eternal torment in Hell, you just have to find increasingly abstract and flowery ways to say, "Yeah, but the people in Hell deserve it."
You're forgetting the all good and just part of God's nature. Because if He is all just then what the hell would be just about letting someone who spent their lives serving the poor spend eternity in the same place with Hitler? Seriously. Can someone explain that idea? Because hell seems far more reasonable from that perspective.
As an Orthodox Christian this was a very interesting conversation! Michael is quite close to the Orthodox conception of hell but is unfortunately dragged down by being committed to a legal framework of sin, and connected to that, penal substitutionary atonement.
@@samanthaannfuchsgruber It's been a couple of months since I've watched the video so this may not be entirely accurate, but Michael describing hell more as a state or experience rather than a literal place, and that the punishment of hell is more internal rather than externally imposed is quite close to the Orthodox view. However, in the Orthodox Church we would describe salvation primarily as theosis or deification. So our salvation from sin and death in Christ is through becoming like Christ, becoming deified. Michael seems like he holds to some form of penal substitutionary atonement however which teaches that we are essentially saved from God's justice through Christ taking the punishment due to us, and so salvation becomes not only transactional, but meaningless in terms of sin and death. And so because of this Micheal doesn't seem to fully be able to connect the atonement with the eschatological reality. Hope that makes some sense! I would probably have to rewatch the video to give specifics.
@@curtisben79 Thank you so much for your help!!! That is very helpful. I definitely would say I believe in "substitutionary atonement" and conduct myself in real life as though everyone is going to heaven (assuming that everyone will find God). However, that is how I conduct myself. I know God suffered for us and for that reason, some souls are in hell. It is not an empty or imaginary place.
@@samanthaannfuchsgruber this is not the only view within Orthodoxy, the issue is complex (as you know) and the eastern churches have always put a bit more emphasis on mystery, that is in the end, we cannot know for certain, in this life at least. sin is usually thought of as an illness and Christ the physician.
@@sillythewanderer4221 thank you for your reply. I really appreciate this. I fell in love with the scholastic nature of Catholicism (Christ reached me through my mind) but of course, this was primarily done through my heart thanks to the Holy Spirit. I deeply love the Orthodoxy emphasis on mysticism. Sometimes, getting too caught up in the endless dance of rationality and apologetics can be negative for spiritual growth. We are not merely here to think. We are here from Love Himself to love other people. That is the highest goal, and it is beautiful. I am now inspired to deepen my spiritual journey. God has been far too kind to me and I do not wish to let that go.
If you don't go to hell for not knowing about Jesus or knowing him incorrectly for whatever reason and the goal of the christians is to get as many people to heaven as possible, then they shouldn't tell anyone about jesus so that everyone can go to heaven.
@@andrewprahst2529 then why does the Bible say that he’s the only way to the father and that in order to be saved one must confess with his mouth and believe in his heart that Jesus was raised from the dead? Sounds like not knowing him is a pretty automatic ticket to hell according to scripture. Unless of course, I’m somehow “taking it out of context” right?
@@SPL0869 Because we will all meet Jesus at the end of time and will have that chance to proclaim him as Lord. In Matthew 25, this scenario is described: "Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.’" Matthew 25:34-40 NET So in this passage, people were serving Jesus even though they didn't think they knew him, and when given the chance to see him face to face.
@@SPL0869 Exactly. You're taking it completely out of context. Jesus also says that those who do the right things, but deny God, can be saved too, because believing in him consists in doing what he would command -- actual good works. There is no faith separate from works. They come packaged together, and intention to do good works immediately before dying is obviously sufficient for someone about to be resurrected in the future. The reality is that there is no text that isn't saying many different and important things by the use of even one sentence. When God inspires words, it's like a nuclear bomb of exploding contexts and layers. Anybody who insists on there being only unicontextual text, frankly, doesn't know how to read or think normally.
@@andrewprahst2529 ok, yeah I’ve heard this one before. So if there was already a system in place that actually leads to a better world and a much less confusing salvation doctrine then why did god need to even muddy the waters and send Jesus in the first place? I mean we hear all the time about how our “good works” are like filthy rags to God, which is why Jesus was needed but thats evidently not true. I mean if all I needed to do is feed and help those less fortunate to get to heaven then that seems like a much better message than hating gay people and subjugating women now doesn’t it?
It's schlock, but it's better than D level fanfic like, "Once upon a time, everything was a dark and stormy singularity without any context or purpose. The End."
@@johannpopper1493 OMG I thought you were reading the bibliolatry at first, because seriously the "jealously patient random wrath" god/gott/gaut/goth "with face hidden in dark clouds" is rather just "existing there without any context or purpose" with a way uglier and less testable story than science presents.
@@letsomethingshine You're right. God is alone, and for God alone, atheism is true. If the atheist model is true, then you are God, or an illusory part of the thing. Would you make other people? Treat them well? Get angry sometimes? What would you do with all the Hitlers?
It’s completely irrelevant what some person speculates, like when he quotes these theologians. All that matters is what the Bible actually says, everything else is just wishful thinking or fanfiction.
I do not understand people who say that admitting their wrongs is one of the most painful things, that it "sucks" and "hurts like hell". Thinking and talking accurately about your deeds is one of the best feelings. _Having done_ a bad thing can hurt; and being subjected to punishment or retaliation for a misdeed can hurt: but how can the admission hurt? What is the fun in denying a _reality_ that you _already know_ about?
I agree. I noticed that too. I never thought it 'sucked' to apologize. If I hurt someone or wrong someone, I don't mind saying I am sorry. Maybe that is a Christian thing.
@@UrbanERecycling , when you say "Maybe that is a Christian thing", what does "that" refer to? Does "that" mean "not minding saying you're sorry" or "finding it painful to say you're sorry"?
I don't think it's in the admission, but the revelation to others. I think the point is that if you've done a bad thing and hide it, it'll hurt when you are found out. I know that's not what he said, but I think it's more accurate to what others believe. I don't understand why saying you are wrong would hurt unless you are worried about your bad deed coming to light.
My thoughts exactly when I heard this, I think this is more relevant to someone who follows a doctrine, because I regularly and quite easily admit when I've discovered I'm wrong. There's a whole host of positives but primarily it's because recognising an error is a step closer to the "right" answer, it's absolutely necessary when wokring in a scientific field.
@@ChuckChuckWood , it's been weeks since I listened to this; but my recollection is that I took him to be talking about deeds, more than thoughts and words, and ethical or moral wrongs, not scientific errors-e.g., cheating on your spouse, not faultily defining the control-group in your report of the experiment you've finished. Still, I'm with you. Whenever I discover that I have erred-even I realizing that I saw a fox on Monday evening but told someone it was Tuesday evening-, my most pressing desire is to issue the correction to all who were given the wrong information. When I was much younger, I vehemently denied my mistakes, because I had gotten the message from others' behavior that that was what to do; for most of my life, though, I've thought it's just embarrassing to deny one's errors once one recognizes them. The trouble, of course, is that some people give you hell for messing up-and in some cases 'it's damned if you do, damned if you don't' (in their eyes you compound your misdeed by failing to admit it, and you compound your misdeed by admitting it).
The issue of a literal Hell consisting of “eternal conscious suffering” was the lynch pin in the deconstruction of my almost forty years as an evangelical fundamentalist. Michael’s view is not even consistent with the majority of Christians today or in history. Just another theological belief that is not universal….along with every other doctrinal issue in Christianity that no two people can agree upon. Love ya Alex.
He says that a rapist who seeks forgiveness on his deathbed from Christ doesn't get forgiven because he still has to have an accounting with God. But I'm certain he believes that anyone who confesses Christ as the son of God and genuinely repent their sins to Christ passes that accounting. So it's simply a semantics game-a rapist who confesses on his deathbed gets into heaven
I have two questions: 1. If God can explain everything and so certainly convince you after your death, why would he wait until you live through this life and not explain everything before? 2. Why would God create people who he will not be able to convince and who will reject him? Why not only create those who will eventually accept him?
@@daviddeida Your previous comment suggests that your understanding of the topic is very shallow, which I attribute to the fact that you probably did not listen to the discussion. If you have a meaningful answer taking into account what was said in the discussion I'm more than curious to see that.
I’ve always loved how Bishop Barron frames it. Imagine you are at a party and you are in the worst mood of your life and want nothing to do with anyone there or anything. The others are having fun but you resent them and just distance yourself. That’s what hell is like. Souls there are just constantly trying to run away from God and His goodness.
@@undefined888 There’s an incredible number of records of credible near death experiences, some of which involve the reality of hell. A couple of studies have been done on them.
@@undefined888 that depends, is the question being asked in good faith, or is it simply being asked to attempt to mock and ridicule? If it is being asked in good faith, there is a lot of evidence that can be discussed in a very cliff notes version, but you’d be better off reading books on the matter by Michael Licona, Gary Habermas, and Lee Strobel who did plenty of deep dives into the various historical, archeological, logical/philosophical studies, and theological cases for the Resurrection of Christ. If the question is not meant to actually discern the truth of the matter in an honest attempt to understand it, then there is little point/need to explain further.
Wow, just wow, the guy just blew my mind, it's such a beautiful description of hell that I want to go there. It hit me in the right way if you do a lot of mental gimnastics to see it from a mental health point of view. If a person is traumatised, depressed, anxious or addicted it feels like hell, but going to therapy and work though your trauma is also scary and sometimes painful, sometimes the trauma is so big you just cannot heal, you cannot escape, you certainly cannot do it on your own and the idea of Jesus like someone who would try to pull you out of your trauma and your trauma is incredibly healing.
I would say there's a lot of unbiblical things he believes. From a Christian perspective, it's like a pseudoscientist being interviewed. Not quite standard.
@PeaceMaker The guy we are commenting about makes up his own version of Christianity where Hell isn't eternal and you can get to heaven without accepting Christ ...I'm not talking about Universalism, I'm talking about this video. I'm not a believer but I have read the Bible and this guy isn't representing the Bible or mainstream Christianity.
@PeaceMaker I can't remember how he worded it but he did say it...and he explicitly said he believes Hell needn't be forever, again, I haven't even mentioned universalism that has nothing to do with my point.
Thoroughly enjoyed this. I've followed IP for years, don't think I've ever seen anything from Alex, but love listening to him speak. Very thoughtful & respectful arguments from both sides. 💜
The primary problem I see with every faith-based system is that each is just as likely to be true as all of the others because all of them require belief prior to demonstrating even just the weakest evidence of itself. If there really was an all-powerful god, and if an eternity of hell were a real threat, claiming to know the mind and desires of such a being could be exactly the thing that it might find offensive. The only logical position is to take no position. Humans are arrogant enough without going around believing we might know what the creator of the universe might be thinking.
Not so. I am a Christian because I think that there are good philosophical arguments for supposing that God is the type of god found in the Abrahamic religions, and that there is enough historical evidence to make Jesus' ministry historical and his resurrection more likely than not
@@a.i.l1074 Ok. Just curious 😊 Why did you start believing? I have never heard a good philosophical argument, and those that exist can be equally well applied to other religions. And historical evidence for jesus, sure. But we have better evidence for Mohammed, and the quran doesnt contain nearly as many errors and contradictions as the bible, so why not be a muslim?
@@TheAndnor difficult question, it was a long process. Two things helped: 1. I used to engage with these questions like "let's debunk this ridiculous superstition", but then I noticed that genuinely intelligent people believed it. You say none of the arguments are any good, I've got to disagree: when you spend a lot of time with them and really get into the details, atheism is not clearly the most rational position. 2. There are some half-way positions which were more palatable to hold at first. Like religious experiences are real phenomena, God is real in the way that morality and love are, religion has some benefits or beauty. Slippery slope We probably have more evidence about the minutiae of Mohammed's life, but his main miraculous claims are the night journey and the revelation of the Quran. Those do not impress me. There are more plausible explanations for the rise of Islam, like the Arabs adapting the faith of the Jews and Christians they conquered. The central miracle of Christianity is the resurrection, which had hundreds of witnesses and was falsifiable at the time the Gospels were written. I haven't heard a theory of what happened during and after Jesus' ministry that better explains the historical data.
To most of the questions, Michael just admits he doesn't know. I am furious when he says that. How can anyone preach their worldview with so much conviction and expect others to follow it, but at the same time fail to give answers to basic questions.
At least dude is rational. I kind of see it like a naturalist being asked what happened before the Big Bang; just because the cosmologist scratches his head when you ask him what happened before time began, doesn’t necessarily mean most of his beliefs about the world are fiction, even though that part of his worldview seems absurd.
I actually really liked it. I notice i find it easier to trust people who aren’t afraid to say i don’t know. That gives more credibility to his arguments because you can tell he is honest and humble
religious people often resort to a kind of "god works in mysterious ways" approach when they don't have a convincing answer. which leads to the question of how they can speak with such conviction on the motivations of something that apparently has mysterious motivations.
@@johnbuckner2828 But i dont think any cosmologist would say whatever our current understanding of the universe is the absolute truth. But for a religious guy it's all dogmas, unchangeable. Secondly, religious truths demands much more than scientific truths. If a particular religion is true, we must change our entire personality to align with its beleif sets, and live our only life following its rules. And if you happen to choose wrong religion you're at risk of eternal punishment. So atleast for me, i need to be certain about all of a religion's claims, before subscribing to it. I think that's possible if its god is omnipotent. But in science you can tolerate such uncertainty. Because not accepting a theory doesn't cause you any suffering. If a religion says homosexual acts are sin, and that religion is not the true religion, an adherant follower of that religion but happens to be gay, out of fear of hell, stay away from all the fun he could have had. Thats a huge cost. So you need to be so sure about what you beleive is actually true. But in science just because we dont know what the initial state of the universe was, we don't need to dismiss the theory of relativity. Because we find many applications of this theory and Infact it's UPTO US if we want to beleive in this thoery or not. No one's getting punished here.
For most people, God, heaven and hell occupy a very small fraction of their time, if at all. Their lives are spent providing for themselves and their loved ones. Most people live their lives without the intent to harm and most people do not cause intentional harm, with or without embracing God. Moments of tragedy, death or dying often increase God-consciousness momentarily when the suffering is overwhelming. It is however nonsense to believe that heaven or hell is their ultimate destiny, based on their belief or not in God.
What if the kid who never met his father, and this due only to his fatherś negligence as a parent says, ¨Father where have you been all my life? You have been an absent parent for more than a decade. And now all of the sudden you arrive and want me to adore you. If I adore and emulate your behavior (absentee parenting) then you claim i will be rewarded. (Actually, father can't find time in his busy schedule to meet his child, so he sends his attache to inform the boy) If I deny your goodness and choose not to adore you, I am to be set on fire and burned alive." He may claim to adore father to avoid pain and get his cool stuff. But one might question how deep his affections run.
@@DrownedinDesigner I was raised catholic in Spain and I never met anyone who described hell or heaven anywhere close on what he did. His position defies most of the history of Christian dogma
@ My initial thought was, "He has tried to address a discrepancy he (or someone else) identified in the different passages, and has created a version (not that he is the first to do so) that includes enough from the original material (the stuff that doesn't seem to contradict), that it allows him to still pursue the religion carefully, but still not antagonistically." I'm glad he, at least here, has done this. The typical depiction of a Christian and their views on hell are worrisome, and not well thought out.
@ That's not true, though. Anecdotal examples aren't data. We can see what religious philosophers have been saying for thousands of years. What a pastor in Spain said in your youth doesn't equate to "most of the history of Christian dogma."
@ While not exact, THERE WERE early greek church fathers that held a view similar to Michael, because of how the duration of hell is described in the original greek, which referred moreso as a long age of correction thaN eternal torment. Though this is still often disputed today, so I'm not sure.
@@Mister_A_149 why have that responsibility at all? according to theists, god decided that that responsibility was neccesary in the first place and then gave himself it. needing to fulfill a responsibility that you created doesn't excuse you from creating the responsibility in the first place, nor does it excuse fulfilling the responsibility in any way you see fit
Most Christians deny that God sends sinners to hell. They say that sinners decide their own fate thanks to free will. But excuse me, which of the Christians will explain why a reasonable person would choose hell (the worst torment) instead of God (the greater good). That is, a rational being will never choose hell. If it is not rational and irrational, then why does God allow unreasonable beings to make such a choice out of ignorance?
There is a difference between having or lacking the capacity to be rational, and the power of choice. It's easy to hate God and make a choice to express that hatred, which hurts one's self in the process. We may conclude, those who have rational capacity, but choose an irrational outcome, can be morally judged in the negative. Those who lack the rational capacity, cannot be judged for good or bad actions. It's simple, if you don't oversimplify. ;-)
@@johannpopper1493 choosing an irrational outcome despite full availability of relevant information is evidence of irrationality. so again, why would God force someone that irrational to make that choice?
I'd love to hear a part 2 with either Glenn Peoples of Right Reason or Chris Date of Rethinking Hell! I think they would give very different answers that would be closer to my own views of course haha
The idea is that there is an omnipotent being, and he chooses to spend his time punishing and rewarding humans severely strains credulity. Talk about a waste of talent! Only in a religious context would anyone even think about believing such a thing.
37:35 "We just simply do not know what happens on the other side at this point." Says the person who's telling us so much about what Heaven is like, what Hell is like, who goes whither, how that decision is made, what God is like, and so on. Why make up this elaborate and internally inconsistent fiction?
I’ve really appreciated how you’ve adapted the free will objection in your recent arguments. It’s quite a lot more interesting when you contextualize it instead of what I’ve been doing, just objecting to human free will.
Can we just talk about how he said hell is becoming the worst version of yourself, in which you are willing to sacrifice those you love... isn't that what God did by sacrificing his own son and what God wanted Abraham to be willing to do?
The creator of the universe and a mortal man are not operating on the same morality buddy. A king can do things that are right that would be wrong for a subject to do. The creator and owner of reality can do things that it would not be right for a man to do.
"My God can kick your God's ass" - Religion in a nutshell. Just be the best person you can be while you briefly walk this rock in space and stop this ancient hokum ffs.
I was a agnostic and decided to learn as much as I can about religions to see if there was truth to their claims. I had no bad experiences and went in with a truly open mind. I now consider myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't understand how anyone can believe after knowing the history of religions and where these stories come from. If I am wrong, all God needs to do is to show me but he seems to refuse, or more likely he does not exist.
How arrogant must a person be for the feeling of admitting you're wrong about something being akin to going through literal hell. It's the easiest thing for me to admit I'm wrong about something, because I know for a fact that I don't know everything
This statement was very telling. It speaks to Mike's worldview. If you build your worldview on imagination and not evidence, it would be difficult to admit when you're wrong.
I love the irony in which this guy talks about flat earthers and how they don't care about what's really true, and at the same time he is holding beliefs himself that have no foundation in reality (Christianity). It's the simple fact that we just like being part of a particular story where we are a character of significance and specialty, which is true of both flat earthers and Christians.
@@uninspired3583 in their respective spheres of influence, they are. Most people who follow atheist channels know Alex, and most who follow Christian content know Michael. They've both been parts of debates and interviews with other very influential thought leaders as well.
Throughout the debate, I have the distinct impression Micheal is performing an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to marry his own sense of morality and justice with that of his religion.
Even if I don't agree with Michael Jones and I still struggle to find moral reconciliation with the god of the Abrahamic doctrines, I find many of his opinions to be almost beautiful in what they portray. Its a lot more coherent with an all-forgiving god to have an impermanent hell whose torture is more of an abstraction rather than the more common perception of hell being eternal torment without the possibility of redemption, and regardless of whats actually biblical canon, I have new perspective on the topic, and of Christians as a whole.
@@ryanthomas7119 Hi, um... Jesus saved my life. He is amazing and perfect and holy. Don't tell people their own life story. It's equivalent to someone saying, "I was lost in a desert with no water and my friend brought me water so I lived." and you saying, "I hate to tell you this, but no one brought you water." So how are we alive? How do we have joy? How do we suddenly know what true love is? How do we worship and dance and serve others? Because Jesus touched us! He saved, changed, and loved us!
This is great, because I sort of discovered you two at the same time. Cool journey introducing myself first to Michaels various video essays on the famous arguments, then looking Alex's sort of rebuttals or doubts. I think that still Leibnitz ' argument is the most solid :)
@@bruhdabones It's similar to the first mover argument, and kalam is like an extension into it. Every thing can be explained by an event before it, so everything that exists has some kind of cause or causer. Leibnitz argues that universe began to exist, so something must be beyond it that caused it to exist, some kind of transcendental force. Look up Cosmological argument, im not good at wording it.
@@justaway6901 i consider whatever greater than the universe out of comprehension to possess some God qualities, and I believe that kind of thing doesn't need a causer for it is the ultimate beginning. If there was something before God, it wouldn't be considered a god, perhaps a minor god.
The irony when he describes the motivation for flat earthers I found to be illustrative of the very same motivation behind religious beliefs. “I have this special secret relationship with the creator of the universe that I cannot prove and I’m part of an exclusive club that just wants to share this with the rest of the world”. “If you don’t profess this same belief or feel compelled by it’s arguments in the face of the lack of evidence, you’re part of the conspiracy of denial or you’ve been misled by another tribes secret”. They just switch out the word secret for truth or faith. Does he never stop to think perhaps my belief in god is simply bias at work due to being spoon fed these ideas since he was a toddler?
It's a double irony when atheists describe a theist's motivation as illustrative of wishful thinking, when their entire motivation for rejecting any faith whatsoever is to avoid thinking about punishment, which itself requires membership in an exclusive club that tells fairy tales about everything existing without purpose in direct opposition to the immediate experience of billions, and moreover insist that if you don't share their belief, life on this planet will become extra hellish for the first time in history, and if you deny atheism, then it must be because you've been mislead by a conspiracy, yada yada yada.
Christianity has as much to say about us being sinners and servants as it does about us being in any way chosen. My own practice has been profoundly humbling and has seriously de-emphasised myself I also converted as an adult, scientifically-educated, from an atheist family, etc. Whatever negative stereotype you want to put onto religious people, I ain't it
Nah, that follows the assumption that we know enough about the universe to make such a claim. Faith is hope in a conclusion, not actively fighting against established facts. By all means, go talk to atheists, yourself. You'll find that they fall for plenty of pseudoscience, from chiropractic care, herbal teas that can "cleanse", various political grifts, etc.
There's so much individualistic freestyle biblical interpretation from Christian to Christian when they discuss their views at length that I don't understand how anyone considering embracing the Christian religion could possibly be confident in any particular view. It's hopelessly (and worthlessly) subjective.
It seems you have a very restrictive view of religion. And Christianity in particular. I think the difference in interpretation if anything shows a desire from the intellectually honest that there is still much more to understand and learn, in the pursuit of truth. It’s quite dismissive to suggest this difference is “worthless”.
@@mikesingh6099, the worthlessness comes from the lack of an authority to affirm any of the subjective views as correct. This religion has been around for 2000 years and has produced nothing but disagreement. Pursuing truth is a pointless venture when you wouldn't recognize it if you found it, or if you think you found it when you haven't.
One thing I liked a lot was that when one of them spoke, I agreed with them, until the other one took his turn, at which point I agreed with him. That's how convincing their arguments were. (This wasn't always the case but in a lot of cases.)
@@dragonmartijn Yes, it would be a sign of a stubborn character if you didn't see why someone's argument was convincing just because it didn't agree with your previous views. :) I'm glad I'm lacking a character like that. :P
"To be a person of faith is to know that the universe of the senses is but the tip of the iceberg, a gateway. And it is to resist the idolatry of Enlightenment rationalism, which tells us that only superstition and obscurantism lie beyond what we human beings can measure." Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (08/24/23)"
47:20 Michael Jones doing Soul Algebra and trying to calculate how long someone would last before their soul is 'disintegrated into nothing' is hilarious. Do religious people not realize how silly they sound?
@@Giorginho IP said that his morality, based in god, embraces everything that an utilitarian morality, based on wellbeing, would. So I think he does the exact same utilitarian calculations. Maybe you should tell us what the better alternative is?
@@pyrotek45 I admire your cool name, and I suspect you are an air-cond specialist. If the hell hole exists, your experience will be welcome. I think hell is real because I let my brain hear IP talk nonsense.
Very respectful and illuminating. It is Alex's style of debating. And he does a fantastic job. His apologist opponent was also respectful although i don't find his arguments convincing. I don’t understand how if one is in hell, it seems to me he has heard all the arguments and all the evidence since it is god that has thrown him there. I don't understand his logic for rejecting his belief in god. And belief according to the Protestant faith is what saves. Oh well it is these mere mortals speculating about eternal or transitory damnation.
@@bertrandrussell894 it says alot more than that! Question how can outer darkness exist if there is an Gigantic literal fire burning up/ torturing spirit beings in a dimension outside of our three dimensions. Being away from God's presence is called outer darkness. Can a person with a Glorified body / Resurrected body even feel pain or suffering ? The hyper literalist interpretations aren't what the writers are conveying as the Book of Revelation is Apocalyptic literature and not meant to be taken in a hyper literalist way.
@@SydneyCarton2085 Sin is something "against god". Since that God approves of child sacrifice, slavery, global genocides and murdering first borns.... I could go on. Actions have consequences..no one gets to do what they want without them. No god necessary.
@@tel1723 I was raised orthodox and it is still a different religion what Michael is creating. In the Orthodox church there is the idea of helping a dead person getting in haven by doing different "things" . The judgment of the person is not done instantly is done over a long period. The dead person can't affect the judgment after death but the living can help. (this is not explicitly stated but my interpretation would be lettings the things settle after death and watching how the people miss you or not see the effect of your last actions)
I only recently watched Michael's content a couple weeks ago, but I've had a similar take on hell for at least a few years now: which is that hell seems to be a place of eternal torment separated from God, that people choose to stay in, and that is awful because it is a place without any sort of divine intervention. Reason is reading the scriptures I found hell is mainly described as a place of torment, not torture, and that the places where it's described as fiery are places where we're compared to weeds and stuff (so clearly metaphorical). There's also a scripture where a guy who's just died is talking to Abram, from hell to purgatory respectively, and the conversation just doesn't seem like the guy is literally burning in agony at that moment though life clearly sucks. And yet when he talks to Abraham he asks if he could warn his brothers about not coming here, the guy doesn't even bother to ask if there was a way he could get out. So that informed my opinion on how the Bible actually describes hell. I think the reason many Christians see hell in the stereotypical lense isn't because of a scriptural backing but more so because of catholic dogma that's stuck with protestants since they separated. For instance hell didn't even originally have a name. And instead it was compared to a real place in the original hebrew, and that was its pseudo-name since that was the best real-world example of it. It was then later called hades by the early/catholic church and the literal descriptors of fire and torture we commonly associated with it today were given to it after. So I wouldn't say it's a different religion, I think it's a fair interpretation since many Christians can come to the same conclusion separately, just by reading the text. I think it is less common though, since many Christians either don't read their Bible like they should, or struggle with the question of hell and are afraid to look into it too much because they fear the conclusion they might come to
Okay it's pretty funny, I've never heard Michael's thoughts on hell, but got to the 40 minute mark and that's hilarious that we brought up the same points 😂. I was kinda hoping he mightve reached that conclusion from a slightly different angle so I could learn something, but it seems pretty beat for beat 😅 Edit - also I meant Lazarus not Abraham*. Realized I made that mistake after he went into detail on that story
@@n8icuss there ar multiple religions based on the same text but the difference between them is interpretation of the text. my point is this interpretation results in a different religion.
I am a huge fan of Michael Jones’ ministry, but his views on hell would be a point of divergence. The passage from Peter on Christ preaching to those in hell carries with it a long line of contention between Church Fathers as to its meaning. I fall more so in the Augustinian camp, which would understand Christ to have preached to those “with ears to hear”, or in other words, those who looked forward to Christ prior to His Incarnation.
I must say. I like this guy Michael Jones. His pattern of thinking and way of arguing reminds me a bit of the antique philosopher Plotinus, where the main issue of judging a persons Life and moral is the direction the soul is aligned. Towards the good and perfect or towards the worldly and profane. Also Kants Good Will as what he thinks should be the main source of moral decisions. Great guys with big hearts. We all dont know how God will decide, nor what will happen after death. But I do hope noone will ever harm them. Thx
If we become the worst versions of ourselves in hell, I'm assuming in a gradual process, surely this would, over time, reduce a person's ability to understand that heaven is the better option and desire to live with god. If such a person were to be addicted to their pride and self-pleasure, this would be as though they're becoming more consumed by this addiction and distant from god simply by spending more time in hell, ruminating on this pride. In a similar sense, the longer a person is addicted to a drug, or any other pleasurable, yet harmful thing, the more difficult it is for the person to see the good in sobriety, and the more distant they become to the idea of this ultimately better experience. If hell is where we become the worst versions of ourselves, how can it be fair to say that a soul deserves to stay in hell if what's keeping them there is their gripping addiction to pride that's growing outside their control?
Excellent point, I'm kind of surprised Alex didn't pick up on something along these lines. Even just going with IP's point that we are flawed in our beliefs and convictions due to our biases and what story we subconsciously want to be true, surely it isn't fair for an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly just being to let us make a terrible choice with our flawed human brains
Yeah but if that's what makes people happiest and they make an informed decision then why save people from it and if it's horrifyingly awful beyond human comprehension then why would a loving God snap it out of existence or just choose not to create it?
@@samdg1234 Its seems to me the only criteria is whether or not the person in question believes the tall takes in old books or not( or had it drummed into them before they could reason for themselves, of course).
@@bertrandrussell894 Stellar specific critiques there. Russell might have given you a gratuitous pass. Flew too at one time. Keep that brain of yours working overtime.
The Christian gentleman that keeps arguing the Bible preaches hell is quite mistaken. It doesn’t preach the modern version of hell at all. As a Christian I’ve spent much time reading scripture in the Greek snd Hebrew. There is NO WORD HELL anywhere in the Bible. There’s Sheol, hades, Gehenna and Tartarus. Only the latter is remotely close to modern hell but even that’s off and more a Greek concept than biblical. (And it’s only there once and applied to angels.) Then there’s the issue that the books that speak of hell ARE NOT to us today. Jesus himself says he came to preach to ISRAEL, so we can’t apply his ministry to them to us. Revelation was written to 7 specific churches about what THEY were about to undergo THAT GENERATION and soon. Finally, the scripture itself says things like, god isn’t forever angry, he won’t be away from people forever, all are made alive, etc etc. That point blank is contrary to some eternal torture chamber. (And never mind the fact that in genesis god blocked immortality so they WOULDN’T spend an eternity in a fallen state. Immortality of the soul is a Greek philosophy, not a Christian one. So god addressed the he’ll issue from the start and Jesus fixed the dead issue.) The gentleman arguing against hell is consistently logical and even biblical, even if he’s not a Christian. I enjoyed his thinking process. Great debate.
@@grayhalf1854ultimately all morality comes from the spirit of God. But, until we learn to hear his voice and leading, it mostly comes from our culture and upbringing and the laws our lands have established.
Well cause of death was suicide if you think of the physical damage to them self. However they had no other choice than to take the risk that John Kramer set them up for. John Kramer legally speaking would be held for manslaughter, torture etc depending on which scene or movie you are talking about.
@@RomanRebirth it’s kind of the same when you have no meaningful autonomy whether or not you become convinced of gods existence. Like if jigsaw let half the people escape.
OK if it's not someone's fault for not knowing, why not leave them alone....don't tell them anything about God or Jesus..... and they can figure it out after they die!! Once you TELL them you make them culpable- and chances are you'll do A VERY POOR JOB OF IT LIKE EVERYONE HAS, and then they will get the wrong impression, rebel and then end up in hell all because of your poor teaching that was unnecessary in the first place.
They are still not culpable. Learning of gods love in this life has it benefits that go beyond just the after life. There is a resurrection before judgement and at the judgement we will be confronted by our sins and we will understand what we deserve, but we wont get what we reserve unless in the face of god we deny his mercy out of hate for the salvation of others. The pharisees hated jesus because he was the savior to all. They knew he was the christ but denied him in his face because they hated mercy. Jesus taught unconditional love and the pharisees wanted to feel validated in their hateful works, so they chose to worship satan and believe that he would be their savior because he despises mercy as well. Thomas didnt believe that jesus had been resurrected until jesus showed him the holes in his hands. You have seen and believe but Blessed are the ones that believe and have not seen. This verse is talking about people who follow god before seeing him, and the blessings are rewards in the next life. But he will show himself before the judgment and then if you choose to suffer because you hate mercy you will be committing the only sin that isnt forgiven. All will see god - now seek and ye shall find. The law is written on our conscience. So all moral people will gain rewards in heaven but if you cannot forgive someone like hitler god will not forgive you. Out of the love for suffering you choose to suffer yourself. But tbh I highly doubt many will choose that option in the face of god. This revelation of true unconditional love has freed me in this life of fear, and when I experience pain I thank god for that pain because without pain I could never truly understand love. Love is the absence of pain, love is mercy, love is joy. Love is perfect. And perfect love casts out all fear.
@@LeoVital no the source is me having been to the pit. Ive been to hell and Jesus literally pulled me out when I cried out for mercy. I hated god if he existed before this experience. I told everyone I knew that he either doesn’t exist or he is evil. I thought how could a god create humans knowing before hand that so much evil and suffering would exist. It made no sense, But after experiencing the separation of God I was trapped in a land of my sins. I was in complete isolation from anyone and there was not a sliver of peace, joy, or love. I lived my life over and over in small loops of all the times I was injured, every time I said something mean, every small ache and pain that I ever felt in my life up to that point. Sin absent god reveals the true evil of sin. The punishment felt just. Sin is a corruption of Gods perfect creation, sin means death to the innocent. I knew I did this to myself. The second I admitted that I deserved the punishment and asked for rest I was plucked out of hell by Jesus who is the bridge between life and death. God is love, god didnt want us to experience suffering but we brought it on ourselves through sin. God saw that he himself would have to suffer by creating us, but this life is short and because we have lived in suffering we can properly understand good. Life sucks, but the next one will not. We will be able to truly appreciate good. This life is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But after we die and receive mercy through our father we will eat of the tree of life and death and suffering shall be no more. The death of death is life. God knows that after we learn this lesson that we chose to learn we will be happy for it, for it lets us understand love. Just as a woman suffers through childbirth for the purpose of the expansion of love and beauty in our lives. We can see this lesson everywhere in this life. Through labor we toil in order to be able to eat and take care of our family. In exercise we suffer to gain strength. As parents we sacrifice certain parts of our lives to enjoy the one of a kind love of parent and child. God is our Father and he suffered for us so that we could become glorious and wondrous parts of his family. When we understand suffering we can truly appreciate love.
Then they did the fusion dance and became Alex Jones
Haha
To say nothing of Michael O'Connor...
@@RanchElder I would if I knew who that was
They mated, didn’t they?
@@brotherben4357 fusion dance does sound like another way to say the boned
I’ve never understood why the devil would punish me for disobeying the same god he did
That's the point. The devil want you to disobey.
@@ericdanielski4802 The devil does not exist (most probably).
That’s not a Christian doctrine.
@@ericdanielski4802 But doesn’t that mean I’m on his team?
@@MenchieExtrakt "You've disobeyed god and done exactly what I wanted you to, now I'll poke your balls with this trident for all eternity"
I thoroughly enjoy the dynamic that these two have in these conversations. As a Christian, I've always admired Alex a great deal in that he's unwavering in his criticisms and observations of Christianity and theism, but that he truly listens to the other side of the conversation and is never interested in misrepresenting anything.
Fellow Christian here. Could not agree more!! 💖🙏🏻✨💖 Much love to Alex and Michael. 💖🙏🏻✨💖
It has always struck me as odd, that on the assumption that Christianity is supposedly the one true religion, how only approximately one third of the world's population follow it, after 2000 years.
How are you still a Christian after watching these types of videos??
Alex is incompetent. He claims to have studied theology and doesn’t even know the basics of the bible; for crying out loud.
He interviews scholars with a much higher education without a basic understanding of those people’s expertise.
He gives the impression of a primary school kid asking a professor basic questions.
@@DA-yd2nyHow's your channel/podcast doing?
I'd never dreamt of such a mutually respectful debate. Well done you two!
That was one Hell of a conversation.
Lol you took the low hanging fruit. Off to hell you go
This is the joke God was waiting for. Out of all these billions, you're the only one who deserves to go to heaven. The purpose of this universe is complete. Commence apocalypse.
🤣😂!
Ba dum tss
@@johannpopper1493brilliant 😂!
Alex you are KILLING it with these guests. Love the people you’re bringing on, keep it up!
This guy seems quite angry from the first few minutes.
@@XJRSuper no I’ve watched Mike before. he’s cool. He just has that expression a lot during debates and deep conversations. I think it’s a concentration thing.
I'm just 5 minutes in and tired of his lack of knowledge of the doctrine of hell.This guy is poorly rationalizing immoral unjust and wicked nonsense
Bibliolatry is no good, which canon? Which interpretational version of that canon? Why would that one be true, what is the falsifiable prove?
@@letsomethingshine try studying first: there are multiple views and you obviously don't understand any of them.
These guys can think and articulate very quickly. It must be a gift.
It comes from expertise in their studies. When you devote lots of time to what youd like to learn it gets easier and easier to think quickly
No it comes from a long time of effort and practice.
For some it's also a grift 😂
It's a skill that can be learnt!
reading books helps me a lot
my ability to speak skyrockets when I'm consistently reading, but goes back down if I don't read for a few months
The nature of this debate was so civil. Thank you for the opportunity to hear complex, thought out arguments instead of tactics and sarcasm. I love IPs channel and it was very cool to hear someone else’s thought process as well.
So civil and yet one condemns the other to eternal torture
@@TwiddleJonesIP isn’t condemning Alex, Alex is condemning Alex
I love how someone could listen to the talk and conclude what the above commenter does. It's like that bicycle meme where they put a stick in the spokes of their wheel then blame someone else for them falling@@LeadedNevada
@@TwiddleJones ? I didn't see the guest do any condemning? He's well aware that's Gods job not his?
@@LeadedNevada god is condemning Alex to hell after forcing him to reject himself lol
As a Christian, this is a rather interesting topic. Good to know both sides of the aisle continue to have young minds who are open to listening and understanding perspectives from both sides.
My understanding is that believing in something for which there is no good evidence is: You can guess.
I too find it unreasonable to believe in things with no good evidence, like something from nothing, order from chaos, life from non- life, consciousness from non- consciousness, etc.
@@Illycrium and fortunately for us non-believers no one has ever proposed that there has ever been "nothing"... a state of complete non-existence.
@@Illycrium
"I too find it unreasonable to believe in things with no good evidence, like something from nothing"
Cite me ANY peer reviewed paper that purposes this.
"order from chaos"
What do you mean? If you are talking about our universe, it is by no means order. It is extremely chaotic. We see entire star systems that perished billions of years ago in huge cataclysmic events.
" life from non- life"
What do you mean here? Everything is made of the same things. Atoms , carbon etc. Define life.
"consciousness from non- consciousness,"
This literally happens to every human and animal ...
@@Longtack55 How can you prove that anything exists outside of your own mind? Isn’t it irrational to believe in something without direct evidence or verification?
I've loved both of these channels for a long time and I'm really happy to see this conversation
It almost feels like every guest you get is one I needed more than the last!
This is such an excellent conversation! Thanks very much, Alex.
The concept of hell is what made me an atheist
And when you get there you'll no longer be an atheist.
Infinite punishment for a finite offense is the epitome of unjustness
your readed a bible.what's the Mathews lord pray ?
"finite offense" that's the point, we can respect some dog from the street but not god?
@@areyoumad8224 sorry your comment is unintelligible. Maybe try again with better wording? Maybe you could be more clear.
Are you trying to respond to me or what? I’m happy to talk to you but maybe try and form a sentence that makes sense.
Did you watch the video
@@emjayy1233 I hadn't actually but i see now what i missed so thank you
I have never heard of the idea that hell was temporary. As a Catholic, the whole “refinement for heaven” seemed a lot more like purgatory than hell doctrine.
I’m not a Catholic anymore, but I really liked this argument for Christianity (and hell) presented here. I consider myself agnostic and (through absolutely nothing but wishful thinking) would like to believe that the afterlife is just a place where everyone becomes their best selves automatically. This depiction of hell seems much more in line with that thinking and I very much appreciated it.
Yes hell is forever. Purgatory is for a while. Heaven is only for saints, but a bit broader than just the canonized ones.
hell isn't for us, hell doesnt exist, purgatory doesnt exist either
@@VVooshbait well, everyone has their own beliefs.
Props to Alex to getting right to the point. I hate when podcasts have a 20 minute set up.
What I love the MOST of all these debate videos. It is that both leave rooms for the other to speak, untill both are finished with there points. Its shamefully rare in a debate, that we get to have this kind of calm debates. Such a shame in my mind. Its one of the biggest reason I must force myself, to watch sometimes politic debates on tv etc etc. (Specially under a election year)
This comes from a person who loves debates, from small to bigger tophics overall.
No wonder most people hate most "debates", if grown adults act like children while debating. Not even just so called "adults" but but grown people who runs/wants to run the bloody country :).
What we've seen was a conversation, or discussion, not a debate. Main trouble with debates is that participants don't listen to each other with the goal of to try understand what the other is talking about but mainly listen to find something they can provide a counterargument for (often fallacious).
Really happy Alex brought Michael on. This was a great conversation and was interesting to see both sides on this topic.
Wow, I never thought I'd see this debate in my life. As an InspiringPhilosophy watcher but also a CosmicSkeptic watcher due to his vegan content (as a vegan myself), this is awesome to see, and a pleasant surprise indeed provided it is a problem I have always had as a Christian - the doctrine and subsequent justfiication of Eternal Hell. I simply cannot believe an omnibenevolent God would allow us to experience eternal suffering, even if we choose it, so hopefully this debate enlightens me to some degree. Thanks guys!
It helps that the idea of hell is unclear even among clergy and church fathers, however I believe it is enough to have faith in Gods love. What if hell is spending eternity as a disembodied spirit lamenting the lost opportunities to love and worse the times one knowingly hurt others? A ghost no longer is tempted by fleshly desires like food or sex or fatigue so maybe they are left with regret. Maybe that is what purgatory is, forgiving yourself for failing to love. Lord only knows.
@@SydneyCarton2085 Any time someone posits an eternal punishment for finite crimes is not thinking clearly. God tells us to use our brains (come and reason) when considering evidence. The evidence is clear: Jesus is love. Jesus is God. Therefore, God is love. Nobody is going to be punished eternally for crimes committed over the course of, at most, 100 years. The words of the Bible have been distorted by Satan and evil men to sow fear and doubt in the minds and hearts of human beings (just like he did in the Garden of Eden when deceiving our first parents). But our job is to dispel these lies: we are to be stronghold demolishers, destroying the lies about God's nature and character. And the worst lie ever foisted upon gullible men is that a "God of love" will torture His children forever in fire. It's a gross mischaracterization of how God will handle selfishness (sin) in unrepentant sinners.
@@cklesterwell I do believe that God torturing us by sending us to hell is wrong. The Bible says that not only will some people will go to hell, but everyone deserves to go to hell. Thats the whole point of Jesus's sacrifice. The bible clearly says that our sin nature is an anathema to the purity of God and only through the sacrifice of his son and infinite grace can we be pure enough to be in his presence. To think unrepentant sinners will go to heaven is to say Jesus's sacrifice is unnecessary and that is heracy. God is love, but he is also justice, and without being under the tent of his sons sacrifice hell being the furthest most distant place from God is the only just place for humanity to go.
@@tman040496tb It seems pretty clear that most (if not all) human beings will have a Gehenna experience. The question becomes, what is the Gehenna experience?
If you listen to the father of lies, he will tell you that Gehenna is a place of eternal burning of human beings for the sins they committed over the course of at most 100 years. This idea makes God out to be worse than Hitler. Thankfully, it cannot be reasonably supported from scripture. (Anybody can twist any scripture to make it say anything when taken out of context. Keep everything in context, and everything remains neat and tidy.)
But if you watch Jesus and read the Bible, you will conclude that God is love, and a God of love would never do something so unjust, especially to those He loves so deeply.
God says in Jeremiah 19:5: "They have built pagan shrines to Baal, and there they burn their sons as sacrifices to Baal. I have never commanded such a horrible deed; it never even crossed my mind to command such a thing!"
God is not for burning anybody.
> The bible clearly says that our sin nature is an anathema to the purity of God and only through the sacrifice of his son and infinite grace can we be pure enough to be in his presence.
If this is true, how was Jesus in the presence of human beings? How was God present with Israel through their desert experience?
Unrepentant sinners will not go to heaven. Nobody is suggesting they will.
I used to say "God is love, but he is also justice," as well. Do some research as to what God's justice in the Bible means. What is God's wrath? It is not like human wrath.
Regardless, is it just to torture a mortal, finite being in burning agony for eternity for sins committed over a finite time? No, it is not. So, no, your concept of hell is not "justice" in any sense of the word. Arbitrary vengeance? Sure. Psychotic retaliation? Yeah. Justice? No.
@@cklester for better or worse, the fear of eternal hellfire has undoubtedly deterred some from committing atrocities like murder and grape. Lord knows even though for the most part I am averse to the idea of hurting others there have been times when the fear of Gods punishment has kept me from doing so. Maybe it is providence that this healthy fear exists, and it is a healthy fear. At worst it results in some scrupulosity that can turn into serenity knowing that true repentance in reconciliation retroactively atones for sins. For example, many crimes are avoided in society because of legal consequences and since we are born into sin many are inclined to crime. Beyond the insatiable hole left by disordered appetites of the flesh, there really is no incentive for crime anyways. A person has at least two motives to avoid sin, moving away from hell/punishment AND towards heaven/love/reconciliation. Hell is non-Heaven and Heaven is non-hell.
I'm a big fan of Mike's channel, and I appreciate your interview, the way you compose yourself and keep it fair and well intentioned.
I've always said, if god exists and is perfectly just, then I have nothing to fear. I've come to my atheism honestly and with the evidence and arguments made available to me.
When you look at what religious people do and what they say, who could seriously fault someone for drawing the conclusion that it was all a contrived vehicle for craven asshole humans to exert control over other people via what is fundamentally a threat.
The evidence made available to you includes countless historical documents, geographical proof, and personal accounts from people - including former atheists and agnostics, who have no reason to lie - sharing their personal encounters with you. It's good that you're able to accept that God is just and that your choice to actively reject the evidence provided to you is completely willful.
@samuelsprings7245 haha, sounds like you responded to what you wanted me to say and think, rather than what I actually said and think, lol.
@@samuelsprings7245 People are either convinced or they're not. It's not a choice. I spend a great deal of time studying the bible and reading scholarship on the bible and the history of christianity and I've yet to find anything convincing.
@@samuelsprings7245 have you considered all the historical documents, geographical proof, and personal accounts from people of ALL religions? That's the only way to really be sure, right? Especially considering there are older religions than Christianity, Hinduism for example, which therefore must have a longer history with more documents, more personal accounts having been recorded etc.
I'm not disagreeing with you that it's important to try and take in all the evidence available for such an important topic, but it's difficult enough (if not impossible) to genuinely do this critically and rigorously for one religion unless you become a scholar and dedicate your life to it, let alone to do it for all the major religions, which is the only way to REALLY be sure
Thank you Alex for straight out mentioning that the percieved morality or character of something does not make it true/untrue.
Absolutely, it's actually the Catholics who say, God will be the judge of that. As an athiest I'm currently looking into Thomas Aquinas and others.
Alex, I suggest you get David Bentley Hart on the podcast at some point. He’s an Eastern Orthodox Christian who makes an arguably compelling case for Christian Universalism, an idea seemingly foreign to mainline denominations that is nonetheless worth exploring.
I’ll second David Bentley Hart - his book more or less convinced me of universalism. He’s also generally just interesting to listen to.
He's notably disrespectful, self-conceited in his own ideas and haughtily dismissive of everybody who does not agree with him, particularly on the issue of universalism. A very unpleasant individual with a very wrongheaded, even contradictory idea, who oozes contempt through every pore when referring to dissenters.
He is also remarkably smart, with a prodigious command of the English language (at which he most distinctly excels when hurling invectives carefully crafted to inflict the highest possible degree of humiliation on his adversaries).
In other words, a veritable theistic version of a hybrid between Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. 😂
@Xavier Velasco-Suarez that's why I like him
He’s certainly conceited, yes, even at his own admission, but to call his universalist stance “wrongheaded” seems a bit much when weighing it against your typical evangelical, traditionalist Christian defenses of eternal perdition.
A comparing him to Dawkins and Hitchens was just an added insult to his intelligence, lol
I believe universalism to be self-evident from a proper reading of The Bible and it to me is the God that I believe in. All are loved unconditionally and all are ultimately redeemed.
I am a Christian, and I enjoy listening to Alex O'Connor. A very intelligent and resoanble atheirst. I have been listening to Michael Jones for about a year now, and I really enjoy him a lot. As a believer, I learn tons from him! Good job both!
Best philosophers/debaters of their respective beliefs. Though William Lane Craig has some sick arguments too. He just needs to nail the TH-cam shorts like Michael 🤣
Wonder to who or what does jones keep flashing his eyes
Scott Hahns interpretation of heaven is a permmanent catholic mass. He got this from section of Revelation. Reads like hell to me. Eternal tedium.
“I don’t want to go to heaven. None of my friends are there.”
- Oscar Wilde
Kind of presupposes one will have friends in hell, doesn’t it?
@@samdg1234 Sherlock Holmes? Is that you?
@@AB-et6nj no shit it is 😂
Of course none of his friends are there because no one is there because it does not exist. Same for hell.
I am pretty sure Wilde sexually abused young boys.
Atheist: does God send people to hell?
Christian: No! No! Well, but actually... YES.
He super-intends it, which is morally arguably not really different from sending people
Educated Christians will refer to C. S. Lewis' idea that the gates of hell are locked from the inside.
@@justus4684 Took me a while to figure out what “morally” and “arguably” were modifying. . .
He sends people to hell based upon their own moral decisions but atheists want to reject autonomy and accountability when it suits them.
Atheists: why should I go to jail for killing that man
Me: did you desire to do it?, did you use the weapon, did you have the ability to walk away?
Atheist: yes
Me: Then you chose to do the crime that sends you to jail
@@ReformedR Well, well, well. Tell us in more detail how hell is connected with responsibility. And also about the purpose of imprisonment and the purpose of being sent to hell, well, since you made such an analogy.
it's nice to see a civilized debate on the internet.
No! It is unusual, and that makes me afraid that there is something bad closing in😮
@@ShutUpWesley What do you mean
I only went in for 5 mins 40 seconds and Michael already disappoints. Hell is a real place, with fire, without the ability to escape and you get a new body all the time to keep on receiving pain. Of course you can go on a visit, but then you weren’t judged to be there yet. All people going there know they belong there.
@@dragonmartijn How could you possible have acquired this information
@@smilloww2095 Theology.
I don't see why pride alone would be a determining factor as to whether you go to hell or not in the first place. If one is a kind person at heart, offering help and love to those around them, but at the same time doesn't wish to prostrate themselves for all eternity. Why must such a person be condemned to hell?
Thanks for having on Michael. 🤙
Always love your discussions and debates with aspiring philosophy you guys always very polite and cordial thank you
Great conversation! My only gripe is that we didn't get to hear much of Alex's stand on these topics as most of it is rather implied through his questions.
It is then more an interview, less a debate.
I think that was intentional.
@@oscargr_ I agree let the man sink his own ship by asking him questions.
Since his channel name change he had become much more of just an interviewer
@@SteveVanWinkle except it only turned to an circle jerking.
Think very few Christian thought Micheal did an bad job at answering. Look at his channel comments. That people that follow this channel think Michael did an bad job is not surprising, only living up to the expected bias.
Alex's interview strategy is to ask the kinds of questions that could reveal or highlight inconsistencies in someone's belief. While there are moments where his personal beliefs shine through, such as the non-existence of free will, he still provides evidence for why a person might have not had agency over particular aspects of their life.
I do like the interview format because the guest can always explain their view and have the opportunity to defend it, if it is defendable.
Great conversation. I am convinced that this is way better, and actually gives more intellectual food for thought, than a fully moderated and heated debate. There is a great focus on the actual substance, instead of trying to quote unquote win.
Unfortunately, in many instances those having these discussions don’t let each other finish their points without interrupting.
One of the most baffling things about Christians/apologists is their ability to confidently list the characteristics of God and heaven like, "God is all loving, God is perfectly just, God doesn't send you to hell, you must be sanctified before entering heaven, the fire of hell is within....etc". The question I keep asking myself is how? How do you know all of this? How did you obtain all this information that seems impossible to obtain unless you went to heaven/hell and met God? I was very surprised when jones said "I don't know", when asked whether or not sinners are given better information before going to hell. Like...
really? You spent 10 minutes painting a vivid picture of hell and heaven and God, and describing the exact process by which God operates before condemning a person to hell, but you can't tell me if God will correct my misinformation before I go to hell? That's the specific point at which you knowledge is limited? And he tries to act humble like "I don't know, nobody knows" - dude everything that you just said about God and hell and heaven is also stuff that you couldn't possibly know. Really at the end of the day, God's silence on this topic is deafening. I'm teird of listening to guys like Jones while God keeps quiet. Everything, literally everything that jones has said could be wrong and God would just sit back and keep quiet.
Verbose but true.😂
Literally my exact thoughts while listening to him. I feel like this was an argument Jones could only lose, because at best he could demonstrate his views of hell aren't an absolutely contradictory mess (which I'm not sure he even completely managed). But even in that case, I just listen to him and wonder why in the world I would believe him vs Hindus or Muslims or Catholics or any other person making confident claims about what happens after death on nothing more than claims God happened to reveal the truth to them and/or those they quote.
They don’t know. They’re lying to protect their ego.
Based on your comment it seems like you have to personally observe something in order for it to be true.
I understand it’s not convincing enough for you but he is basing it off what the Bible says about God’s character and Hell. Notice how Alex doesn’t press him on this because your question is very obviously answered.
Even Sam Harris arrogant enough to say God doesn’t exist, you can be 99% sure but in the same way Jone is just being intellectually honest.
I don’t understand the litany of comments just like this, why listen to the discussion in the first place, because if he said I know for sure you’d be upset cuz “how could he know” but he says idk and then it’s “how could he possibly believe this if he doesn’t know”.
@@mikesingh6099 it’s a fruitless pursuit to discuss specific details about an entity whose very existence you can have no direct knowledge of. These conversations are at best mental masturbation, but more often are simply a window into the psyche of the one who claims to be a believer.
I love how near the beginning he fights back against Alex saying that people can’t choose what compels them but then later says he wishes Universalism was true but doesn’t necessarily believe it
Sure, but a person may not always choose what they believe based on personal feelings. A person may choose what compels them because they really do think it's most in agreement with truth.
@@hyreonkthat’s exactly what many atheists do with belief in god… yet I see so many believers claiming that atheists “choose” to disbelieve god.
This is one of the biggest points Michael seemed to miss in this conversation… if atheists aren’t choosing not to believe, then how is it justified to send them to hell?
@@Vulcan_GamingYT right, as Michael explained before, and in this video, he believes in repentance after death - so nonresistent nontheists will likely end up on the right side of eternity. Even if it takes them a bit of catching up (purgatory).
I don't agree, but I only know myself. I deserve hell. I now live in repentance. Thank God for the gospel. If you're anything like me - and you are the same species, so you probably are - then Jesus died for your sins, too. I'd be happy to discuss any objections you may have.
@@hyreonkwhat about the chinese man that lived two thousand years before jesus did? does he deserve hell forever despite not having the same opportunities as you to repent?
@@tommytwo-times9053 The Catholic church affirms with the early Christian writer Justin Martyr that "We have been taught that Christ is the First-born of God, and we have suggested above that He is the logos of whom every race of men and women were partakers. And they who lived with the logos are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and people like them."
In short: Jesus is the Word. Some non-Christians came to acknowledge the existence and dedicate their life to the Word. In a real sense, they are Christians. They not only had the same opportunity to repent - they took it.
michael Jones is the king of making stuff up to make his religious belief seem less obviously incoherent, and ending up with something even more incoherent.
as an example, literally the first assertion he makes - that 'hell is metaphorical since we lose our physical bodies, and how would fire hurt you' - completely undermines his belief that the material world is non existent in reality and that the physical is the product of the mental.
If the 'mental' is all that exists, then whatever he asserts is actually being represented by what we call the physical realm is just as metaphorical as the supposed Hell he imagines.
So in one foul swoop he's contradicted his entire worldview, just to pretend that the Biblical Hell is not what it seems to be.
Bibliolatry is bibliolatry, regardless of which canon, version, or edition the pagan-mind descendant chooses. Will it be the one from King James of England? Will it be the American Catholic Bishiops' NABRE version? The Greek Orthodox Septuagint, that includes apocrypha? The Ethiopian canon with many more apocrypha than others? And there are many more.
He is also the king of quoting CS Lewis
Your the king of ignorance about the Bible!
@@chrisgray7737
yeah, there was a couple of years where all the American apologists quoted Lewis - Americans are easily impressed by an English accent. They don't tend to rely on him these days since atheists weren't impressed.
@@bengreen171 I have noticed that even firsthand with a friend of mine that is pastor. He said to me “CS Lewis was right, huh?” I replied “Bertrand Russell
I thought was right”
The fallacy of Michael Jones is that he believes that people have free will and can make free choices. He believes that people could have done/choosen otherwise in their live. It’s a misconception…
This whole conversation felt like listening to a Marvel movie fan telling you his original script of how they would make Phase 4.
It may sound entertaining at first but after 15mint you want to check out because is just one person's self-indulgence.
To be precise, I presume, you are saying that this felt *to you* like this. Fair?
@@zapazap No
@@illithidhunter6177 Then to whom are you claiming it felt so, sir?
@@zapazap Listener
For those interested in a very good critique of annihilationism, there is a good essay by Eastern Orthodox theologian Sergius Bulgakov called “The Problem of ‘Conditional Immortality.’” It was recently translated in a collection called The Sophiology of Death. Bulgakov takes not only a theological stance but a philosophical one as well to critique the implications of either God annihilating persons or persons annihilating themselves. As someone who is a universalist, Bulgakov also puts forward a sound argument for the salvation of all, including Satan and the demons. While I appreciate Michael’s stance against an eternal hell, I think he runs into the same logical and theological issues with God’s omnipotence and maximum love when he posits that God would allow his own creatures to annihilate themselves. The free will of a person is only free if it chooses the Good in which it was made for, so any person to reject the Good to the point of metaphysical suicide doesn’t indicate free will, but insanity. An insanity in which he is a slave to in a way which would implicate God as his maker. Does the image of God reside in a creature like that? If we don’t earn salvation in earthly life, then any life after this would have the same asymmetrical relationship in which God comes after the person in love to save them. But if he desires for the salvation of all (which is theosis by the way) but even one is annihilated, then I’m what sense has he not failed?
The x-tian believer etc. has a deep seated subconscious Fear of the ending of their ego's= the conditioned christianized ego cannot/willnot face the very real possibility that it will face extinction like any other mortal being and die...
@@johnd.shultz7423 I appreciate your speaking on behalf of all Christians.
How do you reconcile (libertarian) free will with hard universalism? What's to stop me or someone else from sinning if all ultimately go to heaven? Btw, I'm familiar with Bulgakov and I have a copy of Sophiology of Death.
@@ObsidianTeen simple i don’t believe in libertarian free will and “hard” universalism is a misnomer. Free will is not the ability to pick between options as in a gnomic will but to be that which you were made to be. We were made to desire God, so true freedom will always be to desire God and nothing else.
@@JAWesquire373, surely you believe in libertarian free will in order to account for the first evil choice ever made. Otherwise God or God's decree necessitated the first evil choice. Hard universalism is not a misnomer; it's the view that all will be saved necessarily. On soft universalism all are saved contingently. Hard universalism requires that of necessity, a person stops making evil choices. Hard universalists have to bite the bullet that at least sometimes, an evil person can choose/will good without an alternative. But then why was there the option of evil to begin with, and how, apart from stability in good (Mary, Jesus, Saints in heaven), can one be necessitated to will good?
I commend Alex for his immense patience, I do think that the fact that Michael is a really nice guy plays a big part in that.
Can you really be a nice guy with his kind of views?. He seems okey i guess, but also seem to think people deserve to go to hell for very silly things.
@@johanahonen8627in this SPECIFIC case I think yes because he is really defending a sort of non-Hell Hell that is much more metaphorical and also exclusively thought up by more modern Christian apologetics. He mentioned CS Lewis almost as much as he quoted the Bible. I honestly like his position a lot and think it should be more wide spread among Christians but also think it's pretty disingenuous to argue something that for almost 2000 years would have been seen as Hersey and wishful thinking by the leaders and scholars of his religion.
@@johanahonen8627 It's his belief, I can see past that. Strong beliefs hinder the ability to think clearly and logically. Everyone has cognitive barriers. I pay more attention to the way he talks, I can detach that from the details of his beliefs.
The way he talks gives me an image of someone who is really convinced that what he believes is the truth.
I can't read minds, but I know from my own experience that I have often spoken out about something in the past, when in essence I didn't really know what I was saying exactly. It is a fact that as humans we can be trapped in emotion and feelings, and therefore say strange and/or illogical things and at the same time be very convinced that we are right. His beliefs may not be directly related to his personality and true nature, in my experience he has fallen prey to indoctrination.
@@brandwijkggChristians could say the exact same things about atheists. There are millions of former atheists and agnostics - myself included - as well as people from different religions, who have converted to Christianity because they had personal encounters with Jesus Christ. Eventually, there needs to be accountability taken on the side of the atheist. Either millions of people have lied and are still lying for some reason, they're all clinically insane (unless they believe exactly what you believe), or Jesus Christ is real. You have to pick one of those three options.
@@brandwijkggConsidering Michael was an atheist and converted to Christianity in his early adult hood through a round about way (studying Egyptology and ancient religions, his atheist friends said Jesus was basically Horus, knowing this was false, it lead him to research Christianity)
I don't think the "indoctrination" or cradle Christian thing can really work.
My takeaway, an hour later:
To resolve the obvious tension between the notion of an all-loving god and the idea of (nearly?) eternal torment in Hell, you just have to find increasingly abstract and flowery ways to say, "Yeah, but the people in Hell deserve it."
You're forgetting the all good and just part of God's nature. Because if He is all just then what the hell would be just about letting someone who spent their lives serving the poor spend eternity in the same place with Hitler?
Seriously. Can someone explain that idea? Because hell seems far more reasonable from that perspective.
@@TacosnZorro Just read the Bible so you don't get a Chinese whispers version of it.
@@TacosnZorro that idea still sounds less horrible than many peoples ideas of Hell
As an Orthodox Christian this was a very interesting conversation! Michael is quite close to the Orthodox conception of hell but is unfortunately dragged down by being committed to a legal framework of sin, and connected to that, penal substitutionary atonement.
I am a Christian but could you elaborate more on this?? I rather enjoyed his opinion but what is your view of hell?
@@samanthaannfuchsgruber It's been a couple of months since I've watched the video so this may not be entirely accurate, but Michael describing hell more as a state or experience rather than a literal place, and that the punishment of hell is more internal rather than externally imposed is quite close to the Orthodox view. However, in the Orthodox Church we would describe salvation primarily as theosis or deification. So our salvation from sin and death in Christ is through becoming like Christ, becoming deified. Michael seems like he holds to some form of penal substitutionary atonement however which teaches that we are essentially saved from God's justice through Christ taking the punishment due to us, and so salvation becomes not only transactional, but meaningless in terms of sin and death. And so because of this Micheal doesn't seem to fully be able to connect the atonement with the eschatological reality. Hope that makes some sense! I would probably have to rewatch the video to give specifics.
@@curtisben79 Thank you so much for your help!!! That is very helpful. I definitely would say I believe in "substitutionary atonement" and conduct myself in real life as though everyone is going to heaven (assuming that everyone will find God). However, that is how I conduct myself. I know God suffered for us and for that reason, some souls are in hell. It is not an empty or imaginary place.
@@samanthaannfuchsgruber this is not the only view within Orthodoxy, the issue is complex (as you know) and the eastern churches have always put a bit more emphasis on mystery, that is in the end, we cannot know for certain, in this life at least.
sin is usually thought of as an illness and Christ the physician.
@@sillythewanderer4221 thank you for your reply. I really appreciate this. I fell in love with the scholastic nature of Catholicism (Christ reached me through my mind) but of course, this was primarily done through my heart thanks to the Holy Spirit. I deeply love the Orthodoxy emphasis on mysticism. Sometimes, getting too caught up in the endless dance of rationality and apologetics can be negative for spiritual growth. We are not merely here to think. We are here from Love Himself to love other people. That is the highest goal, and it is beautiful. I am now inspired to deepen my spiritual journey. God has been far too kind to me and I do not wish to let that go.
Finally! This has been a conversation I've been waiting for for a few years. Going to check your other debates after this
Wow, the wait is over now. How is your life after getting what you've been waiting for, for so long?
@@inajosmood
A hell-of-a-wait has come to an end.
If you don't go to hell for not knowing about Jesus or knowing him incorrectly for whatever reason and the goal of the christians is to get as many people to heaven as possible, then they shouldn't tell anyone about jesus so that everyone can go to heaven.
You don't automatically go to hell for not knowing about Jesus, but not knowing doesn't guarantee heaven
@@andrewprahst2529 then why does the Bible say that he’s the only way to the father and that in order to be saved one must confess with his mouth and believe in his heart that Jesus was raised from the dead? Sounds like not knowing him is a pretty automatic ticket to hell according to scripture.
Unless of course, I’m somehow “taking it out of context” right?
@@SPL0869 Because we will all meet Jesus at the end of time and will have that chance to proclaim him as Lord.
In Matthew 25, this scenario is described:
"Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.’"
Matthew 25:34-40 NET
So in this passage, people were serving Jesus even though they didn't think they knew him, and when given the chance to see him face to face.
@@SPL0869 Exactly. You're taking it completely out of context. Jesus also says that those who do the right things, but deny God, can be saved too, because believing in him consists in doing what he would command -- actual good works. There is no faith separate from works. They come packaged together, and intention to do good works immediately before dying is obviously sufficient for someone about to be resurrected in the future.
The reality is that there is no text that isn't saying many different and important things by the use of even one sentence. When God inspires words, it's like a nuclear bomb of exploding contexts and layers. Anybody who insists on there being only unicontextual text, frankly, doesn't know how to read or think normally.
@@andrewprahst2529 ok, yeah I’ve heard this one before. So if there was already a system in place that actually leads to a better world and a much less confusing salvation doctrine then why did god need to even muddy the waters and send Jesus in the first place? I mean we hear all the time about how our “good works” are like filthy rags to God, which is why Jesus was needed but thats evidently not true.
I mean if all I needed to do is feed and help those less fortunate to get to heaven then that seems like a much better message than hating gay people and subjugating women now doesn’t it?
Michael Jones doesn't seem to realise that he's simply creating yet more B grade Fan Fiction.
It's schlock, but it's better than D level fanfic like, "Once upon a time, everything was a dark and stormy singularity without any context or purpose. The End."
@@johannpopper1493 OMG I thought you were reading the bibliolatry at first, because seriously the "jealously patient random wrath" god/gott/gaut/goth "with face hidden in dark clouds" is rather just "existing there without any context or purpose" with a way uglier and less testable story than science presents.
@@letsomethingshine You're right. God is alone, and for God alone, atheism is true. If the atheist model is true, then you are God, or an illusory part of the thing. Would you make other people? Treat them well? Get angry sometimes? What would you do with all the Hitlers?
It’s completely irrelevant what some person speculates, like when he quotes these theologians. All that matters is what the Bible actually says, everything else is just wishful thinking or fanfiction.
@@johannpopper1493 But noone puts the emergence of the universe like that xD
I do not understand people who say that admitting their wrongs is one of the most painful things, that it "sucks" and "hurts like hell". Thinking and talking accurately about your deeds is one of the best feelings. _Having done_ a bad thing can hurt; and being subjected to punishment or retaliation for a misdeed can hurt: but how can the admission hurt? What is the fun in denying a _reality_ that you _already know_ about?
I agree. I noticed that too. I never thought it 'sucked' to apologize. If I hurt someone or wrong someone, I don't mind saying I am sorry. Maybe that is a Christian thing.
@@UrbanERecycling , when you say "Maybe that is a Christian thing", what does "that" refer to? Does "that" mean "not minding saying you're sorry" or "finding it painful to say you're sorry"?
I don't think it's in the admission, but the revelation to others. I think the point is that if you've done a bad thing and hide it, it'll hurt when you are found out. I know that's not what he said, but I think it's more accurate to what others believe. I don't understand why saying you are wrong would hurt unless you are worried about your bad deed coming to light.
My thoughts exactly when I heard this, I think this is more relevant to someone who follows a doctrine, because I regularly and quite easily admit when I've discovered I'm wrong. There's a whole host of positives but primarily it's because recognising an error is a step closer to the "right" answer, it's absolutely necessary when wokring in a scientific field.
@@ChuckChuckWood , it's been weeks since I listened to this; but my recollection is that I took him to be talking about deeds, more than thoughts and words, and ethical or moral wrongs, not scientific errors-e.g., cheating on your spouse, not faultily defining the control-group in your report of the experiment you've finished.
Still, I'm with you. Whenever I discover that I have erred-even I realizing that I saw a fox on Monday evening but told someone it was Tuesday evening-, my most pressing desire is to issue the correction to all who were given the wrong information. When I was much younger, I vehemently denied my mistakes, because I had gotten the message from others' behavior that that was what to do; for most of my life, though, I've thought it's just embarrassing to deny one's errors once one recognizes them. The trouble, of course, is that some people give you hell for messing up-and in some cases 'it's damned if you do, damned if you don't' (in their eyes you compound your misdeed by failing to admit it, and you compound your misdeed by admitting it).
I enjoy this format far more than debates I feel that they are a lot more fruitful regardless of who you are inclined to agree with
I have a feeling that Alex has quite the intellectual gauntlet of podcasts lined up for us.
The issue of a literal Hell consisting of “eternal conscious suffering” was the lynch pin in the deconstruction of my almost forty years as an evangelical fundamentalist.
Michael’s view is not even consistent with the majority of Christians today or in history.
Just another theological belief that is not universal….along with every other doctrinal issue in Christianity that no two people can agree upon.
Love ya Alex.
He says that a rapist who seeks forgiveness on his deathbed from Christ doesn't get forgiven because he still has to have an accounting with God. But I'm certain he believes that anyone who confesses Christ as the son of God and genuinely repent their sins to Christ passes that accounting. So it's simply a semantics game-a rapist who confesses on his deathbed gets into heaven
Ofc but they still need to be judged
@@levykenway1471 while their innocent victim who is an atheist gets punished for eternity - some morality you’ve got there
You still have to live in Jesus’ word to actually go to heaven
@@jjk4002 then you support an immoral system
@@colinross3755 who are you to decide their faith lol
I have two questions:
1. If God can explain everything and so certainly convince you after your death, why would he wait until you live through this life and not explain everything before?
2. Why would God create people who he will not be able to convince and who will reject him? Why not only create those who will eventually accept him?
God created man in his image,meaning you know right from wrong,you have the capacity to know what is sinful.Its not rocket science.
@@daviddeida You did not listen to the discussion between Alex and Michael, did you?
@@piotr.ziolo. Why would I bother answering another question without you acknowledging your previous ones?
@@daviddeida Your previous comment suggests that your understanding of the topic is very shallow, which I attribute to the fact that you probably did not listen to the discussion. If you have a meaningful answer taking into account what was said in the discussion I'm more than curious to see that.
Because god openly love to torture people. He's cruel.
I’ve always loved how Bishop Barron frames it. Imagine you are at a party and you are in the worst mood of your life and want nothing to do with anyone there or anything. The others are having fun but you resent them and just distance yourself. That’s what hell is like. Souls there are just constantly trying to run away from God and His goodness.
Cool now Christian need to prove that how world actually is
@@tennicksalvarez9079 I don’t know anyone capable of coming back from the dead except Jesus, do you?
@@nickmedley4749 Most people don't know if Jesus was capable of coming back from the dead in the first place, can you prove it for us?
@@undefined888 There’s an incredible number of records of credible near death experiences, some of which involve the reality of hell. A couple of studies have been done on them.
@@undefined888 that depends, is the question being asked in good faith, or is it simply being asked to attempt to mock and ridicule?
If it is being asked in good faith, there is a lot of evidence that can be discussed in a very cliff notes version, but you’d be better off reading books on the matter by Michael Licona, Gary Habermas, and Lee Strobel who did plenty of deep dives into the various historical, archeological, logical/philosophical studies, and theological cases for the Resurrection of Christ.
If the question is not meant to actually discern the truth of the matter in an honest attempt to understand it, then there is little point/need to explain further.
Wow, just wow, the guy just blew my mind, it's such a beautiful description of hell that I want to go there. It hit me in the right way if you do a lot of mental gimnastics to see it from a mental health point of view. If a person is traumatised, depressed, anxious or addicted it feels like hell, but going to therapy and work though your trauma is also scary and sometimes painful, sometimes the trauma is so big you just cannot heal, you cannot escape, you certainly cannot do it on your own and the idea of Jesus like someone who would try to pull you out of your trauma and your trauma is incredibly healing.
Jones contradicts everything jesus says about hell.
He's a really good example of what a Christian should be. What a good dude. Thank you for inviting him Alex, and thank you Michael.
I would say there's a lot of unbiblical things he believes. From a Christian perspective, it's like a pseudoscientist being interviewed. Not quite standard.
You mean making up his own version of Christianity?
@PeaceMaker I don't care about the "3 views"......the Bible clearly says hell is eternal and that the only way to heaven is by accepting jesus.
@PeaceMaker The guy we are commenting about makes up his own version of Christianity where Hell isn't eternal and you can get to heaven without accepting Christ ...I'm not talking about Universalism, I'm talking about this video. I'm not a believer but I have read the Bible and this guy isn't representing the Bible or mainstream Christianity.
@PeaceMaker I can't remember how he worded it but he did say it...and he explicitly said he believes Hell needn't be forever, again, I haven't even mentioned universalism that has nothing to do with my point.
Awesome conversation. Thank you.
Thoroughly enjoyed this. I've followed IP for years, don't think I've ever seen anything from Alex, but love listening to him speak. Very thoughtful & respectful arguments from both sides. 💜
The primary problem I see with every faith-based system is that each is just as likely to be true as all of the others because all of them require belief prior to demonstrating even just the weakest evidence of itself. If there really was an all-powerful god, and if an eternity of hell were a real threat, claiming to know the mind and desires of such a being could be exactly the thing that it might find offensive. The only logical position is to take no position. Humans are arrogant enough without going around believing we might know what the creator of the universe might be thinking.
Not so. I am a Christian because I think that there are good philosophical arguments for supposing that God is the type of god found in the Abrahamic religions, and that there is enough historical evidence to make Jesus' ministry historical and his resurrection more likely than not
@@a.i.l1074 did you believe in some other religion before? Or did you grow up as an atheist?
@@TheAndnor Grew up atheist. Atheist family at least 2 generations back, majority atheist but historically Christian country
@@a.i.l1074 Ok. Just curious 😊
Why did you start believing? I have never heard a good philosophical argument, and those that exist can be equally well applied to other religions.
And historical evidence for jesus, sure. But we have better evidence for Mohammed, and the quran doesnt contain nearly as many errors and contradictions as the bible, so why not be a muslim?
@@TheAndnor difficult question, it was a long process. Two things helped:
1. I used to engage with these questions like "let's debunk this ridiculous superstition", but then I noticed that genuinely intelligent people believed it. You say none of the arguments are any good, I've got to disagree: when you spend a lot of time with them and really get into the details, atheism is not clearly the most rational position.
2. There are some half-way positions which were more palatable to hold at first. Like religious experiences are real phenomena, God is real in the way that morality and love are, religion has some benefits or beauty. Slippery slope
We probably have more evidence about the minutiae of Mohammed's life, but his main miraculous claims are the night journey and the revelation of the Quran. Those do not impress me. There are more plausible explanations for the rise of Islam, like the Arabs adapting the faith of the Jews and Christians they conquered.
The central miracle of Christianity is the resurrection, which had hundreds of witnesses and was falsifiable at the time the Gospels were written. I haven't heard a theory of what happened during and after Jesus' ministry that better explains the historical data.
To most of the questions, Michael just admits he doesn't know. I am furious when he says that. How can anyone preach their worldview with so much conviction and expect others to follow it, but at the same time fail to give answers to basic questions.
Because not all knowledge is made of deductions, not even deductions.
At least dude is rational. I kind of see it like a naturalist being asked what happened before the Big Bang; just because the cosmologist scratches his head when you ask him what happened before time began, doesn’t necessarily mean most of his beliefs about the world are fiction, even though that part of his worldview seems absurd.
I actually really liked it. I notice i find it easier to trust people who aren’t afraid to say i don’t know. That gives more credibility to his arguments because you can tell he is honest and humble
religious people often resort to a kind of "god works in mysterious ways" approach when they don't have a convincing answer. which leads to the question of how they can speak with such conviction on the motivations of something that apparently has mysterious motivations.
@@johnbuckner2828 But i dont think any cosmologist would say whatever our current understanding of the universe is the absolute truth. But for a religious guy it's all dogmas, unchangeable.
Secondly, religious truths demands much more than scientific truths. If a particular religion is true, we must change our entire personality to align with its beleif sets, and live our only life following its rules. And if you happen to choose wrong religion you're at risk of eternal punishment. So atleast for me, i need to be certain about all of a religion's claims, before subscribing to it. I think that's possible if its god is omnipotent.
But in science you can tolerate such uncertainty. Because not accepting a theory doesn't cause you any suffering. If a religion says homosexual acts are sin, and that religion is not the true religion, an adherant follower of that religion but happens to be gay, out of fear of hell, stay away from all the fun he could have had. Thats a huge cost. So you need to be so sure about what you beleive is actually true.
But in science just because we dont know what the initial state of the universe was, we don't need to dismiss the theory of relativity. Because we find many applications of this theory and Infact it's UPTO US if we want to beleive in this thoery or not. No one's getting punished here.
For most people, God, heaven and hell occupy a very small fraction of their time, if at all. Their lives are spent providing for themselves and their loved ones. Most people live their lives without the intent to harm and most people do not cause intentional harm, with or without embracing God. Moments of tragedy, death or dying often increase God-consciousness momentarily when the suffering is overwhelming. It is however nonsense to believe that heaven or hell is their ultimate destiny, based on their belief or not in God.
It is as if the only thing in this life that matters is having the gullibility to believe in something unseen. Gullibility. That's all.
What if the kid who never met his father, and this due only to his fatherś negligence as a parent says, ¨Father where have you been all my life? You have been an absent parent for more than a decade. And now all of the sudden you arrive and want me to adore you. If I adore and emulate your behavior (absentee parenting) then you claim i will be rewarded. (Actually, father can't find time in his busy schedule to meet his child, so he sends his attache to inform the boy) If I deny your goodness and choose not to adore you, I am to be set on fire and burned alive." He may claim to adore father to avoid pain and get his cool stuff. But one might question how deep his affections run.
Fascinating conversation! His view on hell is definitely very different from the mainstream Christian view
Not really
@@DrownedinDesigner I was raised catholic in Spain and I never met anyone who described hell or heaven anywhere close on what he did. His position defies most of the history of Christian dogma
@ My initial thought was, "He has tried to address a discrepancy he (or someone else) identified in the different passages, and has created a version (not that he is the first to do so) that includes enough from the original material (the stuff that doesn't seem to contradict), that it allows him to still pursue the religion carefully, but still not antagonistically."
I'm glad he, at least here, has done this. The typical depiction of a Christian and their views on hell are worrisome, and not well thought out.
@ That's not true, though. Anecdotal examples aren't data. We can see what religious philosophers have been saying for thousands of years. What a pastor in Spain said in your youth doesn't equate to "most of the history of Christian dogma."
@ While not exact, THERE WERE early greek church fathers that held a view similar to Michael, because of how the duration of hell is described in the original greek, which referred moreso as a long age of correction thaN eternal torment. Though this is still often disputed today, so I'm not sure.
My favourite apologetic and the only skeptic that actually makes me question my faith debating! Now that's a surprise I've been waiting for!
If God is responsible for us existing in the first place, then God is responsible for whichever of us going to Hell.
Here is food for thought. A perfect being cannot be pleased, thus your prayers are meaningless.
@@aqup_ I don't think prayers are meant to please but rather to humble ourselves
@@wet-read yes and wouldn't be logical for that responsabilty to be entrusted to the being from which moral goodness comes from?
@@Mister_A_149 why have that responsibility at all? according to theists, god decided that that responsibility was neccesary in the first place and then gave himself it. needing to fulfill a responsibility that you created doesn't excuse you from creating the responsibility in the first place, nor does it excuse fulfilling the responsibility in any way you see fit
Neither of these individuals understand the nature of addiction.
Most Christians deny that God sends sinners to hell. They say that sinners decide their own fate thanks to free will. But excuse me, which of the Christians will explain why a reasonable person would choose hell (the worst torment) instead of God (the greater good). That is, a rational being will never choose hell. If it is not rational and irrational, then why does God allow unreasonable beings to make such a choice out of ignorance?
This is absolutely mind boggling how people justify this supposed cosmic gaslighting as fair and just
@@LoliLikesPedobear childhood indoctrination does wonders
There is a difference between having or lacking the capacity to be rational, and the power of choice. It's easy to hate God and make a choice to express that hatred, which hurts one's self in the process. We may conclude, those who have rational capacity, but choose an irrational outcome, can be morally judged in the negative. Those who lack the rational capacity, cannot be judged for good or bad actions. It's simple, if you don't oversimplify. ;-)
@@johannpopper1493 choosing an irrational outcome despite full availability of relevant information is evidence of irrationality. so again, why would God force someone that irrational to make that choice?
@@ttocsic1235 You don't think you can choose the opposite of a rational prediction? I know I can.
I'd love to hear a part 2 with either Glenn Peoples of Right Reason or Chris Date of Rethinking Hell! I think they would give very different answers that would be closer to my own views of course haha
The idea is that there is an omnipotent being, and he chooses to spend his time punishing and rewarding humans severely strains credulity. Talk about a waste of talent! Only in a religious context would anyone even think about believing such a thing.
37:35 "We just simply do not know what happens on the other side at this point." Says the person who's telling us so much about what Heaven is like, what Hell is like, who goes whither, how that decision is made, what God is like, and so on. Why make up this elaborate and internally inconsistent fiction?
I’ve really appreciated how you’ve adapted the free will objection in your recent arguments. It’s quite a lot more interesting when you contextualize it instead of what I’ve been doing, just objecting to human free will.
There are so many loose ends to the free will critique that get in the way of so many arguments, it’s so interesting.
Been loving the guests lately!
Can we just talk about how he said hell is becoming the worst version of yourself, in which you are willing to sacrifice those you love... isn't that what God did by sacrificing his own son and what God wanted Abraham to be willing to do?
The creator of the universe and a mortal man are not operating on the same morality buddy.
A king can do things that are right that would be wrong for a subject to do.
The creator and owner of reality can do things that it would not be right for a man to do.
@@daveyjoneslocker4703 nah its just plain hypocrisy
"My God can kick your God's ass" - Religion in a nutshell. Just be the best person you can be while you briefly walk this rock in space and stop this ancient hokum ffs.
I was a agnostic and decided to learn as much as I can about religions to see if there was truth to their claims. I had no bad experiences and went in with a truly open mind. I now consider myself as an agnostic atheist. I don't understand how anyone can believe after knowing the history of religions and where these stories come from. If I am wrong, all God needs to do is to show me but he seems to refuse, or more likely he does not exist.
Build a simple cell. When you cant acknowledge the incredible designer behind this.
@@dulls8475 Can you show me god creating a simple cell
@@reg-pi1sr I cant even show you workmen building Westminster Abbey.
How arrogant must a person be for the feeling of admitting you're wrong about something being akin to going through literal hell. It's the easiest thing for me to admit I'm wrong about something, because I know for a fact that I don't know everything
EG cheating on your wife,Admitting that is hell
This statement was very telling. It speaks to Mike's worldview.
If you build your worldview on imagination and not evidence, it would be difficult to admit when you're wrong.
@@justandy8385 Everything is imagination. You think you exist .
@daviddeida so I can believe I exist and be wrong?
Not everything is imagination you dimwit.
LOL…. I’ve had a LOT of practice admitting that I was wrong!
I love the irony in which this guy talks about flat earthers and how they don't care about what's really true, and at the same time he is holding beliefs himself that have no foundation in reality (Christianity). It's the simple fact that we just like being part of a particular story where we are a character of significance and specialty, which is true of both flat earthers and Christians.
Holy crap, I can't believe this happened!! Two TH-cam heavyweights in their respective fields, and I LOVE THIS SO MUCH OMG
IP doesn't impress me
@@uninspired3583 good for you I guess? 👏
@@Joelthinker yeah it just means I feel differently about calling him a heavyweight.
@@uninspired3583 in their respective spheres of influence, they are. Most people who follow atheist channels know Alex, and most who follow Christian content know Michael.
They've both been parts of debates and interviews with other very influential thought leaders as well.
@@uninspired3583 He was heavy enough to be invited on Alex's platform
Never let anyone convince you that they know more about what happens after we die than you do. They don't.
Throughout the debate, I have the distinct impression Micheal is performing an impressive feat of mental gymnastics to marry his own sense of morality and justice with that of his religion.
That's apologetics
Even if I don't agree with Michael Jones and I still struggle to find moral reconciliation with the god of the Abrahamic doctrines, I find many of his opinions to be almost beautiful in what they portray. Its a lot more coherent with an all-forgiving god to have an impermanent hell whose torture is more of an abstraction rather than the more common perception of hell being eternal torment without the possibility of redemption, and regardless of whats actually biblical canon, I have new perspective on the topic, and of Christians as a whole.
The king of quoting CS Lewis
No, that’ll be me.
This was cool! Let’s pray that Jesus breaks through to this English chap 🙏❤️
I hate to break it to ya but "Jesus" never broke through to you.
@@ryanthomas7119 Hi, um... Jesus saved my life. He is amazing and perfect and holy. Don't tell people their own life story. It's equivalent to someone saying, "I was lost in a desert with no water and my friend brought me water so I lived." and you saying, "I hate to tell you this, but no one brought you water." So how are we alive? How do we have joy? How do we suddenly know what true love is? How do we worship and dance and serve others? Because Jesus touched us! He saved, changed, and loved us!
This is great, because I sort of discovered you two at the same time. Cool journey introducing myself first to Michaels various video essays on the famous arguments, then looking Alex's sort of rebuttals or doubts. I think that still Leibnitz ' argument is the most solid :)
What was the Leibniz argument again?
@@bruhdabones It's similar to the first mover argument, and kalam is like an extension into it. Every thing can be explained by an event before it, so everything that exists has some kind of cause or causer. Leibnitz argues that universe began to exist, so something must be beyond it that caused it to exist, some kind of transcendental force. Look up Cosmological argument, im not good at wording it.
@@pixboi oh I get it, thanks
@@pixboi What's before God?
@@justaway6901 i consider whatever greater than the universe out of comprehension to possess some God qualities, and I believe that kind of thing doesn't need a causer for it is the ultimate beginning. If there was something before God, it wouldn't be considered a god, perhaps a minor god.
A thoroughly enjoyable debate, conducted in an air of civility and respect; a credit to both sides - thanks for uploading.
The irony when he describes the motivation for flat earthers I found to be illustrative of the very same motivation behind religious beliefs. “I have this special secret relationship with the creator of the universe that I cannot prove and I’m part of an exclusive club that just wants to share this with the rest of the world”. “If you don’t profess this same belief or feel compelled by it’s arguments in the face of the lack of evidence, you’re part of the conspiracy of denial or you’ve been misled by another tribes secret”. They just switch out the word secret for truth or faith. Does he never stop to think perhaps my belief in god is simply bias at work due to being spoon fed these ideas since he was a toddler?
It's a double irony when atheists describe a theist's motivation as illustrative of wishful thinking, when their entire motivation for rejecting any faith whatsoever is to avoid thinking about punishment, which itself requires membership in an exclusive club that tells fairy tales about everything existing without purpose in direct opposition to the immediate experience of billions, and moreover insist that if you don't share their belief, life on this planet will become extra hellish for the first time in history, and if you deny atheism, then it must be because you've been mislead by a conspiracy, yada yada yada.
Christianity has as much to say about us being sinners and servants as it does about us being in any way chosen. My own practice has been profoundly humbling and has seriously de-emphasised myself
I also converted as an adult, scientifically-educated, from an atheist family, etc. Whatever negative stereotype you want to put onto religious people, I ain't it
There's plenty of evidence.
Evidence for God. Evidence for Jesus. The evidence was so good that we started counting 2000 years ago
Nah, that follows the assumption that we know enough about the universe to make such a claim. Faith is hope in a conclusion, not actively fighting against established facts.
By all means, go talk to atheists, yourself. You'll find that they fall for plenty of pseudoscience, from chiropractic care, herbal teas that can "cleanse", various political grifts, etc.
There's so much individualistic freestyle biblical interpretation from Christian to Christian when they discuss their views at length that I don't understand how anyone considering embracing the Christian religion could possibly be confident in any particular view. It's hopelessly (and worthlessly) subjective.
Good point. Christ taught that we can arrive at truth when scripture agrees (not contradicts) science and experience. Also Christ was anti religion.
@@kickhisassseabass318 No he didn’t
@@marklewis1979 yes He did
It seems you have a very restrictive view of religion. And Christianity in particular. I think the difference in interpretation if anything shows a desire from the intellectually honest that there is still much more to understand and learn, in the pursuit of truth.
It’s quite dismissive to suggest this difference is “worthless”.
@@mikesingh6099, the worthlessness comes from the lack of an authority to affirm any of the subjective views as correct. This religion has been around for 2000 years and has produced nothing but disagreement. Pursuing truth is a pointless venture when you wouldn't recognize it if you found it, or if you think you found it when you haven't.
One thing I liked a lot was that when one of them spoke, I agreed with them, until the other one took his turn, at which point I agreed with him. That's how convincing their arguments were. (This wasn't always the case but in a lot of cases.)
Are you sure it was about reasoning and not about you having a lack of character 😅🫣❤
@@dragonmartijn
Yes, it would be a sign of a stubborn character if you didn't see why someone's argument was convincing just because it didn't agree with your previous views. :) I'm glad I'm lacking a character like that. :P
"To be a person of faith is to know that the universe of the senses is but the tip of the iceberg, a gateway. And it is to resist the idolatry of Enlightenment rationalism, which tells us that only superstition and obscurantism lie beyond what we human beings can measure."
Bishop Robert Barron "Daily Gospel Reflection (08/24/23)"
Cosmicskeptic great work! Keep it up!
47:20 Michael Jones doing Soul Algebra and trying to calculate how long someone would last before their soul is 'disintegrated into nothing' is hilarious. Do religious people not realize how silly they sound?
Thats pretty silly because thats not how hell works. But its much less sillier than utilitarian morality calculations
@@Giorginho IP said that his morality, based in god, embraces everything that an utilitarian morality, based on wellbeing, would. So I think he does the exact same utilitarian calculations. Maybe you should tell us what the better alternative is?
@@Giorginho its pretty silly considering hell isn't real.
@@pyrotek45
I admire your cool name, and I suspect you are an air-cond specialist. If the hell hole exists, your experience will be welcome.
I think hell is real because I let my brain hear IP talk nonsense.
Michael Jones pretending to know things he doesn't and can't ever know. But then, that's what faith is right?
I think people have much more agency over what they believe than Alex presents in this conversation.
Yes - think about the parable of the four types of soil - We can turn from truth for a variety of reasons
Very respectful and illuminating. It is Alex's style of debating. And he does a fantastic job. His apologist opponent was also respectful although i don't find his arguments convincing. I don’t understand how if one is in hell, it seems to me he has heard all the arguments and all the evidence since it is god that has thrown him there. I don't understand his logic for rejecting his belief in god. And belief according to the Protestant faith is what saves. Oh well it is these mere mortals speculating about eternal or transitory damnation.
As a former Catholic - I’ve been waiting for this one !
Why though? I mean that is what the texts say. Believe or burn.
@@bertrandrussell894 why what ?
@@bertrandrussell894 it says alot more than that!
Question how can outer darkness exist if there is an Gigantic literal fire burning up/ torturing spirit beings in a dimension outside of our three dimensions.
Being away from God's presence is called outer darkness.
Can a person with a Glorified body / Resurrected body even feel pain or suffering ?
The hyper literalist interpretations aren't what the writers are conveying as the Book of Revelation is Apocalyptic literature and not meant to be taken in a hyper literalist way.
Go and sin freely. It's ok, there is no right or wrong so why deny yourself...
@@SydneyCarton2085 Sin is something "against god". Since that God approves of child sacrifice, slavery, global genocides and murdering first borns.... I could go on.
Actions have consequences..no one gets to do what they want without them. No god necessary.
Michael's view of hell is so different from the standard view that I feel this is a different religion.
He leans more towards orthedoxy
@@tel1723 I was raised orthodox and it is still a different religion what Michael is creating. In the Orthodox church there is the idea of helping a dead person getting in haven by doing different "things" . The judgment of the person is not done instantly is done over a long period. The dead person can't affect the judgment after death but the living can help. (this is not explicitly stated but my interpretation would be lettings the things settle after death and watching how the people miss you or not see the effect of your last actions)
I only recently watched Michael's content a couple weeks ago, but I've had a similar take on hell for at least a few years now: which is that hell seems to be a place of eternal torment separated from God, that people choose to stay in, and that is awful because it is a place without any sort of divine intervention.
Reason is reading the scriptures I found hell is mainly described as a place of torment, not torture, and that the places where it's described as fiery are places where we're compared to weeds and stuff (so clearly metaphorical). There's also a scripture where a guy who's just died is talking to Abram, from hell to purgatory respectively, and the conversation just doesn't seem like the guy is literally burning in agony at that moment though life clearly sucks. And yet when he talks to Abraham he asks if he could warn his brothers about not coming here, the guy doesn't even bother to ask if there was a way he could get out. So that informed my opinion on how the Bible actually describes hell.
I think the reason many Christians see hell in the stereotypical lense isn't because of a scriptural backing but more so because of catholic dogma that's stuck with protestants since they separated. For instance hell didn't even originally have a name. And instead it was compared to a real place in the original hebrew, and that was its pseudo-name since that was the best real-world example of it. It was then later called hades by the early/catholic church and the literal descriptors of fire and torture we commonly associated with it today were given to it after.
So I wouldn't say it's a different religion, I think it's a fair interpretation since many Christians can come to the same conclusion separately, just by reading the text. I think it is less common though, since many Christians either don't read their Bible like they should, or struggle with the question of hell and are afraid to look into it too much because they fear the conclusion they might come to
Okay it's pretty funny, I've never heard Michael's thoughts on hell, but got to the 40 minute mark and that's hilarious that we brought up the same points 😂. I was kinda hoping he mightve reached that conclusion from a slightly different angle so I could learn something, but it seems pretty beat for beat 😅
Edit - also I meant Lazarus not Abraham*. Realized I made that mistake after he went into detail on that story
@@n8icuss there ar multiple religions based on the same text but the difference between them is interpretation of the text. my point is this interpretation results in a different religion.
I am a huge fan of Michael Jones’ ministry, but his views on hell would be a point of divergence. The passage from Peter on Christ preaching to those in hell carries with it a long line of contention between Church Fathers as to its meaning. I fall more so in the Augustinian camp, which would understand Christ to have preached to those “with ears to hear”, or in other words, those who looked forward to Christ prior to His Incarnation.
I never thought of it that way. You made me think.
I must say. I like this guy Michael Jones. His pattern of thinking and way of arguing reminds me a bit of the antique philosopher Plotinus, where the main issue of judging a persons Life and moral is the direction the soul is aligned. Towards the good and perfect or towards the worldly and profane. Also Kants Good Will as what he thinks should be the main source of moral decisions. Great guys with big hearts. We all dont know how God will decide, nor what will happen after death. But I do hope noone will ever harm them. Thx
If we become the worst versions of ourselves in hell, I'm assuming in a gradual process, surely this would, over time, reduce a person's ability to understand that heaven is the better option and desire to live with god. If such a person were to be addicted to their pride and self-pleasure, this would be as though they're becoming more consumed by this addiction and distant from god simply by spending more time in hell, ruminating on this pride. In a similar sense, the longer a person is addicted to a drug, or any other pleasurable, yet harmful thing, the more difficult it is for the person to see the good in sobriety, and the more distant they become to the idea of this ultimately better experience. If hell is where we become the worst versions of ourselves, how can it be fair to say that a soul deserves to stay in hell if what's keeping them there is their gripping addiction to pride that's growing outside their control?
Excellent point, I'm kind of surprised Alex didn't pick up on something along these lines. Even just going with IP's point that we are flawed in our beliefs and convictions due to our biases and what story we subconsciously want to be true, surely it isn't fair for an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly just being to let us make a terrible choice with our flawed human brains
Yeah but if that's what makes people happiest and they make an informed decision then why save people from it and if it's horrifyingly awful beyond human comprehension then why would a loving God snap it out of existence or just choose not to create it?
If God is as good as the Christians claim, and if hell is as bad as they claim as well, then who in their right mind would 'choose' to go to hell???
It's academic really. The texts say believe or burn.
All of this waffle around this is from believer's feeling bad about it, as they should.
If that is where you’re headed, ask yourself why.
@@samdg1234 Its seems to me the only criteria is whether or not the person in question believes the tall takes in old books or not( or had it drummed into them before they could reason for themselves, of course).
@@bertrandrussell894
Stellar specific critiques there. Russell might have given you a gratuitous pass. Flew too at one time.
Keep that brain of yours working overtime.
Sobriety is good and some drugs are bad yet some people chose drugs.
The Christian gentleman that keeps arguing the Bible preaches hell is quite mistaken. It doesn’t preach the modern version of hell at all.
As a Christian I’ve spent much time reading scripture in the Greek snd Hebrew. There is NO WORD HELL anywhere in the Bible. There’s Sheol, hades, Gehenna and Tartarus. Only the latter is remotely close to modern hell but even that’s off and more a Greek concept than biblical. (And it’s only there once and applied to angels.)
Then there’s the issue that the books that speak of hell ARE NOT to us today. Jesus himself says he came to preach to ISRAEL, so we can’t apply his ministry to them to us. Revelation was written to 7 specific churches about what THEY were about to undergo THAT GENERATION and soon.
Finally, the scripture itself says things like, god isn’t forever angry, he won’t be away from people forever, all are made alive, etc etc. That point blank is contrary to some eternal torture chamber. (And never mind the fact that in genesis god blocked immortality so they WOULDN’T spend an eternity in a fallen state. Immortality of the soul is a Greek philosophy, not a Christian one. So god addressed the he’ll issue from the start and Jesus fixed the dead issue.)
The gentleman arguing against hell is consistently logical and even biblical, even if he’s not a Christian. I enjoyed his thinking process. Great debate.
Thanks for your informed comment. I'm just wondering, from where do you, as a Christian, get your morality?
@@grayhalf1854ultimately all morality comes from the spirit of God. But, until we learn to hear his voice and leading, it mostly comes from our culture and upbringing and the laws our lands have established.
“God is perfectly just when he drowns everyone on the planet including innocent children?”
How does Michael know any of this? It’s an absurd exercise.
So that means all of Jigsaws victims committed suicide, since all Jigsaw did was set up the traps and rules?
Well weren't jigsaw traps rigged from the beginning, that's why there's no survivors???
Well cause of death was suicide if you think of the physical damage to them self. However they had no other choice than to take the risk that John Kramer set them up for. John Kramer legally speaking would be held for manslaughter, torture etc depending on which scene or movie you are talking about.
@@RomanRebirth it’s kind of the same when you have no meaningful autonomy whether or not you become convinced of gods existence. Like if jigsaw let half the people escape.
@@RomanRebirth kind of the later Jigsaws rigged them John Kramer didnt
OK if it's not someone's fault for not knowing, why not leave them alone....don't tell them anything about God or Jesus..... and they can figure it out after they die!!
Once you TELL them you make them culpable- and chances are you'll do A VERY POOR JOB OF IT LIKE EVERYONE HAS, and then they will get the wrong impression, rebel and then end up in hell all because of your poor teaching that was unnecessary in the first place.
They are still not culpable. Learning of gods love in this life has it benefits that go beyond just the after life. There is a resurrection before judgement and at the judgement we will be confronted by our sins and we will understand what we deserve, but we wont get what we reserve unless in the face of god we deny his mercy out of hate for the salvation of others. The pharisees hated jesus because he was the savior to all. They knew he was the christ but denied him in his face because they hated mercy. Jesus taught unconditional love and the pharisees wanted to feel validated in their hateful works, so they chose to worship satan and believe that he would be their savior because he despises mercy as well. Thomas didnt believe that jesus had been resurrected until jesus showed him the holes in his hands. You have seen and believe but Blessed are the ones that believe and have not seen. This verse is talking about people who follow god before seeing him, and the blessings are rewards in the next life. But he will show himself before the judgment and then if you choose to suffer because you hate mercy you will be committing the only sin that isnt forgiven. All will see god - now seek and ye shall find. The law is written on our conscience. So all moral people will gain rewards in heaven but if you cannot forgive someone like hitler god will not forgive you. Out of the love for suffering you choose to suffer yourself. But tbh I highly doubt many will choose that option in the face of god. This revelation of true unconditional love has freed me in this life of fear, and when I experience pain I thank god for that pain because without pain I could never truly understand love. Love is the absence of pain, love is mercy, love is joy. Love is perfect.
And perfect love casts out all fear.
@@mikeo609 Source: 2000 year book written by people who knew almost nothing about the nature of reality.
@@LeoVital no the source is me having been to the pit. Ive been to hell and Jesus literally pulled me out when I cried out for mercy. I hated god if he existed before this experience. I told everyone I knew that he either doesn’t exist or he is evil. I thought how could a god create humans knowing before hand that so much evil and suffering would exist. It made no sense, But after experiencing the separation of God I was trapped in a land of my sins. I was in complete isolation from anyone and there was not a sliver of peace, joy, or love. I lived my life over and over in small loops of all the times I was injured, every time I said something mean, every small ache and pain that I ever felt in my life up to that point. Sin absent god reveals the true evil of sin. The punishment felt just. Sin is a corruption of Gods perfect creation, sin means death to the innocent. I knew I did this to myself. The second I admitted that I deserved the punishment and asked for rest I was plucked out of hell by Jesus who is the bridge between life and death. God is love, god didnt want us to experience suffering but we brought it on ourselves through sin. God saw that he himself would have to suffer by creating us, but this life is short and because we have lived in suffering we can properly understand good. Life sucks, but the next one will not. We will be able to truly appreciate good. This life is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But after we die and receive mercy through our father we will eat of the tree of life and death and suffering shall be no more. The death of death is life. God knows that after we learn this lesson that we chose to learn we will be happy for it, for it lets us understand love. Just as a woman suffers through childbirth for the purpose of the expansion of love and beauty in our lives. We can see this lesson everywhere in this life. Through labor we toil in order to be able to eat and take care of our family. In exercise we suffer to gain strength. As parents we sacrifice certain parts of our lives to enjoy the one of a kind love of parent and child. God is our Father and he suffered for us so that we could become glorious and wondrous parts of his family. When we understand suffering we can truly appreciate love.
If you don't tell them they'll continue making sin their identity until they can't see themselves without it that's the whole point of Christianity
This is the least arrogant ive seen Alex it's probably that Christianity is the most believable religion