Does God Send People to Hell? Michael Jones vs Alex O'Connor
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- VIDEO NOTES
Michael Jones is the founder and director of the Christian TH-cam channel "Inspiring Philosophy". He has previously debated Alex twice.
- LINKS
Inspiring Philosophy on TH-cam: / @inspiringphilosophy
Inspiring Philosophy, "Does God Send People to Hell?": • Does God Send People t...
Michael's debate with Alex on the problem of evil: th-cam.com/users/livehNF9bTES...
Michael's debate with Alex on the moral argument for God: • Debate: The Moral Argu...
- TIMESTAMPS
0:00 Intro
1:02 What is the Christian doctrine of Hell?
8:20 Can someone deserve to go to Hell?
30:02 Do people send themselves to Hell?
48:37 Are sinners like drug addicts?
57:25 Should Jesus be in Hell?
1:05:42 Michael's future doctorate on the Trinity
1:09:00 Outro
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
John Early
Dmitry C.
Seth Balodi
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
The audio for this episode was produced by Charlie Shan: www.shanmusic.co.uk
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
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 😂!
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!
This is a summary of the points made by each participant and their evaluation:
- Michael Jones:
- He argues that God does not send people to hell, but people choose to go there by rejecting God's love and grace¹.
- He defines hell as a state of separation from God, not a place of literal fire and torture¹.
- He claims that God is just and merciful, and that he desires the salvation of all people, but he respects their free will¹.
- He supports a Christian and biblical approach to understanding and explaining the doctrine of hell¹.
- He criticizes Alex O'Connor's atheism, his misunderstanding of Christianity, and his use of emotional and moral arguments¹.
- **Evaluation**: Jones presents a coherent and plausible account of his position, and defends it with theological and philosophical arguments. He also challenges O'Connor's position with relevant objections and counterexamples. However, he may be accused of being inconsistent or arbitrary in his interpretation of the Bible, and of ignoring some of the problems and paradoxes of the doctrine of hell.
- Alex O'Connor:
- He argues that God does send people to hell, and that this is incompatible with his justice and mercy².
- He defines hell as a place of eternal punishment and suffering, as described in the Bible and the Christian tradition².
- He claims that God is unjust and cruel, and that he condemns people to hell for arbitrary and unfair reasons, such as their beliefs or lack thereof².
- He supports an atheistic and rational approach to understanding and explaining the natural world².
- He criticizes Michael Jones's theism, his misunderstanding of atheism, and his use of circular and fallacious arguments².
- **Evaluation**: O'Connor presents a clear and challenging account of his position, and defends it with logical and factual arguments. He also challenges Jones's position with relevant objections and counterexamples. However, he may be accused of being too simplistic or biased in his representation of Christianity, and of dismissing some of the possible evidence and arguments for theism.
A non biased review of the debate!
Great comment!
Thanks bro this is helpful
Why do I feel like this is a standard ChatGPT-format answer haha
By far best comment
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
This is such an excellent conversation! Thanks very much, Alex.
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?
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'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 always found it a bit weird that we need academics and scholars to interpret the message from the all powerful creator of the universe for us
Exactly what I was thinking. What I don't understand is how apologists don't ever stop to wonder the same thing.
You need the Spirit. That which is spiritual is spiritually discerned. Lean not unto thine own understanding but study to show thyself approved. Not even the scholars and academics are always right.
@@turnage_michael what about people who claimed to know god spiritually but leave the religion later in life?
Because you don't. The vast majority of the world believe in some sort of god or creator its obvious to them, you athiests are a small minority. But you can't as an athiest craft deep and complex theological and philosophical questions then aspect the thiest to give you simple answers. You ask deep questions you get deep answers. And the best answers come from scholars.
@@TheGogogwo atheists aren’t a small minority. we’re the third largest group in the world’s population.
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 just found Michael’s page maybe a month or so ago. This is a conversation I really wanted to happen. Thanks to you both!!
Thanks for the thought provoking convo. It was a very productive back and forth!
Thank you both for this amazing debate.
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 like a breath of fresh air. Thank you both for speaking carefully and kindly and for truly trying to listen and respond thoughtfully. I recently watched a so called debate between an atheistic and Christian scientist that ended up as shouting and slurring match. It thoroughly upset me.
Why did it upset you - these are very emotive and salient conversations, they are bound to get heated and difficult often, it's human nature even if it's unsightly to see
Both James Tour and Dave Farina are bullies.
@@Incandescence555 That's a good question. It shouldn't really touch me like that, I suppose. I'm a Christian and I think I was very disappointed in the behavior displayed by the Christian. He got overemotional and loud and disrespectful. At the same time it never makes me feel good to see anyone (Christian or atheist) say and do nasty things to others, and the atheist was just out for character assassination. Hurling insults (even at the audience). You won't be wrong if you call me sensitive. Lol
@@marcfischer114 I did not come across of that expression from James Tour but then I did not watch 100% of all his content online and there are many. Can you refer to which conversation you are talking about? I know there was recent debate between James Tour and Dave and it got charged and Dave called James pathological liar. I did not watch the debate yet myself but I saw lot of people comment like that. If you could point me to specific min in the video I would greatly appreciate it. Normally I dont like people being bully but if someone is being bully to you then I do not object responding accordingly.
The bible says there is a lake of fire. At the end of the 1000 yr reign of Christ on earth,at the end of this age even hell will be thrown into the lake of fire. There are 2 resurrections of the dead. The first is for the righteous for eternal life and the second for the unrighteous for eternal death. Both classes of people will receive physical glorified bodies to receive their reward. The same body Jesus recieved from God.
This is the best debate I’ve seen in a while. No yelling, no screaming, full respect for each others views, carefully analysing what each other is saying and full respect for each other as a human being. Well done, I thoroughly enjoyed this ❤️
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.
Always love your discussions and debates with aspiring philosophy you guys always very polite and cordial thank you
Awesome conversation. Thank you.
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.
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. 💜
I never understood why an all-knowing being would create me, knowing I'd sin, only to then punish me for eternity. Sounds cruel
Free will bro. Even though omniscience and free will are paradoxical.
Why would "God" create us, insist in a book we have to find him and worship him, but remain hidden from us? Who would ever insist the most important thing, to save you from eternal hell, was to know God, but God hides! Christians say God isn't hiding, they mention someone they know who was cured, sunsets, smiles, thoughts they have in their heads, and provide NO evidence at all.
@@gusgrizzel8397 Also, the only "evidence" that God provides of himself can be so easily misinterpreted as well.
@@aqup_ I don't agree. Does us seeing the past mean that there is no free will from future perspective? So I have free will, but never had free will?
@@aqup_ free will doesn’t exist
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.
Cosmicskeptic great work! Keep it up!
A thoroughly enjoyable debate, conducted in an air of civility and respect; a credit to both sides - thanks for uploading.
Thanks for having on Michael. 🤙
Really happy Alex brought Michael on. This was a great conversation and was interesting to see both sides on this topic.
Props to Alex to getting right to the point. I hate when podcasts have a 20 minute set up.
Fantastic conversation. I'm glad Alex asked such excellent, hard-hitting questions.
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).
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.
One believes he is a sinner in need of a savior, the other believes he's innocent and that punishment would be unjust. We all have enough information about ourselves to see that each one of us play a part in the evil of the world. It's not an intellectual issue, it's a matter of the heart. Neither deserve grace, but one asks for it and so it will be given to him. Great conversation guys, thank you.
Thank you for pushing back on the over simplification of addiction psychology.
Been loving the guests lately!
Appreciate the discussion. Thought provoking questions. You did a great job being inquisitive without being antagonistic, mocking, condescending, etc. I would be interested in hearing where the guest came up with his justifications on certain points within scripture (for example people having an option beyond death to get out of hell or being 'burned' via sanctification).
It is common catholic theology
Great conversation!
Although this version of events sound better at first, it still has a lot of very strange issues to my mind. God is apparently happy for almost everyone to have the wrong information about himself and what exactly a "sin" is until after they are dead, including most Christians. Then at that point you are faced with a hugely painful event to get into heaven, based on breaking rules you didn’t even properly know about.
God could very possibly not be happy with us having mere knowledge of his existence. To wrestle with the knowledge, to pray and meditate over passages you read, brings about a deeper participatory knowledge. Misinformation should not affect our faith if we see counter arguments. MAGA, flat earthers and antivaxxers are hardened by prior conviction, but found studies or sources that confirm their biases.
Romans 1:1o-20 states that God is known through observation, in 20, his ontological attributes can be clearly perceived.
Fantastic conversation
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.
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 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
@@sigmaohiogyattfanumrizz well, everyone has their own beliefs.
Fantastic conversation!! Alex, you are brilliant!!
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
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.
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.
Alex as usual you offer a more practical analysis of this saga we've found ourselves in... You actually asked a question I've been asking others for a while now: "where is God in all this?" Not in those exact words of course but pretty close. And although I'm not an atheist or Christian I very much enjoy your work. Keep it up. Hope to have an interaction with you someday.
Actually, listening to Alex intellectually question God's righteous judgement made my stomach turn... 😢
That is a question even believers ask (Psalms is riddled with songs inquiring about God’s presence). It’s something very human, to ask for a deity’s presence and where the deity is.
We could be approaching the end times, but that is conjecture and we ultimately do not know. God in his omniscience does know what the best time would be. Our foreknowledge is still relatively limited, because of the fog of decisions we cannot reasonably factor in.
@@eswn1816 Remember the Bereans, who scrutinized Paul's teachings and compared them against scripture. Earnestly seeking truth will lead you to God. Jesus himself said "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Rejoice at Alex's questioning, if he does so earnestly, it will lead him to truth.
@@eswn1816yeah man, totally uncool to question the bible. We are commanded to obey and trust in Jesus. How dare we use the intellect that we were cursed with by Adam and eve eating from that stupid tree of knowlwdge.
@@jimijenkins2548
Re-read my comment.
It's not about his examining and comparing scriptures... It's about his questioning the judgement of God.
BIG difference! 🙏
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.
This one really excites me, can't wait to listen to it!
Big respect to both of them to engage in this type of discussions
Kind, but thoughtful and challenging dialogue. Hardly gets better!
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
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”
this was such a good discussion
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.
Alex, superb. Really helps someone that doesn’t encounter these conversations in everyday life to enlighten themselves.
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.
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.
Really good conversation
I think the drug addict analogy paints a profoundly tragic picture of hell. The people in there would want to get out. They'd be fully aware of the truth and willing to accept it... but still unable to.
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?
Very important topic!
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
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.
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.
This makes so much sense!!!! 😢
So I’m about 10 minutes into the video at this point and I wish I could be in on this conversation to give a completely different viewpoint on the afterlife/heaven/hell posed by LDS theology. I was raised LDS/Mormon and even served a mission but am now agnostic. However, I enjoy religious discussions and especially explaining the LDS viewpoint from both inside and outside their bubble. I’d very much enjoy being a guest on your show in one of these discussions if you ever want me on.
Holy shit is the comment section full of reddit.
shocks me, starting to think did these people even watch the video?
Yeah and you can tell they haven’t even watched the video. Instead they’re just spewing out Reddit level rhetoric.
haahah yeah exactly. r/Atheism on youtube.
Wow such respectful. Many thoughts. 1 updoot
reddit is when atheism
I have a feeling that Alex has quite the intellectual gauntlet of podcasts lined up for us.
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?
It seems so difficult and challenging for a human being in this world; for someone simply trying to do what's right. All of this can make a person scared to just be alive lest one do the wrong thing or believe the wrong thing.
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
When I was about 7 years old the local vicar came to our school to tell us about Christianity, how good God was and that we could all live forever. It had a big effect on me and I told other people about it. I thought everything was going to be alright! The week after the another person told us about catholicism, which I found a bit frightening. Representatives came to tell us about other religions and I realised quickly that it was all just BS. They couldn't all be right with their very different stories. I also learned that grown-ups are sometimes wrong.
"Sometimes". Haha.
when I was 7 I used to run after my grandpa when he gets out to remind him to give me a dollar
The fact that they couldn't all be right doesn't mean that there isn't one that is. The same way you can test people's math and even though you'll get many wrong answers, there is a correct one.
@@agusdelgado1207 all religions are based on some kind of faith, without logic and proofs. So how could we tell which one is correct?
@@agusdelgado1207 let me guess. The only religion that's correct is the one you believe in? Arrogant much?
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).
Daily Verse
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together."
-Colossians 1:15-17
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
He says he isn't convinced you're stuck in hell. His bible says angels were thrown out of heaven, so if you sin in heaven, you can be thrown out. "We still need to be sanctified." What does that mean? So going through life isn't enough, the game is still on in heaven! Some say you can't sin in heaven, but then, you'd be without choice or freedom. It's a constant circle of illogic.
Stellar comment!
@@Soapandwater6 Thank you!
The church’s history of belief is that angels were created with full understanding of who God is, what His plans are for angels and humans, and what their role is in that system. So when they choose to reject Him and His plan, they have all the possible information. So they leave that system, and are removed for Heaven because that will be where humans ultimately reside with more power than the angels in the end. Humans however are born and live on Earth with much less understanding and ability to grasp the entire picture. As we come to know God, and experience life in the spiritual realm after death, then we approach the same level of knowledge that the angels have. And if we choose to accept God and Jesus and their plan for the afterlife in eternity in Heaven with them and the others in that realm, then we won’t have a need or desire to sin (ie move against the plan and the system in Heaven) so we won’t be “kicked out” because there won’t be additional new information that will make us change our decision at that point. “Sanctification” is the process of being willing and able to desire living in accordance with that eternal plan once we have “all the information “ and have dealt with/resolved/been healed from all our human flaws/life traumas/sins/etc that are related to having lived our lives as humans on Earth. Or that’s how I understand the way these ideas have been explored in church history. Now that we have so many denominations that have split over different ideas it’s possible to find some that no longer agree with these earlier ideas.
@@selahr. A big part of my conversion to Christianity was finding out that all my clever objections had been answered, usually more than a millennium ago
Not really but ok
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…
The concept of hell is what made me an atheist
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.
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.
Really great conversation! Alex really brings up some great points and is very articulate with relatable examples. He brings up great points for both sides!
Why didn't Michael come right out and say that he believes in free will when Alex began to talk about people not being at fault? That would have made the part about people sending themselves to hell a lot shorter. Because ultimately, Michael's view has to be that despite all influencing factors, we still have the capacity to decide freely enough where we want to spend the afterlife.
Micheal's ideas of Christianity are utterly foreign to the Christianity the majority of people I grew up with were raised with. He's speaking very much for himself here.
Agreed.
And he's most likely more learned than virtually all if not all those Christians. We look at what the scripture most likely says not what the wider populous thinks and interprets it.
@@LtDeadeye Then they are most likely presenting a false aspect of Christianity.
@@SerendipitousProvidence There are various interpretations of Christian doctrine and he seems to know them all. But it also seems he mixes and matches them as needed. His opinions don’t seem to fall squarely into any particular shared Christian denomination except perhaps ‘simple Christianity’. In this way, he can shop around for ‘escape hatches’ and ‘gotchas’ so to speak. It’s almost like a buffet of doctrines. He’s certainly smarter than I am, so I could be wrong.
Merely because these views are not espoused by the Christian culture you're familiar with it in no way follows that these views are not considered, or have not been considered throughout the history of the Church.
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?
LOVE that Michael took it back to Genesis 2. Yessssss.
This apologist dude has come a LONG way philosophically from his earlier videos and debates. Keep going! ❤
Michael's view of hell is so different from the standard view that I feel this is a different religion.
Alex, this is what I'm gathering as a newer Christian since 2.12.22. I was an addict (porn/booze/drugs/prescription pills) and clinically depressed/anxiety/insomnia all three I needed to take medication for and after losing my mind, no sleep and body shutting down something inside me told me to repent. It was much harder than I thought because I always thought I'm a good person. Well, I felt the absence of everything good which is what God is and it was TERRIFIING!! I repented and felt forgiven. I can only describe it as a feeling of over an amount of joy/love/forgiveness that hit me so hard that to this day I don't take any medication, substances or porn 100% sobor since. The crazy thing is I don't just not do them but I truly don't want to do them. I then later read the entire bible since I never really read it before and all those things I felt aligned perfectly. I then found out that this story isn't that unusual (Just look up Porn star, gangsters, killers, drug dealer, alcoholics, addict's testimonies who now follow Jesus and are completely transformed) I then know why so many Christians want to share these same exact feeling because I do to. I then started watching Atheist TH-camrs, (GM skeptic, rationality rules, You, Paulogia) to see their angle and I honestly can't see what their endgame is, except to willingly turn themselves and others from God as some sort of profession. Especially when you see what the unsung Christians have done to pave the way we live today (Colleges, Modern Science, homeless and food shelters, orphanages and countless charities) .My point is once you feel that presence leave compared to the sweetness of his forgiveness you realize God does love you so much. I spent my life turning from him and I just needed to simply turn around so-to-speak. The same as I and everyone, like atheist, can't choose to turn away. Its like a Christian can say 'I felt the presence of God therefor I know God exist' but a atheist can't say "I never felt the presence of God therefore I know he doesn't exist' as you can't prove something exist by not experiencing it. Google says there are about 100,000,000 people convert to Christianity a year, that's over 270,000 a day. And most are because they claim they have had a similar experience.
another point that you're forgetting Alex is God wants you to simply love him and other people EVEN YOUR ENEMIES. I am so confused when atheist don't put this together. Even if you didn't believe I don't see what the harm is to abide these simple rules or even one rule LOVE or LOVE SELFLESSLY. Your analogy about the dad 'making your son do what he wants or you will make him sleep out in the rain' is missing the whole love part of the story, whether or not these hitchens/ dawkins fellas convince your made up son the love part gets misinterpreted.
Wow, what a testimony. God bless.
Right, what the loving father is asking is not only not unreasonable, but good for the child. Sin is an unsustainable way to live and atheists cannot deny this. I do not fuss over the details of heaven and hell but worry more about what I can do here and now and the only way I can love fully is from the frame of reference that God forgives me and loves me otherwise I act out of pride at best any "good deed" would simply be done to please a self image.
I had a very similar experience as you, and I agree with everything you say. I agree so much that I took the time to reply, and I hate commenting with a passion. Stay strong in the faith, brother who I’ve never met. Praise God for your testimony!
It’s frustrating because I understand exactly what you mean, but I can’t describe it with words. That’s how God is. I wouldn’t believe it myself if I didn’t experience it firsthand.
Just as I can never describe how I know beyond a doubt that God is true, some people will never believe in God even if God himself came down to talk to them. They’ll rationalize it as a hallucination, or them dreaming, or some other x reason. That’s why when people ask for proof of God, I always just want to ask them, what kind of proof do you want? What will it take for you to be 100% convinced that God is real, and that He is as He describes Himself (good, loving, just, holy, etc)? Because there will always be a reason to doubt. Faith only comes from God, and apart from Him no one would believe and be saved.
If 100 million people per year caught the christianity mind virus, in 80 years, ALL people would be christian. Yet christianity has been spreading for at least 1,663 years. The truth is that the % of christians in the World plummets every year. Today, less than 70% of America is christian. 200 years ago, America was around 99% christian. Europe is only 64% and was 72% in 2012. After 1663 years, the World in now down to 31.7% christian. Religions can only spread by the sword, because they have no merits. This is the only reason why islam still continues spreading. Christianity used to be mandatory in most countries when it started spreading from the Middle East. Christians conquered many countries, and force converted everyone and indoctrinated their children. Christianity spread by torture, rape, and genocide, and not because it was true. Today, christianity is a trillion dollar industry.
"I don't know, nobody knows, that's just the truth of it all" you got it...
Every theist, and atheist, is agnostic if you press them hard enough. Don’t know why there’s so much arrogance around these topics. Ultimately nobody truly knows the answers.
its interesting how alot of these christians who understand atheist arguements often have much different views of the religion compared to the norm
Well most are culturally Christian like myself and took it all for granted until I had to start researching why I am Christian. I am only as bad as society allows and without Gods grace I would slip into acting as such. Where do we get our morals?
@@SydneyCarton2085 we make them ourselves (government)
@@SydneyCarton2085 we definetely don’t get our morals from God, unless of course God changes his morals from time to time. I don’t want to follow a God that can’t make up his mind
To be fair, that applies to literally everything in life. If you know nothing about nutrition, you are likely to hold some very misinformed views, where an expert in nutrition will have very nuanced takes. I am yet to find a field in which the popular view is anywhere near adequate.
@@atanas-nikolov Humans like seeing things as black or white. However, if we can let go of our ego and realize that we might be wrong (perhaps not wrong, simply misaligned) only then can we truly hope to gain some truth from this world.
You cannot possibly hope to better understand a system if you refuse to hear its case and become more educated on its functions and qualities.
Alex: But people don't choose what to believe in.
Michael: Well but there's a study that says people subconsciously choose arguments they like.
Me: I wonder if he heard himself say 'subconsciously'...
Alex thinks humans are meat puppets.
How does the argument given by enlightened individuals of primacy to rights of freedom and to believe or choose in today's society is understood when defining life radically as a gift? What an obvious contradiction. The conversation lacks intellectual honesty and often displays a high level of emotional reflection.
@@vecumex9466 Who argues that life is a gift? Who the fuck means that literally? NOBODY.
Oh the irony of that statement
@@vecumex9466 what the fuck is that first questing asking? I've never seen a rambling question before.
Hell doesn't exist. Saved everyone an hour. Go enjoy your life, its the only one you get.
@InspiringPhilosophy Michael, I enjoy your content and enjoyed this conversation. you didn’t ask my advice, but I’d like to suggest that if you will speak with a little higher pitch level, your voice won’t crack so much. I imagine your voice gets pretty tired after these talks. pitch level is causing that. Hope you’ll consider so you can continue offering content in a vocally sustainable manner. thanks both for putting this together!
i like the scratchy voice, it’s a debate not a beauty pageant
@@tommytwo-times9053 yeah I don’t disagree. I’m not talking about the aesthetics of his voice but the way he’s speaking is not healthy or sustainable.
“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.
It sounds like Mike's position was something akin to purgatory, an escapable hell (but v. difficult to leave?), and really I feel like purgatory would be much more reasonable than hell (and I take it purgatory would less be about punishment/suffering than rehabilitation), perhaps a human soul does have to be purified before it could enter heaven
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.
It's God's fault, He just didn't give me enough information. The irony of that stance is stunning. God did NOTHING to cause us to fall, we did that, and through generational disobedience we reap what we sow, regardless of the fact that God has given us plenty of information as to how not to sin. We all literally know how not to sin, we simply continue to make the wrong choice. But I get it, we just don't have enough information to make a different choice. That's an amazingly weak stance.
If a god is omniscient and knows the future he created everything you will ever do in advance. If you set in motion a series of events that you know will result in harm then you are responsible. The Biblical god's first attempts at humans was so poorly made that he just threw out the batch. He cruelly drowned them; men, women, and children...babies too young to have done anything wrong. He made them who they were and then killed them all. He could have just made them a little more capable or just made them vanish but a mass slaughter is much more satisfying. Kill most of the animals while your at it for no reason.
Even people with the best of intentions find themselves in conflict with each other. And no one can agree what the teachings really mean which makes the writers of the Bible very poor communicators. .
Are you supposed to love one another or slaughter ever Canaanite? Thou shalt not kill except for a huge list of petty offenses as listed in Leviticus. Death, death, death.... Even... obey me or I shall make you eat your children.
Watch: "TH-cam, nonstampcollector, Quiz Show"
Jones contradicts everything jesus says about hell.