What If We’re WRONG About Christianity’s Impact? Two AMAZING Debates
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ต.ค. 2024
- Glen Scrivener reacts to the Premier Unbelievable? debate: 'Tom Holland vs AC Grayling • History: Did Christianity give us our human values?' and brings the thesis of Tom Holland's 'Dominion' and Glen's own book 'The Air We Breathe' to bear on Glen's debate with Matt Dillahunty.
Watch the full debates...
Tom Holland vs AC Grayling • History: Did Christianity give us our human values?
• Tom Holland vs AC Gray...
Glen Scrivener & Matt Dillahunty • Morality: Can atheism deliver a better world?
• Glen Scrivener & Matt ...
Do the 321 course now, it's completely free. Sign up at 321course.com/
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @speaklifemedia
LINKS//
Subscribe to this channel for videos that see all of life with Jesus at the centre:
www.youtube.co...
Subscribe to our other TH-cam channel, Reformed Mythologist, to explore how the stories we love point to the greatest story of all:
/ @reformedmythologist
The Speak Life Podcast is available wherever you get your podcasts:
iTunes: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Amazon: music.amazon.c...
Speak Life is a UK based charity that resources the church to reach the world.
Learn more about us here: speaklife.org.uk/
CONNECT//
Are you a creative Christian? Would you like to join us for a day, a week or 10 months? Find out more here:
speaklife.org....
Discord is an online platform where you can interact with the Speak Life team and other Speak Life supporters. There’s bonus content and creative/theological discussion. You can join our Discord here:
speaklife.org....
Social Media:
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
/ speaklifeuk
The debate vs Dillahunty, in my opinion, was pretty devastating to his Secular Humanism, where some humans are more equal than others.
That’s not what most of the comments section on that video thinks, but I’m with you 😃
@@SpeakLifeMediathat’s because Dillahunty fanboys always flood the comments.
Yeah people go into tribalism instead of actually judging the debate properly. Happens on any side of a debate unfortunately. The truth is more important than what your favourite debater says, right! ✝️
"love your enemies" is definitely an exclusively new Jesus value introduced that was not parallel anywhere else
It’s so extraordinary. Not even Christians believe it most of the time (I know I struggle!)
@@SpeakLifeMedia The fact we struggle with it to this day shows how revolutionary it truly is.
Not even close. See Proverbs 25:21-22, or the
the second millennium BCE Babylonian text Counsels of Wisdom, which says "Do not return evil to the man who disputes with you; requite with kindness your evil-doer... smile on your adversary." or the
Instruction of Amenemope:
"Row that we may ferry the evil man away,
For we will not act according to his evil nature;
Lift him up, give him your hand,
And leave him [in] the hands of god;
Fill his gut with your own food
That he may be sated and ashamed"
@@tomasrocha6139 the proverbs passage you gave says to do good for your enemy, but you could still do good to your enemy and hate your enemy, as verse 22 of Proverbs would suggest. Also, of the Babylonian quotes you give, was wondering how these quotes applies to when the Babylonian empire conquered and laid waste to neighboring cities, cultures, and civilizations; and brought the Israelites into many years of captivity. How do your quotes apply in loving your enemies when it comes to the brutal and savage things the Babylonians did to others?
32:47 That simultaneous chuckle 😂
I think this is interesting because this is mostly what I think brought me to my faith.
I grew up in a more traditional but secular household. Pretty much I was in school for Physical Therapy at the time. I remember I always liked helping people or the service esque jobs. It was until a series of incidents where I would have to call emerency services for someone who Overdosed on campus, a fight broke out, or an autistic person was severely concussed and injured. At the time I kind of thought "why are all these bad things happening around me?" I remember everytime I helped, there was a bystander effect. I ironically, despite being non religious and constantly criticizing "fake christians" always tried to act like I could do it better.
Later down the line I started questioning why exactly anyone did anything. More importantly, why did I do anything? I didnt know any of these people. I always liked science, but I thought if I am just doing what I am biologically programmed to do, shouldn't I have just done nothing? Why risk it? These people were ill, disabled, or poor. If its just my feelings, what value do my feelings really have in the grand scheme of things?
I eventually realized I had a religious belief that couldn't be justified in my view: that people have value regardless of my feelings, or their situation. I recognized that I still had to hold onto an intuition that all people bearer the image of God, yet I couldnt explain or justify things through a Naturalist view. I currently am going for my Bachelor's in Nursing now. However this video reminded me how typically people say bad things happening pulls them away from God. From my experience, bad things ultimately led me to my faith in God. Despite being years afo, I still struggle on the relationship/personal aspect of things.
The Good Samaritan remains one of the most powerful short stories in history. To go from bystander to interventionist carer is not natural, it’s “super-natural”. And ultimately it’s Jesus who is the Good Samaritan - intervening in nature to lift us up.
Amazing to hear your story, thank you
I've been trying to "find God" for a good number of years now and I feel like I've come to an answer of sorts, though it isn't a sure fire solution either, nor is it very nice.
For many years I've been an atheist, mostly because it made sense to me at the time. I'm a simple kind of guy, I never really gave god a deep thought, I just followed the flow of my life and felt no need for a divine explanation for things. Eventually I did start banging against walls of my meaningless reason and I did start despairing when I found no purpose for anything I had been doing across my life. That's when I went back and started listening the arguments for god and long story short, here I am, a fairly happy believer and a stumbling follower of Christ.
Now, here's what I think is the key in "finding god". God is so pervasive in everything we do in our lives, that he is essentially the air we breathe, the water we drink, the rock we stand and build on. We live on god, but we can't perceive this, because god is so omnipresent.
So, if you want to "find god", you have to turn away from him. You have to drink the cup of atheism to the bottom and not spare a single drop. This doesn't mean you just say to the world that you're an atheist and never bother going to church. No, you have to follow atheism to it's logical conclusions. There is no such thing as sacred, there is no such thing as meaning, there is no right or wrong, all is allowed, nothing is disallowed and there is no justice at the end.
Do this as thoroughly as possible, or as thoroughly as you can bear, and my guess is that your life, along with the lives of those around who care for you, will become so miserable, that you will either run to church to look for god, or you will destroy yourself and probably a good portion of the world with you.
That's more or less how I believe god is found. You have to suffer godlessness. Personally I just scraped the surface of real atheism and that was enough to frighten me to church and there I remain happily.
The idea that Christianity uniquely developed science and its methodology is older than you might think. I first discovered the argument in a book called "From Athens to Jerusalem" by Stephen R L Clark, which was published in 1984.
Very good Glen. I loved the closing paragraph and pray that many people will see Jesus calling them. Well done
Just a terrific video!
lol, thats the first time I've heard "Jesus is Lord, bad luck, your a Christian, it sneaks up on you." 46:28
Tears in my eyes at the summary at the end
brilliant! gotta be one of my favourite videos you've done
Pretty sad that the moderator didn't give the full time for rebuttals to Holland's list. Grayling was able to respond nevertheless but sadly was interrupted so we didn't get to hear his full answers
You can find the link to the full video in the description if you want to watch the whole thing.
Hmmm, where did, "Love Thy Neighbor" and "Love The Stranger", among other things, come from? Judean Peoples' Liberation Front?
From stoic philosophy.
Which Stoic authors say to love thy enemy? And what do they mean by love, Is it the same meaning as what Christians say? I ask because my friend is a Christian and he didn't seem to think the dispassionate teachings of the Stoics is refering to the Agapic love of what he claims Christians teach. Do you have any thoughts on this?
@@gergelymagyarosi9285 - did Epictetus write Leviticus?
@@AndrewBorrill-q4c
It seems you are being nitpicky just because you don't like the conclusion. Did you notice how it started with love for neighbors/strangers, now you jumped to enemies?
Social harmony was important for stoics, so they would not disagree with being compassionate.
It is a well known fact that Christianity borrowed much from the Stoics (e.g. the Golden Rule). In fact, Christianity (like it or not), is a syncretic religion, evolving from Hellenistic Judaism. It's not a surprise you find Greek philosophy in there with as dash of unique flavor.
Tremendous as always
Brilliant Glen. Thank you brother
Also, what dod the speaker at the start, (Tom Holland?) mean when he stated that Christianity introduced the idea of Heterosexuality and Homosexuality? perhaps he meant that it introduced the idea that Homosexuality was a sin? But it certainly didn't introduce the idea that those are immutable identities. That is the opposite of the Christian world view.
@marchess286
He means as distinct concepts since sexual proclivity was way more fluid in Roman culture. This is what enables excesses of Emperors like Tiberius. :/
His book, Dominion, covers these things well. :)
@@FuddlyDud - thanks for your response. respectfully, "distinct concept" is a bit vague. Also, contrary to the trad Christian view, as I understand it: there are men and women and the only acceptable sex is w/in traditional marriage. Behavior outside that is sinful. To argue that people have an inherent sexual nature and fit into some category (gay, lesbian, straight, etc.) is "essentialist", rather than Christian. So, in the Christian world view, there can be homosexual behavior but not homosexuals (or hetrosexuals), from what I understand.
@@marchess286
It’s a bit vague because my memory is only so good. Sorry about that. :P
You’ve just delineated the 2 concepts quite well though, for you’ve identified “homosexual” behavior apart from heterosexual behavior, that is what is not sinful.
In Roman culture, there was no such distinctions. Every hole was fair game for sexual proclivity with desires dictating what one did. There was no wrong or right types of sexual activity in how Christians would come to categorize them later. Tom Holland describes this well since he was an expert in Roman history prior to his work on Dominion. :)
Part of the confusion now is how modern sexual identity has distinguished homosexuals as a class of people. That is most likely wrongheaded as you described, but it’s wrongheaded because of said behaviors being distinguished which was not a thing before Christianity made it so.
Does that help better? :)
@@FuddlyDud - thanks for your response. Perhaps I'm mis- reading your response, but isn't it accurate that trad Christianity considers not just homosexual relations sinful but also hetro relations, outside of marriage? Please excuse me now. I'm a Jew and have to get ready for Yom Kippur.
@@marchess286
You’re good, good luck in your preparations! :)
Also yes, heterosexual relations outside of marriage would also be counted as part of this distinction. That said, that is more of a continuation of certain practices that are rooted in Judaism as you likely know well. :)
I like this approach Glen, however, I do think this is missing a discussion thread that compares what Christianity specifically brings to this argument and what Greek thought, particularly the
Stoic and Platonic/Neoplatonic schools. I realise these schools of thought are intertwined with Christianity but I think it is a conversation that is needed to bolster this argument.
For example, Neoplatonism clearly sees the world as having unity derived from the One at it's core, which would be grounds for a support for science.
I'd say the real unique addition of Christianity is Agapic love, but how that fits into the claims you and Tom Holland make would be very interesting (at least to me).
Between your debate and Michael Jones it was a pretty bad time for Dillahunty. He is the epitome of the secular humanist. "I want to believe as many true things and as few false things" but then showed when the data didn't go his way he didn't care.
You are right, when you start to look at everything, it is so reliant on Christianity to get the world we see today in the west, and the world we want can only be achieved under Christianity and the return of the lord.
I saw something recently makong the comment that every human saught utopia was really just a distopia, something explored to some extent in books like animal farm, and also shows like Star Trek. But the utopia of the Lord is a true utopia indeed
Justin is, in my opinion, NOT annoying 😂!! Go, Justin!!
Big Justin fan here!
So, believing in the value of a human being isn't a faith statement, or a theological statement, and doesn't require a belief in objective morality. Secular Humanism promotes human flourishing. It can be routed in empathy, and it can be routed in reason, but neither of those require a belief in a supernatural being to accomplish it.
Also, not even theists believe "all human beings are worthy of provision and protection", Matt was simply being honest about something both he and his interlocuter accepts. Any honest theist will admit that there are people who attempt heinous acts that make their provision and protection forfeit. Whether they accept it via theistic reasoning or secular reasoning.
Very bad arguments, empathy and "reason" whatever that is for you are not good enough arguments for your moral system, what if a whole society loses their empathy for a certain group? Does that make it good for you to opress them? Like nazies with jews or southern america with blacks? And reason is nothing if you don't believe in universal truths, for example Dillahunty himself believes that men can become women by believing they are women, does that sound reasonable?
So how can the belief that humans have objective value be posited rationally from a naturalistic worldview? You can't find an ought from an is. Remember, secular humanists disagree on what "human flourishing" might be, so you still have disagreements. For example, abortion. In that case, the liberty and pursuit of happiness of the mother somehow trumps over the right to life of the baby. Is that human flourishing? Why should I care about human flourishing anyways? Dillahunty always posits its perfectly reasonable to have a society based on selfishness, but the only reason I would ever view another human being with value in that worldview is if they bring some benefit to me.
Yay! I'm bonkers to the rest of the world!! Great line Glen
Really good video
Excellent, Thank you. The Chinese until ar 2000 years ago did observe the concept of one supreme God. They then came under the influence of Buddhism, ans Taoism.
Thank you for speaking life. You have given me a piece of God's help through the power of the Toung and to answer the question of why it is good be a light no matter what.
Seems unfair taking snippets and adding on ones own edits of fleshed out points and reframings without inviting the other side to do the same
There's links to the original videos in the description if you want to go and watch them
To this day, one of life's biggest mysteries is how Dillahunty managed to garner such a large, sycophantic fanbase.
Christopher Hitchens was the same, he had a fanatical cult like following that literally worshiped the guy. The irony of how religious the followers of New Atheism are, has always been lost on them though.
As an atheist lmao@@longllamas
We just like people who can vocally better express our reasoning.
If we find some other person we would appreciate that one as well. But it's not necessary that we will agree with everything they say.
It’s his style
@@longllamasI think Hitchens would have quit new atheism if he were around the past few years.
More unsupported claims and assertions. The life of Brian totally was making fun of religion.
Does your information come from a book with a talking donkey?
Says the guy who thinks donkeys are descended from fish 😅
@@nickhanne1716 You deny evolution?
Regardless of all of it, Justin has to be a true annoying religious character on the internet.
Nah, he’s a gem!
Un mundo mejor para tus hijos inocentes y vulnerables es posible con más conocimiento. Censurar conocimiento es estúpido. ¿Quién censura conocimiento y cuales son las consecuencias? ¿Por qué se censura conocimiento útil para generaciones futuras? ¡Y se lo dices y les da igual! Te han hecho el máximo daño posible engañándote con la idea de Dios y te quiero sacar del engaño para que vivas bien. Para entender el engaño y salir del círculo primero tienes que entender Dios existe. Si entiendes Dios existe ya tienes un pie fuera del círculo. ¡No estás protegido dentro del círculo, tienes que encontrar la verdad!. Dios existe porque lógicamente es imposible la existencia de la creación o finitud sin el creador o infinitud. ¿Te enseñaron el argumento cosmológico de kalam en la iglesia o mezquita? Lo que tiene un principio de existencia tiene una causa porque de la nada no puede ser creado algo. Lógicamente es imposible la existencia de un número infinito de causas, por lo tanto tiene que existir una primera causa no causada que creó lo que tiene un principio de existencia. ¿Entendistes por qué Dios existe? Tu entendimiento es tu salvación y libertad. Dios existe porque no toda la realidad puede ser creación o tener un principio de existencia. Lógicamente lo que tiene un principio de existencia tiene que ser creado por lo que es eterno. La verdad que te abrirá los ojos es la Segunda Guerra Mundial y el Holocausto nazi pasó después de que Spinoza descubriese la naturaleza de Dios. Te estoy contando lo que no contarán a tus hijos inocentes y vulnerables en la escuela. Para no desperdiciar este poema de amor digo el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. ¿Entendistes la falacia lógica atea? El ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es "papá celestial" y concluye erróneamente el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. ¿Eres ucraniano? Para acabar la guerra el descubrimiento que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica tiene que ser noticia. ¡Emergencia! Si entiendes eres infinitamente importante. Gracias.
Wow....the strawman....or is it strawmen? Regardless the utility of christian moral ideas, there is little evidence that these ideas are unigue or originate with christianity. Buddhism predates Christianity by centuries and emphasis every moral concept listed. Yet another completely unimpressive presentation given by Christian apologetics.
Yet, Buddism and Christianity are hugely different so the supposed strawman doesn't exist.
Yeah Buddhism is about as different to Christianity as you can get.
Eh no it doesn't, not at all. Especially in regards to human dignity and all humans being equal . People are very unequal in Buddhism and that's just a fact. I was Buddhist for 10 years and even went and stayed at remote temples in Nepal and Thailand etc.
It leads to certain thought patterns that make human rights, progress, and justice almost impossible.
I should write a book because there's a lot I have to say about this.