Cameron, please pray for my fiance, Grace, who was in a terrible car accident yesterday. She is in the STICU with more broken bones than I can count (including femurs and spine), brain swelling, and abdominal organ damage. She needs prayers if she's going to survive. Please pray, and ask everyone you know to pray as well EDIT: She passed away. Thank you all for your prayers. God's Will be done. I know He loves her and is caring for her, and He always has been. Please keep her, me, her family, and my family in your prayers.
I will be praying. Sorry man, that sounds so horrible. Remember that if things don't go how you want, she'll be with Jesus and happier than she ever could imagine, and you would see her again one day. But I will be praying for her recovery.
@@CatholicismRulesDear beloved brother in the Lord, I'm sending prayers your way for your lovely Grace. For her miracle healing in Jesus name. I can sure empathize ,,as my young nephew was in a horrible motorcycle accident 3wks ago.
Cameron the work you do is very meaningful to a lot of people. I know it's a struggle trying to grow your channel, but I see your content and think wow more people need this. Your channel is unique and I know God is working through it.
"God's ways are higher than our ways and we shouldn't expect to know all the different reasons that God has for allowing or permitting what he does in the world." While the phrase can provide comfort during times of pain or loss, it's crucial to recognize its potential to cause harm. It can be used to excuse or diminish acts of injustice and suffering, particularly in cases where people face hardship or discrimination. This can discourage efforts to address and rectify such issues, perpetuating harm instead of seeking resolution. We see this ALL the time with church abuse, that the victim should move on and not speak out because it's divisive and that we don't understand why God allowed that to happen so we shouldn't seek to act to bring justice since God allowed it.
As parents we literally control our children's lives. We do things they don't understand. But eventually we grow and learn and are allowed autonomy. Throughout this time we gain knowledge and understanding. And we start to understand why parent do what they do. We can even ask them to explain why this or that happens. And they answer to the best of their ability. As adults we don't need to depend on our parents ( though there is nothing wrong with that). And we make decisions that may go against our parents wishes and we can discuss why and how these decisions can be made. God being are parent is an insane analogy. A parent that never let's directly communicates. You only learn of their existence from your other siblings. None of your living siblings has ever seen your dad. He left a book of instructions. But when you are capable of reading it, it turns out there is no one interpretation for any of the instructions. Oh and if you stop obeying him he torture you and says its your fault.
@@christopherkennedy9377 How am I straw manning? Please instead of telling me my argument is flawed an having no examples teach me. Tell me how to express it correctly so I can steelman it. If god is real I want to believe in him. I've spent 30 years praying. I would love to know that wasn't for nothing. I'd love to know divine justice is real and evil people getting away with murder and theft on global scales are going to be punished. I'd love to be with friends and family. Most importantly I really really really don't want to be tortured... Forever. I said the analogy is flawed. Human parents children relations are not the same as God Humans relations. Now are you saying that You can communicate with God as his child? You have heard of god from another person who had direct communication with him? That if I have knowledge of god but decide to disobey I will only be punished in a manner equal to my crime? Cause I understood it as all sins are equal and all get the same punishment. And all can be forgiven no matter how vile or despicable, so long as you believe in him and or his #1 child, who is also him? Sorry let me be more accurate. And say 1 sin cannot be forgiven by God Jesus or the pastor pretending to speak to him on Sunday. Blasphemy of the holy spirit aka denial of god existence aka Atheism. Lol The one thing that would allow you to think critically without guilt or fear of eternal torture, is also the one thing that guarantees your eternal torture. Beautiful system.
1. “He left a book of instructions.” He didn’t leave a book of instructions, he left a church. 2. “But when you are capable of reading it, it turns out there is no one interpretation for any of the instructions.” That’s what the Magisterium is for. 3. “Oh and if you stop obeying him he torture you and says it’s your fault.” Well if you’ve been given sufficient knowledge then it is your fault. If you’re going out of your way to disobey God, then you’re expressing that you don’t want a relationship with God. God grants you your wish with Hell. For Hell is the state of being in total separation from God.
@@buckarooben7635 We talking god or Jesus? Which church did god leave? What's the exact name. Also how did you find out about the religion? Like who told you and which church did they belong to? How do you know how to pray? What laws to pick and choose and which to ignore. How do you know which form of slavery to allow? The Jesus kind where slaves obey masters or the Moses kind where only outsiders and women can be slaves? You got this all from which church? Or the Bible?
@@buckarooben7635 If god created the universe and all beings. Then he created hell. No one else created hell. If god created universal law and is the Ultimate Judge and does not leave any wiggle room for extenuating circumstances then. God sends you to hell. If god has all knowledge and sees past present and future. And can do anything then He created all beings that he sent to hell knowing full well that's where they were going. Then he created them specifically to go to hell.
Well said. It is what it is. I had problems with such passages till I understood that it all harmonies with the NT. Jesus is the same in the OT when he was there with Moses. People are misreading the New Testament and not reading everything. God is holy. His mercy is only understood by that demonstrated by his wrath. I lived in a selfish manner that cause so much pain to others and I was woken up by a question to me. It was gentle, lots of gentleness prodding me … but I tell you the fear of God entered into my heart.
@paulray5647 No, you do have to choose interpretations based on whether they are problematic. But what do we mean by problematic? It means there is a dissimilarity with other Scripture, and harmonization is required. You let Scripture interpret Scripture, and you have to determine what verses act as control texts to aid you in interpreting the others in light of the control texts. That’s just being a responsible exegete.
@CapturingChristianity :: I "accidentally" (happy providence!) stumbled across this video/channel today - - SO pleased! Frankly, there exists a monumental shortage of intellectual conversation (it IS Y**T*be...), unless you know where to look. It worried me greatly watching the Old Guard -- the generals of the Faith -- depart like a landslide...happy for their graduation, but sore about our loss. It really worried me what the end state of this Grand Lady would be, when surveying some of the "apologists" of today; guess I got spoiled, coming up on the good, meaty teachings of holiness, virtue, LIVING UNTO OTHERS -- bc your life IS NOT YOUR OWN. There ARE some fabulous brothers doing a wonderful job, & I know where they are; now I have more options, avail here . I am subbing as soon as I finish this rant. GBY All, thx for doing your thing over there!
Hey Cameron, I think you should do a video covering the topic of pantheism and arguments against it, I haven’t found many Christian’s covering this and I personally have encountered many more pantheist than even atheist when I’ve tried to preach the gospel to those around me. Granted, it is mostly people in my age group (I’m in my 20s), but most people my age I’ve spoken to seem to believe in a pantheist God, although they don’t know what pantheism is their beliefs align with it. I’ve encountered a lot of deist too.
Norman Geisler has a book called “ Apologetics in the new age, a Christian critique of pantheism.” And Douglas Groothuis has a book called “ confronting the new age” where he has a chapter called “comparing gods” where he deals with this.
Pantheism is a generic term that means "everything around you AND you is god." The reason you aren't finding many Christians discussing it is b.c most aren't familiar with the notion and that there are various kinds of Pantheism (ie mystery schools) which have different understandings of how exactly the divine works within everyone. Of course, the final reason is that the average Christian seems more obsessed with atheism and Islam--I mean, when was the last time you saw a Christian doing a video on Hinduism?
@@jaytv4eva true, I think in part it’s also because we are not exposed to Hinduism as much in places like the US, we mainly hear arguments from atheists or Muslims, and those who just hold religious believes but are not part of any religion
Comment after the video (kinda). I couldn’t watch the full video for the smugness. I grew frustrated. The guest and to some extent Cam trivialized honest disagreements. Here is what I seek. I wish a Christian with combat experience to address the passages in the Bible concerning war. I don’t want a professor or Cam who are clueless and disrespectful of strong yet fully honest moral concerns with the Bible. If you are such a Christian, I specifically wish to know how you reconciled the Bible with the lessons your learned from war. What experience cuased you the most trouble and how did you overcome the lesson from the experience. On this thread I will place forward my toughest experience and how I couldn’t overcome the experience and remain a Christian.
This experience was after breaching minefields of Kuwait and after a night on the oil burns….we were moving to Kuwait City and concerns a death along to path to the city. So be warned, I will be writing about a combat death.
OK here goes: I came to a ridge overlooking a huge desert valley and to the right was a massive battle. The valley was obscured with a mixture of smoke and dust from countless explosions from a massive battle. From the bank of hellfire, an Iraqi vehicle emerged and raced across the valley floor. The driver and unknown number of passengers were fleeing the battle. Yet behind the fleeing driver also emerged an US Marine attack helicopter, a sleek Super Cobra. The Cobra fired a missile yet missed. The missile’s hit the desert floor and explosion generated the familiar cloud of dirty smoke that filled the half of the valley. The cobra fried a second missile and this one found its target. Yet this explosion was pure white like a summer thunderhead. No dirt and sand was mixed with this cloud. The most deadly explosions are the purest, the most beautiful.
So here’s my question for the smug professor who thinks objections to the Bible are simplistic. Please kindly explain exactly how were the fleeing kids who witnessed the killing of their parents hunted by god’s people ? How were the fleeing women hunted and killed? Has the professor ever witnessed the killing of a fleeing person and came away with a hopeful, uplifting, and moral justifiable outlook? So let’s go back and put a past life to that person killed on the desert? Did he carry a photo of his family? Did he carry a letter from his girlfriend who he hoped one day would be his wife? Did he hope one day to be a school teacher? As he fled, did he think of his sister or brother? So again professor, I want to know exactly how god’s people hunted fleeing people..when god commanded a community to be killed.
I recently learned of the existence of a book called the appocraphon. of John found with other gnostic material at Nag Hammodi. It describes god much more in line with the loving Father of Christ🎉 I can’t believe the loving Father of Christ is the same as the vain vicious Yahweh of the Old Testament. It makes more sense of the words of Jesus about the god of the Jews who sent snakes to his starving children instead of food. Jesus always speak of His God as the Father.
The problem you bring up about interpretations at around the 08:00 mark overlooks the reason that many people disbelieve which isn't just that one specific interpretation is problematic, but its the fact that so many people can honestly and genuinely come to such a wide variety of interpretations in the first place. This is the issue I've been having with the word. If there are 1000's upon 1000's of denominations and interpretations of a text that should be fundamental to everyone, at what point do we deduce that the issue may not be necessarily with the people interpreting, but with the text itself.
40:50 Copan seems to argue that Deuteronomy merely adds exaggeratory language to the Numbers account but it seems as though it’s going further by adding extra detail to the account. Where Numbers only mentions Israel defeating the armies, Deuteronomy mentions that AND their entrance into the Canaanite cities, where the killing of young and old is mentioned. I think this bodes problematic for his reading.
Copan is wrong. Without understanding God’s wrath, ie Holiness, many of the passages will not be understood. Jesus too will be misunderstood. After all, it is Jesus who was talking to Moses and punishing the Israelites. Read Jude. Also read what Jesus said of himself that Moses wrote about him.
@@Logic807 what are *your* own thoughts about the idea of Israelites killing enemy *infants* and children (and their pets !)? And what about forcing marriage on the captive females ? Do you think those females would willingly submit after such a short time period, Or did they feel they had to ? Are you ok with that? Do you see Jesus being okay with killing the infants of our enemies?
@TheRealMeowMeowMeow Those passages got me angry, too. Plus, more. 2. The answer to you is yes. If not, there will be many many passages you will not understand. You will not understand the holocaust. You will not understand the prophesies. You will not understand God’s wrath. Take note Sodom and Gomorrah, and before that global wipeout. The assyrians and babylonians, according to the Bible, were used to punish Israel . Similarly, Israel was God's hand to wipe out Israel enemies. It means God can use whatever means.
I wish you would have addressed Numbers 31:17-18 in more detail which reads: "Kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." This relates to another regulation in the book of Deuteronomy that allows Jewish soldiers to take beautiful capitive women as their "wives" (21:10-14). Why did Moses instruct the Israelites to slay all except for the virgin women? Does this mean God sanctioned the rape of female capitives of war? Those are the hardest for me to wrap my mind around.
It's simple. Yahweh is a psychopath. You can do mental gymnastics or just read it as it is and decide if that's a loving God, or a vicious jealous God.
The most difficult passage is found in Leviticus 21, regarding cripples and those with congenital deformities (and yes, some other things) not being allowed in the place of worship, because it doesn't rely on modern sensibilities being alarmed by ancient people's perhaps forgivable lower place on an ever increasing trend line of gentility, but rather exposes something altogether different and black and white. The intuition being reflected here is the human nature that is repulsed by certain bodily differences. This intuition in turn is an artifact of evolution that, to make a long story short, couldn't be in place were it not for our actual, material, vulnerabilities. We of course didn't know this, and so we projected the sentiment onto our god, who cannot contain that which references vulnerability, because he is omnipotent. Noe the less, these sorts of people were said, by God, to "desecrate" the holy place. Take your pick - it's cruel, or it's a sign of the creation of a God by people, as opposed to the other way around. Either way, an omnipotent god could take it, and so can humans - it's without a doubt implied that these people were not being wholesale slaughtered, as they existed in order to be banned. If you say, "Ya, but maybe they were pushed to the perimeter of the camp, and God made the rule because He knew our weakness..." The problem here is that when you consult the list (Leviticus 21) it runs to such shallow ground of the repulsive that it appears someone had in mind to really make this place holy, and perfectly clean of what seemed "un-great." The answer to our instinctive discomfort with physical abnormality is proximity and time, and we all know it works. But you can see how an ancient would not have had that moral compulsion to even desire to do so, empathy not yet having invaded what then was simply called law, which later became segregated from secular law by being given the title "morality," or "God's law."
@@tafazzi-on-discord Good points (later on - your first paragraph is, however, more conveniently trimming reality than the more over-arching theory posited in the second two). As for the second and third paragraphs, I think you, at least in how you expressed it, aren't paying homage to the fact that the "matching what you'd expect in materialism" works both ways - it can support a theory that it came from materialism or that it's part and parcel of a "gradually ordered" elevation towards the divine. Being that so much in the realm of assertions of the supernatural are what we would hope for, or that serve our material ends well (as the OT is very much interested in constructing in-group bias and social order), it seems reasonable to put one's money on that it's all made up, and sometimes perceived by people genuinely believing in what they perceive into an established tradition, thus manifesting what you call the gradual elevation. If I expressed myself as if I had a slam dunk, my bad. But I don't think your case is anything more than cogent, as opposed to convincing. The "dialogue" theory is to most eyes ad hoc, and appears only when it needs to appear (but I suppose that' not fair, since things like saying that my name is such and such and Abraham knew me as such and such are always going to be fodder for skeptics). IN general there's a parsimony problem working against your case, but, I get it, when you're afraid of deception, you'll be open to the idea that god made things un-parsimonious on purpose, and hey, that's possible. Now, to your first paragraph. The problem here is that it's so easy to shed this thing. Yes, it's instinctual, but if it's a merciful god, one might expect this to be early on his list. We get it - they hate, and fear, outsiders, and outsiders really are dangerous, so you can't just come swooping in with peace, love and unicorns. And people are sexually jealous, so, sure, it was in keeping with their stage of "elevation" to kill women who weren't virgins on their wedding nights. But this list of flaws banned from the holy place digs quite far down the list into the barely repulsive, and we both I'm sure have experienced the ease with which this repulsion fades. Maybe we can do this - we can try to find a moral directive that seemed ahead of its time and difficult. I know - the one about not resisting evil, or obeying the authorities of this world, you know, like King George of England in 1776, because he was no worse than Nero for sure. Ya know, I think we found it. Now let's find some people who buy into it that call themselves Christians. But the biggest problem is this: In your theory it is a reflection of who we are, that god is merely accommodating. Fast forward to modern theology and we get into places where we really have to emphasize the inerrancy and exactitude (in terms of learning what is what) and legibility of the Word. In this passage god declares theses things to be "detestable," not, "because YOU detest these things..." I am of the opinion that Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, have the upper hand in theological debates, because their main point is undeniable - if you get loose with the Word, there's really no end to where you can go, and at some point the Word ceases to have any moral teeth whatsoever. This is why the precise wording matters. When someone says a thing is detestable, we know them to believe it is detestable. I'm open, however, to a convincing discussion on how this interpretation of rhetoric is faulty, but it mustn't render other parts of the scripture vulnerable to tampering in ways YOU would object to. Lastly, some arguments enjoy support from tangential issues. We can also discuss something relevant here which is the problem of anger in conjunction with omnipotence and omniscience. We can postulate that omnipotence came in later (Yahweh at one point complains that he was "incited" against Job), thus making early citations of god's anger unproblematic in their time.. At any rate, anger requires surprise, and a maybe even a feeling of powerlessness, and is not very conducive to a model wherein the entity (spiritually perfect to the maximum, I might add) is omniscient.
@@tafazzi-on-discord Ya, by legible I meant universally accessible, which I agree, this is a stretch. I granted a few things in that response that I could actually point out are potentially flawed, such as the inability of God to "swoop in with peace, love and unicorns" because this right here is claim that runs contrary to omnipotence (he can) and constructions of why he wouldn't lead us down a path wherein, if we hold tight to the properties of omnipotence and omniscience, blasting through the distracting diestrus of falls and satans, ultimately leads to this whole humanity thing being for the mere entertainment of God. But as for universally accessible, I mean not requiring the consultation of "experts," which is a major problem, because it just seems to strain things if the kernal of faith keeps having to be stretched outward and outward; a person coming into the faith believing that it is a project of faith in a being and/or a handful of assertions about reality, which in turn means faith in the people who wrote these things down, then faith in the cannon process. We can stop there to describe the typical Christian, in so far as they would describe the deal, who in reality is taking cues from a train of traditions and the human beings who made them and are making them, all outside the canon. Après pos of all that, you're right - Catholics and Orthodox do in fact explicitly hold to divine revelation post canon. You expressed it, though, more as a reasoned process, with alignment with sacred tradition and historical analysis, with each individual being free to buy in or not. If the former (divine authority over theological matters, which I realize some, including you, may involve the latter) I've always found this absurd. Then later I realized that this is because I was raised protestant, and it's only the same absurdity of the canon process stretched out into the present. But it's all absurd. Even if we grant an evidentiary proof of something involving the God of the Bible, and we get ourselves (with the same process) to have faith in the canon, we still have the matter of every single assertion made thereafter, and simply stating that some line of authority is correct (that has a history of admitting a few mistakes) is just plain demanding too much, and so I'm left to my own devices, at which point we run into the "perspicuous" problem. As for the latter (the reasoned and individual approach), I guess we could just discuss a given issue. First of all, historical analysis isn't going to get us much, and the sacred book is going to have to be the landing place. Consider even this: Corruption, we have no reason to not believe, could have happened quite quickly. If I see a contradiction between a NT directive and the first appearance of a relevant Christain practice happening in 405 AD, what does that get me? Shouldn't I simply go with the sacred book? Case in point is what I see in the NT directive, which is a total and complete divorcement from political will. Anyway, you mentioned three items, and the first seems to be a note of agreement. On legibility, you were pretty much right with "perspicuous" and I expounded. On the last, the practice of critical analysis to vanquish confusion, that I guess is the nut of the problem - the extra "rule of faith," which I have yet to hear if it is, in your mind, a process operated by a divinely select body, or if by this you just mean the greater whole of human discernment, which, we all know, is subject to expedience, bias, desire, etc. Then again, only faith has one believing that the same is not true for the divinely select body.
@@tafazzi-on-discord All these years and I never knew exactly what people meant by "Discord." Extreme luddite here. I'll check it out later today and see if I can get on. My response to your last reply though I think can be pretty brief: First of all your distinction between the modern and the ancient is super well put (albeit probably deserves more expounding for most people). But I think it's also key to point out how this shift happened, which came as a result of both that which spurred the sense that a "canon closure" was in order, and the subsequent environment following its closure. I won't get into what spurred the need here, but with this closure what was once essentially spiritualism and something of an art (I almost said philosophy, but the sense of that word may have changed as well) became a science, making the determination of what was meant in a certain book an endeavor amenable, in theory, to objectivity. But the ancients had no sense of this. But it might be that human disputes were always going to have gravitated toward trying to objectively ground things, and the introduction, very early, of written law (Moses), in the midst of literature about an artful relationship with an invisible being, who to others was a convenient mouth in which to insert the strategies for social order, led to a situation where things got frustrating in the Pharisee and Sadducee circles and then insert the proliferation of prophets, who early on simply got inserted into tradition by an un-self-conscious process well after the fact, owing to their either ultimate arrival at persuading, or, alternatively, merging with, the ultimate consensus, or not making it into the sacred text collection due to a failure to have done so. But eventually we became self-conscious of this process - keep in mind, the Judaic tradition also closed their canon around the same time - and this could have something to do with the proliferation of faster communications, bringing us in contact with facts like the divergence of belief, and acceptance of prophets, owing to mere geographic isolation. This may have been embarassing, as we could only assume our location was doing the same thing. At any rate, what you describe and what I describe for the pre-canon closure era, is none other than subjective morality, no? Perhaps another way to get at my point is to ask this: What happens when you, as an individual, see what appears to be a betrayal of something in the New Testament commands? If it's all faith in the elect body of divine masters o... of what...of interpretation? It sounds like not. It sounds like it's simply being spiritual masters, because you cannot seriously believe that they have interpreted well, or withtout subjective sense (which, yes, can carry the gradual elevation and/or the human moral evolution). What then becomes the point of a canon closure, or is there really no such thing in your tradition, other than a conveneint way to name and publish a book, that could be added to, with no violation of sacredness, and no risk of deception or running off the rails into anything time will allow? Anyway, turned out it wasn't short. I'll look into this discord thing.
Copan is so far outside mainstream Biblical scholarship when he gets to slavery. It just seems like a real blind spot to him. Some positions are almost laughable. It makes me wonder what he really thinks on the subject to be honest. And he's such a great scholar too. Very smart. But simply seems incapable of honestly addressing slavery in the Bible. He knows what it does and doesn't mean. He knows Hebrew, but still insists that the better translation of "eved" is "servant" when it comes to this topic. Well, that's not the case when it comes to the foreign slaves in Israel. But he still continues to make that statement, as he did here, to waive away slavery in the Bible as some sort of mistranslation when he knows that's not the case. And his other go to here. That "Antebellum South slavery is so far removed from what was going on in Israel". When he knows there are more similarities than there are differences. Like; 1. Owned as property? Both 2. Owned for their entire lives? Both 3. Children born to them automatically became slaves too? Both 4. Could be beaten? Both 5. Bought from other nations? Both 6. Could not be killed? Both (look it up) 7. Forced to work? Both 8. Didn't get paid? Both 9. Involuntary? Both 10. Families could be broken up? Both Were they exactly the same? Of course not. But to claim Biblical slavery was somehow not comparable to American slavery is simply not true. And I'm pretty sure he knows this. I mean I don't know how he couldn't. He's a smart guy here. This is just his blind spot it seems to me.
Incorrect on a number of points. Did you just make this up or what?? Laws About Slaves 21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever. 7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her[b] for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. 16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 I'm very familiar with all those verses. I could probably pretty much quote them verbatim from memory at this point. The first passage you quoted from Exodus 21:1-11 specifically says that it only applies to Hebrews. And by the way the passage you quoted specifically notes that female slaves, even Hebrews, are never released. But that's a different topic. But maybe you missed all that? The lifelong chattel slavery condoned in the Bible was reserved for foreigners. So none of that passage is even relevant. I'm talking about the laws for foreigners. Now the passage from Exodus 21:16 you quoted about kidnapping IS relevant. But this is a law against kidnapping and not slavery itself. But I completely agree, you could not kidnap someone and make them a slave. Turns out that most nations at the time had that same law. But it also turns out that kidnapping is not how most people became slaves. The two most common ways to become a slave at the time were to be either captured in war (another nations wars, not Israels by the way), or to simply be born into it to slave parents. No kidnapping required. These are the slaves I'm talking about. But you want a real head scratcher? Check out the corresponding verse in Deuteronomy 24:7 that would seem to clarify that this prohibition against kidnapping only applied to kidnapping a fellow Hebrew; "If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you" But what I'm talking about are the laws regarding foreigners who are slaves. This is laid bare in passages like Leviticus 25:44-46 that says; "As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be you property. You may bequeath them to you sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly" I mean, this is chattel slavery plain and simple. And this is the Bible condoning it. Owning people as property for their entire lives, along with any children born to them. By definition it is. I notice you didn't quote these verses? Is it because it goes against your position, or because you didn't know of them? I've been studying this topic for years. Even learning some Hebrew to be able to read it in it's original language. So I'm not incorrect on any aspect of what I said, and I'm not making anything up. I'm neck deep in this. Having listened to or read just about everything I could find on the subject. Including Paul Copans book. You could accuse me of a lot of things, but not being well versed in this topic is not one of them.
@@nickbrasing8786 I understand what you are saying, and it seems harsh. I don't doubt your honesty or intellect about what you have mentioned here. But the fact that chattel slavery is described and spoken about in the bible is not the same as God directly ordaining slavery- but he did condone it...which again is not ordaining slavery. In the beginning, slavery was not part of the plan for the existence of humanity. It came about only after the Fall. He allowed it because He works within the frailty and unfortunately our selfish will ( not "free" will- just selfish will).
@@cristinamz2137 Allowed / condoned / endorsed / permitted / Pick whatever word you want to hide behind. The Bible allows Jews to BUY and OWN OTHER PEOPLE. The Bible allows Jews to BEAT THEM. The Bible allows Jews to PASS THEM AS INHERITANCE. JESUS saw SLAVES being bought and sold and beaten and passed as inheritance and NEVER SAID: STOP THIS SLAVE BUSINESS. LOL
@@cristinamz2137 And I appreciate that Cristina. And I completely agree that God did not "ordain" slavery in the Bible as you say. It's why I'm careful with my words and only use "condone". But you say things like; "In the beginning, slavery was not part of the plan for the existence of humanity. It came about only after the Fall" How do you know it was not part of the plan for humanity though? The Bible never tells us that. In fact, the Bible never says one word against slavery itself. We're only told how to do it correctly. And frankly, this is not what I would have expected the Bible to say about something as important as slavery. I could almost get onboard with the whole, "It only regulates slavery" train if somewhere, anywhere, it had said that slavery was bad, immoral, a sin or against the will or plan of God. But it doesn't. Not even in the New Testament. And as far as it only coming about after the Fall? I don't understand why that's important. Almost everything came about after the fall. And it would have been pretty hard to have slavery when there were only two people on earth I think you would agree.
@@tex959 According to them, eventually it all comes down to us being open to and searching for God. Which is backwards. Why should we have to do this for an entity ridiculously beyond all of our capacities? It is absurd and insulting.
@@wet-read its insulting to A Sovereign God that you can compare yourself to God and think that a tiny mind such as yours can understand an Infinite minded God
it is simple to those of us He has set aside for Himself, but to you and those destined for Hell, find it difficult because you don't know Him and He never you... there, is that simple enough ?
@@tex959 How is God's message limited? It's reach is global. If the bible were tailored and short sighted in it's creation it would not have the impact or foundation to stand on thousands of years later. I see similar claims brought about like "It was a book written by dumb sheep herders" yet the philosophy and historical accuracy contained within is off the charts. You either choose to believe God's word is some patchwork forgery made by random humans with limited scope, or it's an elaborate piece of writing full of wisdom and relevant to this day despite cultural barriers, you can't have it both ways. I can tell you right now, the millennia of research on this subject is pretty clear
A god who butchers children, and butchers them in such cruel fashion as in having them chopped/stabbed into bloody pieces, is not explicable in any other context other than a malevolent god
@@newglof9558 if you believe the bible, then this claimed god actually designed abortion. Miscarriages, stillbirth, menstruation, death during birth, IDS, genetic disease, etc
I have not come across that part in the bible, could you tell me where I can find it? By the way, this sounds a lot like abortion- which most atheists support...
I really do appreciate he was able to convince Cameron that the Bible had much hyperbole, exaggerated statements, iron age fantasies and supposedly divine decrees that really shouldn't be followed. He did a better job than I could have!
Wow Cameron - there are "interpretations' that aren't problematic, therefore, all's good. Meanwhile, there are interpretations that have it meaning exactly what it seems to mean (you know, when we go into it as "babes," like we're supposed to), and that also happen to have attending explanations of the migratory nature of empathy and the dire imperatives of early societies which make these things less "evil" and more natural, but all the same, natural, as opposed to God-born, as well as the subsequent moral evolutions of humanity. Probability be dammed I guess, when miracles are a thing, and one needs a thing to be true.
Don't think you get the point of interpretation. An interpretation can be valid depending on your beginning assumptions. If you assume God created us, loves us, cares about our immortal soul and acts on that basis, then an explanation of an action He commands can be valid based on that assumption. If you think God is an evil dictator and we are his playthings, an explanation of His actions can take a different hue. Also, as you pointed out, the varying nature of ethical standards that we human beings like to think of as relative morals plays a part in the context of a Biblical story. However, don't be confused by the changing morality of man and the unchanging, objective morality given by God. The Biblical stories point directly to the fallen nature of man and our propensity to change our morals based on what serves us, not God. Because we change our minds on what is moral, it has no bearing on what is objectively moral.
@@paulray5647 When did OWNING another human being become immoral ?? Because, the bible doesn't say it is immoral. JESUS saw SLAVES being bought and sold and beaten and passed as inheritance and NEVER SAID: STOP THIS SLAVE BUSINESS. LOL
@@paulray5647 How do you tell if a moral evolution, not of man, but featured in the Bible, is from god versus if it's an imposter? An example would be something we could neither call a change, but is instead an addendum, but one that is not at all implied by earlier objective moral laws in the OT, such as the command to obey the authorities of this world (spoken at a time when the authority was Rome, and Nero, and was given no stipulations). And how do you know that the stipulations you add to this (I'm guessing you do) are valid? Or you could go with simply the move away from the dietary laws, which, yes, are attended to by all manner of theological and cosmological logic, but that none of which deem it - according to the doctrine of the supremacy of God's mysterious ways - necessarily so. In other words, is your interpretation objective, and is your decision to believe the New Testament moment objective? I get it, there's all kinds of foreshadowing in the OT, but then again, a lot of that is poorly interpreted by even the Gospel writers, and, again, since God is de facto moral, he could have allowed for a thing to be very convicting, and yet it be not, in order that he separate the wheat from the chafe.
@@Philip__325 Off the top of my head there's the issue of the prophecy of the messiah being born of a virgin, which is likely a misunderstanding of the term used in the OT that got interpreted as "virgin," and the matter of Jesus being from Nazareth, so as to fulfill the prophecy that he be called a Nazarene, which is unclear as to what is being referred to, with each possible candidate having its problems, leading to the good possibility that Mathew misunderstood either the Judges 13:5 referencing a "Nazarite" (a spiritual sect), or a rather insignificant passing statement in Isiah that the messiah would be a "shoot" (english, as from a branch), which in Hebrew has two words, one of which is similar to and spelled the same as it would be in Hebrew (NZR) and another which is not similar at all, which is what Isiah uses, which in turn means that if this is where Mathew got his idea, either Mathew or God are playing an incredibly trite and labyrinthine word game. Apologists often cite the Isiah prophecy as the source but fail to mention that the word used for shoot is not the one that matches NZR, and we can make a pretty good guess that Mathew was working on memory, as we remember stories and often swap synonyms.
Yes, but that doesn’t necessarily make any of his decisions,right, moral, or just. Hypothetically, If you were the creator would every decision you made be based on the fact that you have absolute power to make any decision you wanted to? I feel like when Christians make the statement like the one you have made above it is a indicator of not wanting analyze and use the critical thinking skills that our creator has given us.
@@tex959no. But think of it in the context of this definition of God. And also remember, if you have an eternal soul, and God gave life to your flesh, why is it wrong for God to take that life away?
Would you be ok with the idea of being burned alive or some other hideous fate because the creator of the universe deemed it good or necessary? How about people you care about?
@@wet-read in the context of this biblical God, he wouldn’t do that unless it was just. And I probably wouldn’t be okay with it if it were to actually happen because I’d be like a rebellious criminal who doesn’t think I did anything wrong. Or, He did it to fulfill a certain purpose. Christ was faithful till death, I should be too.
I am making two comments. One before and one after watching the video. As a former marine (Task Force Ripper in Desert Storm), the passages in the Bible are problematic. In fact, experiences in the desert eventually broke my faith in god. After years of struggling, I finally recognized the warmth of my morality in comparison to biblical morality. Without doubt experiences in the desert killed my faith in god. My interest in biblical morality is specifically on acts which I would consider to be war crimes.
You may have a limited grasp of modern warfare, but before you start throwing around terms like war crimes with regard to God, you need to study the text, context, reasons, and result of the language used to describe the acts of warfare in the Bible. Also, keep in mind the purpose of the Bible. It is not to paint a picture of a God who commits "war crimes." You should re-think your interpretation in light of that. Ask yourself why a loving and just God would act the way He does. If war turned you away from God because of morality, there are a couple of interesting possibilities that I see. You , possibly, no longer believe in God, in which case it shouldn't matter to you what the Bible says about anything, because you now feel it has no authority and nothing to teach. You, possibly, still believe in God, but have developed a hatred of Him based on your experiences. This is a very presumptuous position since you are questioning the motives of the creator of the universe and all life who loves us and wants the best for us. You, possibly, think God is an evil God who just does bad things to us. If that is the case, you would need an explanation for the countless good things then, too. So, I would say don't let man's inhumanity towards each other, which is contrary to God's wishes, to turn you away from God. That's man's fault, not God's. Secondly, I think you should reevaluate your interpretations of Biblical acts using sources other than biased atheist ones.
@@paulray5647What evidence do you have that "God loves us and wants the best for us"? Because an all powerful God doesn't want something and have it not happen.
@@tex959 That has never been an issue for me. That’s why I was surprised to read the comment. I’ve also never known anyone, including those I’ve served with, who lost their faith because of the evils of war. I’ve seen people do some awful, awful things. And those were people. Doing evil things. It never occurred to me to put that responsibility on God.
@@tex959 Fascinating. Thank you for the conversation. It helps to be reminded of other perspectives, even perspectives within my own scope of experience.
6:39 Yes Cameron, I remember my Christian days too. Not a jot or tittle of the horrors of the OT bothered me. I always thought that there's a correct explanation and that we just haven't found it yet, or that God had morally sufficient reasons to do what he did. Now that I am not a Christian, these verses reveal their true horror. Worthwhile to remember that ALL religions have their "correct" interpretations of their cruel verses and practices. And this "oh-there-are-different-interpretations-of-text" seems to flirt too dangerously with postmodernism. This hope (for lack of a better term) that there's a correct explanation mirrors the atheists' scientistic hope that the origin of life/universe will one day be explained purely by physical means. Amazing what one believes when one is inside a belief system. This video is for Christians who already believe that their God is all-loving and the rest. It doesn't do a thing for the ones on the outside.
They cannot see the web of cognitive bias that their brain developed during the critical indoctrination window(4-14) because of neuroplasticity. People like you and I can. We have a unique perspective because we were believers who now are not. We can compare and contrast how our neural networks would process information before and after. Lifelong atheists and Christians do not have this perspective.
@@pazuzil you’re either trolling (which would actually be funny) or you have a view unworthy of serious engagement (he is of course a Christian). Either way, I shan’t take the bait
A pro tip from an atheist, who hates new atheists, but mostly their bad arguments. Any moral judgments of Bible scripture by atheists, or anyone questioning similarly. Those are all "arguments from consequences". Arguments of that type imply, if not outright run into a host of more logical fallacy. But for the argument itself, somethings existence or lack, is never contingent on "shoulds" or "shouldn't", aka, usually appeals to morality or legality. They're also implying they accept objective morality... But whose morality? If you're into, or ever heard of historian Tom Holland, those atheists, or whoever argues like that, are rejecting scriptures, the Bible, for their very own deeply held, Christian moral assumptions. Lol, I hate the way they argue, it's not their use of this fallacy alone, it's that this one leads into such a dogs dinner of more fallacies. From implying themselves taking on the burden of proof, to false dilemmas, to implying they have double think, and accept some self evident, objective morality, which they'll deny, but never explain, for being to overwhelmed with cognitive dissonance. I'm all for Christians finding healthy interpretation of scriptures, that align with a caring God. I wish more were annihilationists regarding hellfire.
I think "Is God of the old testament an unpleasant/evil character" needs to be split into 2 separate questions. 1. Would it seem so to a cold reader. Give old testament to somebody who has no idea what christianity or judaism or islam are (admiteddly hard), and ask them what do they feel about the God character described. And I personally think this is pretty clear. JHWH is a war god. Simmilar to Ares or Montu or Nergal. He is a God that hates complacency, loves conflict, and is incredibly violent and vindictive. He is an evil God. This is just plain in the text, to deny it would be to admit to having troubles with basic reading comprehension. 2. Would it seem so to somebody with philosophical understanding that the God described in it is the perfect being, the grounding of all morality, the goodness incarnate. Then the answer, again is pretty clear. JHWH is necessarily good, so any evidence to the contrary MUST just look like evidence, and in fact is either mistaken or misunderstood. I think this is a lost ground to any sola scriptura evangelical. It's impossible to argue a sceptic who tries to be objective about reading the text. Just take sceptic theism approach and say God is misterious that way. Catholics and Orthodox on the other hand have thousands of years of canonical apologetics built into the text and translations themselves, which makes this problem way easier on them.
The impact of naturalism on the mind of even Christian scholars is deeply engrained. The Christian thinker is trapped in an emotional pit which he has failed to out crawl for more than a century. Consider the implausibility of a natural explanation in the events surrounding the life of Samson. Are we seriously thinking that Samson's natural body, of flesh and blood, engaged the sheer impact of the lion's claws or his spinal cord the weight of Gaza gate? Again It is not credible to entertain the thought of this Hebrew judge's arms (humerous, scapula and clavicle) remaining unbroken under the strut force needed to push two pillars supporting the, 3000 plus capacity, temple of Dagon. There are other such instances where natural laws cannot explain, such as a multitude's mere shout that tumbles Jericho's dual carriageway wall upon which two chariots could pass in opposite directions. Indeed dont we accept the event of the Hebrew boys survival in a furnace as well as the old world at the account of the" sun standing still." If natural laws do not embrace any compatibility with these event then it reinforces an inevitable definition that pertains our account of acts that fall outside nature, namely. miraculous events. If a miracle then, by definition is God acting outside of nature, then clearly this explains the events under discussion here. God may acts outside of natural laws when He so sees fit. The subconcious naturalism of the Western scholar has paid him a double dissevice that extends even where other acts of the supernatural go on display particularly the present discussion inviting the charges above, But are we to assume that the supernatural mimics natural laws. Even beteer does the supernatural entail natural pain and suffering? The charge against God may very much be a verdict of our own making.
I've been a fan of some of these talks Cameron hosts for awhile now and if you asked me, I'd have said he seems like a nice guy but I honestly had to stop the video when he casually mentioned he grounds his daughter and takes her things, I have thought deeply about how every problem in society is an outcome of what we experience in our youth and the "punishment/reward" concept has had a massive, almost incomprehensibly large negative effect on humanity. There is scores of research and books on it and why it doesn't work and is harmful but I must admit I find appealing to research to tell us how to treat our children is demoralising to us and dehumanising to them, we don't require that for any of our other relationships or loved ones, all we do require is what (I'm assuming Cameron believes) God give us and that's his moral golden rule "Don't do unto other's what's hateful when done unto you". All of us deserve a warm welcome into this world not to have acts which are considered so immoral if done to anyone else to the point of criminality enforced on us, that's a form of marginalizing a minority and disrespect and it does do irrevocable damage, which people can't see because it's been so normalised just like people in middle east or in our cultures past not seeing why it's wrong for husband's to punish wives unconsensually. We need to become much more moral and sophisticated in how we treat the young and follow the rule if it's wrong to do it to an adult, it's even more wrong to do it to a child, if we truly cared about protecting adults less we wouldn't give them more protections. I seriously hope Cameron changes through some miracle if that's what it takes, how he interacts with his daughter because knowing what I know, it's extremely disturbing to hear this. I still think Cameron is a nice guy deep down just like the husbands who patronised and punished their wives against their will, I honestly think had I lived in those cultures I could have gotten used to it like everyone else and seen them as just misguided which is what they are, it's the same thing here, it's just doing it to a son or daughter is worse.
@@michaelchoruss7544 Yeah now imagine what years of conditioning can do vs those few days and when that conditioning begins at birth so it's all you've ever known compared to them living entire lives without it before that.
Life seems to be a pendulum. We will never get it perfect. Some generations may be to strict and some not nearly strict enough. I remember my parents saying my generation has so many more resources on proper parenting than they ever had. There is no one size fits all. as each child is different. I was brought where my dad believed , spare the rod spoil the child. It did not help me and I certainly never applied it. Some cultures have no discipline and I am sure a number of them are spoiled brats. We seem to now live in an age of post truth narcissists. All the best in raising your children. These are very difficult times.
"Spare the rod..." ; ), .... oh, and stone to death a disobedient child, and don't let cripples and those with congenital deformities into the place of worship. A little off topic, but that last one's the best, because it doesn't rely on modern sensibilities being alarmed by ancient people's perhaps forgivable lower place on an ever increasing trend line of gentility, but rather exposes something altogether different and black and white. the intuition being reflected here is the human nature that is repulsed by certain bodily differences. This intuition in turn is an artifact of evolution that, to make a long story short, couldn't be in place were it not for our actual, material, vulnerabilities. We of course didn't know this, and so we projected the sentiment onto our god, who cannot contain that which references vulnerability, because he is omnipotent. Noe the less, these sorts of people were said, by God, to "desecrate" the holy place. Take your pick - it's cruel, or it's a sign of the creation of a God by people, as opposed to the other way around. Either way, an omnipotent god could take it, and so can humans - it's without a doubt implied that these people were not being wholesale slaughtered, as they existed in order to be banned. If you say, "Ya, but maybe they were pushed to the perimeter of the camp, and God made the rule because He knew our weakness..." The problem here is that when you consult the list (Leviticus 21) it runs to such shallow ground of the repulsive that it appears someone had in mind to really make this place holy, and perfectly clean of what seemed "un-great." The answer to our instinctive discomfort with physical abnormality is proximity and time, and we all know it works. But you can see how an ancient would not have had that moral compulsion to even desire to do so, empathy not yet having invaded what then was simply called law, which later became segregated from secular law by being given the title "morality," or "God's law."
Common sense is a tautology that's demonstrably fake. I think you're looking for "critical thinking" but then there's the issue is that positivism is a more critical system by magnitudes...
@@pazuzil 1) Abraham's son Isaac was not a baby. 2) God initially did command Abraham to do sacrifice his son and then stopped it happening. Initially, God told Abraham that he must sacrifice his son for the greater good of Abraham's descendants. Abraham didn't understand how exactly this would come about but he trusted in God anyway and tied his son up and was prepared to kill him. Nowhere does it say that God took Joy in this or that Abraham took joy in it. It is not a celebration of sacrifice of a child in any way or form. It is a foreshadowing of what God was to do later on, which was to send his only son to die for the greater good of billions and billions of human beings. This passage is MEANT to be shocking for us. It is meant to seem absurd. It is meant to draw our attention. How could a good God command such a thing? the reason/reasons why God does certain things can sometimes be more complex than we can even imagine. Remember, God stopped this from happening. Abraham went through a period of time where it seemed absurd what God was asking him. This demonstrates to us that we can indeed trust God even when times seem impossibly difficult and even when it seems like God is asking us to do things that don't make sense. Abraham didn't know that this story would be a foreshadowing of the greatest event in human history.
@@reshmaakthar6970 he commanded a man to kill his son. Then he stopped him before he actually did it. That’s like putting a gun to a persons head who believes it’s loaded, pulling the trigger and then when nothing happens, you say “only joking” isn’t that by itself a psychopathic action?
The title does comes across a bit condescending, doesn't it. I know it's probably 100% unintended. Reading the title lead me to believe the audience is not intelligent and therefore needs an intelligent Christian to interpret for them.
30:22 _"...so it LOOKS like you're hating your parents..."_ Jesus didn't state to do something that LOOKED like you would be hating your parents, he DIRECTLY ordered his followers to hate their families!!! Copan's desperate 'dancing around' the questionable stuff in the bible is ludicrous to behold!
@@bradleyperry1735 Why would Jesus be being hyperbolic? Would the people of the time have understood this? Or do you think the bible is only meant for the people of today? Jesus somewhat contradicts himself by DIRECTLY commanding you to love your enemies but hate your families! No hyperbole involved! Could this have been because Jesus felt threatened by strong family bonds?
As a Christian myself I think we have to understand that there's a lot of metaphorical, and hyperbolic language used by God especially in the Old testament. That brings up the question why would God let the Bible be so open to interpretation, and room for error? However, I think we have to realize that God uses these metaphors, and hyperboles to communicate to us because it's the language we speak. In everyday life we use a lot of complex metaphors, and hyperbolic language thus it wouldn't be as effective to use literal language with us.
@@goldenalt3166 That's a great question and that really comes down to personal interpretation. However, with a sound mind and good faith we can say that God won't punish those who are honestly mistaken. With the same line of reasoning I think we can conclude that God means good intentions. If we truly have faith that God is good then it would follow that everything in the Bible that seems questionable has a good answer.
Rex Mundi dominate and rule this realm (aka yhwh). The damned worship him.He chose a certain group of people to help him.They also gave you a different option =communism delivered by a messianic , chosen one:, karl marx.
does not bother me one bit for God to laugh at his enemies..............how does that present a problem at all? hes GOD Almighty , you are his enemy , surely he can laugh , he is perfect and just , whats the issue? and hows that all of a sudden mean he delights in their death? he simply has no concern for the plans of the enemy against him , for they can do him no harm , he will laugh at them , because he is not a God of hatred , i can go on , but , no need to make it mean something else , God is perfectly Just to laugh at his enemies .
Would you be cool with a hideous, painful death because such an entity deemed it good, pleasing (to itself), or necessary? How about those you care about? Even randos?
@@anabell7184 Ok, sure. But that is clearly different from insisting that everything that happens does so for a reason or reasons, regardless of if we think the reasons are good or pleasant. I would rather there be no such reasons than dictated ones.
@@wet-read the universe is governed by laws of nature, dear. much like a computer program follows what the programmer had created for it to follow. those laws do the dictating. so yes, everything does happen for a reason.
@@anabell7184 My goodness, you're pedantic! I know all of that, lol. In other words, I would rather there be no agency behind what happens than for there to be an agency behind it all I might disagree with or even hate. I meant reasons in the sense theists speak of it, as being more than "mere" causality, just chains in a never ending sequence of events and nothing more.
Your source says: the Tawrat (Torah, Pentateuch) (and Psalms) and the Injil (Gospel) are the words of God… and that the words of God can’t be corrupted. Would you really blaspheme and say otherwise ? I doubt it. Well… since we agree that’s the case… the Tawrat and the Injil point to God as YHWH and as Yeshua (Jesus) (who you call Isa). You are obliged to admit that Isa was born if a Virgin, did Miracles, and is still alive and will return… and that His life example is exemplary. You deny what every scholar on earth knows and what Isa Himself predicted: that He died on the cross Since the Tawrat and the Injil are the incorruptible words of God… we stand with Jesus. And according to your Quran, we are to judge by the revelation given to us. Surahs could be provided. That’s what your sources say. Thank you. Inshallah, Ma Salame. Salaam. Afwan. Marhaba
Or … maybe you are also a follower of Jesus, making commentary. I wasn’t sure. So for good measure I shared thoughts. On 2nd reading, I think maybe the latter is the case. If so, no harm done. Rock on.
@@mkl2237 I'm just a heathen. Was funny to me when Cameron made his statement about OT problems not bothering him because there are answers out there when Muslim apologists would say the same thing to the problems christians have with Islam.
@estok918 Cause and effect my dear watson. Did the roman empire fall because it simply ran out of steam, atrophied and died, did the atecs disappear bevause they got bored of sacrificing babies or did something other worldly happen. Who knows but I know Jesus didn't lie.
I have yet to meet a Christian who can rationally justify theism without presupposing it, and therefore engaging in circular reasoning. I keep looking and keep being disappointed. 44 years I've been an atheist and still, nothing.
There needs to be a necessary being, for anything contingent to be existent. If not then why is there anything? if this necessary being brought about moral agents then the being must be a moral agent. Nothing satisfies those requirements except a tri-omni God as explained in the following. if something created existence, and created moral agents then it must have done so consciously because of the vast complexitys of morality, and the mathematics that lead to the creation of moral agents. For example, one complex component of mathematics is pi which is an infinite set of non repeating numbers, and the universe is guided by mathematics, therefore, the universe is inherently complex. Now if this conscious necessary moral agent created existence this agent must transcend spacetime making it omniscient by being aware of all things in and outside spacetime. Therefore, we get a tri-omni God, and if this God is truly moral then He should reveal Himself to us which the God of the Bible allegedly did(through the form of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.) Moreover, If God is moral then it should be true that He would want the best, for His conscious creations so It would make sense that He would make it possible that they can live forever in bliss. However, we're imperfect, therefore we can't have a forever lasting perfect existence not without the help of a perfect forever lasting foundation. We are imperfect and we're nothing without God our Creator (The Father) which is why we need a savior to bridge the gap between imperfection and perfection (Jesus Christ), someone to guide us (The Holy Spirit) and they all need to be God which affirms the Trinity.
What are you looking for in terms of justification? I’m sure you’re aware of most of the main arguments by now. Do you have a better explanation for the origin of the universe?
@@breakphorth The quantum field that exists independently of time and space, yet is still material and isn't apparently bound by time at all, is all the explanation anyone needs because that's what the evidence shows.
@@MathewSteeleAtheology Hmmm, depends on the evidence you’re looking at I suppose. You sound rather dogmatic about this theory, I hope you’re still genuinely seeking God with an unbiased, open-mind, and prioritizing intellectual honesty. After 44 years, I know it’s possible to feel a bit jaded about it all. The issue I have with using theories to make conjecture about the origin of the universe is that they’re just that…theories and conjecture. Our understanding of quantum fields is very minimal, and the way we understand them is also subject to change. Even if we are exactly 100% correct about quantum field theory (which we’d never know), it still doesn’t quite get rid of God. Vibrations and mathematical functions mapping spacetime events doesn’t get rid of the possibility that there is a creator behind it all. You can’t use science to explain away God because the existence of God is a more philosophical/“historical” question, not a scientific one. Science attempts to explain processes, but it never can quite get to the root of origin. You may believe, “but no, quantum field theory works perfectly fine on its own without the need of inserting God into the picture.” Sure, but again, that’s merely because quantum field theory addresses a process, it doesn’t actually address origin of the universe at all. And we can make conjecture about origin of the universe until we’re blue in the face, but if we’re being honest with ourselves, we’d realize that we will never know on our own. No one can ever confirm that our theories are true or false, because no one was there at the beginning of the universe to do so. So where does that leave us? Either there actually is a creator who can reveal origin to us, or we’ll never be sure. Not only could we never be sure, attributing a percentage to our amount of certainty becomes pointless because we have no way of confirming. In light of this, I simply find my time best spent researching beings who claim to be the creator to see if I’m convinced, instead of trying to explain away God with conjecture. There being a creator who can reveal knowledge to us is truly the only hope we have at knowing the origin of the universe.
@@breakphorth "Even if we are exactly 100% correct about quantum field theory (which we’d never know), it still doesn’t quite get rid of God." You have to assume "God" into existence in the first place, that's the problem. "The issue I have with using theories to make conjecture about the origin of the universe is that they’re just that…theories and conjecture." You prefer assuming something into existence, apparently.
Oh my gosh there are so many stories like this in the bible. To our stupid minds it seems wrong, but God is holy and good, who am I to even question His ways.
Even those "voluntary" slaves are given the "choice" between abandoning their children and wife or being slaves forever. That's means slavery is good???
@@tex959 Christians believe God is omniscient, but He is not what I would call "omni-benevolent." God is not a permissive nice old man. He is the God of the universe. He is loving, but He is also righteous and holy and absolutely sovereign. He is the Creator of all things. Man, on the other hand, is sinful and rebellious. This is in direct contradiction to God's righteousness. That is why some scriptures seem "tough." They are less "tough" if one understands God's ENTIRE character as revealed in the Bible.
@@tex959 Well, the short answer to your question is: He didn't. Jesus of the New Testament is NOT a "lovable hippie." The fact that you think that only shows that you have not actually read either the New Testament OR the Old Testament. God is the same always. He does not change. He is loving but He is also wrathful. He is both. Man is sinful and God is righteous. If God were NOT loving, He would simply have wiped humanity off the face of the earth long ago. But He did not do that. Instead, He sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to provide a means of redemption, a solution to the long-standing problem of God's holiness vs His love. Sin must be judged. That is God's righteousness. But God does not want anyone to perish but desires humanity to be redeemed from sin and have fellowship with God.
I like your sass factor. Somehow you pull it off and don’t come off like a dick the way S Gig does. And you don’t use girly emojis and all. So I salute you. May I ask: do you really… truly… think that you can broadly discount all Christians as stupid, as you do? They (we, since I am also one) could in theory be wrong … but aren’t smart people sometimes wrong? And are you saying that all non-Christian’s are smart ? Really? Do you really think that, deep down? Could there, maybe, be distinctions between intelligence, education, and correctness ? Do you really divide people in the world into 2 camps… smart non-Christians and dumb Christian’s? Is it possible that there’s smart snd dumb folks in both camps? Certainly, it’s an absolute matter of fact… that many highly educated people are in fact Christians… PhD’s, MD’s, Masters’, professors and researchers… if it takes smarts to get such qualifications, how do you explain that there are Christians with these? And with high IQ’s… specific names could be given. I post comments on the fly…so I get “quips” and “provocations for a purpose (and for fun)”. I’ll give you credit that this explains your comment. But please… please tell me you don’t seriously believe what you wrote as more than a soundbite, that truly there’s no such thing as a smart Christian. Be jade if you really believe it, and aren’t just having good banter… what do you think that would say about you? I could say but really… you’ve GOT to be kidding me. JJ Evans… Dyn-O-MITE !!!!
Look up the word “Evil” in the Old Testament ( Strongs# H7489 (raʿ)) and when it appears. Look up where and how many times God does or decides not to do “evil.” According to the bible “Evil” does not mean what you think it means.
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
Cameron, please pray for my fiance, Grace, who was in a terrible car accident yesterday. She is in the STICU with more broken bones than I can count (including femurs and spine), brain swelling, and abdominal organ damage. She needs prayers if she's going to survive. Please pray, and ask everyone you know to pray as well
EDIT: She passed away. Thank you all for your prayers. God's Will be done. I know He loves her and is caring for her, and He always has been. Please keep her, me, her family, and my family in your prayers.
I will be praying. Sorry man, that sounds so horrible. Remember that if things don't go how you want, she'll be with Jesus and happier than she ever could imagine, and you would see her again one day. But I will be praying for her recovery.
@@gahlwynfjorn3961 Thank you so much. I know Jesus has a plan and He loves her. You don't know how much your comment means to me ♥️
@@CatholicismRulesDear beloved brother in the Lord, I'm sending prayers your way for your lovely Grace. For her miracle healing in Jesus name.
I can sure empathize ,,as my young nephew was in a horrible motorcycle accident 3wks ago.
@@cherylwilliams4738 I'm so sorry, I'll pray for him. God loves you, and God loves him too.
Sent a prayer 🙏
Cameron the work you do is very meaningful to a lot of people. I know it's a struggle trying to grow your channel, but I see your content and think wow more people need this. Your channel is unique and I know God is working through it.
"God's ways are higher than our ways and we shouldn't expect to know all the different reasons that God has for allowing or permitting what he does in the world."
While the phrase can provide comfort during times of pain or loss, it's crucial to recognize its potential to cause harm. It can be used to excuse or diminish acts of injustice and suffering, particularly in cases where people face hardship or discrimination. This can discourage efforts to address and rectify such issues, perpetuating harm instead of seeking resolution.
We see this ALL the time with church abuse, that the victim should move on and not speak out because it's divisive and that we don't understand why God allowed that to happen so we shouldn't seek to act to bring justice since God allowed it.
As parents we literally control our children's lives. We do things they don't understand. But eventually we grow and learn and are allowed autonomy. Throughout this time we gain knowledge and understanding. And we start to understand why parent do what they do. We can even ask them to explain why this or that happens. And they answer to the best of their ability. As adults we don't need to depend on our parents ( though there is nothing wrong with that). And we make decisions that may go against our parents wishes and we can discuss why and how these decisions can be made.
God being are parent is an insane analogy. A parent that never let's directly communicates. You only learn of their existence from your other siblings. None of your living siblings has ever seen your dad. He left a book of instructions. But when you are capable of reading it, it turns out there is no one interpretation for any of the instructions. Oh and if you stop obeying him he torture you and says its your fault.
The tortuous strawman parades the perrennial stream of unbelief.
@@christopherkennedy9377 How am I straw manning?
Please instead of telling me my argument is flawed an having no examples teach me. Tell me how to express it correctly so I can steelman it. If god is real I want to believe in him. I've spent 30 years praying. I would love to know that wasn't for nothing. I'd love to know divine justice is real and evil people getting away with murder and theft on global scales are going to be punished. I'd love to be with friends and family. Most importantly I really really really don't want to be tortured... Forever.
I said the analogy is flawed. Human parents children relations are not the same as God Humans relations.
Now are you saying that You can communicate with God as his child? You have heard of god from another person who had direct communication with him? That if I have knowledge of god but decide to disobey I will only be punished in a manner equal to my crime? Cause I understood it as all sins are equal and all get the same punishment. And all can be forgiven no matter how vile or despicable, so long as you believe in him and or his #1 child, who is also him?
Sorry let me be more accurate. And say 1 sin cannot be forgiven by God Jesus or the pastor pretending to speak to him on Sunday. Blasphemy of the holy spirit aka denial of god existence aka Atheism. Lol
The one thing that would allow you to think critically without guilt or fear of eternal torture, is also the one thing that guarantees your eternal torture. Beautiful system.
1. “He left a book of instructions.” He didn’t leave a book of instructions, he left a church.
2. “But when you are capable of reading it, it turns out there is no one interpretation for any of the instructions.” That’s what the Magisterium is for.
3. “Oh and if you stop obeying him he torture you and says it’s your fault.” Well if you’ve been given sufficient knowledge then it is your fault. If you’re going out of your way to disobey God, then you’re expressing that you don’t want a relationship with God. God grants you your wish with Hell. For Hell is the state of being in total separation from God.
@@buckarooben7635 We talking god or Jesus? Which church did god leave? What's the exact name. Also how did you find out about the religion? Like who told you and which church did they belong to? How do you know how to pray? What laws to pick and choose and which to ignore. How do you know which form of slavery to allow? The Jesus kind where slaves obey masters or the Moses kind where only outsiders and women can be slaves? You got this all from which church? Or the Bible?
@@buckarooben7635 If god created the universe and all beings. Then he created hell. No one else created hell. If god created universal law and is the Ultimate Judge and does not leave any wiggle room for extenuating circumstances then. God sends you to hell.
If god has all knowledge and sees past present and future. And can do anything then He created all beings that he sent to hell knowing full well that's where they were going. Then he created them specifically to go to hell.
You have never struggled with tough old testament passages?? Aaaaamazing
The dumber someone is, the easier it is to make everything fit.
I don’t think we should “choose” interpretations based on whether or not they are problematic; we should choose them because they are true.
Choose interpretations because they are true?? There are different interpretations, because the truth of the matter is in dispute.
@@paulray5647well said
Well said. It is what it is. I had problems with such passages till I understood that it all harmonies with the NT. Jesus is the same in the OT when he was there with Moses. People are misreading the New Testament and not reading everything. God is holy. His mercy is only understood by that demonstrated by his wrath. I lived in a selfish manner that cause so much pain to others and I was woken up by a question to me. It was gentle, lots of gentleness prodding me … but I tell you the fear of God entered into my heart.
@@Logic807 What do you mean by "the fear of God entered into my heart."
Thanks. Peace to you.
@paulray5647 No, you do have to choose interpretations based on whether they are problematic. But what do we mean by problematic? It means there is a dissimilarity with other Scripture, and harmonization is required. You let Scripture interpret Scripture, and you have to determine what verses act as control texts to aid you in interpreting the others in light of the control texts. That’s just being a responsible exegete.
Thank you. This was truly helpful. I really have to read his books in the future.
@CapturingChristianity :: I "accidentally" (happy providence!) stumbled across this video/channel today - - SO pleased! Frankly, there exists a monumental shortage of intellectual conversation (it IS Y**T*be...), unless you know where to look. It worried me greatly watching the Old Guard -- the generals of the Faith -- depart like a landslide...happy for their graduation, but sore about our loss. It really worried me what the end state of this Grand Lady would be, when surveying some of the "apologists" of today; guess I got spoiled, coming up on the good, meaty teachings of holiness, virtue, LIVING UNTO OTHERS -- bc your life IS NOT YOUR OWN. There ARE some fabulous brothers doing a wonderful job, & I know where they are; now I have more options, avail here . I am subbing as soon as I finish this rant. GBY All, thx for doing your thing over there!
Hey Cameron, I think you should do a video covering the topic of pantheism and arguments against it, I haven’t found many Christian’s covering this and I personally have encountered many more pantheist than even atheist when I’ve tried to preach the gospel to those around me. Granted, it is mostly people in my age group (I’m in my 20s), but most people my age I’ve spoken to seem to believe in a pantheist God, although they don’t know what pantheism is their beliefs align with it. I’ve encountered a lot of deist too.
@@tex959 yes, some of the founding fathers were too, and some brilliant people are atheists, others are Christian’s
Norman Geisler has a book called “ Apologetics in the new age, a Christian critique of pantheism.” And Douglas Groothuis has a book called “ confronting the new age” where he has a chapter called “comparing gods” where he deals with this.
Pantheism is a generic term that means "everything around you AND you is god."
The reason you aren't finding many Christians discussing it is b.c most aren't familiar with the notion and that there are various kinds of Pantheism (ie mystery schools) which have different understandings of how exactly the divine works within everyone.
Of course, the final reason is that the average Christian seems more obsessed with atheism and Islam--I mean, when was the last time you saw a Christian doing a video on Hinduism?
@@jaytv4eva true, I think in part it’s also because we are not exposed to Hinduism as much in places like the US, we mainly hear arguments from atheists or Muslims, and those who just hold religious believes but are not part of any religion
@@Black-ui7ff
And hey, let's not forget about Sikhism!
Absolutely brilliant insight. Really appreciate it man. God bless both
Comment after the video (kinda). I couldn’t watch the full video for the smugness. I grew frustrated.
The guest and to some extent Cam trivialized honest disagreements.
Here is what I seek. I wish a Christian with combat experience to address the passages in the Bible concerning war. I don’t want a professor or Cam who are clueless and disrespectful of strong yet fully honest moral concerns with the Bible.
If you are such a Christian, I specifically wish to know how you reconciled the Bible with the lessons your learned from war. What experience cuased you the most trouble and how did you overcome the lesson from the experience.
On this thread I will place forward my toughest experience and how I couldn’t overcome the experience and remain a Christian.
This experience was after breaching minefields of Kuwait and after a night on the oil burns….we were moving to Kuwait City and concerns a death along to path to the city.
So be warned, I will be writing about a combat death.
OK here goes:
I came to a ridge overlooking a huge desert valley and to the right was a massive battle. The valley was obscured with a mixture of smoke and dust from countless explosions from a massive battle. From the bank of hellfire, an Iraqi vehicle emerged and raced across the valley floor. The driver and unknown number of passengers were fleeing the battle. Yet behind the fleeing driver also emerged an US Marine attack helicopter, a sleek Super Cobra.
The Cobra fired a missile yet missed. The missile’s hit the desert floor and explosion generated the familiar cloud of dirty smoke that filled the half of the valley. The cobra fried a second missile and this one found its target. Yet this explosion was pure white like a summer thunderhead. No dirt and sand was mixed with this cloud. The most deadly explosions are the purest, the most beautiful.
So here’s my question for the smug professor who thinks objections to the Bible are simplistic.
Please kindly explain exactly how were the fleeing kids who witnessed the killing of their parents hunted by god’s people ? How were the fleeing women hunted and killed?
Has the professor ever witnessed the killing of a fleeing person and came away with a hopeful, uplifting, and moral justifiable outlook?
So let’s go back and put a past life to that person killed on the desert? Did he carry a photo of his family? Did he carry a letter from his girlfriend who he hoped one day would be his wife? Did he hope one day to be a school teacher? As he fled, did he think of his sister or brother?
So again professor, I want to know exactly how god’s people hunted fleeing people..when god commanded a community to be killed.
I recently learned of the existence of a book called the appocraphon. of John found with other gnostic material at Nag Hammodi. It describes god much more in line with the loving Father of Christ🎉 I can’t believe the loving Father of Christ is the same as the vain vicious Yahweh of the Old Testament. It makes more sense of the words of Jesus about the god of the Jews who sent snakes to his starving children instead of food. Jesus always speak of His God as the Father.
The problem you bring up about interpretations at around the 08:00 mark overlooks the reason that many people disbelieve which isn't just that one specific interpretation is problematic, but its the fact that so many people can honestly and genuinely come to such a wide variety of interpretations in the first place. This is the issue I've been having with the word. If there are 1000's upon 1000's of denominations and interpretations of a text that should be fundamental to everyone, at what point do we deduce that the issue may not be necessarily with the people interpreting, but with the text itself.
40:50 Copan seems to argue that Deuteronomy merely adds exaggeratory language to the Numbers account but it seems as though it’s going further by adding extra detail to the account.
Where Numbers only mentions Israel defeating the armies, Deuteronomy mentions that AND their entrance into the Canaanite cities, where the killing of young and old is mentioned. I think this bodes problematic for his reading.
*Enter Randal Rauser*
@@existential_o exactly
Copan is wrong. Without understanding God’s wrath, ie Holiness, many of the passages will not be understood. Jesus too will be misunderstood. After all, it is Jesus who was talking to Moses and punishing the Israelites. Read Jude. Also read what Jesus said of himself that Moses wrote about him.
@@Logic807 what are *your* own thoughts about the idea of Israelites killing enemy *infants* and children (and their pets !)? And what about forcing marriage on the captive females ? Do you think those females would willingly submit after such a short time period, Or did they feel they had to ? Are you ok with that?
Do you see Jesus being okay with killing the infants of our enemies?
@TheRealMeowMeowMeow Those passages got me angry, too. Plus, more. 2. The answer to you is yes. If not, there will be many many passages you will not understand. You will not understand the holocaust. You will not understand the prophesies. You will not understand God’s wrath. Take note Sodom and Gomorrah, and before that global wipeout. The assyrians and babylonians, according to the Bible, were used to punish Israel . Similarly, Israel was God's hand to wipe out Israel enemies. It means God can use whatever means.
I wish you would have addressed Numbers 31:17-18 in more detail which reads: "Kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." This relates to another regulation in the book of Deuteronomy that allows Jewish soldiers to take beautiful capitive women as their "wives" (21:10-14).
Why did Moses instruct the Israelites to slay all except for the virgin women? Does this mean God sanctioned the rape of female capitives of war? Those are the hardest for me to wrap my mind around.
It's simple. Yahweh is a psychopath. You can do mental gymnastics or just read it as it is and decide if that's a loving God, or a vicious jealous God.
@@honeycomb3895nope since the idea of numbers 31 allowing rape and child marriage have been debunked numerous times
Let your guest do most of the talking please
The most difficult passage is found in Leviticus 21, regarding cripples and those with congenital deformities (and yes, some other things) not being allowed in the place of worship, because it doesn't rely on modern sensibilities being alarmed by ancient people's perhaps forgivable lower place on an ever increasing trend line of gentility, but rather exposes something altogether different and black and white. The intuition being reflected here is the human nature that is repulsed by certain bodily differences. This intuition in turn is an artifact of evolution that, to make a long story short, couldn't be in place were it not for our actual, material, vulnerabilities. We of course didn't know this, and so we projected the sentiment onto our god, who cannot contain that which references vulnerability, because he is omnipotent. Noe the less, these sorts of people were said, by God, to "desecrate" the holy place.
Take your pick - it's cruel, or it's a sign of the creation of a God by people, as opposed to the other way around. Either way, an omnipotent god could take it, and so can humans - it's without a doubt implied that these people were not being wholesale slaughtered, as they existed in order to be banned. If you say, "Ya, but maybe they were pushed to the perimeter of the camp, and God made the rule because He knew our weakness..." The problem here is that when you consult the list (Leviticus 21) it runs to such shallow ground of the repulsive that it appears someone had in mind to really make this place holy, and perfectly clean of what seemed "un-great."
The answer to our instinctive discomfort with physical abnormality is proximity and time, and we all know it works. But you can see how an ancient would not have had that moral compulsion to even desire to do so, empathy not yet having invaded what then was simply called law, which later became segregated from secular law by being given the title "morality," or "God's law."
@@tafazzi-on-discord Good points (later on - your first paragraph is, however, more conveniently trimming reality than the more over-arching theory posited in the second two).
As for the second and third paragraphs, I think you, at least in how you expressed it, aren't paying homage to the fact that the "matching what you'd expect in materialism" works both ways - it can support a theory that it came from materialism or that it's part and parcel of a "gradually ordered" elevation towards the divine. Being that so much in the realm of assertions of the supernatural are what we would hope for, or that serve our material ends well (as the OT is very much interested in constructing in-group bias and social order), it seems reasonable to put one's money on that it's all made up, and sometimes perceived by people genuinely believing in what they perceive into an established tradition, thus manifesting what you call the gradual elevation.
If I expressed myself as if I had a slam dunk, my bad. But I don't think your case is anything more than cogent, as opposed to convincing. The "dialogue" theory is to most eyes ad hoc, and appears only when it needs to appear (but I suppose that' not fair, since things like saying that my name is such and such and Abraham knew me as such and such are always going to be fodder for skeptics). IN general there's a parsimony problem working against your case, but, I get it, when you're afraid of deception, you'll be open to the idea that god made things un-parsimonious on purpose, and hey, that's possible.
Now, to your first paragraph. The problem here is that it's so easy to shed this thing. Yes, it's instinctual, but if it's a merciful god, one might expect this to be early on his list. We get it - they hate, and fear, outsiders, and outsiders really are dangerous, so you can't just come swooping in with peace, love and unicorns. And people are sexually jealous, so, sure, it was in keeping with their stage of "elevation" to kill women who weren't virgins on their wedding nights. But this list of flaws banned from the holy place digs quite far down the list into the barely repulsive, and we both I'm sure have experienced the ease with which this repulsion fades. Maybe we can do this - we can try to find a moral directive that seemed ahead of its time and difficult. I know - the one about not resisting evil, or obeying the authorities of this world, you know, like King George of England in 1776, because he was no worse than Nero for sure. Ya know, I think we found it. Now let's find some people who buy into it that call themselves Christians.
But the biggest problem is this: In your theory it is a reflection of who we are, that god is merely accommodating. Fast forward to modern theology and we get into places where we really have to emphasize the inerrancy and exactitude (in terms of learning what is what) and legibility of the Word. In this passage god declares theses things to be "detestable," not, "because YOU detest these things..." I am of the opinion that Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, have the upper hand in theological debates, because their main point is undeniable - if you get loose with the Word, there's really no end to where you can go, and at some point the Word ceases to have any moral teeth whatsoever. This is why the precise wording matters. When someone says a thing is detestable, we know them to believe it is detestable. I'm open, however, to a convincing discussion on how this interpretation of rhetoric is faulty, but it mustn't render other parts of the scripture vulnerable to tampering in ways YOU would object to.
Lastly, some arguments enjoy support from tangential issues. We can also discuss something relevant here which is the problem of anger in conjunction with omnipotence and omniscience. We can postulate that omnipotence came in later (Yahweh at one point complains that he was "incited" against Job), thus making early citations of god's anger unproblematic in their time.. At any rate, anger requires surprise, and a maybe even a feeling of powerlessness, and is not very conducive to a model wherein the entity (spiritually perfect to the maximum, I might add) is omniscient.
@@tafazzi-on-discord Ya, by legible I meant universally accessible, which I agree, this is a stretch. I granted a few things in that response that I could actually point out are potentially flawed, such as the inability of God to "swoop in with peace, love and unicorns" because this right here is claim that runs contrary to omnipotence (he can) and constructions of why he wouldn't lead us down a path wherein, if we hold tight to the properties of omnipotence and omniscience, blasting through the distracting diestrus of falls and satans, ultimately leads to this whole humanity thing being for the mere entertainment of God. But as for universally accessible, I mean not requiring the consultation of "experts," which is a major problem, because it just seems to strain things if the kernal of faith keeps having to be stretched outward and outward; a person coming into the faith believing that it is a project of faith in a being and/or a handful of assertions about reality, which in turn means faith in the people who wrote these things down, then faith in the cannon process. We can stop there to describe the typical Christian, in so far as they would describe the deal, who in reality is taking cues from a train of traditions and the human beings who made them and are making them, all outside the canon.
Après pos of all that, you're right - Catholics and Orthodox do in fact explicitly hold to divine revelation post canon. You expressed it, though, more as a reasoned process, with alignment with sacred tradition and historical analysis, with each individual being free to buy in or not. If the former (divine authority over theological matters, which I realize some, including you, may involve the latter) I've always found this absurd. Then later I realized that this is because I was raised protestant, and it's only the same absurdity of the canon process stretched out into the present. But it's all absurd. Even if we grant an evidentiary proof of something involving the God of the Bible, and we get ourselves (with the same process) to have faith in the canon, we still have the matter of every single assertion made thereafter, and simply stating that some line of authority is correct (that has a history of admitting a few mistakes) is just plain demanding too much, and so I'm left to my own devices, at which point we run into the "perspicuous" problem.
As for the latter (the reasoned and individual approach), I guess we could just discuss a given issue. First of all, historical analysis isn't going to get us much, and the sacred book is going to have to be the landing place. Consider even this: Corruption, we have no reason to not believe, could have happened quite quickly. If I see a contradiction between a NT directive and the first appearance of a relevant Christain practice happening in 405 AD, what does that get me? Shouldn't I simply go with the sacred book? Case in point is what I see in the NT directive, which is a total and complete divorcement from political will.
Anyway, you mentioned three items, and the first seems to be a note of agreement. On legibility, you were pretty much right with "perspicuous" and I expounded. On the last, the practice of critical analysis to vanquish confusion, that I guess is the nut of the problem - the extra "rule of faith," which I have yet to hear if it is, in your mind, a process operated by a divinely select body, or if by this you just mean the greater whole of human discernment, which, we all know, is subject to expedience, bias, desire, etc. Then again, only faith has one believing that the same is not true for the divinely select body.
@@tafazzi-on-discord All these years and I never knew exactly what people meant by "Discord." Extreme luddite here. I'll check it out later today and see if I can get on. My response to your last reply though I think can be pretty brief:
First of all your distinction between the modern and the ancient is super well put (albeit probably deserves more expounding for most people). But I think it's also key to point out how this shift happened, which came as a result of both that which spurred the sense that a "canon closure" was in order, and the subsequent environment following its closure. I won't get into what spurred the need here, but with this closure what was once essentially spiritualism and something of an art (I almost said philosophy, but the sense of that word may have changed as well) became a science, making the determination of what was meant in a certain book an endeavor amenable, in theory, to objectivity. But the ancients had no sense of this.
But it might be that human disputes were always going to have gravitated toward trying to objectively ground things, and the introduction, very early, of written law (Moses), in the midst of literature about an artful relationship with an invisible being, who to others was a convenient mouth in which to insert the strategies for social order, led to a situation where things got frustrating in the Pharisee and Sadducee circles and then insert the proliferation of prophets, who early on simply got inserted into tradition by an un-self-conscious process well after the fact, owing to their either ultimate arrival at persuading, or, alternatively, merging with, the ultimate consensus, or not making it into the sacred text collection due to a failure to have done so. But eventually we became self-conscious of this process - keep in mind, the Judaic tradition also closed their canon around the same time - and this could have something to do with the proliferation of faster communications, bringing us in contact with facts like the divergence of belief, and acceptance of prophets, owing to mere geographic isolation. This may have been embarassing, as we could only assume our location was doing the same thing.
At any rate, what you describe and what I describe for the pre-canon closure era, is none other than subjective morality, no? Perhaps another way to get at my point is to ask this: What happens when you, as an individual, see what appears to be a betrayal of something in the New Testament commands? If it's all faith in the elect body of divine masters o... of what...of interpretation? It sounds like not. It sounds like it's simply being spiritual masters, because you cannot seriously believe that they have interpreted well, or withtout subjective sense (which, yes, can carry the gradual elevation and/or the human moral evolution). What then becomes the point of a canon closure, or is there really no such thing in your tradition, other than a conveneint way to name and publish a book, that could be added to, with no violation of sacredness, and no risk of deception or running off the rails into anything time will allow?
Anyway, turned out it wasn't short. I'll look into this discord thing.
They’re “unclean.” That’s all there is to it.
Copan is so far outside mainstream Biblical scholarship when he gets to slavery. It just seems like a real blind spot to him. Some positions are almost laughable. It makes me wonder what he really thinks on the subject to be honest. And he's such a great scholar too. Very smart. But simply seems incapable of honestly addressing slavery in the Bible. He knows what it does and doesn't mean. He knows Hebrew, but still insists that the better translation of "eved" is "servant" when it comes to this topic. Well, that's not the case when it comes to the foreign slaves in Israel. But he still continues to make that statement, as he did here, to waive away slavery in the Bible as some sort of mistranslation when he knows that's not the case.
And his other go to here. That "Antebellum South slavery is so far removed from what was going on in Israel". When he knows there are more similarities than there are differences. Like;
1. Owned as property? Both
2. Owned for their entire lives? Both
3. Children born to them automatically became slaves too? Both
4. Could be beaten? Both
5. Bought from other nations? Both
6. Could not be killed? Both (look it up)
7. Forced to work? Both
8. Didn't get paid? Both
9. Involuntary? Both
10. Families could be broken up? Both
Were they exactly the same? Of course not. But to claim Biblical slavery was somehow not comparable to American slavery is simply not true. And I'm pretty sure he knows this. I mean I don't know how he couldn't. He's a smart guy here. This is just his blind spot it seems to me.
Incorrect on a number of points. Did you just make this up or what??
Laws About Slaves
21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. 2 When you buy a Hebrew slave,[a] he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. 3 If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ 6 then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.
7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her[b] for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 I'm very familiar with all those verses. I could probably pretty much quote them verbatim from memory at this point. The first passage you quoted from Exodus 21:1-11 specifically says that it only applies to Hebrews. And by the way the passage you quoted specifically notes that female slaves, even Hebrews, are never released. But that's a different topic. But maybe you missed all that? The lifelong chattel slavery condoned in the Bible was reserved for foreigners. So none of that passage is even relevant. I'm talking about the laws for foreigners.
Now the passage from Exodus 21:16 you quoted about kidnapping IS relevant. But this is a law against kidnapping and not slavery itself. But I completely agree, you could not kidnap someone and make them a slave. Turns out that most nations at the time had that same law. But it also turns out that kidnapping is not how most people became slaves. The two most common ways to become a slave at the time were to be either captured in war (another nations wars, not Israels by the way), or to simply be born into it to slave parents. No kidnapping required. These are the slaves I'm talking about. But you want a real head scratcher? Check out the corresponding verse in Deuteronomy 24:7 that would seem to clarify that this prohibition against kidnapping only applied to kidnapping a fellow Hebrew;
"If someone is caught kidnapping a fellow Israelite and treating or selling them as a slave, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you"
But what I'm talking about are the laws regarding foreigners who are slaves. This is laid bare in passages like Leviticus 25:44-46 that says;
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be you property. You may bequeath them to you sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly"
I mean, this is chattel slavery plain and simple. And this is the Bible condoning it. Owning people as property for their entire lives, along with any children born to them. By definition it is. I notice you didn't quote these verses? Is it because it goes against your position, or because you didn't know of them? I've been studying this topic for years. Even learning some Hebrew to be able to read it in it's original language. So I'm not incorrect on any aspect of what I said, and I'm not making anything up. I'm neck deep in this. Having listened to or read just about everything I could find on the subject. Including Paul Copans book. You could accuse me of a lot of things, but not being well versed in this topic is not one of them.
@@nickbrasing8786 I understand what you are saying, and it seems harsh. I don't doubt your honesty or intellect about what you have mentioned here. But the fact that chattel slavery is described and spoken about in the bible is not the same as God directly ordaining slavery- but he did condone it...which again is not ordaining slavery. In the beginning, slavery was not part of the plan for the existence of humanity. It came about only after the Fall. He allowed it because He works within the frailty and unfortunately our selfish will ( not "free" will- just selfish will).
@@cristinamz2137 Allowed / condoned / endorsed / permitted / Pick whatever word you want to hide behind.
The Bible allows Jews to BUY and OWN OTHER PEOPLE.
The Bible allows Jews to BEAT THEM.
The Bible allows Jews to PASS THEM AS INHERITANCE.
JESUS saw SLAVES being bought and sold and beaten and passed as inheritance and NEVER SAID: STOP THIS SLAVE BUSINESS.
LOL
@@cristinamz2137 And I appreciate that Cristina. And I completely agree that God did not "ordain" slavery in the Bible as you say. It's why I'm careful with my words and only use "condone". But you say things like;
"In the beginning, slavery was not part of the plan for the existence of humanity. It came about only after the Fall"
How do you know it was not part of the plan for humanity though? The Bible never tells us that. In fact, the Bible never says one word against slavery itself. We're only told how to do it correctly. And frankly, this is not what I would have expected the Bible to say about something as important as slavery. I could almost get onboard with the whole, "It only regulates slavery" train if somewhere, anywhere, it had said that slavery was bad, immoral, a sin or against the will or plan of God. But it doesn't. Not even in the New Testament.
And as far as it only coming about after the Fall? I don't understand why that's important. Almost everything came about after the fall. And it would have been pretty hard to have slavery when there were only two people on earth I think you would agree.
*"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities"* ― Voltaire
so does this apply to voltaires wrtings too? it works both ways.
The worldly statement of, " the end justifies the means " is a belief that has been used to commit atrocities worldwide .
The Great Discussion , I really appreciate that !
A once in a lifetime genocide hahah, OMG. What kind of God do we worship.
If God is superior to the rest of us, does He not know how to convey His message in simple terms?
@@tex959
According to them, eventually it all comes down to us being open to and searching for God. Which is backwards. Why should we have to do this for an entity ridiculously beyond all of our capacities? It is absurd and insulting.
@@wet-read its insulting to A Sovereign God that you can compare yourself to God and think that a tiny mind such as yours can understand an Infinite minded God
it is simple to those of us He has set aside for Himself, but to you and those destined for Hell, find it difficult because you don't know Him and He never you... there, is that simple enough ?
Imagine explaining yourself to an ant.
@@tex959 How is God's message limited? It's reach is global. If the bible were tailored and short sighted in it's creation it would not have the impact or foundation to stand on thousands of years later. I see similar claims brought about like "It was a book written by dumb sheep herders" yet the philosophy and historical accuracy contained within is off the charts. You either choose to believe God's word is some patchwork forgery made by random humans with limited scope, or it's an elaborate piece of writing full of wisdom and relevant to this day despite cultural barriers, you can't have it both ways. I can tell you right now, the millennia of research on this subject is pretty clear
It seems that one of the most difficult bible verses to interpret is, Ezekiel 13:18 .. Does anyone know the spiritual meaning of this verse ??
Cameron, Pitty it took you so long to have him on. Great talk.
A god who butchers children, and butchers them in such cruel fashion as in having them chopped/stabbed into bloody pieces, is not explicable in any other context other than a malevolent god
God encourages abortion? Where?
(Numbers 5 doesn't count as that's not an actual example)
@@newglof9558 if you believe the bible, then this claimed god actually designed abortion. Miscarriages, stillbirth, menstruation, death during birth, IDS, genetic disease, etc
I have not come across that part in the bible, could you tell me where I can find it? By the way, this sounds a lot like abortion- which most atheists support...
@@cristinamz2137 there are multiple examples of god butchering children in the bible, but I was specifically thinking of 1 Samuel 15:2-3
Dr. Paul Copan is solid!
I really do appreciate he was able to convince Cameron that the Bible had much hyperbole, exaggerated statements, iron age fantasies and supposedly divine decrees that really shouldn't be followed. He did a better job than I could have!
What horrible verse can you not interpret away the horribleness with a mysterious God? You can make up anything you want.
Wow Cameron - there are "interpretations' that aren't problematic, therefore, all's good. Meanwhile, there are interpretations that have it meaning exactly what it seems to mean (you know, when we go into it as "babes," like we're supposed to), and that also happen to have attending explanations of the migratory nature of empathy and the dire imperatives of early societies which make these things less "evil" and more natural, but all the same, natural, as opposed to God-born, as well as the subsequent moral evolutions of humanity. Probability be dammed I guess, when miracles are a thing, and one needs a thing to be true.
Don't think you get the point of interpretation. An interpretation can be valid depending on your beginning assumptions. If you assume God created us, loves us, cares about our immortal soul and acts on that basis, then an explanation of an action He commands can be valid based on that assumption. If you think God is an evil dictator and we are his playthings, an explanation of His actions can take a different hue. Also, as you pointed out, the varying nature of ethical standards that we human beings like to think of as relative morals plays a part in the context of a Biblical story. However, don't be confused by the changing morality of man and the unchanging, objective morality given by God. The Biblical stories point directly to the fallen nature of man and our propensity to change our morals based on what serves us, not God. Because we change our minds on what is moral, it has no bearing on what is objectively moral.
@@paulray5647 When did OWNING another human being become immoral ?? Because, the bible doesn't say it is immoral. JESUS saw SLAVES being bought and sold and beaten and passed as inheritance and NEVER SAID: STOP THIS SLAVE BUSINESS.
LOL
@@paulray5647 How do you tell if a moral evolution, not of man, but featured in the Bible, is from god versus if it's an imposter? An example would be something we could neither call a change, but is instead an addendum, but one that is not at all implied by earlier objective moral laws in the OT, such as the command to obey the authorities of this world (spoken at a time when the authority was Rome, and Nero, and was given no stipulations). And how do you know that the stipulations you add to this (I'm guessing you do) are valid? Or you could go with simply the move away from the dietary laws, which, yes, are attended to by all manner of theological and cosmological logic, but that none of which deem it - according to the doctrine of the supremacy of God's mysterious ways - necessarily so. In other words, is your interpretation objective, and is your decision to believe the New Testament moment objective? I get it, there's all kinds of foreshadowing in the OT, but then again, a lot of that is poorly interpreted by even the Gospel writers, and, again, since God is de facto moral, he could have allowed for a thing to be very convicting, and yet it be not, in order that he separate the wheat from the chafe.
@@Philip__325 Off the top of my head there's the issue of the prophecy of the messiah being born of a virgin, which is likely a misunderstanding of the term used in the OT that got interpreted as "virgin," and the matter of Jesus being from Nazareth, so as to fulfill the prophecy that he be called a Nazarene, which is unclear as to what is being referred to, with each possible candidate having its problems, leading to the good possibility that Mathew misunderstood either the Judges 13:5 referencing a "Nazarite" (a spiritual sect), or a rather insignificant passing statement in Isiah that the messiah would be a "shoot" (english, as from a branch), which in Hebrew has two words, one of which is similar to and spelled the same as it would be in Hebrew (NZR) and another which is not similar at all, which is what Isiah uses, which in turn means that if this is where Mathew got his idea, either Mathew or God are playing an incredibly trite and labyrinthine word game. Apologists often cite the Isiah prophecy as the source but fail to mention that the word used for shoot is not the one that matches NZR, and we can make a pretty good guess that Mathew was working on memory, as we remember stories and often swap synonyms.
FABULOUS. Finally!.
The fact that makes sense to have a book with such a title is itself evidence against Christianity, imho.
Christianity is monstrous nonsense.
God created everything and can take away anything at any time. He is the creator and can do whatever he deems fit to be done.
Yes, but that doesn’t necessarily make any of his decisions,right, moral, or just. Hypothetically, If you were the creator would every decision you made be based on the fact that you have absolute power to make any decision you wanted to? I feel like when Christians make the statement like the one you have made above it is a indicator of not wanting analyze and use the critical thinking skills that our creator has given us.
@@tex959no. But think of it in the context of this definition of God. And also remember, if you have an eternal soul, and God gave life to your flesh, why is it wrong for God to take that life away?
Would you be ok with the idea of being burned alive or some other hideous fate because the creator of the universe deemed it good or necessary? How about people you care about?
@skylerharris3914 Exactly my point!
@@wet-read in the context of this biblical God, he wouldn’t do that unless it was just. And I probably wouldn’t be okay with it if it were to actually happen because I’d be like a rebellious criminal who doesn’t think I did anything wrong. Or, He did it to fulfill a certain purpose. Christ was faithful till death, I should be too.
I am making two comments. One before and one after watching the video. As a former marine (Task Force Ripper in Desert Storm), the passages in the Bible are problematic. In fact, experiences in the desert eventually broke my faith in god. After years of struggling, I finally recognized the warmth of my morality in comparison to biblical morality.
Without doubt experiences in the desert killed my faith in god. My interest in biblical morality is specifically on acts which I would consider to be war crimes.
You may have a limited grasp of modern warfare, but before you start throwing around terms like war crimes with regard to God, you need to study the text, context, reasons, and result of the language used to describe the acts of warfare in the Bible. Also, keep in mind the purpose of the Bible. It is not to paint a picture of a God who commits "war crimes." You should re-think your interpretation in light of that. Ask yourself why a loving and just God would act the way He does.
If war turned you away from God because of morality, there are a couple of interesting possibilities that I see. You , possibly, no longer believe in God, in which case it shouldn't matter to you what the Bible says about anything, because you now feel it has no authority and nothing to teach. You, possibly, still believe in God, but have developed a hatred of Him based on your experiences. This is a very presumptuous position since you are questioning the motives of the creator of the universe and all life who loves us and wants the best for us. You, possibly, think God is an evil God who just does bad things to us. If that is the case, you would need an explanation for the countless good things then, too. So, I would say don't let man's inhumanity towards each other, which is contrary to God's wishes, to turn you away from God. That's man's fault, not God's. Secondly, I think you should reevaluate your interpretations of Biblical acts using sources other than biased atheist ones.
How did your experiences “in the desert” break your faith?
@@paulray5647What evidence do you have that "God loves us and wants the best for us"? Because an all powerful God doesn't want something and have it not happen.
@@tex959 That has never been an issue for me. That’s why I was surprised to read the comment. I’ve also never known anyone, including those I’ve served with, who lost their faith because of the evils of war. I’ve seen people do some awful, awful things. And those were people. Doing evil things. It never occurred to me to put that responsibility on God.
@@tex959 Fascinating. Thank you for the conversation. It helps to be reminded of other perspectives, even perspectives within my own scope of experience.
6:39 Yes Cameron, I remember my Christian days too. Not a jot or tittle of the horrors of the OT bothered me. I always thought that there's a correct explanation and that we just haven't found it yet, or that God had morally sufficient reasons to do what he did. Now that I am not a Christian, these verses reveal their true horror.
Worthwhile to remember that ALL religions have their "correct" interpretations of their cruel verses and practices.
And this "oh-there-are-different-interpretations-of-text" seems to flirt too dangerously with postmodernism.
This hope (for lack of a better term) that there's a correct explanation mirrors the atheists' scientistic hope that the origin of life/universe will one day be explained purely by physical means.
Amazing what one believes when one is inside a belief system.
This video is for Christians who already believe that their God is all-loving and the rest. It doesn't do a thing for the ones on the outside.
I agree and well said !
They cannot see the web of cognitive bias that their brain developed during the critical indoctrination window(4-14) because of neuroplasticity. People like you and I can. We have a unique perspective because we were believers who now are not. We can compare and contrast how our neural networks would process information before and after. Lifelong atheists and Christians do not have this perspective.
Eh, I still think Rauser has the upper hand here. Overall. 🤷♂️
How so? Randal isn’t a Christian
@@pazuzil you’re either trolling (which would actually be funny) or you have a view unworthy of serious engagement (he is of course a Christian). Either way, I shan’t take the bait
A pro tip from an atheist, who hates new atheists, but mostly their bad arguments.
Any moral judgments of Bible scripture by atheists, or anyone questioning similarly. Those are all "arguments from consequences".
Arguments of that type imply, if not outright run into a host of more logical fallacy. But for the argument itself, somethings existence or lack, is never contingent on "shoulds" or "shouldn't", aka, usually appeals to morality or legality.
They're also implying they accept objective morality... But whose morality? If you're into, or ever heard of historian Tom Holland, those atheists, or whoever argues like that, are rejecting scriptures, the Bible, for their very own deeply held, Christian moral assumptions.
Lol, I hate the way they argue, it's not their use of this fallacy alone, it's that this one leads into such a dogs dinner of more fallacies. From implying themselves taking on the burden of proof, to false dilemmas, to implying they have double think, and accept some self evident, objective morality, which they'll deny, but never explain, for being to overwhelmed with cognitive dissonance.
I'm all for Christians finding healthy interpretation of scriptures, that align with a caring God. I wish more were annihilationists regarding hellfire.
Which God are you talking about he reveled his name when Tomas said my lord and my God
I think "Is God of the old testament an unpleasant/evil character" needs to be split into 2 separate questions.
1. Would it seem so to a cold reader. Give old testament to somebody who has no idea what christianity or judaism or islam are (admiteddly hard), and ask them what do they feel about the God character described. And I personally think this is pretty clear. JHWH is a war god. Simmilar to Ares or Montu or Nergal. He is a God that hates complacency, loves conflict, and is incredibly violent and vindictive. He is an evil God. This is just plain in the text, to deny it would be to admit to having troubles with basic reading comprehension.
2. Would it seem so to somebody with philosophical understanding that the God described in it is the perfect being, the grounding of all morality, the goodness incarnate. Then the answer, again is pretty clear. JHWH is necessarily good, so any evidence to the contrary MUST just look like evidence, and in fact is either mistaken or misunderstood.
I think this is a lost ground to any sola scriptura evangelical. It's impossible to argue a sceptic who tries to be objective about reading the text. Just take sceptic theism approach and say God is misterious that way. Catholics and Orthodox on the other hand have thousands of years of canonical apologetics built into the text and translations themselves, which makes this problem way easier on them.
Gnostics probably have it right
@@razorbladelemonade well. That's way more coherent than standard explanation at the very least.
The impact of naturalism on the mind of even Christian scholars is deeply engrained. The Christian thinker is trapped in an emotional pit which he has failed to out crawl for more than a century. Consider the implausibility of a natural explanation in the events surrounding the life of Samson.
Are we seriously thinking that Samson's natural body, of flesh and blood, engaged the sheer impact of the lion's claws or his spinal cord the weight of Gaza gate? Again It is not credible to entertain the thought of this Hebrew judge's arms (humerous, scapula and clavicle) remaining unbroken under the strut force needed to push two pillars supporting the, 3000 plus capacity, temple of Dagon.
There are other such instances where natural laws cannot explain, such as a multitude's mere shout that tumbles Jericho's dual carriageway wall upon which two chariots could pass in opposite directions. Indeed dont we accept the event of the Hebrew boys survival in a furnace as well as the old world at the account of the" sun standing still."
If natural laws do not embrace any compatibility with these event then it reinforces an inevitable definition that pertains our account of acts that fall outside nature, namely. miraculous events. If a miracle then, by definition is God acting outside of nature, then clearly this explains the events under discussion here. God may acts outside of natural laws when He so sees fit.
The subconcious naturalism of the Western scholar has paid him a double dissevice that extends even where other acts of the supernatural go on display particularly the present discussion inviting
the charges above,
But are we to assume that the supernatural mimics natural laws. Even beteer does the supernatural entail natural pain and suffering? The charge against God may very much be a verdict of our own making.
I've been a fan of some of these talks Cameron hosts for awhile now and if you asked me, I'd have said he seems like a nice guy but I honestly had to stop the video when he casually mentioned he grounds his daughter and takes her things, I have thought deeply about how every problem in society is an outcome of what we experience in our youth and the "punishment/reward" concept has had a massive, almost incomprehensibly large negative effect on humanity.
There is scores of research and books on it and why it doesn't work and is harmful but I must admit I find appealing to research to tell us how to treat our children is demoralising to us and dehumanising to them, we don't require that for any of our other relationships or loved ones, all we do require is what (I'm assuming Cameron believes) God give us and that's his moral golden rule "Don't do unto other's what's hateful when done unto you".
All of us deserve a warm welcome into this world not to have acts which are considered so immoral if done to anyone else to the point of criminality enforced on us, that's a form of marginalizing a minority and disrespect and it does do irrevocable damage, which people can't see because it's been so normalised just like people in middle east or in our cultures past not seeing why it's wrong for husband's to punish wives unconsensually.
We need to become much more moral and sophisticated in how we treat the young and follow the rule if it's wrong to do it to an adult, it's even more wrong to do it to a child, if we truly cared about protecting adults less we wouldn't give them more protections.
I seriously hope Cameron changes through some miracle if that's what it takes, how he interacts with his daughter because knowing what I know, it's extremely disturbing to hear this.
I still think Cameron is a nice guy deep down just like the husbands who patronised and punished their wives against their will, I honestly think had I lived in those cultures I could have gotten used to it like everyone else and seen them as just misguided which is what they are, it's the same thing here, it's just doing it to a son or daughter is worse.
I agree. I pretty sure we all would be doing what they were doing. Just look at the outcome of the Stanford prison experiment 😬
@@michaelchoruss7544 Yeah now imagine what years of conditioning can do vs those few days and when that conditioning begins at birth so it's all you've ever known compared to them living entire lives without it before that.
Life seems to be a pendulum. We will never get it perfect. Some generations may be to strict
and some not nearly strict enough. I remember my parents saying my generation has so many
more resources on proper parenting than they ever had. There is no one size fits all. as each child is different. I was brought where my dad believed , spare the rod spoil the child. It did
not help me and I certainly never applied it. Some cultures have no discipline and I am sure
a number of them are spoiled brats. We seem to now live in an age of post truth narcissists.
All the best in raising your children. These are very difficult times.
"Spare the rod..." ; ), .... oh, and stone to death a disobedient child, and don't let cripples and those with congenital deformities into the place of worship.
A little off topic, but that last one's the best, because it doesn't rely on modern sensibilities being alarmed by ancient people's perhaps forgivable lower place on an ever increasing trend line of gentility, but rather exposes something altogether different and black and white. the intuition being reflected here is the human nature that is repulsed by certain bodily differences. This intuition in turn is an artifact of evolution that, to make a long story short, couldn't be in place were it not for our actual, material, vulnerabilities. We of course didn't know this, and so we projected the sentiment onto our god, who cannot contain that which references vulnerability, because he is omnipotent. Noe the less, these sorts of people were said, by God, to "desecrate" the holy place.
Take your pick - it's cruel, or it's a sign of the creation of a God by people, as opposed to the other way around. Either way, an omnipotent god could take it, and so can humans - it's without a doubt implied that these people were not being wholesale slaughtered, as they existed in order to be banned. If you say, "Ya, but maybe they were pushed to the perimeter of the camp, and God made the rule because He knew our weakness..." The problem here is that when you consult the list (Leviticus 21) it runs to such shallow ground of the repulsive that it appears someone had in mind to really make this place holy, and perfectly clean of what seemed "un-great."
The answer to our instinctive discomfort with physical abnormality is proximity and time, and we all know it works. But you can see how an ancient would not have had that moral compulsion to even desire to do so, empathy not yet having invaded what then was simply called law, which later became segregated from secular law by being given the title "morality," or "God's law."
Do you have kids?
What makes each person of the trinity distinct from the others?
People, the creator has given us intellect and common sense. The creator would never ask/command man to kill babies.
Common sense is a tautology that's demonstrably fake. I think you're looking for "critical thinking" but then there's the issue is that positivism is a more critical system by magnitudes...
So it wasn't gods idea that Abraham kill his son? Who's idea was it?
@@pazuzil 1) Abraham's son Isaac was not a baby. 2) God initially did command Abraham to do sacrifice his son and then stopped it happening. Initially, God told Abraham that he must sacrifice his son for the greater good of Abraham's descendants. Abraham didn't understand how exactly this would come about but he trusted in God anyway and tied his son up and was prepared to kill him.
Nowhere does it say that God took Joy in this or that Abraham took joy in it. It is not a celebration of sacrifice of a child in any way or form. It is a foreshadowing of what God was to do later on, which was to send his only son to die for the greater good of billions and billions of human beings.
This passage is MEANT to be shocking for us. It is meant to seem absurd. It is meant to draw our attention. How could a good God command such a thing? the reason/reasons why God does certain things can sometimes be more complex than we can even imagine. Remember, God stopped this from happening. Abraham went through a period of time where it seemed absurd what God was asking him. This demonstrates to us that we can indeed trust God even when times seem impossibly difficult and even when it seems like God is asking us to do things that don't make sense. Abraham didn't know that this story would be a foreshadowing of the greatest event in human history.
@@pazuzil did he kill his son?
@@reshmaakthar6970 he commanded a man to kill his son. Then he stopped him before he actually did it. That’s like putting a gun to a persons head who believes it’s loaded, pulling the trigger and then when nothing happens, you say “only joking” isn’t that by itself a psychopathic action?
"Intelligent Christian"? That seems to suggest he is an exception to the general rule?
The title does comes across a bit condescending, doesn't it. I know it's probably 100% unintended. Reading the title lead me to believe the audience is not intelligent and therefore needs an intelligent Christian to interpret for them.
30:22 _"...so it LOOKS like you're hating your parents..."_
Jesus didn't state to do something that LOOKED like you would be hating your parents, he DIRECTLY ordered his followers to hate their families!!!
Copan's desperate 'dancing around' the questionable stuff in the bible is ludicrous to behold!
It’s hyperbolic language. Pretty obvious in context, particularly when you understand Christ commands us to honor our fathers and mothers.
@@bradleyperry1735Just like the resurrection. Clearly that's hyperbolic religious symbolism.
@@goldenalt3166 No.
@@bradleyperry1735 Not religiously symbolic? So pointless?
@@bradleyperry1735 Why would Jesus be being hyperbolic? Would the people of the time have understood this? Or do you think the bible is only meant for the people of today? Jesus somewhat contradicts himself by DIRECTLY commanding you to love your enemies but hate your families! No hyperbole involved! Could this have been because Jesus felt threatened by strong family bonds?
Having to make excuses for the Bible and God was the main reason I abandoned Christianity.
"Having to put forth effort to understand my faith is the reason I abandoned God and Christianity"
FTFY
@@newglof9558 No, I don't think so. It wasn't my faith that i started to question.
As a Christian myself I think we have to understand that there's a lot of metaphorical, and hyperbolic language used by God especially in the Old testament. That brings up the question why would God let the Bible be so open to interpretation, and room for error? However, I think we have to realize that God uses these metaphors, and hyperboles to communicate to us because it's the language we speak. In everyday life we use a lot of complex metaphors, and hyperbolic language thus it wouldn't be as effective to use literal language with us.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 How do you determine what's hyperbolic?
@@goldenalt3166 That's a great question and that really comes down to personal interpretation. However, with a sound mind and good faith we can say that God won't punish those who are honestly mistaken. With the same line of reasoning I think we can conclude that God means good intentions. If we truly have faith that God is good then it would follow that everything in the Bible that seems questionable has a good answer.
Rex Mundi dominate and rule this realm (aka yhwh). The damned worship him.He chose a certain group of people to help him.They also gave you a different option =communism delivered by a messianic , chosen one:, karl marx.
does not bother me one bit for God to laugh at his enemies..............how does that present a problem at all? hes GOD Almighty , you are his enemy , surely he can laugh , he is perfect and just , whats the issue? and hows that all of a sudden mean he delights in their death? he simply has no concern for the plans of the enemy against him , for they can do him no harm , he will laugh at them , because he is not a God of hatred , i can go on , but , no need to make it mean something else , God is perfectly Just to laugh at his enemies .
You know the video is a lie when the title says intelligent Christian.
If God really does exist, so what if he/she is evil? The creator has all the right to do what he/she wants, good or bad.
Would you be cool with a hideous, painful death because such an entity deemed it good, pleasing (to itself), or necessary? How about those you care about? Even randos?
@@wet-read bottomline is... we're all gonna die. whether you look at it in a religious or secular perspective, blaming or complaining is futile.
@@anabell7184
Ok, sure. But that is clearly different from insisting that everything that happens does so for a reason or reasons, regardless of if we think the reasons are good or pleasant. I would rather there be no such reasons than dictated ones.
@@wet-read the universe is governed by laws of nature, dear. much like a computer program follows what the programmer had created for it to follow. those laws do the dictating. so yes, everything does happen for a reason.
@@anabell7184
My goodness, you're pedantic!
I know all of that, lol. In other words, I would rather there be no agency behind what happens than for there to be an agency behind it all I might disagree with or even hate. I meant reasons in the sense theists speak of it, as being more than "mere" causality, just chains in a never ending sequence of events and nothing more.
We've been offering answers and explanations for millenia but they just won't accept it.
-Muslims
Your source says: the Tawrat (Torah, Pentateuch) (and Psalms) and the Injil (Gospel) are the words of God… and that the words of God can’t be corrupted.
Would you really blaspheme and say otherwise ? I doubt it.
Well… since we agree that’s the case… the Tawrat and the Injil point to God as YHWH and as Yeshua (Jesus) (who you call Isa).
You are obliged to admit that Isa was born if a Virgin, did Miracles, and is still alive and will return… and that His life example is exemplary.
You deny what every scholar on earth knows and what Isa Himself predicted: that He died on the cross
Since the Tawrat and the Injil are the incorruptible words of God… we stand with Jesus.
And according to your Quran, we are to judge by the revelation given to us.
Surahs could be provided.
That’s what your sources say.
Thank you. Inshallah, Ma Salame. Salaam. Afwan. Marhaba
Or … maybe you are also a follower of Jesus, making commentary. I wasn’t sure. So for good measure I shared thoughts. On 2nd reading, I think maybe the latter is the case. If so, no harm done. Rock on.
@@mkl2237 I'm just a heathen.
Was funny to me when Cameron made his statement about OT problems not bothering him because there are answers out there when Muslim apologists would say the same thing to the problems christians have with Islam.
@@jbeiler55 ah. I see. Ok. Well. Anyhow. That’s my reply to my Muslim brothers.
Be well… heathen friend.
57:51 this perfectly sums up this kind of discussion. Actually pathetic
Cam, I adore ya, but you talk WAY too much. Take a note from Joe Rogan. Let your guest lead everything.
We never have the right to judge God or His actions.
We can't judge him or his actions cause there is no method to detect him or his actions.
@estok918 Cause and effect my dear watson. Did the roman empire fall because it simply ran out of steam, atrophied and died, did the atecs disappear bevause they got bored of sacrificing babies or did something other worldly happen. Who knows but I know Jesus didn't lie.
@@Jewonastick then why are you obsessed with all these Christian sites? Indulging your delusions?
@@Jewonastick Your response is a nonresponse.
True!
I have yet to meet a Christian who can rationally justify theism without presupposing it, and therefore engaging in circular reasoning. I keep looking and keep being disappointed. 44 years I've been an atheist and still, nothing.
There needs to be a necessary being, for anything contingent to be existent. If not then why is there anything? if this necessary being brought about moral agents then the being must be a moral agent. Nothing satisfies those requirements except a tri-omni God as explained in the following. if something created existence, and created moral agents then it must have done so consciously because of the vast complexitys of morality, and the mathematics that lead to the creation of moral agents. For example, one complex component of mathematics is pi which is an infinite set of non repeating numbers, and the universe is guided by mathematics, therefore, the universe is inherently complex. Now if this conscious necessary moral agent created existence this agent must transcend spacetime making it omniscient by being aware of all things in and outside spacetime. Therefore, we get a tri-omni God, and if this God is truly moral then He should reveal Himself to us which the God of the Bible allegedly did(through the form of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.) Moreover, If God is moral then it should be true that He would want the best, for His conscious creations so It would make sense that He would make it possible that they can live forever in bliss. However, we're imperfect, therefore we can't have a forever lasting perfect existence not without the help of a perfect forever lasting foundation. We are imperfect and we're nothing without God our Creator (The Father) which is why we need a savior to bridge the gap between imperfection and perfection (Jesus Christ), someone to guide us (The Holy Spirit) and they all need to be God which affirms the Trinity.
What are you looking for in terms of justification? I’m sure you’re aware of most of the main arguments by now. Do you have a better explanation for the origin of the universe?
@@breakphorth The quantum field that exists independently of time and space, yet is still material and isn't apparently bound by time at all, is all the explanation anyone needs because that's what the evidence shows.
@@MathewSteeleAtheology Hmmm, depends on the evidence you’re looking at I suppose. You sound rather dogmatic about this theory, I hope you’re still genuinely seeking God with an unbiased, open-mind, and prioritizing intellectual honesty. After 44 years, I know it’s possible to feel a bit jaded about it all.
The issue I have with using theories to make conjecture about the origin of the universe is that they’re just that…theories and conjecture. Our understanding of quantum fields is very minimal, and the way we understand them is also subject to change.
Even if we are exactly 100% correct about quantum field theory (which we’d never know), it still doesn’t quite get rid of God. Vibrations and mathematical functions mapping spacetime events doesn’t get rid of the possibility that there is a creator behind it all. You can’t use science to explain away God because the existence of God is a more philosophical/“historical” question, not a scientific one. Science attempts to explain processes, but it never can quite get to the root of origin.
You may believe, “but no, quantum field theory works perfectly fine on its own without the need of inserting God into the picture.” Sure, but again, that’s merely because quantum field theory addresses a process, it doesn’t actually address origin of the universe at all. And we can make conjecture about origin of the universe until we’re blue in the face, but if we’re being honest with ourselves, we’d realize that we will never know on our own. No one can ever confirm that our theories are true or false, because no one was there at the beginning of the universe to do so.
So where does that leave us? Either there actually is a creator who can reveal origin to us, or we’ll never be sure. Not only could we never be sure, attributing a percentage to our amount of certainty becomes pointless because we have no way of confirming.
In light of this, I simply find my time best spent researching beings who claim to be the creator to see if I’m convinced, instead of trying to explain away God with conjecture. There being a creator who can reveal knowledge to us is truly the only hope we have at knowing the origin of the universe.
@@breakphorth "Even if we are exactly 100% correct about quantum field theory (which we’d never know), it still doesn’t quite get rid of God."
You have to assume "God" into existence in the first place, that's the problem.
"The issue I have with using theories to make conjecture about the origin of the universe is that they’re just that…theories and conjecture."
You prefer assuming something into existence, apparently.
Oh my gosh there are so many stories like this in the bible. To our stupid minds it seems wrong, but God is holy and good, who am I to even question His ways.
You are, the potential worshipper. Would you worship Satan if he said his ways were higher than your ways? You must just the being worthy.
"who am I to even question His ways."
- EVERY Cult member - since the dawn of time.
.
LOL
@@goldenalt3166 what a stupid reply
Bart Ehrman disagrees with you. What about slaves taken in war?
Bart Ehrman is a clown.
Even those "voluntary" slaves are given the "choice" between abandoning their children and wife or being slaves forever. That's means slavery is good???
I see the high and tight alt right hair is quit the fashion look.
"Toughest verses" ? How do you decide which verses are "toughest" ?
I think you miss the point.
@@tex959 Christians believe God is omniscient, but He is not what I would call "omni-benevolent." God is not a permissive nice old man. He is the God of the universe. He is loving, but He is also righteous and holy and absolutely sovereign. He is the Creator of all things. Man, on the other hand, is sinful and rebellious. This is in direct contradiction to God's righteousness. That is why some scriptures seem "tough." They are less "tough" if one understands God's ENTIRE character as revealed in the Bible.
@@tex959The new testament Jesus is not a lovable hippie though. Where did you learn that?
@@tex959 It's more likely the verses that critics point to as evidence of their rejection of God and Christians have a hard time responding.
@@tex959 Well, the short answer to your question is: He didn't. Jesus of the New Testament is NOT a "lovable hippie." The fact that you think that only shows that you have not actually read either the New Testament OR the Old Testament. God is the same always. He does not change. He is loving but He is also wrathful. He is both. Man is sinful and God is righteous. If God were NOT loving, He would simply have wiped humanity off the face of the earth long ago. But He did not do that. Instead, He sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to provide a means of redemption, a solution to the long-standing problem of God's holiness vs His love. Sin must be judged. That is God's righteousness. But God does not want anyone to perish but desires humanity to be redeemed from sin and have fellowship with God.
Intelligent Christian. Lol lol lol That's a good one. People that believe in legions of invisible supernatural beings are very smart. lol lol lol
I like your sass factor. Somehow you pull it off and don’t come off like a dick the way S Gig does. And you don’t use girly emojis and all. So I salute you.
May I ask: do you really… truly… think that you can broadly discount all Christians as stupid, as you do?
They (we, since I am also one) could in theory be wrong … but aren’t smart people sometimes wrong?
And are you saying that all non-Christian’s are smart ? Really? Do you really think that, deep down?
Could there, maybe, be distinctions between intelligence, education, and correctness ?
Do you really divide people in the world into 2 camps… smart non-Christians and dumb Christian’s? Is it possible that there’s smart snd dumb folks in both camps?
Certainly, it’s an absolute matter of fact… that many highly educated people are in fact Christians… PhD’s, MD’s, Masters’, professors and researchers… if it takes smarts to get such qualifications, how do you explain that there are Christians with these? And with high IQ’s… specific names could be given.
I post comments on the fly…so I get “quips” and “provocations for a purpose (and for fun)”. I’ll give you credit that this explains your comment.
But please… please tell me you don’t seriously believe what you wrote as more than a soundbite, that truly there’s no such thing as a smart Christian. Be jade if you really believe it, and aren’t just having good banter… what do you think that would say about you? I could say but really… you’ve GOT to be kidding me.
JJ Evans… Dyn-O-MITE !!!!
Look up the word “Evil” in the Old Testament ( Strongs# H7489 (raʿ)) and when it appears.
Look up where and how many times God does or decides not to do “evil.”
According to the bible “Evil” does not mean what you think it means.
What does it mean?