This is truly a remarkable show of raw fundamentalism and general lack of empathy, how strange that a human mind would rather cope with so many contradictions rather than accept reality
Scary stuff (respectfully). Firstly, Alex's questions are perfectly rational, yet your responses rely entirely on subjective interpretations of doctrine. For anyone who isn't already committed to your worldview, these explanations will be unconvincing and entirely UNsatisfactory. They don't provide answers outside of your own doctrinal framework-essentially, you're using 'the thing' to justify 'the thing.' Secondly, the ease and confidence with which you rationalise the slaughter of women, children, and even livestock is deeply concerning. If this logic were applied in today's world, would you find it acceptable for a 'Christian' army to carry out similar acts if they felt sufficiently compelled by God? That’s a terrifying implication and one that warrants serious reflection, sorry.
Quote (1:21): "...this god of love has to be a god who draws a line against evil. A god who judges... (3:09) otherwise evil would triumph!" What an astonishingly bold claim rooted in... I don’t know... evil? This so-called "god of love" in the Old Testament is anything but loving. Richard Dawkins described him best: “The most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Here’s a god who creates beings, gives them “free will,” and then curses them, their descendants, and their entire planet for not obeying. Not only is that unjust, it’s absurdly hypocritical for a supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful being. If God knows everything, he must have known this would happen-and yet he created this flawed system anyway. A righteous god would intervene early, punishing actual perpetrators, educating people, sending messengers, or offering clear guidance. But no. This god supposedly lets humans descend into "sin," waits until they cross some arbitrary threshold, and then BOOM-genocide. What a monster! Let’s put it another way: imagine a company producing autonomous cars, each with AI to make decisions on the road. These cars start causing fatal accidents. When the courts hold the company accountable, do you think they’d get away with saying, “Oh, it’s not our fault; we gave them free will!”? OF COURSE NOT. The producer is ultimately responsible for their creation. And so would any god be. Anyone who can’t see this is simply falling for the lies and moral gymnastics of religion, Christianity in particular. But hey, I’m not here to throw stones. I’ve been fooled by this myself. I spent half my life as a “born-again Christian,” immersed in the hypocrisy, the “we’re chosen” mentality, the constant dismissal of inconvenient truths. At least now I’ve seen through it, and I can say with confidence: this is not a satisfying answer to Alex O’Connor or anyone else. It’s appalling. It’s disgraceful. Quote: "God is 100% perfect love. Such perfection could not tolerate even the slightest evil." Well, that’s good news... said no one ever. Imagine a teacher so “perfect” they fail you for every minor mistake. “You failed this math problem? You’re expelled! But don’t worry-I’ll ‘mercifully’ give you time to beg for forgiveness.” Perfect love isn’t that. Perfect love covers all, it doesn’t nitpick and destroy. Frankly, I’m relieved this God doesn’t exist because such a being would be the antithesis of love and justice. And thank goodness, he simply cannot exist.
@@joferg12 What have I replaced my Christian faith with? Reality-a commitment to living authentically, taking responsibility for my actions, and caring for the world we share. Has Christianity ever truly resulted in a more loving world? Let’s be honest: the history of wars, crusades, inquisitions, and oppression in the name of “the Lord” says otherwise. On a personal level, I can say I’m far more loving, caring, and responsible now than I ever was as a Christian. Why? Because there’s no shortcut to “forgiveness” anymore-no divine clean-up crew to erase the mess I’ve made. I take ownership of my actions, make amends, and strive to do better. As for the world, Christianity’s track record hasn’t been great. The environmental neglect alone is staggering. How many Christians see this planet as disposable because they believe in a “new heaven and new earth”? This kind of thinking has turned Earth into a wasteland, with no accountability for the destruction caused. If replacing Christianity with reality means more love, more care, and more responsibility for the only life and planet we have, then yes-it will absolutely result in a better world.
Your analogy begs the question by using Al as an example. Al implicitly do not have "free will;" they function according to their programming. A more apt analogy for the Christian God would be children instead of Al. Indeed, the parent would be responsible for their children's education, nurture, provision, etc., but the children would still be accountable for their own decisions. On the topic of God's intervention into human sin, God at the very least provided all with a conscience and a basic moral compass (which you should grant if your critique is an internal one). The Amalekites rejected this basic conscience for 400 years, until, outside of Rahab, it seems not even 9 others in the land were (relatively) innocent, as with Sodom and Gomorrah. If you can consider God a monster, then I'm assuming you agree on some basic moral principles. Look into the Canaanite culture and their vile religious practices. It's hard to understand God's actions in the Old Testament without proper historical context. Slightly beside the point but on that note, if many historians can justify the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (actual mass murders of innocents) for the sake of stopping global warfare, then God's OT justice become significantly less reprehensible to modern sensibilities. On a similar vein, many skeptics question why God did not act against events like the Holocaust. Now imagine the crimes of the Holocaust committed on a civilization-wide scale, and you get Ancient Canaan. In effect, God is acting against the "Holocausts of Ancient history" in the OT, but we understand the events anachronistically and hence condemn God for the actions we demand of Him in the same breath. I cannot claim to perfectly understand God's actions. In the interview cited, I applaud Cliffe and Stuart for admitting that the text is difficult, and I admire Alex for deeply contending and engaging with the most challenging aspects of the Bible, raising relevant questions that no Christian should shy away from. (He is indeed a brilliant and open-minded skeptic - one I hope to emulate in my own future.) But neither do I think the text or history, read and understood in context, paint a picture of a divine tyrant. Of course, balancing the tightrope of justice and love is difficult, especially when it comes to dangerous implications like accidentally justifying the Crusades. This is where Jesus comes in. "Perfect love covers all." It's ironic you mention this, because that is the precise culmination of the Christian message: the death and resurrection of Christ, the embodiment of "perfect love covering all." Under the New Covenant, Christians no longer expect to receive direct commands of justice (although God may still act indirectly). Thus, God's justice is complete: He will judge even the slightest misdeed because God is necessarily ontologically holy. Every sin is magnified in His omniscience, as He observes the cascading events (while not necessarily deterministic, are still causal) in full. At the same time, His merciful love is complete: He covers all sin for those who willingly choose to accept His free gift and properly repent - complete with the remorse and the drive to emulate Christ. Whether or not you decide to accept this free gift is entirely on you; God is not so tyrannical as to force your hand, as you condemn Him for. No, it is not megalomanic to punish those who reject Him - it is both a just penance for genuine evil and is a logical consequence imposed by the individual on themself. As the source of love, life, joy, hope, etc. as a necessarily good being, rejecting God also ultimately rejects those same ideals. When someone rejects God, He will remove Himself from their presence in full, as they demand. As the late Christopher Hitchens said (I'm paraphrasing), "Even if God existed, I wouldn't want to go to Heaven." As C.S. Lewis said, "The Gates of Hell are locked from the inside."
Your logical parallel fails. An AI car company exists within a world which would exist independent of the car company’s existence. The world, with gods existence, would not exist independent of god as he created every aspect of world. It’s a lot more complicated than the existence of evil as I would argue 1. We can imagine infinitely better worlds we can live in as well as infinitely worse. In every possible world the worst thing would hold the same essence as every other worst thing in other possible worlds. An atheist living in a world absent of suffering would argue, “Well if god exists why does he allow people to die!”. If you completely remove bad you remove free will. The entailment is if you remove all worst things it will eventually lead to removing people’s choices, we’ll there’s always then going to be a worst or most evil choice so why wouldn’t you remove that as well? Eventually you are going to remove the very essence of person that we are, and eventually argue for the cessation of anything that exist as in reality there’s always a worst. Salvation is complicated but id argue it solves this very simply. 100 years is a blink in the eye of eternity. Yes things suffer for days maybe even years but, to cast judgement on god would presuppose and ignore the aspect of salvation itself. Everything I listed I can go more in depth on but this is sort of how I look at it.
If God didn’t know how it was all going to play out, that’s not just a hit to his omnipotence-it’s a blow to his omniscience too. How can you be all-powerful and all-knowing yet somehow be surprised by your own creation? That’s like designing a clock, watching it tick, and then going, “Wow, I had no idea it would keep time!” If God didn’t foresee the chaos, suffering, and “fall of man,” then he’s either not omniscient or he’s willfully negligent. Neither option lines up with the idea of a perfect, loving deity. So, which is it? A god who didn’t know? Or a god who knew and let it happen anyway? Either way, the idea of omnipotence takes a big hit.
Ah, yes, thinking critically can be so exhausting, can’t it? It’s much easier to just sit in church, nod along, and shout "Hallelujah!" on cue. No messy questions, no pesky contradictions-just the comfort of someone telling you what to believe. But here’s the thing: real thinking, while tiring, is infinitely more satisfying. Instead of blindly swallowing what you’re told, you get to wrestle with ideas, confront hard truths, and reach conclusions based on reason and evidence. It’s not always easy, but it’s worth it. So yeah, if the responses here feel “beyond tiresome,” maybe it’s because they demand something more than a “Hallelujah.” They demand thought.
Thank you, Anna, for your kind words and well wishes. I truly hope one day you find wisdom that is grounded in reason, evidence, and the beauty of understanding the world as it truly is. While atheists often have questions, they refuse to settle for “god of the gaps” reasoning, where anything we don’t yet understand is attributed to a deity. True wisdom embraces the big questions, seeks answers, and admits when it doesn’t yet know. If I may nudge you just a bit-next time you’re in church, try really listening to what’s being said. Not just nodding along or taking it as truth, but listening critically. Ask yourself if it makes sense, if it truly reflects reality, or if it’s filled with contradictions. That’s what I started doing, and ironically, it’s what set me on the path to losing my faith. It might feel like stepping off the beaten path, but as Dorothy learned, sometimes following the yellow brick road can lead you somewhere far more real and profound than the Emerald City. Keep asking, keep listening, and I “pray” (to no one in particular) that you find joy in seeking truth for yourself.
One of my dreams is to find a Christian who is intellectually sincere. Much of the Bible is problematic, and the honest answer is that it's morally indefensible by today's standards. I love that you can speak openly about your relationship with Yeshua, and I greatly admire your efforts; I just can't understand how - if you are sincere in your journey for truth - you are able to defend these acts. During your apologetics, you didn't acknowledge the slaughtered children once. Be sincere and your relationship with Yeshua will be even stronger, brother. ✌
@CharlesBrighton-mr4ev What is the question? Do you really believe that the Israelites would have written down that God condemned them for their actions and that they would have included that in their Bible? Isn't it much more plausible that they knew it was wrong, did it anyway and then passed it off as God's command? Let's look at how Putin or Islamists act. They present their actions as God's wish
@@tawhv I'm glad you clarified because I thought that's what your original comment was saying. But yes, wars and atrocities justified by holy books are within the past, exist within the present, and will continue into the future.
If God were all knowing and the creator of all things then he made the Canaanites to be slaughtered. Very all loving for sure. What a joke. If God wanted to show his judgement as opposed to just human cruelty why not do the deed himself, instead of using a 'human raid' as you put it.
This is truly a remarkable show of raw fundamentalism and general lack of empathy, how strange that a human mind would rather cope with so many contradictions rather than accept reality
Scary stuff (respectfully). Firstly, Alex's questions are perfectly rational, yet your responses rely entirely on subjective interpretations of doctrine. For anyone who isn't already committed to your worldview, these explanations will be unconvincing and entirely UNsatisfactory. They don't provide answers outside of your own doctrinal framework-essentially, you're using 'the thing' to justify 'the thing.'
Secondly, the ease and confidence with which you rationalise the slaughter of women, children, and even livestock is deeply concerning. If this logic were applied in today's world, would you find it acceptable for a 'Christian' army to carry out similar acts if they felt sufficiently compelled by God? That’s a terrifying implication and one that warrants serious reflection, sorry.
Hold up-so he is asked how this docrine justifies this act-and he justifies it by interpreting doctine?!? Insane!
Loving your enemy does not have a good track record of success.
Insane religious thinking
Religious delusion allows believers of all faith to defend every barbaric act by their god or followers
Quote (1:21): "...this god of love has to be a god who draws a line against evil. A god who judges... (3:09) otherwise evil would triumph!"
What an astonishingly bold claim rooted in... I don’t know... evil? This so-called "god of love" in the Old Testament is anything but loving. Richard Dawkins described him best: “The most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Here’s a god who creates beings, gives them “free will,” and then curses them, their descendants, and their entire planet for not obeying. Not only is that unjust, it’s absurdly hypocritical for a supposedly all-knowing and all-powerful being. If God knows everything, he must have known this would happen-and yet he created this flawed system anyway.
A righteous god would intervene early, punishing actual perpetrators, educating people, sending messengers, or offering clear guidance. But no. This god supposedly lets humans descend into "sin," waits until they cross some arbitrary threshold, and then BOOM-genocide. What a monster!
Let’s put it another way: imagine a company producing autonomous cars, each with AI to make decisions on the road. These cars start causing fatal accidents. When the courts hold the company accountable, do you think they’d get away with saying, “Oh, it’s not our fault; we gave them free will!”? OF COURSE NOT. The producer is ultimately responsible for their creation. And so would any god be. Anyone who can’t see this is simply falling for the lies and moral gymnastics of religion, Christianity in particular.
But hey, I’m not here to throw stones. I’ve been fooled by this myself. I spent half my life as a “born-again Christian,” immersed in the hypocrisy, the “we’re chosen” mentality, the constant dismissal of inconvenient truths. At least now I’ve seen through it, and I can say with confidence: this is not a satisfying answer to Alex O’Connor or anyone else. It’s appalling. It’s disgraceful.
Quote: "God is 100% perfect love. Such perfection could not tolerate even the slightest evil."
Well, that’s good news... said no one ever. Imagine a teacher so “perfect” they fail you for every minor mistake. “You failed this math problem? You’re expelled! But don’t worry-I’ll ‘mercifully’ give you time to beg for forgiveness.” Perfect love isn’t that. Perfect love covers all, it doesn’t nitpick and destroy.
Frankly, I’m relieved this God doesn’t exist because such a being would be the antithesis of love and justice. And thank goodness, he simply cannot exist.
What have you replaced your Christian faith with? Will it result in more loving and less evil world?
@@joferg12 What have I replaced my Christian faith with? Reality-a commitment to living authentically, taking responsibility for my actions, and caring for the world we share.
Has Christianity ever truly resulted in a more loving world? Let’s be honest: the history of wars, crusades, inquisitions, and oppression in the name of “the Lord” says otherwise. On a personal level, I can say I’m far more loving, caring, and responsible now than I ever was as a Christian. Why? Because there’s no shortcut to “forgiveness” anymore-no divine clean-up crew to erase the mess I’ve made. I take ownership of my actions, make amends, and strive to do better.
As for the world, Christianity’s track record hasn’t been great. The environmental neglect alone is staggering. How many Christians see this planet as disposable because they believe in a “new heaven and new earth”? This kind of thinking has turned Earth into a wasteland, with no accountability for the destruction caused.
If replacing Christianity with reality means more love, more care, and more responsibility for the only life and planet we have, then yes-it will absolutely result in a better world.
Your analogy begs the question by using Al as an example. Al implicitly do not have "free will;" they function according to their programming. A more apt analogy for the Christian God would be children instead of Al. Indeed, the parent would be responsible for their children's education, nurture, provision, etc., but the children would still be accountable for their own decisions.
On the topic of God's intervention into human sin, God at the very least provided all with a conscience and a basic moral compass (which you should grant if your critique is an internal one). The Amalekites rejected this basic conscience for 400 years, until, outside of Rahab, it seems not even 9 others in the land were (relatively) innocent, as with Sodom and Gomorrah. If you can consider God a monster, then I'm assuming you agree on some basic moral principles. Look into the Canaanite culture and their vile religious practices. It's hard to understand God's actions in the Old Testament without proper historical context.
Slightly beside the point but on that note, if many historians can justify the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima (actual mass murders of innocents) for the sake of stopping global warfare, then God's OT justice become significantly less reprehensible to modern sensibilities. On a similar vein, many skeptics question why God did not act against events like the Holocaust. Now imagine the crimes of the Holocaust committed on a civilization-wide scale, and you get Ancient Canaan. In effect, God is acting against the "Holocausts of Ancient history" in the OT, but we understand the events anachronistically and hence condemn God for the actions we demand of Him in the same breath.
I cannot claim to perfectly understand God's actions. In the interview cited, I applaud Cliffe and Stuart for admitting that the text is difficult, and I admire Alex for deeply contending and engaging with the most challenging aspects of the Bible, raising relevant questions that no Christian should shy away from. (He is indeed a brilliant and open-minded skeptic - one I hope to emulate in my own future.) But neither do I think the text or history, read and understood in context, paint a picture of a divine tyrant. Of course, balancing the tightrope of justice and love is difficult, especially when it comes to dangerous implications like accidentally justifying the Crusades. This is where Jesus comes in.
"Perfect love covers all." It's ironic you mention this, because that is the precise culmination of the Christian message: the death and resurrection of Christ, the embodiment of "perfect love covering all." Under the New Covenant, Christians no longer expect to receive direct commands of justice (although God may still act indirectly). Thus, God's justice is complete: He will judge even the slightest misdeed because God is necessarily ontologically holy. Every sin is magnified in His omniscience, as He observes the cascading events (while not necessarily deterministic, are still causal) in full. At the same time, His merciful love is complete: He covers all sin for those who willingly choose to accept His free gift and properly repent - complete with the remorse and the drive to emulate Christ.
Whether or not you decide to accept this free gift is entirely on you; God is not so tyrannical as to force your hand, as you condemn Him for. No, it is not megalomanic to punish those who reject Him - it is both a just penance for genuine evil and is a logical consequence imposed by the individual on themself. As the source of love, life, joy, hope, etc. as a necessarily good being, rejecting God also ultimately rejects those same ideals. When someone rejects God, He will remove Himself from their presence in full, as they demand.
As the late Christopher Hitchens said (I'm paraphrasing), "Even if God existed, I wouldn't want to go to Heaven."
As C.S. Lewis said, "The Gates of Hell are locked from the inside."
Your logical parallel fails. An AI car company exists within a world which would exist independent of the car company’s existence. The world, with gods existence, would not exist independent of god as he created every aspect of world. It’s a lot more complicated than the existence of evil as I would argue 1. We can imagine infinitely better worlds we can live in as well as infinitely worse. In every possible world the worst thing would hold the same essence as every other worst thing in other possible worlds. An atheist living in a world absent of suffering would argue, “Well if god exists why does he allow people to die!”. If you completely remove bad you remove free will. The entailment is if you remove all worst things it will eventually lead to removing people’s choices, we’ll there’s always then going to be a worst or most evil choice so why wouldn’t you remove that as well? Eventually you are going to remove the very essence of person that we are, and eventually argue for the cessation of anything that exist as in reality there’s always a worst. Salvation is complicated but id argue it solves this very simply. 100 years is a blink in the eye of eternity. Yes things suffer for days maybe even years but, to cast judgement on god would presuppose and ignore the aspect of salvation itself. Everything I listed I can go more in depth on but this is sort of how I look at it.
@@soreeze8483there is no free will and there is no your god of the Bible.
I would love to see Alex's follow ups....
The fact that God didn’t know how this was all going to play out, doesn’t that mean He’s not omnipotent?
If God didn’t know how it was all going to play out, that’s not just a hit to his omnipotence-it’s a blow to his omniscience too. How can you be all-powerful and all-knowing yet somehow be surprised by your own creation? That’s like designing a clock, watching it tick, and then going, “Wow, I had no idea it would keep time!”
If God didn’t foresee the chaos, suffering, and “fall of man,” then he’s either not omniscient or he’s willfully negligent. Neither option lines up with the idea of a perfect, loving deity. So, which is it? A god who didn’t know? Or a god who knew and let it happen anyway? Either way, the idea of omnipotence takes a big hit.
The responses you get have become beyond tiresome
Ah, yes, thinking critically can be so exhausting, can’t it? It’s much easier to just sit in church, nod along, and shout "Hallelujah!" on cue. No messy questions, no pesky contradictions-just the comfort of someone telling you what to believe.
But here’s the thing: real thinking, while tiring, is infinitely more satisfying. Instead of blindly swallowing what you’re told, you get to wrestle with ideas, confront hard truths, and reach conclusions based on reason and evidence. It’s not always easy, but it’s worth it. So yeah, if the responses here feel “beyond tiresome,” maybe it’s because they demand something more than a “Hallelujah.” They demand thought.
Thank you for succinctly explaining these big questions that atheists often have. I pray that you keep blessing the world with your wisdom.
Thank you, Anna, for your kind words and well wishes. I truly hope one day you find wisdom that is grounded in reason, evidence, and the beauty of understanding the world as it truly is. While atheists often have questions, they refuse to settle for “god of the gaps” reasoning, where anything we don’t yet understand is attributed to a deity. True wisdom embraces the big questions, seeks answers, and admits when it doesn’t yet know.
If I may nudge you just a bit-next time you’re in church, try really listening to what’s being said. Not just nodding along or taking it as truth, but listening critically. Ask yourself if it makes sense, if it truly reflects reality, or if it’s filled with contradictions. That’s what I started doing, and ironically, it’s what set me on the path to losing my faith.
It might feel like stepping off the beaten path, but as Dorothy learned, sometimes following the yellow brick road can lead you somewhere far more real and profound than the Emerald City. Keep asking, keep listening, and I “pray” (to no one in particular) that you find joy in seeking truth for yourself.
What a remarkably dangerous man you would be, if you really believe these things. You should consider a self-referral to Prevent.
One of my dreams is to find a Christian who is intellectually sincere.
Much of the Bible is problematic, and the honest answer is that it's morally indefensible by today's standards.
I love that you can speak openly about your relationship with Yeshua, and I greatly admire your efforts; I just can't understand how - if you are sincere in your journey for truth - you are able to defend these acts.
During your apologetics, you didn't acknowledge the slaughtered children once.
Be sincere and your relationship with Yeshua will be even stronger, brother.
✌
This promise of God was invented by people to justify their actions. Nothing more and nothing less.
@@tawhv ?
@CharlesBrighton-mr4ev
What is the question? Do you really believe that the Israelites would have written down that God condemned them for their actions and that they would have included that in their Bible? Isn't it much more plausible that they knew it was wrong, did it anyway and then passed it off as God's command?
Let's look at how Putin or Islamists act. They present their actions as God's wish
@@tawhv I'm glad you clarified because I thought that's what your original comment was saying.
But yes, wars and atrocities justified by holy books are within the past, exist within the present, and will continue into the future.
@@tawhvagree that’s more plausible and what I’ve always thought as well. The bible is not a historic account describing things chronologically.
If God were all knowing and the creator of all things then he made the Canaanites to be slaughtered. Very all loving for sure. What a joke. If God wanted to show his judgement as opposed to just human cruelty why not do the deed himself, instead of using a 'human raid' as you put it.