As my Dad always said, "Words mean things so choose yours carefully" so I applaud any group who tries to articulate their position as thoroughly as possible even if it goes above most peoples' heads.
Most people cannot handle words greater than two syllables and sentences longer than fifteen words. Those people also have just as much say in a democracy as those who can construct and understand proper conversation.
@@FortuneZer0 people also don't understand that: - there are more than four words in the 2A, - no right is absolute, - no matter what the Declaration of Independence says, rights are *taken from others by force,* not endowed by the Creator, or granted by mere existence.
Dense technical language is not the same as a word salad. I don't think dense technical language is meant for the lay person. This isn't limited to religious doctrines.
Absolutely agree... Average people with no Theological or Philosophical education are not prepared enough to understand that deep religious technical language involved on such statements. Similarity between most of those statements and things they've listened to their pastors Sunday after Sunday makes them to, mostly, respond positively rather than negatively, even though, the more complex the statement comes, the more dubious it will resound to the average listener, hence the "word salad" crowd grows as much as the subjects do become more complex. Deep doctrinal ones are obviously the ones more risky. But now; let me just to make another observation: For quite a while I have observed a growing number of pure trolls roaming here round Joshua's videos. Not that pleasant. And pretty much all of them leaning to the "word salad" side of the pond, even if when they feel they're very knowledgeable of the subjects they're not... Certainly the current strong political polarization in our west societies is contributing to this in such a big way, but it doesn't explain its all. Theology is a very complex subject not to be taken in consideration that lightly. It requires time and real effort. Joshua is magnificent on what he does, but sadly a declining number of individuals are able to understand him, and my best bet is that most of us do live in the big cities. Real contact with rural areas like the ones the Bible people lived out is now scarce, hence people tend to have some difficulties understanding those Bible stories... And that is not being addressed by any denomination at all. One or 2 good preachers here and there doing their best... Nothing more of substance. Sadly in some 10 years, not only will the "word salad" brigade to grow, but the number of those ignorant trolls will explode largely.
I agree. "Word salad" is when people try to use big words incorrectly to sound smarter than they are. Unfortunately, when some people see words they don't know, it's easier to say "word salad" than to define the terms and contemplate whether or not they agree.
@@Saratogan This is the best comment here. While highly technical language has its place in anything, you ought to consider if you are missing the plot even engaging in it.
@@professorquarter Dense technical language is helpful shorthand to increase the efficiency of conversation between individuals who know what the specialized terms mean. It's not for "experts" only, but experts should be conscientious of whether or not the specialized language needs to be taught for context while conversing in a mixed audience. Some experts will do this because they are gifted in teaching, and others will not because it will not realize that they need to. The only time when using this language becomes a problem is when it is used to intentionally exclude others less-educated from the conversation without making an attempt to enrich their understanding, or worse yet, lord one's supposed learning over them.
Agreeing with OP here. And in my opinion, that is a strike against these groups. Statements of Faith should be in plain English so that those who are not of your tradition-not to mention those who are not of the faith at all-can understand what it is you are saying and can make a decision from there whether they would want to join your faith tradition. Such unintelligible terminology betrays either an archaic date of composition (such as the just-war position from the first quote) or deliberate obfuscation. ... Wait a second. It looks like I fell into a similar trap. Let me translate that last sentence into plainer English: if the sentence uses words that are unfamiliar to modern ears, either the sentence was written a long time ago, or the people who wrote it are trying to hide something.
So, on first glance we could say it sounds like there's some people who just call "word salad" anything that is not a direct 15-second soundbite at a 6th grade reading level, and that has a lot of ideas or even just *words* they don't recognize. However, on the OTHER hand, as pointed out sometimes the authors DO try to be so exact and precise it *is* hard to follow or parse if you're not trained in that particular theology. But that does not make it "word salad", just that it takes a lot of effort breaking it down.
It's all VERY interesting. I have really enjoyed these polls and always looked forward to them. I have to say, it takes some real thinking for me to answer some of these polls. I tried not to go for the just show results choice, but there were indeed a couple of times when I finally had to give up and do just that. I am glad to know what church/denominations these came from, so thanks for sharing the results.
I appreciate your channel so much! The quote from "rule and reign of God being a present reality to be embraced and experienced today" piqued my interest in eschatology. It's not taught during Sunday service at my church. I just remember once the pastor said in passing he didn't know which position was right.
I enjoyed this video greatly. It was interesting to see you revisit the results of these polls and highlight a few people's comments and thoughts on it. I think I would enjoy this as a semi-regular feature, whether or not the poll question was said to be word salad, as the comment sections of the polls are often interesting to read. That said, I did not think any of those statements were "word salad" though there were a few times I thought it was unclear what they meant with particular words and phrases (like, as you highlighted, who is included in "the elect"), to me "word salad" is a statement that has some internal, logical incoherence (as in a logical inconsistency) after you unpack it. Something that might be meaningful if its terms were more clearly defined, I'd say is just "unclear" rather than incoherent in that sense.
Some of the statements are not word salad, strictly speaking, but formulated in such a way it needs multiple reads to be grasped. Personally as a non-American, I just react to the statement as presented, because it is almost impossible to recognise what churches are presented when you are not surrounded by them; therefore, I might misinterpret what the church from which the statement is taken wants to say. Well, too bad! 😛 (And yes, the last two mentioned needed more than two reads: I still do not get them...)
I think what puts a lot of people off and draws many of the "word salad" comments is the fact that a lot of these groups' statements are worded in a highly technical way, which tends to leave the average person both bored and confused by it. Another complicating factor is that some groups' confessions or positions are centuries old, which means that in those cases they're also using a form of English that is centuries removed from 21st Century English.
Yes, and also there's some selection bias here, we ready to harvest viewers are theology nerds who watch these in our free time, I think if you polled Christians in pews on Sunday you'd get more not sures!
Agreed. As someone who has grown up in the UMC and now GMC, the last statement is clear to me. I expect that, as stated in the video, people are just unfamiliar with what the doctrine of prevenient grace is.
You shouldnʼt need prior understanding of the doctrine to grasp the statement if itʼs worded clearly enough. I think the word “prevenient” just threw a lot of people off and kept them from processing the rest of the statement.
@@Crich_Leslie Doctrinal statements that are precise are often confusing at first. To word it another way often results in it being taken in a heretical way. We have had this problem all the way back to the earliest creeds.
@@nathanguillaume1247 This also shows why it’s important to study other doctrines outside of your own. Edit: this is a general you and not directed at you personally.
@@Crich_Lesliethat’s ridiculous. Oftentimes, the more precise and clearly defined your language, the more technical it becomes, and therefore the harder it is for a layman to understand without being educated on the terms. The same thing happens in science and philosophy. The average person does not know what a homousian is, but a historian of late antiquity will. The average person won’t know what an electron transport chain is, but a botanist will. The average person won’t know what the Melkizedekian priesthood is, but a Christian theologian will. The average person won’t know what a wicked problem is, but an urban planner will. The average person won’t know what haecceity is, but a scotist philosopher will.
Some of these feel like the "word salad" commenter either legitimately struggles with reading comprehension, or they thought "Well, that's a lot of words and/or 'High Church-y' theology to say something I think I'm pretty sure I might disagree with, so I'll just declare the whole thing utterly incomprehensible and spare myself the effort of articulating my objections".
It's usually people who either: 1. Can't comprehend and feel duped, and rather than admit they feel stupid, they accuse the writer of being sophistic 2. People who totally understand what is being said, and feel like the point is intentionally made in a needlessly complicated way, in order to dupe others.
When ECO a Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians was first forming, they allowed input on their Essential Tenets. It was sort of a giant exercise in crowdsourcing. I provided the following phrase, "Recognize and honor the image of God in every human being from conception to natural death." The last time I checked their website, it was still there.
Since Joshua ends the video with a discussion on grace and salvation, here are quotes I've discovered of what lies at the CORE of denominational differences. In his thesis response (The Bondage of the Will) to Erasmus by Martin Luther, he said, "You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the Papacy, purgatory, indulgences and such like--trifles, rather than issues--in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood (though without success); you, and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns, and aimed for the vital spot." The "hinge" was the nature and degree of damage from the Fall (Genesis 3). Another theologian put it this way. "There is a justification for the fact that the two great doctrines--sin and redemption--go hand in hand. It is sin that has drawn out redemption from the heart of God, and redemption is the only cure for sin. These two realities, in turn, become measurements of each other. Where sin is minimized, redemption is automatically impoverished since its necessity is by so much decreased. The worthy approach to the doctrine of sin is to discover all that is revealed about the sinfulness of sin and then to recognize that God's provided Savior is equal to every demand which sin imposes. It is one of Satan's most effective methods of attack upon the saving work of Christ to soften the voice which is set to proclaim the evil character and effect of sin. Apparently not all who are known as teachers of God's truth are awake to this satanic strategy. It is too often assumed that it is wiser to leave this loathsome monster called sin to lurk in the dark, and to dwell on the more attractive virtues of human life. Sin is what God says it is, and here human opinion and philosophy must bend to the testimony of the Word of God in which He declares the true nature of sin. Opinions of self-flattering men are of little value in a matter which can be determined only by revelation." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 224.
Often times yes, but there's also a gulf between word salad and "words Christians use which aren't naturally defined". There's definitely a lot of jargon and lingo, but most of it does have a meaning. I think only the last two quotes could be considered word salad. A lot of statements lack a "so therefore we do this..." followup which would cause people to be more stridently for or against the statement.
This video tops the amount of *WORD SALAD* Can't wait for part 2 😁 Of course, the only parts in this video that made sense were those about the *Reformed* theology✝ and worldview, as long as it was Amill 😊😊 Excellent job explaining Millennial Eschatology and Dispensationalism as an added bonus! Thank you👍
You have to remember that most people who choose an option have no education in theological stances. The reason I found some word salad was that I'm not used to hearing things said in such ways.
Many of these statements make a lot more sense with context. When they’re presented alone, it’s understandable that someone not fluent in theologian-ese would think they’re word salads.
These denominations are (more often than not) taking care to be very precise and accurate with their words. There's a word for that. It's called honesty. I guess if you UNDERSTAND someone's honesty, you click "strongly agree." But if you DON'T understand someone's honesty, you go to the comments and type "word salad." Technical terms can be difficult and confusing to navigate sometimes, sure. But I'll take honesty and precision over sloppiness and vaguary any day of the week.
The one about eternal security was refreshing to see that most people agreed with the statement since we often hear "unconditional" eternal security ".
I would love to know who is answering these questions! I know it would be impossible to do cross tabs on every question, but I would love to see the breakdown of the denominations of the voting population. I am also interested in how many are not Christians, and what religion or lack thereof they belong to.
The respondents are representative of the channel overall. Mostly Christians, but with some other religions and atheists mixed in. I don't know how the viewer base compares to other religious channels because the focus is so different. The extreme neutral point of view (even Religion for Breakfast is less neutral) might be more welcoming but at the same time the focus is narrower.
For the "The believer's security is conditional" upon "ongoing trusting, living faith in Christ," I have a hard time saying "not at all" to that, even though I believe in eternal security of the saints. "Nothing can separate us from the love of Christ," but "those who endure to the end will be saved." Our salvation is secure in Christ and revealed by our ongoing faith. A "faith" that ends reveals that the salvation wasn't there in the first place, so in a sense, it does depend upon our staying true till the end.
The word salady ones at the end make sense considering English may have been a second language for the people who wrote these statements (the Polish of the PNCC and some members of the GMC respectively).
Some of those statements use sophisticated sentence structure, vocabulary or concepts, but none of them are word salad. The closest to word salad is the Polish one, because of its category errors pointed out by the quoted commenter. But even that one has a discernable meaning, albeit a confusing (or confused) one.
I dont think not understanding the question/statement should be in the same response category as agree or disagree. All of the questions seem perfectly understandable, but dont deserve a simple yes or no answer. These are complicated issues. Nuance matters
Both religion and politics produce lots of “word salad”. Not surprising since mostly this stuff is a form of advertising what they are trying to sell. Your programs are super interesting- well researched and “clearly” presented. Thanks.
That doesn't make sense. Word salad is the opposite of good salesmanship. A good sales pitch is short, engaging, and attractive. Politics and religion tend to create word salads because they're trying to put coherent definitions on extremely poly-nuanced or abstract things. Laws and constitutions are written the way they are because they're trying to account for every exception as best as they can. Religion writes this way because its trying to put the infinite into finite terms.
i think in the quest to be thorough, word salad is created. Things and specifics are defined in Comma separated messes. For example the relatively straight forward common grace quote you put up does not come off that way due to the first clause. The word salad is separated via asterisks; "In a addition to the saving grace of God***,shown only to those who are elected to eternal life,***..." This way of phrasing may come off as word salad because the commas and structure make it an addition to something you already read without flowing into a consistent idea. a better phrasing could be; "God's saving grace is shown only to those elected to eternal life." breaking the idea off into it's own sentence. The rest can work like this; "God shows another favor or grace to his creatures in general." The previous multi-comma separated phrase is long and wordy. By streamlining and cracking it into two halfs, you can get a much more readable result. I can't speak for all writers but my experience in print journalism, has taught me to write in short sentences without overbearing the reader. Writing like those featured in the video for doctrines are designed by committee and with theology first. Through such a process complications to satisfy the group are to be expected. Forgive me if I made the same mistakes in my own explanation, it's getting late where I'm at.
I think when people complain about “word salad” with respect to these they’re more talking about the ambiguity you talk about here. It’s often hard to speak definitively agreeing on an issue without understanding the context of what a group means when they use certain words. The statements themselves are coherent and clear, but the way the words are stitched together opens the door to people with entirely divergent beliefs to agree with the statement if they interpret a few of the words in a specific way.
@27:02 Interesting question on the influence of grace in a person's conversion. Was grace at work among the "spectators" when Jesus made the lame walk, or gave sight to the blind? Most gathered around Him initially out of curiosity, because word abounded that their Messiah had come. Nicodemus is another interesting case. He like the rest of the Pharisee elders had much to lose to this new upstart "cult", yet he was drawn to Jesus and secretly went to see Him at night (that was when he received the _born again_ parable). The inter-play between grace, free-will, and God's foreknowledge will occupy theologians for all ages. 😄
27:55 Somewhat similar to Mormon view that the holy ghost must visit a person and assists in making a choice of where to turn; the light or the dark. There must be *something to choose* or a choice must exist; God versus the devil, and both must be visible or sensed in order to make the choice and *everyone* must be presented with this choice. Mormon's generally do not use "grace" and I'm not even sure what it is; but there IS a spirit or light or force that emanates from God and fills the universe; a person can be attracted to this light, or find it terrifying, or more commonly just ignore it since it is everywhere all the time and thus not usually consciously perceived.
Just with regards to the first statement you show, 3:41, it isn't putting boundaries on war. 'aggressive' is a matter of perspective, so in essence they are taking no firm stance on the matter. That is the beauty of ambiguity, they get to say something noncommittal and everyone gets to read their own perspectives into it which gives it broad agreement. That might be why some people are calling it word salad.
I don't consider myself a Christian so I almost always click to just show results. I wonder if an increase in "don't know" clicks are really more about not caring about a small detail
6:33 A little clearer than the first but the two sentences seem to be talking about different issues. If the rule and reign of God is a present reality, why would any Christian NOT want embrace and experience it? But what does that have to do with earthly politics?
As a firm rejector of Common Grace, I will admit that that ratio of “disagree strongly” was surprising to me. But apparently some people were interpreting that question very differently lol.
It’s quite strange that Christians are having problems with these. I’ve definitely seen Christian word salad from preachers or scam artists but these were all definitely coherent. Like I understand these while being an atheist so there isn’t an excuse.
“Voluntary national aggressive warfare” is awkward, but not difficult to understand. Each word makes sense, but they felt they needed to make a statement about a particular type of warfare. Not word salad. Some that have gone by, though, I tried parsing with a dictionary nearby and had no idea.
I'm not sure how many poll options you're allowed, but ideally it would be good to have separate options for I don't understand the question, and I understand the question but I have no opinion on it.
I'm not a christian, so I usually just press "not sure/just show results" because I'm curious to see what people think. I'm prob not the target demographic, I don't wanna skew the results, so I take the neutral answer. Sometimes the statements do sound like "word salad" to me, but I recognize that might just be because I'm not privy to all the in-group terms. Maybe they make more sense to christians than they do to me. 😅
The conditional security statement isn't word salad, but I do wonder if it's using the term unconditional correctly. It's definitely a loose condition. Edit: there's no guarantee that the same people answered both the conditional security and God's predestined grace statements, but if they did then there seems to be some who argued for predestination while also arguing against preservation of the saints. Which isn't impossible, but it's pretty uncommon!
It appears that people call anything they disagree with "word salad". I didn't agree with most of these but they were perfectly understandable. Word salad is what you get when Chuck Pierce starts blabbering nonsense down there in Florida at Glory of Zion.
I understand your goal to separate the statement from the group who said it. However, I find that, most of the time, that there are ambiguities in the statements that need further context to understand. And the only way I can get that is to Google the statement and find out what the person who says it means--which also means finding out who said it. And it has indeed changed my answer at least once, because I completely misunderstood their point. I've never encountered any word salad. Just tons of ambiguities and "spiritual speak" that lacks meaning on its own. They all still make some sort of sense. And I'm even for those which leave things open more. I'm for as inclusive a Church as we can get without violating our core beliefs. I follow Romans 14, and say not to cast judgement on disputable matters. It's okay for me to believe something but not require everyone else to agree with me. Just like with Paul and vegetarianism.
The first comment is not word salad but it is wordy. "We don't approve of engaging in voluntary, national, aggressive warfare; yet we recognize the authority of the civil government and hold it responsible for the defense of the nation against treason or invasion."
The Bible does contain some theological language (especially in the letters of Paul), but mostly it teaches using stories and parables, and this is why.
There's a lot of bits in the Bible where Jesus sounds like he's frustrated that people aren't understanding the simple moral messages he's trying to articulate, and sometimes tells multiple parables at once to explain the same idea when they don't get it.
English is not univocal, so different people will interpret the same statement differently, especially without context. This is why i'm cautious about responding to a single statement. In addition, some comments reflect "what I was told to think" rather than evidence of having thought it through. Perhaps this is the result of presenting theological statements to people who do not have a theological education.
I haven't watched your whole video yet. However, your first example has problems unrelated to being word salad. it is verbosely redundant. "We positively record our disapproval of engaging in voluntary, national, aggressive warfare;" Can be rewritten as "We record our disapproval of aggressive warfare." There is no reason to write or say the word "positively"; what is the alternative? Negatively? That doesn't make sense. It is only possible to positively record anything. "Engaging in" is also redundant. Is there a viable alternative? No. How about the other adjectives besides aggressive? There is no such thing as involuntary aggressive warfare. All warfare is national. I guess corporations could engage in warfare, but non-shareholders have no vote nor any ethical responsibility for such warfare. I could go on, but I think I made my point. The quote is about 43 (!!) words long, and could have been restated in less than 20. The information density is so pathetically low that I don't blame anyone for getting bored of it before reaching the end.
I like your videos over all, the one thing that bugs me if your treating "Salvation cna be lost" as the defining trait of Arminianism and/or as inherently Arminian. Lutheranism has their own Five Point systems distinct from either Calvinism or Arminianism that each presume Salvation can be lost. And that's leaving aside how form my POV Calvinism believes Salvation can be lost they just deny it with semantics, same with Molinism. Meanwhile Arminius himself never addressed if Salvation can be lost or not, and when the Five Points of Remonstance were first complied after he died the Perseverance point was explicitly defined as the one they most unsure of, the most optional. In time however organized Amrinian denominations became dogmatic about and so most online people leading with the Amrinian label in how the identify themselves today do presume Salvation can be lost but even they wouldn't consider it THE defining characteristic. In my opinion both Free Grace Eternal Security and Hypergrace believers are basically 4 point Arminians whether they want to admit it or not. Free Grace used to be my Soteriology and I kind of considered myself an Arminian. And even now as a Universal Salvationist I still see myself as more aligned to Arminius then Calvin. In fact Universal Salvation among English Speaking Protestants largely started with the General Baptists, the congregation lead by Thomas Lambe, Samuel Oats and Henry Denne who in turns influenced both Gerrard Winstanley and the Quakers. Then the origins of the Universalist Denomination in the last 18th Century are also tied to Free Baptists and Weselyism.
And to the Armians who'd argue that "Logically" if you Choose to be Saved and you can Choose to unsaved yourself. I'd say no, sometimes the consequences of a Free Choice are irreversible.
I think the phrase 'vision-casting' is horribly pagan and no pastor or leader should borrow this term. I've heard multiple folks use it and immediately it makes their discernment questionable.
As it relates to your second example, I would argue that GOD is not a registered Republican - He votes that way, (i.e. - ProLife) but he is not registered.
Preventive grace would be those times in your life before you were born again that you can look back in hindsight and see God's hand in your life. I'm not a Methodist, but I think that's what they're trying to say.
I've always said there will never be a Christian country unless Jesus physically rules over its. "The kingdom of God will not be left in the hands of man."
Some denominations seem to have their own language and biblical word definitions.........ex: Church of Christ denomination. They claim to be the only saved denomination! Everybody else is lost according to them.
sometimes word salad doesnt mean gibberish, rather it might be a statement that avoids any definite language effectively saying nothing edit: i posted this when you first defined, i shouldve watched through 😂
also the methodist one at the end is a vocabulary issue, prevenient grace is a term rarely used outside of methodist churches that I only recognize it from my study of early weslyan theology
2:15 Maybe there needs to be another term besides 'word salad' O K you CAN make sence of this with some effort but it isn't clear. You need to read carefully to figure it out.
Academese and legalese are often described as word 🥗 salad by people unfamiliar with the sentence structure. One has to wonder if these statements could have been worded more plainly. Was the academic sounding or legalistic sounding language necessary?
@@GenericRUclipsGuy I am also an atheist. I find this channel interesting because I'm interested in people and how they think and how their philosophy shapes their actions.
@@GenericRUclipsGuy Religion has done more to shape the world we live in than anything else. Why wouldn't anyone, including an atheist be interested in it?
I started watching channels like this as an atheist too. I'm two years + born again. If you like learning, check out Mike Winger and also things about biblical archeology. I am SO grateful y'all are here!
Jesus created One Church, see Matt 16:18, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, see 1 Tim 3:15. The Church is the final authority, see Matt 18:15-18. In 107AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch, a Bishop in God's Church, wrote a letter calling it "Catholic", or Universal. All Protestant (as in Protest), are man made, not made by Jesus, starting 1500 years after he created his One, True Church, starting with Martin Luther.....Think about it.
Joshua, your willingness to countenance the concept that some, perhaps many Christian assertions are “word salad” suggests to me that you yourself are “ready to harvest” - by the brave new world of atheism. You are too intelligent and analytical to not finally come to the realization that Christianity itself is… word salad.
Two things to think about: 1. I, and other non-Christians I know that enjoy your videos, generally click "NS/JSR" since otherwise we'd be disagreeing with everything. I generally understand what they mean but since I am an outsider, I don't feel like I should influence the results. 2. I always appreciate ANY group that crafts, and stands by, a structured and formalized statement of belief. It makes discussing any theology topic so much easier. It's the "maybe" and "possibly" and "you can't DISprove" that drive me nuts. Take your stand, I'll take mine, and we'll each accept the burden of proof for what we believe.
That is what makes catechisms and creeds useful. Even if you end up disagreeing you have to respect something like the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Lutheran Book of Concord which clearly articulates where they stand
Basically. A statement could be as simple as "Jesus was crucified and resurrected after three days" and I'd still answer "Disagree Strongly" because I'm a non believer. I think giving the "Not a Christian" option would have helped with the results
![[Limbus Company - Teaser] Season5 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8anKuEeZLeI/mqdefault.jpg)
A lot of people seem to equate “gotta think about this for a few minutes” with “word salad”
As my Dad always said, "Words mean things so choose yours carefully" so I applaud any group who tries to articulate their position as thoroughly as possible even if it goes above most peoples' heads.
Most people cannot handle words greater than two syllables and sentences longer than fifteen words. Those people also have just as much say in a democracy as those who can construct and understand proper conversation.
@@theonlylolking the Founding Fathers new this. It's why they didn't create a democracy.
@@RonJohn63Yet people dont understand a simple "shall not be infringed".
@@FortuneZer0 people also don't understand that:
- there are more than four words in the 2A,
- no right is absolute,
- no matter what the Declaration of Independence says, rights are *taken from others by force,* not endowed by the Creator, or granted by mere existence.
Your dad is by no means a regular dad. Most people around me throwing words careless as rocks in a garden
Dense technical language is not the same as a word salad. I don't think dense technical language is meant for the lay person. This isn't limited to religious doctrines.
Absolutely agree... Average people with no Theological or Philosophical education are not prepared enough to understand that deep religious technical language involved on such statements. Similarity between most of those statements and things they've listened to their pastors Sunday after Sunday makes them to, mostly, respond positively rather than negatively, even though, the more complex the statement comes, the more dubious it will resound to the average listener, hence the "word salad" crowd grows as much as the subjects do become more complex. Deep doctrinal ones are obviously the ones more risky.
But now; let me just to make another observation: For quite a while I have observed a growing number of pure trolls roaming here round Joshua's videos. Not that pleasant. And pretty much all of them leaning to the "word salad" side of the pond, even if when they feel they're very knowledgeable of the subjects they're not... Certainly the current strong political polarization in our west societies is contributing to this in such a big way, but it doesn't explain its all. Theology is a very complex subject not to be taken in consideration that lightly. It requires time and real effort. Joshua is magnificent on what he does, but sadly a declining number of individuals are able to understand him, and my best bet is that most of us do live in the big cities. Real contact with rural areas like the ones the Bible people lived out is now scarce, hence people tend to have some difficulties understanding those Bible stories... And that is not being addressed by any denomination at all. One or 2 good preachers here and there doing their best... Nothing more of substance. Sadly in some 10 years, not only will the "word salad" brigade to grow, but the number of those ignorant trolls will explode largely.
I agree.
"Word salad" is when people try to use big words incorrectly to sound smarter than they are.
Unfortunately, when some people see words they don't know, it's easier to say "word salad" than to define the terms and contemplate whether or not they agree.
Find me "lay person" in the Bible. Luke's observation is that being a "Berean" is "more noble" and that it is open to all believers.
@@Saratogan This is the best comment here. While highly technical language has its place in anything, you ought to consider if you are missing the plot even engaging in it.
@@professorquarter Dense technical language is helpful shorthand to increase the efficiency of conversation between individuals who know what the specialized terms mean. It's not for "experts" only, but experts should be conscientious of whether or not the specialized language needs to be taught for context while conversing in a mixed audience. Some experts will do this because they are gifted in teaching, and others will not because it will not realize that they need to.
The only time when using this language becomes a problem is when it is used to intentionally exclude others less-educated from the conversation without making an attempt to enrich their understanding, or worse yet, lord one's supposed learning over them.
These are not word Salad, they just require context and knowledge of the doctrine being discussed.
And that is mostly not for lay people.
@@nunagoras
I would say that it isn’t most lay people, but I definitely wouldn’t say it’s not for lay people.
You have to know what it means to know what it means
@@billcox6791
Yea, I guess that is true.
Agreeing with OP here. And in my opinion, that is a strike against these groups. Statements of Faith should be in plain English so that those who are not of your tradition-not to mention those who are not of the faith at all-can understand what it is you are saying and can make a decision from there whether they would want to join your faith tradition. Such unintelligible terminology betrays either an archaic date of composition (such as the just-war position from the first quote) or deliberate obfuscation.
... Wait a second. It looks like I fell into a similar trap. Let me translate that last sentence into plainer English: if the sentence uses words that are unfamiliar to modern ears, either the sentence was written a long time ago, or the people who wrote it are trying to hide something.
That was fun. There will always be a struggle between precision and clarity when dealing with complex subjects.
So, on first glance we could say it sounds like there's some people who just call "word salad" anything that is not a direct 15-second soundbite at a 6th grade reading level, and that has a lot of ideas or even just *words* they don't recognize. However, on the OTHER hand, as pointed out sometimes the authors DO try to be so exact and precise it *is* hard to follow or parse if you're not trained in that particular theology. But that does not make it "word salad", just that it takes a lot of effort breaking it down.
This channel is as close to perfection as any channel can get. I love it.
Ready to Harvest Rocks!
Just make sure to pay a living wage to your workers😉
Do you have to get ready to harvest rocks?
that's usually called mining but now I'm hairsplitting
It's all VERY interesting. I have really enjoyed these polls and always looked forward to them. I have to say, it takes some real thinking for me to answer some of these polls. I tried not to go for the just show results choice, but there were indeed a couple of times when I finally had to give up and do just that. I am glad to know what church/denominations these came from, so thanks for sharing the results.
I appreciate your channel so much! The quote from "rule and reign of God being a present reality to be embraced and experienced today" piqued my interest in eschatology. It's not taught during Sunday service at my church. I just remember once the pastor said in passing he didn't know which position was right.
I enjoyed this video greatly. It was interesting to see you revisit the results of these polls and highlight a few people's comments and thoughts on it. I think I would enjoy this as a semi-regular feature, whether or not the poll question was said to be word salad, as the comment sections of the polls are often interesting to read. That said, I did not think any of those statements were "word salad" though there were a few times I thought it was unclear what they meant with particular words and phrases (like, as you highlighted, who is included in "the elect"), to me "word salad" is a statement that has some internal, logical incoherence (as in a logical inconsistency) after you unpack it. Something that might be meaningful if its terms were more clearly defined, I'd say is just "unclear" rather than incoherent in that sense.
Some of the statements are not word salad, strictly speaking, but formulated in such a way it needs multiple reads to be grasped. Personally as a non-American, I just react to the statement as presented, because it is almost impossible to recognise what churches are presented when you are not surrounded by them; therefore, I might misinterpret what the church from which the statement is taken wants to say. Well, too bad! 😛
(And yes, the last two mentioned needed more than two reads: I still do not get them...)
I think what puts a lot of people off and draws many of the "word salad" comments is the fact that a lot of these groups' statements are worded in a highly technical way, which tends to leave the average person both bored and confused by it. Another complicating factor is that some groups' confessions or positions are centuries old, which means that in those cases they're also using a form of English that is centuries removed from 21st Century English.
Yes, and also there's some selection bias here, we ready to harvest viewers are theology nerds who watch these in our free time, I think if you polled Christians in pews on Sunday you'd get more not sures!
This could absolutely be a game show. "Name that Denomination!"
The last one is not an example of word salad, but an example of most people not understanding the doctrine being discussed.
Agreed. As someone who has grown up in the UMC and now GMC, the last statement is clear to me. I expect that, as stated in the video, people are just unfamiliar with what the doctrine of prevenient grace is.
You shouldnʼt need prior understanding of the doctrine to grasp the statement if itʼs worded clearly enough.
I think the word “prevenient” just threw a lot of people off and kept them from processing the rest of the statement.
@@Crich_Leslie
Doctrinal statements that are precise are often confusing at first. To word it another way often results in it being taken in a heretical way. We have had this problem all the way back to the earliest creeds.
@@nathanguillaume1247
This also shows why it’s important to study other doctrines outside of your own.
Edit: this is a general you and not directed at you personally.
@@Crich_Lesliethat’s ridiculous. Oftentimes, the more precise and clearly defined your language, the more technical it becomes, and therefore the harder it is for a layman to understand without being educated on the terms.
The same thing happens in science and philosophy.
The average person does not know what a homousian is, but a historian of late antiquity will. The average person won’t know what an electron transport chain is, but a botanist will. The average person won’t know what the Melkizedekian priesthood is, but a Christian theologian will. The average person won’t know what a wicked problem is, but an urban planner will. The average person won’t know what haecceity is, but a scotist philosopher will.
Some of these feel like the "word salad" commenter either legitimately struggles with reading comprehension, or they thought "Well, that's a lot of words and/or 'High Church-y' theology to say something I think I'm pretty sure I might disagree with, so I'll just declare the whole thing utterly incomprehensible and spare myself the effort of articulating my objections".
It's usually people who either:
1. Can't comprehend and feel duped, and rather than admit they feel stupid, they accuse the writer of being sophistic
2. People who totally understand what is being said, and feel like the point is intentionally made in a needlessly complicated way, in order to dupe others.
When ECO a Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians was first forming, they allowed input on their Essential Tenets. It was sort of a giant exercise in crowdsourcing. I provided the following phrase, "Recognize and honor the image of God in every human being from conception to natural death." The last time I checked their website, it was still there.
Since Joshua ends the video with a discussion on grace and salvation, here are quotes I've discovered of what lies at the CORE of denominational differences.
In his thesis response (The Bondage of the Will) to Erasmus by Martin Luther, he said, "You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the Papacy, purgatory, indulgences and such like--trifles, rather than issues--in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood (though without success); you, and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns, and aimed for the vital spot." The "hinge" was the nature and degree of damage from the Fall (Genesis 3).
Another theologian put it this way. "There is a justification for the fact that the two great doctrines--sin and redemption--go hand in hand. It is sin that has drawn out redemption from the heart of God, and redemption is the only cure for sin. These two realities, in turn, become measurements of each other. Where sin is minimized, redemption is automatically impoverished since its necessity is by so much decreased. The worthy approach to the doctrine of sin is to discover all that is revealed about the sinfulness of sin and then to recognize that God's provided Savior is equal to every demand which sin imposes. It is one of Satan's most effective methods of attack upon the saving work of Christ to soften the voice which is set to proclaim the evil character and effect of sin. Apparently not all who are known as teachers of God's truth are awake to this satanic strategy. It is too often assumed that it is wiser to leave this loathsome monster called sin to lurk in the dark, and to dwell on the more attractive virtues of human life. Sin is what God says it is, and here human opinion and philosophy must bend to the testimony of the Word of God in which He declares the true nature of sin. Opinions of self-flattering men are of little value in a matter which can be determined only by revelation." Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, p. 224.
I LOVE your quizzes! Thank you for your ministry.... Faithful and good servant.
Often times yes, but there's also a gulf between word salad and "words Christians use which aren't naturally defined". There's definitely a lot of jargon and lingo, but most of it does have a meaning.
I think only the last two quotes could be considered word salad. A lot of statements lack a "so therefore we do this..." followup which would cause people to be more stridently for or against the statement.
I've always seen you polls and enjoyed answering them. I look forward to seeing more videos disussing your poll findings. Great research!
This video tops the amount of *WORD SALAD* Can't wait for part 2 😁
Of course, the only parts in this video that made sense were those about the *Reformed* theology✝ and worldview, as long as it was Amill 😊😊
Excellent job explaining Millennial Eschatology and Dispensationalism as an added bonus! Thank you👍
I enjoyed this video. Background and results of the questions. There should be more like it.
It really feels like most of the people complaining of word salad are just unfamiliar with theological terminology more than anything.
You have to remember that most people who choose an option have no education in theological stances. The reason I found some word salad was that I'm not used to hearing things said in such ways.
Many of these statements make a lot more sense with context. When they’re presented alone, it’s understandable that someone not fluent in theologian-ese would think they’re word salads.
These denominations are (more often than not) taking care to be very precise and accurate with their words. There's a word for that. It's called honesty.
I guess if you UNDERSTAND someone's honesty, you click "strongly agree." But if you DON'T understand someone's honesty, you go to the comments and type "word salad."
Technical terms can be difficult and confusing to navigate sometimes, sure. But I'll take honesty and precision over sloppiness and vaguary any day of the week.
or you can understand their honesty and very much disagree.
The one about eternal security was refreshing to see that most people agreed with the statement since we often hear "unconditional" eternal security ".
Ah, so that’s what all those questions were for!
I would love to know who is answering these questions! I know it would be impossible to do cross tabs on every question, but I would love to see the breakdown of the denominations of the voting population. I am also interested in how many are not Christians, and what religion or lack thereof they belong to.
The respondents are representative of the channel overall. Mostly Christians, but with some other religions and atheists mixed in.
I don't know how the viewer base compares to other religious channels because the focus is so different. The extreme neutral point of view (even Religion for Breakfast is less neutral) might be more welcoming but at the same time the focus is narrower.
For the "The believer's security is conditional" upon "ongoing trusting, living faith in Christ," I have a hard time saying "not at all" to that, even though I believe in eternal security of the saints. "Nothing can separate us from the love of Christ," but "those who endure to the end will be saved."
Our salvation is secure in Christ and revealed by our ongoing faith. A "faith" that ends reveals that the salvation wasn't there in the first place, so in a sense, it does depend upon our staying true till the end.
Love this!
The word salady ones at the end make sense considering English may have been a second language for the people who wrote these statements (the Polish of the PNCC and some members of the GMC respectively).
Yes, lack of context does make commenting on the statements a bit of a challenge at times.
Some of those statements use sophisticated sentence structure, vocabulary or concepts, but none of them are word salad. The closest to word salad is the Polish one, because of its category errors pointed out by the quoted commenter. But even that one has a discernable meaning, albeit a confusing (or confused) one.
Prevēnient Grace is foundational to our (Salvation Army) understanding of how God works in bringing people to salvation.
I dont think not understanding the question/statement should be in the same response category as agree or disagree. All of the questions seem perfectly understandable, but dont deserve a simple yes or no answer. These are complicated issues. Nuance matters
Fun video sir! I enjoyed it. Thank you!
Both religion and politics produce lots of “word salad”. Not surprising since mostly this stuff is a form of advertising what they are trying to sell. Your programs are super interesting- well researched and “clearly” presented. Thanks.
That doesn't make sense. Word salad is the opposite of good salesmanship. A good sales pitch is short, engaging, and attractive.
Politics and religion tend to create word salads because they're trying to put coherent definitions on extremely poly-nuanced or abstract things.
Laws and constitutions are written the way they are because they're trying to account for every exception as best as they can.
Religion writes this way because its trying to put the infinite into finite terms.
Most, maybe all, were challenging because it is concise, technical language without context...not word salad.
i think in the quest to be thorough, word salad is created. Things and specifics are defined in Comma separated messes. For example the relatively straight forward common grace quote you put up does not come off that way due to the first clause.
The word salad is separated via asterisks; "In a addition to the saving grace of God***,shown only to those who are elected to eternal life,***..."
This way of phrasing may come off as word salad because the commas and structure make it an addition to something you already read without flowing into a consistent idea. a better phrasing could be; "God's saving grace is shown only to those elected to eternal life." breaking the idea off into it's own sentence. The rest can work like this; "God shows another favor or grace to his creatures in general."
The previous multi-comma separated phrase is long and wordy. By streamlining and cracking it into two halfs, you can get a much more readable result. I can't speak for all writers but my experience in print journalism, has taught me to write in short sentences without overbearing the reader. Writing like those featured in the video for doctrines are designed by committee and with theology first. Through such a process complications to satisfy the group are to be expected.
Forgive me if I made the same mistakes in my own explanation, it's getting late where I'm at.
I think when people complain about “word salad” with respect to these they’re more talking about the ambiguity you talk about here. It’s often hard to speak definitively agreeing on an issue without understanding the context of what a group means when they use certain words. The statements themselves are coherent and clear, but the way the words are stitched together opens the door to people with entirely divergent beliefs to agree with the statement if they interpret a few of the words in a specific way.
Great presentation.
@27:02 Interesting question on the influence of grace in a person's conversion.
Was grace at work among the "spectators" when Jesus made the lame walk, or gave sight to the blind? Most gathered around Him initially out of curiosity, because word abounded that their Messiah had come.
Nicodemus is another interesting case. He like the rest of the Pharisee elders had much to lose to this new upstart "cult", yet he was drawn to Jesus and secretly went to see Him at night (that was when he received the _born again_ parable).
The inter-play between grace, free-will, and God's foreknowledge will occupy theologians for all ages. 😄
27:55 Somewhat similar to Mormon view that the holy ghost must visit a person and assists in making a choice of where to turn; the light or the dark. There must be *something to choose* or a choice must exist; God versus the devil, and both must be visible or sensed in order to make the choice and *everyone* must be presented with this choice. Mormon's generally do not use "grace" and I'm not even sure what it is; but there IS a spirit or light or force that emanates from God and fills the universe; a person can be attracted to this light, or find it terrifying, or more commonly just ignore it since it is everywhere all the time and thus not usually consciously perceived.
Are you gathering data for a PHD thesis?
It’s only word salad if you ask them to elaborate on it and they can’t do it.
Just with regards to the first statement you show, 3:41, it isn't putting boundaries on war. 'aggressive' is a matter of perspective, so in essence they are taking no firm stance on the matter. That is the beauty of ambiguity, they get to say something noncommittal and everyone gets to read their own perspectives into it which gives it broad agreement.
That might be why some people are calling it word salad.
I don't consider myself a Christian so I almost always click to just show results. I wonder if an increase in "don't know" clicks are really more about not caring about a small detail
6:33 A little clearer than the first but the two sentences seem to be talking about different issues. If the rule and reign of God is a present reality, why would any Christian NOT want embrace and experience it? But what does that have to do with earthly politics?
As a firm rejector of Common Grace, I will admit that that ratio of “disagree strongly” was surprising to me. But apparently some people were interpreting that question very differently lol.
It’s quite strange that Christians are having problems with these. I’ve definitely seen Christian word salad from preachers or scam artists but these were all definitely coherent. Like I understand these while being an atheist so there isn’t an excuse.
Undefined technical/theological terms is the main issue.
Context matters. without context, many of these statements are hard to understand.
“Voluntary national aggressive warfare” is awkward, but not difficult to understand. Each word makes sense, but they felt they needed to make a statement about a particular type of warfare. Not word salad. Some that have gone by, though, I tried parsing with a dictionary nearby and had no idea.
If 2 people with opposing views on an issue can answer the question the same way it's word salad 🥗.
I'm not sure how many poll options you're allowed, but ideally it would be good to have separate options for I don't understand the question, and I understand the question but I have no opinion on it.
I'm not a christian, so I usually just press "not sure/just show results" because I'm curious to see what people think. I'm prob not the target demographic, I don't wanna skew the results, so I take the neutral answer.
Sometimes the statements do sound like "word salad" to me, but I recognize that might just be because I'm not privy to all the in-group terms. Maybe they make more sense to christians than they do to me. 😅
An overly jargon filled statement will seem like word salad if the terminology and context remain unclear.
I believe God saves people who come to him and the people who don't come to him, he doesn't save. What do you think about this statement.
The conditional security statement isn't word salad, but I do wonder if it's using the term unconditional correctly. It's definitely a loose condition.
Edit: there's no guarantee that the same people answered both the conditional security and God's predestined grace statements, but if they did then there seems to be some who argued for predestination while also arguing against preservation of the saints. Which isn't impossible, but it's pretty uncommon!
It appears that people call anything they disagree with "word salad". I didn't agree with most of these but they were perfectly understandable. Word salad is what you get when Chuck Pierce starts blabbering nonsense down there in Florida at Glory of Zion.
What type of lettuce do they use?
So many of the polls where you ask if we agree with a statement are hard to answer because the words are so salady. 🥗
I understand your goal to separate the statement from the group who said it. However, I find that, most of the time, that there are ambiguities in the statements that need further context to understand.
And the only way I can get that is to Google the statement and find out what the person who says it means--which also means finding out who said it. And it has indeed changed my answer at least once, because I completely misunderstood their point.
I've never encountered any word salad. Just tons of ambiguities and "spiritual speak" that lacks meaning on its own. They all still make some sort of sense.
And I'm even for those which leave things open more. I'm for as inclusive a Church as we can get without violating our core beliefs. I follow Romans 14, and say not to cast judgement on disputable matters. It's okay for me to believe something but not require everyone else to agree with me. Just like with Paul and vegetarianism.
The first comment is not word salad but it is wordy. "We don't approve of engaging in voluntary, national, aggressive warfare; yet we recognize the authority of the civil government and hold it responsible for the defense of the nation against treason or invasion."
The Bible does contain some theological language (especially in the letters of Paul), but mostly it teaches using stories and parables, and this is why.
There's a lot of bits in the Bible where Jesus sounds like he's frustrated that people aren't understanding the simple moral messages he's trying to articulate, and sometimes tells multiple parables at once to explain the same idea when they don't get it.
I think some people are just struggling to read more technical, legal sounding language.
English is not univocal, so different people will interpret the same statement differently, especially without context. This is why i'm cautious about responding to a single statement.
In addition, some comments reflect "what I was told to think" rather than evidence of having thought it through. Perhaps this is the result of presenting theological statements to people who do not have a theological education.
I haven't watched your whole video yet. However, your first example has problems unrelated to being word salad. it is verbosely redundant. "We positively record our disapproval of engaging in voluntary, national, aggressive warfare;" Can be rewritten as "We record our disapproval of aggressive warfare." There is no reason to write or say the word "positively"; what is the alternative? Negatively? That doesn't make sense. It is only possible to positively record anything. "Engaging in" is also redundant. Is there a viable alternative? No. How about the other adjectives besides aggressive? There is no such thing as involuntary aggressive warfare. All warfare is national. I guess corporations could engage in warfare, but non-shareholders have no vote nor any ethical responsibility for such warfare.
I could go on, but I think I made my point. The quote is about 43 (!!) words long, and could have been restated in less than 20. The information density is so pathetically low that I don't blame anyone for getting bored of it before reaching the end.
I like your videos over all, the one thing that bugs me if your treating "Salvation cna be lost" as the defining trait of Arminianism and/or as inherently Arminian.
Lutheranism has their own Five Point systems distinct from either Calvinism or Arminianism that each presume Salvation can be lost. And that's leaving aside how form my POV Calvinism believes Salvation can be lost they just deny it with semantics, same with Molinism.
Meanwhile Arminius himself never addressed if Salvation can be lost or not, and when the Five Points of Remonstance were first complied after he died the Perseverance point was explicitly defined as the one they most unsure of, the most optional. In time however organized Amrinian denominations became dogmatic about and so most online people leading with the Amrinian label in how the identify themselves today do presume Salvation can be lost but even they wouldn't consider it THE defining characteristic.
In my opinion both Free Grace Eternal Security and Hypergrace believers are basically 4 point Arminians whether they want to admit it or not. Free Grace used to be my Soteriology and I kind of considered myself an Arminian.
And even now as a Universal Salvationist I still see myself as more aligned to Arminius then Calvin. In fact Universal Salvation among English Speaking Protestants largely started with the General Baptists, the congregation lead by Thomas Lambe, Samuel Oats and Henry Denne who in turns influenced both Gerrard Winstanley and the Quakers. Then the origins of the Universalist Denomination in the last 18th Century are also tied to Free Baptists and Weselyism.
And to the Armians who'd argue that "Logically" if you Choose to be Saved and you can Choose to unsaved yourself. I'd say no, sometimes the consequences of a Free Choice are irreversible.
I'm going to charitably guess that there is at least a little bit of a "poor translation" factor going on with the Polish one.
A word salad is the verbal equivalent of chaff, or a smoke screen .
I think when people say "word salad" what they mean is Verbose, or unnecessarily long/ wordy
Just like you can tell Calvinism right away when you see the word "elect", you can tell Wesleyanism when you see "prevenient grace".
I think if the statement is below 15% "Don't know/Just show results" it's not word salad and people are just ignorant/dumb.
I think the phrase 'vision-casting' is horribly pagan and no pastor or leader should borrow this term. I've heard multiple folks use it and immediately it makes their discernment questionable.
10:41 This one is a lot clearer.
18:15 This one seems pretty clear.
#2 "The rule and reign of God . . ." is word salad.
"Since the greatest privilege . . ." is word salad.
"God's preventing . . ." is more word salad.
As it relates to your second example,
I would argue that GOD is not a registered Republican - He votes that way, (i.e. - ProLife) but he is not registered.
Preventive grace would be those times in your life before you were born again that you can look back in hindsight and see God's hand in your life. I'm not a Methodist, but I think that's what they're trying to say.
I've always said there will never be a Christian country unless Jesus physically rules over its. "The kingdom of God will not be left in the hands of man."
Some denominations seem to have their own language and biblical word definitions.........ex: Church of Christ denomination.
They claim to be the only saved denomination! Everybody else is lost according to them.
I haven't following your YT statements very much.
A fun game to play with fellow theology nerds would be "Guess the theological tradition from where these statements originated."
Heresy hunters are like the Christian version of fedora atheists
Word salad, yummy yummy! Word salad! Yummy yummy!
sometimes word salad doesnt mean gibberish, rather it might be a statement that avoids any definite language effectively saying nothing
edit: i posted this when you first defined, i shouldve watched through 😂
also the methodist one at the end is a vocabulary issue, prevenient grace is a term rarely used outside of methodist churches that I only recognize it from my study of early weslyan theology
2:15 Maybe there needs to be another term besides 'word salad' O K you CAN make sence of this with some effort but it isn't clear. You need to read carefully to figure it out.
Academese and legalese are often described as word 🥗 salad by people unfamiliar with the sentence structure. One has to wonder if these statements could have been worded more plainly. Was the academic sounding or legalistic sounding language necessary?
I'm part of the "Not sure/just show results" crew. I'm an atheist, so I won't weigh in on anything that's a purely theological statement.
I have a honest question. “Then why are you here?”
@@GenericRUclipsGuy Because I like learning stuff.
@@GenericRUclipsGuy I am also an atheist. I find this channel interesting because I'm interested in people and how they think and how their philosophy shapes their actions.
@@GenericRUclipsGuy Religion has done more to shape the world we live in than anything else. Why wouldn't anyone, including an atheist be interested in it?
I started watching channels like this as an atheist too. I'm two years + born again. If you like learning, check out Mike Winger and also things about biblical archeology. I am SO grateful y'all are here!
Jesus created One Church, see Matt 16:18, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, see 1 Tim 3:15. The Church is the final authority, see Matt 18:15-18. In 107AD, St. Ignatius of Antioch, a Bishop in God's Church, wrote a letter calling it "Catholic", or Universal. All Protestant (as in Protest), are man made, not made by Jesus, starting 1500 years after he created his One, True Church, starting with Martin Luther.....Think about it.
Wordsalad implies the existance of wordcandy or wordjunkfood lol
This video is not word salad.
--
Joshua, your willingness to countenance the concept that some, perhaps many Christian assertions are “word salad” suggests to me that you yourself are “ready to harvest” - by the brave new world of atheism. You are too intelligent and analytical to not finally come to the realization that Christianity itself is… word salad.
Word salad
I'm not even a Christian anymore but all of these are completely coherent to me
Me don’t English good.
Two things to think about:
1. I, and other non-Christians I know that enjoy your videos, generally click "NS/JSR" since otherwise we'd be disagreeing with everything. I generally understand what they mean but since I am an outsider, I don't feel like I should influence the results.
2. I always appreciate ANY group that crafts, and stands by, a structured and formalized statement of belief. It makes discussing any theology topic so much easier. It's the "maybe" and "possibly" and "you can't DISprove" that drive me nuts. Take your stand, I'll take mine, and we'll each accept the burden of proof for what we believe.
That is what makes catechisms and creeds useful. Even if you end up disagreeing you have to respect something like the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church or the Lutheran Book of Concord which clearly articulates where they stand
Basically. A statement could be as simple as "Jesus was crucified and resurrected after three days" and I'd still answer "Disagree Strongly" because I'm a non believer. I think giving the "Not a Christian" option would have helped with the results
@@Fernando-ek8jp RUclips will only let you provide 5 answers
@@Michael-bk5nz that makes a lot of sense, thank you
@@stereomachine there's like 3 people interacting. Give it time