Hard Questions on God, the Bible, and Ethics (ft. Craig/Moreland)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 сен 2024
- What are your toughest questions about God? For this livestream, we are joined by two leading Christian philosophers--William Lane Craig and JP Moreland. Put your tough questions below, or join us with your questions LIVE (1pm PT, Thursday, July 27)
READ: Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, by William Lane Craig and JP Moreland (amzn.to/3KdCdJW)
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: / sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: / seanmcdowell
Website: seanmcdowell.org
3 All-Stars of Christian apologetics, who also happen to be 3 of the best professors at BIOLA/Talbot, and are among the most humble and gracious men I've ever met. Thank you all for taking the time to do this Q&A session and for all you've done (and continue to do) for the Christian community.
JP, I was your student 25 years ago. Thank you so much for what you do. I count you one of my favorite profs. Blessings, Roxane
Wow, very cool!
Ditto: I was a student of JP during his first year teaching at Biola University .
I was a student of J P at Liberty. What a blessing!
Thank you so much, Dr. Moreland, for addressing my question regarding substance dualism and the transgender debate. I'm preparing to write a thesis on the moral epistemology of gender identity and I'm hoping there's a way to buy your new book in time for my research!
Dr. Moreland and Dr. Craig are giants in my mind. Thank you for having them on Sean, and thank you all the important work that you yourself are doing as well!
These guys have helped me so much over the years in my walk! I remember some of JP Moreland's books and tracts I gave out at our book table at KU back in the 1990s...and I still remember finding Dr Craig's debates and his lectures and how much it accelerated my faith many years ago! Thank you gentlemen and thank you Sean for being such a great voice and using this channel to really reach out!
Awesome video. Please more videos with the two of them. Very helpful answers and it was very nice to see how the two agree with each other.
You got it!
I submitted the question about preserving Scripture on fired clay tablets. Dr. Moreland’s answer is a good one. It’s related to another question I submitted but that wasn’t answered in this program, understandably.
Actually, Dr. Moreland’s answer relates to an argument I make to LDS missionaries that come to my house.
Joseph Smith assumed that something like a central repository of Scripture existed in the times of the Chur Fathers and that the church leaders were able to change the Scriptures by removing “plain and precious” parts without anyone else noticing. Or if anyone did, their claims did not survive. .
Joseph Smith claimed that his movement arose to restore Christianity to its original form. This involved restoring to Scriptures the deleted parts, which became the “Joseph Smith Translation.
The argument I make to my LDS friends is that the copying and wide distribution of multiple copies to the Roman world already in the Apostolic Age made the changes Joseph Smith claim impossible to pull off and to do it without it being widely noticed.
So, what Dr. Moreland argues makes sense and actually prevented the “abominable church” from m doing what Joseph Smith claims it did.
I believe this argument against the Scriptures being changed so Joseph could “restore” them is a fatal blow to the very reason for being of the LDS.
I did not know LDSers were claiming the scriptures had been altered. How do they rationalize that against their claim that the KJV is correct to the degree that it is correctly translated?
I created an illustration of an interlinear translation of John 1:1-3. It had a line of the Greek, the literal translation below it, and the words of the JST below that. The visual result is as you might expect. Unfortunately, finance and age have so isolated me that I’ve never had a chance to get an LDSer’s reaction.
@@ricksonora6656 Hi Rick. I present the argument as a series of premises to test the plausibility of:
(1) The Bible manuscript alteration test
Premise 1: According to 1 Nephi 13:20-25, the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) were unaltered in the time of the Twelve Apostles of the New Testament: The Hebrew Scriptures went “forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.” (v25) Furthermore, “when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.” (v24)
Premise 2: After the days of the Twelve Apostles, approximately the First Century, there arose “the abominable church.”
Premise 3: According to 1 Nephi 13:26-29 “the abominable church” took away from the Bible, that is, from both the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and the New Testament, “many plain and precious parts.”
Premise 4: The plain and precious parts were removed from existing manuscripts by cutting them out of the manuscripts, erasing the parts, or covering up the parts to be ignored, leaving obvious holes or erasures or coverings in the manuscripts. Or new copies of the manuscripts were made which did not include the removed parts and the previous manuscripts were destroyed or the altered passages no longer read where the missing parts could be noticed.
Premise 5: Jewish priests and other Jewish synagogue leaders who were custodians of the Hebrew Scriptures at the time the plain and precious parts were removed from the Hebrew Scriptures by the abominable church cooperated with or were participants in the conspiracy to remove them.
Premise 6: No Jewish or Christian person who was part of the removal conspiracy later repented and confessed his role in this evil alteration of God’s word, or no record of such a confession was recorded in a document that has survived.
Premise 7: In general, people, both Jews and Christians, who were not part of the conspiracy to remove the plain and precious parts and who read the Bible manuscripts immediately after the abominable church removed them did not realize that the plain and precious parts had been removed; or no record of anyone having known about the removal at the time is known today. These people would have included Jews who read the Hebrew Scripture manuscripts regularly in the synagogues and Christians who regularly read manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments in church services. They would also have included trained Jewish and Christian scribes who were entrusted with making new copies of the manuscripts and scholars who studied the Scriptures. Or all these people who knew about the removal at the time either kept quiet, no reporting of it by them has survived, or none of their reports has come to light.
Premise 8: The taking away of the plain and precious parts was unknown or this knowledge was unpreserved in documents that have come down to us until Joseph Smith revealed this around 1830.
Premise 9: The reason no one knew after the removal that parts had been removed is for one or more of the following reasons: (1) church officials who were part of the conspiracy controlled all the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament manuscripts in existence; (2) all the church officials who possessed all the copies of the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament manuscripts conspired together to uniformly remove the above-mentioned parts from all the manuscripts or to produce new manuscripts with the removed parts absent; (3) before the above removal took place, no Jewish or Christian non-participant in the conspiracy had memorized or was familiar enough with the affected passages of the Bible to realize afterward that the removal had happened; (4) no person who noticed the removal reported the change in a form that has survived into the present; or (5) no unchanged manuscripts survived in the years following to come down to us in the present.
Hypothesis: All of the above premises are plausible.
Test: Check the plausibility of all the above premises.
------------------------------
My own conclusion: I think the premises are highly implausible, but I let the LDS missionaries make up their minds about it.
That no central control of the Scriptures happened for the reasons Dr. Moreland gives was a protection and is an undermining of the credibility of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church.
I should have said that Premises 3-9 are the implausible ones.
@@ricksonora6656 Rick, to answer your question about the KJV. For Mormons, the KJV is the best we can do. Their editions of the KJV have footnotes quoting the Joseph Smith Translation at appropriate points as correctives to the KJV. It's interesting that the LDS leaders have never fully endorsed the Joseph Smith Translation "corrections" and incorporated them into the text of a new Joseph Smith KJV Translation edition.
I think the fact that the Book of Mormon utilizes KJV language is incentive to keep using the KJV, lest the Book of Mormon seem outdated.
@@bobwilli2 They R CYA ing the JST as just a commentary of the KJV as then they think the Revelation curse doesn't apply to Joseph Smith.
They do say things were taken out : but they never say what those R .
Their big one now is basically using the Roman Catholic argument of needing works( their ordinances) + Grace through FAITH for Salvation.
They used to deny it now they say we need both as they try to look more mainline Christian.
Thoughtful FAITH ( Jacob) just thinks he debunked the trinity in his debate with a trinitarian : you might look at that video and Mormon comments too.
Thank you for the answers to these hard questions. I am greatly encouraged listening to these answers. God is good.
Love listening to you all!!! Got my Biola MA in Christian Apologetics in 2005 and use it every day. Praise God for giving us minds to reason and learn and communicate.
I have learned so much from these two brilliant and humble scholars, both from their writings, and especially Dr. Craig, from his debates and lectures as well.
We live in a time when this level of apologetic and philosophic sophistication is desperately needed. I just pray that more Christians will "get with the program" and "come up to speed" in their efforts to defend the Christian worldview. May God bless you gentlemen and may He prosper your ministries for years to come.
Wonderful treat to hear all my profs! Thanks so much... praying for you all. Paul
Thank you so very much from Sweden😊🙏!
Thx for watching!
As always, an edifying conversation. Professor Moreland's shout our to Beckett Cook and his book Change of Affection to answer the question of whether Christians should disagree about same-sex relationships, so good! This video has it all from duality to UFOs. Nothing but net Sean! Thanks for bringing our questions to these gentlemen. I downloaded their book to work through.
Awesome, Lisa. It’s a challenging book, so pace yourself!
@@SeanMcDowell will do! I just finished a 3 year Diploma of Biblical Studies offered by my church (kind of a Canadian College equivalent) and am taking a 6 month break before I apply to take my Masters in Theology at Acadia University in Spiritual Formation. I was actually able to download it in Logos (which I got with your discount code from a previous Q&A back in May).
The main thing about disagreeing has to do with tone, in my opinion. Love all people but disagree on issues related to your faith. Shalom
Thanks Sean for hosting this Q&A with two of my favourite Christian apologists: JPMoreland Chase (aka Jimmy Page Moreland) and Billy Zane Craig.
Love Dr Craig, and he is one of my favorite philosophers and theologians. But sometimes his facial expressions when he is listening crack me up lol
It’s really interesting and enlightening to hear learned men discuss and elucidate on “facts” for which there is absolutely no evidence. Great work well done.
Well said
I really love the hit and run tactics of atheists who assert someone believes something “without evidence” and yet totally ignores the fact that both of these men have provided literally millions of words concerning the evidence they have for taking the position they do. When an atheist says, “there is no evidence for X” I simply assume you are too closed minded to admit their is evidence (you arbitrarily decide what is evidence and what is not) or rather your are simply ignorant of the evidence that has been provided over the past several decades by both of these men, let alone the dozens alive today.
Oh that quantity was quality. As a great man said”what is provided without evidence, may be rejected without evidence”(C. E. Hitchens) . If Moreland/Craig had evidence for the soul or god they wouldn’t be philosophers and theologians they would have Nobel prizes in godfindingolagy. Listen to the words theologians use, e.g “there are literally hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection ” when almost all appear to be someone else saying that “these people or those people saw him risen” and that is not a witness it is hearsay. But sleep easy, you must be right for you wrote more words than I. 😂
“The gospel is that I am so sinful that Jesus had to die for me, yet so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me. This leads to deep humility and deep confidence at the same time. I can’t feel superior to anyone, and yet I have nothing to prove to anyone.”
- Tim Keller
They are literally the best ❤ I feel like if I ever met any of you I would be star struck 🤩 Thank you for all you do and contribute to the continued sanctification of many Christians!
You three are such a blessing. God bless you.
I have learned things from all of these men so I count them all as Rabbis/teachers. Shalom
Thank you so much for hosting this Q&A!
I really appreciate how respectful you are with the two wonderful guests!!!! God Bless!!!
My two favorite apologists!
This was an amazing video. All the firepower in one room!
Great rapid fire with brilliant lovely people. Homerun! What pleasure. Great guys. Pleas do more. Much love.
Would love to see a debate between one of you and brady goodwin
I recommend Cold Case Christianity by J.Warner Wallace and The Case for Jesus by Brant Pitre.
Fantastic discussion and thanks for posting ✝️💒
“His manifest presence is something you can get away from”
The problem of divine hiddenness is that God’s manifest presence is something some people can’t find, no matter how much they want it.
Your hidden assumption is that they deserve it. If you could see yourself through God’s eyes, you’d know we don’t.
@@ricksonora6656 I don't assume anyone deserves to experience God's presence. I do assume that God loves every person, that his manifest presence is a natural expression of his love, and that some people can't find it even though they desire to. Hence the problem.
Did you all feel like you were called to the ministry but a person cannot feel they are a certain gender that changes your life just like being called to the ministry does? again at around 33:48 feeling in agreement is still a feeling. 34:55 feeling shekinah glory is a feeling. How can you say you have feeling and calling and deny that to others that have that feeling and calling?
37:49 Yeah but isn't 1 Timothy 3:16 limited to the scripture they had when it was written and there was no NT at the time? 1 Timothy is only one book. Isn't 1&2 Timothy considered Pauline Pesudographia? "Authorship of 6 out of the 13 canonical epistles of Paul has been questioned by both Christian and non-Christian biblical scholars.[15] These include the Epistle to the Ephesians, Epistle to the Colossians, Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, First Epistle to Timothy, Second Epistle to Timothy, and Epistle to Titus. These six books are referred to as "deutero-Pauline letters", meaning "secondary" standing in the corpus of Paul's writings. They internally claim to have been written by Paul, but some biblical scholars present strong evidence that they could not have been written by Paul.[5] Those known as the "Pastoral Epistles" (Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus) are all so similar that they are thought to be written by the same unknown author in Paul's name.[5]"
❤
You got some love in this one!!!
I really enjoyed this interaction. I think another two that would be wonderful to have on and talk about creation questions would be William Lane Craig and Hugh Ross. That would be an intriguing discussion.
40:55 Wow so William Lane Craig admits there were inspired books left out of the NT. So how can we trust the cannon if you leave those out and put in Pseudograph material from Paul?
I’m not a biblical scholar by any means, but I personally strongly disagree with WLC about the importance of biblical inerrancy. Maybe I misunderstood him, but I believe the fact that the Bible is inerrant MUST be a central and core belief in order to rely fully on what it teaches. I just don’t see how someone can align with biblical teaching while also holding that the Bible is errant.
How is one saved? Is it by believing the Bible is inerrant? No, it’s by believing in the risen Jesus and declaring him as Lord. (Rom 10:9). The early followers of the Way were presented not with a Bible to believe (it wasn’t assembled yet). They were presented with the eye witness testimony of Christ raised. A right view of Jesus will lead one to embrace Biblical inerrancy. If we believe he predicted his own death and resurrection and pulled it off, we can certainly believe whatever he says about scripture which will lead us to understand that it is inspired and without error. Jesus is the central and core foundation for our faith!
I was born into Christianity, then over many years became a strident atheist. Now that I have relaxed a bit, I just want to understand why others believe. I am incapable of it.
It's possible God can directly move for you. God wants faith based on His power, not human argument.
@fatalheart7382 Exactly. I'm just waiting to see some power. Maybe something like 10,000 children starving to death every single day being put to an immediate halt. God should be able to pull that off with his infinite power, right?
@@ddavidjeremy Why should He? Nothing dies unless He puts it in motion. That's alot of destiny you want Him to change just to please you. XD What about the 10k children that don't die? Why is 10k more so important to you? Are you doing anything to stop them from dying?
@fatalheart7382 I donate money. It's what I can do. I wish it was more.
Did you really think that comment through?
@@ddavidjeremy Yes. You seem to be implying that unless God changes the destiny of 10000 children you won't believe in Him. It's pretty egocentric. XD But it is an honor to meet with someone who actually backs up their heart for people. God will reward you for the good you do.
Great presentation looks like you tried to get the most frequently asked questions in.
If the creation story is not literal, why does God himself say in the Law in Exodus 20:11 that he created the world in 6 days? The Law is about as literal a genre as there is.
37:18 Only you experience the "hiddenness". If God is omnipresent he is there all the time watching people do everything they do.
I admire, respect and love listening to William Lane Craig - but i couldn't understand his answer to how the Canon was compiled. Might be because my head is fuzzy from some painkillers but i couldn't grasp it. 🙈 If anyone could help, I'd appreciate it! 😬🙏🏼
Hi Sean, this was the week for Q&As !
He DID put Himself IN A Human subjective MENTAL STATE when He came to earth as a human being. Hebrews explains this when it states that He “learned” mercy, because of His suffering.
@Sean McDowell thoughts on hate/bigotry towards The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints?
More of that !
38:27 The early church was not protestant and the cannon was different. Even today there are 5 different cannons.
I have a question. Or two. Is there any scripture pointing to whether it was always God’s intention to create mankind? He created the angels and gave them such power. They can inhabit the bodies of humans and come to and fro in the universe just as God was able to come into the world as a man (Jesus). Obviously God is fully omniscient but he decided to give that kind of power to the angels He created. Mankind cannot see the Spirit of God but the angels can see Him. Why did He decide to make us so much lower than the angels? How do we know how old God is? Did He maintain creation with just the angels and humans were an after thought? From the beginning of all that ever was…how do we know human beings were not an after thought when the angels turned away out of pride from God? How do we not have any inspired scripture from God explaining where He came from and how He simply just exists?
Love from NE India
The first few chapters of the Bible are a myth? Then how many other sections of the Bible are myths? Anything that is difficult to explain scientifically? I'm sorry to hear apologists promoting this view.
400 years of silence between the OT and NT. And then three years of Jesus and then 2,000 years of silence. How is someone a supposed to John 14:6 by looking at a tree? (Romans 1) And an unproved story of seeing some light at death is weak proof for the validity of a god.
What about Exodus 11:9-11? God specifically says to keep the sabbath on the sixth day because He made the earth in six days and on the seventh He rested…
If the Bible is not inherent, then Christians have no legs to stand on for following Jesus.
36:57 Does God know what your doing or not? Is he Omnipresent or not? This again is based on feeling I feel God I feel he is x way. Are your feelings about God as valid as a Trans person's' feelings about being trans?
Your feelings obviously got hurt !
@@davidjanbaz7728 What?
You left like 10 comments 😂 You have a lot of time on your hands.
@@ryanranard5187 Money...something I don't have Time... something I have in abundance. It didn't take long I commented while I was watching. I am so used to back and forth conversation from Paltalk, Discord ect. It's like the other half of a conversation from the audience or one audience member. I don't think I just represent myself either. I say statements or ask questions others are probably thinking as well.
Can there be a version of this for kids, "Apologetics for Kids", maybe featuring Melissa Daughtery & Alisa Childers?
What was the point of the stick S reasoning?
55:33 Wait...What does AI have to do with Christianity? It is like saying I got a new fancy wrench that does things no other wrench does how will that affect Christianity?
51:01 See the Orville episode Mad Idolatry.
I didn't hear anyone make fun of or belittle Bart Ehrman. Did i miss it?
😂 best comment of the day
Hello can someone translate this in layman’s terms?
Dr. Craig wrote a book that’s more at a layman’s level, ‘On Guard’.
I know, I'm definitely not at this level of sophisticated apologetics.
A lot of this went over my head, I'm glad that I'm not the only one.
You all miss out, or fail to acknowledge, the significance on tradition. The Bible alone surely cannot be the sole authority?
The angels saw God's glory and presence, yet Satan did sin and took 1/3 of the angels with him. People saw the miracles that Jesus did, yet denied that they came from God. I think people can look at the same evidence - all of God's creation and some don't see God, and others do see tons of evidence for God and follow Him.
I really wish you would use the word sex instead of "gender". Sex defines our physical body by our genes and can be scientifically verified.
49:55 There are plenty of divorced people in the Church. When is there a mass tipping point so you can ignore this scripture? So can you be a divorced remarried person biblically? Luke 16:18
“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
What about the Earth being the center of the Universe?
"This was the second time that Galileo was in the hot seat for refusing to accept Church orthodoxy that the Earth was the immovable center of the universe: In 1616, he had been forbidden from holding or defending his beliefs. In the 1633 interrogation, Galileo denied that he “held” belief in the Copernican view but continued to write about the issue and evidence as a means of “discussion” rather than belief. The Church had decided the idea that the sun moved around the Earth was an absolute fact of scripture that could not be disputed, despite the fact that scientists had known for centuries that the Earth was not the center of the universe."
51:54 perhaps it is alien hiddenness and you need to believe the alien exists.
I have greatly benefited from the work of William Lane Craig over the years. Conversely, I am surprised and saddened that he characterizes inerrancy of Scripture as a "peripheral" issue in biblical scholarship (min 28 and following). Moreland's attempt to clarify, from my perspective, didn't help. My understanding of the history of the faith shows that inerrancy is integral to the fundamentals of the faith. I would argue that evangelicalism has historically required inerrancy. Craig's conclusions about Genesis and Creation are understandable given that perspective on the inerrancy of Scripture. With respect, I deny that this view is within the realm of historical evangelical orthodoxy. I say that with respect but also with fear of the constant assault we are seeing on the authority, sufficiency, and yes inerrancy of Scripture. That being said, "Thank you for the work each of you have done in your respective fields."
P.S. - I wonder how RA Torrey would weigh in on this issue. Well, I believe The Fundamentals makes that clear. I would be interested in his commentary were he still alive especially given his contributions to the early development of BIOLA. Just a thought:)
I like WC but I believe he is wrong about Genesis. It was a written eyewitness account about history. Making it myth denigrates Jesus claim and Paul’s theology. Not sure what WC motive is in teaching that way…..
my entire life was destroyed, no one has any clue how bad this is. 19 years of misery, making it worse every day. to the point where I wanted everyone in a torture rack for doing this to me, I begged God to help, they trained me for 6 months and gave me a mind that corrects me, they are clear that Jesus did not exist, there is some greater mind that can give people dreams and visions, a story,, no one is in control. Spirits, Gods, Angels, Demons, its all part of this greater mind. I had Mary train me, but it was like a training program, I was completely under their judgement.
JP Moreland and William Lane Craig are well-known and respected Christian thinkers, so I am glad that you have them on. My problem is that I just do not find their arguments convincing.
With JP Moreland, I just get lost in a lot of what he is trying to say. I guess I just have not thought about Christian philosophy enough to understand him.
With William Lane Craig, I just disagree with a lot of what he says. I am not convinced by either his dismissal of young earth creation or his Mytho-History explanation. I am also disappointed in his attitude towards Biblical inerrancy. Yes, is not as central as the existence of God and the deity of Christ. HOWEVER, we can only reliably know about them if we can trust the Bible. And I cannot see how we can trust the Bible if it has errors in it.
Dr Craig on Miracles of other religions: First, we apply confirmation bias. If the miracle in question doesn't match what we expect from Christianity, then it's either fraudulent or demonic.
SMH
35:28 What???....so God wants to "distance" himself from humanity (which is impossible because he is omnipresent) so we can sin and prove ourselves to God? That sounds like salvation by works. Free will? He is omniscient so he knows what is going to happen anyway before he even starts creating he knows the ending. If you want to tell me he withdraws from somewhere then he is not omnipresent and if he does not know how someone will respond he is not omniscient so that in turn means he is not omnipotent. At this point you're trying to make Cinderella's slipper fit by chopping off your toes so it fits.
Isa. 59:1-2 clearly teaches that sin cuts a person off from God. It's high time that ppl stop playing the "you're preaching salvation by works" card just because they can't understand simple theology. The Bible clearly states at the end of Gen. 3 that God cut mankind off from Him and the tree of life after Adam's sin. God calling ppl at various times doesn't change the fact sin cuts ppl off from God.
@@theeternalsbeliever1779 Who decided to make mankind and put our sin bait? um could it be Yahweh?
About 52 minutes in, "should we evangelize aliens", well, first of all, did they sin? Assuming aliens are real and that they come to this planet from other planets, did they sin on those planets, and did Jesus need to die on the cross also on their planets where sin also happened and there was also a devil that tempted Adams and Eves on their planets? or, is sin uniquely a planet earth problem that requires a uniquely planet earth remedy?
How do you have a control group when they all have to be dead to have a NDE. Where they all purposely killed then resuscitated?
Adam walked with God and chose to sin... not a great argument for hidden ness
//"How you feel about yourself is not very good evidence for what is true about yourself"//
Surely that would depend on what is generating those feelings? Thus if you feel as if you are a man, the very things that make you truly a man may also make you feel like one. If I am correct, then why does this only apply to cis men and cis women? (And here's a thought. The biggest and most massive organ for sex and gender in our bodies may well be our brains. Think about it for a bit. And if by accident you end up lusting, then, oh well.)
57:58 and they can control the women any way they want to. Of all the thousands of applications of AI in your mind you picked one where you dream of controlling women any way you want to. I am offended by your mind Dr Moreland.
55:20 Ok Porn already does that. You did know that porn is replacing real sex already right now without the aid of AI right?
Ben Shapiro asked Open AI to tell a joke about mhmd, it wouldnt do it.
That tells you everything you need to know about what kind of AI it is.
good grief
William Lane has LOW BAR for his own faith.
William Lane has HIGH BAR for other faiths.
.
LOL
Did someone punch J.P.?
Surgery.
51:18 Craig assumes that the Aliens didn't pass the perfect test. What if they don't need salvation they didn't eat of a tree. Jesus is for planet earth not the universe when it was originally written.
Still some issues with that approach. How would they pass the perfect test when only but God can do so?
Out of topic. I have noticed Sean that you are tanned. 😊
I listened to all this, and it gave me a massive brain cramp as I tried to force myself to even imagine how anyone could convince themselves to believe such nonsense. Very sad. Well, actually, i guess understand how the common Christian who never dug deep might accept such nonsense, but educated apologists who have really studied these topics and STILL force themselves to believe in literal Christianity is mind-blowing. Eek.
Genesis 1 is MYTHO-HISTORY - William "Lower Bar" Craig
No Adam No Eve. No original sin.
LOL
He lowered it for people like U.
@@davidjanbaz7728 TYPICAL Xtian: LIAR.
WLC lowered the bar for HIMSELF. It's on video, you ignorant troll.
HA HA HA HA HA
Do you still marry you first cousins?
@@hwd7 "@hwd7171
2 minutes ago
Do you still marry you first cousins? "
TYPICAL Sean McDowell commenter: A Xtian BIGOT. Who goes to Church on Sunday and shouts how he is "saved" and going to heaven.
LOL
Good luck with your life Sean. Bye!!
IS a soldier killing a baby with a sword an immoral act ??
Answer: YES, now and today
Answer: NO, when the killer is an Israelite and the baby is a Canaanite.
That's "Xtian ethics" and "Xtian morality" for you.
LOL
Cringe comment lol.
“Xtian Ethics” meaning Christian Ethics?
Legit like a youth kid in youth group level thinking.
@@parkerj1776Apparently that's what they do now. Noticed it popping up in comments sections a few weeks ago.
@@rebelresource SAY the people who worship a genocidal god. In a system where he is allowed to KILL ANYONE.
LOL
Gal3: 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Mark 12:24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven."
Thus, souls are not sexed or gendered. The body is a husk that will be replaced by the glorious spiritual, quasi-angelic body (1 Cor 15). So there's nothing wrong with transgender people if they want to change their bodies to reflect their identity. Moreland evidently doesn't understand scripture.
Apparently, you do not understand logic. If the spirit is asexual, then it does not have a gendered identity.
If the spirit does not have a gendered identity, then no male can claim that he changes his body to align with a female spirit’s identity, and no female can claim that she changes her body to align with a male spirit’s identity.
The closest you can come to a logical statement is that a person can neuter his or her body to align with an neuter or androgynous identity.
This comprises rejection of the sexed identity that God assigned to you for your journey on Earth. Rejecting God’s assignment is rebellion against God Himself.
That is why scriptures say that that such people will have their place in the Lake of Fire. Traitors against the King of Kings get capital punishment.
God made a way of escape from this condemnation. But it is beyond the scope of this thread, as well as useless to those who don’t see their need for redemption.
@@ricksonora6656 Not on the basis of gender of the soul, but on the basis of a gender identity. Just as "Jewish" is an identity, and there are identities other than "Jewish", "trans" is an identity. Paul could have added "there is neither cis nor trans". Just as one can go from slave to free (see Exodus) or from Gentile to Jew (see Ruth), one can begin male (or presumed to identify as male) and become female (by trans affirmation procedures).
@@11kravitznThere’s equivocal usage here.
Even granting a sex-gender distinction, words like “he” and “she” *still* and *also* refer to sex, and sex is *real* (although not reducible to chromosomes).
So it’s entirely appropriate to describe a male-bodied person as “he.”
When push comes to shove (metaphorically-don’t harass or bully or assault trans people!), what people really seem to mean by “gender” is something like personality.
So different cultures have *specific* ideas about how a male-bodied person is “supposed” to act/think/etc. So, if a male-bodied person doesn’t conform to that expectation, they may feel more drawn to the label “she” given what that culture expects of female-bodied persons.
Of course, that person is still male, and still a boy/man, even if we call them “she” out of respect or to make them feel embraced.
Ironically , it’s often the activists themselves who blur the sex-gender distinction.
Another situation is one wherein a person born male-bodied is repulsed by their body and strongly wishes they had been born female-bodied instead. They may even *sincerely* and very strongly believe /feel, “I was SUPPOSED to be born female bodied.”
In that latter case, we may call them “she” to show respect or embrace them, and perhaps also to prevent them from panic.
Of course, in that case, the person is still technically male, and is a “he” IF by “he” we mean “male bodied person.”
The question of whether a trans woman “is a real woman” again gets us into equivocation.
IF we define woman as”anyone who identifies as a woman,” then yes, obviously that person IS a “real woman.” The problem is that the definition “x is anyone who identifies as x” does *not* actually tell us *what* x is.
If I tell “I’m a REAL extraterrestrial alien” you will at least know what I’m claiming to be.
But if I say, “I am a woman” under the definition of “anyone who identifies as a woman”
I’d just be saying, “I identify as one who identifies as a woman.”
There’s no linguistic content there.
it’s OKAY for people to disagree with the trans definition of “woman.” You can’t compel people to use language the way you want.
And even if everyone did go along with it, we would still be left with real differences between female sex and male sex (which are NOT entirely or even largely due to socialization), and surely we would still need words for those categories.
Also, the vast majority of trans people are not intersex (so don’t appropriate their situation) and most intersex people can still be classified as male or female*
* I’m open to some people being both or neither sex, but that wouldn’t cover most intersex people, and again most trans aren’t intersex.
AND, appealing to intersex merely blurs the sex-gender distinction …
@@11kravitznTomas Bogardus has a number of published papers and video presentations dealing with all of the arguments in detail. I highly recommend his work. And also Kathleen Stock. If you’re already familiar, cool.
Finally, even if Moreland is mistaken on a few verses, the broader claim that he simply “evidently doesn’t understand scripture” (per se) is below the belt and obnoxious.