Leaving My Fathers Faith (Full Feature documentary)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- International best selling author and pastor Tony Campolo is devastated when his 50 year old son Bart announces that he no longer believes in God. Having worked together for decades in Christian ministry, the two must now find a way reconcile their personal understandings of Christianity and Humanism before a rift separates them indefinitely. #documentary #tonycampolo #bartcamopolo
To hear more from Bart, join him on his podcast:
bartcampolo.or...
To hear more from Tony, join him at:
www.tonycampol...
Both father and son are authentic people. It's so good, and so rare, to see how neither has shunned the other over this matter.
I was a Full Gospel Pastor of a small church.
My son lost his faith in college.
He looked at me with tears and said, "Dad... I just want to know, that when you are in Heaven - and I am in Hell... will you remember me?"
It was that day I began to think outside the box i was trained to think in.
Today, I am an atheist.
Wow - that is a really powerful story. There are so many people that experience this. Its such a part of who we are as a society that it can be very traumatic. Thank you for sharing with us. I hope that your experience is helpful to others and has strengthened your relationship with your son.
That’s so powerful
You have a remarkable courage and significant personal strength, challenging of long-held convictions is not simple and easier, WOW!
What a great documentary. The honesty of these two men is remarkable and we need more of that done in a respectful and mutually honouring way.
Thank you! So glad you enjoyed it and shared your thoughts with us!
Its nice to see a father that loves his son more than his ideology.
They are very close and have worked hard to remain so in spite of their differences. The very reason we thought this would make a good story to tell. Thank you for your thoughts.
Well put, Salya.
It's rare, in evangelical circles, to see a father put his child ahead of his faith. Like, unicorn rare.
@danielrobinson837 YES, it seems very rare and I believe it must have been very heartbroken too for his father at that age. A man of great faith in CHRIST JESUS who have spent all his life proclaiming the word of GOD in power and truth.
To lose his son, not to physical death but to abandoned the faith he once held to be truth, the GOD and CHRIST he once preached, and turns his back to denied the very existence of.
Let's pray for both, for father that his faith may not waver or fail, but that he may be strengthen by the LORD and son, that there will be an awakening of CHRIST in his spirit.
LUKE 12:53
The fact that these two seemingly opposing ideas or ideologies can coexist in a loving way brings me deep hope and comfort.
Thank you Kandy! We felt the same way. I'm glad you shared your thoughts with us! If we can do this with our neighbors, perhaps the world can be a better place.
Thank you for making this free to watch, Matt. Watching with my folks tonight.
Absolutely. We all hope it's helpful. Best of luck to you Kenny!
An absolutely beautiful documentary. I'm amazed more people haven't heard of it. I'll definitely be encouraging others to watch it. The harmonious nature of communication between father and son is awe-inspiring. This kind of kindness, tolerance, understanding and willingness to love truly unconditionally is SO RARE these days, in a world where social and cultural warfare is being waged so rabidly. We need more people like these two. Thank you for this wonderful film.
Thank you for your thoughts! I'm do glad that you enjoyed it.
I cried when Bart first witnessed the suffering and poverty in ghettos where he realized that God must have known these people suffered, despite Bart didn't. In addition to the young woman who was dragged into an abandoned house and gang raped by some older men. It brings up many questions like what kind of God would allow suffering? I'm a Humanist, and former Christian and I went through a similar process. I loved this conversation but had to laugh when Tony Campolo wrote to his son that he viewed him as an anonymous Christian. He doesn't seem to want to let go of his son being some version of a Christian. Ghandi was a good man too and we tend to forget that people of other religious or spiritual beliefs are good people and do a lot of good in the world.
Thank you Lydia, I'm glad you enjoyed the conversation. It's a tough one for some people to have but we were glad to show that people can disagree and still love each other.
When Tony explained that God chose to give up his omnipotence for the sake of love, I wondered, what kind of love is it to allow people to suffer like that?
@@montagdp. And what kind of monstrous indifference is it that allows humankind to tolerate suffering when it has the resources to relieve most of it?
@@HannahClapham it mostly comes down to selfishness. That said, there is a lot of suffering that we can't relieve. This is true now but even more so in the past.
I have been a listener of Barts Humanize Me podcast for many years so I’m very familiar with this story. I came back to watch it today to see how it has aged in the last few years. I feel a deep sense of compassion for Tony that much of what he built is not coming to fruition in the way that he envisioned it. Even though I am an atheist, and a former evangelical, I get no joy from his pain both physical and spiritual. That being said, this film has aged very well. The ideas and topics explored here are just as relevant today!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! And I'm glad you've been following Bart through all of it.
Thank you for making John Wright’s film available on RUclips. I purchased two versions when it was first released and persuaded another to purchase and watch it.
What horrified me about the Christian faith as a 3-5 year old child, was the realisation that it is divisive, for as Jesus is recorded as saying,
‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the world. No, I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. I came to set sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law; your worst enemies will be the members of your own family. Those who love their father or mother more than me are not fit to be my disciples; those who love their son or daughter more than me are not fit to be my disciples. Those who do not take up their cross and follow in my steps are not fit to be my disciples. Those who try to gain their own life will lose it; but those who lose their life for my sake will gain it.’ Matthew 10.34-39, Good News Bible
and this realisation broke my heart, and in my mind, I had left my family by the age of seven and unconsciously descended into the underworld in my mind to survive.
This is generally referred to as childhood, early or emotional trauma - see the introduction to the ‘The Inner World of Trauma: Archetypal Defenses of the Personal Spirit, Donald Kalsched, 1996 freely available on Google Books at www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Inner_World_of_Trauma/Ap3rAgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the%20inner%20world%20of%20trauma&pg=PA2&printsec=frontcover , ‘The Black Sun’, Stanton Marlan, 2005 available as a free download at oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/86080 , and Marion Woodman and Daniela Sieff on the ‘Death Mother’ available online.
If Jesus actually said these words, it seems to me he was at least being clear and honest, people did not have to follow him.
All manner of sophisticated arguments are put forward to diminish or deny this division, but the divisive insistence that you are either a Christian or are not a Christian with two very different eternal futures, continues to be maintained in the Christian faith.
I am so very grateful to Tony Campolo for describing Peter Berger’s concept of a plausibility structure that I was unaware of, as the chalkboard drawing at 52:43 perfectly illustrates what had happened to me by the age of seven.
The Christian plausibility structure and my family were one and the same in my experience, my body was inside its defensive walls, and I was outside its impenetrable walls in my mind (see ‘The Divided Self’, RD Laing, 1960). sites.google.com/site/thedividedselfrdlaing1987/cover-the-divided-self-r-d-laing-pelican-1987
When this happens to a child, it will I suggest likely have a major negative impact on its mental and physical health and wider human society, for it severely damages or destroys all its human interactions and relationships including with its family throughout its life, primarily because of its dissociation from its physical body.
I suggest it is unlikely given current psychological understanding, that a child will ever fully recover, regardless of how much money it may have in adulthood to fund at least weekly therapy with one of the world’s most expert psychotherapists.
As psychiatrist Lenore Terr wrote in her paper ‘Childhood Traumas: An Outline and Overview’, 1991,
‘If one could live a thousand years, one might completely work through a childhood trauma by playing out the terrifying scenario until it no longer terrified. The lifetime allotted to the ordinary person, however, does not appear to be enough.’
and this is the problem, that even if a traumatised child lives to a hundred or more, with the current level of psychological understanding, it is still nowhere near long enough for them to recover, as even the most expert psychotherapists have in my view not succeeded in understanding anywhere near the full extent of the problem, as their clients don’t live anywhere near long enough for them to do so.
The only possibility of a resolution I suggest, is meeting a person who will show you perfect love and devote their life 24 hours a day to your recovery for decades, and for you both to live long enough to understand what happened to you as a child and recover, but this is terribly hard on them.
If you are lucky to live long enough to recover from it, most if not all of your family of origin will likely have died, and the stark division between you may well have remained, likely making any resolution impossible.
The tragedy it seems to me as Tony Campolo said in his address to the National Youth Workers Convention in Sacramento in 2014 on RUclips at ruclips.net/video/9xzSyB6qyFk/видео.html is that while he believes it ‘Christianity when looked at objectively is totally absurd’, and that this, and the right of a young child or at any other time in its life to refuse the Christian faith, is not explained to young children when they become aware of it and is likely never explained in most cases, and that there are in most cases no written ‘terms and conditions’, and no help or redress in case of injury, loss or damage etc.
In my experience, most adult Christians are unable to face up to the divisive nature of their faith as it is understandably too painful for them to do so, so how are young children meant to do so? My wider family was already badly divided by their Christian faith when I was a young child, and what survives of it remains divided 60 years later.
I don’t doubt it broke my mother and fathers heart when it became clear to them I did not wish to be a Christian in adulthood, but their faith had broken my heart many years earlier by the age of seven.
As a young child of 3-5 years old I could clearly see that from any objective point of view that Christianity was totally absurd, but yet everyone in my family around me was extremely keen that I believe it, and I could plainly see I would likely not survive their daily inculcation until adulthood, and as physically running away was clearly not a viable option as I would either be found, or not found and therefore might well not survive, running away into the underworld in my mind was the only viable option I could see, for no way would the members of my Christian family ever listen to me as a young child, any more than they would fifty years later as an adult.
Maybe other children in the same situation would have resorted to self-harm, anorexia or arson as in the case of Michael ‘Mini’ Cooper who challenged the irrational belief systems of his parents, ‘Mini’, 1975 at www.dailymotion.com/video/x6sao9i
If Jesus said the words recorded in Matthew 10.34-39 and Luke 12.51-53, 14.26-27 and demanded his followers love him more than their family members which seem to me to be a misunderstanding of the nature of love, in my view he was plainly wrong to do so, as children need to feel wholly part of their family growing up and throughout adulthood, they should not be divided from their family in any way, for as I know all too well, family division is extremely damaging to individuals, families and human society, parents need to put their children first.
But I can see if Jesus divisive words were deleted from the Bible, and there was no difference between Christians and non-Christians and their supposed eternal futures, this would likely result in the collapse of the Christian faith. It seems to me the faith is partly dependent on the teaching of this division, to survive in the long term.
But there, the evolution of centuries of study in Christian institutions led to the work of Copernicus, Galileo, Mendel and many others, and our scientific understanding of life, the world and the universe for which I am very grateful, although of course the results of the work of these individuals was often strongly resisted by the church.
‘The Church pedalled and still peddles pernicious superstitions, but they are the pernicious superstitions which made Western Civilisation.’, Jonathan Meades, Salisbury Cathedral ruclips.net/video/uMlrPS6LCww/видео.html
Evolution is often a cruel and heartless process, but we could try not to be cruel and heartless to our children, and explain to them as soon as they are able to understand from 3-5 years old maybe, that ‘Christianity when looked at objectively is totally absurd’ and that it is their right to reject it at any time in their life if they wish, and that we will continue to love them regardless.
Charles Handy’s BBC Radio 4 ‘Thought for the day’ on whips ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/collection/p15831coll12/id/1840
Thanks Neil, I'm glad the film has been helpful. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
You cannot exercise power and love at same time; the more you love the less power you have.
--TonyC
Ironic!
Man made ideology. With God, love and power and not inversely proportional.
This is one of the most important videos of deconversion i have seen. Thanks for making it
So glad that you enjoyed it. We felt it was an important and loving story to share.
Beautiful! Thank you! God Bless All ❤
Thank you Tansy!
I am a former seminarian and a former Christian. As a young man on my way to a very serious, very fundamentalist seminary, Tony Campolo was a man I looked up to and respected immensely. I still do. I now also respect and look up to Bart Campolo.
One thing I learned early in my faith and in seminary and that I still carry with me is that this thing we do called theology is a struggle. It remains a struggle for me and for these two men.
Thank you for sharing Eddie. As we all struggle and change in our lives, it is my hope that we can discuss our ideas with thoughtful respect so that we might continue to learn. Bart and Tony have a lot to offer and I'm glad people are enjoying the film. Thank you for your thoughts!
It is refreshing to see, for once, that the religious / ministerial parent(s) did not reject the atheist child. That sort of rejection proves, time and time again, that religion breeds or at least contributes to (and aggravates) a type of conditional love, the height of irony in view of the Bible's preachments.
It was a major reason we put this film together. to share that we can disagree and still love and accept each other.
Thank you both for your honesty and love !!
When Bart was in the youth group singing the songs as a youth, it sounds eerily like indoctrination. I can relate. You want so bad to believe like others and belong that you become one of the group and go along until you feel like you belong. When Bart said that this is the only life we have, you drink it up because it is that much more precious. That's a great point!!!
Thank you for sharing with us!
I do appreciate that a civil discussion was documented about this real world issue that many of us are facing/dealing with and understand it was to educate, however, anyone who decides to make a very personal decision like this owes no one an explanation nor space to debate the validity of your choices that you make concerning your life. If my parents sudden became Catholic or Buddhists I wouldn't have an identity crisis and insist on debating their decision. Civil discussion with both parties open to listening is wonderful; but, so are boundaries.
Agreed. I was grateful for their open discussion which many are unable to do. And since both are very much public figures, I think it was already in their nature to be public in their debate. Thank you for your thoughts!!
It’s wonderful to see Tony’s love for his son, Bart. It’s great that Bart loves and cares about people who are ignored and forgotten in a society of self-obsessed people. But we live in a fallen world. God is not in control. He gave dominion to Adam and Eve and that dominion was stolen from them. We still have that dominion and that is why Satan slowly and subtly continues to deceive us to distract people from the truth of who we really are in Christ Jesus. But Tony is right…it’s not over till it’s over.
Glad you enjoyed their discussion. Thank you for joining in on the conversation!
You are giving a viewpoint from your obvious belief perspective. There are hundreds and thousands of others who would have a diametrically opposed belief system that believe just as sincerely. It's something believers and non-believers must come to grips with. Most people belong in the faith tradition that they were indoctrinated or raised in. A lot of it is also geographical and societal. Something to keep in mind if someone really does have an open mind about such things.
@@Tbone.357 Yes, I do have a faith based perspective. Even though I was raised that way I, too, had some questions and doubts and was fortunate enough growing up to hear many viewpoints from believers and non believers coming from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. I ended up knowing a Creator who loves us so much that he gave us the freedom to choose how we believe, even if we don’t choose him. I found a love that transcends geography or society or tradition. I met Tony Campolo years ago. I admired his passion, energy and great sense of humor. Thank you for your perspective.
@@susanthomas3607I don't think we choose what we believe. You can only choose what arguments you want to listen to and honestly think about. You couldn't choose to be an atheist or a muslim for a day, even if you really wanted to. You would first have to be convinced, and that's something we don't control. You could see this with Bart. He didn't want to lose his faith, but it happened anyway.
Thanks for this documentary. I myself was a beliver, but as time go by have reached the state of nonbeliver. I see the cracks in church and in religion. You don't need religion to be human.
agreed. So glad you enjoyed it!
What an excellent conversation! Our children can really challenge us and our false beliefs. It’s so good that folk are courageous enough to ask the hard questions and not just go through the motions. I no longer call myself a Christian but I am a follower of Jesus! It’s time to examine the gospel as we perceive it to be. The gospel we have preached has been insipid and powerless at best mostly. It is not the gospel of the early believers. This is what we need to get back to and lay aside some of the myths we’ve believed in the past and ruined the reputation of the Christian faith.
Bless you Bart
Thank you for your thoughts Kathryn. :) To us - it's all about people being able to talk in a loving way regardless of what they believe. There are so many ways to interpret religion and philosophy. We can all learn so much from each other. Thank you!
I just started meditating and just being grateful to be alive keep it simple all these other words they're okay the Bible the way I see it it's something that gives me some type of comfort at times just breathing be at peace
Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us!
This was beautiful. Incredible job. Thank you for sharing this with us.
so glad you enjoyed it. Thank you for letting us know.
I can’t like this video enough. It describes my own deconversion and speaks to my reconstruction as an atheist.
So glad it connected with you. Thank you!
Ex-Christian here. Your father, Tony was instrumental in my conversion to Christianity... "It's Friday, but Sunday's a comin'!" My intense education to become a Christian Apologist was instrumental in my de-conversion - as of course, I learned that I actually had ZERO foundation for my faith that was based on truth...
Thank you for sharing your story with us. It is a common theme that so many of us share and it's good to hear voices like yours add to the chorus.
Perhaps you are more of a Christian than we under that label, because you have just quoted the gospel in a nutshell - loving people well!
thank you for this, I've heard you both speak at different times - beautiful honesty--
So glad that you enjoyed this. thank you!
Pastor Campolo came to my church years ago and I never forgot his powerful preaching. I think very highly of him. I am truly saddened to know his son stopped believing in God. I pray his faith is restored.
Thank you for your thoughts. Pastor Campolo is a very kind and thoughtful man. We were grateful that he and Bart were able to have this open and difficult discussion in love and understanding.
You've missed the point entirely. Bart (and myself) probably know the Bible better than you do. Bart was a preacher. I was a missionary in Europe, and an evangelical for 46 years. He and I are happier and more fulfilled than we ever were as born-again Christians. Did you even watch this film all the way through? QUIT TRYING TO SAVE US. AGAIN. We don't want to be saved. Ever again. (I knew Tony Campolo, and have spoken with him, when I was a missionary.)
@@wesmahan4757 - Aren't you missing "a" point here as well? What's so bad in a Christian wishing a restoration of faith upon Bart, upon you? Hey, I wish that for you as well, BUT...I don't mean it in a condescending way. I continue to wrestle with my Evangelical upbringing / teachings / presuppositions. I continue to bring discomfort to fellow Believers because I am much more intellectually honest than not, which ticks them off or leads them to believe I am to be cast out. Wishing Faith be restored to anyone who walked away from God / Christ can be a VERY loving thing to want for another, and by Faith I do not imply it is devoid of Reason, Science, Critical Thinking, Skepticism, Logic. It is both/and, not either/or.
I am MORE fascinated with your story and journey. As preacher and missionary. What led you to deeper meditations and ponderings about Christianity, the Bible, God? It would honestly be interesting to hear your thoughts. Maybe we could compare notes? Not blindly agree or disagree, but converse a bit more in depth here?
@@wesmahan4757 I am saddened to read what you say. Is happiness and fulfillment the end- all and be -all of life ? If belief in Jesus Christ just happens to turn out to be the way and the truth to ultimate happiness how will you feel ?
@@tonymercer7759Yes, happiness is all there is. When you hang your hat on a belief system that promises the rewards in the hereafter, you are kicking the can down the road. You are assuming that you are correct. Enjoy life. Be happy. You can do it without believing you are being watched over. To answer your question let me turn it around. How will you feel if Zeus was the way? Odin? Krishna? Are insert the name of one of the other thousands of gods that have been worshiped by man since recorded history.
1:15:21 timestamp is the pinnacle of this whole video ❤ i love it and once again, a testimomial for me that life is about love and pursuing goodness with all your heart.God is unconditional love. Thank u for this story of father and son.
Thank you for sharing with us. So glad you enjoyed the film!
How wonderful father and son can have this difficult conversation. I’m sure it does break Tony’s heart that his sons love and faith in Jesus has gone 😢
Thanks Marga. Yes - a difficult conversation. We appreciate that they could have the conversation with love and respect for each other. Thank you for your thoughts.
Stand us faith! Rejoices our rejoices!
As a former Atheist, who left Jesus, then returned, I identify with some of the reasons for 'leaving' that Bart stated. However, his use of the word 'good' struck me as strange. The one thing I came to understand when I was an Atheist, was that the word 'good' had to be a mental inheritance from my false Xian beliefs. 'Good' was just a misunderstanding Christians had..they did not understand that 'good' was just the word 'taste' in different clothing. If there is no metaphysical realm, 'the word 'good' becomes just an uncentered ship afloat in a sea of misperception. After my Atheism, I went on to study philosophy at university...I studied the empiricists, the rationalists, the existentialists...etc. In one of my favorite classes, we had this well-spoken British professor. I was surprised one day in class to hear him proclain that 'there could be a non-theological basis for morality'. I immediately asked him to support his claim. He brushed it off as if he didn't have the time. But such an important assertion should have been addressed, and made time for. If it were so obvious that 'good' did not require a metaphysic, then it should have been a very simple affair to support the contention. Years after this have passed...and I often hear the 'new' atheists...the post-modernists...and the neo-marxists still make the same claim. I have yet to hear a convincing support for their claim. I am still waiting. I now believe there is no support for that claim...the terms 'good' and 'evil' are both intrinsically metaphysical and theological terms. If they are not, they refer to mere actions we find 'tasteful', and others we don't. As far as the 'importance' of life and others goes, it seems historically obvious that the ones who had the greatest belief in an 'afterlife' were precisely the ones who did most to improve the quality of life for others on earth..in the time we have. The idea that each person is created in the 'image of God' has been an absolute foundation for both the international charter of human rights, and for the principle of democracy. The concept of 'eternity', and life in it, are absolutely fundamental to the idea that we 'ought' to love others, to take care of the planet, to take care of our families...because when the last glint of light from the last buring star sputters out into complete darkness, billions of years in the future, we all will each still exist. We will still 'be'. Every act and attitude towards any human we ever came into contact with, will have rings of consequence that will ripple out through all eternity. We are each of infinite importance, because we will never cease to be, and because the eternal ground of being 'God' loves us forever... Therefore all actions towards all people, each and every one of us..from the lowest to the highest, is of eternal importance. That is the real foundation of the enormous word 'good'. Anything less than that, is too trivial to be a proper definition of 'good'.
Did you study utilitarianism at all?
Now you may not find it convincing, many philosophers don't, but I think your comment is pretty disingenuous to suggest there are no reasonable arguments for morality outside of theological ones...
There's also a circular argument you are creating. Perhaps "goodness" does come down to a matter of taste. Perhaps for a Kantian goodness comes down to following rules you should reasonably will to be universal, and what rules one might will to be universal could come down to one's taste. Or, perhaps for a utilitarian goodness is performing those actions that will bring about the most pleasure and, what actions will bring pleasure could depend on taste. What is your basis for objecting to this? What is your basis for claiming that it is "trivial"? Why must there be more to it than this?
The mere quality of being able to change doesn't seem to make something trivial. Consider a case: Is having a high number of sexual partners bad?
Perhaps, in the past both a Kantian and a Utilitarian would agree it was. Perhaps before birth control, condoms, vaccines for STIs, quality healthcare, etc. the risk of having too many sexual partners was too great. It lead to too many unwanted pregnancies and too many diseases being spread. Perhaps, at the time, it made sense to will a rule that did not allow such behavior or to object to it because of the negative utility it generated.
Now, this may no longer be the case. It's possible that in today's society we have enough protections that the risks from promiscuous sex is mitigated enough. Maybe the pleasure (utility) one gets from having multiple sexual partners is far greater than the negative outcomes it could lead to. Maybe it's no longer reasonable to will a rule that prohibits promiscuity. Maybe there's even enough to will a rule that one should be promiscuous.
To be clear, I'm NOT saying I agree with this view and everyone should go out and have sex with multiple partners. My point is the circumstance of society can change whether something is or isn't "good" and that's not necessarily trivial or unreasonable as the reasoning behind what made an action good (or not) stayed the same.
I also want to point out that not all religions have an afterlife where one continues to exist upon reaching it. Some believe that the goal is the lead a good life so that your consciousness can reunite with the creator. Some believe that life on Earth is torture and our goal is to release our soul into a state of nothingness. How do you explain the theological morality presented by such religions?
@@HereIsHelena utilitarianism broke down because of its lack of consideration of justice...it has been pretty much abandoned because of that...a criticism I find totally compelling. The Kantian categorical imperative has too many issues with universality. Religions with no developed concept of an after-life would strike me as having incomplete metaphysics...inadequate as a basis for moral imperatives. They would suffer from the same problem that atheist have; how do we universalize ethics..seeing that all life will end completely with the heat death of the universe. The existentialists were totally right in pointing out the absurdity of life on that basis. Both the atheists and humanists try to rescue meaning and morality while holding to a materialist view of being and consciousness. The reason I left atheism was the impossibility of meaning and morality based on a material view. I think even 'thinking' itself becomes a self-contradictory notion if materialism were the case.
@@fulltechahead
I imagine you know these arguments well, but for anyone who might be following along there are counter arguments to the criticisms.
For utilitarianism the first is not really a counter at all. One might double down and say yes, the "right" thing to do is the "unjust" thing. That yes, you should arrest and punish the innocent man if it will stop the angry mob from burning down the city and killing more innocents. They might reject our common notion of justice to begin with. The standard thought is that people "deserve" some type of treatment or outcome and not providing it is wrong. One could argue that one only deserves something to the extent that it produces or lessens utility. Thus, the "just" action is the action that increases utility and the unjust action is the one that decreases utility.
A true counter is to reject the ideal that unjust actions increase utility at all. The true "Sherif Scenario" stipulated that the innocent man was black and the angry mob was white. Maybe arresting the innocent black man perpetuates stereotypes that would increase negative actions against black people in the long run and produce less utility than not arresting him. Maybe the carnage from the angry mob would inspire enough people in other parts of the nation to change their thinking on the issue of race and pass laws protecting minorities (A la Emmett Till), thus creating more positive utility than bad.
You might say this creates another problem. A problem where the angry mob is required to be angry, burn down towns, and kill innocents. There are objections to that too. See, the angry mob is committing an unjust act and, as the example shows, unjust actions could lead to more negative utility in the long run. If everyone was being just, the angry mob wouldn't have been racist in the first place and the negative utility that comes from racism wouldn't have been created to begin with. Surely that is the optimal outcome. Of course there are further criticisms and counters to them, but we'd be falling down the rabbit hole forever...
With the categorical imperative it's much the same. Someone could just double down and say yes, these unsettling outcomes are correct and we should accept them. In fact, Kant himself actually did this when criticized. In less eloquent terms; If you know Ted wants to kill Suzy, and you know Suzy is at the mall, it IS wrong to lie and tell Ted she's at the movies. Of course, Ted shouldn't be trying to kill Suzy in the first place. You shouldn't be breaking the rules to stop Ted from breaking the rules. Ted should autonomously decide not to break the rules on his own accord.
Also, to Kant's credit, he said it's /not/ wrong to refuse to answer Ted's question altogether, so perhaps the view is not as absurd as we might think. In any case, just as theologically based morality can lead us to unsettling results, perhaps a secular universal law can too.
Now, I've gone on for a long time, but to really answer your question you need to envision a world where everyone follows these views. You seem to be implying that the only reason for following a set of morals is to get into the preferred afterlife. That there could be no other reasons. But, do you reject that people want to feel happy? Safe? That people want to live a life that is as positive as possible for as long as possible?
Both of these views of morality appeal to that desire. If everyone is attempting to maximize positive utility you will live in a world where you are likely to have the maximum positive utility you could. If everyone is only doing things they would will everyone else to do universally, perhaps it will be the type of world that allows you to live a long positive life without Teds that are trying to kill Suzys.
The concept of meaning seems non-sequitur to the question of morality for me. Life could be meaningless, and we could still want to live in a happy world. I also object to the view that if something eventually ends it has no meaning. The idea that unless we live forever there is no desire or reason to live happily now seems absolutely absurd to me.
Why would a religion with no afterlife have an incomplete conception of metaphysics? If religion is the basis of all morality, which religion? How can one possibly choose one over the other?
Agan, I don't necessarily subscribe to any of these views. But the ones you dismiss are not as absurd as you are implying and the one you hold is not as airtight.
@@HereIsHelena ...em, I never had a 'question' I was asking...I stated my views on Mill/Utilitarianism and Kant/ categorical imperative...also on the inadequacy of incomplete metaphyics. I would also add my own bit here; that when we speak about 'good' or 'evil', in language it doesn't have much impact, but in life we really all understand these realities. To use a 'system' to create 'content' for these terms is quite funny in my view...as impact implies a 'content' before we have them defined...actions are a potential infinite I would say..all the possible permutations would require an endless string of 'content' to be articulated. That appears to be the reason Jesus stated there were really only 2 laws: to love God with all your being, and the second is to love others as you love yourself. He saw the need to reduce articulations of content to avoid legalism, I think that is metaphysically profound...with absolute practical utility. The questions you have about the 'right' religion involves honesty and 'research', for lack of a better term. I suspect that no really honest person has anything to fear. You seem to be the one with questions Helen.
That is a very good post/reply. In my view if the human reason is the means to happiness and attaining goodness then the palpable fallibility of our reason/intellect cannot take us to a Nirvana of our own making. The inherent capability of human reasoning to make mistakes cannot guarantee a fault-free, perfect result in our quest to achieve perfection.
I wish i could click "like" again... and again.... and again
So kind of you Randy! So glad you enjoyed it. If you don't already know - Bart has a podcast where you can follow more of his discussions. bartcampolo.org/
thanks for the video :)
Glad you enjoyed it.
How can you believe something eternal and then not believe it?
Great video.
Thank you. So glad you enjoyed it!
God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself you are already reconciled Bart.
Church our rejoices in a trust! Stand us!
Covetousness our rejoices in evil! Trust us in rejoices! Stand our majesty in trust rejoices!
@ MATT DEAN FILMS, the picture and audio do not align with each other. AFTER the 35 minute mark, words that Bart and Tony are saying, are not the words coming out of their MOUTH!. There is an error in your video/audio production. What is the reasoning for this issue?
Sadness our rejoice! Trust us, stand!
Christ did not say if you have a religion you will be saved, He said he whoever believes in me shall have everlasting life.
The disciples are not disciples. This is one example how Christianity gets it wrong. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi and its Jewish culture to follow a Rabbi. As followers, not disciples.
Interesting thought. Thanks for sharing!
One of them is wrong. I wonder which it is?
John 10:10 and Corinthians 4:4 should fix this doubt issue.
Tony's wife saved his bacon more than once it sounds like
Is Bart individuating at 51yo?
I guess that's what you'd call it? Have you looked at his podcast? bartcampolo.org
Most probably. Many of us children of full time ministers have had to wait that long
Don Rickles got nothing on the pastor.
Tony is a great story teller and comedian in his own right! :)
this makes me extremely sad
Understandable. I appreciate your input and feels on this. Our hope is to encourage open conversations between people who disagree and avoid further heartache.
@@realmattdean no I have no issue at all with you filming nor the interviews- what makes me sad is that an 85 year old man sees his entire life's work go up in flames when his son renounces his faith. I have met Tony personally. I gave him a ride from the airport in 2001 and had a conversation with him from Frankfurt, Germany and drove him 3 hours to the conference where he was the keynote speaker. He's the real deal. I can only imagine how hurtful this must have been to him.
@@jefferyrussell8561 Tony is indeed the real deal. He's a very caring man who has done a lot to help people. You're right that this was difficult for him and that was Bart's biggest concern, that these events would cause damage to their relationship. Thank you for your thoughts on all of this.
@jefferyrussell8561 watch The Submerging Church Documentary by Joe Schimmel, also watch FuelProject, Ray Comfort, John Haller from Fellowship Bible Chapel, Bill Randles from Believers In Grace, Marco Quintana from Devore Truth, DTBM Dr.
@jefferyrussell8561 watch The Submerging Church Documentary by Joe Schimmel, also watch FuelProject, Ray Comfort, John Haller from Fellowship Bible Chapel, Bill Randles from Believers In Grace, Marco Quintana from Devore Truth, DTBM Dr.
I wish these two would do some shrooms or LSD and come back for a sequel. It just seems like a logical next step.
Squirrels are squirrelly because they know 😮.
Sorry Tony its not Whitmann 'I am the captain of my fate...' thats Henley's Invictus.
The correct quote from Henley's Invictus is "I am the master of my fate, the captain of my soul.."
Bart attend one of David Kolanda's Crusade
Tony claims he loves both Bart and Jesus. I don't doubt that he believes this to be true. However, there is huge difference between Bart and Jesus. Bart is a real, living person, while Jesus is, at best, a long-since dead man. Jesus is in no more of a position to be "loved" by Tony, or to have a relationship with Tony, than is Julius Caesar or Abraham Lincoln. Yes, Tony can "love" some aspect of these historical figures, but, no, he cannot have a relationship with Caesar, Lincoln, or Jesus, because they are all dead. And, by trying to have a relationship with a dead man, Tony (and every other Christian) is, at best, wasting his time playing a mental game and, at worst, torturing himself by attempting to chase a ghost. While Tony is now, apparently, too far down the rabbit hole of Christianity to turn back, Bart grasped the opportunity to choose a freer, more truthful, and more emotionally healthy path of focusing his love and relationships on living people.
Thank you for your input on this. It's interesting how important faith and belief can be to so many people and how we find comfort in our beliefs. I think that is why people try and use the examples of loving those around us as a picture of truly loving God. That is my hope with this film - that we can better love each other regardless of our believes.
Hi, Tony Campolo, n Bart Campolo, my name is Ho Minh Tran, years ago, I wrote a song , a suposably humorous song about mother nature. ' I can hear mother nature called:' hurry sonny, U got to go...'' @ d time, d internet just began, n a
communication site was name called ' Yahoo' taking d yah from my song n added it to my name [ ho]. Thank God, @ d same time, I heard a song from DC Talk : ' holiness was calling, in d mist of courting fame' . @ d time , I felt God calling me to Himself, so I abandoned d glorification in d fame coming to me. Yrs later, on d Simpson, d cartoon, there were 2 characters: Homer [ fr. Ho Minh], n Bart which when U add to Ho, becomes Hobart [ d name of a city in d state of Tasmania, Australia] Were d names coincidental ? I do not know. Could it result fr. a human source or d demonic? i don't know. But I rather not glory in that fleeting fame n possibly ego. It was 4 d respect 4 God that pulled me away fr. recording d song n making money fr. it. To Bart, if I could suggest to U to observe carefully n look 4 significant nos.
that supports your faith, such as : 11[ d eleventh hour], 12 [ midnight, when things R darkest, d groom will come back 4 His spotless, wrinklest bride, d church] set d time on yr watch on 24 hr cycle. Remember, 23, d 11th hr @ night; 24 , mid
night; 30 . He was 30 yrs old when He started ministry; 33 when He died on d cross. watch out for 14:14 [ God gave His Son; d Son gave His life for humanity] 14:41 [ God forgive; forgive God] 13:13 [ 1 God, 3 persons] 18:18 [ God d infinite];
17:17 [ God d perfect] . d way that He showed me His reality is by double repetition; 14:44 [ God n forgiveness] He will do this 4 U Bart to prove to U His reality IF you will dilligently seek Him. Without faith, it is impossible to please God....
He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. People said of me, that's numerology. No it was not, I did not look 4 them . They just came to me.
Adultery our rejoices in standness in a rejoice in en trust stand!
I enjoyed the humanity of the exchanges but I'm disappointed in the intellectual depth of the discussion. For instance, once it gets to the point of an afterlife, why didn't each explain their reasons for either believing or not believing in an afterlife and then analyze the weakness or strengths of each position. Same could be said about their differing beliefs about God. I'm guessing its because the depth of the evangelical world's views on such matters is unlikely to drown anyone. They are simple base ideas which define their community and are rarely up for debate or change. But in any case, good on both of you for behaving. My dad was a Pentecostal preacher and I'm an atheist. It didn't change our love for each other and we could have open debates and disagreements.
understandable. The focus for us was more about the relationship than the debate, though there was some debate. Tony and Bart both talk about those things regularly in their weekly discussions. Tony at his church lectures, and Bart on his podcast. So we felt like we'd be covering the same ground. Glad you enjoyed it.
@@realmattdean OK I can see that. I'd say respect in a relationship requires respect for the other person's mind and reasoning so attempting to understand each person's reasoning processes is central to a healthy relationship even if people disagree about the credibility of the reasoning processes.
@@davidedwards2764 True and there is definitely a place for a documentary on that topic. Something in the vein of what Hitchens use to do in many of this TV appearances.
Thats because "the convert" was not sorry to God , He had, like I did, maybe the "sorrow of the world."- which leads to death.- Maybe not the Jesus of the Bible?
Of course life is precious..who do you think breathed that life into you??!
I don't think that anything breathed life into me. I think that we come from a natural, but very unlikely process...
And I still believe life is precious as it is the only one we get!
Peace. 😃
Tony: "I was good"
Jesus: "No one is good except God alone"
Is Tony really Christian, not to mention a legit Christian pastor?
His faulty understanding and preaching could very well be the reason for his son's disbelief.
Struck by the similarities between the bizarre Christian gatherings in this film and videos of the Trump MAGA gatherings. I'd been scratching my head trying to figure out how so many Christians could be drawn to a personality so different from Jesus's - but it's all familiar to them - the shouting, the nonstop repetition of the same words, the rise and fall of the voice - it's all the same ritual...both crowds are participating in essentially the same experience: this is our savior and he belongs to us, you losers! 😮
"He who is not against us is with us", says Tony describing his son as a type of "anonymous" Christian.
This is a complete twisting of the words of Christ. Tony being such a supposedly distinguished evangelist knows this very well.
Jesus said, "He who is not with us is against us". There is no such thing as an "anonymous Christian". You either accept the claims of Christ and call him Lord or you don't.
I'm not dumping on Bart. He doesn't believe in Christ and so is not a Christian-period. But I am refuting Tony in his futile and twisted attempt to redefine the term Christian.
Thank you for your thoughts. We love our labels don't we? It makes it easy to see who is in "our camp" and who is not. It tries to simplify a complex issue that separates us by our differences rather than reminds us of our similarities. I saw that SO often in the faith community. Methodists, vs Baptists, vs Lutherans vs Catholics vs 7th day vs etc... so many things we don't know but yet we're SO definitive on our interpretation. My hope is that this film helps us look at loving each other regardless of how big or small our differences are.
Mere Christianity. C.S. Lewis
Christian Mc Nugget 😮😅!
Just label this video, “We support homosexuality.”😂
Great job Tony! I think Bart never had Jesus. He even states he doubted from the beginning and didn't really believe. He was, by his own testimony, jazzed by the youth group and wanted to fit in, be a part. That was not repenting of sin, recognizing his need for the Savior Jesus Christ. Sadly, he is living out his version of "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." What's to say, or who for that matter, says he is right if if it should be all about doing good. What is the point?
If you are right then it is an explanation of his "rejecting" a faith he never had. On the other hand, it is much more serious if he did have faith in Jesus Christ, the solemn statements in 2 Peter 2.20-22 may be applicable.
How do you know that anyone is a true Christian? Is there a test that someone can do, or is it an arbitrary distinction?
@@karlwinkler4223It's a common thing that believers do because it makes things easier for them if they just state that the person was never "in" to begin with.
Especially the once saved, always saved crowd. 🫣
Bart left the "sinner's prayer," dumbed-down, magic spell spewing, cheap grace, church-idolizing, "my salvation"-soterian, shallow so-called "Christianity. The God that he believed in does not exist. So what, the God that the Pharisees believed in never existed, either. Joining with Christ is an altogether different matter, however. Isn't amazing that recreational genital stimulation is the dominant topic in Bible-talk now?
If you pray for God to tell you what the Christlike thing to do is, you will be answered in the form of transformation that will lead to compassion competence. Pagan magic spells (petitionary prayer) are not actually genuine prayers.
You sound pretty nuts. Tell us more.
Brother, did you actually end your statement or did you leave something out?
@@jefferyrussell8561 brother who?
@@bilbobaggins4403 you!
@@jefferyrussell8561 me who ? I wanted more ramblings from Robert .
Ah, so when a Muslim claims their prayer is 'completely and utterly answered' by Allah, it's suddenly incontrovertible proof of Islam. Sure, because obviously, Allah is as real as it gets. But wait, if a Christian hears about it, oh no, it must be the devil’s work because, you know, there can only be one true god, the Christian one. Absolutely, no room for debate there!