If Christianity were about the example of Jesus made of himself, I wouldn't argue with you, but it isn't. It is about some crazy idea that a person died so that my actions don't matter; people finding scripture to validate hatred for people different from them be it in religion, skin color or sexual orientation; denial of evidence because some old book has stories that disagree. I agree with Gandhi, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
It's not about making sure that our actions don't matter. The fact is, our sin actions DO matter. We cannot stand under the weight of our sin since every single one of us is imperfect. Our actions matter Christ came to be judged as a substitute, if we so allow.
The verses about sins are there to point out what those sins are, not to incite hatred against people.
@vbfl920 If you don't have to pay for your sins as long as you believe in Jesus (which is what a lot Christians believe based on John) then it doesn't matter if you've committed them.
People use the bible all the time to justify mistreatment and hatred of others: discrimination based on sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, and also to deny evidence of evolution, the age of the earth, the fact that Noah's flood didn't happen, etc. Not saying all Christians but quite a few believe this.
Hey so, I totally never got around to a video response to this. Sorry man.
It looks like HD & Naked really bled this one out though.
But yea basically it doesn't matter what the bible says jesus looked like, if he's being depicted as a GQ model than members of your faith are using sex appeal to sell your product. (+ money, numbers, fear..)
My point is this: you'd think the product of "a personal relationship with the inventor of the universe" being sold by god himself, could sell itself.
So Im not sure where Jesus is ever depicted as a GQ model. All Ive ever seen are benign paintings of him. Perhaps you can tell me where you've seen Jesus in an Armani suit?
As far as *WHAT* christianity is selling...it is ultimately presenting the Jesus we see IN THE BIBLE.
No matter the method being used, ultimately it comes down to the Jesus we see in the gospels.
No one is selling a "portrait" Nick. They are "selling" Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Thanks for great video. I agree that the truth about Jesus should not be judged simply on the presentation of him by those who claim to follow him. On the other hand we Christians are supposed to be the body of Christ and when we do a poor job of representing Jesus I think outsiders have a legitimate reason to question the truth of our claims.
Yeah I can understand. But I hardly think it's argument for an atheist to feel offended, or critique, a Jesus painting, or a youth group that tries to reach out to a particular mindset.
I hardly think Jesus paintings "sell" the message, or ARE the message.
And so what about the approach of youth groups.
We write childrens books and present messages in a WAY, and style, that children can understand
Musicians do this as well, with certain causes they feel stongly about
What does the bible have to do with the image of Jesus in modern times? As someone who grew up as a liberal Christian (the overwhelming majority of Christianity) I can vouch for the fact that 90% of my peers NEVER opened a bible. Their image of Jesus was the image made popular by mainstream media. In that respect AHughman08's video was spot on. I don't know if you missed the point, but imo his point was IF there was really anything to all this Christianity jazz, it wouldn't need the PR.
I think it's rather obvious we would be in the state we're in for more than just "psychological appeal" (ditto your video). What I'm wondering is if Atheists were really former Christians, why don't they know this?
You maybe be a member of the very small minority of Christianity that actually owns, and reads the bible, and who actually go to church more than just at Christmas, and Easter. Most atheists (like myself) were like most Christians. We were the ones who never even thought about why we were Christians. Once we did think about it, and actually read the bible we stopped being Christians.
My point was (as an atheist) we understand there are a small number of Christians who are in it "for more than psychological appeal", but when you use the term "we're" you're talking about a very small percentage of Christians. For most their biblical knowledge comes from the movies they watch on TBS at Easter.
"Mike do you know how many people genuinely read the bible and take it seriously?"
Do you know how many people don't? Catholicism (more than half of Christianity) from example actively discourages the reading of the bible by laymen. It is considered to be something best left to experts. Among protestants only the more fundamentalist sects actually read the bible. My point once again which you haven't refuted is that for most Christians the hip youth groups, and Jesus paintings ARE the end.
And the fact it is the end is evidenced by statistics showing number like only 24% of Christians regularly attending Church. Less than 10% have read the entire bible. Less than 30% of even those who say the bible can answer most of life's daily questions read it regularly.
I help out in a youth group and a college age ministry. Though I will say that some of the kids show up for the socialization, this does NOT mean that they do not hear the word of God while they are there.
This is the END for the people who actually run the youth groups. That's WHY they do it in the first place. The music, style, etc is a means to that end.
And that's what I meant by that, regardless of why the kids show up.
Anecdotal evidence. I'm sure in SOME case it goes beyond JUST the hip youth groups. I'm talking about the big picture which is supported by verifiable statistics, and they entirely refute your isolated personal experience.
Why? Is it because the kids DONT know what they are supposed to be doing? Is it because they DONT hear the word of God?
No, its because they choose to live how they want. Not all of them of course, but it does happen.
The same exact thing goes for teen pregnancy, drug, and alchohol education. These kids are TAUGHT about such things, but they still choose to go against it, and take risks anyways.
So somehow this means that there is no truth to any of this education, or that God does not exist, because people can STILL make their own choices in spite of what they know to be right...
I'm curious if you were aware of the findings of the Southern Baptist Council on Family Life's research in 2002. 88% of children raised in evangelical households leave the church at 18 never to return, and 2/3 of southern baptists only attend church sporadically. The message isn't being heard by those who are most intimately associated with it. THAT speaks volumes.
Yeah, and right now about 10 of my friends are in Atlanta with 20,000 18-25 year olds at a worship conference.
That has no bearing on whether the message is false or not. It only shows a trend in whether people are willing to follow it. And trends constantly change.
No it was lower when women were considered property or spoiled, and unfit for marriage if they divorced. So they stayed married to abusive womanizers. Are you trying to say things were better then??
Yeah I realize that. But these were just opinions and self relections on their parts. It was more or less a way for me to show Nick that there is something appealing about the ACTUAL message and figure of Jesus which goes beyond bells and whistles, sex appeal, etc.
This is one of the reasons why I can never stop believing because I know there is a God and I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. A painting of Jesus is just a painting that "we" as man did.
Well John, there is a difference between "Christianity" and "The Bible".
Islam appeals to some young people because it gives them a cause to band against when they have been oppressed. Whether or not this is in the Qu'ran is irrelevant, because the appeal goes beyond the Qu'ran
So if you want to stick to the Bible, fine, but Christianity doesn't necessarily stick to the Bible, so Nick's video wasn't off base
Appeal to psychology here meant appealing to subconscious faculties, tricking belief
1. I'm not sure if you can seperate "christianity" from the bible when it comes down to it. Nick was bringing God's existence into his argument so... many different things were being conflated here. It would be one thing if he were critiquing "tacky" christian methods. But he was using those methods and attacking the existence of God and the appeal of Jesus. Broad brush to paint with you know?
2. I understand what he meant by psych trickery. But my argument is that the ACTUAL message of Christ is on the same level as any other noble, moral, or religious notion like MLK's deeds or Ghandi's. Those ideals are not trickery and neither is the message of Christ. And this has no bearing on whether there are smooth talking envangelists, crooks, and cons. Those things have nothing to do with the ACTUAL message.
We're not discounting every single positive contribution of Christianity. Nick pointed out, and I concur, that some people believe as a result of things like psychological trickery or some other subconscious cue that doesn't have anything to do with the Bible. Not only are there plenty of reasons other than the Bible that people believe, but I'd argue it's in fact RARE that people believe because of the Bible, seeing as how many Christians don't really read or understand it.
HD, when Nick asks why would the creator of the universe stoop to such methods, he is conflating any and ALL approaches for belief.
God stands by His word, the bible. In fact the bible itself says faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. It does not say that faith comes by sex appeal, etc.
Actually John, the represent "Christians" better than the Bible does I'd say. You say god stands by his word, but the whole point is that he obviously needs more than that, for the Bible is not what brings the majority of believes to the flock. The point is that if Jesus was the son of god, the bible should be ALL that is needed, and that obviously isn't the case, as many Christians deconverted after actually reading the bible for the first time, and many who are still believers have yet to.
it seems to me that an assumption in your argument, HD, is that if people are leaving the faith, the bible isn't doing a good enough job. i'd say the opposite, that it's not God who needs to do more thinking and work. i'd say that people ought to do more thinking and more work. the bible is sufficient for everyone's capacity to come to God, but it isn't sufficient for everyone's coming to God, because it allows them the choice to not follow/reject God.
since the propositions "the bible is sufficient for the world's capacity to choose him" and "people can choose to reject or leave him" are consistent with each other, it's an error to infer from the fact of people having left God that the bible is insufficient for the world's capacity to choose God.
But what are they rejecting? This is the most common misconception I get when discussing how belief works.
When we say "god lets us reject him" what you are saying is "god let's us come to the conclusion that he doesn't exist", which has NOTHING to do with the philosophy of his message, whether we should turn the other cheek or not. What is on the table is whether someone is willing to give up their passions for salvation, but in order to consider that, one must think salvation exists.
I don't reject god, I don't reject the word of jesus son of god, any more than you reject the invisible rope behind you that you are not aware exists, and even if I told you about it you still would not be capable of accepting it. You have to believe the rope is there first before you can think about whether you should accept it's assistance or not. This is something the Bible does not do, it does not make a solid case for "this is undeniably the work of god".
comparing the bible with an invisble robe says there are insufficient reasons to believe the bible. that's the assumption by which you conclude that God hasn't made himself clear. but i believe that there are sufficient reasons to believe in him, through the bible, his spirit, and through nature. neither of us can prove our criteria of sufficient evidence, and neither of us will get anywhere in this argument until we agree on other grounds.
"that's the assumption by which you conclude that God hasn't made himself clear, but i believe that there are sufficient reasons to believe in him"
Which is entirely subjective. No one is convinced the same way, no one thing can be explained to each individual in one fashion. Maybe the Bible was good enough for you, that's fine, but it obviously wasn't and still isn't enough for many others
I don't have to prove any criteria, my criteria is my own and I can't change it, gos should also know it
"Do you think God is morally obligated to satisfy your subjective criteria? "
If care about you enough not to date a certain person because I know they will kill you, and I have a video that will convince you that she will kill you, am I morally obligated to show you the video? You could still date her of course, but if I thought it would save you, would I not be obligated to show it to you so you can make the best and most informed decision possible?
sure, suppose you are morally obligated to show the video, but if our criteria is subjective, isn't it possible that he won't be convinced? and since our criteria are subjective, its possible that all the evidence in the world might not change my mind about her, and for you (i.e., God) to satisfy a subjective criteria would be almost impossible.
Of course that's possible, since we're human. God should know what we need to be convinced, and if no such thing exists, then you have to ask yourself how god could create something that was unable to believe god existed, and then punish that thing for not doing the impossible.
if God knows what "we need to be convinced", then what God knows is the sufficient criteria to believe in him, and so there is an objective criteria, the one that God knows. And I stipulate that he's given enough to make a choice to believe in him. Of course, I can't prove that he's done that, I just stipulate it from my own experiences.
"he's given enough to make a choice to believe in him"
Ah, but there is the distraction. Mind you I don't think your actively trying to distract me from something, but this seems to be a common misconception, accidental as it may be. I cannot make a choice to believe in his word unless I believe in his existence, and as we've stated one cannot choose whether to believe in something as true or not true. In order to accept OR reject the salvation of Jesus, I have to think there is such a thing.
"one cannot choose whether to believe in something as true or not true."
okay, so let's reword what i said. instead of saying he forms your choice, i'm saying he's given enough evidence for you to believe that God exists (and also that his salvation package is a pretty good one). if your belief is determined by the evidence, and if God knows and fulfills for people the objective criteria of evidence needed, then God has given you enough evidence to believe in his existence/salvation.
"I'm saying he's given enough evidence for you to believe that God exists"
If he did, then I would believe he existed. Since that I don't, that means he hasn't. I cannot choose to believe in the existence of something, it isn't a matter of free will vs. determinism either. I just now put a video out on this topic.
But if he didn't, then I wouldn't believe he existed, either. (This is just to show you again, that the conclusions we are reaching in this argument are determined by the positions we've already taken on the existence of God) Anyhow, are we still assuming that criteria of evidence is subjective, or that it's objective?
"But if he didn't, then I wouldn't believe he existed, either."
But you can still believe without an entity consciously to convince you, you can come to a conclusion without god, though whether your conclusion will be correct or incorrect remains to be seen.
The criteria for evidence is subjective and different for each individual. No one thinks exactly the same, if they did they'd be the same person. My point is that if god existed, all would be convinced; if he doesn't, only some would be.
I cannot choose my beliefs. I cannot choose to believe that horses don't exist. I am either convinced by the evidence or not, my perceptions either equal up to belief or non-belief. If my perceptions lead me to believe that the Bible is not in any way divine, that Jesus did not die on the cross for my sins, then I cannot accept or reject his offering. Now if I DID believe in it, then I could then contemplate whether I should accept or reject such an offer.
This is only partially true. We could override our rational functions to believe somethings. We could override our emotional biases to believe sommethings. I believe (by stipulation) that God has met a sufficient criteria of evidence for everyone. This, again, is determined by the fact that I acknowledge Christianity to be true. You are determined by your atheism to reject it.
"You are determined by your atheism to reject it."
Wrong way my friend. My rejection of it determined my atheism. If you are going to argue that those that don't believe in Christianity are at fault because they don't use their emotion to override their logic, then I can say the same thing about any other theistic belief. You only believe in the Bible because you haven't used your emotion to lead you on the path to Allah.
When you say things like a painting on a wall, or a youth group "gets" you to believe, you have to ask yourself a question.
WHAT does it get you to believe?
I can say the exact same thing about Nick's video presentations and style. He uses graphics, humor, and style to "get" me to believe that his views are correct.
Is he "tricking" me by doing this?
I wouldn't say so.
He's trying to persuade me, which is a HUGE difference from trying to "trick" someone.
Things that don't appeal to logic and reason are a bit of a trick. Everyone does it though, and those that don't rarely get their message across. However there are those that use it to augment logic and reason and those that use things such as rhetoric and appeals to emotion to totally get around logic and reason.
God, however, should not need any of that to convince people.
Strange that he would make us so succeptible to it though.
There is no doubt a very appealing person in the gospels. And not in the chiseled abs sense, but in the outstanding moral guide sense. It's there, I don't disagree at all.
It's a good topic, which if you don't mind I may continue on.
I guess I came off as a tool, but really I hope you're as offended by the people who made these depictions as you are at me for pointing them out.
I dug the response, but we may play a little video tennis if you don't mind. ;)
If Christianity were about the example of Jesus made of himself, I wouldn't argue with you, but it isn't. It is about some crazy idea that a person died so that my actions don't matter; people finding scripture to validate hatred for people different from them be it in religion, skin color or sexual orientation; denial of evidence because some old book has stories that disagree. I agree with Gandhi, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
sinbien336 1 year ago
@sinbien336
this is inaccurate.
It's not about making sure that our actions don't matter. The fact is, our sin actions DO matter. We cannot stand under the weight of our sin since every single one of us is imperfect. Our actions matter Christ came to be judged as a substitute, if we so allow.
The verses about sins are there to point out what those sins are, not to incite hatred against people.
And what evidence is being denied?
vbfl920 1 year ago
@vbfl920 If you don't have to pay for your sins as long as you believe in Jesus (which is what a lot Christians believe based on John) then it doesn't matter if you've committed them.
People use the bible all the time to justify mistreatment and hatred of others: discrimination based on sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc, and also to deny evidence of evolution, the age of the earth, the fact that Noah's flood didn't happen, etc. Not saying all Christians but quite a few believe this.
sinbien336 1 year ago
Hey so, I totally never got around to a video response to this. Sorry man.
It looks like HD & Naked really bled this one out though.
But yea basically it doesn't matter what the bible says jesus looked like, if he's being depicted as a GQ model than members of your faith are using sex appeal to sell your product. (+ money, numbers, fear..)
My point is this: you'd think the product of "a personal relationship with the inventor of the universe" being sold by god himself, could sell itself.
AHughman08 1 year ago
@AHughman08
So Im not sure where Jesus is ever depicted as a GQ model. All Ive ever seen are benign paintings of him. Perhaps you can tell me where you've seen Jesus in an Armani suit?
As far as *WHAT* christianity is selling...it is ultimately presenting the Jesus we see IN THE BIBLE.
No matter the method being used, ultimately it comes down to the Jesus we see in the gospels.
No one is selling a "portrait" Nick. They are "selling" Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
vbfl920 1 year ago
Thanks for great video. I agree that the truth about Jesus should not be judged simply on the presentation of him by those who claim to follow him. On the other hand we Christians are supposed to be the body of Christ and when we do a poor job of representing Jesus I think outsiders have a legitimate reason to question the truth of our claims.
littlemas2 2 years ago
Yeah I can understand. But I hardly think it's argument for an atheist to feel offended, or critique, a Jesus painting, or a youth group that tries to reach out to a particular mindset.
I hardly think Jesus paintings "sell" the message, or ARE the message.
And so what about the approach of youth groups.
We write childrens books and present messages in a WAY, and style, that children can understand
Musicians do this as well, with certain causes they feel stongly about
Is that trickery?
no
vbfl920 2 years ago
What does the bible have to do with the image of Jesus in modern times? As someone who grew up as a liberal Christian (the overwhelming majority of Christianity) I can vouch for the fact that 90% of my peers NEVER opened a bible. Their image of Jesus was the image made popular by mainstream media. In that respect AHughman08's video was spot on. I don't know if you missed the point, but imo his point was IF there was really anything to all this Christianity jazz, it wouldn't need the PR.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Mike, preaching the Gospel *IS* public relations.
You seem to be confusing "icebreakers" with the actual message itself.
"Hip" youth groups and Jesus paintings are NOT an end.
They are the means to the end....
...repentance and a reconciled relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
vbfl920 2 years ago
I think it's rather obvious we would be in the state we're in for more than just "psychological appeal" (ditto your video). What I'm wondering is if Atheists were really former Christians, why don't they know this?
jcrebel18 2 years ago
@jcrebel18
You maybe be a member of the very small minority of Christianity that actually owns, and reads the bible, and who actually go to church more than just at Christmas, and Easter. Most atheists (like myself) were like most Christians. We were the ones who never even thought about why we were Christians. Once we did think about it, and actually read the bible we stopped being Christians.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
continued...
My point was (as an atheist) we understand there are a small number of Christians who are in it "for more than psychological appeal", but when you use the term "we're" you're talking about a very small percentage of Christians. For most their biblical knowledge comes from the movies they watch on TBS at Easter.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
And there are also a small, very small, percentage of atheists amongst the population as well.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Mike do you know how many people genuinely read the bible and take it seriously?
"Christian" + bible =/= atheist.
vbfl920 2 years ago
"Mike do you know how many people genuinely read the bible and take it seriously?"
Do you know how many people don't? Catholicism (more than half of Christianity) from example actively discourages the reading of the bible by laymen. It is considered to be something best left to experts. Among protestants only the more fundamentalist sects actually read the bible. My point once again which you haven't refuted is that for most Christians the hip youth groups, and Jesus paintings ARE the end.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
*for example
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
continued...
And the fact it is the end is evidenced by statistics showing number like only 24% of Christians regularly attending Church. Less than 10% have read the entire bible. Less than 30% of even those who say the bible can answer most of life's daily questions read it regularly.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
I don't agree with that.
I help out in a youth group and a college age ministry. Though I will say that some of the kids show up for the socialization, this does NOT mean that they do not hear the word of God while they are there.
This is the END for the people who actually run the youth groups. That's WHY they do it in the first place. The music, style, etc is a means to that end.
And that's what I meant by that, regardless of why the kids show up.
You can lead em to water....
vbfl920 2 years ago
And remember Mike, Nick was talking about "selling points" that christian leadership uses, or at least some of them use.
So in regards to an end, you have to look at the end from the leaderships perspective...the goal they are trying to accomplish via the means.
Those are all ice breakers. Those kids KNOW what they are really there for. We always let them know in a way they can understand.
vbfl920 2 years ago
"I help out in a youth group......"
Anecdotal evidence. I'm sure in SOME case it goes beyond JUST the hip youth groups. I'm talking about the big picture which is supported by verifiable statistics, and they entirely refute your isolated personal experience.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Isolated? Lol!
It doesnt matter. The END is the REASON the youth groups exist in the first place.
Are you going to tell me that these youth groups are NOT intended to bring young people into a genuine relationship with Jesus?
THAT is the end.
vbfl920 2 years ago
"You can lead em to water...."
That is ALL that is happening in the overwhelming majority of cases.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Why? Is it because the kids DONT know what they are supposed to be doing? Is it because they DONT hear the word of God?
No, its because they choose to live how they want. Not all of them of course, but it does happen.
The same exact thing goes for teen pregnancy, drug, and alchohol education. These kids are TAUGHT about such things, but they still choose to go against it, and take risks anyways.
vbfl920 2 years ago
So somehow this means that there is no truth to any of this education, or that God does not exist, because people can STILL make their own choices in spite of what they know to be right...
That's human nature Mike.
vbfl920 2 years ago
@vbfl920
I'm curious if you were aware of the findings of the Southern Baptist Council on Family Life's research in 2002. 88% of children raised in evangelical households leave the church at 18 never to return, and 2/3 of southern baptists only attend church sporadically. The message isn't being heard by those who are most intimately associated with it. THAT speaks volumes.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Yeah, and right now about 10 of my friends are in Atlanta with 20,000 18-25 year olds at a worship conference.
That has no bearing on whether the message is false or not. It only shows a trend in whether people are willing to follow it. And trends constantly change.
The divorce rate is 50% right now.
Do you think it was ALWAYS at 50%?
vbfl920 2 years ago
"The divorce rate is 50% right now.
Do you think it was ALWAYS at 50%?"
No it was lower when women were considered property or spoiled, and unfit for marriage if they divorced. So they stayed married to abusive womanizers. Are you trying to say things were better then??
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Yeah I realize that. But these were just opinions and self relections on their parts. It was more or less a way for me to show Nick that there is something appealing about the ACTUAL message and figure of Jesus which goes beyond bells and whistles, sex appeal, etc.
Alot of those quotes were from non-believers too.
vbfl920 2 years ago
This is one of the reasons why I can never stop believing because I know there is a God and I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. A painting of Jesus is just a painting that "we" as man did.
cguevara12 2 years ago
Well John, there is a difference between "Christianity" and "The Bible".
Islam appeals to some young people because it gives them a cause to band against when they have been oppressed. Whether or not this is in the Qu'ran is irrelevant, because the appeal goes beyond the Qu'ran
So if you want to stick to the Bible, fine, but Christianity doesn't necessarily stick to the Bible, so Nick's video wasn't off base
Appeal to psychology here meant appealing to subconscious faculties, tricking belief
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Thanks for the response HD.
A couple of things though.
1. I'm not sure if you can seperate "christianity" from the bible when it comes down to it. Nick was bringing God's existence into his argument so... many different things were being conflated here. It would be one thing if he were critiquing "tacky" christian methods. But he was using those methods and attacking the existence of God and the appeal of Jesus. Broad brush to paint with you know?
vbfl920 2 years ago
2. I understand what he meant by psych trickery. But my argument is that the ACTUAL message of Christ is on the same level as any other noble, moral, or religious notion like MLK's deeds or Ghandi's. Those ideals are not trickery and neither is the message of Christ. And this has no bearing on whether there are smooth talking envangelists, crooks, and cons. Those things have nothing to do with the ACTUAL message.
Thats what I think Nick needed to focus on.
vbfl920 2 years ago
And I still do not think he established any type of sex appeal by an average painting of Jesus. So I dont see how that is even an issue.
Nor do I see it as a problem that youth groups try to relate to young people as an approach.
EVERYONE does this. Childrens books, music videos, art..etc.
They all use these sorts of mediums to reach people with particular messages.
vbfl920 2 years ago
And I can't speak on behalf of Islam.
vbfl920 2 years ago
We're not discounting every single positive contribution of Christianity. Nick pointed out, and I concur, that some people believe as a result of things like psychological trickery or some other subconscious cue that doesn't have anything to do with the Bible. Not only are there plenty of reasons other than the Bible that people believe, but I'd argue it's in fact RARE that people believe because of the Bible, seeing as how many Christians don't really read or understand it.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
HD, when Nick asks why would the creator of the universe stoop to such methods, he is conflating any and ALL approaches for belief.
God stands by His word, the bible. In fact the bible itself says faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. It does not say that faith comes by sex appeal, etc.
vbfl920 2 years ago
So when Nick says what he says, I have to remind him that the bible is the PRIMARY source for belief, not any of these other things he points out.
He cant attack any of those other methods like they are an actual representation of faith in Christ.
Thats a strawman.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Actually John, the represent "Christians" better than the Bible does I'd say. You say god stands by his word, but the whole point is that he obviously needs more than that, for the Bible is not what brings the majority of believes to the flock. The point is that if Jesus was the son of god, the bible should be ALL that is needed, and that obviously isn't the case, as many Christians deconverted after actually reading the bible for the first time, and many who are still believers have yet to.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
it seems to me that an assumption in your argument, HD, is that if people are leaving the faith, the bible isn't doing a good enough job. i'd say the opposite, that it's not God who needs to do more thinking and work. i'd say that people ought to do more thinking and more work. the bible is sufficient for everyone's capacity to come to God, but it isn't sufficient for everyone's coming to God, because it allows them the choice to not follow/reject God.
legodesi 2 years ago
since the propositions "the bible is sufficient for the world's capacity to choose him" and "people can choose to reject or leave him" are consistent with each other, it's an error to infer from the fact of people having left God that the bible is insufficient for the world's capacity to choose God.
legodesi 2 years ago
But what are they rejecting? This is the most common misconception I get when discussing how belief works.
When we say "god lets us reject him" what you are saying is "god let's us come to the conclusion that he doesn't exist", which has NOTHING to do with the philosophy of his message, whether we should turn the other cheek or not. What is on the table is whether someone is willing to give up their passions for salvation, but in order to consider that, one must think salvation exists.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
I don't reject god, I don't reject the word of jesus son of god, any more than you reject the invisible rope behind you that you are not aware exists, and even if I told you about it you still would not be capable of accepting it. You have to believe the rope is there first before you can think about whether you should accept it's assistance or not. This is something the Bible does not do, it does not make a solid case for "this is undeniably the work of god".
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
HD,
comparing the bible with an invisble robe says there are insufficient reasons to believe the bible. that's the assumption by which you conclude that God hasn't made himself clear. but i believe that there are sufficient reasons to believe in him, through the bible, his spirit, and through nature. neither of us can prove our criteria of sufficient evidence, and neither of us will get anywhere in this argument until we agree on other grounds.
legodesi 2 years ago
"that's the assumption by which you conclude that God hasn't made himself clear, but i believe that there are sufficient reasons to believe in him"
Which is entirely subjective. No one is convinced the same way, no one thing can be explained to each individual in one fashion. Maybe the Bible was good enough for you, that's fine, but it obviously wasn't and still isn't enough for many others
I don't have to prove any criteria, my criteria is my own and I can't change it, gos should also know it
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Agreed that criteria is subjective.
"I don't have to prove any criteria, my criteria is my own and I can't change it, gos should also know it"
Do you think God is morally obligated to satisfy your subjective criteria?
legodesi 2 years ago
"Do you think God is morally obligated to satisfy your subjective criteria? "
If care about you enough not to date a certain person because I know they will kill you, and I have a video that will convince you that she will kill you, am I morally obligated to show you the video? You could still date her of course, but if I thought it would save you, would I not be obligated to show it to you so you can make the best and most informed decision possible?
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
sure, suppose you are morally obligated to show the video, but if our criteria is subjective, isn't it possible that he won't be convinced? and since our criteria are subjective, its possible that all the evidence in the world might not change my mind about her, and for you (i.e., God) to satisfy a subjective criteria would be almost impossible.
legodesi 2 years ago
:"isn't it possible that he won't be convinced"
Of course that's possible, since we're human. God should know what we need to be convinced, and if no such thing exists, then you have to ask yourself how god could create something that was unable to believe god existed, and then punish that thing for not doing the impossible.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
"we need to be convinced"
if God knows what "we need to be convinced", then what God knows is the sufficient criteria to believe in him, and so there is an objective criteria, the one that God knows. And I stipulate that he's given enough to make a choice to believe in him. Of course, I can't prove that he's done that, I just stipulate it from my own experiences.
legodesi 2 years ago
"he's given enough to make a choice to believe in him"
Ah, but there is the distraction. Mind you I don't think your actively trying to distract me from something, but this seems to be a common misconception, accidental as it may be. I cannot make a choice to believe in his word unless I believe in his existence, and as we've stated one cannot choose whether to believe in something as true or not true. In order to accept OR reject the salvation of Jesus, I have to think there is such a thing.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
"one cannot choose whether to believe in something as true or not true."
okay, so let's reword what i said. instead of saying he forms your choice, i'm saying he's given enough evidence for you to believe that God exists (and also that his salvation package is a pretty good one). if your belief is determined by the evidence, and if God knows and fulfills for people the objective criteria of evidence needed, then God has given you enough evidence to believe in his existence/salvation.
legodesi 2 years ago
"I'm saying he's given enough evidence for you to believe that God exists"
If he did, then I would believe he existed. Since that I don't, that means he hasn't. I cannot choose to believe in the existence of something, it isn't a matter of free will vs. determinism either. I just now put a video out on this topic.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
"If he did, then I would believe he existed"
But if he didn't, then I wouldn't believe he existed, either. (This is just to show you again, that the conclusions we are reaching in this argument are determined by the positions we've already taken on the existence of God) Anyhow, are we still assuming that criteria of evidence is subjective, or that it's objective?
legodesi 2 years ago
"But if he didn't, then I wouldn't believe he existed, either."
But you can still believe without an entity consciously to convince you, you can come to a conclusion without god, though whether your conclusion will be correct or incorrect remains to be seen.
The criteria for evidence is subjective and different for each individual. No one thinks exactly the same, if they did they'd be the same person. My point is that if god existed, all would be convinced; if he doesn't, only some would be.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
I cannot choose my beliefs. I cannot choose to believe that horses don't exist. I am either convinced by the evidence or not, my perceptions either equal up to belief or non-belief. If my perceptions lead me to believe that the Bible is not in any way divine, that Jesus did not die on the cross for my sins, then I cannot accept or reject his offering. Now if I DID believe in it, then I could then contemplate whether I should accept or reject such an offer.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
"I cannot choose my beliefs."
This is only partially true. We could override our rational functions to believe somethings. We could override our emotional biases to believe sommethings. I believe (by stipulation) that God has met a sufficient criteria of evidence for everyone. This, again, is determined by the fact that I acknowledge Christianity to be true. You are determined by your atheism to reject it.
legodesi 2 years ago
"You are determined by your atheism to reject it."
Wrong way my friend. My rejection of it determined my atheism. If you are going to argue that those that don't believe in Christianity are at fault because they don't use their emotion to override their logic, then I can say the same thing about any other theistic belief. You only believe in the Bible because you haven't used your emotion to lead you on the path to Allah.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
My rejection of it determined my atheism
hmm. good point, lol.
"then I can say the same thing about any other theistic belief"
It's true, you could say that, and one way or the other, we wouldn't be able convince each other otherwise. i'm saying that the fact
legodesi 2 years ago
No.
When you say things like a painting on a wall, or a youth group "gets" you to believe, you have to ask yourself a question.
WHAT does it get you to believe?
I can say the exact same thing about Nick's video presentations and style. He uses graphics, humor, and style to "get" me to believe that his views are correct.
Is he "tricking" me by doing this?
I wouldn't say so.
He's trying to persuade me, which is a HUGE difference from trying to "trick" someone.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Things that don't appeal to logic and reason are a bit of a trick. Everyone does it though, and those that don't rarely get their message across. However there are those that use it to augment logic and reason and those that use things such as rhetoric and appeals to emotion to totally get around logic and reason.
God, however, should not need any of that to convince people.
Strange that he would make us so succeptible to it though.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
glad to finally see a video from you
mdean1215 2 years ago
Thank you sir. When you encouraged me, this definitely played a huge part.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Me gusta, hermano.
There is no doubt a very appealing person in the gospels. And not in the chiseled abs sense, but in the outstanding moral guide sense. It's there, I don't disagree at all.
It's a good topic, which if you don't mind I may continue on.
I guess I came off as a tool, but really I hope you're as offended by the people who made these depictions as you are at me for pointing them out.
I dug the response, but we may play a little video tennis if you don't mind. ;)
peace
AHughman08 2 years ago
No, it's all good.
Yeah you can go for it man.
This was my FIRST video response to you lol!
Ive got another one coming soon lol!
vbfl920 2 years ago
Wait who is this in response to? And what painting are you talking about?
muertos06 2 years ago
Its a response to AHugman08's video " More reasons not to believe in God # 4".
Youd have to watch that first then watch this one.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Oh okay gotcha...
muertos06 2 years ago
Dude, that's an awesome NMH song. Love it!
But yeah, I agree with everything in this video.
thunderbolt94 2 years ago