I think it's very easy to adress the problem of evil when you study the Bible (a MUST in this topic), the answer is very simple, a GOD judges like a GOD, yeah EPIC, His judgements against evil are terrible for the wicked and unrepented, if God were to judge all evil right NOW, what would be the fate of those who raised the question?
Now, is God evil for giving you LIFE and the GIFT of SALVATION? I dun think so
He really didn't address the problem of evil...well just for a brief moment. His defense has been refuted as invalid for about 250 years by David Hume. He delivered quite nicely some moving anecdotes, but we all know that anecdotes are not arguments right?
@hardcorpssfor I think your problem is more with the title of the video rather than the question he is answering in the video.Remember, the question is how to present the gospel to someone who is experienceing pain.Since no one is exempt of this reality, Ravi simply gives a different and intellectually satisfying perspective (not understanding) of her pain that opens the door to Jesus.Finally, I wouldn't call Hume's argument a refutation as much as a (failed?) counter argument.
@unbelievablepwnage well I've yet to see an apologist (Lewis, Plantinga, and now Zacharias) offer a legitimate defense for the problem of evil. I thought this might be it...I was wrong. My search continues.
@hardcorpssfor They don't offer a defense for the problem of evil. They suggest that our very recognition of the problem of evil is in itself evidence of an objective moral framework. I guess you can call it an argument from evil. In at least this video, Ravi doesn't give an explanation for evil because, like I said, it wasn't the question. Also, I find Plantinga's and other's free will defense a good logical solution to the contradiction between an all good God and an evil world.
Because the term "Evil" is just a handy categorization for "suffering and that which bring it" that doesn't rely on either good or an ultimate example of such, and I might have missed it, but I fail to see how what he said in any way responds to the question as to why a loving entity would create or allow the formation of countless disease, make certain parts of the world significantly more inhospitable to human existence than others, and not deal with these issues?
And then he ends it all by saying that only god is big enough to answer that question, making everything he said until then meaningless speculation.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how what he said either answers the questions or nullifies the facts of how much suffering happens in the world without any meaning to it. I don't see how its a good response to a god that turns a blind eye to third-world children with parasitic worms devouring their eyes from the inside out even as they starve.
wtf? what the hell did this have to do with the problem of evil? when will people finally accept it: there is no argument against the problem of evil! the problem of evil absolutely disproves an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god! thats a fact. thats as certain as a fact could be it makes this particular idea of a god less probebly then santaclause or the flying spagetthi monster and there is no fucking argument against it... its that easy. no reason to argue
@KINGSHITSU Hey, good question. First, let me make one clarification. I wasn't listing points here. I was trying to reconstruct Zacharias' argument in premise-conclusion form. Maybe he would disagree with my reconstruction, but this is what I got from listening to his talk. To answer your question, I don't have a well-developed view, but here's one possibility. There are fundamental facts about which things are good and evil.
@KINGSHITSU Sorry, maybe I misunderstood you. Did you mean on what basis do I tell what is good and what is evil? First, I look around at the world. Some things strike me as being good, others as evil. However, sometimes, we can be mistaken about our initial impressions, so as a second step, I would try to think about what features of these things make them good and evil, and then see if my final judgments are all consistent with each other. I hope that was a better answer.
@tlcambell Cool, you pretty much got the gist of it. When you say some things "strike you" as good and evil, and you think about certian "features" as good and evil. I believe you are saying some things are undisputedly such and such (if my assumption is wrong let me kno). Not to sound like a broken record but to what do you compare these features in order to determine their goodness or evilness.
@KINGSHITSU You don't sound like a broken record because you're now asking me a different question. Before you asked "on what basis do you differentiate between good and evil?" I gave my answer. Now you're asking what I COMPARE certain features to in order make these judgments. I don't compare them to anything. Certain things just strike me as being evil, and I think I can point to the features of those things that explain why they're evil. The same is true of the things that strike me as good.
@tlcambell Its still the same question just in different form. Whatever your comparing the features to is what your using as your "basis of judgement" for making the moral distinction. Let me ask you this before we continue, it will save lots of time I think and just help me know where ur coming from without asking 100+1 questions. Do you believe in objective morals?
@KINGSHITSU Okay now I see how the questions could be the same.
One quick clarification. Although the concept of evil usually implies wrong doing, Z is using the term in a different way. Basically, by "evil", he just means "bad". One might think that the distinction between good and bad is a moral distinction, but I don't think it is. (But I do think the distinction between right and wrong is a moral distinction).
Answer: I think there are objective morals, but I'm not certain.
@tlcambell May I recommend a book that may answer your question in more detail? I believe the first 2 or 3 chapters of C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" answers your question about whether there is a moral law code in which we all abide which means there would be a moral law giver. It may not convince you, but he does a really good job at explaining it, and on the non scholarly level in which i read
@tlcambell On a completely different unrelated side note lol, saw the vid on ur channel and I was just watching boxers replays from the GSPA gettin tips for my terran builds =D
@KINGSHITSU Yeah, I think I put that on my channel by mistake, but I'm glad if it helps you. I used to play it all the time back in the day, but don't have time for it anymore. I can't believe how good those guys are.
Is he suggesting that God allows pain and suffering to aid personal/spiritual growth? Is this any different than turning the other cheek when you see your neighbor beating their child as punishment? I think the motives are the same, inflict pain as a means of character development.
Nah he doesn't and you know that aswell as anybody who actually knows about the problem of evil and watches this video. He tosses some easy-debunkable baseless rhetoric. Saying that the love of Jesus/God whatever conquers all evil is surely evident in the world today.
Paul writes of the mystery of Christ being from before man (I can get the reference shortly). It does seem that redemption was God's original intent and that He knew of what was to take place before it did. If we look to Anselm, we read an interesting pseudo-dialectic on Freewill, wherein he explains that the freedom of the will corresponds with goodness and not evil for that which relates to evil is a slave to evil and certainly not free.
I am an Apologist, God did intend for evil. But man was perfect up until Eve was tempted by Satan, Then Eve tempted Adam, Then Evil was among man, Free will is associated with evil.
@TheSvenskMan " Free will is associated with evil." That is a poor statement because by your logic God is associated with evil since He has free will.
@TheSvenskMan "God did [not] intend for evil. But man was perfect up until Eve was tempted by Satan"
If God didn't foresee that evil would exist after executing his plan, then he is not omniscient. This contradicts the Christian model of "God". Also, I don't see how man can be perfect for only a period of time and then end abruptly. If man is fallible, then he cannot be perfect to begin with.
We watch discovery and are awestruck by tornadoes, yet curse God when it rips down and kills family. We put 2$ in a pop machine and get angry because we press the coke button yet a different brand spits out at random. Its funny we demand order in certain parts of life yet demand relativity in another. We curse God when planes fall from the sky yet thank him for what we can do with gravity. This world is painful but it has order so we know what love is and can have access to a loving God.
We watch discovery and are awestruck by tornadoes, yet curse God when it rips down and kills family members. We put 2$ in a pop machine get pissed because we press the coke button yet a different brand spits out at random. Its funny we demand order in certain parts of life yet demand relativity in another. We curse God when planes fall from the sky yet thank him for what we can do with gravity.
We watch discovery and are awestruck by tornadoes, yet curse God when it rips down and kills family members. We put 2$ in a pop machine get pissed because we press the coke button yet a different brand spits out at random. Its funny we demand order in certain parts of life yet demand relativity in another. We curse God when planes fall from the sky yet thank him for what we can do with gravity.
We watch discovery and are awestruck by tornadoes, yet curse God when it rips down and kills family members. We put 2$ in a pop machine get pissed because we press the coke button yet a different brand spits out at random. Its funny we demand order in certain parts of life yet demand relativity in another. We curse God when planes fall from the sky yet thank him for what we can do with gravity.
We watch discovery and are awestruck by tornadoes, yet curse God when it rips down and family members. We put 2$ in a pop machine and get pissed because we press the coke button yet a different brand spits out at random. Its funny we demand order in certain parts of life yet demand relativity in another. We curse God when planes fall from the sky yet thank him for what we can do with gravity.
We watch discovery and are awestruck by tornadoes, yet curse God when it rips down and kills family members. We put 2$ in a pop machine and get pissed because we press the coke button yet a different brand spits out at random. Its funny we demand order in certain parts of life yet demand relativity in another. We curse God when planes fall from the sky yet thank him for what we can do with gravity.
The article he mentions at 2:00 is in the book God and the Philosophers. Her chapter is called The Mirror of Evil. Google "eleonore stump mirror of evil pdf" and the first (non-ad) site is a page of her writings. You can download the pdf at the bottom of that page.
I'm a christian but this answer is a bit weak. He first equivocates on the term "evil" as he uses his christian definition to make it look like atheists are contradicting themselves. He also doesn't address the problem of natural evil (tsunamis, cancer...) I don't think his answer was very effective, David Hume would have torn him to shreds had he been there. William Craig is much more effective a debater than this guy
@lorenzschuerch I am also a believer, however although I look at tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, cancer, etc., as certainly catastrophic, I don't consider them evil. The reason is these things lack intent, a concious, intentional, predatory behavior. Peace.
.... In other words it means that the concept of morality doesn't even come into it. Please think through your argument properly before you post rather than comforming to the masses and posting useless straw-mans like this one.
This is really insidious. Any and all wickedness is deputized in service of proving the religious truth claim. This isn't an argument. It's a demonstration of how faith corrodes healthy moral reason.
... those with inferior rules and structure perished and after thousands of years, more recently where more complex tools to make life easier were invented and life changed from a battle against the rest of nature to survive into making life as comfortable as possible. This is where many other 'moral' laws came from such as no stealing and no raping etc.
So if the Germans would have won WW2, defeated all their enemies, making the world a better place for them and their ideals, then what they did wouldn't have been wrong since now they are in the majority and were just doing what is best for their own survival?
@Fleefles Another straw-man argument. Are you creationists so in love with them that you can't think of anything else to say? You are approaching the argument as if evolution by natural selection is an ideology. But it isn't. Evolution by natural selection is simply a (very well backed-up by evidence) theory that explains the diversity of life. It is not a moral or immoral process, it is an Amoral process....
This is easy to debunk. Today's morale law giver is Modern Western Society. It has evolved its own set of rules, laws and morals over time, originating from the desire of primitive humans doing what was best for their own survival, which resulted in doing what was best for themselves and the rest of the group/tribe to survive. Those groups that had the best rules in order to survive survived and the process of natural selection continues from there...
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 So it's not wrong if I go rape your mother on camera and force the rest of your family to watch it? If you don't think there's anything wrong with that then you have no right to make any claims at all. You have relinquished your right to say anything about anything because you are claiming that moral truth does not exist, therefore claiming that morality is merely rooted in the survival instinct. Your argument defeats itself. Here's some truth for you, there is no "evolution"
@7F0X7 hahaha, all creationists can come up with these days are straw-man arguments, especially lame weak ones like this. There is no evolution eh? Do you have any scientific papers published about it, Mr Know-it-all? To disprove the MOUNTAINS of evidence that supports it? Didn't think so.
Ravi, my brother, I love you. I'm looking forward to meeting you personally when I pass into true life. May all who desire real life, humble themselves, admit that they are broken, and seek the Son of God, that they might not lose their life, but find it in Him. God Bless you all.
When the government falls, people will go to where the food is, if you have food, then they will get it. There will be millions of people rooming the streets, and they will be hungry. Anger will do you no good. The civilians will be the worst, all they will want is food. I have many guns, and ammo, they will not do any good. Your going to have to use your mind. In the army I hit 17 out of 18 at 300 meters, but that will be worthless. Thanks Rich People
The jews let the jewish slaves go every seven years, but not the gentiles, they were handed down from generation to generation. You are trying to make slavery sound so good, you should go back in time and live the dream.
What about William Wilberforce and dozens of others which you tacitly haven't even responded to. If there is one thing about human depravity, it has expressed itself in the form of slavery throughout most of history. Those of us lucky enough to be born to the historical aberration of freedom ought not trivialize it and take it for granted by claiming human fallacy as an argument against the Bible. We all have sinned and need to be reconciled to the moral law, through Christ.
@YtseWolf7 OK so you enjoy slavery, I understand that. I don't so, that makes me an evil person with no values. When the dollar falls and there are no cops, who is going to protect someone that thinks slavery is a good thing. The world is changing , and people who love the idea of slavery, are going to have it really hard. When there are no cops, and america falls. I'm going on a killing spree. Woman, children, men, everyone who loves the bible and slavery, death will come.
@sarevor There is no jehova, yaweh, allah, god etc. You are a disgrace to humanity for thinking so in light of all the information that is available from science that provides the technonlogy we rely upon today.
@sarevor I'm afraid it isn't up to everyone to figure out the truth - the sad fact fact is that the level of education for the majority will not enable them to do so. Religion through superstition belief of many kinds has been in place for millennia. Rome refined Christianity AD365 and Islam came about in C7 all based on the broad mythology of the region from Abraham. Most of the world still believes in a bronze age defined god and all of the inaccuracies inherent. The truth must out...
@mrjonno Really depends on the belief, though. Education for many, as for Ravi Zacharias, I imagine took advantage of higher education, so that can be an example of someone educated yet deciding for themselves. I do agree with you that education should be more widespread. It's a shame to see so many not able to take advantage - I too am displeased of what Rome did to true Christianity, which Jesus himself warned would happen after his departure, but that's another story. Thanks again.
@sarevor Ravi Zacharias is from a highly religious background and did not study any science subject at higher education, check his Wikipedia entry. Jesus did not even exist - he is the creation of Rome. You have some education to go through yourself.
@mrjonno Most secular scholars accept the existence of Jesus as the man who began Christianity. There are scientists from all different backgrounds and many are Christian, such as the man ahead of the Genome Project is Catholic.
@sarevor Fortunately for man our knowledge is not static. Rome have managed very well to cover their fabrication to the detriment of humanity until recently. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Oxyrhynchus Papyri have provided the historical info that Rome tried to destroy to present the 4 gospels for their political purpose. Look to the gospels of Mary, Philip and Thomas for very different versions of Christ. Josephus was the only historical account of Jesus - it's false. Control of belief is power.
@mrjonno The idea that Christ was a made up by Rome as a conspiracy is entirely unfounded and goes up there in the fringe department. The other 'gospels' you mention are the antithesis to the gospel and they are referred to as gnostic text for a reason. The 'lost books' as most refer them tend to center salvation at the inner person and turn yahweh into an evil God which is exactly contrary to the gospel message. Real Christians lived a hard life to witness to others what they experienced.
@sarevor The only official gospels are issued from Rome under the Nicean Council 365 years after 'their' hero wsa supposed to have lived as the New Testament. They do not agree with any other accounts from the time and there is not one single independent evidence to show the Jesus ever existed. Religions try to 'prove' this by misquotation and lies. Clearly you have fallen for them with a deluded belief that Yahweh\God\Allah exists and Jesus was the son. Disgraceful if you respect science.
@mrjonno I don't mean this as an insult, but I believe you are misinformed. At the same time, I won't go further since it seems you're adamant in your views and anything more would be proselytizing. All the best to you.
@sarevor No science is not misinformed. The whole point of the scientific method is to find the truth, if you call this proselytizing then this is your right as a deluded believer but it is a disgrace to humanity.
On a personal basis I have no insult to you. On an intellectual level you have proven yourself to be the greatest evil to man. You believe in god which is detrimental to the survival of our species.
Make amends and understand that bronze age superstition is not good in C 21. Best
" when you assume that something is good you assume there is a moral law.... and if you assume a moral law you ultimately must assume a moral law giver"
Hmmm, sounds very much like he makes his own assumptions. The question does affirm a moral framework exists in life but the question does not affirm the existence of a moral framework giver, that's just Ravi making assumptions.
@pecklepops I So we may assume a moral law but no giver of that moral law? How did a moral law evolve from non-moral agents ? Morally benigh entitities gave rise to a moral law ? How could they give what they did not have in themselves to give ? How could they invest what was not in themselves ? How could the efffect be greater than the cause ?
The bible brought us slavery for thousands of years. There were two kinds of slavery, Jewish, and Gentile. A Jewish person could sell himself into slavery and be freed in a short time, but a Gentile slave could be handed down from generation to generation, and be beaten to death, as long as he don't die on the first day. I don't know why Christians don't talk about Gentile slaves. Not telling the whole truth is a lie
@steelbrushtattoo What was the right of a slave in Jewish society in the year of Jubilee ? It was to be released from slavery. Every 50 years depts could be forgiven, slaves released, property returned. Could you name me a slave practicing society on earth with a similar provision ? The Bible also was key in bringing abolition from slavery. Check the liturature of many great abolotionists and their references to the Bible.
@Zacharybinx34 What a bunch of mambo jumbo crap. I don't know if you are aware, but the is a war going on. Those defend the bible will find themselves in a car bomb, or on a bus full of Christians. You might want to watch your ass. Don't defend Jews or Christians slavery.
No there isn't, expecially things like love, hate, various emotions. The existence of anything. Developmet of fetus and the conclusions of studies pointing to that, even at their earliest stages and without ANY life experience, have shown emotion and reations to their parent talking to them while in the womb! A fetus will react one way when Mom and Dad talk even versus a grandparent. Explain that without Adonai!
As an atheist I base my worldview on knowledge provided by the scientific method along with verifiable history. I do not align with communism.
As a theist you base your view on the supposed word of a deity creator handed down as stories from the bronze age until they were interpreted and written down around 950BC reflecting the superstitious nature of the peoples then and then added to with some of the gospels of the Gnostic religions by Rome for political purposes in AD365. Come up to date.
@bozz43 I don't hate you. I just see you as misguided and ultimately providing a support to a system that does spread hatred amongst man. I have great empathy for mankind and a wish to see him survive and prosper. It is for this reason that I respond to YT videos that spread deception and further the suffering and division in the world. I am being the change that I want to see in the world.
@bozz43 'The irony of fools' Indeed. A highly appropriate summary of theists.
The followers in their belief that they are doing good provide the justification for the churches to spread their doctrines causing division, hatred and ultimately violence and muder. Highly ironic.
@GuitarGuy22221 Well I wouldn't call believers' of religions idiots, deluded is more appropriate. Your comment is confirmation of this. Yes I have read the bible and have also studied the history surrounding it and the other Abrahamic faiths. There is asolutely no evidence for the existence of god or Jesus as told.
@mrjonno dude that is just a moronic comment. no evidence for God or Jusus and you are all studied up on it. buddy you are a bold faced liar and its obvious. there is evidence, the evidence of history, experience, personal testimony and basic logic and the reality of the world around you. You CHOOSE to not accept it. That is a personal choice by you to not beleive the evidence and testimonies of others. To say there is no evidence is just utter foolishness.
@TheHellbinder That's right no evidence for the existence of God or Jesus. No lies unlike religon. The only statements we have for their existence are in the bible and even the church admits you need faith to accept the tenets within. In the light of science creation and explanation of the world and universe have been shown to be false. There is not one single scrap of a clue outside the NT that Jesus lived, the Josephus account has been shown to be falsified. Rome made it up for control.
@bozz43 I don't know any humanitarian who wants the world to be like North Korea. Personally I would like to see a world that learns from the mistakes of history and uses its knowledge to propel mankind into new realms of discovery whilst creating sustainable systems to preserve the world and all its life for the future of our survival.
You talk nonsense, the ramblings of a deluded believer just like Ravi Zacharias.
So Jesus never even existed. He was the creation of the Nicean Council under Emperor Constantine in 365 AD for political reasons to Rome.
Ravi Zacharias is the equaivant to Zaik Nakir for ownership and translation of bronze age mans' civilisation and the perpetuation of the Abrahamic religion delusion. Two dangerous and lying men. Humanity needs to move on quickly from the lies these men preach to realise its destiny in harmony and peace.
Ravi's an idiot! The girl asks him why "shit happens".......Though she used the term "evil", he's the one who posited evil as a seemingly purposeful act in defiance of "good".
Can't these preachers make an objective argument without assuming, in the premise, what they are trying to prove?
It's annoying that people accept this without questioning it!
@myironlungca it obviously went over your head. ravi goes into great depth with his answers unlike Dawkins or Hitchens who insult the person asking the question.
@lightbrownpoop If you think avoiding and then rephrasing the question followed by endless minutes of entertaining yet irrelevant anecdotes is "great depth" then perhaps you need to pay more attention. The problem of evil has never been fully addressed since the birth of christianity - many have tried and all have failed. All responses boil down to "good makes no sense as a concept without evil". This is weak at best and does nothing to address the sheer quantity of evil in the world.
And the second video i have watched from this idiot, his arguments are gymnastic word play that only a idiot would be fooled by - he never answers the question either. Textbook christian apologist fuckwit.
-When you say something is evil, you assume something is good. When you assume something is good, you assume there is a moral law by which to differentiate between good and evil. And if you assume a moral law, you must ultimately posit a moral law giver.
-If there's no moral law giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil.
everyone will get what's coming to them, good or bad, eventually. Whether you're a christian or not. Remember, just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean it isn't true.
But the Bible does not teach difference of good and evil as leading need for salvation.Evil is as equal to good in the heart of man.Good is equal to evil in self righteousness.Adam did not eat evil he ate from the tree of good and evil. Man is powerless knowing good being flesh to make himself right in God's eyes.So the law of a moral law giver does not hold God is not moral by Nature.He exceeds morality in perpetual Virtue.There is something better than good and obviously evil.
(cont.) Now, I've never been raped myself, but if I had, this would be my response to Ravi's justification: "Why do I have to be raped in order to offer comfort to others who have been raped?" The implication is a sinister one - he is implying that compassion is conditional upon suffering, and we are incapable of showing compassion unless we are suffering ourselves. What a low opinion of humanity Ravi has...and what a feeble excuse for a God who allows rapists to violate the innocent!
No, it is not "evil at work". There is no magical force wandering the planet, entering the body of rapists and making them rape. We are all capable of causing pain and suffering, and unfortunately many of us do just that. We are responsible for our own actions.
@garethac81 I think I agree with every word you say, there is no magical evil force wandering around, every human has the capacity to bring evil into reality.
It doesn't "get in" from outside, its part of our internal makeup. from whence come evil ? from the very heart of man.
@jonesgerard What garbage you spew. Evil itself is a man made concept. What passes for good and evil is an ever changing idea based on current societal norms and controlled by pragmatic needs. For example is war evil? Is driving evil? Would it be evil to kill someone invading your home about to rape your wife? etc etc. This idea that there are absolutes in morality is demonstrably naive.
Ravi compares a rape victim to Jesus being violated by his crucifixion. OK, according to Christian theology, Jesus was crucified for a very specific purpose - in order to save us from our sins. That justifies HIS suffering. What justifies the suffering of the rape victim, who has most certainly NOT offered themselves to a rapist as a martyr for the sins of humanity? Ravi says this suffering is justified because a rape victim gains better understanding on how to counsel other rape victims...
Ravi gives us a neat bit about evil in this video, which is: if you ask "why does God allow evil?", you assume there is good and evil, and there cannot be absolute good and evil without God, therefore there is a God.
By apologetic standards, it's fairly clever...however, with only a simple adjustment to the question, the logic falls apart. Ask instead: "Why does God permit suffering?" Suffering requires no moral absolutism to justify itself, and consequently offers no default proof of God.
Sorry, but suffering is NOT "an option" for a rape victim. It is forced upon them. If there is no God, this makes perfect sense, because cruel and unfair treatment is exactly what we would expect if there was no supernatural benefactor watching over us. However, as soon as you presume there IS such a being, events of random cruelty become non-sensical. Can YOU explain why a "loving" God allows the innocent to suffer? (And please, no garbage about us "all being sinners"...NO ONE deserves rape)
@garethac81 The operating term is VICTIM, what a victim does with that crime spells the difference between pain and suffering. As I stated you don't acknowledge the difference between pain and suffering.
"why a "loving" God allows the innocent ..."
Its a consequence of free will, free will isn't just a luxury of the good, people who with evil compulsions exercise their free will too.
MAybe it doesn't make sense to you because you don't like free will and want a nanny type god.
@jonesgerard Going by this premise then - my free will choice to bring pain to another person overrides a god being in control. This other person did not ask for, in fact prayed daily for protection from evil/pain, yet my free will trumps this persons prayers. If you say, god sometimes steps in to stop my actions - why only for this person, and not others I would bring pain to? Would you want a relationship with someone on earth who brings random pain to a group of say 10 friends?
I liked the huge amounts of rhetoric that this guy spews and how he refuses to even logically justify his arguments without using word play and immaterial nonsense. I was sent these videos to try convince me to stop being an atheist. Only decent part of it all was the cute ish woman on this one.
Anybody not convinced by this bs should Greydon Square- a rational response or patcondell.
So those who have been raped are lucky. They get to experience something almost as bad as Christ did and this brings them closer to the Glory of God than the rest of us. Silly me.
@gibozzo i agree, in nature, animals kill eachothe in the cruelest ways. In society, we call it evil, so it is a term label by man. There is no evil, nor good. Everything happens randomly, human are intelligently enough to label them. Since there is no evil, there is no moral laws, and no God. Ravi is bullshitting. it is his job and livelihood. he's making shitload o money.
@saigondj Heh heh. If I smacked you upside the head without provocation, would that be random? Evil? apparently not. Can you fwd your address so I can come over and pop you one?
Naw, I'm being silly. I am curious how athiests/agnostics explain the concept of purpose? That is, why is purpose (via relationships, job, achievements, pursuit for money, etc.) so important to the human experience?
@saigondj Sorry for my late reply. There is definite order to the universe, which means there is purpose. I suspect your denial of purpose is made in order to deny the definite order seen in the universe.
You answered my first question, but what about my second? Why is purpose (via relationships, job, achievements, grades, pursuit of identity, pursuit for money, etc.) so important to the human experience that we invest our entire lives in chasing it?
@roningham my view changed since the last time i spoke to you. Purpose do exist on a deffinite time continuum. However, the longer you expand time, say to infinity, purpose ceases to exist. SInce human are mortal, we do not live forever, therefore we will naturally experience purpose.
So the purpose in live, in summary, is to constantly change and evolve,or to maintain from a current state to the next state on the continuum of Time. Hence, we breath, eat, work, achieve, chasing dreams....
Your argument here sounds similar to what is called the "Euthyphro Problem" - which is not a problem at all. I agree that we do not need God if morality is objectively true independent of God's commands. However, it is not logically inconsistent that what is good is what God commands. This idea is consistent with the idea that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Objective morality cannot be rationalized and subjective morality is completely arbitrary.
particularly since the idea of God being "Good" is then based entirely upon Gods definition of "Good" making the idea of calling him good absolutely stupid (As God can then never not be good by his own definition)
What do you mean by "subjective?" It is humanly objective in that the Moral Law transcends us and is more or less invariable (I say more or less because we, as humans, do not have absolute knowledge of morality). When we say God is Good, it is not a judgement from an external moral standard. It is more like saying, "what is Good is what God wills and commands. Therefore, God is Good."
The tautology is a significant one to the Christian.
@sweetman17 Subjective exactly as most mean it It is not true in virtue of being true as it were as in your case good is merely Gods opinion If God defines good then to call God good is meaningless He could not be any other way by his own definition So what is the point of calling him good at all? And what makes his definition good? because he says so? you need to show that first we can trust gods word and that calling him good in your sense is anything other then meaningless
I think you misunderstand me. The "second option" of the Euthyphro problem isn't entirely accurate. The problem with the phrases, "God defines good" and "good is merely God's opinion" (I am quoting you) is that they are not consistent with the nature of God or morality. Morality is grounded in God's very nature, which is expressed through His commands. Therefore, what God commands is not arbitrary, but necessarily consistent with his omnibenevolent nature.
firstly that you have yet to put forward how we can know God is omnibenevolent?
If he is defining good and evil then it follows again that calling him good in any sense is a meaningless phrase
and if it is his nature to be good without any standards other then his own (No externally objective rules of morality) then he is free to simply decide whatever he wants to be benevolent
First of all, to ask me how we can know God is omnibenevolent is to raise a completely different question; that is, the epistemological certainty of the nature of God. If one raises the Euthyphro problem they must assume God exists. Now if one posits a divine entity that isn't omnibenevolent, they can't be positing the Abraham God of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. If this entity isn't omnibenevolent, this discussion is fruitless.
However defining benevolent simply in terms of your God own opinion is fruitless as well
even as part of his nature still doesn't solve the problem for a being that is both Omnipotent and Omniscient where it's own nature is such that it can be however it wants
If you want to accept that it cannot define good any other way then an objective standard apart from God muct exist
Otherwise God can define Good is any way he wants so making it a subjective interpretation
The contradiction continues. You admit that no objective standard need exist, yet you wonder, "what if God is evil" and you claim that you can reject the notion that God is good. Ok, so by what moral standard, if no objective standard exists (as you admit), could God be evil? And by what standard do you reject God as good? I am not presupposing that God is good because I cannot judge whether or not God is good or evil. The very idea of good is the result of God's existence.
Without God, there is no morality. Nietzsche knew it. Camus knew it. Russel knew it. Concerning your second post, There is no inconsistency in claiming that God is good. I fully accept that it is logically impossible for God to be evil. This does not discount his omnipotence, though. Why? Because the moral law (distinction between good and evil) is a completely human phenomenon. So God is not subject to the moral law because it is defined by His nature.
I have trouble understanding your second post (which begins with Dostoevsky's quote). "And Atheists have no trouble" ... what does that mean? Have no trouble with what? Please try to be coherent. Your arguments aren't backed with reasons. I ask you, how can objective morality exist without God? How can morality be reasoned? How does one reason out moral truths? One simply cannot. Every claim by human reason that something is good or evil is ultimately arbitrary, without God.
It's not a coincidence, I was referring to Dostoevsky, and you quoted me. The quote does not mean that atheists cannot be moral, it challenges the meta-physical validity of a morality based on rationality; it means that moral obligation means nothing without God. So you are claiming that moral truths are "right by virtue of being right." How does that make sense? It sounds very much like Ethical naturalism which commits the fallacy of turning an "is" into an "ought."
I have conceded that there exists no objective moral law by which God is subject to. I believe there is a "universal moral law" which transcends human beings and is the consequence of God's existence. And yes I would argue that God has full knowledge of moral truth, and that as humans, though we are rational (which is very little help regarding moral truth), we are certainly not omniscient. Besides, it has yet to be shown how moral truths can be rationalized. ...
... I don't wish to dodge your question so I am going to re-state my argument so that no arguments need to be repeated. You may disagree with some of the premises, but it answers your question. So here it is:
(1) Valid moral truths exist if, and only if, God exists.
(2) Moral truths exist
(3) Therefore God exists.
Next:
(1) God commands prescriptive statements (i.e. one "ought" to act in a certain way).
lol @ everyone who thinks god can be 'all-loving' while children starve to death every day
depauw2004 1 month ago
I think it's very easy to adress the problem of evil when you study the Bible (a MUST in this topic), the answer is very simple, a GOD judges like a GOD, yeah EPIC, His judgements against evil are terrible for the wicked and unrepented, if God were to judge all evil right NOW, what would be the fate of those who raised the question?
Now, is God evil for giving you LIFE and the GIFT of SALVATION? I dun think so
IloveYOUviruses 1 month ago
He really didn't address the problem of evil...well just for a brief moment. His defense has been refuted as invalid for about 250 years by David Hume. He delivered quite nicely some moving anecdotes, but we all know that anecdotes are not arguments right?
hardcorpssfor 2 months ago
@hardcorpssfor I think your problem is more with the title of the video rather than the question he is answering in the video.Remember, the question is how to present the gospel to someone who is experienceing pain.Since no one is exempt of this reality, Ravi simply gives a different and intellectually satisfying perspective (not understanding) of her pain that opens the door to Jesus.Finally, I wouldn't call Hume's argument a refutation as much as a (failed?) counter argument.
unbelievablepwnage 1 month ago in playlist ! RAVI Zacharias Lectures!
@unbelievablepwnage well I've yet to see an apologist (Lewis, Plantinga, and now Zacharias) offer a legitimate defense for the problem of evil. I thought this might be it...I was wrong. My search continues.
hardcorpssfor 1 month ago
@hardcorpssfor They don't offer a defense for the problem of evil. They suggest that our very recognition of the problem of evil is in itself evidence of an objective moral framework. I guess you can call it an argument from evil. In at least this video, Ravi doesn't give an explanation for evil because, like I said, it wasn't the question. Also, I find Plantinga's and other's free will defense a good logical solution to the contradiction between an all good God and an evil world.
unbelievablepwnage 1 month ago
Did I miss something here?
Because the term "Evil" is just a handy categorization for "suffering and that which bring it" that doesn't rely on either good or an ultimate example of such, and I might have missed it, but I fail to see how what he said in any way responds to the question as to why a loving entity would create or allow the formation of countless disease, make certain parts of the world significantly more inhospitable to human existence than others, and not deal with these issues?
ogith 2 months ago
@ogith
And then he ends it all by saying that only god is big enough to answer that question, making everything he said until then meaningless speculation.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how what he said either answers the questions or nullifies the facts of how much suffering happens in the world without any meaning to it. I don't see how its a good response to a god that turns a blind eye to third-world children with parasitic worms devouring their eyes from the inside out even as they starve.
ogith 2 months ago
this girl should read "man in search for meaning" by viktor frankl
patriciacarrasco 4 months ago
KevinJamalCaldwell 4 months ago
Comment removed
Jjboricua18 4 months ago
Zacharias seems to be saying this:
1. The argument from evil presupposes that there is evil.
2. If there is evil, then there is good.
3. If there is good, then there is a moral law.
4. If there is a moral law, then there is a moral law giver.
Therefore,
5. If there is evil, then there is a moral law giver.
Therefore,
Conclusion: The argument from evil presupposes that there is a moral law giver.
This is a terrible argument. He has given us no reason at all to accept premises 3 and 4.
tlcambell 5 months ago
@tlcambell I think I can help you with that. For point 3, on what basis do you differentiate between good and evil?
KINGSHITSU 5 months ago
@KINGSHITSU Hey, good question. First, let me make one clarification. I wasn't listing points here. I was trying to reconstruct Zacharias' argument in premise-conclusion form. Maybe he would disagree with my reconstruction, but this is what I got from listening to his talk. To answer your question, I don't have a well-developed view, but here's one possibility. There are fundamental facts about which things are good and evil.
tlcambell 5 months ago
@KINGSHITSU Sorry, maybe I misunderstood you. Did you mean on what basis do I tell what is good and what is evil? First, I look around at the world. Some things strike me as being good, others as evil. However, sometimes, we can be mistaken about our initial impressions, so as a second step, I would try to think about what features of these things make them good and evil, and then see if my final judgments are all consistent with each other. I hope that was a better answer.
tlcambell 5 months ago
@tlcambell Cool, you pretty much got the gist of it. When you say some things "strike you" as good and evil, and you think about certian "features" as good and evil. I believe you are saying some things are undisputedly such and such (if my assumption is wrong let me kno). Not to sound like a broken record but to what do you compare these features in order to determine their goodness or evilness.
KINGSHITSU 5 months ago
@KINGSHITSU You don't sound like a broken record because you're now asking me a different question. Before you asked "on what basis do you differentiate between good and evil?" I gave my answer. Now you're asking what I COMPARE certain features to in order make these judgments. I don't compare them to anything. Certain things just strike me as being evil, and I think I can point to the features of those things that explain why they're evil. The same is true of the things that strike me as good.
tlcambell 5 months ago
@tlcambell Its still the same question just in different form. Whatever your comparing the features to is what your using as your "basis of judgement" for making the moral distinction. Let me ask you this before we continue, it will save lots of time I think and just help me know where ur coming from without asking 100+1 questions. Do you believe in objective morals?
KINGSHITSU 5 months ago
@KINGSHITSU Okay now I see how the questions could be the same.
One quick clarification. Although the concept of evil usually implies wrong doing, Z is using the term in a different way. Basically, by "evil", he just means "bad". One might think that the distinction between good and bad is a moral distinction, but I don't think it is. (But I do think the distinction between right and wrong is a moral distinction).
Answer: I think there are objective morals, but I'm not certain.
tlcambell 5 months ago
@tlcambell May I recommend a book that may answer your question in more detail? I believe the first 2 or 3 chapters of C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" answers your question about whether there is a moral law code in which we all abide which means there would be a moral law giver. It may not convince you, but he does a really good job at explaining it, and on the non scholarly level in which i read
Jjboricua18 4 months ago
@Jjboricua18 Thanks for the reference.
tlcambell 4 months ago
@tlcambell On a completely different unrelated side note lol, saw the vid on ur channel and I was just watching boxers replays from the GSPA gettin tips for my terran builds =D
KINGSHITSU 5 months ago
@KINGSHITSU Yeah, I think I put that on my channel by mistake, but I'm glad if it helps you. I used to play it all the time back in the day, but don't have time for it anymore. I can't believe how good those guys are.
tlcambell 5 months ago
Is he suggesting that God allows pain and suffering to aid personal/spiritual growth? Is this any different than turning the other cheek when you see your neighbor beating their child as punishment? I think the motives are the same, inflict pain as a means of character development.
WiseMosquito 5 months ago
Ravi is a juggernaught..He slambastes the skeptic by showing us that God can go where no man can...the human soul..
doobersmanster 6 months ago in playlist ! RAVI Zacharias Lectures of Wisdom!
really good :) please share with others...
lequeenbre 7 months ago
This guy is Sharp
007Product 7 months ago 11
@007Product
Yeah I love his suit too!
pretty schnazzy..
Omnipharious 7 months ago
Nah he doesn't and you know that aswell as anybody who actually knows about the problem of evil and watches this video. He tosses some easy-debunkable baseless rhetoric. Saying that the love of Jesus/God whatever conquers all evil is surely evident in the world today.
wtfzwrong 7 months ago
This dude doesn't address the problem of evil at all.
wtfzwrong 8 months ago
@wtfzwrong dude he is saying WE are evil and need Jesus to soften our hearts and reconcile us back to our God
the only one that is Good.
dline97 7 months ago
Some great thoughts
Zwemer100 9 months ago 3
Paul writes of the mystery of Christ being from before man (I can get the reference shortly). It does seem that redemption was God's original intent and that He knew of what was to take place before it did. If we look to Anselm, we read an interesting pseudo-dialectic on Freewill, wherein he explains that the freedom of the will corresponds with goodness and not evil for that which relates to evil is a slave to evil and certainly not free.
PhillipNicewaner 9 months ago
did not*
TheSvenskMan 9 months ago
I am an Apologist, God did intend for evil. But man was perfect up until Eve was tempted by Satan, Then Eve tempted Adam, Then Evil was among man, Free will is associated with evil.
TheSvenskMan 9 months ago
@TheSvenskMan " Free will is associated with evil." That is a poor statement because by your logic God is associated with evil since He has free will.
jazzbummer 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheSvenskMan "God did [not] intend for evil. But man was perfect up until Eve was tempted by Satan"
If God didn't foresee that evil would exist after executing his plan, then he is not omniscient. This contradicts the Christian model of "God". Also, I don't see how man can be perfect for only a period of time and then end abruptly. If man is fallible, then he cannot be perfect to begin with.
WiseMosquito 5 months ago
We watch discovery and are awestruck by tornadoes, yet curse God when it rips down and kills family. We put 2$ in a pop machine and get angry because we press the coke button yet a different brand spits out at random. Its funny we demand order in certain parts of life yet demand relativity in another. We curse God when planes fall from the sky yet thank him for what we can do with gravity. This world is painful but it has order so we know what love is and can have access to a loving God.
HOCKEYBR 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We watch discovery and are awestruck by tornadoes, yet curse God when it rips down and kills family members. We put 2$ in a pop machine get pissed because we press the coke button yet a different brand spits out at random. Its funny we demand order in certain parts of life yet demand relativity in another. We curse God when planes fall from the sky yet thank him for what we can do with gravity.
HOCKEYBR 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We watch discovery and are awestruck by tornadoes, yet curse God when it rips down and kills family members. We put 2$ in a pop machine get pissed because we press the coke button yet a different brand spits out at random. Its funny we demand order in certain parts of life yet demand relativity in another. We curse God when planes fall from the sky yet thank him for what we can do with gravity.
HOCKEYBR 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We watch discovery and are awestruck by tornadoes, yet curse God when it rips down and kills family members. We put 2$ in a pop machine get pissed because we press the coke button yet a different brand spits out at random. Its funny we demand order in certain parts of life yet demand relativity in another. We curse God when planes fall from the sky yet thank him for what we can do with gravity.
HOCKEYBR 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We watch discovery and are awestruck by tornadoes, yet curse God when it rips down and family members. We put 2$ in a pop machine and get pissed because we press the coke button yet a different brand spits out at random. Its funny we demand order in certain parts of life yet demand relativity in another. We curse God when planes fall from the sky yet thank him for what we can do with gravity.
HOCKEYBR 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We watch discovery and are awestruck by tornadoes, yet curse God when it rips down and kills family members. We put 2$ in a pop machine and get pissed because we press the coke button yet a different brand spits out at random. Its funny we demand order in certain parts of life yet demand relativity in another. We curse God when planes fall from the sky yet thank him for what we can do with gravity.
HOCKEYBR 9 months ago
The article he mentions at 2:00 is in the book God and the Philosophers. Her chapter is called The Mirror of Evil. Google "eleonore stump mirror of evil pdf" and the first (non-ad) site is a page of her writings. You can download the pdf at the bottom of that page.
lmstrs 10 months ago
I'm a christian but this answer is a bit weak. He first equivocates on the term "evil" as he uses his christian definition to make it look like atheists are contradicting themselves. He also doesn't address the problem of natural evil (tsunamis, cancer...) I don't think his answer was very effective, David Hume would have torn him to shreds had he been there. William Craig is much more effective a debater than this guy
lorenzschuerch 10 months ago
@lorenzschuerch
Agree, he talks around in circles and runs away afterwards.
In my opinion, a good answer would be laid out like this:
Make point 1 and explain
Make point 2 and explain... etc
Round up by summarizing points to show how your answer ties up with the question.
Confirm with the lady that your answered the question.
SoulSurvivor1652 10 months ago
@lorenzschuerch I am also a believer, however although I look at tsunamis, earthquakes, tornados, cancer, etc., as certainly catastrophic, I don't consider them evil. The reason is these things lack intent, a concious, intentional, predatory behavior. Peace.
11Mockingbirds 8 months ago
.... In other words it means that the concept of morality doesn't even come into it. Please think through your argument properly before you post rather than comforming to the masses and posting useless straw-mans like this one.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
solution: 3minutesermons. blogspot. com/2011/03/problem-of-evil.html
LuckeyL 11 months ago
I found a nice lecture series on "The Problem of Evil" on cross.tv website by Dr Bruce Little. It's worth a look!
shaloop007 11 months ago
This is really insidious. Any and all wickedness is deputized in service of proving the religious truth claim. This isn't an argument. It's a demonstration of how faith corrodes healthy moral reason.
beksinski 11 months ago
... those with inferior rules and structure perished and after thousands of years, more recently where more complex tools to make life easier were invented and life changed from a battle against the rest of nature to survive into making life as comfortable as possible. This is where many other 'moral' laws came from such as no stealing and no raping etc.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 year ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1
So if the Germans would have won WW2, defeated all their enemies, making the world a better place for them and their ideals, then what they did wouldn't have been wrong since now they are in the majority and were just doing what is best for their own survival?
Fleefles 11 months ago
@Fleefles Another straw-man argument. Are you creationists so in love with them that you can't think of anything else to say? You are approaching the argument as if evolution by natural selection is an ideology. But it isn't. Evolution by natural selection is simply a (very well backed-up by evidence) theory that explains the diversity of life. It is not a moral or immoral process, it is an Amoral process....
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 11 months ago
This is easy to debunk. Today's morale law giver is Modern Western Society. It has evolved its own set of rules, laws and morals over time, originating from the desire of primitive humans doing what was best for their own survival, which resulted in doing what was best for themselves and the rest of the group/tribe to survive. Those groups that had the best rules in order to survive survived and the process of natural selection continues from there...
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 1 year ago
@FrankieSayRelaxxx1 So it's not wrong if I go rape your mother on camera and force the rest of your family to watch it? If you don't think there's anything wrong with that then you have no right to make any claims at all. You have relinquished your right to say anything about anything because you are claiming that moral truth does not exist, therefore claiming that morality is merely rooted in the survival instinct. Your argument defeats itself. Here's some truth for you, there is no "evolution"
7F0X7 11 months ago
@7F0X7 hahaha, all creationists can come up with these days are straw-man arguments, especially lame weak ones like this. There is no evolution eh? Do you have any scientific papers published about it, Mr Know-it-all? To disprove the MOUNTAINS of evidence that supports it? Didn't think so.
FrankieSayRelaxxx1 11 months ago
Basically, Ravi is saying "its ok for that guy to RAPE YOU as long as you come to know christ it will be worth it." what a pathetic apologist answer
actionjackson864 1 year ago
@actionjackson864
Maybe you need to listen to it again!
raydawgrules 1 year ago
@raydawgrules why?
actionjackson864 1 year ago
Ravi, my brother, I love you. I'm looking forward to meeting you personally when I pass into true life. May all who desire real life, humble themselves, admit that they are broken, and seek the Son of God, that they might not lose their life, but find it in Him. God Bless you all.
edwar1or 1 year ago
Wow, what garbage. His logic is totally pathetic.
myironlungca 1 year ago
When the government falls, people will go to where the food is, if you have food, then they will get it. There will be millions of people rooming the streets, and they will be hungry. Anger will do you no good. The civilians will be the worst, all they will want is food. I have many guns, and ammo, they will not do any good. Your going to have to use your mind. In the army I hit 17 out of 18 at 300 meters, but that will be worthless. Thanks Rich People
steelbrushtattoo 1 year ago
You idiot, you keep sending me the same email
steelbrushtattoo 1 year ago
I hope you burn to death in a car bomb, you fucken ass hole.
steelbrushtattoo 1 year ago
The jews let the jewish slaves go every seven years, but not the gentiles, they were handed down from generation to generation. You are trying to make slavery sound so good, you should go back in time and live the dream.
steelbrushtattoo 1 year ago
@steelbrushtattoo
What about William Wilberforce and dozens of others which you tacitly haven't even responded to. If there is one thing about human depravity, it has expressed itself in the form of slavery throughout most of history. Those of us lucky enough to be born to the historical aberration of freedom ought not trivialize it and take it for granted by claiming human fallacy as an argument against the Bible. We all have sinned and need to be reconciled to the moral law, through Christ.
YtseWolf7 1 year ago
@YtseWolf7 OK so you enjoy slavery, I understand that. I don't so, that makes me an evil person with no values. When the dollar falls and there are no cops, who is going to protect someone that thinks slavery is a good thing. The world is changing , and people who love the idea of slavery, are going to have it really hard. When there are no cops, and america falls. I'm going on a killing spree. Woman, children, men, everyone who loves the bible and slavery, death will come.
steelbrushtattoo 1 year ago
wow, that makes slavery all better, maybe you should be a slave scene you made it sound so good.
steelbrushtattoo 1 year ago
He's a good speaker. Praise Jehovah that works through him!
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor There is no jehova, yaweh, allah, god etc. You are a disgrace to humanity for thinking so in light of all the information that is available from science that provides the technonlogy we rely upon today.
mrjonno 1 year ago
@mrjonno I respect science very much. Maybe it's true what you say, but it's up to everyone to figure it out themselves. Thanks for the comment.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor I'm afraid it isn't up to everyone to figure out the truth - the sad fact fact is that the level of education for the majority will not enable them to do so. Religion through superstition belief of many kinds has been in place for millennia. Rome refined Christianity AD365 and Islam came about in C7 all based on the broad mythology of the region from Abraham. Most of the world still believes in a bronze age defined god and all of the inaccuracies inherent. The truth must out...
mrjonno 1 year ago
@mrjonno Really depends on the belief, though. Education for many, as for Ravi Zacharias, I imagine took advantage of higher education, so that can be an example of someone educated yet deciding for themselves. I do agree with you that education should be more widespread. It's a shame to see so many not able to take advantage - I too am displeased of what Rome did to true Christianity, which Jesus himself warned would happen after his departure, but that's another story. Thanks again.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor Ravi Zacharias is from a highly religious background and did not study any science subject at higher education, check his Wikipedia entry. Jesus did not even exist - he is the creation of Rome. You have some education to go through yourself.
mrjonno 1 year ago
@mrjonno Most secular scholars accept the existence of Jesus as the man who began Christianity. There are scientists from all different backgrounds and many are Christian, such as the man ahead of the Genome Project is Catholic.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor Fortunately for man our knowledge is not static. Rome have managed very well to cover their fabrication to the detriment of humanity until recently. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Oxyrhynchus Papyri have provided the historical info that Rome tried to destroy to present the 4 gospels for their political purpose. Look to the gospels of Mary, Philip and Thomas for very different versions of Christ. Josephus was the only historical account of Jesus - it's false. Control of belief is power.
mrjonno 1 year ago
@mrjonno The idea that Christ was a made up by Rome as a conspiracy is entirely unfounded and goes up there in the fringe department. The other 'gospels' you mention are the antithesis to the gospel and they are referred to as gnostic text for a reason. The 'lost books' as most refer them tend to center salvation at the inner person and turn yahweh into an evil God which is exactly contrary to the gospel message. Real Christians lived a hard life to witness to others what they experienced.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor The only official gospels are issued from Rome under the Nicean Council 365 years after 'their' hero wsa supposed to have lived as the New Testament. They do not agree with any other accounts from the time and there is not one single independent evidence to show the Jesus ever existed. Religions try to 'prove' this by misquotation and lies. Clearly you have fallen for them with a deluded belief that Yahweh\God\Allah exists and Jesus was the son. Disgraceful if you respect science.
mrjonno 1 year ago
@mrjonno I don't mean this as an insult, but I believe you are misinformed. At the same time, I won't go further since it seems you're adamant in your views and anything more would be proselytizing. All the best to you.
sarevor 1 year ago
@sarevor No science is not misinformed. The whole point of the scientific method is to find the truth, if you call this proselytizing then this is your right as a deluded believer but it is a disgrace to humanity.
On a personal basis I have no insult to you. On an intellectual level you have proven yourself to be the greatest evil to man. You believe in god which is detrimental to the survival of our species.
Make amends and understand that bronze age superstition is not good in C 21. Best
mrjonno 1 year ago
" when you assume that something is good you assume there is a moral law.... and if you assume a moral law you ultimately must assume a moral law giver"
Hmmm, sounds very much like he makes his own assumptions. The question does affirm a moral framework exists in life but the question does not affirm the existence of a moral framework giver, that's just Ravi making assumptions.
pecklepops 1 year ago
@pecklepops I So we may assume a moral law but no giver of that moral law? How did a moral law evolve from non-moral agents ? Morally benigh entitities gave rise to a moral law ? How could they give what they did not have in themselves to give ? How could they invest what was not in themselves ? How could the efffect be greater than the cause ?
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@pecklepops Not really. Without a moral lawgiver you can't have absolutes.
Zacharybinx34 1 year ago
The bible brought us slavery for thousands of years. There were two kinds of slavery, Jewish, and Gentile. A Jewish person could sell himself into slavery and be freed in a short time, but a Gentile slave could be handed down from generation to generation, and be beaten to death, as long as he don't die on the first day. I don't know why Christians don't talk about Gentile slaves. Not telling the whole truth is a lie
steelbrushtattoo 1 year ago
@steelbrushtattoo What was the right of a slave in Jewish society in the year of Jubilee ? It was to be released from slavery. Every 50 years depts could be forgiven, slaves released, property returned. Could you name me a slave practicing society on earth with a similar provision ? The Bible also was key in bringing abolition from slavery. Check the liturature of many great abolotionists and their references to the Bible.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@steelbrushtattoo
I'm sorry but that's just completely wrong. Where did you get that information?
Zacharybinx34 1 year ago
@Zacharybinx34 What a bunch of mambo jumbo crap. I don't know if you are aware, but the is a war going on. Those defend the bible will find themselves in a car bomb, or on a bus full of Christians. You might want to watch your ass. Don't defend Jews or Christians slavery.
steelbrushtattoo 1 year ago
@steelbrushtattoo what on earth are you talking about, and why are you so angry?
Zacharybinx34 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheHellbinder 1 year ago
No there isn't, expecially things like love, hate, various emotions. The existence of anything. Developmet of fetus and the conclusions of studies pointing to that, even at their earliest stages and without ANY life experience, have shown emotion and reations to their parent talking to them while in the womb! A fetus will react one way when Mom and Dad talk even versus a grandparent. Explain that without Adonai!
daddyofone09 1 year ago
As an atheist I base my worldview on knowledge provided by the scientific method along with verifiable history. I do not align with communism.
As a theist you base your view on the supposed word of a deity creator handed down as stories from the bronze age until they were interpreted and written down around 950BC reflecting the superstitious nature of the peoples then and then added to with some of the gospels of the Gnostic religions by Rome for political purposes in AD365. Come up to date.
mrjonno 1 year ago
@bozz43 I don't hate you. I just see you as misguided and ultimately providing a support to a system that does spread hatred amongst man. I have great empathy for mankind and a wish to see him survive and prosper. It is for this reason that I respond to YT videos that spread deception and further the suffering and division in the world. I am being the change that I want to see in the world.
mrjonno 1 year ago
@bozz43 'The irony of fools' Indeed. A highly appropriate summary of theists.
The followers in their belief that they are doing good provide the justification for the churches to spread their doctrines causing division, hatred and ultimately violence and muder. Highly ironic.
mrjonno 1 year ago
@mrjonno Way to sugar coat calling us idiots with the use of pretty grammar.
The things you are saying are proving that you haven't read the Bible, and if you have, you have obviously interpreted it incorrectly.
GuitarGuy22221 1 year ago
@GuitarGuy22221 Well I wouldn't call believers' of religions idiots, deluded is more appropriate. Your comment is confirmation of this. Yes I have read the bible and have also studied the history surrounding it and the other Abrahamic faiths. There is asolutely no evidence for the existence of god or Jesus as told.
mrjonno 1 year ago
@mrjonno dude that is just a moronic comment. no evidence for God or Jusus and you are all studied up on it. buddy you are a bold faced liar and its obvious. there is evidence, the evidence of history, experience, personal testimony and basic logic and the reality of the world around you. You CHOOSE to not accept it. That is a personal choice by you to not beleive the evidence and testimonies of others. To say there is no evidence is just utter foolishness.
TheHellbinder 1 year ago
@TheHellbinder That's right no evidence for the existence of God or Jesus. No lies unlike religon. The only statements we have for their existence are in the bible and even the church admits you need faith to accept the tenets within. In the light of science creation and explanation of the world and universe have been shown to be false. There is not one single scrap of a clue outside the NT that Jesus lived, the Josephus account has been shown to be falsified. Rome made it up for control.
mrjonno 1 year ago
@bozz43 I don't know any humanitarian who wants the world to be like North Korea. Personally I would like to see a world that learns from the mistakes of history and uses its knowledge to propel mankind into new realms of discovery whilst creating sustainable systems to preserve the world and all its life for the future of our survival.
You talk nonsense, the ramblings of a deluded believer just like Ravi Zacharias.
mrjonno 1 year ago
So Jesus never even existed. He was the creation of the Nicean Council under Emperor Constantine in 365 AD for political reasons to Rome.
Ravi Zacharias is the equaivant to Zaik Nakir for ownership and translation of bronze age mans' civilisation and the perpetuation of the Abrahamic religion delusion. Two dangerous and lying men. Humanity needs to move on quickly from the lies these men preach to realise its destiny in harmony and peace.
mrjonno 1 year ago
Ravi's an idiot! The girl asks him why "shit happens".......Though she used the term "evil", he's the one who posited evil as a seemingly purposeful act in defiance of "good".
Can't these preachers make an objective argument without assuming, in the premise, what they are trying to prove?
It's annoying that people accept this without questioning it!
Tobytrim 1 year ago
Is it just me or does he just rabit on trying to sound intellectual but not answer the question at all ?
myironlungca 1 year ago
@myironlungca it obviously went over your head. ravi goes into great depth with his answers unlike Dawkins or Hitchens who insult the person asking the question.
lightbrownpoop 1 year ago
@lightbrownpoop If you think avoiding and then rephrasing the question followed by endless minutes of entertaining yet irrelevant anecdotes is "great depth" then perhaps you need to pay more attention. The problem of evil has never been fully addressed since the birth of christianity - many have tried and all have failed. All responses boil down to "good makes no sense as a concept without evil". This is weak at best and does nothing to address the sheer quantity of evil in the world.
myironlungca 1 year ago
And the second video i have watched from this idiot, his arguments are gymnastic word play that only a idiot would be fooled by - he never answers the question either. Textbook christian apologist fuckwit.
myironlungca 1 year ago
@myironlungca The answer: The answer to ending evil is being like Christ and treating others as Christ would.
You should check out some quotes from Jesus to hear what I am saying
luke2thab 1 year ago
Was the question, answered "why was Jesus baptized"?
Hawk291256 1 year ago
*A moral framework exists in life:
-When you say something is evil, you assume something is good. When you assume something is good, you assume there is a moral law by which to differentiate between good and evil. And if you assume a moral law, you must ultimately posit a moral law giver.
-If there's no moral law giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil.
kannabhais 1 year ago
So what this guy said in other words is fuck you.
colombus66 1 year ago
Intent is prior to content, because to give truth to him who loves it not, is to only to give him multiplied reasons for misinterpritation.
skuzzlenut 1 year ago
everyone will get what's coming to them, good or bad, eventually. Whether you're a christian or not. Remember, just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean it isn't true.
redrumer13 1 year ago
@redrumer13 and logically the opposite is true as well.
myironlungca 1 year ago
WTF? If this guy really believes in what he is saying, he is a fucking lunatic...
colombus66 1 year ago
@colombus66 give yourself a break and respond in a way that you will regret
gonewaijos 1 year ago
Comment removed
hardcoretruth71 1 year ago
@hardcoretruth71 -- removing common sense comments now are we?? LAME!!
hardcoretruth71 1 year ago
@colombus66 -- hahahaa I'm with you!! =)
hardcoretruth71 1 year ago
But the Bible does not teach difference of good and evil as leading need for salvation.Evil is as equal to good in the heart of man.Good is equal to evil in self righteousness.Adam did not eat evil he ate from the tree of good and evil. Man is powerless knowing good being flesh to make himself right in God's eyes.So the law of a moral law giver does not hold God is not moral by Nature.He exceeds morality in perpetual Virtue.There is something better than good and obviously evil.
polopowers1 1 year ago
great
RaytownSoClassof2010 1 year ago
(cont.) Now, I've never been raped myself, but if I had, this would be my response to Ravi's justification: "Why do I have to be raped in order to offer comfort to others who have been raped?" The implication is a sinister one - he is implying that compassion is conditional upon suffering, and we are incapable of showing compassion unless we are suffering ourselves. What a low opinion of humanity Ravi has...and what a feeble excuse for a God who allows rapists to violate the innocent!
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 "what a feeble excuse for a God who allows rapists to violate the innocent"
But you claim there is no god, so how do these rapists rape, by their free will or is it evil at work?
jonesgerard 1 year ago
@jonesgerard
No, it is not "evil at work". There is no magical force wandering the planet, entering the body of rapists and making them rape. We are all capable of causing pain and suffering, and unfortunately many of us do just that. We are responsible for our own actions.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 I think I agree with every word you say, there is no magical evil force wandering around, every human has the capacity to bring evil into reality.
It doesn't "get in" from outside, its part of our internal makeup. from whence come evil ? from the very heart of man.
jonesgerard 1 year ago
@jonesgerard What garbage you spew. Evil itself is a man made concept. What passes for good and evil is an ever changing idea based on current societal norms and controlled by pragmatic needs. For example is war evil? Is driving evil? Would it be evil to kill someone invading your home about to rape your wife? etc etc. This idea that there are absolutes in morality is demonstrably naive.
myironlungca 1 year ago
@myironlungca Would you like me to answer your immature questions or just send you a moral compass because you are completely lost.
jonesgerard 1 year ago
@jonesgerard No i would like you to answer my questions. I think it would be fun to hear what you say.
myironlungca 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@myironlungca
" For example is war evil?"
No.
"Is driving evil?"
no.
"Would it be evil to kill someone invading your home about to rape your wife?"
no.
jonesgerard 1 year ago
Ravi compares a rape victim to Jesus being violated by his crucifixion. OK, according to Christian theology, Jesus was crucified for a very specific purpose - in order to save us from our sins. That justifies HIS suffering. What justifies the suffering of the rape victim, who has most certainly NOT offered themselves to a rapist as a martyr for the sins of humanity? Ravi says this suffering is justified because a rape victim gains better understanding on how to counsel other rape victims...
garethac81 1 year ago
Ravi gives us a neat bit about evil in this video, which is: if you ask "why does God allow evil?", you assume there is good and evil, and there cannot be absolute good and evil without God, therefore there is a God.
By apologetic standards, it's fairly clever...however, with only a simple adjustment to the question, the logic falls apart. Ask instead: "Why does God permit suffering?" Suffering requires no moral absolutism to justify itself, and consequently offers no default proof of God.
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 Ask instead: "Why does God permit suffering?"
Good thinking but theres a problem.
Do you know the difference between pain vs suffering?
Pain is unavoidable in life.
Suffering is an option.
So God allows suffering because its part of free will.
jonesgerard 1 year ago
Sorry, but suffering is NOT "an option" for a rape victim. It is forced upon them. If there is no God, this makes perfect sense, because cruel and unfair treatment is exactly what we would expect if there was no supernatural benefactor watching over us. However, as soon as you presume there IS such a being, events of random cruelty become non-sensical. Can YOU explain why a "loving" God allows the innocent to suffer? (And please, no garbage about us "all being sinners"...NO ONE deserves rape)
garethac81 1 year ago
@garethac81 The operating term is VICTIM, what a victim does with that crime spells the difference between pain and suffering. As I stated you don't acknowledge the difference between pain and suffering.
"why a "loving" God allows the innocent ..."
Its a consequence of free will, free will isn't just a luxury of the good, people who with evil compulsions exercise their free will too.
MAybe it doesn't make sense to you because you don't like free will and want a nanny type god.
jonesgerard 1 year ago
@jonesgerard Going by this premise then - my free will choice to bring pain to another person overrides a god being in control. This other person did not ask for, in fact prayed daily for protection from evil/pain, yet my free will trumps this persons prayers. If you say, god sometimes steps in to stop my actions - why only for this person, and not others I would bring pain to? Would you want a relationship with someone on earth who brings random pain to a group of say 10 friends?
satan1st666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@satan1st666 " my free will choice to bring pain to another person overrides a god being in control. "
Yeh, except maybe if you want to bring pain to others you have either gone mad or lost your sense of will to choose good to evil.
God doesn't step in or interfere.
"Would you want a relationship with someone on earth who brings random pain "
Yes but it wouldn't be the type of relationship they wanted.
jonesgerard 1 year ago
This man was on thunderf00t's video once. He got pwnd.
JonnyPxN 1 year ago
Ravi, thank you for this. God bless you.
Hmoob54321 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A) If an omnipotent, omniscient and all good god exists, then pointless natural suffering cannot exist.
B) Pointless natural suffering does exist.
C) Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient and all good god cannot not exist.
underground312 1 year ago
Wow, I am good.
saigondj 1 year ago
notice no teleprompter
centpushups 1 year ago
I liked the huge amounts of rhetoric that this guy spews and how he refuses to even logically justify his arguments without using word play and immaterial nonsense. I was sent these videos to try convince me to stop being an atheist. Only decent part of it all was the cute ish woman on this one.
Anybody not convinced by this bs should Greydon Square- a rational response or patcondell.
EonRifft 1 year ago
There is no evil, evil is a term lable by man. Since there is no evil, nor good, there is no moral laws, and no God
saigondj 1 year ago
So those who have been raped are lucky. They get to experience something almost as bad as Christ did and this brings them closer to the Glory of God than the rest of us. Silly me.
gibozzo 1 year ago
He talks so fast to confuse his listeners. His whole point that leads from evil to a moral law giver is false.
gibozzo 1 year ago
@gibozzo i agree, in nature, animals kill eachothe in the cruelest ways. In society, we call it evil, so it is a term label by man. There is no evil, nor good. Everything happens randomly, human are intelligently enough to label them. Since there is no evil, there is no moral laws, and no God. Ravi is bullshitting. it is his job and livelihood. he's making shitload o money.
saigondj 1 year ago
@saigondj Heh heh. If I smacked you upside the head without provocation, would that be random? Evil? apparently not. Can you fwd your address so I can come over and pop you one?
Naw, I'm being silly. I am curious how athiests/agnostics explain the concept of purpose? That is, why is purpose (via relationships, job, achievements, pursuit for money, etc.) so important to the human experience?
roningham 1 year ago
@roningham there is no purpose. Make your imprint on this earth for average 70 years and forever dissolved into oblivion.
Do you really believe the limted heaven and hell concept in this infitely possibility universe?
saigondj 1 year ago
@saigondj Sorry for my late reply. There is definite order to the universe, which means there is purpose. I suspect your denial of purpose is made in order to deny the definite order seen in the universe.
You answered my first question, but what about my second? Why is purpose (via relationships, job, achievements, grades, pursuit of identity, pursuit for money, etc.) so important to the human experience that we invest our entire lives in chasing it?
roningham 1 year ago
@roningham my view changed since the last time i spoke to you. Purpose do exist on a deffinite time continuum. However, the longer you expand time, say to infinity, purpose ceases to exist. SInce human are mortal, we do not live forever, therefore we will naturally experience purpose.
So the purpose in live, in summary, is to constantly change and evolve,or to maintain from a current state to the next state on the continuum of Time. Hence, we breath, eat, work, achieve, chasing dreams....
saigondj 1 year ago
Tat was the longest dodge of a question that I have ever seen.
Bofore13 1 year ago
Objective moral law requires God.
But if God is following rules that not even he can break (Objective) then he is not needed as we already have the laws
If God makes the laws then they cannot be objective and are instead simply subjective (Ie subject to God own opions and feelings)
Therefore Objective morals either do not require God or Cannot come from God
objective morals just need to be true BECAUSE THEY ARE TRUE.
MangaFanGuy 1 year ago
@MangaFanGuy
Your argument here sounds similar to what is called the "Euthyphro Problem" - which is not a problem at all. I agree that we do not need God if morality is objectively true independent of God's commands. However, it is not logically inconsistent that what is good is what God commands. This idea is consistent with the idea that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Objective morality cannot be rationalized and subjective morality is completely arbitrary.
sweetman17 1 year ago
@sweetman17
It is still subjective
particularly since the idea of God being "Good" is then based entirely upon Gods definition of "Good" making the idea of calling him good absolutely stupid (As God can then never not be good by his own definition)
MangaFanGuy 1 year ago
@MangaFanGuy
What do you mean by "subjective?" It is humanly objective in that the Moral Law transcends us and is more or less invariable (I say more or less because we, as humans, do not have absolute knowledge of morality). When we say God is Good, it is not a judgement from an external moral standard. It is more like saying, "what is Good is what God wills and commands. Therefore, God is Good."
The tautology is a significant one to the Christian.
sweetman17 1 year ago
MangaFanGuy 1 year ago
@MangaFanGuy
I think you misunderstand me. The "second option" of the Euthyphro problem isn't entirely accurate. The problem with the phrases, "God defines good" and "good is merely God's opinion" (I am quoting you) is that they are not consistent with the nature of God or morality. Morality is grounded in God's very nature, which is expressed through His commands. Therefore, what God commands is not arbitrary, but necessarily consistent with his omnibenevolent nature.
sweetman17 1 year ago
@sweetman17
Now I see several problems here
firstly that you have yet to put forward how we can know God is omnibenevolent?
If he is defining good and evil then it follows again that calling him good in any sense is a meaningless phrase
and if it is his nature to be good without any standards other then his own (No externally objective rules of morality) then he is free to simply decide whatever he wants to be benevolent
MangaFanGuy 1 year ago
@MangaFanGuy
Ok, where to start...
First of all, to ask me how we can know God is omnibenevolent is to raise a completely different question; that is, the epistemological certainty of the nature of God. If one raises the Euthyphro problem they must assume God exists. Now if one posits a divine entity that isn't omnibenevolent, they can't be positing the Abraham God of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. If this entity isn't omnibenevolent, this discussion is fruitless.
sweetman17 1 year ago
@sweetman17
However defining benevolent simply in terms of your God own opinion is fruitless as well
even as part of his nature still doesn't solve the problem for a being that is both Omnipotent and Omniscient where it's own nature is such that it can be however it wants
If you want to accept that it cannot define good any other way then an objective standard apart from God muct exist
Otherwise God can define Good is any way he wants so making it a subjective interpretation
MangaFanGuy 1 year ago
@MangaFanGuy
The contradiction continues. You admit that no objective standard need exist, yet you wonder, "what if God is evil" and you claim that you can reject the notion that God is good. Ok, so by what moral standard, if no objective standard exists (as you admit), could God be evil? And by what standard do you reject God as good? I am not presupposing that God is good because I cannot judge whether or not God is good or evil. The very idea of good is the result of God's existence.
sweetman17 1 year ago
@sweetman17 "Since it is impossible to derive prescriptive statements from human reason alone"
Then what reason do I have to expect Gods reasoning to be any better?
You still have not answered that
Why should I believe any prescriptive statements from God any more then I would from you?
"Christianity is a perfectly consistent ethical theory and survives the Euthyphro dilemma"
Christianity is not an ethical theory and it's "morality" doesn't hold up to modern standards of ethics
MangaFanGuy 1 year ago 2
@MangaFanGuy
Without God, there is no morality. Nietzsche knew it. Camus knew it. Russel knew it. Concerning your second post, There is no inconsistency in claiming that God is good. I fully accept that it is logically impossible for God to be evil. This does not discount his omnipotence, though. Why? Because the moral law (distinction between good and evil) is a completely human phenomenon. So God is not subject to the moral law because it is defined by His nature.
sweetman17 1 year ago
@sweetman17 "Without God, there is no morality."
And yet Atheists have no trouble
Your appeal to authority proves nothing really
the whole subjective/objective thing is still debated today among the worlds philosophers
few really require God anymore
MangaFanGuy 1 year ago
@MangaFanGuy
I have trouble understanding your second post (which begins with Dostoevsky's quote). "And Atheists have no trouble" ... what does that mean? Have no trouble with what? Please try to be coherent. Your arguments aren't backed with reasons. I ask you, how can objective morality exist without God? How can morality be reasoned? How does one reason out moral truths? One simply cannot. Every claim by human reason that something is good or evil is ultimately arbitrary, without God.
sweetman17 1 year ago
@sweetman17 Firstly the quote was not Dostoevsky (Purely coincidence here)
And it was to adress the idea that Morality is found even in the absence of belief in god (ie Atheists show they have morality)
Objective morality can exist as a natural maxim and need no other explanation then they are right by virtue of being right
people are not compelled to follow objective morals either nor do they need to be consciously recognised
MangaFanGuy 1 year ago
@MangaFanGuy
It's not a coincidence, I was referring to Dostoevsky, and you quoted me. The quote does not mean that atheists cannot be moral, it challenges the meta-physical validity of a morality based on rationality; it means that moral obligation means nothing without God. So you are claiming that moral truths are "right by virtue of being right." How does that make sense? It sounds very much like Ethical naturalism which commits the fallacy of turning an "is" into an "ought."
sweetman17 1 year ago
@sweetman17 I see I misunderstood your quote bit there
however having already conceeded that God is not the source of objective morality then why can he pursue any more obligation of morality then you can?
Simply put why should I listen to his moral talk any more then yours?
you cannot say it is because he knows what those morals are because as rational beings the same information is attainable by us
So why should I morally obey/follow God at all?
MangaFanGuy 1 year ago
@MangaFanGuy
I have conceded that there exists no objective moral law by which God is subject to. I believe there is a "universal moral law" which transcends human beings and is the consequence of God's existence. And yes I would argue that God has full knowledge of moral truth, and that as humans, though we are rational (which is very little help regarding moral truth), we are certainly not omniscient. Besides, it has yet to be shown how moral truths can be rationalized. ...
sweetman17 1 year ago
@MangaFanGuy
... I don't wish to dodge your question so I am going to re-state my argument so that no arguments need to be repeated. You may disagree with some of the premises, but it answers your question. So here it is:
(1) Valid moral truths exist if, and only if, God exists.
(2) Moral truths exist
(3) Therefore God exists.
Next:
(1) God commands prescriptive statements (i.e. one "ought" to act in a certain way).
.... continued.....
sweetman17 1 year ago