God is a METAPHOR for a mystery that transcends all human categories of thought! Anybody that says he or she KNOWS anything beyond that is battling a neurosis & should be handled with caution. The only difference between a neurosis & a religion is that the religion is more popular. And let me concede one point regarding atheism. It's TRUE that religious iconography can incapacitate what I'd describe as "hard" atheists...just like a fundamentalist. It's simply because energy follows thought!
These guys seem to fall into whatever makes us happy is the true . Actually if something makes you happy, you are more likely to rationalize that as being true, even if it is irrational.
I think their idea of god is inconsistent. Unless they would say that humans are just an accident of evolution. B/C they seem to say god has no single consciousness, well if this god doesn't have consciousness than it didn't even intend for humans to exist. If it did evolve/create us it has some consciousness.
I often wonder if some god may exist. I disagree with these guys tho, if god was powerful and fortuitous enough to create humans complexly through 1 billion years of evolution then god's also responsible for things like severe mental retardation (an IQ<20). What kind of god would allow a person to go through life without even being able to dress themselves or to socialize in any way? I think it's easier to explain murderous diseases that kill thousands a day than this strange injustice.
As a Christian I see no resemblance to the God of the Bible. Why try and create a god of your own and still claim to be a Christian. These gentlemen don't want to accept God for who he is and they want to hold on to some hope so they just create a god that fits what they want. I can respect the atheist, at least the atheist stands for something unlike these two guys.
@MrWagman11 "There is no God. These guys know it." ... 1) There is more than one definition for the word "God"; they addressed this already. 2) Making absolute statements about the existence of God is irrational, on both sides.
@gmn545 Actually I have to disagree with you. I think many of these folks really do believe in a God. They have the ability to look at contrary evidence and completely disregard it. That's delusional.
@MrWagman11 In a God, yes, but not the classical theistic definition of "God", which (as they said) most atheists critique rightly. Again, it all depends on how one chooses to define "God". Panentheism is vastly different from the "sky-daddy" or long-bearded old man on a cloud that atheists commonly think of when you say "God". And what's your basis for thinking that they "look at contrary evidence and completely disregard it"? Are you saying there's positive evidence for God's nonexistence?
@MrWagman11 God, as depicted in the bible (even from a cursory read) is described only in terms for which the people living back then could understand. As time (and thought) has progressed, other ways of defining "God" have emerged, far different from that of classical theism (e.g. panentheism, open theism, etc). Heck, "God" is even used by some as a placeholder word for their otherwise-indescribable interface with the numinous. Again, it all depends on how you define the word "God."
@MrWagman11 Reductio ad ridiculum. Are you mentally fixated on the concept of a "sky daddy"? Simply because different definitions of "God" exist, you assert it's "pretty much whatever you want it to be". No. The word "evolution" has several definitions as well, like "extraction of a mathematical root." And if two people are arguing over it, but have different definitions for it, then the whole debate is moot. Argue against a person's definition, not your own preconceived one.
@gmn545 I don't think I have used the "sky daddy" term. That came from you. I simply responded to you saying "Again, it all depends on how you define the word God." Using that line of reasoning, there is no strict definition of God.
@MrWagman11 You did, however, use the term "imaginary friend", which (if you knew how the other views on "God" such as panentheism define the word) simply doesn't correspond to what I've said. And if you followed the line of reasoning in my statement that began as "The word "evolution has several definitions..."", you'd have understood better what the point is.
@MrWagman11 No I don't. I'm agnostic. Borg - in this video - talks about their being different definitions of God. Supernatural (classical) theism - which is what atheists commonly understand God to be - isn't what he espouses, but rather panentheism (which is very different). And after you said "there is no God", I simply made my point: it depends on your definition of "God." You could be thinking of an entirely different "God" (and I'm guessing it's "imaginary friend") than his.
I do not believe in the god of the bible that Dr. Borg admits is unrealistic. But neither do I believe in any god defined into existence and outside of critical evaluation with nothing but sheer hubris by the likes of people like Dr. Borg. I do not believe in a personal god of your own liking.
This guy is ridiculous. I haven't heard such a large amount of philosophical non-sense in my life. One thing is for sure, on judgement day he will find out he will not be saved because he did not believe in the salvation found through Christ alone. Enjoy your pompous life while you can pal! Continue to do your tours and make your money off your books and your so called education. In the end it will mean nothing to God.
@Amadeus1066 Oh It is... Read 2 Timothy 3:16. Underline the words rebuking and correcting while your at it. And by the way my so called offensive response is defended also by scripture... 1 Peter 3:15 and also 2 Cor. 10:5. will defend the Truth against anyone who distorts and twists the truth of God found only in scripture.
@cctman Just remember it will be God who determines and judges Marcus Borg's faith in Christ. Not you. Come judgment day I don't think God will look to you to decide Marcus Borg's fate.
@Amadeus1066 Of course not! Nor did I ever illude to the fact that I could judge Marcus. But I have scripture that tells me that I am to hold so called scriptures accountable to God's word. And if he is wrong and leading people astray you better darn well believe I'm going to attempt to correct him and stop his false teachings. That goes for anyone else as well.
The Modern Ecumencial Church proposes a modern communitarian, agnostic spirituality, which does not require companions to 'believe' in mythology or ancient dogmas found in many traditional religions. Rather than an all powerful 'GOD', the church proposes the Sacred Mystery as a more truthful experience of the sacred mysteries. We invite those who do not find a home in traditional religion, to consider the Modern Ecumenical Church (google it today)
@chargedchaos: I totally relate; it took me a long and painful journey from fundamentalism to atheism to progressive Christianity; now I can preserve my love to God and my sense of wonder without being infected anymore with the fundamentalist plague. Thank God for the progressive Christianity!
Wpw! Those so-called "doctors" really have a great misinterpretation of what an athiest is and what they stand for, i refute everything they just said. Which I could debate them face to face.
It seems to me that both John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg don't have a particularly sophisticated notion of theism. Certainly, there is nothing unsophisticated about the theism of Thomas Aquinas or Herbert McCabe OP. I think that what Crossan and Borg mean by "theism" here is the "god" rejected by writers such as Dawkins and Hitchens, et al. Bravo! Yes, indeed, THAT 'god' does not exist; but then again serious theologians like Thomas Aquinas never thought that he did!
I agree with what they're saying about God but I consider myself a perfectly traditional Catholic. They criticize the god of supernatural theism, but the God they describe actually *is* the object of my supernatural theism. Borg says everything is in God. In the Catholic church we praise God, "in whom we live, move, and have our being" --Acts 17:28.
IMO the easiest way to grasp what Panentheism is - is to read what Jesus is reported to have said, and then try to figure out why he would have said that. The motives of Jesus and (or, as) a Panentheist should correlate, particularly if you factor-in the knowledge that his statements are about 2000 years old. If an artifact of the Universe (Jesus) is "at one" with God, then the artifact IS God. So, we are (the Universe is) WHAT God is doing. See?
First guy's response is just a bunch of metaphorical abstraction that means nothing, and the second guy just throws his pomposity around, likely butthurt by people who are more apt to believe in something that works, rather than the likely metaphorical nonsense this guy buys into. Yes, everything has a relative sort of interconnectedness to it. I can love it without naming it God.
The Bible should inform our worldview, not the other way around. As people from the West, our worldview is considerably materialistic. That is, that which cannot be explained by natural means cannot be true, or cannot exist. One may continue holding to the Bible, but mistakenly and superficially impose their worldview onto the text; or, they may reject all of the biblical revelation altogether. Either way, the supernatural God of theism took on a human body, died for us, and was raised to life.
I came to my Christianity via Buddhism. Borg's and Crossan's views on God resonate with the distinctly Eastern view of God that I've experienced. One of them said - everything is shot through with the presence of God. That's actually something visceral that you can feel as opposed to some lofty, heady concept. Call yourself what you will this experience is what it's all about. From this simple place of oneness only goodness and kindness flows. And that's what it's all about.
how they think they can combine Jesus with that crap is beyond me. God CREATED the world - it's in the very first sentence of the Bible which is theirs too: "In the beginning, God CREATED" - that logically means GOD is SEPARATE to the world, and we know that God is eternal and the universe is not. The universe is not everything, it is not every potential, and it's therefore not equivalent to God. In nett terms, pantheism/panentheism has nothing to do with God, and thus equivalent to non-theism
Wow, that was quite a mouthful of chit-chat from the side of liberal thology. It's only doubletalk and meaningless statements. They are both practically atheists. God is"isness" and "ultimate reality".... ? watch?v=aw9jvJp_nAo
And once they have adopted the optimism and assumptions of the Enlightenment and tried their hardest to make Christianity palatable to the rationalist crowd by determining that any statement which bothers them must be "figurative" (... this usually consists of ignoring historical-cultural context and introducing grievous anachronisms), they seem surprised when all the secularists don't suddenly confess that belief in God is okay now and join with them against the evil, stupid conservatives.
The Jesus Seminar has little credibility outside of the United States. Liberal theology has since the 19th century felt like it needs to abandon historical, revealed theism in favor of humanistic rationalism and progressive modernism. Liberal "historical Jesus" scholarship has made a conscious effort to disassemble the traditional understanding and instead recreate Jesus as an advocate for moral values they hold and political causes they endorse. Their fuzzy methodology makes that so obvious.
I do KNOW their god, so does the devout hindu, muslim, animist, zororazstrian and etc etc.
I agree with their initial point, there is a sense of wonder and awe that can be a common human experience. I also KNOW the reality of human illusion, how a wonderful experience can be imprinted with the idea that initiated it.
Creating an experience is how fundamentalists convet. A showman is more honest.
I've read some of Borg and Crossan's books on Jesus studies. Renown scholars indeed, but their views are now considere highly skeptical to most scholars. I think God is better defended agaisnt atheistm belief because of their very studies, since I think Jesus' miracles and resurrection are quite good proof of Christianity in history. I recommend reading many other books froim oither Jesus historians besides these two such as N.T. Wright or Craig Blomberg.
I agree with Dr. Borg, there are many problems with the concept of a supernatural god. Another meaning of god, as in existentialism or some other similar type is much more coherent and logical if you think about it.
John D Crossan is a dumbass...it took him and those other so called "scholars" who got there degrees in those super-hard subjects of humanities and other BS subjects to come to the realization that the historical Jesus never existed and he couldn't come up with with that BS answer on his own? But it took him and his other dumbass friends to come to that answer?? WOW??? You could've taken an atheist off the street and he could of gave you that answer...dumbass
Wow this guy and the others retards...its funny how they think there scholars when they got degrees in humanities and english?? oooooooooh!!!!!!! wow..those are the toughest subjects besides underwater-basket weaving...lol..HAHAHA dumbass
John D Crossan is a dumbass...it took him and those other so called "scholars" who got there degrees in those super-hard subjects of humanities and other BS subjects to come to the realization that the historical Jesus never existed and he couldn't come up with with that BS answer on his own? But it took him and his other dumbass friends to come to that answer?? WOW??? You could've taken an atheist off the street and he could of gave you that answer...dumbass
They have based their entire argument around the reasoning that Atheists assert there is no God. This is not always the case. Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of the claim that God exists the same way adults reject the claim the Santa Claus exist. The point that Christmas is still here despite the fact the Santa don't exist is a straw man argument.
They are still begging the question by asserting the God is everything as there is no falsifiable evidence to back up their claim.
Crossan is incorrect when he says that atheism is entirely negative. The negation of irrational theism reveals, and is necessary for, clear thinking. And clear thinking is the positive starting-point of atheism. Borg misleadingly implies that atheism does not lead to wonder an appreciation of life and the universe. Plenty of atheists revel in wonder and appreciation of life, and are awestruck by the universe. Crossan and Borg simply are the tail end of dead of theology - a dead discipline.
@sgturner59 . Well said. It almost sounded like a desperate last attempt against atheism by misrepresenting it... Borg's way of saying things is totally different.
@sgturner59 Atheists think pagans are wusses. Pagans believe deists are wrong on the number of gods. Jews believe in only one G-d.Christians believe there are 3 in 1.If I had to choosse?Only I God but many aspects of God. No God at all? I can't look at a blade of grass or taste really good olive oil, smell a fresh lemon, look into a baby's face and not think there is a Force/Source/ Continuation that is all good and wants only good for us. I think life is learning that truth.
@sgturner59 You misunderstand the meaning of the word "negative." As Crossan is using it, negative refers to the negation or rejection of a particular belief; in this light, atheism is the rejection of theism in the same way that a-unicornism is the rejection of a belief in unicorns. Far from being incorrect, Crossan's statement is very close to a truism.
@sgturner59 Aren't you being a bit defensive? Borg never says that atheists don't experience wonder. Nor is he out to convert anybody to his viewpoint... not every Christian is a Billy Sunday out for your soul. Progressive Christianity isn't the enemy of atheists or irreligious people. If anything, Borg's vision is much more compatible with pluralism than your own, which sees some beliefs as easily dismissed (whereas Bog doesn't see that of atheism at all).
we have here a fire side chat of two Athiest and give their thoughts on what they think about religion ! Please you need to get 2 christians to talk on this subject matter !
I just looked at the NYTimes best seller list: such brainiacs as Bill O'Reilly, Rick Springfield (yes, the mediocre rock singer) and Whoopi Goldberg are on that top 10 list. They sell books: big deal.
Frankly, those are EXACTLY the people I wouldn't trust with important matters!!
If you really think the sharpest people are those selling the most books, I've got some beach land in Colorado to sell you.
@chargedchaos That's good, but I find it hard to take on board, with the implication that the Christian tradition is still terribly valuable and enriching, but, as it happens, the founders of it just got it all wrong and it's taken until people like Borg and Crossan to really understand what it was all about...
"God is a very simple choice, the choice between a Yes and a No, between a plus sign and a minus sign. This is a choice that none of us can escape. It is utterly impossible to get it wrong." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
I respect both of these guys. Have read their works. But these are pretty flaccid explanations. I think the atheists do better and have better objections than the metaphorizing liberal protestants. The problem is that given Borg's definition of "is-ness" it still results in "spirit" (which he admits at the end). Thus you still have a personal, intelligent God. True Greek pantheism doesn't acknowledge existence as a sacred receptacle for deity. Thus, Borg's explanation seems circular.
Yes, I quite like these guys but I also find the explanations a bit "flaccid". If God is just "being" can you really relate to him? Is there any point praying? And does this just mean God=the universe, in which case it's like atheism, or is God some extra intelligence behind the universe, in which case we are talking about something unprovable that we need to have faith in, like any other version
That is a minority definition of God. Basically they are saying that God = reality. But most Christians believe in the interventionist supernatural authority figure - that is why they pray. The claim that individual atheists do not experience wonder or have positive experience is just not true. One could also argue that people who redefine the word "God" are trapped in theism. Why else would they hold onto the word "God". It is a form of deception.
Their idea of god is very personal and as little to do with the god of the bible. It`s more like a being you only meet in meditation, like the gurus in India.
These guys are certainly interesting, but at times I feel like they are playing semantic games. Atheists often say they with they didn't have to have a negative name to describe themselves, just as there is no word for people who don't collect stamps. I can feel and understand their definition of God, but it too easily flows into very different ideas that people REALLY REALLY seem to still believe here in Texas. Many children today are still led vaguely into believing in a magic God.
Maybe a God which is a superpowerful authority figure, a god of supernatural theism is such an easy target because so many BELIEVERS define him as such.
You couldn't find two more unbiblical conceptions of the creator God. It seems to them God's only attribute is existence itself, as though His only purpose is to exist for us to define. It's offensive to those of us who love God in all His sovereignty. God is the process of evolution? Dear oh dear, this is what happens when you try to have one foot in the world and one in God.
@athlete117 I would agree with you athlete that their definition of god is a rather odd one even from my atheistc perspective. BTW in an open democratic society you have no right not to be offended.
@Caracalla23 I don't object to people having the right to say these sorts of things. I am just being honest about what I, and many other Christians, think of their views. That is all.
@Caracalla23 These same people deny that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. They are "progressive Christians", in other words, not Christians in any meaningful sense of the word.
I'm atheist, yet have had spiritual experience and what you might call God. I don't make of it more than it gives me. I don't think a divine personality inhabits the world or arranges my life or does miracles for me or will arrange for me to survive death. Very many christians think magically and that God is arranging miracles for them all the time. This is the delusional thinking we object to. Maybe not right to call "that" God, giving a false impression of divine personality.
@toppinzr So I think the guys in this video give a false impression of christianity in general because very much of it is magical and delusional and fantasy and not as they describe. They're talking only about their stripe of christianity presumably with delusions stripped away. And a stereotype of atheists as spiritually blind.
The quabble I have with Crossan and Borg is why they bother with Christ at all. They reduce everything to a history that we can know very little about, say things that many believers have said about God, and claim some special pretense based on scholarship of which we cannot be sure. They are, in an odd way, agnostic atheist scholarly wannabe Catholics.
Great stuff, but my question is how the hell did you get in touch with John Dominic Crossan? I've been trying to set up an interview for weeks, and can't get a hold of him.
these ideas are dangerous to people of all faiths and to the roman catholic church. the "god of supernatural theism" is an insulting term, but more insulting is his assertion that God is merely an "inssness", "ultimate reality". these ideas are downright confused. i'd take richard dawkins over these pretentious twerps any day of the week, at least he can just admit to his atheism and state his case for it
The problem with this "warm fuzzy" concept of the god of everything, in everything not supernatural but still... well, God is that there is a disconnect with respect to this concept and the words of the Bible. Genesis, Job, etc... What you are trying to do is have your cake and eat it too. Oh, the supernatural God is a problem - we'll just define that part - but all the rest, heaven ( a supernatural palce), hell ( a supernatural place), angles (what are they), etc... still remain a proiblem.
disclaimer to that: the fact that god exists doesnt make the hebrew bible, the christian bible, or the koran right. those books are just human interpretations of god. so the philosophy i stick to is deism, which means god is just the architect, but after he set time going, he laid back and let things happen
i am not so sure as to what you mean by your question......but if you mean it in terms of time, well by using induction, he existed before anything else. makes sense if you think about it.
god definitely exists. its true the big bang created the universe, but who put the proton that would explode there? science cannot explain this in a way that doesnt violate the law of conservation of matter. matter cannot just appear out of thin air. point two is that you cannot garner negative proof of gods existence, in other words, you cannot get proof to prove something doesnt exist, because that would mean the object exists. so thats my opinion. its that simple.
What your doing is using God of the gaps. You pick up a problem that science has yet solved, then you say. HA! God did it!
But even with these gaps (which we are still working on), you haven't done your homework properly, we have discovered some particles come out of 'thin air' look up Virtual Particles.
And to assume there MUST be a prime mover is silly. Why do you assume there must be one?
Sure, it has nothing to do with the complete lack of evidence. A reality that can't be proven. Science is a postitive A theist. God of pure bullshit. Hello god, where are you? There is great wonder inthe science of the universe. Sacred is a non existing word.
god is this.. god is that ... god just is... answers without answers.. confusion is the way to go if you want to keep your beliefs alive... using emotions and heavy words, discrediting disbelief as if it equals not having prospects in life or good will... dishonesty.
The moron to the left claims that "atheists don't really have a positive vision of anything", but that is clearly complete BS.
ATHEISM only means "non-belief", and is not a belief system. ATHEISM doesn't describe someone's world view as such. It only describes what they are NOT.
so god is reality? i am pretty sure we have a word for that. it is reality.
this video is full of inconsistencies and attacks on atheism.
no wonder in evolution without religion? i think it is more amazing to think of how luck humans are to be alive with the billions upon billions of tiny things that would of made it so you, as an individual, were born.
I would like to suggest that there are other Jesus scholars who take a different perspective than Crossan and Borg. I would highly recommend N.T. Wright, who is not evangelical but challenges some of Crossans assumptions and happens to be a personal friend of Borg despite the fact they disagree on some things. Another Jesus scholar I would recommend is William Lane Craig.
The God of the Jesus Seminar sounds like an Existential Acid Trip, not the personal & Mighty God of Scripture.
I watch all things related to those associated with Crossan, Borg & The Seminar and am continually astounded at the Universalist-Yet-Meaningless Pseudo-Pantheist ideas that the Seminar uses to reduce the Incarnation of God in Jesus the Christ to a fable. Why base a worldview for living based upon the life of a man that Crossan assumes was eaten by dogs after he was crucified? nonsense
I agree that we should speak up when someone has made a mistake. It is also written that when one defends the hope that is within them, they are to do so with gentleness and respect. How is cursing them to hell beneficial or even edifying? - Again: "If you declare one's condemnation because of foolishness, it is you that shall be in danger of Gehenna." [<Latin "Dixerit fatue reus, erit Gehennae ignis."] - That is not our right because we aren't perfect to condemn anyone to hell for imperfection.
Cursing? Anyone who does not accept Christ will burn in Hell because He is the only way. We can say in confidence these men are going to Hell. We don't know their "fate", but we know where they want to go and will likely go. Don't ruin Peter's message (1P 3:15) with sloppy English, I'm not defending Christianity, I'm throwing heretics off the balcony. This isn't condemnation for imperfection, this is condemnation for blasphemy, idol worship and Paganism. We have the right 2 judge wicked men.
Wow, I like your exploring mind and open questioning of everything, it's refreshing.
It's great you got these guys to respond! I've always admired John Dominic Crossan since I started seeing him in documentaries years ago. Maybe it's the Irish in me :)
Also, Marcus Borg seems very astute as well. Thanks for this. I'm going to subscribe to your channel and watch all your videos! Great job.
God is the connection between people. God is love.
I was an atheist till I concluded that the above is the basis of God in any religion. Anything afterwards is irrelevant. God is such a variable word ^.^
Jesus is God in the flesh. It's all over the bible (Scriptures). -John Chapter 1, Isaiah 9:6
And He is coming back soon. He is coming back for His true believers and then will return with them at the future Battle of Armageddon against the NWO who will try to harm Israel.
The New World Order (the Illuminati system) is here, is unfolding and unfolding quickly. Soon people will be forced to take the Mark of the Beast (chip implant - Revelation 13)
Borg's characterization was not bad. I think that most folks get an image, idea, or experience of God as children (or from others who are still at the level of children) and then get on with their lives, without digging deeper, because for many, many people they are busy with this life and do not think or experience God, the divine, etc. more deeply.
haha what a happy coincidence, I am just writing an essay on the historical Jesus, have already read a couple of their books when I stumble across this on your channel I am subscribed to.
In your own research - or maybe it came up while you were interviewing these two men - did you ever get an indication as to whether Crossan believes in life after death? Despite his defense of a theistic school of thought, I think I read somewhere he does not. Id prize hearing from you either way.
BTW, I dont know how you scored this interview, but AWESOME video!
Religion is bullshit. It was invented by jackasses just to keep their people in line and shit. If i told someone to write a book and name it the bible am i "god"? Dont think so. Also, if i told someone to build a large boat am i god? Fuck no! People get on with your lives and live it up cause you only get 1 life so dont waste it in church and i will laugh when you people die after you have wasted about 2/10 of your life in church. And yes i am atheist! And im proud :D So "god" can suck my cock!
Good is the Higgs Bozon (the particle that ascribes mass to all matter)..see CERN...if foolish ancient superstition and anthropocentric views continue to trump science, we are doomed to remain in the clutches of various religious groups..
I disagree with what Dr. Crossan said at the first response to your second question about panentheism. If you look at evolution it doesn't tend to be turning to anything but lifelessness, like the moon. Evolution is a flinging downward spiral, so it doesn't nessisary support an optimistic view of nature.
and consider that 99% of every species that have ever lived is now extinct. and consider that in the last 300 million years there have been 5 mass extinctions. and evolution also created the viruses and diseases which wipe out life.
"God" is a very ambiguous term. Before affriming or denying God's existence, one must agree on what God is. That is why ignosticism is the most rational position on God's existence.
1 he existed but his resurrection and self conception as divine are debatable
2 the jesus story is influenced by isaiah and pslams, and these stories are influenced from older levantine stories, which are in turn influenced from egyptian mythology
3 they killed in the name of communism
4 just cause we dont know what preceded the big bang doesnt mean it was "nothing". this is god of the gaps
"ridiculous" isnt constructive language keeping with the christian spirit. the word is "debatable"
These two were amusing. Trying to place a concept other than the "christian" god around a mythological entity is in itself an incredible exercise in the fruitless. They're talking about a myth created by man in man's image, so what difference does it make how you imagine it or conceptualize it. As for making the term atheist into a negative concept, that was just sour grapes. As an atheist I certainly don't feel that not believing in fairy tales is a negative effort. Just more theist babbling.
atheist or theist, we all have beliefs about the nature of morality and free will and ultimate meaning which together form a world view
in philosophy most atheist are termed naturalists. they rely on science and empiricism. most conclude that morality, free will and meaning do not exist in any objective sense
atheism is properly understood as a negative concept. and however valid its positions may, the implications are unsettling
Then to add on that God or the Source is a self-thinking/self-justifying idea which then wraps up how the view can be technically neutral monist or informationalist rather than mentalist.
I've read both of these guys. Love em. Dom's answers to your questions were hilarious to me for some reason! He's so blunt. Huston Smith is another religions giant that I have a mass of respect for, you should check him out if you haven't already.
I like that you're bringing up these discussions! It's very good to see people talking about God in a rational manner. But, I must disagree with the two doctors. Since, they place a dichotomy between God's being supernatural and his immanence. He can be both and that's exactly how he's described in the Old and New Testaments. Since, I understand the critiques of a God that is not immanent. But, if he's not supernatural, we really can't call him God.
Esther notes that people are not just becoming agnostics; they are going all the way and becoming atheists. I think it is worth noting that there is a fine line between agnosticism and atheism. I think it is highly improbable that God exists, and I call myself an atheist; others in my position would describe themselves as agnostics.
i am an "agnostic" because i believe the deistic and naturalistic explanation for the creation of the universe and its fine tuning are equally probable given the current limits of our knowledge
neither a prime mover nor a multiverse can be falsified, and both are laden with equally weighted assumptions
This is good stuff! Borg and Crossan are excellent. And you ask fine questions. So many people are not ware that there are MULTIPLE conceptions of God, not just one.
I think you are underestimating people. What these two are saying is not difficult to understand. Most people from early teens upwards should almost certainly have little or no difficulty comprehending the concepts discussed.
It's true what he said about the term "Atheism" being a problem. It is a problem for Atheists. Prof. Dawkins has ideas on calling Atheists "Brights".
I disagree with the idea that there can be no wonder in the context of Atheism or no God (Nogoddism? - hmm). Anyway, Science shows us the wonder of how the universe works. Darwinism is rich with wonderment.
WIthout wanting to be glib about it Panantheism sounds a little bit too much like "The Force".
I am so envious of you faintstarlite; getting to sit and chat with these 2 learned historians. (I wouldn't call them theologians per se--they make far too much sense) how did this come about if you don't mind me asking?
pt2. & u could literally see a black box in the coordinates (google the coordinates) of the dwarf star that supposedly has the planet nibiru revolving around it ( this dwarf star would be in parallel with the bilateral solar system theory as well as the orbit). there's too many things to look at,there's also related moon & mars conspiracies related to the topic p.s: do not judge based on what you "know", i really don't trust myself anymore on what i thought i "knew". don't believe it, idealize
you know, you look like an openminded person, why don't you look up the ancient sumerians, you might find some surprising things. being "openminded" does not mean just glancing over another opinion, it means researching it and making unbiased factful decisions and NOT repeating what someone has told you. I've looked into this and it really "pieces together" things in such a different perspective. the planet (yes, planet) that's referred to has actually been blackboxed out of google earth. CONT
great definition...I always say that theres NO Atheism... we are just reasonable persons..=)
razrX 1 month ago
Their answer is so nuanced that it is difficult to understand. But I learned a new term: panentheism.
StormTrek 2 months ago
He sounds like God is a serotonin buzz.
jerseystitch 3 months ago
God is a METAPHOR for a mystery that transcends all human categories of thought! Anybody that says he or she KNOWS anything beyond that is battling a neurosis & should be handled with caution. The only difference between a neurosis & a religion is that the religion is more popular. And let me concede one point regarding atheism. It's TRUE that religious iconography can incapacitate what I'd describe as "hard" atheists...just like a fundamentalist. It's simply because energy follows thought!
TruthJockey 4 months ago
These guys seem to fall into whatever makes us happy is the true . Actually if something makes you happy, you are more likely to rationalize that as being true, even if it is irrational.
I think their idea of god is inconsistent. Unless they would say that humans are just an accident of evolution. B/C they seem to say god has no single consciousness, well if this god doesn't have consciousness than it didn't even intend for humans to exist. If it did evolve/create us it has some consciousness.
mrpayne123 4 months ago
I often wonder if some god may exist. I disagree with these guys tho, if god was powerful and fortuitous enough to create humans complexly through 1 billion years of evolution then god's also responsible for things like severe mental retardation (an IQ<20). What kind of god would allow a person to go through life without even being able to dress themselves or to socialize in any way? I think it's easier to explain murderous diseases that kill thousands a day than this strange injustice.
mrpayne123 4 months ago
what if we find rape and murder wonderous?
waddellski 4 months ago
As a Christian I see no resemblance to the God of the Bible. Why try and create a god of your own and still claim to be a Christian. These gentlemen don't want to accept God for who he is and they want to hold on to some hope so they just create a god that fits what they want. I can respect the atheist, at least the atheist stands for something unlike these two guys.
ragman13 5 months ago
Mumbo jumbo rhubarb rhubarb. There is no God. These guys know it. But we still need to celebrate God. Otherwise, where is the wonder?
MrWagman11 5 months ago
@MrWagman11 "There is no God. These guys know it." ... 1) There is more than one definition for the word "God"; they addressed this already. 2) Making absolute statements about the existence of God is irrational, on both sides.
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 Actually I have to disagree with you. I think many of these folks really do believe in a God. They have the ability to look at contrary evidence and completely disregard it. That's delusional.
MrWagman11 5 months ago
@MrWagman11 In a God, yes, but not the classical theistic definition of "God", which (as they said) most atheists critique rightly. Again, it all depends on how one chooses to define "God". Panentheism is vastly different from the "sky-daddy" or long-bearded old man on a cloud that atheists commonly think of when you say "God". And what's your basis for thinking that they "look at contrary evidence and completely disregard it"? Are you saying there's positive evidence for God's nonexistence?
gmn545 5 months ago
@gmn545 I do not think there is credible evidence for the God of the Bible.
MrWagman11 5 months ago
@MrWagman11 God, as depicted in the bible (even from a cursory read) is described only in terms for which the people living back then could understand. As time (and thought) has progressed, other ways of defining "God" have emerged, far different from that of classical theism (e.g. panentheism, open theism, etc). Heck, "God" is even used by some as a placeholder word for their otherwise-indescribable interface with the numinous. Again, it all depends on how you define the word "God."
gmn545 4 months ago
@gmn545 So I guess God can pretty much be whatever you want it to be. Kind of like an imaginary friend. And everyone needs an imaginary friend.
MrWagman11 4 months ago
@MrWagman11 Reductio ad ridiculum. Are you mentally fixated on the concept of a "sky daddy"? Simply because different definitions of "God" exist, you assert it's "pretty much whatever you want it to be". No. The word "evolution" has several definitions as well, like "extraction of a mathematical root." And if two people are arguing over it, but have different definitions for it, then the whole debate is moot. Argue against a person's definition, not your own preconceived one.
gmn545 4 months ago
@gmn545 I don't think I have used the "sky daddy" term. That came from you. I simply responded to you saying "Again, it all depends on how you define the word God." Using that line of reasoning, there is no strict definition of God.
MrWagman11 4 months ago
@MrWagman11 You did, however, use the term "imaginary friend", which (if you knew how the other views on "God" such as panentheism define the word) simply doesn't correspond to what I've said. And if you followed the line of reasoning in my statement that began as "The word "evolution has several definitions..."", you'd have understood better what the point is.
gmn545 4 months ago
@gmn545 It appears as though I didn't comprehend your point. So, what exactly is your point? Do you take a panentheism believe of God?
MrWagman11 4 months ago
@MrWagman11 No I don't. I'm agnostic. Borg - in this video - talks about their being different definitions of God. Supernatural (classical) theism - which is what atheists commonly understand God to be - isn't what he espouses, but rather panentheism (which is very different). And after you said "there is no God", I simply made my point: it depends on your definition of "God." You could be thinking of an entirely different "God" (and I'm guessing it's "imaginary friend") than his.
gmn545 4 months ago
@gmn545 I would like to rephrase and say I do not believe there is a god of the Bible.
MrWagman11 4 months ago
Just one more group of grasping believers, making up something to protect them from Death and fear.
Does the fact that NO ONE can define, in any consistant and rational way, God, show you that there is no such thing? Just making it up as you go.
Let go of the fear, live this life to the fullest, make the world better that you found it, because this the only life you get!
ManchuDan22 5 months ago
“Tell me about the god you don’t believe in.”
I do not believe in the god of the bible that Dr. Borg admits is unrealistic. But neither do I believe in any god defined into existence and outside of critical evaluation with nothing but sheer hubris by the likes of people like Dr. Borg. I do not believe in a personal god of your own liking.
Blackmark52 6 months ago
This guy is ridiculous. I haven't heard such a large amount of philosophical non-sense in my life. One thing is for sure, on judgement day he will find out he will not be saved because he did not believe in the salvation found through Christ alone. Enjoy your pompous life while you can pal! Continue to do your tours and make your money off your books and your so called education. In the end it will mean nothing to God.
cctman 6 months ago in playlist jesus
@cctman
Pompous? You're the one threatening people with hell.
DonJulioBlanco2002 5 months ago
@cctman This is the type of attitude Jesus taught us to have!!!!???
Amadeus1066 5 months ago
@Amadeus1066 Oh It is... Read 2 Timothy 3:16. Underline the words rebuking and correcting while your at it. And by the way my so called offensive response is defended also by scripture... 1 Peter 3:15 and also 2 Cor. 10:5. will defend the Truth against anyone who distorts and twists the truth of God found only in scripture.
cctman 5 months ago
@cctman Just remember it will be God who determines and judges Marcus Borg's faith in Christ. Not you. Come judgment day I don't think God will look to you to decide Marcus Borg's fate.
Amadeus1066 5 months ago
@Amadeus1066 Of course not! Nor did I ever illude to the fact that I could judge Marcus. But I have scripture that tells me that I am to hold so called scriptures accountable to God's word. And if he is wrong and leading people astray you better darn well believe I'm going to attempt to correct him and stop his false teachings. That goes for anyone else as well.
cctman 5 months ago
The Modern Ecumencial Church proposes a modern communitarian, agnostic spirituality, which does not require companions to 'believe' in mythology or ancient dogmas found in many traditional religions. Rather than an all powerful 'GOD', the church proposes the Sacred Mystery as a more truthful experience of the sacred mysteries. We invite those who do not find a home in traditional religion, to consider the Modern Ecumenical Church (google it today)
ModernEcumenicalChur 6 months ago
It's a little late in the game to try redefining "god." We already have words for nature, evolution, universe etc.
travlr3000x 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chargedchaos: I totally relate; it took me a long and painful journey from fundamentalism to atheism to progressive Christianity; now I can preserve my love to God and my sense of wonder without being infected anymore with the fundamentalist plague. Thank God for the progressive Christianity!
auriciangelescu 7 months ago
Comment removed
auriciangelescu 7 months ago
Wpw! Those so-called "doctors" really have a great misinterpretation of what an athiest is and what they stand for, i refute everything they just said. Which I could debate them face to face.
Dougca1985 7 months ago
It seems to me that both John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg don't have a particularly sophisticated notion of theism. Certainly, there is nothing unsophisticated about the theism of Thomas Aquinas or Herbert McCabe OP. I think that what Crossan and Borg mean by "theism" here is the "god" rejected by writers such as Dawkins and Hitchens, et al. Bravo! Yes, indeed, THAT 'god' does not exist; but then again serious theologians like Thomas Aquinas never thought that he did!
bayreuth79 8 months ago
I agree with what they're saying about God but I consider myself a perfectly traditional Catholic. They criticize the god of supernatural theism, but the God they describe actually *is* the object of my supernatural theism. Borg says everything is in God. In the Catholic church we praise God, "in whom we live, move, and have our being" --Acts 17:28.
Jugglable 9 months ago
These two guys are atheist just waiting to smack themselves on the forehead and say, "Damn! I really don't believe in God, do I!"
Kailoa36 9 months ago
IMO the easiest way to grasp what Panentheism is - is to read what Jesus is reported to have said, and then try to figure out why he would have said that. The motives of Jesus and (or, as) a Panentheist should correlate, particularly if you factor-in the knowledge that his statements are about 2000 years old. If an artifact of the Universe (Jesus) is "at one" with God, then the artifact IS God. So, we are (the Universe is) WHAT God is doing. See?
q7winq7 9 months ago
And I want to add to this list. Bishop John Shelby Spong.
lizziestew 10 months ago
First guy's response is just a bunch of metaphorical abstraction that means nothing, and the second guy just throws his pomposity around, likely butthurt by people who are more apt to believe in something that works, rather than the likely metaphorical nonsense this guy buys into. Yes, everything has a relative sort of interconnectedness to it. I can love it without naming it God.
alphaenemy 10 months ago
The Bible should inform our worldview, not the other way around. As people from the West, our worldview is considerably materialistic. That is, that which cannot be explained by natural means cannot be true, or cannot exist. One may continue holding to the Bible, but mistakenly and superficially impose their worldview onto the text; or, they may reject all of the biblical revelation altogether. Either way, the supernatural God of theism took on a human body, died for us, and was raised to life.
seanhflowers 10 months ago
Comment removed
seanhflowers 10 months ago
I came to my Christianity via Buddhism. Borg's and Crossan's views on God resonate with the distinctly Eastern view of God that I've experienced. One of them said - everything is shot through with the presence of God. That's actually something visceral that you can feel as opposed to some lofty, heady concept. Call yourself what you will this experience is what it's all about. From this simple place of oneness only goodness and kindness flows. And that's what it's all about.
compassionatelady 11 months ago
how they think they can combine Jesus with that crap is beyond me. God CREATED the world - it's in the very first sentence of the Bible which is theirs too: "In the beginning, God CREATED" - that logically means GOD is SEPARATE to the world, and we know that God is eternal and the universe is not. The universe is not everything, it is not every potential, and it's therefore not equivalent to God. In nett terms, pantheism/panentheism has nothing to do with God, and thus equivalent to non-theism
cyberdems 11 months ago
Wow, that was quite a mouthful of chit-chat from the side of liberal thology. It's only doubletalk and meaningless statements. They are both practically atheists. God is"isness" and "ultimate reality".... ? watch?v=aw9jvJp_nAo
Nazdahr 11 months ago
And once they have adopted the optimism and assumptions of the Enlightenment and tried their hardest to make Christianity palatable to the rationalist crowd by determining that any statement which bothers them must be "figurative" (... this usually consists of ignoring historical-cultural context and introducing grievous anachronisms), they seem surprised when all the secularists don't suddenly confess that belief in God is okay now and join with them against the evil, stupid conservatives.
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
The Jesus Seminar has little credibility outside of the United States. Liberal theology has since the 19th century felt like it needs to abandon historical, revealed theism in favor of humanistic rationalism and progressive modernism. Liberal "historical Jesus" scholarship has made a conscious effort to disassemble the traditional understanding and instead recreate Jesus as an advocate for moral values they hold and political causes they endorse. Their fuzzy methodology makes that so obvious.
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
so... therefore the bible is literally correct??
Their god is the deist god, or vishnu.
I do KNOW their god, so does the devout hindu, muslim, animist, zororazstrian and etc etc.
I agree with their initial point, there is a sense of wonder and awe that can be a common human experience. I also KNOW the reality of human illusion, how a wonderful experience can be imprinted with the idea that initiated it.
Creating an experience is how fundamentalists convet. A showman is more honest.
dalinean 1 year ago
I've read some of Borg and Crossan's books on Jesus studies. Renown scholars indeed, but their views are now considere highly skeptical to most scholars. I think God is better defended agaisnt atheistm belief because of their very studies, since I think Jesus' miracles and resurrection are quite good proof of Christianity in history. I recommend reading many other books froim oither Jesus historians besides these two such as N.T. Wright or Craig Blomberg.
inkillerxyz1 1 year ago
I agree with Dr. Borg, there are many problems with the concept of a supernatural god. Another meaning of god, as in existentialism or some other similar type is much more coherent and logical if you think about it.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
John Dominic Crossan is awesome!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
WHO ARE YOU
Markemark44 1 year ago
sorry, I don't believe in anything. But then I am a nihilist and cant be criticised at the level of wishy wash llamanism.
this is llamanism.. after 4 mins I gave up in.. desire for girls with bikinis
Nihilodei 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
John D Crossan is a dumbass...it took him and those other so called "scholars" who got there degrees in those super-hard subjects of humanities and other BS subjects to come to the realization that the historical Jesus never existed and he couldn't come up with with that BS answer on his own? But it took him and his other dumbass friends to come to that answer?? WOW??? You could've taken an atheist off the street and he could of gave you that answer...dumbass
sakootakoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow this guy and the others retards...its funny how they think there scholars when they got degrees in humanities and english?? oooooooooh!!!!!!! wow..those are the toughest subjects besides underwater-basket weaving...lol..HAHAHA dumbass
sakootakoo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
John D Crossan is a dumbass...it took him and those other so called "scholars" who got there degrees in those super-hard subjects of humanities and other BS subjects to come to the realization that the historical Jesus never existed and he couldn't come up with with that BS answer on his own? But it took him and his other dumbass friends to come to that answer?? WOW??? You could've taken an atheist off the street and he could of gave you that answer...dumbass
sakootakoo 1 year ago
History channel and Discovery channel don't mean jack!
I would like to see Earl Doherty's wonderful arguments from his book "The Jesus Puzzle" given more attention.
HuckMeHard 1 year ago
They have based their entire argument around the reasoning that Atheists assert there is no God. This is not always the case. Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of the claim that God exists the same way adults reject the claim the Santa Claus exist. The point that Christmas is still here despite the fact the Santa don't exist is a straw man argument.
They are still begging the question by asserting the God is everything as there is no falsifiable evidence to back up their claim.
axsimulate 1 year ago
These guys are gypsies.
JinxOz 1 year ago
@JinxOz Gypsies pulling a scam. They are misleading people.
megawolf7 1 year ago
Crossan is incorrect when he says that atheism is entirely negative. The negation of irrational theism reveals, and is necessary for, clear thinking. And clear thinking is the positive starting-point of atheism. Borg misleadingly implies that atheism does not lead to wonder an appreciation of life and the universe. Plenty of atheists revel in wonder and appreciation of life, and are awestruck by the universe. Crossan and Borg simply are the tail end of dead of theology - a dead discipline.
sgturner59 1 year ago 2
@sgturner59 . Well said. It almost sounded like a desperate last attempt against atheism by misrepresenting it... Borg's way of saying things is totally different.
cre599 8 months ago
@sgturner59 Atheists think pagans are wusses. Pagans believe deists are wrong on the number of gods. Jews believe in only one G-d.Christians believe there are 3 in 1.If I had to choosse?Only I God but many aspects of God. No God at all? I can't look at a blade of grass or taste really good olive oil, smell a fresh lemon, look into a baby's face and not think there is a Force/Source/ Continuation that is all good and wants only good for us. I think life is learning that truth.
Tonithenightowl 8 months ago
@sgturner59 You misunderstand the meaning of the word "negative." As Crossan is using it, negative refers to the negation or rejection of a particular belief; in this light, atheism is the rejection of theism in the same way that a-unicornism is the rejection of a belief in unicorns. Far from being incorrect, Crossan's statement is very close to a truism.
jdbkaput 5 months ago
@sgturner59 Aren't you being a bit defensive? Borg never says that atheists don't experience wonder. Nor is he out to convert anybody to his viewpoint... not every Christian is a Billy Sunday out for your soul. Progressive Christianity isn't the enemy of atheists or irreligious people. If anything, Borg's vision is much more compatible with pluralism than your own, which sees some beliefs as easily dismissed (whereas Bog doesn't see that of atheism at all).
Magnulus76 3 months ago
we have here a fire side chat of two Athiest and give their thoughts on what they think about religion ! Please you need to get 2 christians to talk on this subject matter !
turtle4aire 1 year ago
I just looked at the NYTimes best seller list: such brainiacs as Bill O'Reilly, Rick Springfield (yes, the mediocre rock singer) and Whoopi Goldberg are on that top 10 list. They sell books: big deal.
Frankly, those are EXACTLY the people I wouldn't trust with important matters!!
If you really think the sharpest people are those selling the most books, I've got some beach land in Colorado to sell you.
EastofForever 1 year ago
@chargedchaos That's good, but I find it hard to take on board, with the implication that the Christian tradition is still terribly valuable and enriching, but, as it happens, the founders of it just got it all wrong and it's taken until people like Borg and Crossan to really understand what it was all about...
orlando098 1 year ago
"God is a very simple choice, the choice between a Yes and a No, between a plus sign and a minus sign. This is a choice that none of us can escape. It is utterly impossible to get it wrong." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
cbarryblackburn 1 year ago
I respect both of these guys. Have read their works. But these are pretty flaccid explanations. I think the atheists do better and have better objections than the metaphorizing liberal protestants. The problem is that given Borg's definition of "is-ness" it still results in "spirit" (which he admits at the end). Thus you still have a personal, intelligent God. True Greek pantheism doesn't acknowledge existence as a sacred receptacle for deity. Thus, Borg's explanation seems circular.
V6trey 1 year ago
@V6trey
Yes, I quite like these guys but I also find the explanations a bit "flaccid". If God is just "being" can you really relate to him? Is there any point praying? And does this just mean God=the universe, in which case it's like atheism, or is God some extra intelligence behind the universe, in which case we are talking about something unprovable that we need to have faith in, like any other version
orlando098 1 year ago
That is a minority definition of God. Basically they are saying that God = reality. But most Christians believe in the interventionist supernatural authority figure - that is why they pray. The claim that individual atheists do not experience wonder or have positive experience is just not true. One could also argue that people who redefine the word "God" are trapped in theism. Why else would they hold onto the word "God". It is a form of deception.
zearro53 1 year ago
Only the mystic can know for sure if God exists. He does.
EricDevince 1 year ago
These guys might be experts in New Testatment studies, but as theologians, they are amateurs.
kkallebb 1 year ago
The Jesus Seminar is closet atheist masquerading as Christians
ztstar 1 year ago
A non-material reality seems a" contradiction in terminis" to me.
lizazoon 1 year ago
Their idea of god is very personal and as little to do with the god of the bible. It`s more like a being you only meet in meditation, like the gurus in India.
lizazoon 1 year ago
These guys are certainly interesting, but at times I feel like they are playing semantic games. Atheists often say they with they didn't have to have a negative name to describe themselves, just as there is no word for people who don't collect stamps. I can feel and understand their definition of God, but it too easily flows into very different ideas that people REALLY REALLY seem to still believe here in Texas. Many children today are still led vaguely into believing in a magic God.
35starfish 1 year ago
Maybe a God which is a superpowerful authority figure, a god of supernatural theism is such an easy target because so many BELIEVERS define him as such.
Caracalla23 1 year ago
You couldn't find two more unbiblical conceptions of the creator God. It seems to them God's only attribute is existence itself, as though His only purpose is to exist for us to define. It's offensive to those of us who love God in all His sovereignty. God is the process of evolution? Dear oh dear, this is what happens when you try to have one foot in the world and one in God.
athlete117 1 year ago
@athlete117 I would agree with you athlete that their definition of god is a rather odd one even from my atheistc perspective. BTW in an open democratic society you have no right not to be offended.
Caracalla23 1 year ago
@Caracalla23 I don't object to people having the right to say these sorts of things. I am just being honest about what I, and many other Christians, think of their views. That is all.
athlete117 1 year ago
@athlete117 So you find it OFFENSIVE that people disagree with you?????
Caracalla23 1 year ago
@Caracalla23 No, just when those who hold such views masquerade as Christians.
athlete117 1 year ago
@Caracalla23 These same people deny that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. They are "progressive Christians", in other words, not Christians in any meaningful sense of the word.
athlete117 1 year ago
@athlete117 I hold no dogma whether it be religious, philosophical or political so "sacred" that I'm offended because people disagree with it.
Caracalla23 1 year ago
Heretics, not "Christian" .
Psylliumhead 1 year ago
@Psylliumhead Hersy is another word for freedom of thought.
Caracalla23 1 year ago
I'm atheist, yet have had spiritual experience and what you might call God. I don't make of it more than it gives me. I don't think a divine personality inhabits the world or arranges my life or does miracles for me or will arrange for me to survive death. Very many christians think magically and that God is arranging miracles for them all the time. This is the delusional thinking we object to. Maybe not right to call "that" God, giving a false impression of divine personality.
toppinzr 1 year ago
@toppinzr So I think the guys in this video give a false impression of christianity in general because very much of it is magical and delusional and fantasy and not as they describe. They're talking only about their stripe of christianity presumably with delusions stripped away. And a stereotype of atheists as spiritually blind.
toppinzr 1 year ago
Thank you for posting this I really enjoyed it
xev1n777 1 year ago
Wordy,.......
jaymurtii 1 year ago
The quabble I have with Crossan and Borg is why they bother with Christ at all. They reduce everything to a history that we can know very little about, say things that many believers have said about God, and claim some special pretense based on scholarship of which we cannot be sure. They are, in an odd way, agnostic atheist scholarly wannabe Catholics.
hopkins4545 1 year ago
Great stuff, but my question is how the hell did you get in touch with John Dominic Crossan? I've been trying to set up an interview for weeks, and can't get a hold of him.
TheBenCK1 1 year ago
these ideas are dangerous to people of all faiths and to the roman catholic church. the "god of supernatural theism" is an insulting term, but more insulting is his assertion that God is merely an "inssness", "ultimate reality". these ideas are downright confused. i'd take richard dawkins over these pretentious twerps any day of the week, at least he can just admit to his atheism and state his case for it
LeeGrasswalker 1 year ago
The problem with this "warm fuzzy" concept of the god of everything, in everything not supernatural but still... well, God is that there is a disconnect with respect to this concept and the words of the Bible. Genesis, Job, etc... What you are trying to do is have your cake and eat it too. Oh, the supernatural God is a problem - we'll just define that part - but all the rest, heaven ( a supernatural palce), hell ( a supernatural place), angles (what are they), etc... still remain a proiblem.
apeek7 1 year ago
These guy are are awesome
ThePositiveChristian 1 year ago
"Christmas is still here even if Santa Claus doesn't exist." Dom, you heretic you!
TheReactorSings 2 years ago
disclaimer to that: the fact that god exists doesnt make the hebrew bible, the christian bible, or the koran right. those books are just human interpretations of god. so the philosophy i stick to is deism, which means god is just the architect, but after he set time going, he laid back and let things happen
xnfxdnfxn 2 years ago
@xnfxdnfxn since when did he exist?!
navalwater123 1 year ago
@navalwater123
i am not so sure as to what you mean by your question......but if you mean it in terms of time, well by using induction, he existed before anything else. makes sense if you think about it.
xnfxdnfxn 1 year ago
god definitely exists. its true the big bang created the universe, but who put the proton that would explode there? science cannot explain this in a way that doesnt violate the law of conservation of matter. matter cannot just appear out of thin air. point two is that you cannot garner negative proof of gods existence, in other words, you cannot get proof to prove something doesnt exist, because that would mean the object exists. so thats my opinion. its that simple.
xnfxdnfxn 2 years ago
@xnfxdnfxn
"matter cannot just appear out of thin air."
"he existed before anything else"
What your doing is using God of the gaps. You pick up a problem that science has yet solved, then you say. HA! God did it!
But even with these gaps (which we are still working on), you haven't done your homework properly, we have discovered some particles come out of 'thin air' look up Virtual Particles.
And to assume there MUST be a prime mover is silly. Why do you assume there must be one?
truckcompany 1 year ago
Sure, it has nothing to do with the complete lack of evidence. A reality that can't be proven. Science is a postitive A theist. God of pure bullshit. Hello god, where are you? There is great wonder inthe science of the universe. Sacred is a non existing word.
sambricky 2 years ago
god is this.. god is that ... god just is... answers without answers.. confusion is the way to go if you want to keep your beliefs alive... using emotions and heavy words, discrediting disbelief as if it equals not having prospects in life or good will... dishonesty.
BrunoKoveras 2 years ago
"God is not part of reality, but he is"
Nice contradiction there in the last end of the video.
If God is part of reality, science should be able to detect him as well.
Fail.
tingtangs 2 years ago
The moron to the left claims that "atheists don't really have a positive vision of anything", but that is clearly complete BS.
ATHEISM only means "non-belief", and is not a belief system. ATHEISM doesn't describe someone's world view as such. It only describes what they are NOT.
tingtangs 2 years ago
"Don't have a positive vision" and "is not a belief system" mean the same thing. He is agreeing with you.
royscott1688 2 years ago
so god is reality? i am pretty sure we have a word for that. it is reality.
this video is full of inconsistencies and attacks on atheism.
no wonder in evolution without religion? i think it is more amazing to think of how luck humans are to be alive with the billions upon billions of tiny things that would of made it so you, as an individual, were born.
6:37-6:43
all we can observe is what would be in god. that would mean everything is god. all they did was rename pantheism.
atheistnarutofan 2 years ago
I would like to suggest that there are other Jesus scholars who take a different perspective than Crossan and Borg. I would highly recommend N.T. Wright, who is not evangelical but challenges some of Crossans assumptions and happens to be a personal friend of Borg despite the fact they disagree on some things. Another Jesus scholar I would recommend is William Lane Craig.
roberts11000 2 years ago
The God of the Jesus Seminar sounds like an Existential Acid Trip, not the personal & Mighty God of Scripture.
I watch all things related to those associated with Crossan, Borg & The Seminar and am continually astounded at the Universalist-Yet-Meaningless Pseudo-Pantheist ideas that the Seminar uses to reduce the Incarnation of God in Jesus the Christ to a fable. Why base a worldview for living based upon the life of a man that Crossan assumes was eaten by dogs after he was crucified? nonsense
callofchrist 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
two heretics who will burn in Hell.
smartwarlord 2 years ago
Comments like that is why many do not believe in what Christians have to say. Don't forget: "אל־תשפטו למען אשר לא תשפטו"
TLucretiusCarus 2 years ago
@TLucretiusCarus
Jesus proclaimed that we should judge others as we would have ourselves judged. If I was a heretic, I would want someone to call me what I am.
smartwarlord 2 years ago
I agree that we should speak up when someone has made a mistake. It is also written that when one defends the hope that is within them, they are to do so with gentleness and respect. How is cursing them to hell beneficial or even edifying? - Again: "If you declare one's condemnation because of foolishness, it is you that shall be in danger of Gehenna." [<Latin "Dixerit fatue reus, erit Gehennae ignis."] - That is not our right because we aren't perfect to condemn anyone to hell for imperfection.
TLucretiusCarus 2 years ago
Cursing? Anyone who does not accept Christ will burn in Hell because He is the only way. We can say in confidence these men are going to Hell. We don't know their "fate", but we know where they want to go and will likely go. Don't ruin Peter's message (1P 3:15) with sloppy English, I'm not defending Christianity, I'm throwing heretics off the balcony. This isn't condemnation for imperfection, this is condemnation for blasphemy, idol worship and Paganism. We have the right 2 judge wicked men.
smartwarlord 2 years ago
@smartwarlord No, you can't say that with confidence because you have no proof whatsoever to prove your case.
baddave62 2 years ago
Great !
breakthenws 2 years ago
I love these two scholars!
4everkop 2 years ago
Wow, I like your exploring mind and open questioning of everything, it's refreshing.
It's great you got these guys to respond! I've always admired John Dominic Crossan since I started seeing him in documentaries years ago. Maybe it's the Irish in me :)
Also, Marcus Borg seems very astute as well. Thanks for this. I'm going to subscribe to your channel and watch all your videos! Great job.
dukeon 2 years ago 2
They are two mindless morons...
much like their liberal brainwashed followers...
the majority of the educated disagree with these two self-proclaimed asswipes
xyberfunk 2 years ago
be a liberal. read a book.
fjenkins1 2 years ago 2
God is the connection between people. God is love.
I was an atheist till I concluded that the above is the basis of God in any religion. Anything afterwards is irrelevant. God is such a variable word ^.^
0Krusnik0 2 years ago 2
Jesus is God in the flesh. It's all over the bible (Scriptures). -John Chapter 1, Isaiah 9:6
And He is coming back soon. He is coming back for His true believers and then will return with them at the future Battle of Armageddon against the NWO who will try to harm Israel.
The New World Order (the Illuminati system) is here, is unfolding and unfolding quickly. Soon people will be forced to take the Mark of the Beast (chip implant - Revelation 13)
jenmodella 2 years ago
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
If you read your bible, you'd see that Jesus was supposed to be back... ooooh... say... 2,000 years ago or so.
RCRhythm 2 years ago
ALLAH
If you want to know if god exist or not I give you the answer
You will not believe what I discovered, I advice all to read about this religion Called
( ISLAM) it will surprise you and you will be passion of it
You can search for the Islam thru internet or reading some books
You will lose nothing
If you want to know meaning of love and soul peace read about this religion
I Love you all
Multisclerosis 2 years ago
You are my hero for getting to sit down with these Great Men!!!
1000huzzahs 2 years ago
I LOVE GOOOOD!!!!!!
mikyla213 2 years ago
Borg's characterization was not bad. I think that most folks get an image, idea, or experience of God as children (or from others who are still at the level of children) and then get on with their lives, without digging deeper, because for many, many people they are busy with this life and do not think or experience God, the divine, etc. more deeply.
jacoblandes 2 years ago
How in the heck did you get to actually sit down, have Crossan and Borg in the same room and ask them questions?
aikido7 2 years ago
Dasein, no? Why bother with the word god.
curiniul 2 years ago
Crack pots! Nothing more to say about that!
yesimaBright 2 years ago
@ 2:28 Dom looks pissed
freezingstill 2 years ago
haha what a happy coincidence, I am just writing an essay on the historical Jesus, have already read a couple of their books when I stumble across this on your channel I am subscribed to.
Mylth 2 years ago
What the doctor said referring to "isness" doesnt make any fucking sense at all.
termenzor 2 years ago
Hi Esther-
If you could answer this Id really appreciate it.
In your own research - or maybe it came up while you were interviewing these two men - did you ever get an indication as to whether Crossan believes in life after death? Despite his defense of a theistic school of thought, I think I read somewhere he does not. Id prize hearing from you either way.
BTW, I dont know how you scored this interview, but AWESOME video!
shysterlicious 2 years ago
Religion is bullshit. It was invented by jackasses just to keep their people in line and shit. If i told someone to write a book and name it the bible am i "god"? Dont think so. Also, if i told someone to build a large boat am i god? Fuck no! People get on with your lives and live it up cause you only get 1 life so dont waste it in church and i will laugh when you people die after you have wasted about 2/10 of your life in church. And yes i am atheist! And im proud :D So "god" can suck my cock!
brandonvandyke1 2 years ago
yeah, "one life to live"! let's waste it staring at a computer screen, swearing on the internet to show how sophisticated we are!
nubbs 2 years ago
juz make this simple,everything have the oppsite side like hot and cold,creation and creator( god itself- I believe god have no him or her)
preggoof 2 years ago
im guna make a video responce on this truly inspiring video!
TrippyCustodian 2 years ago
They should have T-shits made that say "Let's get down to IS-NESS!"
Checker222 2 years ago
what a load of bollocks
quittingtomorrow 2 years ago
Good is the Higgs Bozon (the particle that ascribes mass to all matter)..see CERN...if foolish ancient superstition and anthropocentric views continue to trump science, we are doomed to remain in the clutches of various religious groups..
ALMOST62 2 years ago
higgs boson has yet to be found. and how to do you explain the cosmological constant? look up the "anthropic principle" in physics
religion has it's limits. but so does science. we are all better off when neither holds a monopoly on our attention
and where do you think physics came from? ready to be shocked? christianity! read a biography on newton or galileo or coprnicus
and where did human rights come from? christianity! read john locke or js mill. or even deists like thomas jefferson
nubbs 2 years ago
I disagree with what Dr. Crossan said at the first response to your second question about panentheism. If you look at evolution it doesn't tend to be turning to anything but lifelessness, like the moon. Evolution is a flinging downward spiral, so it doesn't nessisary support an optimistic view of nature.
giggleman 2 years ago
and consider that 99% of every species that have ever lived is now extinct. and consider that in the last 300 million years there have been 5 mass extinctions. and evolution also created the viruses and diseases which wipe out life.
nubbs 2 years ago
"God" is a very ambiguous term. Before affriming or denying God's existence, one must agree on what God is. That is why ignosticism is the most rational position on God's existence.
lauragabriel 2 years ago
why are the morons from generation y question something as old as religion.....generation y sucks balls!!!
lacey21333 2 years ago
Four atheist positions that are ridiculous:
#1- Jesus never existed- like believing in the flying speget monster
#2- early xianity was influenced by pagan mythologies like Osiris and Mithras- like believeing in the invisible orbiting teapot
#3- Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chee, Kim ill, etc. didn't commit their crimes "in the name of atheism"- this is like a river in Egypt, De Nile
#4- The Universe came from nothing- refute by my 5 year old son who knows a basic math equation 0+0=0
agnostaxian 2 years ago
1 he existed but his resurrection and self conception as divine are debatable
2 the jesus story is influenced by isaiah and pslams, and these stories are influenced from older levantine stories, which are in turn influenced from egyptian mythology
3 they killed in the name of communism
4 just cause we dont know what preceded the big bang doesnt mean it was "nothing". this is god of the gaps
"ridiculous" isnt constructive language keeping with the christian spirit. the word is "debatable"
nubbs 2 years ago
These two were amusing. Trying to place a concept other than the "christian" god around a mythological entity is in itself an incredible exercise in the fruitless. They're talking about a myth created by man in man's image, so what difference does it make how you imagine it or conceptualize it. As for making the term atheist into a negative concept, that was just sour grapes. As an atheist I certainly don't feel that not believing in fairy tales is a negative effort. Just more theist babbling.
NoFreeSpeechonYT 2 years ago
atheist or theist, we all have beliefs about the nature of morality and free will and ultimate meaning which together form a world view
in philosophy most atheist are termed naturalists. they rely on science and empiricism. most conclude that morality, free will and meaning do not exist in any objective sense
atheism is properly understood as a negative concept. and however valid its positions may, the implications are unsettling
nubbs 2 years ago
Then to add on that God or the Source is a self-thinking/self-justifying idea which then wraps up how the view can be technically neutral monist or informationalist rather than mentalist.
JohananRaatz 2 years ago
you were so lucky to get to talk to them! Thanks for posting their views!
wayman29 2 years ago
I've read both of these guys. Love em. Dom's answers to your questions were hilarious to me for some reason! He's so blunt. Huston Smith is another religions giant that I have a mass of respect for, you should check him out if you haven't already.
giggleman 2 years ago
I like that you're bringing up these discussions! It's very good to see people talking about God in a rational manner. But, I must disagree with the two doctors. Since, they place a dichotomy between God's being supernatural and his immanence. He can be both and that's exactly how he's described in the Old and New Testaments. Since, I understand the critiques of a God that is not immanent. But, if he's not supernatural, we really can't call him God.
God bless. :)
quantumscape 2 years ago
Esther notes that people are not just becoming agnostics; they are going all the way and becoming atheists. I think it is worth noting that there is a fine line between agnosticism and atheism. I think it is highly improbable that God exists, and I call myself an atheist; others in my position would describe themselves as agnostics.
what88the 2 years ago
i am an "agnostic" because i believe the deistic and naturalistic explanation for the creation of the universe and its fine tuning are equally probable given the current limits of our knowledge
neither a prime mover nor a multiverse can be falsified, and both are laden with equally weighted assumptions
nubbs 2 years ago
This is good stuff! Borg and Crossan are excellent. And you ask fine questions. So many people are not ware that there are MULTIPLE conceptions of God, not just one.
mattwion 2 years ago
Very nice video. I do think though, many people will have difficulty understanding exactly what these two are saying.
channeIreview 2 years ago
channelreview:
I think you are underestimating people. What these two are saying is not difficult to understand. Most people from early teens upwards should almost certainly have little or no difficulty comprehending the concepts discussed.
LondonWeekendLesbian 2 years ago
interesting material Faintstarlight.
It's true what he said about the term "Atheism" being a problem. It is a problem for Atheists. Prof. Dawkins has ideas on calling Atheists "Brights".
I disagree with the idea that there can be no wonder in the context of Atheism or no God (Nogoddism? - hmm). Anyway, Science shows us the wonder of how the universe works. Darwinism is rich with wonderment.
WIthout wanting to be glib about it Panantheism sounds a little bit too much like "The Force".
LondonWeekendLesbian 2 years ago 2
I am so envious of you faintstarlite; getting to sit and chat with these 2 learned historians. (I wouldn't call them theologians per se--they make far too much sense) how did this come about if you don't mind me asking?
paradiddle1 2 years ago
pt2. & u could literally see a black box in the coordinates (google the coordinates) of the dwarf star that supposedly has the planet nibiru revolving around it ( this dwarf star would be in parallel with the bilateral solar system theory as well as the orbit). there's too many things to look at,there's also related moon & mars conspiracies related to the topic p.s: do not judge based on what you "know", i really don't trust myself anymore on what i thought i "knew". don't believe it, idealize
khawajacorp 3 years ago
you know, you look like an openminded person, why don't you look up the ancient sumerians, you might find some surprising things. being "openminded" does not mean just glancing over another opinion, it means researching it and making unbiased factful decisions and NOT repeating what someone has told you. I've looked into this and it really "pieces together" things in such a different perspective. the planet (yes, planet) that's referred to has actually been blackboxed out of google earth. CONT
khawajacorp 3 years ago