Thanks Dan. I didn't expect them to control heavily enough for black religious attitudes but it sounds like they did. I am suspicious of the claim that white people looked at their Bibles for context less. I don't know. That feels weird. That feels like a politically motivated claim. I'll have to buy the book and see if they gave numbers
Very interesting discussion about moral erhics between a spiritual interviewer and an agnostic interviewee. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-angqXJtF4Os.htmlsi=gL2UtPMOnYIM85bE
I suppose Kirk also believes we are all endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Really! Or that governments are created simply to protect these rights. Who dreamed up this crap? Why would any rational person buy in to such a ridiculous premise? LOL!
Another great resource in this discussion is the book "White Too Long" by Robert P. Jones (the founder of Public Religion Research Institute - PRRI. He holds a PhD in religion from Emory University and a MDiv from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.)
Por favor escucha, seas quien seas. Es una emergencia y vidas se están perdiendo mientras hablo. Necesito que seas abierto de mente y abierto a la posibilidad de estar equivocado o engañado. ¿Qué implicaría para tí y tu vida si Spinoza y yo tuviésemos razón y el verdadero Dios es todo lo que existe? Dios se creó a sí mismo después de haber existido siempre. Dios quiso dejar de existir para siempre y creó el universo o la vida porque quiso vivir. Tienes tanto todavía por lo que vivir y vivimos por la experiencia, vivimos gracias a Dios y siempre seremos parte de lo que existió en el tiempo eterno. El panteismo es la verdad y no va a dejar de serlo por mucho que se crea. Los humanos somos capaces de entender la naturaleza de Dios. Los humanos somos capaces de entender que existe algo infinitamente más importante que uno mismo. El todo es infinitamente más importante que la parte. Dios es lo más importante que existe porque es lo único que existe. Estoy cansado y necesito descansar. No soy comprendido. Vivo alienado. Vivo incrédulo porque sé quien soy y lo que estoy haciendo por tí. ¿Es posible creer que es imposible estar equivocado? Dios existe y el ateísmo y la religión son malentendidos de la realidad dañinos a Dios perfecto. No puedo decirlo más claro. ¿Quieres malgastar tu vida defendiendo una idea que hace daño a los demás sin ningún argumento? La realidad es lo único que importa y el planeta Tierra está hundiéndose rápidamente porque no hay un control de natalidad y no hay intención de parar el incremento de población constante y exponencial, multiplicando la población sin tener un plan e intentar saber cual es el óptimo número de humanos en el planeta Tierra para su sostenimiento. El planeta Tierra tiene que sobrevivir, esa es nuestra misión. El universo tiene que sobrevivir, esa es la misión de todas las personas inteligentes capaces de entender que todas las vidas importan porque todo forma parte de un equilibrio. Todo es literalmente Tiempo y Espacio transformándose experimentando su propia creación. Dios es increible y si piensas en lo que te he dicho te sentirás increíblemente mejor. Morir ateo es triste y además no tiene sentido. Si no me crees puedes leer a Spinoza que está de acuerdo conmigo. Somos dos ya los que decimos Dios es literalmente todo lo que existe. Cuando una molécula se divide Dios literalmente se divide. La realidad de Dios nos hace humildes. Los humanos somos la especie o forma de vida más avanzada que puede existir porque somos capaces de entender que somos una vida como la de los demás, cada cual a su manera, Dios creó los animales y personas y todo lo demás, y todo es una vida que evoluciona literalmente a medida que nosotros evolucionamos o transformamos. Quién sabe como serán las generaciones futuras. La verdad es el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Las guerras son absurdas. ¿Por qué se pelea? Vivimos en un mundo sin Dios y las sirenas de emergencia no dejan de sonar. ¡Emergencia! Hay que reaccionar. Hay que parar para hablar. La humanidad tiene que hablar. A Spinoza no le dejaron defender su palabra. Spinoza murió sin defender su palabra. ¿Fue el Corán memorizado?. Se puede saber tanto solo pidiendo la prueba. Para estar tranquilos necesitamos saber, no te quedas tranquilo creyendo, no estás seguro, ¿y si no fuese verdad?, la duda o incertidumbre nos desasosiega. La religión y ateismo son creencias. Los religiosos creen que Dios existe y los ateos creen que Dios no existe. Ninguno sabe que Dios existe porque de la nada no puede ser creado algo. El universo tuvo que ser creado por algo inteligente con absoluta certeza. Entender que fuimos creados y Dios existe es la solución a todos los problemas, el resto se consigue con buenas intenciones. A Dios hay que entenderlo, a la realidad hay que entenderla. Se tiene que entender quien soy. He descubierto que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Gracias.
I don't like to criticise someone who is debunking as odious a person as Kirk, but I think this was somewhat poorly argued. Firstly it did not really engage with alternative models of moral realism from divine command theory (like classical theism and secular systems of objective morals). Also European Christians always had access to some works of classical philosophy which were influential like Cicero and Seneca, and Islamic preservation of Classical works was more in the field of medicine/science than philosophy
I agree...I'm a white New Zealander...and fromm perspective..the worst colonial power to ever have existed is the British Empire. Their land grabbing and treatment of indigenous peoples etc. It's worse in Australia with the aborigines. Charly kirk and White Christian Nationism etc. 😡
I like the book of Enoch, it actually helped me to understand better the New Testament. And it is a fascinating book. However, it is not really sure that the book of Enoch is an elaboration of Genesis 6. According to Thomas Romer, it is possible that this story is a fruit of a common tradition that has been taken up bc that story of angels going after females in Genesis 6 when you read carefuly looks like a fragment. It it interrupts the story of the flood. I don’t Dan, if you are aware of that hypothesis. Thank you anyway for these precious informations 🙂
Yes and no. While he is conflating the two that is because those whom propose moral command theory do this too. DCT requires the epistemological justification of knowing what a god wants you to do, which they must fall back on scriptures for as people whom hear a voice of god in their heads today are hallucinating.
Hey Dan, quick question. Modern science and archeology has long established the fact that Noah did not exist and was a rip-off of Utnapishtim. It has also disproven an exodus at all and clearly indicates that the Israelites were Canaanites. Now let us say that God allowed such stories to exist within the bible to convey a deeper meaning. Then why did Jesus consider Noah to be a historical figure? He talks of him that way. The same thing with Moses, who is understood to be a literary creation for a founding myth. The same thing with Adam and Eve. All of them are spoken in a historical sense. I'm kinda freaking out cuz of this whole identity crisis I'm having and any help would be appreciated
I grew up Pentecostal, old school fire and brimstone preachers. Terrified me, traumatized me and turned me away from the church as an adult. I know this isn’t everyone’s experience and I’m very very glad for that.
"Knuckle-dragging white supremacy” woah, woah woah woah woah. That sounds much more like a knee jerk political reaction than a reasoned argument. The subsequent information doesn't really sound like a support of that position either to my view. Also, that assumes that 3rd world countries are all races other than "white" Which is not the case at all. This seems like a huge leap in logic. I'm willing to be wrong but that doesn't sound like a well reasoned approach.
Go tell a mountain to get into the sea, and you'll discover that... duh yah that's impossible even though Jesus said all needed was faith the size of a mustard seed, and nothing would be impossible... I guess he didn't mean what he said, because I can think of about 100 impossible things right off the top of my head, number one thing that is impossible... the Bible being the words of any God.
I've seen a few of Charlie Kirk's videos where he goes to college campuses and talks to college students. These videos are always edited to make it look like the college students are idiots and he's the smartest person in the world. The reality is that he just cuts the parts out of these talks that don't make him look good.
a Christian has the right to judge ONLY fellow Christians… and that’s the bottom line! this is a secular nation with a godless constitution and it was set up that way to prevent this sort of insanity! 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
HEY DAN! Why don't they teach Romans 2:14-15 to these "preachers"? Their own apostle Paul says right and wrong are in people's hearts and they have a conscience that works with their minds to know...
Let's get down to Earth. You ASSUME, that's not good enough. Yet, what about President Nasser who said in the 1960s about the Jews of actual Israel (the fake Jews) "They left black and they come back white). He referred when the last Israelites left the land, they were dispersed all over the world and they were black. God will send His angel to blow the trumpet in the last days to gather them to return. The return was not in 1948, it is still to come. People are duped to believe that the Jews reunited by the United Nations to 'occupy' the land of Israel are not the true Israelites. Also, when I visited a small island in the Med, the people showed me paintings of the black Madonna. This was the mother of Jesus who escaped with the other women when the first Christians were persecuted by the Romans and fed to the lions. Many countries on the verges of the Med testify that these people were black. I can quote a score of other examples proving that the Israelites, the real Jews were black. The Bible also quotes in Revelation the "Synagogue of Satan" and Jesus himself when talking to the crowds said "those who are Jews but are the fake jews". YOU SHOULD LOOK AT FACTS, NOT ASSUMING ON HAIRSTYLES AND WHY THE FEET ARE LIKE COPPER. This is your conclusion with no foundation.
I think you said you did a mission in Uruguay. You must also speak Spanish. Which Spanish version of the Bible did you use during that time? Mine is Reina-Valera 1960. What is your opinion on that version. I just looked up Mateo 5:22 and it does not say “sin causa”.
I'm always confused why people try to use the Abrahamic god as some objective moral standard, when one of the first stories he features in has him trying to prevent humanity from understanding good and evil. (Then they go the full nine yards, and say that the morals we managed to, apparently, steal from under his nose--don't apply to him... for some... reason...? I mean, which is it, seriously? Did humans become "like [Them], knowing good and evil," or not? Did the fruit just run its course, or something, according to these people, or...?)
A south sea islander was asked what did he think of the coming of the early colonial christian missionaries. His answer; "Before the christian missionaries came we ate each other, now we eat beef." (True interview from some years back.)
I can tell this apologist is just reading a script from some other apologist, I hear zero conviction in his voice, it's like he knows he's lying his face off and just doesn't care, probably because his girlfriend is a Christian as well.
The character ENOCH is the representation of the concept of "enough". In human psychology this concept is of utmost importance because "enough" is when things change. There are two kinds of enough, as presented in Genesis, there is enough from pain, (Cain), And there is enough from abundance. Understanding that "enough is a feast" is probably the more important teachings of the Bible. But hey, I'm crazy because the Bible is really a historical account, or is it?..... It''s a shame that people have made a complete mockery of the narrative. To see it as a historical account is to misunderstand it. One day people will have the courage to realize what this book is talking about. So far I have seen absolutely no indication that Dan has come to understand even a single line from the book. Yes he knows what the words are, but he hasn't caught on to the meaning yet. He is stuck in the academic consensus.
I've studied enough history to know that history and especially the historical development of ideas and their interchange with other societal developments and vicissitudes is extremely complex - and not something you naturally intuitively know. Dive into the actual history of any place in any period more than a century removed from ours and I guarantee you will find things that will surprise you. All this is to say that I get extremely skeptical when I see or hear internet pundits lecturing me on "the west" or other such nonsense with hand-wavy conflations of peoples, places and periods of time. There's just so much history that telling a simple story about how we ended up where we are now is probably going to be so simplistic that it borders on being wrong. That being said, the imperialism of cultures and nations rooted in Europe does seem to have had a large and noticeable influence on where we are today with everything.
Let me explain this, god will never call you a slave an god will never need any earthly conditions simply put (god is strongly against slavery) because when there's slaves there's a false god, god and Jesus are liberators who free the bounded and create life for our, any scripture that tells you to obey your master in such a vile manner that involves abuse is not a real bible because god is strongly against violence. Period.
In case somebody wants more deep dive into the book of Enoch here two blog links: (ancientfaith.com) blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2020/07/25/the-book-of-enoch/ and exploringfortruth.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-book-of-enochs-influence-on-new.html . 😀
I loved this video! While I appreciate countering the spread of mis- and disinformation, I feel like I get the most personally out of videos like these where you're expounding on a topic without directly commenting on another creator's video. I find these videos more professional.
"We can go into the text and find a negotiated approach to slavery that sees it as a moral wrong and sees the Bible as recognizing it as a moral wrong." How exactly would one do that? Is it simply to say that the God of the Bible (the God of Jesus) is generally a God of love who commands "love your neighbor as yourself," therefore that must mean that slavery is wrong? It's difficult to imagine any other way to do that, and “love each other” is a very broad justification. When paired with many much more specific statements that flatly condone slavery, it makes the case really sketchy unless you throw those out. I guess that's what is meant by "negotiate," but it's a difficult practice to defend. I think the principle of parsimony should be considered here. It's much easier to simply not consult 2,000+ year old documents with questionable origins as the bases for a moral standard in the 21st century than it is to try to "negotiate" with them to come out with some sort of moral standard which is not really that defensible. Not only is this more parsimonious, it's also more valid because people who insist on approaching the Bible as a moral guide, even if they acknowledge it must be negotiated with, almost invariably end up negotiating themselves into a corner. In other words, they often re-negotiate the text in a way that's not supported by data. For instance, I heard someone negotiating with patriarchy in the Bible recently by claiming that the Bible calls God "Father" not because of patriarchy but because in ancient times, a father was seen as a lover, a carer, and a protector. This isn't really supported by data - the Bible uses “Father” because it was written in a HEAVILY patriarchal world, one in which women didn’t have legal rights at best and were considered literal property at worst. This approach goes beyond re-negotiating the text to also re-negotiating historical/cultural data so that the Bible may still appear somewhat palatable and therefore acceptable as a source of inspiration, morality, direction, truth, etc. This isn’t appropriate. Perhaps there are people out there who are comfortable with that sort of approach to the Bible and Christianity, but I can’t be.
Fascinating. I've never heard a more concise explanation of the significance of 1 Enoch, as it's often been espoused by more fringe elements, some with quite fanciful ideas
