Deconstructing Their Way To Faith 

Truth

True I like it. Much better than other chistan you tube channels

Reformed professor Sproul argues that God decides who is going to be saved. It seems you were chosen and you cannot fall away otherwise you were not saved in the first place. Hope you read Against Calvinism Roger Olsen.

Why thank you Eric. Glad you’re enjoying the channel

@@SpeakLifeMedia BTW. Air We Breathe is a must read. The book is absolutely brilliant.

Although I wish that to Glenn, there is a long way to a million subscribers. Almost all theological RU-vidrs which I consider big don't have a million subscribers.

Fascinating times!!

Yes, I was an atheist and I picked up the Bible, just to prove to myself that it was nonsense, and I discovered that what they said about it was a lie. I'm still reading it and I really want to be a proper Christian one day.

But the world of prophecy, witches of Endor who speak to the dead, zombies who walk out of graves, demons named Legion, angels of death are rational?

This is utterly disingenuous. Your idea of postmodernity is fallacious and incoherent with experiences reality. The world today can and does offer much and more than simple math proofs. What you call the “postmodern world” has: - Sequenced the human genome - proven the existence of black holes - cured hundreds of diseases - and many other millions of discoveries You will obviously resist the reason I bring before you today because you’ve already got it in your mind that such things are impossible. You are locked into a tautology of stagnancy, wherein you believe that the false bogeyman of “postmodernism” has come for truth itself, when all it did was prove that truth is harder to find than previously asserted. You people are all the same.

​@@anthonyzav3769 Where does rationality come from in an atheistic materialist worldview?

Deep wisdom here

It is not said that atheists aren't moral or that they can't be. This ethos is with us for thousands of years and as you grew up you picked it up wether you believe in something or not.

Idk who would want to claim Churchill, especially after his genocidal actions in India. The man was a monster, and an admitted white supremacist. Look up his views on Aryanism.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Christianity has changed for the better. In fact, a Christianity has changed at all would not be Christianity. And, btw, one of the things that has never changed is that the church is a place for sinner, i.e. the sick. It is more of a hospital for the ill rather than a nightclub where only the perfect get in past the velvet ropes.

@@scillyautomatic For most of us Christianity was an accident of birth: born into a Christian family or, at worst, into a Christian country. The question then arises as to whether or not the Christianity so many of us were bequeathed was, in fact, fit-for-purpose. And I suggest that it was not. For the last 150 years in the UK the church has been in absolute decline. The people freely choose not to attend church, even if they do not formally identify as a Christian or an atheist. You may argue the position is significantly different for the US - but this I would dispute. When a mega-church recently conducted an in-depth survey of its impact, whether they produced genuinely sincere and spiritually mature Christians, the result was unambiguous - negative! This is why I suggest all Christians reconsider the complacent assumption that what they currently offer to God is what God actually requires of us.

@@andrewfisherman3811 I'm pretty sure I agree with you on that (and on the state of the Church in the US) but I'm not 100% sure what is meant by fit-for-purpose. What is that?

@@scillyautomatic "Fit for purpose" : does the visible church actually function in the positive sense of encouraging the sincere pilgrim with giving accurate guidance, or doesit operate as a sort of gate keeper intent to service its own ends. Recall the passage "you stand at the door, neither entering yourself, nor allowing others to enter" (approx).

Are you following an intellectual path only? Or have you tried praying? Going to church? Sometimes you need to take a leap into the experiential side of faith in order for it to make sense. Apologies if you have already, I don't want to sound patronising. If you are considering church, try one with a sense of the transcendent. Latin Mass, Divine liturgy, or failing that a Spirit-centred charismatic church. Ask God to reveal himself to you. Try praying the Rosary! It worked for Russell Brand...

@@andrewcolquhoun3478 I’ll be honest and say I’d rather not be on whatever path Brand is on 😄 I have prayed and been to church. I see the merits of both. Praying seems akin to meditation and who doesn’t want to be a part of an in-group? I get the appeal of those aspects. So it is an intellectual hang up for me. I can’t square the math of Christianity or the God of the Bible. There are too many pieces that I can’t fit with the other pieces. And my brain won’t let me get away with “mysterious” or “higher” ways. There was a bit from that video of Alister McGrath where he talked about only ever being exposed to the caricature of Christianity. I think that’s a fair observation. I would probably agree with that. But then I think well, what’s proper Christianity, then? And that’s where I think it gets sticky. I could go out and asks 50 Christians to list me the essential tenets of the faith and I’d get 50 different lists. It seems that it’s what we intuit based on a wealth of variables. And I don’t really have a problem with that. It actually sounds like the most honest way to be spiritual. Sorry, this feels like it was all over the place.

@@scottgodlewski306 😅

Have you looked into the philosophical arguments for God's existence? I think if someone is going to find an "intellectual" basis for God's existence, it's going to be there. You may as well begin at the start too and actually work on rationalising the general existence of God, not just the Judeo-Christian God (Don't worry, that comes later as a two for one deal haha). I think in a more consequentialist sense, a compelling and convincing reason for belief and faith is that the sociological studies show that intrinsic religiosity is beneficial for society and pro-social individual traits and the world in general. In a broader examination I'd recommend (Atheist) historian Tom Holland's book: "Dominion - How Christanity shaped the West." Good luck in your search.

@@tristanloveday5240 I appreciate that. I’m of a couple minds about philosophical arguments. I think it’s valuable for finding something if you’re really interested in finding something. I think I’ve reasoned myself to the point that without existence there’d be no opportunity to experience the best things about existence. So the cause, if intelligent, is benevolent. But the chances of that cause being intelligent seem to be 50-50. One the other hand, having to use philosophical arguments to get to a creator almost certainly rules out that creator being the Christian God. My biggest obstacle to faith might be the problem of divine hiddenness. I don’t think that’s recognized for the problem it is by believers. I’ll be told that they have a personal relationship with God so he’s not hidden to them. Well, I don’t have a relationship with him and, if I’m being honest and was forced to choose one or the other, I’d say they don’t either. I think the “relationship” they’re experiencing isn’t much different than the one they have with their favorite celebrity. Just because you know some stuff about someone and really value their contributions does not mean you have a relationship with them. Which loved one in their life do they need to depend on philosophical arguments to be convinced of their existence? One could say they have faith that their spouse loves them, but do they say others need to just have faith when someone asks to meet them? Someone who wants a personal relationship with me, who is claimed to be love and has built the world with the rule that eternal life only comes from that relationship, shouldn’t be so hard to find. Which leads me to think that the Christian God can’t be real. Perhaps one God does exist. Maybe his son was Jesus. But the stories and characteristics attributed to God can’t be accurate. So then the Bible’s trustworthiness is forfeit and if the only book that asserts the divinity of Jesus isn’t correct, how can I believe that? That’s a lot of words to say that I think I’m at a point where only personal revelation of an undeniable degree would convince me. I admit that the “undeniable degree” is absolutely subjective and could be different tomorrow. But the God that is claimed should know what would convince me and as it has not yet happened I’m forced to conclude that he doesn’t exist, isn’t interested in me knowing him or simply doesn’t care.

The difference is that the things atheists “believe” in are quantifiable and provable with observance of phenomena. Your beliefs? A lot more unfalsifiable.

@@Senriam What I can hopefully only helpfully call drivel. No insult intended, it's the technical meaning. Do you follow the common atheist tropes? Question none fo them? Test none of them by the same supposed standards you think are applied to faith beliefs based on more rigour than you will be able to acknowledge. Complete fictions claiming to be history - I would easily give you examples, one piece of made up nonsense about Caligula and Greek actors is a sort of classic, but there doesn't seem to be much point. Distortions and lies like the person earlier who added claimed "deaths" to God's protection of Elisha. An over reliance on genuine myths to try to disprove genuinely coherent and purposeful messages in the Bible. Completely exaggerated false impressions from darlings like Ehrman (who acts differently about the consistency and reliability of the Bible when in different company. He completely folded on a Premier Radio interview when he continued to stray beyond his old and quite dry and ultimately inconclusive field and went into his theories and ill informed Bible opinions. Observe the wonders and unbelievable "chance" of creation. Explain the collapse of traditional Darwinianism and a failure to do more than continue to keep that collapsing balloon with some air in it - one of the great con jobs of recent years. How can you believe in a theory that relies so much (actually) on a process that never happened and commonality that would hardly be a shock in a generally unified creation. Why would we be surprised at what we see in man and the rest of creation? Mankind is a pinnacle not an alien inserts. The Bible is busted according to atheist dogma and assumptions - and yet it isn't. Nothing has been attacked so often without anything really sticking when all the elements are considered. You generally rely on excluding evidence or adding details to challenge - your popular "strawman" counter argument actually better describes many atheist arguments. I am sorry for this brief response, you seem tied to your dogma, far more that I am or would be - but waste of time or not I need to make just a few points you certainly will not cover

​@@Senriam Your comment seems to have a lot of inbuilt assumptions about Christians. What do atheists believe exactly? Materialism? Naturalism? The majority of garden variety atheists I've ran into rely solely on Hume's argument from atheism defence. I can't remember who said it but: "Lack of belief in one thing is merely by belief in another." How do you explain the reason for these very reasonable atheists becoming theistic or losing faith in atheism?

But we believe God has revealed himself through Jesus. Of course atheism is a belief and a world view.

The 3000 different religions argument has been dealt with in a separate video.

Old habits die hard. If you knew my journey you might muster the patience to simply give me a little more time. I could well become a "true believer" ... if there's a competition ... is there? Just ... I'm trying to wiggle out of 35 years of conditioning. Be realistic about such things.

@@hrvad I wasn't obstructing any options. I'm just saying faith is a tricky subject. It transgresses empirical reality by taking a remote subject of hope and claiming to already be partaker of it. I sometimes think that for many of us this is impossible unless some exceptional event happens (aka a miracle, a sign), thus temporarily shutting down some parts of the left brain so to speak, so that faith can flow in.

@@bennjmin Yes, I'm struggling with precisely that. I'm a doubting Thomas for sure, quite left brain so to speak.

What was there to deconstruct?

@@someonesomeone25 the letter a. I went from atheist to just theist.

@@move_i_got_this5659 Lol. But seriously, bare atheism doesn't have anything to deconstruct as far as I can tell. It's more like constructing theism.

The idea we are born as blank slates who then choose to add metaphysical beliefs according to our individual choices is (in the history of ideas and religions) an incredibly novel and very particularly western, (heretical) Protestant way of seeing human nature. Most people in most times and places have been happy to see children in a certain religio-cultural milieu growing up in the faith of the their ancestors. So, historically and globally, it’s a minority view that we are born atheistic. It also flies in the face of, for instance, this Oxford study: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm#:~:text=The%20studies%20(both%20analytical%20and,impulse%20of%20the%20human%20mind.

@@SpeakLifeMedia that is interesting research thank you for sharing. But it doesn't disprove my point. Being born susceptible to believing in religion is not the same as being born a believer. Our default is an absence of belief in god, which is the definition of atheism. Did you believe in god before you were told of god?

You and I believed in a thousand things we couldn’t articulate before we could speak and before we could prove them. For starters we believed in the existence of an external world, in other minds, in the continuity of past, present and future. We’re all believers about such reality-defining foundations. God definitely falls into that category. And the fact of the rarity of atheism historically and the study I shared with you should make you consider that it is in fact atheism that is the taught and counter-intuitive worldview.

@@SpeakLifeMedia The list of beliefs you mention are things we pick up through direct observation of the world we live in They are not preloaded beliefs, rather we come to these conclusion based on what we experience. We do not directly experience the existence of god as described by the various faiths, we take on these concepts. Often they are taught to us as if they are fact, when we are in our most trusting and easily influenced stages development. So please,.tell me,.did you know of god before you were told of god?

I’ve seen many people claim that people mostly adhere to a logical framework. The assumption being “any good rational person thinks…” For many cultures where religion is deconstructed the religious view is looked down on for such reasons. They assume seeking what is factually true is a default characteristic. And Christianity would be illogical if you hold to the 6 assumptions listed in the video. From an evolutionary stance they may see religion as a prior assumption from a time long ago, but from a logical stance they do not see it as intrinsic to the human condition. The problem is there is no way to see the facts as they are. You have to assume something in order to categorize the facts. Once you do you are susceptible to deconstruction. Is that helpful?

I’ve come to the conclusion that humans have a physiological predisposition to belief. So I would entertain supernatural belief being an emergent property of the brain. The same brain that mostly values reason and logic. What a trip.

While I believe chiara born without any theistic beliefs (I.e. atheist) humans are pattern seeking animals who relish a sense of insignificance and security.

Have you rejected God on the basis that there is no evidence or on the basis that you would accept no evidence. People are convicted every day without direct evidence. When a jury considers all of the circumstantial evidence they often see that the collection of all evidence leads to a clear conclusion. Then again, I have never met someone who rejected God based on a lack of evidence. It always came down to wanting to justify a lifestyle.

@@scillyautomatic Clearly god is not all powerful he started his religion in a small illiterate corner of the middle east among a bunch of sheep herders if he were all powerful why not Globally. We have a situation where the main deciding factor for which god you believe in is geography. I find the idea of being able to speak things into being absolutely ludicrous even for a god. Why if he want's a relationship with us does he remain invisible. Why the people he heals seem to be totally random also it's strange he only cures things that the body is able to put right itself he never make amputated limbs to grow back something that you could point to and say now that was a miracle. I could go on and on. but looking at the big picture there is so much wrong I find it impossible to believe. Your last comment was way out of line I know lots of atheists but not one that does not believe just to justify a lifestyle. It could be said that theists believe to justify their lifestyle and that would be just as accurate or inaccurate!

​​@@scillyautomaticsounds like you haven't listened to the stories [EDIT: or reasons] of any of the many people who deconverted (from Christianity and other religions) based on reason and evidence. Often against their will, as they wanted Christianity to be true.