Justin, you're a blessing to the Body of Christ. Jim, you're testimony is heart-warming and shows how much Jesus is alive. Ruth, I love the Grace and love that you show in presenting this show. Love you guys.
It would be great if Unbelievable one day did a programme inviting some regular folk, ie not specialists such professional theologians or philosopher, but a person working at your local Tesco, a teacher, a nurse or a postal service worker - to explore on video in a longer conversation what people make of the arguments advanced for and against religion. Most people do not operate on the level of William Craig and Daniel Dennett so it'd be interesting to explore what this looks like on the ground.
It sounds cool in theory but in practice you’d probably have a regular Joe who simply argues from experience or emotion, rather than logic and philosophy. That is relatable, but won’t convince anyone else who’s ever studied the subject even a little, or someone who knows fallacies when they see them. It would be like randomly interviewing a guy on the street about who is the best baseball player alive today, vs. interviewing a professional baseball analyst. You may agree with the guy on the street, but the analyst will probably have much more substantive things to say regardless of if you agree with his position.
@@Iamwrongbut I agree that this is what it might look like, which is kind of my point. Regular Joes go to church or profess atheism and I think there's a discord between what the highly sophisticated arguments are and what actual Christians for instance or atheists think. There might be a totally irrefutable argument for God there one day, for instance, but if the academics cannot communicate it clearly to down below, there's a problem as it's that mass of people who are likely to make a greater difference. I think bridging that gap is very important. But I do take your point.
@@kamiltrzebiatowski9331 very wise and perfectly conveyed. Btw I think the labels are what put people in boxes. I see those you mention as regular folke. Just as I see you. This is a big issue in society. Labelism is the ism of all isms. Label me not for I am not a soup can. Nor, could different view change my view for we have not the same vision.
@@kamiltrzebiatowski9331 The path to God is a narrow path, so narrow if fact, it's a singularity. Your one of those singularities. The brakes for the expansion moment. Btw both are the same thing.
I really enjoyed this, not least because I was at university with Jim Thring. I didn't know him well, but he was prominent within the CU. Good to see he's back with the Lord.
“And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5
This is a sincere question: what is the significance of the friend praying for Jim? Is the idea that by praying, God somehow changed Jim's mind to bring him back to faith? Was God waiting for someone to ask before he changed Jim's mind? Do we have a choice in what we believe if our friends can pray for us for God to change our minds? Or have I missed the point of the story?
C.S. Lewis described God, in his experience, as "the Hound of heaven" who would not allow him to remain in unbelief. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, and we are the sheep of His hand. Many of us, including myself, wandered away from His path for a time...but He brought me back. His Shepherd's crook can be quite compelling. I can say He pulled me out of the mud, always back to Him.
@@georgemoncayo8313 Odd how Jesus (God himself) got,arguably, the most important part Christianity wrong, isn’t it? He preached that God would come to set up his kingdom ~on earth ~before some of the disciples died. Still waiting...
@@georgemoncayo8313 Why are you coming up with an army of strawmen instead of responding to the question asked? I don't know what anyone can find convincing in that debate about the universe coming from "nothing". Who can scientifically defend that real nothingness can produce anything? I doubt that a lot of scientists are actually pretending that. But atheism doesn't need it anyway. I also still need to see a convincing argument for fine tuning. Apparently I just don't get what is so neat about it. To me it just seems to be taking the fascinating fact that we exist and say "it's statistically impossible for it to happen without creation" but I don't see how you can pretend to calculate the improbability of not-creation since we have no idea if our universe as we know it post-Big Bang is all what reality is or if the physical constants we use could actually be very or any different... We have no other universe to compare ours to, we just can't pretend to know anything about the origins of reality. And appealing to a bigger mystery (a god of which we couldn't explain the existence) to solve a mystery (why do our reality exist) doesn't bring much to me. Also good job pretending to know what people have in mind instead of asking them. And "That's just your misinterpretation of what he meant" is a great response to a big deal of positions about the Bible. I get that people dedicated their life to imagine sophisticated ways to maintain dogma's credibility but I'm not really interested (and neither are most believers). (I didn't intend to write so much.. I guess I'm pissed by so many things you say, haha..)
Hey Unbelievable team! Thank you Brothers and sister for your encouraging work! Could you please do an interview and or debate with John Cedars? He is formerly a Jehovah’s Witness and now atheist and is an awesome advocate in the ex Jehovah’s Witness community but I think it would be so interesting to have him on your podcast! Hope and pray this can happen God bless you guys!
It's always a good advice to examine the personal or emotional reasons why you have a position. Yet I don't get the "faith element" to atheism. I don't feel that I need faith to not hold a belief or that not holding a belief in a god implies faith. Of course, if I just express a strong belief that there MUST be no creator of the universe, it may require some kind of faith to explain that belief, but atheism doesn't require this kind of claim (and such a claim may only be a way of speaking) so I don't get it.
Not really all that surprising when people who have poorly considered reasons for not believing in God eventually turn around to having poorly considered reasons for believing in God.
Interesting to hear an atheist return - none of the people I've known who have consciously rejected Christianity (as opposed to wandered off in disobedience) have come back. It's often a defence of the doctrine of security that they were never Christians in the first place. Jim disagrees with that and I think my friends would be offended if described as such.
I agree with the comment below,, but would also add the idea that a monthly or even quarterly show where a group of apologists with one or two athiests and two or three “working class” Christians got together and look to new ways of communicating ideas. My suggestion would be a group consisting of William Lane Craig, he consistently shows athiests cannot provide real philosophical answers. Frank Turek, strong philosophy as well and very strong with young people. John Lennox, has anyone seen him beaten in a debate? “A very wise grandfather figure! “ Ray Comfort, very bold, knows the average person well. Neil Shenvi, critical theory is a huge problem, Neil would be a must have! Lydia Mcgrew, will keep everyone honest. John MacArthur, I think his interpretation of Romans is excellent Imagine the fellowship and Unity that could be achieved, Kevin Sorbo to do the marketing, Justin Brierly and Cameron Bertuzzi the hosts !!! Just Sayin!
good point around 26:00, and I believe that in world views, personal reasons trump the intellectual reasons, even for those who come to Christ via an intellectual search for 'sufficient evidence' and scientific / historical coherence. This comports with Jesus' words in Jn 3.19. lastly, God receives the humble and faithful, but that isn't mutually exclusive of the rational and factual, although that is what everyone is told or may naturally feel.
When the evidence would lead us to believe He (deity) exists, I'll follow it. Until then, I will continue to live my life on the basis that faith is a terrible pathway to truth.
George Moncayo please stop spamming ever thread with the same huge reply . It doesn't look good . And it's not going to win any respect . Let alone for hearts to be softened to the Gospel . As a Christian myself just please stop this approach 🙂
This discussion is not a faith matter. This is about beliefs. Faith is the way you live trusting in what you believe. Faith is not in the mind but in your actions.
@@oberric2388 Faith is both defined in Hebrews 11:1 and implied throughout the NT. There is a combination of believing and proving. There is a list of such believers in Hebrews 11:2-40. My dictionary agrees as it is 'complete trust and the duty to fulfil that trust'. Abraham walked in the steps of faith. Hebrews 11:1 requires substance, which is conviction from belief, and evidence, both concerning the hope of eternal life. The things people believe (that is think they know or is most likely) are the basis for what they do. You tell what people believe by their actions.
@@simonskinner1450 That to me makes at least 3 definitions : 1. what one believes ; 2. the cause or support to this belief ; 3. the actions resulting from the belief. I guess it can sound attractive (3 in 1 😉) but I find it blurry and not useful. "My dictionary agrees as it is 'complete trust and the duty to fulfil that trust'" Really? That does not include the actions resulting from it nor the cause of that trust though. "There is a combination of believing and proving" That's what I hear but it doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, their use of faith is not wrong it seems, it can fit into your definitions.
@@oberric2388 And duty implies proof. It is blurry in that it is subject to testing. Faith is the religion. It is the way you live based on some thinking or wisdom, and not necessarily God. In this case what is called 'Christianity' I deem to be a faith of good works. It is a religion that should produce good. One outcome of 'Christianity' should be a traditional family for instance.
@@simonskinner1450 "And duty implies proof" I don't think it's necessary the case. "It is blurry in that it is subject to testing" I don't understand the sense of that sentence. When I say the 'faith' is blurry or unclear, it's because of the multiple definitions people attribute to the word which makes it difficult to understand each other and to use it meaningfully. "Faith is the religion" That's another definition/concept... Not helping. "It is the way you live based on some thinking" I disagree, I don't see that alone as being neither religion nor faith. Now it seems the word 'faith' can mean (separately or at the same time?) : 1. what one believes (my faith) 2. the cause or support to this belief (by faith) 3. the actions resulting from the belief (showing faith) 4. the fact that you have a belief (having faith) 5. your religion (recognizing a faith) Again it makes things less clear and mixing those definitions makes the word useless. Yet people use it loosely, maybe without even realizing it's so unclear. Or they do it purposely, finding meaning in these combined angles of "faith". It doesn't make sense to me. I don't have a use for such a loaded version of 'faith'. Now, to come back to your initial comment : I find that this discussion actually IS a "faith matter" (in a sense). To me, the fact you say it isn't supports my point : the word is unclear and misleading. 🙂 Regards
You need not be a Calvinist (of false doctrine) to know he wasn’t saved to begin with. What love is it to assign souls to hell, after offering salvation to whosoever will come? Matthew 16:25 “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.”
Give it a year or two he will probably be Muslim. He obviously feels he need something more than reality and logic in his life, to keep changing his mind.
@@achildofthelight4725 The Comforter is specifically referenced, by Christ, as to what His nature and purpose is: Comforter. It also has a emphasis on feeling and being (state of being). Firstly, *God exists* is what I take the Ruach haKodesh to mean. In the Tanakh and other writings to refer either to the spirit of inspiration as above, or to the general, indwelling revelation of the *Divine Presence among the Jews* , it also means 'wind' or 'breath'; Breath of God. Evidenced by the Peace of the Holy Spirit, (spirit of) Joy, Love are all of the Holy Spirit, as the gifts. The Spirits of God are referenced in Isa 11. These are different from the spirits manifested as the gifts. But are from God. Secondly, For an all knowing Spirit and Power of the Universe to exist. One might claim he is a evil misogynist as titled in a previous video. Yet, the term comes from a Male orientation that hates women. This is truly false and proof that Only the God of Israel is the true God. God created both male and female equal in the sight of God, man is responsible for women yet not greater than. For, He, Christ has completely embodied humanness on earth in the form of Yeshuah the Messiah and fulfilled all aspects of emotion and life as a perfect man. The Spirit of The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are separate and yet One, And he called Mary/his mother righteous woman which made it into Heaven equal with other Jews of the faith. The Trinity feel each other and cooperate under the Laws of Holiness. He doesn't see woman as less than males, as he spoke to the woman at the well, the prostitute, and the Pharisees He treated equally. Mary and Martha he loved. Many forget this passage of Scripture. Christ is the Law which He Spoke, Wrote and Fulfilled. Only, judeoChristianity validates and does not contradict itself.
I’m so sorry, but you don’t “grow up a Christian” become an atheist and then come back to God. John 3:3 “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
In previous comments I've said many perplexing true aspects of the journey that pull from an outsider looking in. Now one easy one to understand .... God is not something out there. Its everything and no thing.
@@georgemoncayo8313 stop repeating that nonsense. Atheism is merely lack of conviction, lack of faith. So it doesn't take any faith to be an atheist. It's a default position before one becomes convinced of something. How much faith does it take for you not to believe in leprechauns or fairies?
@@samueldani4283 No. Agosticism relates to knowlege. An agnostic is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of god. (Official definition) An atheist is simply not convinced there IS a god. Atheists and theists alike can be agnostic but it's not implied or required.
"Atheism has a faith component to it as well" - which forces me to conclude that he doesn't understand atheism. There is no faith required in the position "I have no belief in a deity". Its only when the position is expanded to mean something else that a "faith" component is then shoehorned in - typically by those with a philosophical need to have it mean more than just not believing in a deity.
@@t5aylor Agreed - and fortunately this is not what atheism entails. All that it necessarily entails is not believing in any deities which is starkly different than asserting there is no God.
@@madmax2976 How is not believing in ANY deities “starkly different” from asserting there is no God? If you disbelieve in any and all deities, then that is the same as not believing in any God. However, the issue is deeper than that. It is actually an intellectually lazy dodge to say that one simply doesn’t believe in any god. The existence or lack of existence of any god is a proposition with TRUTH CONTENT. Knowledge is a properly justified true belief. Knowledge and truth claims are inextricably entwined with belief. You are trying to say just because you don’t believe personally, that is the end of the discussion. It is not. If you don’t believe in any god’s existence, then you are tacitly accepting one of two mutually exclusive truth claims: (1) Nothing supernatural exists; as opposed to (2) something supernatural exists. (Supernatural in this case being specifically defined as something outside the universe of matter/energy operating within spacetime). One or the other must be true, not both. If you disbelieve in any god, then you are tacitly accepting the first premise. And if you do, then there are several necessary implications that immediately follow: (1)(a) everything that exists is fully explainable by matter/energy interacting within spacetime. Which means (1)(a)(i) the origin of the universe is fully explainable by matter/energy interacting within spacetime, (1)(a)(ii) the physical constants that allow complex chemistry and life to exist are fully explainable by matter/energy interacting within spacetime, (1)(a)(iii) life’s origin from non-life is fully explainable by matter/energy interacting within spacetime, (1)(a)(iv) life’s subsequent development and increasing complexity is fully explainable by matter/energy interacting within spacetime, (1)(a)(v) consciousness is fully explainable by matter/energy interacting within spacetime, (1)(a)(vi) reason and rationality are fully explainable by matter/energy interacting within spacetime, just to name a few. If you reject the possibility of anything supernatural existing, you (perhaps unwittingly) accept these other necessary corollary beliefs. And so you then have an obligation to consider whether or not the evidence shows those more or less likely to be true. Simply pleading ignorance on all of these things is of course possible, but I would argue intellectually empty... when at least there are answers provided by Theism that fully addresses each of these.
@@robertpreisser3547 "How is not believing in ANY deities “starkly different” from asserting there is no God?" Because one is a positive statement about reality that would be difficult to prove and the other other is simply the state of one's belief toward a proposition.
@@robertpreisser3547 "If you don’t believe in any god’s existence, then you are tacitly accepting one of two mutually exclusive truth claims:" This is incorrect. My being an atheist necessarily entails one thing and one thing only: I don't believe in any deities. It says nothing about my position on any other topic, including whether supernatural forces exist, what the origins of first life are, how reason and rationality are explained, etc. I don't currently believe any of the offered explanations for these things. In my view, pleading agnostic is intellectually honest because it reflects the truth; I don't know. While various theisms do offer possible explanations for these things, they are sorely lacking of details (not at all fully addressed) and there seems to be no way to confirm or verify any of them.
It seems like you became a Christian based on your feelings, left it based on reason, then realized one could be a Christian and use reason so you went back to Christianity. I became a Humanist because Christianity simply didn’t work. I would say my faith died the death of a thousand unanswered prayers. I was told about a God who changes peoples lives and works actively in the world and what I found was silence from the heavens and a church in the United States which elected a despot named Donald Trump. I wish Christianity were true, I put my entire being into studying its validity, but in the end I found myself receiving ordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and could no longer believe.
Hi David, you sound sincere. I would highly recommend a program available on Netflix called “American Gospel.” It’s an indepth documentary about the church in America and goes into Trump’s faith as well. It’s lengthy, two and a half hours but well worth the time in my view.
@@sally9352 who said I haven’t experienced God? I had a very powerful conversion experience and experienced God through prayer, ministry, and worship for years. Please don’t assume such wildly inaccurate ideas about my own spiritual history.
If you do not fully decide to follow God's Will meaning only Him as your "God", then he was an atheist. It's the unedited choice, only a humans full unadulterated faith that achieves Christ's Faith. No man can enter the Kingdom without Christ's Faith being given which grants His Imputed Righteousness. Liberalized institutions and like he mentioned, knowledge based identity which can pull one into their own gnosticism. Meaning your own will becomes more important than God's Will.
Two worlds views. Or two words views? material Or Immaterial? The Atiests are not a Believers as they think? But, they belived that in the beginning there was nothing? and then according to their theory, out of the Blue something started to exsists ? The bible said, in the beginning there was a word. Which word that word created the whole universe. Jesus said my word is a Spirit and life. What is a word ? I have the two questions to ask Here my questions? 1) according to Atiests if Nothing did brings something? is that nothing could it be something rather than nothing by itself ? Nothing can't be material. however, doesn't mean it's not immaterial entity? The bible also says that God is a Spirit means John Gospel 4:24 it's an immaterial entity. all immaterial entity is information? A group of or the group of word is information? a group of words The main information is ( Father, Son and The Holy Spirit) 2). When the bible says the immaterial world is invisible. does this mean invisible means in the current universe ( Time Space and Matter) or something else out of this universe? outside the time zone?
Atheism addresses one question only: Belief in a god (or gods). To the question “Do you believe in god?” the theist says “Yes” and the atheist says “No.” The question of the origins of life or the cosmos is not part of this question. The idea of assigning “something coming from nothing” is a trope that is often thrown out there, usually by theists. It has nothing to do with atheism. Listen to a persons positions before you make assumptions.
Looks to me like this guy had no logical reason for returning to the faith at all. It seemed more about being part of a community and the stresses of having a religious wife he searched for an excuse to accept the faith. This seems to have involved rejecting the bible as being the authoritative word of God. Not a lot of detail here, but has he become a progressive christian ? And then there is the somewhat arrogant view that god singled him out for an answer to prayer. Lets face it, virtually all ex-christians are going to have christian friends praying for them and 99.9999999% of those prayers don't get answered. How on earth can Jim think that prayers for him worked but not for millions of others ? Sorry, really not impressed with this.
I see what you are saying but for me it seemed more like he was someone who was not happy with living with uncertainty, not being able to say "I don't know". That at least is understandable even if his resolution may not be for everyone.
@@martifingers Cool. Did you pick up on the "my wife moved church" bit. Don't treat God like Thor and the writers of the bible weren't mindless zombies. Looks like he moved away from the conservative traditional views to a more liberal 'its not literal' view. He still believes in prayer though. However more and more Apologists are taking the stance that "you know what God doesn't answer prayer" Christianity has changed so much since I deconverted decades ago. I'd love to go on the program with him and discuss our different experiences.
@@TheFlashfilm Yes, as an outsider I am vaguely aware that "moving church" is a thing but it seems somewhat odd as if the definitive truth is well... open to interpretation? And I would definitely like to listen to that program you mention although I could imagine that could possibly be difficult for you. Both personally and theoretically I would have thought admitting you are wrong about your most basic beliefs is the hardest thing to do - statistically even it would seem to be a rare occurrence.
