William Lane Craig Retrospective VI: Atonement | Closer To Truth Chats 

Excellent! Another WLC interview. Closer to truth, thank you for this!

31st viewer!!! And 1st comment!!! My favorite philosophy/science/belief channel and with two super highly admired by me men!!!

I used to dismiss this kind of apologetics but it is much more interesting to me these days.

very interesting

Please report spam messages. I've just reported two.

Theology discussed. A good challenging upload. Very interesting.

Oh, at last I get it! How can I have been so stupid? God's actions do have to satisfy the standards of a superior power; those of William Lane Craig.

This interview with WLC should be called “ closer to gibberish”

Christ is emperor / president / ruler of God's kingdom; there is no human ruler

C's Lewis's explanation of the atonement is unmatched in my opinion.

Glad to see Dr. Craig here again. Enjoying how thoroughly his work is covered with pertinent questions. I find it funny, however, how naively dismissive about him and his views some comments are. Robert himself clearly respects him and his views despite, no doubt, disagreeing with much of it. It’s sad that it would be so hard to come across some respectful, argued disagreement concerned with the views and not with the person. This channel certainly deserves it! Thanks for, as always, bringing us quality content.

[Leibniz's contingency argument for God, clarified]: Ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D. 0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) not-natural (not-physical) 4) necessary 1-9 and their geometric counterparts 1D-9D are: 1) whole 2) rational 3) natural (physical) 4) contingent Newton says since 0 and 0D are "not-natural" ✅ then they are also "not-necessary" 🚫. Newton also says since 1-9 and 1D-9D are "natural" ✅ then they are also "necessary" 🚫. This is called "conflating" and is repeated throughout Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. con·flate verb combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one. Leibniz does not make these fundamental mistakes. Leibniz's "Monadology" 📚 is zero and it's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space. 0D Monad (SNF) 1D Line (WNF) 2D Plane (EMF) 3D Volume (GF) We should all be learning Leibniz's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic. Fibonacci sequence starts with 0 for a reason. The Fibonacci triangle is 0, 1, 2 (Not 1, 2, 3). Newton's 1D-4D "natural ✅ = necessary 🚫" universe is a contradiction. Natural does not mean necessary. Similar, yet different. Not-natural just means no spatial extension; zero size; exact location only. Necessary. Newtonian nonsense will never provide a Theory of Everything. Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason should be required reading 📚.

Jesus's sacrifice amounted to a couple of days of suffering on the cross and a good night's rest. By human standards, not to be sneezed at.

This is problem of its own; if god is perfectly just then justice is simply what God says is it…correct? In this case he could do anything, and then declare his actions just by fiat. On the other hand, if there’s some external principle of justice that even God has to obey, then he must be subordinate to some principle. God could have simply forgiven us all and labeled it “just” - end of story.

Empire role in divine justice to physically sacrifice body and blood of Jesus Christ (church / community) for divine mercy resurrection of the dead?

Jesus had a crappy weekend..... WLC - sophist/conartist.

This channel needs more subscribers!

Genesis 3:22. We are said to know what good and evil are, and punishing an innocent 3rd party for the transgressions of another is clearly not "good." We humans almost universally know this, so presumably a good god would know it as well. WLC's view makes sense if we assume there is a god and he's evil; otherwise, not so much. WLC's Christianity says we were born with a sinful nature thanks to Adam and a talking snake. We can be saved from this sinful nature thanks to God killing himself in the form of his son, but only if we believe this fanciful tale. The problem is, we're stuck in this natural state of sin until we believe. We can't believe what we are supposed to believe because our sinful state prevents it, so the very thing we have to do to be saved, is unavailable to us. Salvation is a hoax.

For divine justice on the cross allowing divine mercy, did an empire carry out divine justice by punishment of sin on the cross? In which case, empire is the instrument of divine justice; Christ Jesus is the instrument of divine mercy? Role of divine justice in the redemption from sin was carried out by empire, with the role of divine mercy in the redemption from sin being carried out by Christ Jesus?

Are we suppose to believe that it is God who treats an innocent man as if he's guilty? Is it God who vents his fury against a righteous man? That actually sound more like the devil who does that. This Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory gets the roles reversed. It's the worst possible thing anyone could possibly say about God. This doctrine exalts the basic character of the devil to the place of God. It's precisely this teaching that is turning people away from God.

With the hope that Christ, ruling his kingdom from heaven, will raise the nations from death on the cross by political / federal government

When God became human in person of the sinless Jesus, from birth he bore the sin, suffering and eventually death of humanity; in his ministry Christ forgave sins, healed human suffering, and rose from death on the cross.

A theology of God become man in Jesus has the sinless requirement for divine justice to redeem or remove sin, as Christ son of God was sinless; while a theology of cross where human rulers of any government / empire execute killing of Christ does not have requirement of sinlessness for divine justice to redeem / remove sin, as human rulers of any government / empire are not sinless.

When Jesus said he and Father are one and the same, was divine punishment inflicted on the Father as well as Jesus? God's divine justice killed God become human as punishment for sin?

This is not complicated! Only God is perfect. We are not and we make mistakes. God suffers in our place because we are to dumb to do it ourselves.

Jesus is God! Yes God punished himself for us. We punish ourselves for others also. It's called work!

Editors: 'theologists' don't exist--don't you mean 'theologian'?

I don't know what this "penile substitution" is that WLC keeps wittering on about, but it sounds well dodgy to me.

Only Christ become man in Jesus meets the requirement of sinlessness for divine justice to remove sin; human rulers of empire or any other government like kingship, federal, republic and democracy do not meet the requirements of divine justice to remove sin, so if there is an empire or any political government role in divine justice does not meet the requirement of sinlessness for divine justice to remove sin

Christ ministry to forgive sins redeemed mankind from sin, and resurrection from death provided faith to mankind

Harsh treatment is not based on justice. Justice will balance the harm damage to God and others regardless of deference.

If there were no humans on earth or if humans were never created ..whould there be a God? Are we a completion of the God phenomena?

All of your shortcomings are on and against your Maker any way you look at it.

Lost respect for giving such a charlatan a platform.

As Leibniz put it: “If an ontological theory implies the existence of two scenarios that are empirically indistinguishable in principle but ontologically distinct ... then the ontological theory should be rejected and replaced with one relative to which the two scenarios are ontologically identical.” In other words, if a theory describes two situations as being distinct, and yet also implies that there is no conceivable way, empirically, to tell them apart, then that theory contains some superfluous and arbitrary elements that ought to be removed. Leibniz’s prescription is, of course, widely accepted by most physicists today. The idea exerted a powerful influence over later thinkers, including Poincaré and Einstein, and helped lead to the theories of special and general relativity. And this idea, Spekkens suggests, may still hold further value for questions at the frontiers of today’s physics. Leibniz’s correspondent Clarke objected to his view, suggesting an exception. A man riding inside a boat, he argued, may not detect its motion, yet that motion is obviously real enough. Leibniz countered that such motion is real because it can be detected by someone, even if it isn’t actually detected in some particular case. “Motion does not indeed depend upon being observed,” he wrote, “but it does depend upon being possible to be observed ... when there is no change that can be observed, there is no change at all.” In this, Leibniz was arguing against prevailing ideas of the time, and against Newton, who conceived of space and time in absolute terms. “I have said more than once,” Leibniz wrote, “that I hold space to be something merely relative.” Einstein, of course, followed Leibniz’s principle when he noticed that the equations of electricity and magnetism make no reference to any absolute sense of motion, but only to relative motion. A conducting wire moving through the field of a magnet seems like a distinct situation from a magnet moving past a stationary wire. Yet the two situations are in fact empirically identical, and should, Einstein concluded, be considered as such. Demanding as much leads to the Lorentz transformation as the proper way to link descriptions in reference frames in relative motion. From this, one finds a host of highly counter-intuitive effects, including time dilation. Einstein again followed Leibniz on his way to general relativity. In this case, the indistinguishability of two distinct situations - a body at rest in the absence of a gravitational field, or in free fall within a field - implied the impossibility of referring to any concept of absolute acceleration. In a 1922 lecture, Einstein recalled the moment of his discovery: “The breakthrough came suddenly one day. I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern. Suddenly the thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his own weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me. This led me to the theory of gravity.”

At-one-ment ... restoration to original harmony ... after some disruption of of the harmonious condition ... whether by accident or evil intent. Out-of-harmony conditions are not sustainable ... not eternally tolerable ... they have to be healed ... there has to be restoration ... restitution and reconciliation.... time and energy invested in fixing the physical or emotional harm ... this kind of "payment" may well entail real suffering ... the anguish of a parent's compassion while watching the suffering (deserved or not) of their child (old or young). Not all suffering is punitive. Some is the natural consequence of the disharmony ... the disorder, damage, chaos (in extreme cases), gratuitously increased entropy in any case. Some is the long suffering of the long-suffering parent or helping friend ... Jesus, for example.

The world is not so incredibly difficult to understand it's comparatively easy. It's like watching a movie. For example you look at what people do right. So they come to you and they tell you that you need to give them some of the money you earn for protection. And if you don't bad things will happen to you and yours. And you become scared because they keep threatening you. And they don't care what happens with the people you love. They kill them, they kidnap them, they rape them and they even use them to join in their activities and they become immensely rich and powerful by doing such. Everyone immediately knows that your talking about some kind of church or religious organizations

Are you interviewing Jordan Peterson any time soon?

Can Christ bear human sin by becoming human (Jesus)?

What's the atonement again?

Unless one gets the true meaning of (or what God means when he says:) "For the LIFE of the flesh IS IN the BLOOD," the concept of atonement will only sound as nonsense. The full quotation says: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have given it on the altar for you to make atonement for yourselves." - Leviticus 17:11

God perfectly just in taking on the human condition of sin with suffering and death (Jesus); perfectly merciful in the forgiveness of sins, healing of suffering, and resurrection of the dead (Christ)?

I'm glad that Craig explained that by puppets he meany marionettes. I was really confused by the original word.

Gotta keep thr lights on somehow, I guess. I just hope ‘equal time’ doesn’t mean hours of Deepak Chopra two months from now.

WLC shows you can have all the academic qualifications in the world and still not have a clue on what's going on. I think it's amazing how he can twist and turn all over the place so he can come to the conclusion that he set out in the first place. So christ died for our sins but not really because he was up and running around 3 days later? Anybody else had a little giggle everytime they said 'penal substitutes' .

Is there sacrifice of life by giving ones life to do something for another, as well as dying or being killed?

I love Dr. Craig. I have married him in my heart and Soul. I am rain. I am Anchor. I am Wick. I am Evergreen. Hebrews 6 :19. 1 kings 1:11. Revelations 12:1. I am Israel. Unveiling.

The host should interview my neighbor - he claims to know what it smells like when Santa has gas! "Closer to the truth" - so you get there by talking with snake oil people?

I have difficulties with the idea that a supremely omniscient and omnipotent creator God can be "holy". Against what standard is this holiness judged? It cannot be God's standard, so it must be somebody else's; and that "somebody else" must be superior in some way to the God who's holiness he or she (or, perhaps, they) is judging. So where does that leave God?

WLC... an entire career built on a single assertion that "magic man must have dun it".

What about us !

Only your Creator can perfectly cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by the power of His true word as no one else ever can.

I believe Reincarnation and karma is real, most religions stem from the same source. There is great teachings and meanings in all of them. I truly believe we are all star seeds and this is all a simulation program taking on the flesh body according to the way one lived previously wich is why good and evil exists beside each other.

Maybe I am being petty but, Bill comes across to me as a total goofball. I noticed this sort of behavior when I was about ten years old. I think it comes from his view that he must project that he is “full of joy.” But it doesn’t seem genuine. It is hard to take him and other Christians serious because it shows a lack of self-examination.”

Guys NEVER are above true he minds evidence that mislead us all.

How does crucifixion of somebody else's body help us with "our" sins? If Jesus knew he was ONLY here to die for our sins then why did he cry out cursing God asking why he had forsakened him If he knew its all he was here for? Sure there's teachings in the Bible that's great but so very many things in there also don't add up.

God willingly chose to make a creature like Himself with a choice knowing what the consequences would be.

Penal substitution is ridiculous.

The idea of owning your mistakes and rectifying them with your fellow humans is a important concept. However the idea of Christian atonement is vile and grotesque. The Christian God has never existed and does not exist. How embarrassing.