60 years after his death, are CS Lewis and his God still relevant? Dan Barker & Dr Carolyn Weber

Ruth Jackson hosts a discussion about a 20th Century British writer and lay theologian who is arguably one of the most influential voices in modern Christianity. On November 22nd 1963, Clive Staples Lewis - Jack to his friends - died in Oxford, England. However, 60 years after his death, is CS Lewis still relevant?
We hear from former pastor-turned atheist, Dan Barker, who suggests that many of Lewis’ arguments are fundamentally flawed. Literature professor, Dr Carolyn Weber, highlights where she disagrees with Dan and shares some of her story about coming to faith at Oxford University, in part through CS Lewis. Looking at some of Lewis’ key works, Dan and Carolyn discuss whether faith and reason are antithetical, if Christianity is true and in what ways Lewis speaks to us today.
Dan Barker spent many years as a Christian pastor before becoming an atheist. He is co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and co-founder of The Clergy Project. Dan is an accomplished musician and author of many books, including God: The Most Unpleasant Character in all Fiction.
Dr Carolyn Webber is an award-winning author, professor and international speaker. Carolyn’s first memoir, Surprised by Oxford, recently became a feature film. Both the book and film tell her story of coming to faith from scepticism - a journey that, in many ways, mirrors CS Lewis’ own.
For the CS Lewis podcast, including an episode with Dr Carolyn Weber sharing more of her story and numerous episodes with Dan Barker discussing Lewis’ apologetics alongside Michael Ward: www.premierunbelievable.com/s...
For Dan Barker and Martin Kuhrt discussing whether the God of the Bible is a capriciously malevolent, misogynistic, sadomasochistic bully: www.premierunbelievable.com/u...
SOCIAL LINKS
Twitter: / / unbelievablefe
Facebook: / / premierunbelievable
Instagram: / / premierunbelievable
Tik Tok: / / premier.unbelievable
For Dr Carolyn Weber: www.carolynweber.com/about/
For Dan Barker: ffrf.org/about/staff-board/it...
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...

[@GhostBearCommander]

As a Christian, I honestly cannot bring myself to be angry at Dan Barker. I really can’t. Without trying to be condescending, I really just feel sorry for the guy. It seems like God really called Him and wanted to use him. And he seems super nice. All I can do at this point, and I encourage others to do the same, is to pray for the guy. He seems genuine. I believe God can still help him, and even put him to divine and joyful purpose. Based on what he said, the feeling he gave off to me was that he wanted to be his own master and origin of his own moral system. He calls Christian morality dangerous. Yet his alternative is incredibly more subjective. And, if how Atheism has acted historically is any indication, secular morality would be a more dangerous substitute by far.

[@AndJusticeForMe]

Ask the Timucuan natives how Christianity worked out for them. Oh, you can’t; they’re extinct. Please don’t act like you are morally superior. Your faith has caused countless atrocities so don’t bury your head in the sand.

[@martinploughboy988]

If God had called him he would be a Christian, not the bitter antagonistic man he is. Hebrews addresses his position: For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt. (Hebrews 6:4-6)

[@AndJusticeForMe]

@@martinploughboy988 The most bitter and antagonistic people are Christians because you don’t believe in their storybook fables. Personally, I get the most joy when Christians hate and try to destroy each other.

[@betsalprince]

Don't say "without trying to be condescending" and then condescend for the entirety of your comment like every self-righteous religious person. Also, genocides of the 20th century weren't committed because of the lack of belief in the existence of deities or some secular moral ideal.

[@hglundahl]

11:00 Dan Barker pretty much states that Atheism is basically (though not exclusively) a rich man's hobby. "I go to my work, office is great, I go home, home is great, why bother about God?" Highly a reminder of CSL's main point in The Problem of Pain.

[@joecheffo5942]

I take great offensive to this. I am seriously ill, and you know who has come and moved in to take care of me? An athiest. And where are my theist friends? Almost nowhere to be found. Your timestamp doesn't even relate to what he said. He said he didn't need "cosmic" love but he talks about doing things to reduce harm to people. Harm can be defined as disease, hunger, illness, injury, homelessness. Imagine if we all helped with those things? What the heck are you talking about "rich mans hobby"? Atheism is not a hobby, He says himself it was difficult to deconvert. He was a pastor, composed religious music, sounds like his life was fine. I don't think he deconverted to get rich. Do you even know his wealth level? Perhaps he could have made more money recording Christian music, he is a professional musician and writer.

[@hglundahl]

@@joecheffo5942 Here is the full of what I answered: _"I learned that there are millions in in this __10:23__ country tens of millions of good people who live happy moral productive __10:29__ meaningful joyful lives without believing in this being or Supernatural world and it there's nothing to be gains __10:37__ from it unless you're afraid of Hell which is kind of silly when you think about it what kind of a moral philosophy __10:42__ is based on a threat you know a threat of Hell uh and unless you're really __10:47__ really afraid of Heaven and Hell missing that or if your life is so dry that you need some kind of cosmic love to give __10:55__ your life meaning in some way and most of the atheists I know don't feel that that need so there's no real need for __11:00__ that belief anyway"_ So, that's what my comment relates to, the passage that _ends_ on 11:00. So, your atheist friend, is he poor or rich or middle class? Even if he's lower middle class or poor, Dan Barker said "tens of millions" (which was the fact back then), and that's way below the half or perhaps even quarter of the US population back then. Probably more typically rich then poor. _"What the heck are you talking about "rich mans hobby"? Atheism is not a hobby, He says himself it was difficult to deconvert."_ I'm not doubting his story, but the intellectual ware he bought into was produced by rich people at their leasure. Poor people _generally_ feel more of a personal need for God. People who experience harm are on the lookout for someone to protect them or relieve them in the future. That's probably why so many poor atheists are socialists. I have said nothing implying he became an atheist to get rich, though it didn't make him poor. I have simply said, the people who's outlook on life he now shares were originally rich people with more leasure than actual aptitude for study or actual empathy for the poor. I don't think that's offensive to Dan Barker, I don't think it's offensive to your noble friend, and so I hope, after this explanation, it won't offend you either.

[@StephensCrazyHour]

CS Lewis predicted today in "the abolition of man". If nothing else, that book shows the prescience of the man.

[@alisonblack8318]

I thought Dan's response to Carolyn's mention of joy was extremely telling. He seemed to think she was talking about the kind of emotion that is normally implied by the word "joy", whereas both she and Lewis were referring to a momentary flash of intense longing for something "other" - something transcendent - where the desire itself constitutes the "joy" and vanishes in an instant, though leaving the person changed. In that sense it's a technical term. I expect if Dan had grasped that this was what she was referring to, he would simply have denied that its ostensible object (the transcendental) actually existed. But the fact that he not only didn't address the issue, but exposed his misunderstanding at some length, suggests that he had somehow managed to miss something of vital moment to Lewis throughout much of his life (not merely as an emotional experience but even more significantly as a pointer), and also that Dan himself had perhaps never experienced this for himself.

[@rene-hk6xs]

We live in a joyful based on reasoning says Barker.Yeah right!Then why wars,murders,violence,rapes,suffering,vileness,answer that!

[@martifingers]

"He seemed to think she was talking about the kind of emotion that is normally implied by the word "joy", whereas both she and Lewis were referring to a momentary flash of intense longing for something "other" - something transcendent - where the desire itself constitutes the "joy" and vanishes in an instant, though leaving the person changed. In that sense it's a technical term... Dan himself had perhaps never experienced this for himself" I don't think this is correct or at least to assume it is correct is to deny Dan's experience. It seems to me that this is unworthy and unnecessary unless one's faith is so insecure that you cannot tolerate an experience which appears to be in conflict with it. It also , as Dan implies, suggests a blanket casual dismissal of all non-Christian faiths. The desire for the "transcendental" is indeed central here and to that extent I think Dan is only partially correct in shifting the debate to morality etc. My question would be how does this desire arise. My (tentative) answer would be that is has something to do with Carolyn's remark about "everyone we meet is immortal". Our big evolved brains seemingly will not allow us to admit our mortality. Faith (well most at least) offers a way to "transcend" that terror and apologetics, including CS Lewis's, will expend a lot of effort to justify the belief despite contradictions and incoherence in the texts.

[@Greenie-43x]

The argument, "Christians don't agree on things, therefore the Bible is not a good book" is like discrediting Beethoven because of your kids' inability to play well.

[@betsalprince]

A proper analogy would be a bad cooking book that contains vague and contradictory instructions that are open to mutually incompatible interpretations and results. You got his argument backwards.

[@missypead2293]

Dan former Christian here, i still think abortion is murder. Views on abortion have nothing to do with Christianity.

[@Greenie-43x]

14:03 This reductive view he presents speaks volumes. When was thinking for ourselves bad in the Christian view?

[@Arven8]

There's plenty of Christian teaching that denigrates thinking for yourself. "Lean not unto your own understanding," for instance. There are many more. Fundamentalists in particular are bad about this.

[@goodquestion7915]

The Gospels are an alarm call to get in line spiritually because the end is near; more examples: - Don't wash your hands, keep the spirit clean. - Stop thinking about your earthly future and trust that god will provide. But after a few decades, christians turned to Paul and abandoned Jesus. More examples: - Keep women quiet. - Don't listen to women's teachings. - Slaves, don't revolt and be especially obedient to a Christian master. As you can see, thinking is "second class" in the Christian view.

[@Greenie-43x]

@Arven8 "lean" has many definitions but only one seems to fit here, rely on for support or inspiration. After reading the brief chapter before and a few verses after your example, it really doesn't seem to say "don't think for yourself" either literally or poetically. It praises knowledge and wisdom, then relates to the heart in the missing part of your example text. Then follows with blessed is the one who finds wisdom. Certainly doesn't read like "don't think for yourself".

[@goodquestion7915]

@@Greenie-43x I disagree. Proverbs 3 is counsel of surrender; especially the negation of mental self-reliance, just as @Arven8 said.

[@Arven8]

@@Greenie-43x I suspect that you aren't familiar with fundamentalist/conservative evangelical churches and how they train people to think -- learning a specific, narrow set of beliefs, engaging in black/white thinking, treating the Bible as an authority on everything, discouraging doubts, shaming people who think differently, warning against listening to "worldly" thought, etc. There is a *very* long and extensive history of fundamentalist/conservative evangelical churches promoting dogmatic belief and discouraging doubt or independent thought. A KZbin comment isn't the place to try to cover that topic -- it is vast -- but I can point you to one resource, if you are interested in hearing the other side of the story. Marlene Winell, PhD, works with former fundamentalists, and her book, Leaving the Fold, goes into this (and many other 'toxic' qualities of fundamentalist/evangelical churches). There is a clear message that thinking for yourself -- especially, thinking outside the fundamentalist Christian box -- is bad, evil, sinful, and dangerous. I mean, people don't call those types of Christianity "cultish" for no reason.

[@seascape1059]

Screwtape Letters is one of my favourites by Lewis 😊.

[@ryanprosper88]

If Russell Brand just recently posted that he's begun reading some Lewis books, 60 years after his death, I'd say he's still relevant.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

C.S. Lewis tripped at the finish line. All his arguments are impeccable and beautiful but he denied the simple gospel. He denied substitutionary atonement. He was not a Christian.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

russell brand is a twerp, and you appear to be a joke.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559 there is no christ, jesus died and is still dead. gods are myth.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

Did he say that on one of his YT videos?

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

How do you get to hell? Very simple: claim that you're innocent. How do you get to heaven? Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy. How to know if you're guilty or not? Simply: Compare your life to the Ten Commandments God gave you in the Bible. Everyone agrees that if people followed the ten commandments there would be no need for governments or police. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery. Do not insult God by using his name as a cuss word. There are six more but let's just leave it at that. How many lies have you told in your life? Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman. How many times a day do you do that? Do you use God's name as a cuss word? Would you do that with your own mother's name? If you answer these questions honestly you know that you're guilty. God can justly punish you and send you to hell. Ask him for mercy. His name is Jesus. It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine. The fine is death. Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die." That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy. Option A. You die for your own sins. Option B. Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died on the cross for you. ❤ **Honest questions are welcome.**

[@anthonycostello6055]

This is like asking whether or not Plato, or Kant, or Dante or Dostevsky are still relevant.

[@drackoni-han13]

No, they're not

[@nickf4333]

Those authors / philosophers are leagues above Lewis in terms of importance

[@anthonycostello6055]

@@nickf4333 Really, who decides that?

[@Greenie-43x]

​@drackoni-han13 is this an example of ironic? "They're" is the contraction we would traditionally use.

[@drackoni-han13]

@@Greenie-43x Force of habit. Seriously though, can anyone name one philosophy from any of these people that's unique to them and is indispensable to human survival?

[@CourtRedhandedNews]

Utterly unbelievably good - just listened to this evenings (Nov 25) debate over CS Lewis and want to hear it all again. Its my first time and I am hooked, ex-pastor now atheist Dan threw in some really good curved balls and, yes, I am biased, who isn.t? I thought Carolyn managed to slam them sky high esp when Dan put out some thought provokers especially the 'love thy neighbour' command, pointing out it was really meant for the Jewish community - but Carolyn countered with the Good Samaritan. That was a home run! I thought it was good balanced journalism to have Dan up there but wondered as the prog went on if he had a faith to lose. Pretty cruel of me to say that, but the mention of GRACE sort of quieted him, maybe he had never sinned? We all need a Peter humiliation or three to keep us humble. And we all know, as the Lord explained, the one that was forgiven the most was the most grateful. Carolyn's weakest moment was claiming that there were many outside sources of historical mentions of Jesus, which even I do not believe. But hey, as a hack I never let the truth interfere with a good reply. My big confession is that I have never read a CSL book, so which one would you suggest I thumb through?

[@nicholassmith9783]

Abolition of Man is a great philosophical read. The Problem with Pain is a good philosophical/theological read, and Mere Christianity is a wonderful theological read. Honestly most of his works are fantastic (The Great Divorce is wonderful), but if you don't have a strong theological background, I'd start with one of the three first mentioned

[@martinploughboy988]

She treated rather too kindly, his arguments were really poor & consisted mostly of claims that Christianity & the Bible aren't true.

[@anthonycostello6055]

I think the question should be is Dan Barker still relevant?

[@MrAuskiwi101]

That is a question your tiny mind may ponder.

[@iainrae6159]

For many 'believers ', not always the brightest, a common question is, ' Will my pet dog join me in heaven?'

[@anthonycostello6055]

@@MrAuskiwi101 I don't think my mind will waste any more time on Dan Barker. A reread of Abolition of Man seems more suited to its size.

[@MrAuskiwi101]

@@anthonycostello6055 Yes you stay in your little christian circle j, and what ever you do, don't challenge yourself with reality.

[@anthonycostello6055]

@@MrAuskiwi101 Hah, nice. Well, let's see who is reading Dan Barker books in 100 years and who is reading C.S. Lewis books.

[@asandiegoguy]

She says she’s not using the ad populum argument and then proceeds to do just that, citing how many are believers and how many famous people believe. That’s the definition of the fallacy.

[@jeffbenelli6999]

Great discussion. Thanks to all. I just finished Mere Christianity. Early in the book, Lewis admists he is not an authority on the Bible. He farms that out to the likes of Aquinas and others. I've read 5 CS Lewis books, and the theme I get from all of them are that he is only interested in the Devotional Method of Study rather than the Historicdal CriticaL Method. In other words, he accepts all the doctrine as truth and spends no time thinking whether it is true. I felt Dr. Weber is very much the same. She assumes truth, and is less concerned IF it is true. By her own admission, logic cannot get us there. Should we use that same logic on the Chronicles of Narnia?

[@martinploughboy988]

Lewis lacks the understanding to tell whether a doctrine is true or not.

[@t.l.6219]

Dan thinks this and that. That should be taken as truth for the rest of you.

[@LOWDEN1650]

No...those are his opinions. He wants people to think critically and come to their own. Don't distort please.

[@Greenie-43x]

It's interesting that J Warner Wallace looked at the evidence and came to the opposite conclusions.

[@bestpianist1]

Dan doesn't strike me as someone who found contentment but rather, he looks nervous and irritated .

[@remalim9471]

Full of anger too.

[@saltydodger9597]

I think it' s called respectively listening and focusing on what the other has to say before responding!

[@LOWDEN1650]

I am amused at how much projection is going on in the comments. A little more self awareness would be welcome.

[@fransclements5879]

Dan exposes himself. Its not logic what made him lose his so called faith but his love for sin and his anger toward God

[@goodquestion7915]

You didn't listen, right? And that was the short story. Is that how you half-hear Christian teachings too?

[@CourtRedhandedNews]

@@goodquestion7915 Good question, please continue to ponder and wander

[@LOWDEN1650]

Your Christian judgementalism is really showing here. Wrong on all counts.

[@ewencameron4269]

Cs Lewis wrote something like “Either Christ is the Son of God and he’s the meaning behind everything or he’s irrelevant.”I think of CS Lewis as an apologist in a similar way though of course he’s a fallen human like all of us who will get somethings wrong We Aussies love to bet and I’m betting J C is the Son of God and that CS Lewis is one of his best and and truest disciples whose words and life cut like a sword through both the chaos and confusion of modern Christianity to its glorious truths and the ultimately nihilistic folly of atheism. The trouble with atheism is that it’s ultimately boring which is a cardinal sin in today’s modern world. You can’t really delight and hope in love or beauty or joy or wonder or faithfulness or sacrifice or heroism or redemption or knowledge or wisdom without doing a Bertrand Russell and believing the whole universe will end in nothing.

[@LOWDEN1650]

Apparently many atheists would prove you very wrong on this. Just because the song ends, doesn't mean you can't enjoy it fully while you hear it.

[@hglundahl]

9:03 I'd be happy to refute Dan Barker on each particular he'd care to forward.

[@youdaviddavidtube]

Is ancient literature only fable? Are we smarter than ancient people in theological reasoning? The more I study bible in its original language, and the world in which it is written, I am more humbled by these writers. I am astonished that Dan read bible as if biblical scholarship frozen at the age of CSL. Dan talk as if human has found a universal reasoning to the level of truth beyond reasonable doubt. Even if that is the case, I doubt what good it does seeing the power and tendency of human self destruction since this "discovery".

[@almilligan7317]

With Lewis you must start with his The Abolition of Man which I didn’t hear mentioned. But it is Lewis’s preChristian writing on objective truth depending on a reference to an unknowable Tao or Dao. God for me is the Tao or Dao that points to Christ Crucified.

[@hglundahl]

41:03 I'm moderately convinced of Arjuna meeting Shiva. I am actually less convinced of Faust doing a compact with the Devil than of Arjuna doing one. One candidate for the historic Faust may have been a charismatic healer, who was not in open conflict with Catholicism, but also not accepted as an actual saint and officially recognised as a miracle worker. While Catholicism as such didn't say "he's doing wonders with the devil's help" some Catholics did. For Arjuna, I would say there is a _real good case_ for him having made a deal with the Devil, a k a Shiva, and having become a wonderful soldier, but a lousy husband to poor Draupadi in the process. Bhagavadgita would be a later Hindu embroidery, not on his relation to Shiva, but on that of his relation to Krishna, who may have been a pre-Flood saint, was certainly more just than the Kauravas, and probably lived before the Flood, even if Hindu chronology puts the date of the Flood 10 000 years back to before his time (he died in 3102 BC, while the Flood was probably 2957 BC, so he died before Noah started building the Ark). The general principle of a transcendent reality is not the problem in Hinduism. Polytheism, i e accepting as gods (i e worthy of worship) spirits whom we in Daniel 3:58 through 65 would accept as serving God, or even the kind of spirits which demonologically relevant texts of the Bible talk of.

[@PieJesu244]

Did anyone else at first glance think Caroline had huge shoulders? Joking apart she makes sense to me.

[@CourtRedhandedNews]

Yes she did indeed, unlike desperate Dan she was cool Carolyn. It must be hard to be an ex-pastor, sort of eating your own words and unable to get rid of that awful feeling at the back of ones mind that you got it to come.

[@hglundahl]

41:13 I've never tried the Bhagavadgita. But I did read an account of the Mahabharata, which an Indian Diplomat Daughter did as an assignment in Sanskrit, she retold the story in Hindi. I also saw the Peter Brook thing, at least in parts available on the youtube. Did you catch the part when narrator says that things became so evil that the deeds of the good (side) were no longer different from those on the bad one? Sounds _very_ Genesis 6 to me. And for some reason, if we take a Biblical chronology for LXX text choices, Biblical timing of the Flood into the past matches very well with what Hindus tell of Krishna's death, and how far we are into Kali Yuga.

[@samdg1234]

Ruth Jackson was pretty near the star of the show. At 1;16;00 she responds to Dan Barker's rejection of Liar, Lunatic, or Lord trilemma with what Lewis was actually directing the trilemma toward and gets him (Dan) to conclude with Lewis that, the "good moral teacher" was not an option. Dan rejects it saying he was not a good moral teacher (exactly what Lewis said, quote, "But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.") Dan seemingly also rejects him as Lord, but does he prefer liar or lunatic. As far as I can tell he doesn't tip his hand. Great job Ruth.

[@stefsytfavs1]

It amazes me how Dan sounds so bitter and angry. It sounds like he still hasn’t found the answer for himself if he’s sounding like this.

[@LOWDEN1650]

Wow - that's a lot of projection going on there.

[@45s262]

Is there any content involving a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? If not the show should consider it..

[@CourtRedhandedNews]

Why? When Jesus re-appeared in North America, it was a pale imitation of Christ

[@hglundahl]

40:18 C. S. Lewis was a literary scholar, OK. He had read thousands of pages of works meant to instruct on what happened, by pre-modern writers, and thousands of pages of works meant to amuse or preach or both (like The Fairy Queen by Spencer, partly a fairly anti-Catholic work), and he knew the difference. He could spot it. I spent less time reading and more debating, so did Dan Barker. But I spent sufficiently much time reading to perfectly see what CSL means by the Gospels being biographies, and biographies with much speech, like the one Boswell did of Dr. Johnson (except Boswell was very far from being a disciple, he was biassed against his older friends positions). The trilemma really doesn't rationally expand to a quadrilemma with "or myth" as a fourth position.

[@LOWDEN1650]

It does if the myth part is the resurrection and Jesus' being said to be God

[@hglundahl]

Sorry, whether Resurrection is a lie or a hallucination or simply true, it's not a myth. That's the whole point. Same way, whether Him saying Himself things that mean He is God, whether He lied, was mad or spoke the simple truth, His saying it was not a myth. Why? Because the Gospels read like very credible biography, not unlike how Plato portrayed Socrates. Nothing mythical about someone you or someone you spoke to spoke to.

[@remalim9471]

All religions are not the same. Only Christianity says, " Love your enemies"

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

That's ciz the Romans invented it, and it was meant fur da Jews

[@remalim9471]

Utter rubbish,Zheng. Go read some history.

[@Arven8]

Nope. Mohammed said to do good to those who oppress us, and the Hindu scriptures say we should love friend and foe alike. It's not unique to Christianity.

[@treybarnes5549]

I haven’t see man’s version of morality not devolve to selfishness and narcissism and behaviors move toward animalism as apposed to a dignified humanity. As the Word of God progresses (as it said it would), the progress of humanity devolves. as the word says it would. Man’s Reason and psychological rationale has become a mere catalyst to the furtherance of biblical authority. I wouldn’t acquiesce my rational to even my own reason or given a self awareness rather than is a divine mind and being (beyond a mere more aware animal) is not only apparent, but highly likely.

[@hglundahl]

9:48 CSL's reply was pretty good, except for the flaw about the Fall. Innocent individuals suffer as parts of a guilty humanity, which became guilty by the actual and real guilt of a real individual called Adam. A girl I used to be in love with wondered why her hamster died in cancer, if there were a God, I answered, _because Adam sinned._ Not because a certain tribe collectively drifted away from perfect obedience to God, which as said would be supralapsarianism, but because an individual who knew better, and who was in charge of our situation in a certain way even up to doomsday, and in a larger way up to Calvary, thus, i e knowing better, disobeyed a direct command from the God he knew had created him.

[@JeansiByxan]

It’s unbelievable how Unbelievable have never learned to use time stamps.

[@sheilawenham1474]

How do you explain Paul of Tarsus's Road to Damascus conversion?

[@CourtRedhandedNews]

Miraculous, but sadly unable to appear with them on the show this week!

[@Arven8]

A vision. More common in those days, but still common today. Many people see deceased loved ones, for example. "ADCs," they are called (for after-death communications). Thousands have been documented. Some say these are just comforting hallucinations, and others say they are glimpses into an afterlife.

[@sweetxjc]

@@Arven8 doesn’t make any sense since Paul didn’t know Jesus while he was alive nor did he believe anything Jesus preached. So very odd he would a see a man he had no connection to.

[@maryamory1549]

What about God being just? Could it be that sin is so dark, that it separates us from God, that a just , loving God would come against it so passionately? Perhaps that is why there are so many warnings to be aware of it, not to entertain and be deceived by it. Could that be why a living Father chose to provide away out of it for us?

[@zytigon]

I was wondering if C.S. Lewis coined the term 'shadowlands' but apparently i comes from a similar idea by Plato. Plato’s idea was that the world was a shadow of the real world. I think the term shadowlands fits the Bible to a T. 1 Cor 13:12: For now we see through a glass, darkly. Which bits of the Bible are mostly real history and which are mostly fictional ? The Bible is a book with interesting anomalies. One of the most relevant stories to our time could be Numbers chapter 16 and verse 28, "Then Moses said, "This is how you will know that the Lord has sent me to do all these things and that it was not my idea. If these men die a natural death and experience only what usually happens to men then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord brings about something totally new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them then....it was the Lord" Well the story says Korah's side was miraculously swallowed up and a further 14700 wiped out by plague. So then there should be a rule in the world that if the gods want killing done then they have to do it themselves by miracle. What we actually see in the world is that no religion or superstition cult or so called devil cult has any clear advantage over the others. Wouldn't a real devil know the secrets of the west and whisper them to the communists ? Anyway if the numbers chapter 16 story was true then why didn't Yahweh just wipe out all the unchosen ones in Egypt and Levant ? Why if Yahweh could wipe out the Egyptian first born Exodus 11&12 did he not just go the whole way and wipe them all out so the Israelites could colonize Egypt ? If there is a risen conquering Christ then why not just make all the unchosen ones infertile as a non violent way to rule the Earth ? Deuteronomy 18v20 : "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’- when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him." Yet those who started other rearrangements to the Bible were not wiped out before their version took hold. 2 Timothy 4v3 "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths." Also not very optimistic for the new age of the Risen Conquering Christ

[@2023betterresearch]

I recommend Dr. Daniel O. McClellan to Dr Carolyn Weber

[@brenthardaway3704]

Dan McLellan - "We negotiate with the meaning of a text. It has no inherent meaning. We construct that ourselves" as text of his speech is literally appearing on the screen. Yet he wouldn't tolerate others "negotiating" what he says. And if that is true, there is literally no data, only dogma. Carolyn, thanks to reading Lewis, Weber would spot this sleight of hand right away.

[@2023betterresearch]

@@brenthardaway3704 You are completely misunderstatnding Brent, and so your critique is null. First, when Dan has repeatedly phrased and rephrased those sayings, 'negotiation' is an alternative term for 'interpretation' and it is evidently aimed at social media viewpoints coming from either (1) conspiracy theories, (2) traditional dogmas or creeds from specific christian denominations not based on data, (3) dogmas that are more niche with specific, believing academic students, pastors, and even scholars, (4) outdated or recent claims from scholars that did not have much traction either because also based on dogma, faith-based defenses not based on objective evidence, or apologetic rhetoric also not rigorousely based on evidence. Second, I am not aware that he would not tolerate others "negotiating" with what he says. I think you're interpolating "negotiating" here with something he says or said, but the negotiation aspect is your (and others who agree with your position here) own misidentified version of interpretation. You cannot simply accuse others of not accepting negotiation of what they have said if there is no real negotiation in the way he uses it with religious texts. This is not the same as 'Oh you mean this or that'.....'No, that is not what I said nor what I meant.' That is not negotiation. Third, Dan McClellan does NOT use these phrases and mottos when genuine, recognized experts disagree with him on the data or vice versa. He only uses it for dogmas and traditional creeds and apologetic arguments -- not with genuine historico-critical arguments with which he disagrees. So you are misunderstanding the usage of negotiation.

[@TheLilleyPad]

Dan’s repeated argument is that we could come up with better and more relevant morals than Jesus did in his day. And he doesn’t even understand Jesus’ moral arguments. If Christians took his teachings literally then there would be a bunch of amputees in the New Testament and today. People understood what he meant. Maybe there’s a veil over Dan’s eyes that he doesn’t see this. And maybe he would take me literally for saying that?

[@betsalprince]

The parable is horrendous even as a metaphor. It's not even a moral teaching at all. It's literally a threat of eternal punishment.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

Huh. We see a lot worse than mere "amputees" Christianity has spread worldwide at the point of a sword - killing hundreds of millions in its wake, wiping out entire tribes and cultures. All of this can be justified somehow, in pointing to verses in the bible ...in the NT even

[@amoyjoyce1117]

That man will get a rude awakening when he dies …. Death comes to every one . He will have his father of lies to thank. He just made the devil grin . If fools could fly he would be up in the air. He is not just physically blind he is spiritually blind .that’s the worst kind of blindness. He is like a dead man walking. I had to switch off I could not continue to listen to him. Not may be a veil over his eyes , Satan has blinded him , Jesus said to the Pharisees , you have eyes and still can’t see you are blind he is spiritually blind. God desires no one to perish , but he has condemn himself already . Smart God !

[@mountbrocken]

@@betsalprince The Greek word for eternity is aion and doesn't necessarily mean eternal. The point of the story is that one should choose what is more important for their journey towards God and salvation. If something is keeping you from God, then get rid of it.

[@TheLilleyPad]

@@betsalprince A threat of punishment? OR just the cost of living a sinful lifestyle? He is teaching about temptation. He is using exaggerated speech to make a point. Anybody can see that. It would be like getting rid of your smart phone if you are tempted to use it for watching porn, just get rid of the thing that is causing you to lust and objectify women to the point of looking for another partner just for sex. Live a moral life or suffer the consequences of destroying your wife's faith in you and your children and getting a divorce. Or another thing is quitting drinking alcohol because it makes you violent because you can't control how much you drink and always go overboard. Just cut it out! It is hard to hear for some people because they don't like the idea of depriving themselves from anything. They don't see the freedom from resisting temptation. Temptations draw you into bondage of sin. Self-control is one of the fruits of being born-again through Christ.

[@hglundahl]

7:29 Precisely my reaction when the "RC" Archdiocese of Paris allows an Assumptionist to pretend Adam and Eve were no real people. Even pretty publically in an Assumptionist owned weekly. Trent, Session V, the Decree on Original Sin, dogmatises that Adam lost justice immediately on sinning.

[@samdg1234]

Does comment appear?

[@user-md7uc5tx6b]

Dan Barker: there is no God! Also, Dan Barker: spends literal decades of his life attacking a Deity he claims he doesn't believe in (when he believes this is his only life.) Quite sad, to be honest.

[@jmjw00]

When the majority of people who live among you vote based off a belief in god, often times resulting in the loss of freedoms, one would hope for more people like Barker. What you are essentially attacking is evangelizing, the attempt to spread a belief. Christians laughing at atheists for making a living by sharing reasonable thought and opinions of what is justified to believe, are just laughing at a mirror. We live in a social society where our personal beliefs have impact irrespective of any one religious or non religious belief. Grow up.

[@LOWDEN1650]

He's not attacking the Deity....he's attacking the uncritical thinking that leads people to believing in an imaginary deity.

[@hglundahl]

8:20 If he ceased to believe Adam and Eve were real people, I would not totally call it a process within Christianity. I very much hope for CSL's sake that he changed his mind, if not totally repented (we are unfortunately sure he didn't do that, as he reedited Problem of Pain the year before he died), on his version of the fall. He of all people ought to have sooner or later realised that a fall involving _a collective_ cannot be justly punished as the sin of Adam was punished, since a collective, unlike an individual, has no freewill. The idea amounts to Supralapsarian Calvinism, i e God predestining mankind to fall. At least by neglect, if combined with "open Theism" ...

[@remalim9471]

Very good interview. But Dan talks a lot of nonsense. He needs to reread the Bible and Lewis.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

The bible is dung

[@mowm88]

It's usually the fundamentalists who go from believing ALL of it to hitting a cliff and rejecting it utterly like this guy. I'll pass. Guys if you wanna do a CS Lewis discussion you might wanna just locate someone who wrote about him and go from there instead of 'me no believe shit' and our friend from down under there. It becomes a weird debate where you don't need one.

[@rockuhard76]

Dr. Weber seems like a very intelligent, sincere, and well-intentioned person, but her approach to religion seems more emotive than rational. Like Mr. Barker, I am a former Christian, and I was also a very fundamentalist one. Ironically, it was fundamentalism that led me to atheism. Being immersed in the Bible and surrounded by people completely absorbed in the Bible allowed me to see the grotesque aspects of those beliefs and their irrationality. Unlike many atheists, I do not consider Jesus to have been a good moral teacher, assuming he existed. I agree with Dan on that.

[@mountbrocken]

Dan's poor exegetical analysis of Christ's loving one's neighbor and contrasting this with Leviticus 19:18 where it tells one to love one's neighbor. We see that Jesus extends God's love and mercy, over and over, to gentiles. The Roman soldier for instance and many others. Christ is NOT teaching an insular, 'jew-only' salvation or love. If Dan thinks this, he must have avoided MOST of the gospel teachings.

[@hglundahl]

13:46 _actual harm_ ... How much actual harm is being done all over the West, to the elderly, by their own former choices of contraception? In a Catholic society, if you want a life with grandchildren, there is room for that, you marry, you beget as many children as God sends, and at least some of them are likely to marry in their turn. Children and grand-children will support you, and the few exceptions are very easily and gently cared for by the majority. Or, if you don't want small children, there is room for that too. You abstain from sex. You join others who do the same. When you get old, you are taken care of by younger vocations who admire your choice and who respect your wisdom, your experience in living a life for God. Protestantism (outside Quiverfull) and Atheism are now over a century into overturning that, especially the parts concerning normal couples, the resources for the pensions once promised were depleted in Sweden decades ago, were depleted in Russia a bit before the Covid 19 outbreak (Navalny was saying the worse off pensions were corruption), were depleted in France, which is becoming rougher against the poor, will be depleted in the US c. 9 years from now, according to a forecast. Depleted not as in every penny finished, but as in starting an indebtment, which is averted or can be averted by making things worse for the old. We Catholics are very proud to be _both_ obeying the dictates of God, _and_ able to analyse what harm happens when one doesn't, in the most rational terms.

[@Greenie-43x]

He embraced things early before he could full accept the truth of the matter. Ironically he presents what CS Lewis called "boys' philosophies"

[@goodquestion7915]

For me, his "childish philosophy" writings are eye-rollers, like his tri-lemma where he missed to include "Legend" and "Deceived".

[@android4754]

@@goodquestion7915 Lewis was probably presupposing Jesus as a real historical figure. I do not think the legend theory was common at the time (and even if not has very little credence to its claim). He also dismisses legend out of hand from his own background stating the gospels do not read like myth or legend (subjects he was quite familiar with). I would also argue it falls under the liar category and is thus burdened with the same issues of the disciples dying horrible painful deaths for a legend. They either knew it was a legend and thus their willingness to die for it for essentially nothing does not make sense. Or they did not know it was a legend making them apparently very convincing lunatics and the question becomes where did the story and teachings originate from and why were people willing to follow it? I am curious what you mean by the deceived and how it would be different than liar. I am not familiar with that idea and I fail to see the difference or consequences from Lewis' argument.

[@goodquestion7915]

@android4754 Legend is what others "feed" the credulous as true, but it's based on recountings rather than on known lies. All people involved KNOW that it's an extraordinary situation, but "it's true enough to believe". Deceived, is that Jesus and his disciples were made to believe the story by others that KNEW it wasn't true, but it was important to be conveyed as true. This is true, I have seen it with my own eyes; university math professors, engineering physicists, homemakers, young and old people, gathered to receive channeled messages from the Old Gods, Prophets, and Philosophers of the world. All those people believed and gathered periodically, just like churchgoers. I knew it was preposterous, and I guess you think the same, but they had an Undefeatable Faith.

[@saltydodger9597]

Dan has not lost of any of his sharpness over the years

[@CourtneyNielsen]

Second debate I’ve watched him in. He’s very sharp with his cherry picking.

[@rene-hk6xs]

Yeah,sharpness in lying!

[@martinploughboy988]

If he'd been facing an experienced Christian debater you'd have seen how blunt his arguments are.

[@StephensCrazyHour]

Once again we have a deconstructed Christian who has substituted a worship of God for a worship of self. If anyone reads the Bible and says that it says to hate gays/ women who murder their children/ whoever, they're not reading it genuinely. The Bible makes a very clear distinction between the person, who is created in the image of God and the evil that they do, which stems from them missing the mark. The more people miss the mark, the worse society gets (this brings down judgement on the people). Understanding that the consequence of missing the mark is death - not just physical, but societal and familial is what is missing in the metheist world view.

[@hglundahl]

7:03 Noting he took no real look at Roman Catholicism at this point, whatever he did or didn't later.

[@hglundahl]

15:29 _which is something measurable_ It's measured by very different metrics. At least as different as purported Christians differ from Catholic morality. Our point as Catholics is not that God for some utterly mysterious reason forbade abortion, and we have to obey so we don't go to Hell, however little sense that makes, our point is, abortion _is_ real harm in the real world, and one that's serious enough for God to have forbidden.

[@hglundahl]

35:11 No misogyny in the Bible, except women were kind of "on probation" between Eve and Mary. A k a in the OT, specifically the Mosaic law. But Dan Barker is not adressing even the Catholic view of the Bible. It's primarily God's word to the Church. The Church is God's word to all nations (you can look that part up in Matthew 28:16-20). The Bible was formulated at a time when some concepts were overlapping or not a bit differently in a different culture, or actually more than one. This doesn't mean the true meaning is irretrievably lost, but it _does_ mean it had a need of a parallel transmission, admitting reformulations, individuals having heard it in one way, facing an unexpected question, reformulating to clarify, a k a Apostolic Tradition. This is also how the true meaning of Exodus was preserved between Moses and the Pharisees of Jesus' time. Text and tradition in tandem. Not a text on its own. When St. Paul was studying as a Pharisee, he didn't exactly find his copy of the five books of Moses inside a hotel drawer placed there by the Gideons.

[@remalim9471]

No, Dan, the gospels were written by his disciples in the time of the eye witnesses.

[@Arven8]

No, that's just not accurate. We do not know who wrote the gospels (the authorial attributions were made much later). Some were written after most eye-witnesses would have died.

[@RLBays]

That’s not even remotely accurate.

[@goodquestion7915]

@remalim9471 His disciples were fishermen, tax collector, and probably one medic; illiterate tradesmen. No public schools at that time. Scholars don't know EXACTLY who wrote them. They speculate because of style and grammar that the gospels were written by hellenized scribes taking the oral accountings of church leaders.

[@trinitymatrix9719]

Exactly, written by those who knew exactly what happened and eye witnesses. but haters may still deny facts and history. Thats just how some humans work.

[@goodquestion7915]

@@trinitymatrix9719 if you happened to be accused of a capital crime while being inocent, I bet you would ask for the eyewitnesses to be ignored and to bring up science based hard evidence.

[@hglundahl]

11:39 *12 000* members in a project for former members of the clergy? I guess I owe Dan Barker some thanks for supporting them. That's the kind of guys who have boosted the numbers of "believers" who don't believe in Adam and Eve, the numbers of "believers" who accept gay marriage and so on ... I'd have been glad to get McCarrick into that one, nearly, but I don't begrudge even him a residue of what might once have been real faith, if it's genuine. Bad joke. Sorry. Not taking it back, but, that's pretty much where my feelings are on the matter.

[@hglundahl]

9:39 Dan Barker is conflating a "good argument" (i e one that _ought to_ sway an unbeliever) with an argument that actually carries weight with _unbelievers_ (i e one that actually sways unbelievers). Now, since back in that day, that supposed discovery, Dan Barker has had a pretty set stake in remaining an unbeliever. His point here depends on conflating the unbeliever (in the sense of ex-believers like himself or children or grand-children of ex-believers, also some very secularised Jews) with "those outside" as in the objective intersection of everyone outside Christianity. Atheism as he is preaching it is not really outside Christianity. Atheism is a heresy within Protestantism, like Protestantism is a heresy within Christianity.

[@HisWorkman]

Obviously, this individual who is claiming to be an atheist, which I really question whether a true atheist exists, or not. That being said, he obviously has not read the Bible with a spiritual mind. it says the natural mind cannot comprehend the things of God because they are spiritually understood or discerned. I pray for his spiritual eyes to be open, that he could see the true plan of God!

[@Arven8]

Ah, the no true atheist fallacy.

[@RLBays]

You question whether a true atheist exists? That’s such an odd thing to say. Can you elaborate?

[@LOWDEN1650]

Another arrogant "Christian" comment. We stand in awe of your great spiritual insight

[@hglundahl]

40:53 _"it's reasonable according to this measure I picked"_ Like Dan Barker picked science as preached by the modern scientific community, specially the ones least favourable to Christianity and specifically excluding to take Creation science into account? We all pick a measure. We all measure reasonable by a measure we picked and not by a measure someone else has picked and criticises us for not picking. If there were no overlap between the measures, there would be no sense in debating. However, there is, and the problem is, Dan Barker is obfuscating that precise issue. He's pretending Christians are doing "reasonable" on the terms of an ad hoc picked rationality, and himself is, directly, not by partial participation, but directly, doing "reasonable" as it is. Once he dropped Christianity, of course. CSL in Miracles (a better book on Theism than the Theist arguments of Mere Christianity, except for endorsing Evolution, which is a blunder) actually points out how this is incompatible with a strictly just naturalistic causality. Reasons are _about_ sth. A vector, a mass, a physical constant, they are not about sth. They may apply to certain things, but they cannot be right or wrong statements about sth. So, they cannot produce any mechanism, make it as collective and multiply mutually self correcting as you like, for finding truth _about_ anything. As a linguist in some sense (I did not take any major courses in the subject linguistics, but I did take mostly courses related to it at some point, like Latin, Greek, German, Lithuanian, Polish), I'd make a similar case when it comes to language. That's the overlap between Dan Barker's and CSL's position, plus how I draw that truth out into CSL territory. Or into my own and that of Dominique Tassot, a French Catholic and Young Earth Creationist.

[@therealal1713]

A better atheist than Dan Barker could have been invited for this episode.

[@rene-hk6xs]

Not a good atheist,opinions from his feelings,cant respect someone for that!

[@Arven8]

I think many people have a sentimental attachment to CS Lewis because of the Narnia series, or because "Mere Christianity" was a powerful book early in their journey. He's also a very gifted writer. However, I think some of his main arguments (e.g., the ones in Mere Christianity) do not hold up very well anymore. Still, I have a lot of respect for the man.

[@goodquestion7915]

Personally I have respect for him as a professional writer, but not the moral person, nor the philosopher. He did deliver powerful writings of all kinds, but they were always with an obvious agenda, and shallowly thought through. For example, his Narnia books are comparable to Harry Potter (children books, I guess), and his "sayings" were incomplete morally and philosophically. Of course they were masterfully delivered as heart-string "pluckers", but wouldn't pass a peer review check as philosophical products.

[@samdg1234]

*"However, I think some of his main arguments (e.g., the ones in Mere Christianity) do not hold up very well anymore."* Seriously? What argument are you referring to? No one that I'm aware of gets past the moral argument, for example.

[@Arven8]

Yes,@@samdg1234, seriously. I was thinking specifically of the liar/lunatic/Lord trichotomy. I did find his moral argument very persuasive when I read the book 30 years ago, but I don't think it's quite so solid now -- and in any case, it's an argument for God, not for Christianity.

[@rene-hk6xs]

@@goodquestion7915 Pl specify what was wrong with what CS Lewis said about christianity?

[@rene-hk6xs]

No!Not about sentiment,its about truth,not your opinion.Go and do research on the Bible by first reading it!

[@mr.c2485]

We don’t choose our beliefs. They’re handed down based on a number of things, the least of which is where one was born.

[@PieJesu244]

Do you believe that and if so who told you?

[@Greenie-43x]

​@@PieJesu244😂 I'm using a version of that in the future 👊💥

[@mr.c2485]

@@PieJesu244 😂. Good one!

[@AurelioCortez]

1) letting a God-hater slander Christianity and the brethren for an hour is not what true Christian apologists are called to do. 2) Dan "carnival" Barker can only be taken on by sharp apologists, not soft philosophers who "feel" their way through the faith.

[@JC-pu3vl]

I wish you hadn't let the comment about Dan's mother saying she doesnt have to hate gay people anymore pass. That's not what's taught in Christianity.

[@betsalprince]

What does Jesus specifically teach about homosexuality? I'm genuinely curious.

[@Arven8]

@@betsalprince He didn't say anything about it at all.

[@rene-hk6xs]

No specificity on Barkers wrong opinions on christianity (Jesus Christ,what did he say wrong?) and the bible,Prov 12:15,-The way of a fool is right in his own eyes,typical.

[@Crimson271180]

cant help but think this man grew up in a happy home with two parents and a real solid stucture, and then turned round and said there is no benifit to this, its like sailing to a new land and then saying boats are stupid.

[@rene-hk6xs]

Carolyn sounds more a professor than christian,not specifying (not knowing how to) to defend the faith against silliness!

[@James-qz6vi]

You don’t need God; you can exist just fine without God. However, God needs you. He created this world, I suppose because He could and He liked it. Not to be alone, He created us to help Him do what is needed. Therefore, God needs us to respond and start doing things He needs done. I am grateful God has given me the opportunity to participate in His creation while watching over me in life’s hardships that I face.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

What you mean to say is "God needs your money" And we all know what that really means

[@James-qz6vi]

@@zhengfuukusheng9238 God is the Creator meaning He doesn’t need anything from me except my willingness to serve Him. He gave us free will. God can give or take away. And He does that for many reasons. I don’t always know His plan or why He does things but if you trust Him it will be revealed to you. His plan is always better than my plan.

[@iainrae6159]

So the alledged creator of billions of galaxies feels the 'need' to be worshipped by evolved social primates on our little rocky planet. This makes no sense to me.

[@James-qz6vi]

@@iainrae6159 Of course it doesn’t make sense to you. You will never know God’s wisdom unless you read His Word and pray for knowledge. All wisdom comes from God. Your ears will never hear it.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

@@James-qz6vi Gods are created by humans and have traditionally provided jobs-for-life for clergy

[@samdg1234]

Can I comment?

[@samdg1234]

Seems some of what I post is disallowed.

[@t.l.6219]

Dan is so judgemental yet he thinks God should not be At least he thinks most Christians are good. Yeah for Christians Christians need his affirmation.

[@CourtRedhandedNews]

Good one t.l

[@LOWDEN1650]

He's thinking critically...a skill that a lot of religious people are lacking.

[@Greenie-43x]

58:13 even though i experienced one when i reached to save the baby....🙃

[@clivegovier2871]

Clearly Dan had a change of heart. But, that makes him a fool, acc. To Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.” CH Spurgeon comments: “The Atheist is the fool pre-eminently, and a fool universally. He would not deny God if he were not a fool by nature, and having denied God it is no marvel that he becomes a fool in practice. Sin is always folly, and as it is the height of sin to attack the very existence of the Most High, so is it also the greatest imaginable folly. To say there is no God is to belie the plainest evidence, which is obstinacy; to oppose the common consent of mankind, which is stupidity; to stifle consciousness, which is madness. If the sinner could by his atheism destroy the God whom he hates there were some sense, although much wickedness, in his infidelity; but as denying the existence of fire does not prevent its burning a man who is in it, so doubting the existence of God will not stop the Judge of all the earth from destroying the rebel who breaks his laws; nay, this atheism is a crime which much provokes heaven, and will bring down terrible vengeance on the fool who indulges it

[@almilligan7317]

Barker and most fundamentalists make the same mistake in equating the Bible as literal truth. It’s deductive and not reflective. Rather all religious texts are a metaphor that gives us the power of reflection and discernment. Mark, for example, tells us that Jesus said nothing to his disciples except in parables. A parable is a metaphor or myth. God does not speak to us except in parables! Genesis is a parable. Is it true? Why do men and women get married? Let me tell you a story, in the beginning…. That story is my story. Without the story we are reduced to monkeys in a tree. “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulders.” Here we see reflectivity the great prayer “Our Father…” which again calls us to the love of the neighbor. It’s not your father without it also being my Father. Atheism has no story, but can only deny the story, and has no way to generate love of neighbor. The bottom line for Christians is that all texts and all law and all prophecy can be summed up in a single word, not God, not Jesus, as we would expect, but love your neighbor.

[@IosifStalin2]

A pagan farmer in Borneo can teach his children to be good to his family and friends. He doesn’t need Lewis’ superstitions. Once you have Theology, you can snarkily tell your mother (who spent 16 hours a day looking after you as a child) , that she will go to hell if she doesn’t believe as you do.

[@alexnorth3393]

His stories are. People still enjoy them. His religious views are outdated tbh. Dan is still VERY cringe with his "High IQ" society rubbish.

[@samdg1234]

*"His religious views are outdated tbh."* Whose views are you referring to? Dan's? C.S. Lewis's?

[@marthadavis5068]

Dan, you need to listen to Brad Jersack, Baxter Kruger, and learn how far behind on the truth you are. A more Christ like God.

[@marthadavis5068]

The Bible is not the word of God; Jesus is! God didn’t want or need slaves, He wants a relationship with His children!

[@goodquestion7915]

I'd love to hear Dr. Weber's analysis of Jesus' racist and ethnocentric comment in Mark 7:24-30 and compare it with her own comment in the video about Jesus bringing salvation to all, not just Hebrews.

[@Arven8]

Yeah, and those would pass the "criterion of embarrassment," and are likely to go back to the historical Jesus. I suspect that some of what Dr. Weber is resting on (for Jesus's gentile inclusivity) are not actual sayings of Jesus but later additions by others, inserted to help spread the message to gentiles, after the church decided to go in that direction, in no small part because of Paul. Just my speculation, of course.

[@goodquestion7915]

@@Arven8 oh, yes. I think exactly the same way.

[@christiang4497]

Passages about gentile inclusion are found all over the Hebrew scriptures (OT) way before the start of Christianity/the church.

[@goodquestion7915]

@@christiang4497 This is about meek & mild Jesus, exemplar of love beyond what Jews were capable of at the time. Btw, I found the verses you mentioned. I want to dispel wrongful beliefs starting with the ones in my head.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

C.S. Lewis tripped at the finish line. All his arguments are impeccable and beautiful but he denied the simple gospel. He denied substitutionary atonement. He was not a Christian.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

How do you get to hell? Very simple: claim that you're innocent. How do you get to heaven? Very simple: Admit that you're not Innocent, you're guilty and ask for mercy. How to know if you're guilty or not? Simply: Compare your life to the Ten Commandments God gave you in the Bible. Everyone agrees that if people followed the ten commandments there would be no need for governments or police. Do not lie. Do not steal. Do not commit adultery. Do not insult God by using his name as a cuss word. There are six more but let's just leave it at that. How many lies have you told in your life? Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? Jesus said, if you look at a women lustfully you've already committed adultery in your heart with that woman. How many times a day do you do that? Do you use God's name as a cuss word? Would you do that with your own mother's name? If you answer these questions honestly you know that you're guilty. God can justly punish you and send you to hell. Ask him for mercy. His name is Jesus. It's as simple as this, The Ten Commandments are called the moral law. You and I broke God's laws. Jesus paid the fine. The fine is death. Ezekiel 18:20 - "The soul who sins shall die." That's why Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins. This is why God is able to give us Mercy. Option A. You die for your own sins. Option B. Ask for mercy and accept that Jesus died on the cross for you. ❤ **Honest questions are welcome.**

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

What "impeccable" arguments? His trilemma was a lemon, has he anything better than that?

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

@@zhengfuukusheng9238 I don't believe in atheists.

[@jsharp3165]

Romans 10:9-10 does not demand a specific atonement theory.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodin1559]

@@jsharp3165 Ok, now do the rest of the New Testament...or just Romans.

[@t.l.6219]

Dan is better than all of you haters who call yourselves Christians.

[@AndJusticeForMe]

Dan Barker still going strong. Keep it going! You have done a lot of good for people all over the world. Thank you, good sir. 👍

[@martinploughboy988]

He's not so much going strong as lying through his teeth. He's a great example of someone getting away with dishonesty in debate.

[@AndJusticeForMe]

@@martinploughboy988 No one more dishonest than a delusional Christian.

[@RLBays]

Who? 😅

[@In_Paradiso58]

Thanks for revealing this further info about yourself and confirming what i got you to reveal previously...good work, have a good day...

[@RLBays]

@@In_Paradiso58 I’m curious…what did you get me to reveal? Cheers!

[@martinploughboy988]

What a pathetic conversation. Why did no one challenge Dan Barker on his repeated claims that the Bible isn't true. He presents the Bible is a deliberately dishonest way, pretending, for example, that Jesus did not define who a neighbour is.

[@marynayna6327]

It’s sad in Dan journey he never developed a relationship with Jesus.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

Developing a relationship with a mythical character like Jeesus is the height of stupidity

[@Arven8]

He did, though.

[@LOWDEN1650]

Ignorant judgement to make yourself feel better. Very cheap shot.

[@rhodeislandstreetpreaching4252]

No, don’t you dare Dan Barker roast my Lewis! 😅😂

[@aosidh]

thrillerpopcorn.gif 😹🍿

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

Dan barker is irrelevant. As is Richard Dawkins, Neil Degrasse Tyson etc.

[@rhodeislandstreetpreaching4252]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp yeah pretty much in my opinion too

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp In their wheelhouse...maybe. When they step out of their wheelhouse, thy have opinions. a a buddy of mine once said "Opinion Are Like Assholes. Everybody Has Got One, And Most Of Them Stink."

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

The bible is dung

[@PieJesu244]

What on earth are those dolls on Dan's table, one looks like Jesus preaching to the masses, I think he's denying his true faith in Christ.

[@betsalprince]

They're figurines that represent his Native American ancestry. Stop doing psychoanalysis on people that you don't even know. Don't be that condescending Christian :)

[@PieJesu244]

@@betsalprince Just trying to be lighthearted. Sorry you're so upset.

[@albionicamerican8806]

So what if C.S. Lewis in heaven rebels against god, or otherwise becomes alienated from god?

[@Greenie-43x]

1:08:57 But many of us have found Christianity to be true through the evidence, not some blind faith.

[@LOWDEN1650]

Look deeper and you'll discover the evidence becomes insufficient.

[@Greenie-43x]

@@LOWDEN1650 have you heard of J Warner Wallace?

[@ritawing1064]

Spot on! Great writing style, content irrelevant at best, poor and damaging at worst. In fact, probably his best remarks were on vivisection, but his fans don't seem to find them acceptable.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@ritawing1064 "content irrelevant" How is it irrelevant? Examples please.

[@ritawing1064]

@@stevenwiederholt7000 his views on women are completely outmoded and hence irrelevant - of course, he was a scholar of English, neither philosopher nor theologian, so, for instance, books like the Screwtape Letters, however charming, can really no longer be taken as "Guides for the Perplexed". I do not find the Narnia books so offensive as many seem to now - portraying the deaths of the protagonists seems to upset some - and they are beautifully written as to language, but they do have a very Enid Blyton/class ridden atmosphere (as well as a great deal of incoherence) which some parents might wish to see relegated to the past. One could use his writings as tutors for writing splendid English prose, but hardly more these days.

[@goodquestion7915]

@@ritawing1064 I so agree on each and every point. Masterful writer, great christian-heart-string plucker, incomplete philosopher.

[@sopliplily2204]

@@ritawing1064 Not a single bit of criticism is substantive or rational. His views on women are complementarian; people wrongfully think he's a misogynist (he isn't). Furthermore, his views are still relevant today as many Christian denominations hold a complementarian view. If they hold to C.S. Lewis' views, it will deter complementarians with a misogynistic agenda. I don't know what you mean by Screwtape Letters can no longer be taken as "Guides for the Perplexed." When have people ever compared the two, ever? They are completely different genres with different aims. Unless you're not referring to the philosophical work, but even then: when has Screwtape Letters ever been taken as a guide of any sort lol? It's a fictional work to posit what the Devil would do and how he would tempt. At best, your criticism boils down to your distaste of Lewis' Narnia for having a "class ridden [sic] atmosphere" - whatever that could mean (I'm presuming you're trying to argue Narnia is sexist or elitist). In any case, unless you're willing to cite actual sources, all you have is a subjective impression against Lewis' sociopolitical views that do not fit your own. This hardly warrants for the alleged assault that his content is poor and damaging.

[@ritawing1064]

@@sopliplily2204 Complementarianism is nonsense anyway, so provides no out for Lewis' antiquated views on women, for the rest, you simply disagree - so be it.

[@DaveWillmore]

Poor Dan.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

Read "That Hideous Strength" Then ask yourself, His He Relevant? If your answer is No then you're doing a very good impersonation of a idiot.

[@zhengfuukusheng9238]

Did CS Lewis believe in talking snakes and donkeys, and that 5,000 adult dudes can be fed with 2 fish snacks?

[@ritawing1064]

"That Hideous Strength" (the third of the sci-fi trilogy, I think), is probably the worst thing Lewis ever wrote. Both in style and substance it seems to me to have been much influenced, and that not for the good, by Charles Williams. It would be interesting to know if the periods coincided.

[@TempleofChristMinistries]

If I believe by the power of Reason then I shall disbelieve by the power of Reason, this is not true faith, truth tells you of what is not what is not, Faith is God given but it does not remove itself from the truth, when one judge's by their flesh, worldly standards, they cannot see through the Eye of the spirit which makes them blind to the truth, because they cannot recognise their own self, Dan is blind to the truth, to have joy in the human spirit is one thing, to have joy in the Holy Spirit is another, there are two different spiritual positions, true love is to love your enemy not just love those who love you, but to love those who do not love you the human spirit cannot produce, love is the spiritual state of one's heart, and does not rely on the power of Reason, it is a living spirit it is a living thing, so even though the woman believes because of the power of Reason she lacks the spirit, therefore remains in the world, this is why those who are atheist live in the same world of those who claim to believe, because both live in the same spiritual position of the self, the human spirit, Dan has no understanding of the scriptures because he is blind to the truth he still lives in the darkness. To live in faith is not merely following laws and doing what is right it is to become, CS Lewis also is in the dark he never truly understood, he never truly had faith, he was an arrogant man puffed up in his own spirit because he was a man of the Mind not a man of the heart, he loved the articulation of the word like so many academics in this world, men of the mind, they love their words, they love their books, they love the sound of their own voice.

[@whittfamily1]

Carolyn's arguments are so superficial and mostly wrong, just like those of C.S. Lewis. She fails to understand the difference of reason and faith which are contradictory.

[@samdg1234]

*"mostly wrong, just like those of C.S. Lewis."* Please do share?

[@samdg1234]

I'm quite sure it is Dan's arguments that are mostly unexamined and flimsy. Looking forward to some debate on this. An example from you would be appreciated. Cheers.

[@whittfamily1]

@@samdg1234 Well, the arguments of Carolyn and C.S. Lewis in regard to the "problem of evil" are superficial and mostly wrong. It has been clearly shown that there is only one correct conclusion in this case: God does not exist. This has been proven. Also, Lewis' idea that Jesus was either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord is a false trichotomy. As Barker points out, one other option is Legend.

[@whittfamily1]

@@samdg1234 I totally disagree. Dan's arguments are rational and correct. I am certainly ready to debate religious issues with you. I assert that God does not exist, and this has been proven. Your turn.

[@samdg1234]

@@whittfamily1 You say, *"I am certainly ready to debate religious issues with you."* Well that is a very broad debate topic. Best we narrow it down a bit. Unfortunately, this is a crap platform to attempt much of a debate. *"Lewis' idea that Jesus was either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord is a false trichotomy."* I just posted something on this at the top of the comment section and it gets removed. I'll try and repost it here, but if you don't see it in a couple of minutes, the same is happening here.

[@Greenie-43x]

Why does Dan care about morality? Survival of the fittest is something to embrace in the naturalistic world view.

[@betsalprince]

Survival of the fittest is the way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The vast majority of human beings, including atheists, do not embrace it as a moral system because that would be nonsensical. There was a German dude with a toothbrush mustache who did though, and he happened to be a Catholic.

[@mr.c2485]

Faith is a term people use when they have no facts or evidence.

[@PieJesu244]

I have faith your comment is correct

[@missypead2293]

Faith is sometimes used in science, words of bret weinstein. I think he is an atheist.

[@mr.c2485]

@@PieJesu244 Lol 😅

[@Arven8]

Faith is also a term that needs to be defined, because it can mean many different things. It can mean confidence that rests, in part, on evidence. For instance, if I have faith in my wife, it's because I've known her for a long time and trust her. Etc. The word "faith" is often used to mean "blind faith" -- as in, believing something in complete absence of any evidence. But the word can be used in different ways. There is rarely any clarification for how it is used, and so we end up in confusion.

[@CourtRedhandedNews]

@@PieJesu244 hahahahahah

[@norwalltino]

Dan Baker has a point

[@gigisonishvili7146]

Can you explain to me how reason can be the moral guidance when reason itself is not morality? for morality you have to have axiomatic basis and from there use reason for what's good and bad, when you start from reason you can perfectly well reason out the things that might be good for you but not so much for others, so it does not seems to me that reason is the good basis for morality.

[@antonioperez4091]

Dan Barker is not relevant

[@MrAuskiwi101]

When it comes to Christianity, Lewis was fallacy laden and quite delusional. No real surprise.

[@CourtRedhandedNews]

Please explain in greater depth

[@MrAuskiwi101]

@@CourtRedhandedNews Read 'Mere Christianity' and see for yourself 😁