Alex O'Connor vs. Dinesh D'Souza: What I Would Have Said

[@Sui_Generis0]

Dinesh was completely outclassed in this debate. Prepackaged speech not addressing the question and couldn't adequately answer any objections. Couldn't even shake hands afterwards. Went exactly how I thought it would

[@mugglescakesniffer3943]

Dinesh was obsessed about optics. The other guy was obsessed about truth and accuracy.

[@JorgeAlbertoJerez]

@@mugglescakesniffer3943 And you're obsessed with the word obsessed. I don't think either showed signs of obsession.

[@dantzfarrow173]

@Sui_Generis0 I noticed how O’Connor would address D’Souza when he’d speak, but D’Souza would always turn toward the audience. One was there to be a showman; the other was there to earnestly debate.

[@sergiupobereznic]

I agree. When Dinesh began by talking about Alex's accent, he already looked like a drowning man.

[@brandonevans5835]

I didn't hear him say the slave owners were also CHRISTIANS. He goes on to say I don't know how anybody could imagine that slavery would be OK. Because specifically says so in the Bible tells you how to keep them.. exodus 21 20 You can beat your slave to death as long as he doesn't die within the 1st day or 2... I love Christian morals. Next well here how Christians championed GAY MARRIAGE AND EQUALITY. CHRISTIANS ARE GREAT....

[@eriknordquist]

My critique is that Christians used the Bible to support slavery too. It’s not enough to say “Christians led the Abolitionist movement” if other Christians fought abolition. If there are Christians leading and supporting both slavery and antislavery, then it still leaves the question “where did equality of people come from?” A legitimate answer could still be it evolved from a selective reading of the Bible, one that ignores numerous clear and explicit denouncements of that principle.

[@MrSeedi76]

My guess is it might be this: Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew:7:12

[@Alieth]

@@MrSeedi76but that principle is not at all unique to Christianity, the golden rule existed long before Jesus

[@michaelchampion936]

Well said, the bible can make thing pretty plain when it wants too, let's just say, eating pork. It is forbidden in the text of the OT to eat pork, so the people who follow that don't, nice and easy. Now even if at the time everyone around them was eating pork, they were still not allowed, just like if it had been anti slavery it would be clear, and even if others around them were holding slaves they would not have.

[@harlowcj]

And the answer to the new question is....drumroll....Christianity. The end of slavery stemmed from the principle of equality of people which stemmed from the Christian dogma that man has inherent sacred value from the Creation story. Philemon makes this as plain as day. The process of the end of slavery makes it undeniable.

[@michaelchampion936]

@harlowcj and it's such an important tenant in Christianity that once they got into power they abolished slavery in their lands in: A: immediately, the bible states in the commandment given to Moses that as they were enslaved in Egptt, no one should be enslaved again. B: after they had rearrange thing so it took them 100 years. C: after they had been in power for over 1,500 years, as you know, their holy book is so against it that it takes them that long to work out it said so.

[@AttackDog0500]

I hope you and Alex eventually get to have a dialogue or a debate. It would be very valuable I think.

[@temsumongbajamir1582]

Yep you stole my thoughts 💯 agree

[@rg8597]

It would be good so this apologist could stop getting way with sham arguments. The last I heard was the hyperbole war rhetoric argument, which coincidentally enough O’Connor briefly addresses in his opening in this very debate. This apologist doesn’t include that but or respond to it. Wouldn’t you know. Instead he does the ai segment where he says the civilians “departed”. To where? If an entire city was not fortified in ancient times the civilians would flee to the fortified sections of the city. If there’s an established case of them fleeing completely from the city, I’d very much like to see this.

[@temsumongbajamir1582]

@@rg8597 are you one of those "complain box" people?...he literally said he wouldn't be able to address all the objections but would that he considers to be important.

[@rg8597]

@@temsumongbajamir1582 wouldn’t be able how? He’s incapable or is unable? Seems to me he is able to upload a video of any length. He cherry picked where and what’s comfortable to respond to and missed the points that directly challenge his position (under the guise of delegating what’s important). Did you even watch the initial video? That’s generally a good way to start instead of with the ‘response’ video.

[@chesscake2641]

⁠@@temsumongbajamir1582I think their objection goes to the fact that Alex specifically preempted this response in the debate, which this creator chose not to include for… some reason. I think anyone should consider a direct addressing of the very argument they make to be relevant enough to include in the video.

[@johnathanl8396]

It’s so disappointing to have Christian “representatives” that absolutely have not deeply thought through their own beliefs and the arguments of the opposing side - makes ALL of us look foolish when a guy like Dinesh takes up these debates.

[@angru_arches]

Dinesh is a Political commentator... that's his expertise, not Christian apologetics. But he seemed to do really well against Christopher Hitchens, although Hitchens wasn't educated in Christianity or philosophy either...

[@tookie36]

Christianity is a very wide spectrum. Dinesh represents a very prominent segment of Christianity. You can disagree with him but he is a well thought out christian apologist. I personally think he is awful

[@EnglishMike]

@@BrianWright-mi3lc Alex has has WLC on his podcast more than once, and WLC has had plenty discussions and debates with atheists over the years.

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

@@EnglishMike I think Alex is an exception, but either way I'm not saying they never engage with stronger opponents.

[@KayleePrince-we5pb]

@@BrianWright-mi3lc Alex already did talk to WLC and got him to admit that under the chrstian worldview gen0cide isn't wrong, so Alex already destroyed him

[@charvakaelysium2414]

The verses in Leviticus are damning. For a Christian I don't see there is a way out of this. The Bible clearly advocates for slavery.

[@TrueWindigo]

It's not damning. It's just true! We believe in a God that HATES sin. Has anyone read Revelations? It's going to be pretty ugly!

[@charvakaelysium2414]

@@TrueWindigo Even if you could prove the existence of the Christian God I couldn't bring myself to worship this God given that he thinks slavery is ok.

[@TrueWindigo]

@@charvakaelysium2414 I think that is because of our modern understanding of slavery and ignorance of the practice in the Bible the the lack of understanding of the differences. Exodus 21:16 “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. Deuteronomy 24:7 “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. These alone put many of what we understand to be slavery (especially in the west) to rest. That aside there are a whole host of things that are different. Your ability to voluntarily sign up to become one, 7 year minimums, ability to marry into the family, etc. This view of slavery is by far different than what we think when we think of the word "slavery." If you're going to reject on anything it would be best to have a full understanding of said reason.

[@vejeke]

This is the theist dishonesty: when someone points out that the Bible endorses slavery, they start talking about kidnapping and treating others well. It's shocking what religion does to people's minds.

[@vejeke]

This is what the text says: _"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them _*_you may buy slaves._*_ You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and _*_they will become your property._*_ You can bequeath them to your children as _*_inherited property_*_ and _*_can make them slaves for life,_*_ but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."_ - Leviticus 25:44-46 It blows my mind how atheists dare to insinuate from verses like that that the Bible endorses slavery, clearly there is a context there. Don't they realize that if Yahweh did not exist they would not be able to distinguish between right and wrong? Or this one: _"Anyone who _*_beats their male or female slave_*_ with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, _*_but they are not to be punished_*_ if the slave recovers after a day or two, _*_since the slave is their property."_* - Exodus 21:20-21 They must really hate Yahweh, father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to be willing to do such mental gymnastics pretending that the Bible endorses slavery.

[@charlesmaunder]

To quote Alex O'Conner who was paraphrasing Sigmund Freud. "Some times Dinesh, a genocide is just a genocide." Don't put lipstick on a pig.

[@skogstjuven]

lipstick on a pig have you seen my wife xD.

[@theEmBoi]

ironically, sometimes humans are more pigs than pigs, and pigs are more humane than humans

[@radscorpion8]

@@skogstjuven LOLLL

[@johnathanl8396]

Where the heck did Freud say anything that you just said lmao.

[@charlesmaunder]

@@johnathanl8396 "...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

[@JohnnyQuick_]

If the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, or if it does not meaningfully or significantly transcend the various surrounding cultures, or if it’s various extraordinary claims do not have corresponding sufficient confirmatory evidence, or if what can be observed has pushed back on historically accepted interpretations and plain readings of the text, or if there has been no evidence of divine intervention to correct “incorrect” and falsified interpretations, it should be held in no higher esteem than any other ancient text.

[@pillarsofpurpose]

“Stop trusting in mere humans, who have but a breath in their nostrils. Why hold them in esteem?” ‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭2‬:‭22‬

[@pillarsofpurpose]

“Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct-as irrational animals do-will destroy them.” ‭‭Jude‬ ‭1‬:‭10‬

[@Jesi-xn]

@@pillarsofpurpose the absolute bottom of the barrel believer is the one that pulls quotes deep from within their sphincter when they cant use their own fucking brain lmao

[@JohnnyQuick_]

@@pillarsofpurpose - Why hold humans in esteem indeed? If what we read in the bible does not rise above either today’s standards or the standards of literature of the time in which it was written, why should we esteem it as anything more than human writings?

[@pillarsofpurpose]

@@JohnnyQuick_ ♻️ Don’t get caught in the loop brother.

[@dinguskhan8883]

The amount of mental gymnastics that is required to justify the atrocities in the bible is astonishing

[@JaximusJoe]

You just don’t read the Bible correctly

[@mendez704]

@@JaximusJoe "You didn't read the Bible correctly" is one of those acrobatics

[@Wilkins325]

Why do you call them atrocities?

[@Christus-totalis]

@@mendez704if you found an Aztec (human sacrificial religion) like culture today what would you do about it and why?

[@piage84]

​@jax9466 actually, you have to read the bible incorrectly so say that god doesn't like genocide. Christians are masters at misinterpreting the bible and forget about context. They pick and choose words and short verses that in isolation might sound nice.

[@GL_HF_GG]

It would be cool to have a dicussion between Ortlund and Alex

[@ThunderboxMusic]

Gavin you should try to make that happen!

[@Dr.AuMădoare]

no it wouldnt. He would shove in your face the same arguments he does here. I am so tired of the same old arg. !!! Christians can never be original because of the bible. And the bible just hinders their evolution. But if they go beyond the bible...they are no longer Christians..

[@jamesthemuchless]

I absolutely LOVE Alex O'Connor and would love to see you two have a conversation. Alex is a phenomenal dialogue partner in the conversations I've heard him have with others.

[@Tim.Foster123]

Dare I say Alex has a better grasp of the Bible than Dinesh? Dinesh needs to up his game, especially in face of the text saying that Josh & Co went back to Ai and blew it out. Alex is spot-on to say that the remnants in the city were **not** militant people. (If you're rusty on the story, Josh & Co set up an ambush and lured all the military out of Ai and killed them out in the fields. Those remaining in the city were non-combatants) So I really don't think Copan's argument (and Gavin's) passes the smell test here: [+] When Israel had finished killing all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword, all Israel returned to Ai and struck it down with the edge of the sword. And all who fell that day, both men and women, were 12,000, all the people of Ai. But Joshua did not draw back his hand with which he stretched out the javelin until he had devoted all the inhabitants of Ai to destruction. (Joshua 8:24-26) I can maybe see "Let's go to Jericho and blow them all out, men, women and children!" as being some kind of ANE wartime hyperbolic battlecry. But Joshua 8:26 is written as historical description. Challenge for Bible teachers: if the **intent** is not to kill women, why mention them as having **been** (past tense) killed? I think Alex is right to point it out, and Dinesh dropped the ball. - - - - Let's recap God's MO when it comes to judgment: - God personally promises death for men and women who eat one little piece of fruit (Gen 2-3) - God personally destroys 'the world' with water, including women, and children (Gen 7-9) - God personally destroys S&G with fire, including women, and children (Gen 19) - God personally destroys thousands with an angel of death, including women, and firstborn sons (Exod 4-12) - God personally destroys Korah and 250 of his buddies with earthquake, including women and children (Num 16) ...but we recoil in horror when God kills Canaanites with the sword of Joshua, including women and children? I don't think we're taking our Bibles seriously. (while we're at it, check out Luke 13:1-5, where Jesus gives us a piece of His mind)

[@Reloading20]

Obviously. When you watch the debate (assuming they actually upload the video and dinesh doesn't pressure them to not do that), Alex quotes the bible multiple times and Dinesh has no idea what he's talking about.

[@Tim.Foster123]

@@Reloading20 I like Dinesh for a lot of things. Theology is not one of them.

[@piage84]

A lot of Atheists become such after reading and understanding the bible. It's normal that they usually know the bible better

[@piage84]

​@@Tim.Foster123what do you like him for?

[@Tim.Foster123]

@@piage84 its been a while since I've listened to him, but I'm on board with his political views.

[@aghudumokowa241]

By your reasoning, it means no genocide has ever happened because no people have been completely wiped out? No genocide in Rwanda, because the Tutsis still exist.

[@daddyleon]

I think the absense of a response is, in itself, quite telling. I thought he was hoping to help people deal with these hard questions. I think they don't need help: neither the questions nor the answers are hard. They're only hard to swallow if you also want to believe the (traditional) Christian story.

[@Shawn-nq7du]

That is one of 6 arguments he presented. Don't make the fallacy of eliminating the other five.

[@aghudumokowa241]

@@Shawn-nq7du You might be misusing the word fallacy. I pointed out the bad logic in one argument, I've said nothing about the remaining 5.

[@Shawn-nq7du]

@@aghudumokowa241 Fallacy, meaning faulty reasoning, is correctly used because in the six arguments, he explained why it was not a genocide but war. It was discriminate action -- not indiscriminate like genocide. Genocide has to be indiscriminate because the goal is to maximize the wiping out of a people.

[@aghudumokowa241]

@@Shawn-nq7du Do you think the Hutus called what they did to the Tutsis genocide or war? There's a passage in the Bible where God clearly tells the Israelites to wipe out everything on the land of their enemies - combatants, non-combatants, animals. If you want to define it as war and not genocide, feel free, but the idea is what's the problem, not definitions.

[@T1J]

Either God is timeless and perfect and all knowing and all good, or "it was just the way things were back then". The two ideas don't play well together. Regardless of whether people could conceive of a world without slavery, God should have been able to, and he should have had to power to end it immediately, regardless of the social/political ramifications, because ya know, he's God. either he couldn't do it, didn't want to, or the words of the Bible are not divinely inspired

[@MrLordvoldemort101]

Good points and to add on when has the ending of slavery not led to societal ramifications. Abolition led to the Civil War in the US. And what about the slave revolts before that in the US and through out the world? As a Haitian I find his argument about Christians being at the forefront of abolition just odd.

[@zekdom]

Time-stamps 3:55, 4:02 - Dis-chronology can be a thing; it can be acceptable within a literary genre. 4:27, 4:40 - rounding numbers and exactitude 5:00 - Even John Calvin recognizes that the “Evangelists” were not exact with dates. 6:32 - Gavin’s point: literary genre matters. 10:32 - Alex quotes Matthew 5 10:57 - Gavin’s point: Jesus has a high view of the First Testament. 12:31 - Gavin’s view of hyperbole concerning warfare in the First Testament 13:09, 13:33 - Gavin’s six reasons 21:00, 22:23 - slavery 28:04 - Gregory and the image of God

[@libraryofaviking]

Hi Gavin, I have been binge listening to your videos for the past month. I stumbled on your channel as I wanted to learn more about Roman Catholicism (I am a protestant) after seeing so many influencers converting. Just wanted to let you know that your videos have strengthen my faith and taught me so much. I always mention William Lane Craig, John Lennox, C.S. Lewis, Justin Brierley and Lee Strobel as some of the apologists that have shaped my faith and mind. I will add your name to that list! Please keep up the good work and hope to see you in debates soon. God bless you!

[@Christian-ut2sp]

Haha this is such a great moment. One of my favourite booktubers interacting with one of my favourite apologists. God bless you both

[@marksmale827]

If you want to learn more about something, go to the horse's mouth, not what outsiders say about it. Borrow a copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church from your local library - or get one at a second-hand bookshop.

[@WilliamMorrison-rp6ws]

Did not expect to see you here, but I did know you were a Christian! I am glad you have been blessed by this channel, and keep up the good work with your channel exposing so many to great fantasy stories.

[@juboy04]

@@marksmale827 sigh 😔. Give it a rest

[@marksmale827]

@@juboy04 Hardline Protestants bang on about their views relentlessly, so why shouldn’t others?

[@evanmontesofcolthrone]

First O'Conner gets Ben Shapiro to declare God as immoral (in a certain topic), and now he makes D'Souza do the same. This is absolutely horrendous. It's a knockout punch. Believers should never ever declare God as immoral to save face when getting plummeted in a debate.

[@GloriaExelcisDeo]

They aren't equipped enough to understand that God *is* morality, whatever he commands becomes moral. The statement could be made that in his all knowing ability, leaving those groups alive at the time would have led to another flood scenario. Humans being depraved and disobedient is a core aspect of the old testament

[@Alien1375]

​@@GloriaExelcisDeo So God is flip flopping when it comes to morality.

[@GloriaExelcisDeo]

@@Alien1375 no. Jesus himself says that the only reason divorce was allowed was because of hardened hearts, but God hated divorce as he created man and woman to be together as partners. After the promise to Noah, he will no longer fully destroy all populations again. The tribes of Canaan were no less than Babylon and Sodom and Gomorrah.

[@samueljennings4809]

@AlexDestroyerOfEarth I think a better way of explaining this is that God knows that the alternative would have been a worse evil. I don’t think that phrasing it like “whatever God says is good” without any explanation really helps. Such an explanation must include why the situation at hand is not good, then argue that God as the ultimate good rectifies it in a way for the people in question to get it. It isn’t only about technically being correct but also about presenting it in a way that doesn’t allow for any misunderstanding.

[@SydneyBell-eh6je]

It demonstrates that there is a cognitive dissonance that many religious people suffer from, all Alex is doing is simply getting them to admit what they already believe and would need to believe if they want to be consistent. The moment you start trying to justify immoral actions by saying "it's not immoral if god does it" it reveals the persons bias and inconsistent view, for them the words moral and immoral loose all meaning Essentially you're saying the reason that believers shouldn't declare god as immoral isn't because he's not immoral but simply because they aren't allowed to even if he is

[@bradleymarshall5489]

I love Dinesh as a brother in Christ but Dinesh is a terrible representative of Christianity. His apologetic style is always very lacking and his staunch pro war position is contrary to the love of Christ

[@lukyguy1240]

Worse than that is his whole marriage fiasco.

[@angru_arches]

What do you mean "staunch pro war position"? Coz war is the domain of good governments and the government doesn't bear the sword in vain....and our Lord is not a pacifist. What exactly is your criticism to his view with regards to war.

[@angru_arches]

​@@lukyguy1240 what marriage fiasco? Is it criticism on his personal life or a controversial stance he takes on marriage?

[@lukyguy1240]

@@angru_arches He took up a relationship with a woman while still married to his wife (but he denies sexual relations), then divorced his wife and married this new woman.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

@@angru_arches his pro interventionism and imperialism. The founding fathers (especially the devout Christians like Dickinson, Henry, Sherman, Witherspoon and Washington) were pretty clear in warning us against Empire and how it would compromise our values at home. As Howard Buffet once put it, “Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics.”

[@commanderchair]

coach needs to put Ortlund out on the field

[@BillyBob-sm3ku]

Amen 😂

[@TheAeolas]

The result would be the same... You can't defeat reason.

[@radscorpion8]

@@TheAeolas You'd be surprised the kinds of "acrobatics" Christians can perform

[@MoNtYbOy101]

Gavin don’t want that smoke

[@AnalyticalSceptic]

I do not found this convincing. I do not care if not all where killed, but text clearly says women, children and animals. So in this case Gavin says language of complete destruction should not be interpreted as it says in the text; but on the other hand when texts are talking about eternal destruction of goats/unbelivers then it is ok? This looks like cherry picking to me.

[@lukeverble5999]

The Bible is a compilation of various texts: stories, historical records, letters, poems, songs, etc. They were also written by different writers, during different points in history, with different intended audiences. Additionally, we read these texts through the eyes of our own culture and experience which can skew the meaning of the words. All of these things are important to consider when you're reading the Bible. We wouldn't consider this cherry picking if we were reading a history book, Shakespeare, or the lyrics to a song. If you read these things and don't consider their context and who wrote them you'll quickly find those things also losing their meaning/message.

[@senorbb2150]

@@lukeverble5999 Unfortunately, for many Christians and apologists, the use of the term "cherry picking' is a strategy of avoidance. If the Bible is considered to be the word of God, then we should be able to examine any specific part of it and judge it as to its historicity and morale value and what that implies as far as God is concerned. Dinesh utterly failed and Gavin, while not denying them, does all he can to downplay the horrors of these particular verses.

[@NoahLewis-m4s]

@@lukeverble5999 Please give the context where it would be morally justifiable in your eyes for God to instruct them to kill the children. Also of course we don't consider it cherry picking in history books or Shakespeare because those are not instructing you on how to live your life. They're of much less significance...

[@PS-ej2xn]

I found this video even more hypocritical and offensive than Dinesh' nonsense.

[@ABHISHEK3960]

​@@PS-ej2xnThis is a very good video for atheists to watch. Gavin is wholesome

[@kaizah1997]

As an atheist, I do appreciate your attempt to defend the text, and even though I don't find your arguments thoroughly solving these contentious issues and modern morality could find more compelling arguments, I'd like to see you in a formal debate, as I think you'd present much more sound counter-arguments and actually have a productive discussion, because to be fair, Dinesh and Alex was pretty one sided, all I heard from Dinesh is dancing around the question or finding clownish answers that made me cringe.

[@anglicanaesthetics]

"I was so gripped by Gregory of Nyssa in 379AD" Gavin is waaaaay oldee than he looks :P Good video brother. This is helpful!

[@housecry]

Gavin, I hope you get the opportunity to talk with Alex. God bless you, brother.

[@temsumongbajamir1582]

U got my vote

[@MrSeedi76]

Alex shouldn't get more platform than he already has. From an academic standpoint his arguments are laughable at best. Let's keep Alex in the atheist bubble where he belongs. I think Christians should stop trying to convince these people who have shut off their hearts to Christ and are so convinced of all their made-up little arguments they use to "win a debate". Honestly I think this whole debate culture is doing more harm than good. I cringe when I hear Alex' arguments. He claims he has studied theology but I see none of it. I studied theology and if I was an atheist, I'd have better arguments against Christianity than anything that Alex ever came up with. Ever since he decided to model himself after Hitchens, his content became unbearably cringe.

[@littlesquiddiesttv]

⁠@@MrSeedi76I dont believe he ever decided to model himself after Hitchens, he never stated this publicly nor does he carry the same fundamental beliefs other than the general ones such as atheism. He has also been pretty critical of Hitchens in the past compared to almost every other prevalent atheist today.

[@charlesledbetter907]

​@MrSeedi76 your ignorance is laughable.

[@jamesconnorcrosby1159]

@@MrSeedi76please enlighten us with your vastly superior understanding of theology

[@stefanolacchin4963]

The ever increasing amount of mental gymnastics you guys have to submit yourselves to, in order to keep the house of cards that is the bible standing, is absolutely hilarious.

[@danhochberg9845]

Actually not that hard. Scripture is not inerrant, it's a product of human beings giving their understanding at the time of what God was about. As we move to the New Testament there is a much better understanding of God due to the divine presence of Jesus. His teachings supersede the Okd Testament whenever they don't agree.

[@stefanolacchin4963]

@@danhochberg9845 it's a product of human beings alright. And indeed, the ethics and morality evolved from the old to the new testament reflecting the evolution of human moral sense. Certainly not the other way around. I was raised a Catholic and it took me my whole life to undo the brainwashing. I wish everyone could step out of their own narrative for a minute and just take a look at how disingenuous and silly this kind of view of divinity is.

[@TheHuxleyAgnostic]

​@@danhochberg9845 Jesus believed in the flat domed earth model, and in the fictional global flood. He was an ignrnt carpenter turned apocalypse preacher.

[@michaelyeboah7789]

​@@danhochberg9845in other words "lets forget whatever god did in the old testament and not take it too serious"

[@TreeBeother]

Even in this video😂

[@jonasj2627]

I would love to see a conversation between you and Alex.

[@temsumongbajamir1582]

Yeah that'd be great.

[@thegreatballplayer1]

I second this

[@jmorra]

Alex is fair and wise.

[@michaelyeboah7789]

No one taking the justification stance is winning that debate against Alex. I dont care whom it will be.

[@temsumongbajamir1582]

@@michaelyeboah7789 i too don't see you or Alex ever defining "justice"

[@bigdavexx1]

I think you and Alex would be a good discussion, because I think you both put priority on intellectual honesty. With respect to your argument that encouraging slaves to revolt would result in undesirable outcomes (like violence and perhaps suffering from economic disruption), I think the harder question is why the owners of slaves aren't instructed to free them.

[@The07vinny]

Well slave trading is not permissible (1 tim 1:10) but the concept of slavery is outlawed with passages like Love your neighbour and the fact that we are made in image of by God. Also Paul asks Philemon to take onesimis back as more than a slave. However, we must accept that slavery was a part of the political and economic reality. Telling a master to free slaves would not have made sense to them because they did not understand as well as we do now the concept of love. Love is a positive law which is why it can always be better. We can always love our neighbour better and I’m sure there are many things that are politically and socially acceptable now that in many years time we look back at and think, “why did God not give a specific commandment against that”?

[@bigdavexx1]

@@The07vinny , I don't think God would be constrained by the political and economic reality.

[@The07vinny]

@@bigdavexx1 God meets us where we are at. I agree with you and don’t think God is constrained by the political and economic reality.

[@VincentTorleyYKH]

Hi Dr. Ortlund. Just for the record: there were societies in antiquity in which slavery was not practiced. In "he Dawn of Everything," David Graeber and David Wenbow assert that "slavery of any sort was a fairly unusual institution among indigenous peoples of the Americas" (Penguin Books, 2022, p. 187). And while St. Gregory of Nyssa did courageously denounce the injustice of slavery itself, his contemporaries, the Church Fathers St. Basil of Caesarea and St. Gregory of Nazianzen, were slaveholders. Among all Christian writers in the first millennium, only one (Abbot Smaragdus of St. Mihiel) agreed with St. Gregory of Nyssa's opinion that slavery was inherently immoral. See "All Oppression Shall Cease" (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2022) by Fr. Christopher Kellerman S.J. Cheers.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

Totally different: only young boys that could be trained were taken captive or young women for wives. Everyone else was killed to diminish the threat of other tribes. They did have Slaves but very few were that lucky NOT to be killed outright. Resources were limited and they didn't want to provide for a large group that would be a good reason for a revenge attack.

[@gates762x6]

Dinesh was slaughtered in that debate, did not come prepared. Alex was on point as usual

[@thejavilobby]

While I'm an athiest and disagree with the Bible. I must say that i enjoyed watching your video. It was refreshing hearing an apologist who is genuin and truly trying to understand the athiestic objections. Your persona is calm, well received, and comforting. Normally, I roll my eyes hearing apologists misrepresenting or doing backflips. But i didn't feel like you did that once in this video. Thank you

[@HeBrews-Coffee]

I mean he is straight up lying in portions of this video. The passages in the Old Testament explicitly command the slaughtering of all non-combatants -- not simply a total military victory. He is lying and jumping through hoops trying to avoid this fact.

[@ignatiousjasentes1658]

​@@HeBrews-Coffee Didn't he talk about that?

[@HeBrews-Coffee]

@@ignatiousjasentes1658 Yes and he is being disingenuous.

[@MossssMoth]

As an Atheist you are one of my favourite Christian yt channels because you understand that atheists are thinking creatures and not some evil thing, I hope more people (on all sides) can be like you.

[@TruthUnites]

thanks for watching!

[@travtotheworld]

It seems to me we really overcomplicate this issue. Alex is closest to getting it right when he says, "God is allowed to do this because he's God." Why is it wrong to kill? Because we belong to God. Why is it wrong to enslave? Because we belong to God. If God orders killing or enslavement, he is ordering an act done by his property to his property. That's why killing and slavery are wrong outside of God's direction. I'm curious what Alex means when he says God is telling us to ignore our moral intuition. Who does he mean by "us?" Clearly not humanity, which practices slavery and killing universally. The "intuition" of humanity is slavery. The "intuition" of humanity is genocide. Alex is taking the modern world built by Christian ethics and presuming it to be the natural order of things.

[@Eliza-rg4vw]

His point is that God's will being goodness is not intuitive. This is only brought up as while yes, you can justify God's actions this way quite easily, it also seems to then uproot the key evidence for the moral argument. This argument tries to take advantage of our shared intuitions as proof of moral order which we are now being told do not actually accurately reflect the truth of morality. So which is it- do our intuitions prove a moral order or do they not?

[@travtotheworld]

@@Eliza-rg4vw When you say "our" intuitions, to whom are you referring? As I said in my previous comment, clearly HUMANITY'S moral intuition does not say that slavery and genocide are wrong because for 99% of history 99% of people did not share that intuition. The moral argument for God should be that our shared intuition of morality existing is evidence for a moral authority, however intuition alone doesn't reveal the parameters of that morality. It's similar to the experience of hunger being evidence for the existence of food even though it doesn't tell us what specifically healthy food is.

[@Eliza-rg4vw]

@@travtotheworld if we arent proving the parameters for morality, then we havent hit the "objective morality" we need for the moral argument yet. Without that, it's just saying that our sense of morality comes from somewhere which.. yeah I'll agree to that lol The intuition is important because it's trying to highlight specifically (possible) objective values, not just the existence of values themselves. Wdym by humanity's intuition? I would not think many people intuit slavery = good, unless you are generalizing? Even then that still seems to be a wild claim. Your point about 99% of human history not sharing this intuition does also strike me as a point against objective moral values, proven via intuition at least. Why would expect this dramatic of a change if they were truly objective? At the very least, it makes our intuitions look radically untrustworthy as per what morals are objectively correct. The most wed be able to get here, again, is that our intuitions come from somewhere. Though that's hardly evidence for God as much as it is any system which reports to have an explanation for our sense of morality.

[@tomasrocha6139]

"Why is it wrong to enslave? Because we belong to God?" No, both the bible and the Church Fathers were pro-slavery. According to Augustine, God approved of the flogging of disobedient slaves: "You must use the whip, use it! God allows it. Rather, he is angered if you do not lash the slave. But do it in a loving and not a cruel spirit." John Chrysostom wrote that "to discipline and punish ignorant slaves is a great accolade, and not a perchance commendation". Tertullian condemned the Marcionites for their advocacy of the liberation of slaves: "what is more unrighteous, more unjust, more dishonest, than to benefit a foreign slave in such a way as to take him away from his master, claim him who is someone else's property". You're just projecting modern anti-slavery values into Christianity and presuming they're based on Christian ethics, when they're diametrically opposed. Killing has always been generally forbidden everywhere and Christians have as much blood on their hands as anyone else so Christianity is wholly unexceptional in that respect.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

​@Eliza-rg4vw you do realize that Mankind fell in the Garden of Eden and this corruption is why Slavery became a worldwide practice. It has nothing to do with God's objective morality existing. Humans will always fall short of these objective morals in their different subjecive cultural morals that Humans developed. God works with people in their time period and technology. One example : the unborn were NOT consistent fully Human in the sense of requiring a death sentence if they were injured resulting in death. A financial penalty was required. This is brought up as a Biblical objection as to the unborn being treated as fully human in our modern abortion debate. But we NOW have the medical ability to save the unborn even long before the mother is due. Killing a baby when it's possible to save the life is only possible in our modern time period. And why the ancient financial fine is totally unacceptable today. If I cased the death of an unborn child: then it could be considered murder today as they Are viable with modern medicine. So there R objective morals of NOT killing the innocent but that can only be expanded to the unborn in our modern time period. Slavery was a result of wars that happened every spring in the ancient world and these wars have been greatly reduced in modern times with modern economies that don't depend on Slave labor to function and because of Christianity that pushed to end Slavery in the West. There is still Slavery but not in Western countries with a Christian heritage.

[@adrano_]

Hopefully a dialogue between the two of you will arise in the future

[@jdnlaw1974]

Dinesh’s mistake in this debate was finally being honest about what the Bible actually says.

[@Telorchid]

Gavin, I think you need to press in to what you said around 18:15. There is a brutal power the Israelites were opposing, which was the marriage of the dark powers (rebellious elohim) and the nations. It is not just a matter of the Canaanites and others as some kind of 'ANE Nazis' - the spiritual dimension of it all needs to be acknowledged. I don't think every apologist needs to agree with Heiser (may he rest in peace) on every nuance of his Deuteronomy 32 worldview, but there is a spiritual war going on in these passages alongside the physical one. That's why the giant clans, rephaim, apkallu and other associated concepts are important to the narrative (all of which involve at some level demonic-human intermarriage), just as much as general critiques of idolatry and pagan religion, but apologists often ignore them. This actually dovetails very well with Jesus's defeat of the powers and His role as the Bridegroom. It may well be that warfare (of a certain kind - related to geography and cultural/religious identity - NOT DNA or ethnicity) was permitted once the nations were fully under the control of the powers, but after that grip has been loosed by the victory of the cross, the whole Earth belongs to Christians in and through the Messiah, who are victorious through self-offering - the shedding of their own blood. Law and order is the role of the governments, and invasions may be resisted, but there is no further need for any kind of military conquest by God's people.

[@natewolfs]

Why wasn't "Thous shalt not have another person as your slave" in the Ten Commandments? Certainly, it's even more abhorrent as "Thou shalt not steal/bear false witness." The answer is that the commandments came from men, not God, and the men of the time felt that having slaves was a good thing.

[@ProfYaffle]

"I want to talk with Alex O'Connor" 😃

[@mmerri9780]

Good luck. He will pick any apologist apart in the most polite way

[@masterjose8483]

@mmerri9780 your out of your fuc**** minded if you believe that shit 🤣🤣🤣

[@jty1999]

It's been said a lot already, but many of us would love to see you and Alex have a good, productive conversation. God bless, Dr. Ortlund, thank you for your ministry.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

Edit: Alex O'Connor did a really great probing interview w/ Jordan Peterson. He seemed to ask the best questions to Jordan about his belief in God and got clearer answers than most get. I had no idea that person was an atheist, because he didn't appear as such, at least in the clip I saw titled: "Did Jesus *Actually* Exit His Tomb? - Jordan Peterson". I'll have to watch the full interview.

[@charlesmaunder]

Peterson's views change as a matter of convenience.

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@charlesmaunder I've found Peterson to be remarkably consistent. If someone does show a bit of flexibility, and is willing to be proved wrong, then that's not a terrible thing either. Can you think of anything he's changed his mind on? It wouldn't be the end of the world if he did, but I can't think of anything.

[@23Hiya]

So just to put all the cards on the table up front: I left Christianity about 5 years ago now and I'm not entirely sure why this video came up in my feed, but I'm impressed by your tone. The more bombastic the apologist the more intense is my gag reflex, so I appreciate your style. I work in a factory so I'm not imagining that my questions are groundbreaking, but I do want to ask them on the off chance that there are good answers to be had. 1. I appreciate that ancient people didn't have standards or practices like modern people do for history, but it seems wierd to abandon our modern standards. It seems like the standards for writing history shifted for some justifiable set of reasons and the style we see in the Bible is not what we are familiar with today because it didn't meet the community's or society's needs. When I think about contemporary examples of history that are like what you describe as the ancient norm, I think of things that are or skew in the direction of what we today call propaganda. Timelines and exact details are massaged to make the author's point and convince the reader to interpret their world in particular way. There are things we can learn from propaganda about history, what seems to have simply taken place, but obviously we ought to treat it differently than something that aspires to just give you a simple blow by blow of events. So my question would be something like, why isn't the clear intent of the New Testament authers to convince the reader that Jesus fulfilled prophesy and so forth something that should make us more cautious about their claims? I feel like I should be treating them more like Michael Moore than Ken Burns. 2. I'm in no position to litigate what ancient war language meant or how people would have taken it. It does seem implausible to me that the ancient world was less vicious in war than the modern one. I was talking with a friend the other day who read a book about the rape of nanking, for example. I'm not gonna be very open to the idea that the ancient Israelites were carefully selecting military targets and leaving everyone else alone. But my question is why does God choose to judge evil in this way? You didn't really argue with the notion that God chose Israel and was at least role playing the tribal war God to exact violent judgement on the inhabitants of the land. There are all sorts of ways to turn people from their behavior and God demonstrates all kinds of strategies for doing this throughout the Bible. He also demonstrates that He will set up ugly situations to display something. The hardening of pharoah, or the man born blind, etc. I don't know that there's a final answer to this question, but to me it looks like unnecessary and often hideous spectacle. 3. The slavery one is the simplest for me. Why not offer even a phrophetic image of a society without slavery? Even Paul who talks about breaking down all sorts of social barriers frames even our relation to God with the image of slavery. "Who will you serve?" Again, I don't know that there could be an answer, but it feels like a terrifying ommission considering that there are actual descriptions of divinely sanctioned slavery in the text. That people found resources within the Christian tradition to attack slavery doesn't necessarily mean the Bible condemns the institution. It could be that being enslaved sucks and people born into a Christian world had to figure out how to speak in terms the culture would accept. Anywho, for what it's worth, good on ya, and thanks for reading this far.

[@johnhammond6423]

A simple question. Why couldn't God just spell it out in plain language and not have people like you and D'Souza go through hoops to try to justify the horrible despot of the God of the Bible.

[@logicweaver7152]

The problem with your argument of 'complete destruction' doesn't mean genocide is that the Biblical God regrets and is enraged when Saul let some amalakites go. Your arguments can easily be refuted - God did mean genocide, but the people were unable to accomplish it.

[@bakedbeans5494]

Then why are the Amalekites still alive in 1 Samuel 30 and if you bothered to read further in chapter 15, God was talking about the animals. Reading Deut 9:3-5 proves 1 Samuel 15 is hyperbolic.

[@cnachopchopnewsagency]

As an agnostic, i think for whole my life, YOU are the only one that i find on the Christian camp that can debate issues with rationale and evidences. I can sit down and listen to your arguments because it is not just "you need to have faith way of debate" or aggresive bulldoze way. But you are different. A new breath. Will look forward more of your videos discussion.

[@TheHuxleyAgnostic]

What "evidence"?

[@michaelyeboah7789]

I think you will find your seat on fire in a debate with Alex on this topic. No sane person can absolutely justify those horrors. That shows how terrible it is. All you can say is "fuck it, god does whatever he wants" and that will be more understandable.

[@chottstuff]

I swear thats what most christian apologists want to say. "god is perfect and what he does is perfect and if you dont like it then you dont understand god" except they wrap that sentiment up in the language of debate.

[@Atomus242]

Lots of christians out there are willing to sacrifice their own humanity and empathy to justify the bloody horrors of their favorite fictional character. And honestly that makes me be scared of them. I hope to never in my life encounter one of those hidden monsters

[@TimTheEnchanter170]

Would have been just as embarrassing to watch you debate Alex. It's crazy how much mental gymnastics you did in this video.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

This was a bad debate for Dinesh. Alex did appear as being well prepared, while Dinesh's arguments, though some were not all bad, others were not well developed or thought through. Dinesh was nearly all on defense in the debate, which doesn't look good. In other debates and forums Dinesh fares better; this one was just sloppy

[@temsumongbajamir1582]

I would love to see him in a political debate but not in a theological debate for sure

[@saintejeannedarc9460]

@@temsumongbajamir1582 I used to watch him a lot for political content. I may have seen him do a debate, but can't remember for sure. I think he'd be a great debater, but this isn't his wheelhouse. I saw a clip of Alex w/ Jordan Peterson, probing into whether Christ rose from the dead. It wasn't a debate, and it didn't even seem Alex was taking an atheist position. He did get some very good direct answers out of Peterson, simply w/ probing. It didn't even appear as pushback or argument, just questions in the clip (from a long interview w/ Peterson).

[@malirk]

@@temsumongbajamir1582 Dinesh doesn't do better in political debates. It's just there isn't philosophy in political debates, it's a team sport. Dinesh just gets a home team crowd and dunks on liberals. He couldn't win a debate on religion against a trained philosopher.

[@tdb517]

@@temsumongbajamir1582 DInesh is just like Ben Shapiro, he surfes on the hate of leftists and college liberals and only scratches the surface of an actual reasonning. When confronted to real intellectual like O'Connor, they just crumble.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

​@@saintejeannedarc9460 he did a debate with Hitchens a while back and fared better there than in this debate

[@Bossofyou]

Watching Atheists win debates over theists is my favourite content on KZbin. Alex is brilliant :)

[@johnhammond6423]

Yep and this one was one of the best.

[@candidepangloss]

It is not fair.... Dinesh never won a debate....

[@User_5tjk42gj9]

How can an atheist call anything immoral? They don't believe in good or evil beyond their own opinions.

[@weedlol]

Because morality is a combination of preference and empathy. Both exist in nature, for animals and humans. Hence things can be immoral in a non-spiritual worldview.

[@Bugsy0333]

So what you're telling me is that your belief in an invisible supernatural entity allows you to believe in good or bad ? Please demonstrate for all of us watching how you are able to do that ?

[@User_5tjk42gj9]

@weedlol That is relative, and therefore useless. Why should anyone prescribe to your idea on right or wrong? It is just your opinion. There is nothing immoral in action and reaction. Is it immoral to crush a rock? Animals don't have a concept of morality. Do you consider a lion eating a gazelle alive to be evil?

[@User_5tjk42gj9]

@Bugsy0333 Im telling you that your morality comes from religion, and you are a fool to attack the very source of your idea of good or evil. Your position is self-defeating and contradictory.

[@TurinTuramber]

Super easily, morality is social construct, it's a subjective consensus rooted in Naturalism.

[@ryana1787]

Where can someone watch the full debate? I saw about half then it was set to private on pangburn.

[@coreybeltran]

They are still editing it. They responded via tweet because people were speculating Dinesh had it taken down because he is so petty.

[@ryana1787]

@@coreybeltran understood, thanks!

[@Raadpensionaris]

It is out

[@SilverHand619]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/i36unItuprd7qdk

[@jdnlaw1974]

“I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” Isaiah 45:7

[@basedsigmalifter9482]

Evil is a bad translation. Should be calamity or disaster.

[@jdnlaw1974]

@@basedsigmalifter9482 Of course, because you simply don’t like what it says.

[@basedsigmalifter9482]

@@jdnlaw1974 Modern scholars would disagree with you. Are you a KJV onlyist? Because almost every single other translation, even the NKJV does not say evil. You are just cherry-picking to try to make a point, and it is dishonest. The KJV is not the best translation we have, appealing to it for the most accurate translation is like getting your periodic table of elements from a chemist 400 years ago.

[@jdnlaw1974]

@@basedsigmalifter9482 I’m not cherry picking anything. Shit, just read 2 Samuel or damn near any other Old Testament book, any version or translation you choose, and you can see God’s evil in action yourself.

[@sunflare8798]

I think many miss on the fact that Alex is Oxford educated. He is not your average twenty year old, even though he looks like one. Underestimate him at your own peril

[@yvichenj333]

There's no doubt that this KZbin Playlist will serve as a reference guide to future debates both online and in homes. Thanks for building this precious resource for us and posterity. God bless your work.

[@jeremytencza6107]

WTF. Gavin- "How could you possibly think you could own someone (if you acknowledge that we are made in the image of God)??? Ummmm....maybe because GOD HIMSELF SAID YOU COULD IN LEV. 25:44-46!!!!

[@Jonjzi]

Interestingly enough, Alex references Ephesians 6:5, even though he admits he doesn't know the citation. If he read through to verse 9, he would see that Paul tells Masters to treat your slaves the same way. Wait, what? Is Paul telling masters to serve their slaves as if they were serving God? Hmm, why is that exactly? Oh, well fortunately Paul clarifies that the reason for this is the fact that God is in fact the master of them both! And furthermore, that God shows no favoritism, essentially saying that they are equal. That's pretty radical if you ask me.

[@weedlol]

All Ephesians 6:9 (nice) says is not to threaten them, they are still classified and treated as slaves. "Essentially equal" in this case means 'well, they're not slaves in a spiritual sense, ignore the leash and whip'.

[@Jonjzi]

@@weedlol it says to "treat them the same." The same as what? The same as what he just wrote in the preceding 4 verses.

[@weedlol]

@@Jonjzi (NIV) Ephesians 6:5-9 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." Again, no denouncement of actual slavery, simply the acknowledge of spiritual equality. If that's your position then I would agree. But (intentionally or not) you make it sound as though they are literally equal and undermining actual slavery.

[@Jesi-xn]

Oh boy you would've LOVEDDDDDDDDDDDDD plessy vs. ferguson

[@Alieth]

@@Jesi-xn”separate but equal” as if that’s any better lol

[@tims3247]

Thanks Gavin for adding your voice to this topic! I hope Alex sees this and is up for engaging in debate with you too. I think that conversation could do a lot of good. Thanks for the video!

[@Athanasius242]

What's interesting is that in Alex's criticism of slavery in the Bible (based on the clip shown here) he says that figures like MLK is mistreating the text by using new ideas and reading them back into the text. Nevertheless, he's asking Dinesh to give a verse to give to a slave master in America. He is doing the exact same thing that he's accusing MLK and others of doing. He's applying modern (transatlantic) slavery to the slavery described in the Bible. It's the same way he applied modern measurements for determining whether something is historically accurate to the Gospels.

[@dodumichalcevski]

Its the same thing Owning another human as property.

[@Athanasius242]

@dodumichalcevski one person is paying off a debt that he owes, one person is stolen from their country and taken to another country to serve as cattle.

[@Athanasius242]

@whoisfrance touche', which is why I said based on the clip shown. But if the wider context leads to a different representation, I'm happy to concede

[@dodumichalcevski]

@@Athanasius242 Please stop lying The slavery in the Bible was owning another human as property. Read the Bible

[@carstation2672]

Great video as always

[@charlesledbetter907]

Alex would whoop your ass in a debate. You cant argue with logic. I know yall will try, but like always yall will fail.

[@morfitnessinfo]

Hey Gavin, Appreciate your work here and thoroughly enjoy it and am edified as well. On the issue of slavery I just finished up Noll's "The Civil War as Theological Crisis." I'd recommend the read to look at the American/European Protestant responses to slavery (and Catholic responses too) at the time of the civil war! Perhaps there may be something helpful in there along this theme of topic and videos. Particularly, I wonder if Noll would challenge your claim in this video that it was predominately Christians that championed abolitionism, although, they did certainly play a significant role. My knowledge is limited in this respect as I learn from you, but I'll let Noll speak for himself on this. Anyway thank you for your work and irenicism, brother!

[@donatist59]

Dinesh actually wrote a book where he talks about me. He got so many easily checked facts wrong, I will never trust a word he says.

[@drummerhq2263]

Prove it? You are lying for sure!!

[@FuddlyDud]

Could you maybe give an example so we can understand what he did? :)

[@dippy9119]

Would love to see you and Alex O'Connor have this discussion.

[@Nonreligeousthiestic]

""The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman mixed into a large amount of flour until the yeast worked its way through"

[@curtishall6118]

Gavin, this was a great video! A clear articulation of slavery & genocide in the Bible ending with pointing out the fact the Jesus became a slave for us! Thanks for making these and please keep going!

[@dbarker7794]

To the Christian apologists: Have you given away all your money, like Jesus instructed? The host of this channel looks materially comfortable.

[@jackburn275]

I did a decade ago, fully willing to lead a pauper's I've been blessed since. Much like Job. Don't misunderstand, I'm a Christian, not a Biblican. I believe in following the red letters in the redletter version (aka the Jefferson Bible). The OT view the nature of God is through a glass Very darkly. They didn't understand much, when it comes down to it.

[@natanaelbalogh1171]

Having a phone from which you wrote this comment, you clearly didn't give away all your money.

[@natanaelbalogh1171]

@@jackburn275 Ok; so you believe what you want, ignoring Paul, Peter and other men through which God performerd unbelievable miracles. Good luck with that worldview!

[@federicoguerrera5535]

Does anyone know where I can see the original debate?

[@nyakabb2472]

Pangburn

[@SilverHand619]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/i36unItuprd7qdk

[@notavailable4891]

Can dinesh not be out there representing our side ever? I'm sure he is a fine human being, but he needs to be very far from the public stage.

[@WaterCat5]

Oh, he is not a fine human being. Don't worry

[@benjaminledford6111]

From your lips to God's ears.

[@TurinTuramber]

Funny how you would need "specialists" to cover up the sanctioned genocide. This God mind virus has you on the side of a genocidal megalomaniac.

[@soaringeagle5227]

I’m a Christian and a fan of both Dinesh and Alex. I watched the full debate last night and I was extremely disappointed in Dinesh. I was embarrassed for him. He wasn’t prepared at all and deflected by way of delegating to different sources. Heck I had better answers than his. I think Alex showed up prepared and organised. He did much better. I wish Alex would come to faith.

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

That emphasis on literary genre is so important, and often so neglected. As I've engaged more with the critical perspectives and challenges to Christianity it's become larger and larger in my mind as a hermeneutical lens. Well crafted and thoughtful video as always, Gavin.

[@WaterCat5]

Then ask yourself what is the probability of an all-loving God obscuring his message of salvation behind culturally specific literary genres.

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

@@WaterCat5 I do not think the message of salvation is obscured at all.

[@WaterCat5]

@@BrianWright-mi3lc That's cool for you, but it is obscured for many people, myself included. For me, it doesn't seem like the best idea to create the guide to salvation for all humans within a specific cultural context at a specific time. Seems like a bad idea, no?

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

@@WaterCat5 The obfuscation isn't in the message, it is in our own hearts. Rom 1:18-25, Jeremiah 17:9. The message of salvation is simple: We are not robots and God is no tyrant, we were given a choice to trust God or to do things our own way (sin) and we chose sin. When someone disobeys, there are consequences. We are all guilty in this before God. But God loved us in that while we were still guilty, He sent His only son Jesus, the guiltless one, to die in our place that in Him we may be reconciled to God and live with him forever. He gave many proofs in the form of miracles and fulfilled prophecy, culminating in the greatest miracle of all: the resurrection. He was witnessed by hundreds of his followers who were entrusted with the mission of spreading this good news to all the world. We have a historical event to point to in the resurrection of Christ. This is our hope and God's promise. These things took place at their proper moment in history, according to the will of God. What would you suggest as a better plan? That we not be made in the first place? That we be robots unable of making a choice on our own? I understand that people struggle with this. Continue to earnestly seek the truth, whatever it may be.

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

@@WaterCat5 Not sure what happened to my other comment but the obfuscation is in the heart, not the message: Romans 1:18-25, Jeremiah 17:9 I understand you do not think God's plan was a good one. What should it have been?

[@changing_thoughts80]

The problem I see with your counter-arguments is that you're implicitly rejecting biblical inerrancy and negotiating in context that most Christians either are unaware of or would disagree with, and which is completely absent from the text. Just cos total erasure of a people didn't happen doesn't mean it wasn't genocide and just cos it might not have happened like it says doesn't change the fact that the bible says God commanded it.

[@JLCProductions1976]

The Bible is historical, but it’s also a historical artifact that must be dealt with in terms of its historical context.

[@dodumichalcevski]

Its not Its fictional

[@FactStorm]

You mean the amalgamated book which starts with a talking snake? 🤡 Pathetic, gullible theists!

[@JLCProductions1976]

@@dodumichalcevski fictive, like all historical narratives.

[@korbendallas5318]

4:15 So the Bible is written with a certain readership in mind. Can we expect an update soon?

[@thomassandoval8025]

Alex O'Connor continues to argue that murdering innocent children is wrong. I would like someone to ask him if he supports abortion before accepting his thoughts on the morality of killing children.

[@GospodinStanoje]

I believe he said he doesn't have a strong stance on this one but that he feels it's maybe one of his blind spots or things he could be wrong about for not carimg or understanding fully.

[@lilkurva180]

@@GospodinStanoje Sounds like a cop out for "either way I answer my position is criticized" and he wants to hold a good image. He says he supports it, his atheistic worldview is easily challenged and mocked, he's against it and his atheist supporters turn on him for not holding what they believe is the correct opinion. A man as educated as him without a doubt holds an opinion on it, especially considering its prevalence within modern society and consistently brought up with religion. Massive dodge.

[@GospodinStanoje]

@@lilkurva180 I agree with you.

[@betsalprince]

Murder is a legal term. It's defined as the *unlawful* premeditated killing of one human being by another. You may have objections to the morality of abortion and even assert that it's objectively wrong no matter what, but you can't simply equate abortion with murder. Moreover, your religion teaches that no one, including children, is actually innocent. Would you be okay with murdering children if they're not innocent...? If you're genuinely troubled by the morality of killing children, I don't understand how you can worship the God of the Bible. If it's not wrong when God does it because he can do whatever he pleases because he's a God, then you're not using your God as your moral standard.

[@thomassandoval8025]

@@betsalprince it is murder, you are killing an innocent human for selfish reasons. You can't get around that fact.

[@KeenanCrow]

You’ve basically just conceded Alex’s point that the authors are willing to alter things for theological reasons.

[@temsumongbajamir1582]

I had a bad feeling when I saw the debate notification (still haven't watched the debate). I like D'Souza as a political commentator only. _Gavin please arrange a conversation with Alex_

[@jerseyjim9092]

What do you hope to gain from it? It's the same old arguments for and against Christanity. Do you think Ortlund is going to make some amazing revelation that's going to prove that Biblical Christianity is true.

[@shishkabobby]

How can you find d'Souza a likable optical commentator? His 2000 Mules was found to be so full of lies that he was forced to remove it from distribution as part of a law suit that he lost badly. The man is a dishonest con-man, as should have been apparent from this debate.

[@Timkast]

4:19 “We have to measure truthfulness by the intention of the author.” Cool cool. I thought the author was God? And thus perfect. ❤

[@Particularly_John_Gill]

Holy crap was Dinesh bad on the Old Testament parts. Yikes. I thought he was just going to concede and become a Marcionite mid debate.

[@mymyscellany]

Lol yeah

[@LorenzoPelupessy]

That's funny!

[@Christopher-tayso]

@4:07 I’m pretty confused on this. You say the Bible is true but this verse says two different things so which one is true ? Your example of round numbers makes little sense since you started by saying “I wasn’t trying to be exact” the difference is the Bible is.

[@oliverlane9716]

Parables can be used to describe real human behaviour even if those specific events never happened. Even the most mediocre of celebrity has a biography dozens of times longer than any gospel. It's impossible to condense the life of Christ into such few words, instead they exist to explain who he was and what he believed. In the same way saying 1 million is a quicker more concise way to say 980,217 Ps I'm an atheist

[@stewartpatton2179]

I would love to watch Alex destroy all the bad arguments you trot out here

[@cnachopchopnewsagency]

Where can we find this debate online? I have been searching online but to no avail...

[@ohthelushlife]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/i36unItuprd7qdk

[@hapithotz]

It just became available. Try again if you’ve not seen it yet.

[@cnachopchopnewsagency]

@@hapithotz Thanks!

[@Dr.AuMădoare]

Pangburn dude

[@cnachopchopnewsagency]

@@Dr.AuMădoare Thank you!

[@stephenbeauregard1101]

Excellent responses, Gavin. Keep up the good work.

[@stephenbailey9969]

Took an online denomination quiz the other day and found out I'm a cross between a Methodist and a Mennonite. Christ's kingdom first and forever. The politics of this age is always going to disappoint and end up with injustice.

[@chottstuff]

christianity would be more believable if christians could just easily agree on things. the amount of sects and denominations within religions shows how obviously man-made the whole thing is.

[@stephenbailey9969]

@@chottstuff One could estimate that 90% of Christianity is agreed upon by the denominations. But denominations are historical and cultural artifacts, affected by responding to the changing conditions around them in their various lands. To be brothers and sisters in Christ does not require conformity in all things. As the ancient quote goes, "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." After all, is there any other sphere of human activity in which all people agree? How many languages are there in the world? How many political arguments? In this age, there are such things. But in the age to come, when Christ returns in glory, the divisions of this age will be healed and over. As Paul said, we can only imagine what it will be like then, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

[@chottstuff]

@@stephenbailey9969 I can name a lot of things humans all agree on. the moon and stars, the sun, math, breathing and eating. God would be one of those things if it actually existed. but no two people can agree on what god is actually like.

[@stephenbailey9969]

@@chottstuff Not exactly true. Many millions have agreed on what God is like over a period of thousands of years. They even agree on certain propositions regarding how God interacts with human beings. Direct religious experiences occur constantly and encourage people to stand by their faith. Where the disagreement comes is regarding the minutiae of how those processes work (free will vs. predestination, etc.). The same can be said for the disciplines of scientists and scholars. General outlines of facts are agreed. Yet the particular processes are matters of debate and testing. There are simply limitations to what human beings can know. Which is why in religious experience, the focus is rather on how to be.

[@chottstuff]

@@stephenbailey9969 sorry. religious experience isnt anything like scientific disciplines. thats a hilarious comparison. what is a direct religious experience? feeling good during a worship service?

[@irenictone8109]

Dr. Ortlund, in your opinion for this conversation, how effective or useful would it be to point out the inconsistency of atheism and atheists outrage over moral claims, of which they have no objective foundation?

[@ryana1787]

Why would morals require an objective foundation?

[@irenictone8109]

@@ryana1787 If one claims that OT events are 'atrocities' or 'genocide' and therefore morally wrong, there needs to be a transcendent moral foundation for such claims. Otherwise you just don't like the events on a personal level, but they are not actually wrong.

[@ryana1787]

@@irenictone8109 why? I can certainly say it’s morally wrong. “genocide is wrong”. Done. My standard is maximizing the well-being of human beings. Which is a highly superior standard to a gods personal desires.

[@WaterCat5]

It's a non-sequitur because the problem of evil is an internal critique. It does not matter what the atheist or whoever else is debating thinks.

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

​@@ryana1787 And other people have accepted that "Genocide is morally okay". Something about Third Reich comes first to mind. Morals without an objective foundation are subject to the whims, variances and discretions of a government, or a dictatorship, or a group of people, or an individual. Changes in morality then happen as society changes, and even the degree of morality differs from person to person. Objective morality requires an unchanging source.

[@GuilhermeVictorCC]

Where to watch ?

[@oldpal2678]

Pangburn

[@LuxnoireCollection]

Gavin, have your people call Alex’s people 😉

[@peterbengtsson]

Love to see you and Alex in a discussion about this and other stuff. Would be great! Someone make it happen! Christ love! ✝️

[@uncreatedlogos]

Coming up: Alex in the comments inviting Gavin.

[@GTNover]

I'm an atheist (soft atheist, as I'm not saying there is no god, just that I don't currently believe in one). I'm subscribing because I sincerely care about this conversation and want to hear the opinions of other honest truth seekers. Great video.

[@TruthUnites]

thanks for watching and commenting!

[@anjofa7]

Christian apologist morality mental gymnastics is fast becoming one of my favourite KZbin subgenres!

[@VMA11750]

Excellent response video, Gavin! Thank you for the edification. I feel better prepared to defend some of these difficult passages.

[@georgwilliamfriedrichhegel5744]

It seems to me that the difficulty in addressing these issues is more rhetorical than anything else. Words like "genocide" have such emotional impact, and our brains love simple black-and-white thoughts, that they can poison the well of a discussion. A response relying on historical considerations and outside research (which people may not be familiar with) can appear more like rationalizing than answering, especially if the person is already inclined not to believe. This is why I'm not a huge fan of "debates," as they are much more about "being good a debating" than "having a rational and productive discussion that fairly and completely presents both sides of an issue." Also, and no shade to the man (as I don't know him), but I'm not sure D'Souza is exactly an S-tier apologist or scholar. I've always thought of him more like a political pundit?

[@KeenanCrow]

@@georgwilliamfriedrichhegel5744 genocide should absolutely carry an emotional impact, and any other way of describing it, whatever euphemisms used to soften it, shouldn’t minimize that

[@mikeinva8563]

I first learned of Alex with his argument that he sincerely speaks God but can't find him. Does he really speak to know a God he views as evil?

[@Wertbag99]

He doesn't view God as evil. As an atheist he views God as non-existent.

[@HIIIBEAR]

Your excuses for genocide are no better than those in the videos. You just biting the bullet only shows your worldview is wrong. Too often a retort is thought to be sufficient for simply being given.

[@TheWeldCompany]

Where can I watch this debate??

[@dodumichalcevski]

Dont watch it You could become an atheist

[@Dr.AuMădoare]

Pangburn

[@evanskip1]

Ouch! This was painful to US Christians

[@chottstuff]

so is the bible.

[@BoldUlysses]

Why does Dinesh not look at Alex? Wish you had been on the stage debating Alex, Gavin. I really think you two could have a constructive dialogue.

[@madcatz990]

So let me get this straight, when the bible says something you find uncomfortable it is just hyperbole, and when you do like, then it's so sayeth the Lord. So when the Israelites are told to kill all including the women and children except for those women who have not known a man keep them for yourselves is this hyperbole or is it so sayeth the Lord. Sorry Gavin but you are twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to carry water for the bible. In the words of Maya Angelou 'When someone tells you who they are, believe them'

[@Alien1375]

Don't forget the "historical context".

[@madcatz990]

@@Alien1375 As someone who served in the military for 26 years please put into context for me soldiers keeping virgins for themselves as spoils of war after annihilating their enemy. Also while you are at it explain how a command like this comes from the great moral law-giver. I must admit Im confused🤔

[@Alien1375]

@@madcatz990 I was just adding another excuse apologists use to justify these kind of texts.😉

[@Noname19992]

@@madcatz990so have you watched any other videos or is this just your first one?😂😂😂

[@madcatz990]

@@Alien1375my apologies it went right over my head 😅

[@HearGodsWord]

O'connor seems like he could defend the Bible better than most Christian apologists (excluding Gavin, of course).

[@mikebuckley46]

I’d love to hear him having a conversation with Sam Shamoun

[@dodumichalcevski]

What 😂

[@bearinasuithaha8417]

There are several points that make just labeling the commands to genocide as “ancient war hyperbole” 1. Some of these are direct commands from God. It’s not impossible but it is a little strange that God himself is engaging in ancient war hyperbole when he gives commands. If God wanted the babies to actually be killed what else could he have said “kill all the babies too and this is not hyperbole”? 2. We see instances in the Bible in which animals and people are spared and it having consequences. In 1 Samuel 15 we see King Saul defy God by letting the king and some livestock live. It’s kinda understandable why God would be mad about the King being left alive but he’s also very pissed about the livestock being left alive…. I think this does imply that God meant kill everything if he’s even upset that cows and sheep weren’t killed. Joshua 6 22-25 also appears very explicit, it says this one family was spared and everyone else was explicitly killed. Reading these instances doesn’t leave you with the impression that they are metaphorical. 3. It’s necessary to understand that there are 2 things at play here. One is the command and one is the result. I don’t think anyone believes that all canaanites were eliminated just because the Bible had commands to eliminate all Canaanites or there are stories of cities and portions of nations being destroyed. Genocides and ethnic cleansings don’t have to be 100% to not be genocides or ethnic cleansings. If only 1/4 of a particular nation is killed off that is still a massive tragedy and loss of life 4. These foreign nations are often called evil and barbaric and that it’s necessary to eliminate this evil. Why doesn’t God simply eliminate these nations himself? For a God that hates killing and human violence, why subject his chosen people to such violence. We’ve seen him destroy cities and nations before. What benefit could God possibly have for making his people suffer and die in combat? Could God not have sent droughts to make Canaanites leave the area?

[@mpprod6631]

I would just encourage you to watch Dr. Ortlunds video about this topic because it’s very thorough and goes through pretty much every one of your points. God bless

[@morlewen7218]

@@mpprod6631 Dr. Ortlunds answers are not convincing.

[@mpprod6631]

@@morlewen7218 ok so let’s go through your points. This will not be exhaustive due to the limitations of the media. 1. Remember these are people writing down what God revealed to them. Though God is the ultimate author, He never overrides the experience or the literary style of the individual. That’s why understanding the context and people who wrote it is very important. Plus God specifically states Moses is the only one He speaks to face to face. I say this because though the command to eradicate the Canaanites came from God, we have no idea what medium or way God revealed His will to those people. This was not an exact quotation from God. That’s important to remember. Though I stand by the OT as true, you have to understand it within its contexts. 2. This point still does not mean everyone as in literally everyone. Why? Because later in the OT, amalekites are found alive and well including Agags line because Haman is a decadent of Agag in Esther. Again the literary genre is paramount. Overwhelming victory is implied. Why God is mad Saul left Agag alive? Probably having to do with Saul attempting to bolster his own glory by displaying a king as kneeling to him. Again the media is limited, but that’s my opinion. 3. Loss of life is all around us. What is the penalty of sin? Death. The fact that we were all not cast into hell at the moment of our birth is both extremely merciful and gracious. God has total right to do with us as He wills as we are in open rebellion to the God of the universe. God reserve the right for judgment being the sovereign of the universe. 4. If God did just wipe them all out, would you not just accuse Him of being barbaric? The conquest of Canaan lasted nearly a decade. Sometimes we forget that and do not bring up that even in their rebellion God was still being merciful to the Canaanites allowing time for repentance instead of just wiping them out wholesale with a natural disaster. God is long suffering. The Canaanites knew God was judging them, yet they persisted and fortified their rebellion. As far as Israel being used, God uses people to accomplish His purposes. Be thankful He does not just rain fire on any nation the rebels, and gives grace in the form of time for repentance.

[@bearinasuithaha8417]

@@mpprod6631 I have just finished his defense of these instances. I am still deeply uncomfortable with the rhetoric used in scripture and I have issues still and don’t think this fully clears them one way or another. I agree with him that these were for the most part exaggerations but to be fair I believe massive amounts of events in the Bible are hyperbole or myths so that’s not too surprising. This did help me see nuance with this issue. This is at least a mor respectable stance to take.

[@BlakeCoulter777]

I apologize for veering off topic, but recently the concept of predestination came up in a family discussion. I've tried researching God's election, Arminianism, and related topics, but I still don't have a clear understanding. I'm sure you've covered this subject somewhere. Could you point me to a video that explains it? I'd love to hear your perspective. Thanks Gavin!

[@allthingsstephaniea8510]

Mike winger has a good explanation on his channel

[@stewartpatton2179]

I don't think it's all that complicated--you either believe that God knows everything or he doesn't. If He knows everything, then He knows who will end up in Heaven and who will end up in Hell. One could say that people are "pre-destined" one way or the other. If you say God doesn't know where someone will end up, then you have to answer some more hard questions about exactly how God is constructed to hold it all together.

[@JohnnyQuick_]

On Christianity: 1. God is omniscient, 2. omnipotent, 3. creator/sustainer of all that is. 4. From 1, he knew beforehand every possible version of creation. 5. From 2, he could’ve made it in any way. 6. From 3, 4, & 5, he chose this one. 7. Therefore, he predetermined everything.

[@stewartpatton2179]

@@JohnnyQuick_ That means that he created some people knowing that they would burn in hell forever. What a swell guy.

[@Dr.AuMădoare]

Why dont you read "Determined" by a neurobiologist. Sapolski. Perhaps is not a theological education you need, but an evidence based one...

[@melodysledgister2468]

All this bashing of Dinesh! (I refer to the comments.) I actually don’t think he did that bad. He did get a little rattled at one point, but I basically agree with his premise that yes, God acts differently in the Old Testament because He was dealing with a particular people at that time. We too act differently in different situations. And I appreciate him (Dinesh) trying not to get lost in the weeds to stick to the main point of the discussion. And as Gavin says, God has every right to take human life. He created it, He can take it back. We belong to Him, not the other way around.

[@Jesi-xn]

"we have to measure truthfulness by the intention of the author" you heard it here first folks

[@rodysuazo9213]

Hello Gavin, I understand your frustration with the arguments of some apologists, that's exactly the way I felt about 10 years ago when I started watching these kind of debates. I had way better arguments than most apologists; so I started debating this atheists up in my head; a couple of years later I became an atheist myself...