Ep. 104 - "No Longer a Christian" | Isaac Deitz

[@malulusmidnight]

As a teen I struggled deeply with a few things that I perceived as beyond those around me, so I sought answers online and Isaac's blog was a refuge as his mind is insanely brilliant in the approach to considering any topic - about Christ, our experience as humans, films or otherwise... Brave enough be curious and to ask for answer. While patient enough to actively listening to everything being said. Trusting the answer will come. Beyond this, I reached out via email and he responded and cared about me. He gave me time, and his thoughtful attention beyond the time to type an email in response. I was lonely, and he tried to schedule Skype calls... Experiencing his life online, his actions spoke to a singular being, deeply seeking to follow the mission to love God and love others - no matter where it took him. I'm so thankful for you Isaac. To have experienced our relationship so remotely and virtually, it's incredible how you still convey care and love for us all as beings.

[@Shemdoupe]

This was really great. I'd love to talk to either of you. So much I wanted to contribute. Isaac has a knack for articulating difficult points.

[@cecilcharlesofficial]

Had a friend recommend your podcast based on my substack, and wow - they were right. I was raised Christian, but fell away in my teens. Finding Alan Watts 10 years ago changed my life. He's such a joy to listen to, and I have listened, basically daily, since then. Then two days ago, something that I'd heard Watts say hundreds of times finally clicked: "We don't choose our thoughts. We don't control our own mind." First, sit with it. Do you choose your thoughts? Or do they POP! into your brain from seemingly nowhere? "Yeah, but I choose to pursue any given thought or not." Ok, as in, some other thought emerges saying, "No, don't think that" or "Yes, what a great idea," right? Did you choose to have this second thought arise? We don't choose our thoughts. They may very well be products of all sorts of logical reasonings, such that we can explain why they arise, but did we choose those reasonings? Do we choose their timing? Do we choose our biology? Our brain chemistry? What Watts doesn't hammer home (and now I wish he would have - haha - maybe I'd have heard it sooner) is what that means. We're not in control. Nothing is. How could anything be? Imagine you DID get to choose your thoughts. Like you're looking in a bag, picking the thought you like. Well, what made you choose that one first? Is it because it made you feel a certain way in your body when you thought about it? Did you choose to feel that way? Say you do something selfish, rather than noble. Why were you selfish? "Because I'm weak." Did you choose to be weak? Follow this thought process to the end and we realize, oh Lord, we really don't have any control. And yet that's always been the case, if it is the case now, and here I am... a choice-less being, calling into question the very idea of choice (after believing for so long I had it). Not being in control has led to this state of awareness I'm in now - a state of awareness in which, up until just recently, I firmly believed in free will. Now I'm not sure at all. Now it seems, perhaps, that thinking "I have any control at all" is the cause of all anxiety. Because hey - if the greatest sin, pride, could be described as "thinking you know better"... then wouldn't the ego be the embodiment of that greatest sin? That which thinks it's in control, that which has desires and plans in the face of the antagonistic "world out there." That which judges the events of life with cynicism and resents God for what happens, because it thought it was in control until, ugh, at the last moment life rips it away again. It's the losing of control that makes us resentful. The secret is realizing we never had it. The Sermon on the Mount: "Worry not for the morrow." What's the only way we could ever not worry? Only if we have zero control. Because any version of us having control is the continual sensation of "am I making the right choice?" and all the anxiety that comes with said quandary. And that's what most all humans live with, all the time. Except we're not in control. No wonder it drives us mad. Realizing you have no control is the ultimate faith. And what we seem to become, when we let go and have faith, is "kindhearted as a grandmother, dignified as a king" in the words of the Tao. This makes sense, doesn't it, because you know from your own experience how you treat people when you are fulfilled, when you have a full belly and your lover's hand in yours: you're gracious, you're playful, you're jovial. You're the best version of you. Now you realize you have zero control, and thus this concept of yourself - this 'I' you've been protecting - you can stop protecting it, knowing it's not you at all, not in the sense of some conscious being with conscious choice. Because choice doesn't exist. Now, yes the moral relativists will jump all over it this idea and use it to justify their desires to DO anything and everything they wish. "So you're saying you can do anything, because you're not culpable, and it's all the same and blah blah blah." No. I'm only saying you're not in control. You still FEEL all the repercussion of your actions. We still LEARN from our mistakes, from the real consequences they precipitate, and from how we feel inside - our conscience. The relativists can go home. What this means however, ultimately, is that you're being you, and you always have been. There was no obligation to "get there" (some realization) because you're not in control. Now try telling yourself you have no control. You might be surprised how you feel. And every time you forget it, don't be hard on yourself. Just dive right back in, laughing how you don't have control whether you do or you don't. As Watts says, "It's only when you're fully free to be both stuck (ego-attached) or unstuck that you really are unstuck." And then it hits you that that's exactly what you are: not in control and thus free to be both stuck and unstuck. And you've always been that way. That's why they say that ultimately people realize satori (enlightenment) is no different from everyday experience. You've been doing it (without conscious choice) this whole time.

[@pclafferty1]

(just now discovering you through the sit-down with Bret--and delighted that I have). What if you interviewed a pastor? I won't be presumptuous that I qualify. But I gladly volunteer. The richness, humility, and candor of this wonderful discussion notwithstanding, you at times trade in straw-men, assuming curiosity and (Christian) faith are incompatible, or that having unanswerable questions and confident--even evangelistic--faith are either mutually-exclusive or irrationally arrogant. I look forward to hearing and reading more from you. Peace to you.

[@IanCaletta]

Great convo, Steve. I listened to it again all over and it's just as amazing as the first time. You're one of the few living thinkers I value. More of that religious/spiritual/metaphysical explorations, please. You have a solid background of philosophy so it's something else when you take people along.

[@nichtsistkostenlos6565]

I was just randomly thinking about you, Steve, and here you are uploading a video out of the blue. Clearly divine intervention :).

[@Simargo]

It's actually funny you say that. I was looking through my Goodreads lists last night and saw Steve's Bitcoin book and wondered to myself what he's up to. Then I open KZbin this morning and voilà, first podcast upload in 10 months. Come to the comments to say that and the first comment is the same thing I was going to say haha Life is strange in beautiful ways

[@boman987]

Yeah Steve popped into my head yesterday randomly and I came here to write a comment. Freaky.

[@Vatono]

brilliant conversation. A lot of deep Truths have been discussed here. No radical scepticism or arrogance but a healthy Truth-discovery via Talking with each other.

[@marycollins8215]

Thank you. Found you via the Weinstein Dark Horse conversations. This led me to find your channel. Great to see this conversation with your guest Mr. Deitz.

[@joshuascott5814]

You guys think Jesus came to abolish religion and was living contrary to Judaism? Have you read Matthew 5:18? Have you considered the implications of the fact that the Pharisees couldn’t catch him in a sin (ie breaking the law)? You might have read the Bible but you don’t seem to have understood it well.

[@aaronolson]

hahaha. lol.

[@Allplussomeminus]

I jumped around denominations being raised by a single mother. But being exposed to how vast existence is through science, questions started to emerge. That's when my faith shrunk. Multiple mental issues caused me to come back around eventually into having faith, but not the same "fire and brimstone" faith... More of an all encompasing faith of what life is and what it means to be human.

[@emberjaxx585]

In my opinion the skepticism which eventually produces truth is an idea that Christian’s typically shun. I was a Christian for about 20 years, and eventually walked away due to no one being able to thoroughly answer the questions I had. Many people would push these questions away and give a vague answer of just have “faith”. I eventually came to the conclusion that faith was used as a catch all for questions that no one could answer. I am a whole hearted skeptic, which is why I excel as an engineer. I want to know the truth of how things work, and what the driving mechanisms are. It seems that the majority of Christian’s aren’t skeptics, and are willing to follow in there social groups steps. I believe that people are willing to forgo there personal responsibility to be curious and seek out truth for the the social fruits of following a religious idea. I also believe there’s a reason these religions are so prominent is because this unification of ideals revolving around justice has allowed societies to unify and grow in population. This is why atheists aren’t as common as someone that follows a religion. Following a religion creates a social currency that literally makes it more likely for you to survive and reproduce.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

What group could you NOT replace the word "Christian" with in this comment? You have just described pretty much all of humanity.

[@emberjaxx585]

@@georgechristiansen6785 ok, but in my experience it most directly relates to how Christian’s act.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

@@emberjaxx585 I'm betting it's your lack of skepticism towards other groups.

[@emberjaxx585]

@@georgechristiansen6785 it’s not, but keep assuming, we all know what that says about people.

[@user-ux1mj1uz5b]

There is an interesting explanation about doubting Thomas in the book "Is Jesus History?" The author of the book says "In this famous passage from John’s Gospel, Jesus is not saying people will be blessed if they can learn to believe without any evidence. He is making the distinction between believing on the basis of personal observation and believing on the basis of testimony. Both are forms of evidence. It’s just that personal observation is the way you determine repeatable and directly detectable things, and testimony is how you verify things that are, by definition, beyond your direct detection."

[@evgeny9965]

Most X-Christians were not Christians in the 1st place.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

And, besides a proof text, what evidence do you have for this...having not even met anything close to most of anything.

[@damoeb]

Love is no exception, it can do harm (ok that depends on your definition). But overwhelming motherly love will keep the kid a kid even as a grown up. In fact as a mother you have to do the opposite of what your love towards it tells you, which is letting it go.

[@stefcui007]

I grew up as a Christian and became very involved and committed for over 30 years. I brought my kids up as believers. About 10 years ago I had brain injury that shuffled my beliefs and my process of thinking. I was making new neurological pathways. Consequently, I started to ask different questions and seeing logic from a very different perspective, somehow. It made me reevaluate my beliefs and I reassessed everything. I am no longer a Christian as a result. I now believe that I was predisposed through socialisation to have subconscious biases of logic that made me accept certain beliefs as 'truisms'. As I could see my own failures of thinking based on subconsciously accepted beliefs, I could ask more evolved questions about 'God's' morality and ethics that are responsible for the history of slavery, racism, colonialism, inequalities, etc. I then was able to re-examine the way the bible had developed through the documentary hypothesis (JEPD) and determined that the bible was not inspired as accurate, it was simply the edited and re-edited ideologies of ancient people that changed and turned over the thousands of years that was redacted to make it look like a single all encompassing narrative. The reality is that it isn't. It's a group of ideas that are continually in conflict with facts because the individual authors didn't all believe the same thing. They believed different things between the north and south, different, doctrines, beliefs, customs and different bible. They were eventually brought together to make one book by cutting and pasting, but if you believe that the net result of the infusion of different sects adds up to inspiration etc, well, you've been conditioned by subconscious beliefs through socialisation like me.

[@firecloud77]

*"I could ask more evolved questions about 'God's' morality and ethics that are responsible for the history of slavery, racism, colonialism, inequalities, etc."* If your child steals candy from a store, is that "your morality"? Of course not. If God allows his children free will and they do that which is immoral, is that "God's morality"? Of course not.

[@stefcui007]

@@firecloud77 , if the all knowing "father" sent his kids in for candy only to know that they would butcher and murder everyone in the store, yeah I would say that father is not a casual or innocent bystander, he set them up to do his bidding and fulfil his intentions. That makes the father the monster. You want to defend these acts as sins when this imaginary father knew everything that they were about to do and then gets clowns like you to defend him as an all-loving god... Well you need a good knock to the head like I did.

[@rgkmadison]

Also, E. Michael Jones “Logos Rising A History of Ultimate Reality”

[@Barnabas94]

This has been my same thought process for the past year or two. Where is the church of “free thinkers”

[@billjohnson1094]

Found you via DarkHorse, subscribed

[@cecilcharlesofficial]

Bret actually followed me till I got booted from Twitter in July. One of my proudest follows (haha, yes it's all trivial, I know). Still, I subsequently started a substack and have written some philosophical stuff over the past few months. Had a friend comment on yesterday's post recommending this Patterson podcast, and wow - it was fantastic. Now I'll have to go watch him on DarkHorse (I miss lots, not being on Twitter anymore, though life is better, I think).

[@tedoymisojos]

Why would you answer the question of why is there something rather than nothing with love? The universe as a love generator. There is so much around, but you chose to focus on that. How does that make any sense? Idgi

[@joshuamartinpryce1237]

The pursuit of truth is in Christianity. Jesus said I am the only, the truth and the life. How powerful is it for God Himself to take the form of a man and live as a despised, rejected servant of people. that is powerful. Because our interpretation of what God is, is someone who dominates and tells people what to do, and makes everyone that follows them, slaves. This shows how beautiful Christ is and how loving the real God is. We can all agree with man made gods in comic books and articles and fake religions are quite powerful. They have an influence of power. But the real God Who created the mind of the most intelligent people on the earth, is way more powerful, but comes across supremely humble. That is beautiful, God rocks and i do not know why you would not want to serve that God that took justified punishment in our place. Gods shouldn't not just forgive sins without punishment because that would be unfair to the people we offend. The death of Jesus is a payment of sins, and the teaching of Christ is a way to learn not to do sins again, but to love and respect all.

[@lucaseikenberg848]

Steve, would you consider a friendly discussion with Robert Rowe from Sentinel Apologetics?

[@mtlifelover1658]

Why aren't you doing more content Steve

[@anthonygoodman48]

Look up Aquinas's/Aristotle's definition of goodness I think you will find it defined as relative, an efficient and final cause. Love to Aquinas is the choice to will the good of the other, so intimately connected, a form of goodness (kind of that biblical interpretation that the commandments good hinge upon)

[@RobertLeeWhite]

Hey Steve -- I'd be curious to hear more about the spiritual experience you say you had that made you question orthodox Christianity. The experience you did mention sounded very Christian (God saying "I love you as much as you love her"), so I wasn't sure if that was the same experience or a different one. Either way, I enjoyed the discussion!

[@Sinekyre14]

As a Norwegian, I am obsessed with the effect Christianity has had on my nation and history. Texts and Edda's from around the time Christianity came to Norway laments how the youth became passive, guilt-ridden and oppressed. Setting aside the horrible process of hundreds of years of burning pagans and impaling them on stakes, a lot of people seemed intent on documenting how it ruined the natural, organic culture of a people. The story they write is of sorrow, loss of history, loss of tradition and a natural, organic culture that is self-affirming, in favor of a faith that enforces guilt and shame. In reaction to this, long after we became Christian, towns in Norway would rebel, kill the priest and burn their church, only to be punished and have a new priest appointed to them. They would kill him, and the process of burning the heretics would continue until there was no one left to rebel.. Having studied the early history of Christianity, I think the evidence points to it being an amalgamation of Greek tradition and myths, all the way down to the suffering messiah, logos as the father, the father and son duality and the trinity. All the major factors of Christianity were patched together from earlier myths by jewish scholars. Through it's history in Europe, looking past the centuries of insanity, witch-burning and crusades, Christianity became a civilizing force to subjugate and regulate human behavior. Perhaps Christianity was useful and good in the middle-east, and I think theres evidence that those societies function better under Abrahamic religions. I think it's an urban religion that was _not_ native or healthy or necessary when imposed on the people of northern-Europe, who you both obviously stem from. I think it has had a very negative effect on it. We should reject it and find a new unifying ethos that isn't based on 2000 year old fantasy and blood-magic. As for Jesus, there's a documentary that looked into his origin and who he really was. Most likely, he was a part of a travelling group of carpenters, and he was described as short, stocky and swarthy, with thick facial hair and specifically a unibrow. He was most likely one of the hundreds of Jewish people back then who were performing magic and proselytizing a heretical variety of Judaism, and was executed for it. Hundreds of years later, stories and myths about him were fabricated to form a cult that opposed Rome, which later was forced to give jews special rights because of their historic oppression. Jesus and Rome's adoption of Christianity was no doubt a part of that, and a great motivation for jews to spread Christianity. My conclusion after studying Christianity for years and reading as much of the bible as I could be bothered to read, is that it has nothing to do with who we are today, our history and our natural way of being. If you love the compassion and spirit of the figure Jesus, you should know that it existed much earlier in far-eastern religions and even in pagan history. Goutama Buddha was born 500 years BC and was well-known to jewish scholars when they fabricated the Jesus myths, taking many specific elements from the far-eastern stories of Buddha's spiritual awakening to compassion and meekness. We should reject Christianity because it is a fabrication, and because of the guilt and shame it implanted into our culture, and find a new guiding ethos based on balanced compassion and a spirituality that isn't based on myth and blood magic. Christianity is baloney, all of it, and if you love the Jesus-character, you should look into the eastern spiritual tradition that far predated it.

[@Sinekyre14]

The biggest awakening for anyone interested in this, is to look into how Christianity hi-jacked the idea of logos as the father from Greek tradition, the virgin birth and God sacrificing his son. All of it was taken from earlier myths. All the admittedly beautiful spirituality and philosophy in Christianity is just reformatted Greek and Eastern history, which was well-known by the jewish scholars who authored it. By the way, I absolutely love your idea that the purpose of the universe is to produce love, Steve. I agree, I think it's very clear. I have a theory that the movie interstellar is about love as a universal force that moves across dimensions etc. I think several people have had your thought, but were perhaps too embarassed to bring it up publically. ;)

[@JoelSjogren0]

That's pretty informative. Thanks for writing that up!

[@timetravlin4450]

@@Sinekyre14 what is love? Isn’t that subjective?

[@firecloud77]

@@Sinekyre14 *"Christianity hi-jacked the idea of logos as the father from Greek tradition, the virgin birth and God sacrificing his son. All of it was taken from earlier myths."* Or, maybe those earlier "myths" were the result of God informing men of the eventual arrival of the Savior of all mankind.

[@websmink]

If love were truly the purpose of the universe, it’s existence wouldn’t happen unless sentience couldn’t and didn’t experience the u imaginable suffering is,in my opinion, the main component of biological life by at least 75%. I wish I could see any fairness in that kind of love

[@mattyjmar10]

36:08 You lost me there. Arab mathematics came after the advent of Islam (not before it). Islamic civilization adopted the numeral system of the Indians (including the concept of zero) long after the death of Prophet Muhammad. For example, Al-Karizmi lived (c) 780 - 850 and wrote the seminal book that established algebra as a mathematical discipline that is independent of geometry and arithmetic. It's very ironic you cited the example of glass and optics! Ibn Al-Haytham was the Father of Modern Optics - a Muslim - and lived between 965 - 1040. It's quite bizarre that you decided to measure prowess in mathematics by number of Nobel Prizes won since (a) the Nobel Prize has only existed since 1895 (not even 1.5 centuries) and (b) THERE IS NO NOBEL PRIZE IN MATH. 🤭

[@mattyjmar10]

BTW: Ahmed Zewail (an Arab, Muslim, Egyptian) won a nobel prize in Chemistry in 1999.

[@justingorman1068]

Can a human being stop being evil?

[@leoandolino4668]

Interesting conversation. I think a more accurate description (or partial description as it seems to me) of your present journey(s) would be you are leaving or have left a specific form of Protestantism which is a novel group of confused religious sects and is only about 500 years old or so and new sects pop up frequently. Protestantism is demonstrably flawed. Secondly, what do you do with: " In the beginning was the LOGOS and the LOGOS was with God and the LOGOS was God... the same was in the beginning with God... and the LOGOs became flesh and pitched his tent among us... full of grace and truth"? Are you gentlemen familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy? Having been a protestant most my life and aware that something wasn't quite right. I left. I found a welcome home in Eastern Orthodoxy as it appears to be Apostolic Christianity which both the Roman sect and Protestant sects do not represent. Christianity of the West differs from Christianity of the East which traces its history back to the undivided church. It has maintained the early traditions, proper interpretation of the Bible, and witness of the early church fathers and of the saints up until the present. It in part emphasizes humility, continual repentance, and maintains the mysteries of God. Its Bible contains additional books and was translated from the earliest text recognized by Jesus and his disciples.

[@thejuddah]

Folks may be interested in the philosopher and theologian, Bernard Lonergan.

[@louisburke8927]

Good old problem of evil 22:05 God is colon cancer?

[@boman987]

14:45 “Jesus was a cannon.” Yeah, but which canon?

[@davemoore7808]

It's no wonder Evangelicals (Protestants) end up like this, honestly.

[@evgeny9965]

. Preaching complex systems and then presenting this symplistic narrative . It is even dumber than Hitchens.

[@evgeny9965]

This conversion is so infantile it is very hard to listen to!

[@SharonVeeLee]

Fascinating talk but the host interrupting Isaac constantly to interject HIS ideas was really annoying. I got the impression of "listening to respond" instead of taking in what the other was saying.

[@anthonygoodman48]

The classics almost never box, and frankly the Bible is never ending material, the story of Genesis works on about 5 different levels that I know of, in highly compelling ways... In the same way God is limitless, neither is God understandable, it's not God. And... Any description we have is more unlike then like etc. Of course any reductive view is just self righteous fundamentalism, but I really don't see this when I read the Bible or the classics, or traditional religion.... The idea that religion is limiting is a little silly for example ritual and rubrics are important, the structure doesn't box it always expands... Grows.... These are more modern characterisations of religion. I always find it strange it's like scientific rationalists tend to end up at Eastern spirituality, all the while while condemning straw-man versions of western religious ideas, they do this even though their own modern science grew out of the Western tradition. It's almost like they need to react against their own reductive rationalism.

[@anthonygoodman48]

Your observations are simply characterisations of modern liberal evangelism nothing to do with religious traditions, including the politicisation of faith.

[@anthonygoodman48]

I see people always leaving highly reductive/undereducated Christian positions that are prescriptive... That's probably good for them ultimately (as long as they don't stop searching for truth) if it ends in being reactionary and skeptical that would tend to limit.

[@d.o.7784]

It is really sad to see how two guys, seemingly kind, very innocent and naive, think themselves philosophers and thus contribute to the demise of the civilization.

[@cecilcharlesofficial]

Prove them wrong with words, not with pretentious scoffing. I'm not even claiming you're wrong, I'm saying your rhetoric is poo.

[@EuropeanQoheleth]

sigh Yet another hippy video giving out about religion.

[@rgkmadison]

OK, if you two frisky boys and I all took IQ tests, I’ve no doubt id do pretty good, but that you’d both whoop me. Yet, it is really hard to listen to you both opine about things of which you have not the “Adaequatio” to comprehend let alone pontificate upon (See Ch 4-5 of Schumacher’s “A Guide for the Perplexed”. As C.S. Lewis liked to say, “if you think you can come up with a new idea, you’re wrong!” We are made to seek and DISCOVER Truth. You’ve both made a good start, but only a tiny start. So, get up to speed ! It’s fascinating that the theme of “Our present Dark Age”is so similar to Scumacher’s. Here’s some things to get you started if you want to try to discover Truth rather than futiley try to create it: Thomas Aquinas “summa”, C.S. Lewis “God in the Dock”, John Waters “Lapsed Agnostic”, Dorothy Day “From Union Square to Rome”, James V. Schall, “Another sort of Learning” and “The Life of the Mind”, Pernoud and Clin “Joan of Arc Her Story”. Godspeed young men!

[@anthonygoodman48]

The Word of God precedes the Bible and surpasses it. Pope Francis.

[@anthonygoodman48]

This is off to a really dumb start I am about five minutes in asking myself whether it's worth continuing as an enquiring mind. Obviously fundamentalism is absurd but the story of Thomas is obviously read/connected in context with the idea that there is evidence set down in scripture it then literally refers back to the start of John and Genesis 1. This is a point Hitchens makes which I've always found frustratingly obvious, the context makes it quite clear, faith does not mean 'no doubt' (in some sense it wouldn't be faith). We all know what we mean by faith in a daily context, yet somehow can't read a simple story and understand faith when it comes to religion.

[@anthonygoodman48]

If you understood him, it would not be God. St Augustine.

[@anthonygoodman48]

The idea that we are part of God's creation that we are connected in a real way to the material of the universe. But the issue is that there are real fundamental differences between us and the rest of creation, we are self conscious we make art etc. And that God is connected somehow to the material of the universe is old as well. The reason people disliked the Big Bang Theory is because Lemaitre was a priest and most scientists favoured a steady state model and dismissed the theory because they didn't like this concept of a beginning and saw it as theologically loaded against steady state. Einstein thought Lemaitre gave a beautiful explanation but was using bad science...

[@007kevhill]

The lack of objective intellectual curiosity of group A and how group A gets it wrong as a result has zilch to do with the objective reality of what the nature of the object being sought is. It's not insightful to say that in general group A is wrong about construct D in the seeking of object X so object X itself must be dismissed. There is a embarrassing amount of intellectual vanity on display in the conversation. I would agree with most of the individual points and the reality of those points being lived out within the evangelical church brings me no end of distress, it also has nothing to do with who Christ is or what Christianity is or the nature of God himself. All endeavors, all creeds, all ideals are expressions of imperfect beings it doesn't not mean that we reject the object that is sought. In the context of Christianity the object that is sought is God and God is not defined by any man or denomination. This is not insightful, it's an obviously true, we as human beings don't stop, nor are we caught up in how this group or that group gets a point of a definition wrong. Each group is an expression they are not the object itself, that some think they are the definition has no bearing on what the definition is. You both seem to be looking for perfection of expression in a world of fallen men that does not exist, as Paul said we see in part and we know in part, that is true of every person who has ever lived, hubris comes from those who think they are somehow unique in their insight and no one else gets it. YES, YES, YES the Evangelical church in all it's variants contains bad theology, this has been fully understood by objective onlookers since it's inception, but all the other expression get a lot of stuff wrong too. For example, Luther was correct for the most part in his writings nailed to the church door in Whittenburg Church door, it's also true that in a 1000 ways he was an VERY flawed individual and in many ways just as awful as those and that which he protested. What does this have to do with the nature of God himself...ummmm zip, we don't reject Christianity because imperfect beings express it poorly.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

Not to mention that every large group I have ever come across qualifies as group A. but these types of discussion are really no different than any other "conversion" where double standards abound until you, if you ever, get out of the honeymoon phase...where you find yourself, once again, surrounded by fools. And if you really push it you find out that your one too.

[@andyxboxbackup]

I knew Isaac a few years ago. I really hope you guys will do more research because the way you two are talking about how the Bible was canonized indicates you have no idea what you are talking about. I truly, truly hope nobody walked away from their faith because they didn’t read very much about the canonization of scripture LOL

[@aaronolson]

Please educate us. What have u ever done to educate others? U criticize, but have nothing to teach.

[@andyxboxbackup]

@@aaronolson Explaining the canonization of scripture is going to take more than a pithy KZbin comment

[@aaronolson]

@@andyxboxbackup right and do u have link to a blog you've written about it or a video you've done? No.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

@@aaronolson So what? His criticism is legitimate whether he personally has educated anyone himself. But you're not looking for education in the comments section.

[@AaronOlsonBlog]

@@georgechristiansen6785 actually I learn a lot from the comments

[@joshuascott5814]

When you start saying things like “Jesus is the universe exploring itself” I lose a lot of respect for you and the interviewer who doesn’t even bother to ask what that means. The obvious answer is nothing. Come on, Steve, you’re really just letting this guy spout nonsense because you happen to agree with him. Get a serious apologist on to talk about these issues-they all have answers, it’s just you and your guest haven’t looked hard enough for them. What you’re really looking for is an excuse not to believe. And before you ask, yes I’ve read the whole Bible (including the Catholic deuterocanonical books), more than once.

[@lucaseikenberg848]

It would be quite interesting if either of them would reach out and have a meaningful discussion with Robert Rowe from Sentinel Apologetics. 🤔

[@joshuascott5814]

@@ts87777 Hitchens’ arguments are not nearly as good as people think.

[@GeneseeBen]

How do you feel about the term "it's all God"?

[@joshuascott5814]

@@GeneseeBen you mean the idea that the universe is god? I think that idea is incoherent. The point of a god is to have a creator, an uncaused first cause. An eternally existing universe doesn’t fill that role.

[@joshuascott5814]

@@ts87777 pick one. It’s been a while since I last listened to his talks or read anything by him, I just remember that he never said anything particularly convincing.

[@torcoAaAa]

two men who know better try desperately to come up with ways to keep believing in God and Christ