Mormon vs Christian Debate Breakdown

[@Emeraldsword124]

Thank you for taking the arguments so fairly, I miss u teacher!

[@matthewchamberlain2953]

I just wanted to say, I appreciate how fair you are, and I enjoy your perspective on the debate. However, I have a few comments that may be helpful. I think Kwaku's point in the first round just bashing Calvinism, rather he is pointing out that Calvinism seems to contradict sola fide. Which makes sense from an LDS viewpoint. How can you be saved by your faith in God if it's really God predetermining your salvation? Also, I don't know if I'd agree with Open Theism, but I do believe that saying that they don't believe in the omniscience of God doesn't seem right to me. My understanding is that they believe that God is omniscient in that He knows everything that can possibly be known, including all possible futures. If future events are not predestined, then the future isn't set. God knows every fact, but if the exact future is not a fact yet, then God not knowing it is not a problem of omniscience (but again, I'm not saying I agree with this, or that I'm the best at articulating it). I'm not an expert in theology, but I've read a couple open theists, including Blake Ostler. I don't believe that any LDS people would separate Jesus from temple ordinances, or say that Jesus isn't enough in that sense. John being on the earth is not a problem for LDS theology, he may have had the keys, but God forbade him from passing them on because the people had rejected the truth. Rejection of the truth was the reason for God taking away the keys, and Kwaku definitely should have articulated that better and taken stronger positions on apostasy. With Kwaku's argument about Protestant leaders, he was making the point that based on the fruits of the Church after the apostles, it seems that something went wrong. With marriage, I think it should be pointed out that LDS people believe the same thing when it comes to having a huge eternal family. You can't say that Mormons don't offer it, it is a large part of our theology. The only difference being that we believe that marriage and familial bonds made by God survive death, which is not denied or affirmed in the Bible. We also wouldn't separate that from the offer of Jesus. (Also, brief point of correction, we don't believe you must be sealed or married to enter into celestial glory.) One point of criticism that I have for Aaron is that he tried to get Kwaku on sola scriptura, which he knows very well we don't believe (in fact, we believe that it is, ironically, unBiblical and circular). Saying that polygamy was decreed by God doesn't undercut Kwaku's argument either. Sex is good only within marriage and without compulsion. In other words, sex is only good when and where God decrees it is. It's a nonissue. That all being said, I agree that Kwaku should try to learn more about the varying shades of free-will beliefs and that it should have been more tailored to a wider Christian audience. Focusing solely on Calvinism was a mistake, just like you said. This is just a critique, not looking for a debate. I just felt like you'd appreciate a different viewpoint. Feel free to respond (in fact I hope you do because it'll help me think more critically about my arguments), or not, but I probably won't reply if you do, I've already spent too much time on this. Thanks for making this video! :)

[@BeardedDisciple]

If Kwaku's point was to point out Calvinism contradicts solo fide he did a poor job of it. Perhaps he mentioned solo fide but I honestly don't remember him doing so. I also talked with Kwaku since the debate and it's pretty clear his point was to make calvinism out to be evil. You can see that by the distasteful video he has since done of making Aaron look like Hitler. You may not agree with open theism but I've had some other friends that have talked with Kwaku and it he seems Kwaku has gone down that route just doesn't want to openly say it just yet. Kwaku may be diverting from standard LDS teachings her though. Sure, I don't think LDS would outright say Jesus isn't enough but when you say one hasn't done enough if they haven't done temple ordinances the only logical conclusion is that Jesus then in fact is not enough since you need Jesus + something else. One could say Jesus is necessary but he is not sufficient. It would be like saying I need hydrogen to make water, hydrogen is necessary for the highest level but not sufficient with oxygen/temple ordinances. John is still a problem because you have created a circular argument. The keys aren't on the earth because there is unbelief and the keys are restored in order to bring back belief. In that case God taking the keys is really the reason why belief was lacking, because of course belief can't remain with the keys. If lack of belief was the reason the keys were restored by Joseph Smith one must ask why John didn't simply restore the church himself when all had gone awry? Also, what was John doing the whole time the church was loosing faith? He had the keys to bring them back to faith why didn't he simply prevent the apostasy in the first place? Sure LDS believe in a huge eternal family but are you always with them? No, unless your only talking aboout those who made it to the celestial level. You aren't constantly with your entire family in the telestial or terestial levels, with them you can only visit. Not to mention if you really are populating and making your own planet at the celestial level are you really with your extended family while you're making your planet and their making theirs? Thanks for the correction about celestial glory and marriage, although I've been told differently, could you give me a source? Seems if you're going to make your own planet you must be married, in which case even if you make it to the celestial kingdom you're missing something. In response to "Sex is good only within marriage and without compulsion. In other words, sex is only good when and where God decrees it is. It's a nonissue." This still is the same thing. God decreed it so it's fine. Why can't the calvinist simply say murder is only good where God decrees it" and since of course under Calvinism he decrees it all then it's fine. This fits under what's called the euthyphro dilema asking whether something is good because God commands it or if God commands it because it's good. You seem to affirm the first which means in turn God can command whatever he wants and those things are good. The alternative isn't good either since then God is no longer our source of morality instead we understand that God is goodness so he simply commands what he is.

[@mr400meter]

@@BeardedDisciple "Why can't the calvinist simply say murder is only good where God decrees it" and since of course under Calvinism he decrees it all then it's fine." God's eternal will/decree and prescriptive will are not one in the same thing just fyi. God decreeing and predestining the death of Jesus doesn't negate the fact that the Jews murdered their own Messiah (which btw God judged the Jews of that generation from 66-70 AD for sure). God judged them for that though their evil was accomplishing His will for salvation.

[@BeardedDisciple]

​@@mr400meter Because that makes morality arbitrary. It means that God if he wished, God could have made rape and murder good and feeding the homeless evil. Good and evil then is really not rooted in the God in that case but really only in the fact that he happens to be the most powerful being and therefore gets to make the rules. Are you familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma?

[@mr400meter]

@@BeardedDisciple It most certainly doesn’t make morality arbitrary. . Because God decrees evil to come to pass doesn’t mean God enjoys it or that God is pleased with it when humans do it. Yes, evil serves its purpose in redemptive history as we speak, and God has purpose and intention in it that we as creatures cannot see. Evil is always judged by God accordingly in time space (see Isaiah 10; how do you square what God is saying here with your current view of God?). I am not familiar with that dilemma, honestly.

[@Tanmexam27]

Yeah, the eternal marriage thing is bizarrely unchristian. I think every heretical group obsesses about a particular idea in such a way that they start getting things wrong. Mormonism obsesses over marriage. I’m a Catholic Christian living in Hungary and I’ve found a particularly helpful quote by the last emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Karl of Austria was a virtuous and faithful man and husband. When he married his wife he said to her these simple words: “Now we get to help each other get to heaven.” The spiritual goal of marriage was clear to them. I think the Christian understanding of marriage is level-headed. It’s immensely important and valued, but it isn’t totally necessary-because the ultimate goal is the relationship with God. This is why some become eunuchs for the kingdom (celibates that rely radically on Christ). His is why marriage is “until death do we part.” Mormonism is elevating marriage beyond its place. The only eternal marriage is the Marriage of Christ and his Bridegroom, the Church, to which the Book of Revelation attests to. Eternal Marriage in Mormonism has the goal of progression to become gods. Ultimately Mormonism falls into the very original temptation of The Fall: to become like God (without God).

[@BeardedDisciple]

I totally agree with this. To me it’s hard not to see it as an idol in the faith.

[@BeardedDisciple]

Could you give me a source on that with Orthodox?

[@Tanmexam27]

@A P Interesting. I wonder if Joseph Smith had exposure to Orthodoxy in New York and Ohio. I’m fairly certain he had exposure to Masonry, which directly influenced his ideas and rituals.

[@kova1577]

Eternal marriage is the only normal thing that the LDS believe. Though they aren’t Christian like the orthodox Christians who also have the same belief

[@kova1577]

@@Tanmexam27 masonic? Why of course. Why didn’t I think about that? Masons are creepy people

[@d.j8767]

Hello Bearded Disciple, just a few comments almost a year after you posted your video, hahaha. I think you are spot on in your analysis. I recently watched the entire debate. I was a Mormon for 42 years, graduated from a Mormon University, did the mission thing, taught at the MTC (Missionary Training Center), went through the temple prior to 1990, (This was when all the blood oaths were still in the endowment ceremony), married in the temple, held numerous local leadership positions, etc, etc....so I understand the "Mormon thinking". I removed my name off the membership rolls several years ago. Kwaku was better onstage, however I was disappointed with all of his facial expressions. And his laughing during a period of Aaron's dialogue was very childish, and I would expect more from someone who appears in the media regularly. I have watched several of Kwaku's debates, he usually responds to all criticism and questions emotionally, or in an emotional manner . This approach speaks well to his Mormon audience. Mormon general leadership and the lay membership is in need of theologians. One could argue that the last Q15 theologian was Boyd Packer and before him was Bruce McKonkie. I know there was some overlap with those two. I think this lack of deep understanding theologians, is being felt in a negative manner with the current general membership. Kwaku appears to know a little about a lot of religious topics. However, I would push that he probably doesn't understand or know as much as he thinks. This type of understanding is fine for teaching and interacting with faithful members of the Mormon church. In the Mormon church, feelings and emotion are what move people and build their faith and Kwaku understands this. I found that most members don't really understand the Bible as well as they do the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. Also, the basic doctrine that the "We believe the Bible to be the Word of God, as far as it is translated correctly....." Article of Faith 8, may create doubt in the truthfulness of the Bible to many Mormons. It is almost a "get out of jail free" card when confronted with conflicting views or interpretations. I know I always gravitated toward the Book of Mormon when I was a member. It confirmed my bias in the truthfulness claims of the church much more easily than the Bible did. Aaron was approaching the debate as a Minister would. He was vocal and loud. This appeals to his audience. They are familiar with this style. It is what he knows and how he teaches. But I can tell you the Mormon crowd thought it was over the top. I went to Kwaku's posting on KZbin and read the comments. Many Mormons were turned off by this approach. Aaron won the debate if based on a scriptural approach and use of the Bible for backing claims. Kwaku most likely won the crowd though, with his "pulling on the heart strings" approach. And this is what a debate is all about. It is always about getting the crowd to agreeing with your position. Kwaku appears to have done that well.

[@YaakovBuchner]

Some people seem to misinterpret 'Predestination'. It doesn't mean God decided before Creation who would/wouldn't be saved. Or predestined the Holocaust. Simply, that He knew it would happen. It means He knew who would/wouldn't be saved and your name has been/not been, in His 'Book of Life", before Creation. Some have a problem with excepting that before time most were 'Damned' and somehow blame God for the choices He knew we would make. Kwaku's issue is with excepting a Creator that had foreknowledge of historic events like the Holocaust yet did not intervene the way he believes he should. Kwaku believes that basically, all people will enter a level of Heaven with the best Mormons entering the highest level, and becoming their own gods. Pagan, Islamic, etc. are all welcomed by Kwaku's god. The fact they bore false witness and worshipped false idles is immaterial, because to Kwaku, a righteous God would not hold them eternally accountable. Aaron's argument is Scriptual. Our Creator has known before time what would happen, has made it clear the consequence of rejection. Aaron is correct, that it is abundantly more horrific that hundreds of millions have been led astray to eternal death through Smiths' cult, than the loss of 6 million of my people in the Holocaust.

[@hallie9456]

Thanks for a fair and balanced review Noah :)

[@BeardedDisciple]

Thanks, I am glad you enjoyed it!

[@evanbirkby4501]

Your analysis was reasonable. The debate had both Kwaku and Aaron debating Calvinism instead of debating Mormonism vs a Christian Protestant world view. Getting into Calvinistic errors is like making straw man arguments. I generally avoid debating Calvinistic arguments until a person is quite clear on how to think biblically. New believers or those seeking the truth can be very confused with this type of debate.

[@luvmorrisey20]

Kwaku will have an “answer” for EVERYTHING!

[@nute742]

Yes he does! Because when you have "additional knowledge" the rest of mainstream Christianity doesn't have (or even accept) it makes it easier. However with that said that knowledge is open to anyone. Jesus himself said "Few be the way that find the door"

[@BeardedDisciple]

@nute742 one must be able to show you have more knowledge otherwise it’s not knowledge but more like conspiracy theories. Which is about all the LDS church has.

[@nute742]

@@BeardedDisciple These "conspiracies" are just an opinion (no more than someone saying something about another religion). Thus why we have so many christian churches (albeit - with different names, traditions, beliefs etc). Even if some "proof" were to come out - most would not believe (as they would fear it would "take away" or prove their own beliefs wrong) things they have already believed or doubled down on (that is one of the "main reasons") for not progressing. However a good biblical scripture (James 1:5) Says to ask "God" - who gives to all men) who come with a pure heart, and "real" intent.

[@nute742]

@@BeardedDisciple Jesus "Showed" his miracles - yet many would still not believe (because of their hardened hearts). People and logic don't always mix. Historical facts (and history) don't always make believers in Christ (look at the "booksmarts") of the Jews (Pharisees + Sadducees)! Jesus had to call humble fishermen instead (as its hard to put "new wine" into an old bottle).

[@nute742]

@@BeardedDisciple A great article written comes from a "Catholic" authority who talks about both his church and the lds. This is what happened: “Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: ‘You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.’” (LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder [Deseret Book Co., 1950], pp. 3-4.)

[@savezelda]

Misrepresenting Kwaku a bit. We believe we have free will AND that God is omniscient. He misunderstood the man or Kwaku misspoke. Great breakdown though.

[@BeardedDisciple]

Where did you feel I misrepresented him? I believe the same thing as you for free will and omniscience which is part of my problem with Kwaku’s main argument being against predestination. He’s supposed to be defending the LDS view against mainstream Christianity as a whole not going on a tirade against Calvinism alone.

[@savezelda]

@@BeardedDisciple Perhaps K doesn't believe God is omniscient, but I find that hard to believe as it's basic LDS doctrine, and he's pretty sharp. But I suppose it's possible. Also possible he misspoke or you misunderstood him. Great video.

[@YaakovBuchner]

Wow, I had a completely different opinion on the debate. I thought it was so one-sided that I was left feeling empathy for Kwaku to a degree. I wasn't swayed by personalities, but Biblical fact. Kwaku relied to heavy on grabbing at people's heartstrings with all the Jew rhetoric and earthy desires for the afterlife. Someone trying to prove Scripture untrustworthy, but a polygamist-charlatan reliable is going to have a rough time of it. Kwaku seems to not understand that Smith is responsible for the spiritual eternal death of millions of people, not to mention physical murder! As Aaron said, Smith's crime is so far more serious than the deaths of my fellow Jews during the Holocaust or 9/11. His adultery is the worst of all sins! Like Mohammed, who is responsible for billions of spiritual deaths through his false doctrine. At times I felt like I was watching an NFL team playing a little league team. I expect one declaring the scripture to do so boldly. Kwaku knows When you cannot win on truth, win on emotion. A long-running Liberal tactic. And Kwaku is definitely Liberal when it comes to Scripture.

[@BeardedDisciple]

I don’t disagree that in reality Kwaku’s arguments were simply focused on pulling on emotion. The problem is that Aaron let him play that game with in the end actually meant that most people left feeling Kwaku won because unfortunately people think more with their heart then their head. In a debate you have to win not just the head but also the heart. If the majority of people left feeling like Kwaku won even if not by a logical standard, the. Kwaku won the debate since he had most of the audience believing he did. Debates need to win hearts and between the two Kwaku achieved that you could see it on people’s faces and when you asked people. Mormons left heads high and most of the Christians left discouraged.

[@YaakovBuchner]

@@BeardedDisciple I disagree. Anyone present that knows Scripture, would not have been swayed by Kwaku at all! Nor do I believe the audience was. It was not an audience of Mormons-Christians, but of College influenced Atheists and Christians. The atheists went convinced both were ludicrous fools and that likely didn't change. Liberals are driven by the heart and generally abandon truth in favor of their own narrative. Hell isn't for the sinner, but for the liberal! Heaven isn't for the good, but for the forgiven! Kwaku, like Lucifer, is a narcissist who believes he will become a god. So much so, that he refers to himself as 'El', a Yiddish reference to God. I am a Jew, and it is tragic beyond compare, but many of my people who lived through the Holocaust are not in Heaven. When a liberal cannot win with logic, they work on your emotions. They draw you to abandon the authority and except your own interpretation. "Did God really say, surely you will die if you eat the fruit"? We see this happening all across our nation right now, and it's likely the liberals will force a civil war very soon. I agree, liberals think more with their heart than their head. But they're no liberals in Heaven! We have been given the 'Word'. Those who want to deny, alter, and bare false witness, like Kwaku and his founder Smith, will find out really quick, they were created for 'His' glory, not their own.

[@BeardedDisciple]

@@YaakovBuchner Just curious, were you at the debate? Because I was and In talked with over 20 people afterwords and the Christians were discouraged and the LDS were fairly happy. There is a way to both have good rhetoric and true arguments. Kwaku won the rhetoric battle.. and like I said since most people unfortunately don't use understand what makes a good argument most left feeling Kwaku won. The fact that you say "there are no liberals in heave tells me a lot" Honestly Jesus would just lump you with all the other politically focused groups in his time.. I pray for Kwaku, I pray for the LDS, Christians and anyone else in that crowd but when you approach things with "simply the facts and no heart or love well you're that resounding gong or clanging symbol that Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians 13. you can speak facts and truth and do it i love and win both the debate of facts and the debate via rhetoric.

[@YaakovBuchner]

@@BeardedDisciple Those who are liberal about the Word of God will not enter Heaven. You don't get to alter what it says to fit your narrative! You don't get to decide the parts you like and dismiss the parts you don't! You believe it in its fullness, or like Kwaku, you alter it to fit your narrative. You may not like it, I don't like it, but if Kwaku does not leave his pagan church an get right with Christ, he will not enter the Kingdom. Respectfully, if you think Kwaku won anything, its because you don't know Scripture. What I see is an absolute thrashing! A man who is knowledgable of Scripture and what it states, tongue lashing a child that believes he can denounce God, and decide what's justified. Kwaku has no idea what Scripture says, he follows a pedophile, adulterous polytheist, who tells him he will be a god of his own planet someday. Put simply, LDS is a cult! And Christ warns of such charlatans. You don't make yourself equal to the Creator of all things. The only thing he convinced anyone of, is that he cannot except a righteous Creator allowing bad things to happen to good people. As one who has known Scripture for 5 decades, who reads it in Hebrew, who is related to the very people in Scripture; I am the 84th great-grandson of Adam, the 75th great-grandson of Noah, 74th great-grandson of Japheth. I descend from Abraham, Moses, David. Mary and Joseph. Jesus is my 127th cousin. Kwaku has no idea what he is talking about, and I feel much sorry for those unwilling to do the research of LDS doctrine. He is lost; a false guide. I pray for Kwaku and all others swayed by his Smith and Youngs deception.

[@EricSmyth4Christ]

They were not debating to win, they were speaking from the heart

[@BeardedDisciple]

That’s an interesting comment. What do you mean by that?

[@EricSmyth4Christ]

@@BeardedDisciple Both Aaron and Kwaku are speaking in front of their peers but are MOSTLY speaking for their God to their God In the front and back of their minds they are speaking to communicate the truth of their point and their beliefs and are not censoring themselves in order to "win the crowd" or "win the debate". If Aaron wanted to win the debate, he could sacrifice some of his theological stances that are unpopular in order to do so, but again, he isn't there to win the debate, he is there to win souls, so he would never do that. Aaron is more concerned with proper exegesis than he is winning points from the judges. He speaks passionately because of the context of the situation - he believes it will be most effective to communicate this way to reach the hearts of man. He isn't even thinking about the debate win/loss. Aaron probably thinks that if he speaks the truth he wins, and if he leaves out some vital truths he will lose. Kwaku is the same as Aaron, but he shows it differently I watched all of Kwaku`s videos and I can tell you he is a genuine religious person and cares not about the debate win or loss, just the truth

[@mr400meter]

I'm a compatibilist myself. I have no problem with the belief of the will of man and the will of God. Man's not as free as he can be because ultimately his bondage to sin (and particular laws that God has restrained us with) while God is freer than we are as humans. My choosing Christ ultimately came because God did a supernatural work on my heart. God pursued me. My heart changed upon hearing the Gospel message. So yeah, I don't see any issues with God having mercy on whom He will.

[@EricSmyth4Christ]

But can you imagine and suppose a God that is more creative than he is powerful?

[@mr400meter]

@@EricSmyth4Christ Not following you. Is that a rebuttal against the sovereignty of God?

[@EricSmyth4Christ]

@@mr400meter Yes A God that respects his "Free Will" and conscience more than his perfect plan

[@mr400meter]

@@EricSmyth4Christ Not following you. Could you elaborate?

[@EricSmyth4Christ]

@@mr400meter pre destination is "God's sovereignty > God's creativity" Arminianism is the other way around

[@michaeletheridge6611]

Hey Bearded Disciple, I really enjoyed watching this response and gained much insight on the points you’ve made. I’d love to have the opportunity to have a talk via phone call if you’re up for it.

[@BeardedDisciple]

I would love to! Email me at [e-mail] and let’s figure out a time.

[@BrendonKing]

I think it helps when you show up not half an hour late, respectfully.

[@derrekchild60]

That debate was a dumpster fire, but to be fair most religion vs religion debates are.

[@BeardedDisciple]

In your view who do you think 'won'?

[@derrekchild60]

@@BeardedDisciple I don't think there was a winner because there is no right or wrong answers in a religion vs religion debate. What is the criteria to pick a winner? If I had to pick a winner it would be Kwaku based on stag presence. Aarons passion, as you put it, came across as over bearing and nothing more than an appeal at an emotional response from the audience. Truth be told his "yelling' was a complete turn off to me. To be fair Kwaku's smugness was a turn off also. Neither one of them gave good arguments, or were convincing, in regards to their point of view. I don't think either one of them even tried to construct an argument to prove their point. They just tried to make the others belief look silly.

[@BeardedDisciple]

@@derrekchild60 thanks for your thoughts. One question, you seem to be implying that there isn't truth is relative when it comes to religion. Is that what you mean by saying "there is no right or wrong answers in a religion debate" Or do you mean that all religions are wrong and so there can't be a right or wrong because really they are all just wrong?

[@derrekchild60]

Every religion has apologetics, and their members all have testimonies. Religion vs religion debates are almost always dumpster fires because they are arguing interpretations of ancient writings. There is no way to prove one interpretation is correct verses another. Granted some interpretations are stronger than others. Religions can't even agree on scripture. What these debates turn into is two people speaking to their base instead of sharing ideas and debating the why. Faith is also an attribute of most religions, and faith is a cornerstone of Christian religions. If you could prove Jesus is the Christ, that the Bible is the word of God, and so on there would be no need for faith. To answer your question it's not about truth, it is about why should you have faith and believe what is being taught. Scripture is an interesting subject to me. Every religion claims their holy books are scripture and the word of God. The truth is holy books are collections of writing of men. The real question in my mind is why does one believe their religious texts are more credible than others. That should be the first argument.

[@BeardedDisciple]

@@derrekchild60 Are religious truths objective or subjective? This doesn't answer if we can know what the truth is but only if the truth of religion is objective or subjective.

[@Mister_Downstairs]

,, where is the full debate link

[@schildburgerspiele9997]

A Mormon researcher, lol. I think, I've seen enough.

[@BeardedDisciple]

Yeah, researchers never know things

[@VINTAGE1959]

Wait since when did John have the Keys? Peter was given the keys

[@danvan2683]

As a mormon consistency isnt as much as a problem, similiarly to islam honesty isnt as important as outcome.

[@giraffewhiskers2045]

I remember the one about Anne frank.. omg

[@samuelcastora8247]

I was interested until about 7 min. in when we learn it's a LDS debating a Calvinist. They're both trying to live the Christian life with blinders on, no interest in hearing them, or any religious zealot try an defend their efforts to mock God with their heresy. All believers who reject scriptures free grace theology are left with only one thing...religion. You're either with Grace, or you're fallen from it.

[@fingolfinfinwe]

Well done with this overview. I can see how Kwaku may have won the crowd in this debate by appealing to emotional arguments against Calvinism. However from a strictly Biblical truth/logic standing, imo Aaron won and it wasn't really all that close.

[@BeardedDisciple]

Glad you enjoyed it! Yeah, I would agree in reality from a standard of actual debate and logic Aaron won, but this isn't that sort of formal debate. Kwaku won the crowd for sure. And I think unfortunately it's more about winning the crowd since most people don't know how to think critically.

[@fingolfinfinwe]

I'd highly recommend that (after watching the full debate) folks read Aaron's personal debate review (aaronshaf.wordpress.com/2020/03/24/2020-kwaku-aaron-debate-review-part-1/). I'm guessing that many will not bother, but the post-debate responses are very telling when compared.

[@tiannam117]

I don’t think Aaron is a good example of thinking critically when he has to shout at the top of his lungs in a quiet room where he has the microphone in order to get his point across. There’s a reason there are so many highly educated prominent members of the LDS Church who are highly devoted to their religious beliefs. It comes down to being able to think critically instead of sitting there listening to a preacher yell at you about what you’re suppose to believe.

[@BeardedDisciple]

@@tiannam117 You seem be arguing that because he is yelling he is wrong. Is that what you believe? There are also plenty of highly educated people that are evangelical as well. More I would argue in fact. I went to BYU for instance at the begining of the month and asked some questions to the Philosophy of religion professor some questions about Mormonism and he didn't really have great answers. I would have expected that if anyone should be able to answer those sorts of questions it should be a Philosophy professor at BYU but he didn't.

[@fingolfinfinwe]

@@tiannam117 Aaron is a preacher at heart. Raising his voice is a form of emphasis. He's (obviously) not using that tactic in lieu of reasoned arguments...

[@britty4755]

You have a beautiful light about you. 💕

[@legacy756]

Aaron seemed almost crazy when debating