the resurrection of jesus & the irrationality of faith

[@CMcc34]

Thank you for continuing to have the courage to share your thoughts on this matter. Personally, as a Christian, I’ve strayed away from apologetics for some of the reasons you’ve brought to surface. I found it tiring to prove to people why I remain in my faith from a rational standpoint when most of the experiences that strengthened my faith in Jesus were supernatural in nature.

[@DeconvertedMan]

apologetics pretends to have answers that relies upon you not knowing or understanding informal logic.

[@ashleyplowden6868]

In the midst of experiencing life’s tragedies I’ve realized I have more questions than answers. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I enjoyed listening.

[@terrencethoughts]

would love to hear you and Preston Perry have a discussion. PPV worthy 😅

[@anthonycroff7030]

Yes, I too have been curious about their relationship dynamic.

[@Doubtyadoubts]

Naw he doesn’t want that smoke!!😂😂

[@flightsfeelings]

@@Doubtyadoubtsand therein lies the problem with all the casual apologist fans lol. y’all don’t actually want to hear interesting dialogue about fundamental questions of life and faith. yall want a mascot that yall can cheer for and make you feel good about your position from a safe distance because you don’t know how to actually handle “that smoke” on your own. for many people, like you, it wouldn’t be an opportunity to genuinely consider perspectives you’ve not considered. it’s simply some sort of competition and whoever has the best moves, “wins”. i gladly welcome any “smoke” from anyone because intellectual curiosity and honesty is not a competition to me.

[@v3ronzo]

@@Doubtyadoubts that divisive rhetoric needs to die fam. this isn't the coloseum

[@sking388]

​@@flightsfeelings i concur with you Joe - i think in some sense, the majority of the information we learn, comes from the insights/views of others, we may even form views/discoveries upon those on our own, as though through stepping on the shoulders of giants, Yet throughout this process of earnest yearning for truth - i think one's temperament is important, for precisely, in our earnest yearnings for truth, we ought to seek out for "truth" in the "truths" that are presented to us (and this i believe is our individual duty/responsibility). I say this because I believe truth comes in extents, and truth is approximate to us in nature. What i mean to say is that we ought to think about these things for ourselves (if that is the goal to begin with, then that should be the goal we make sure, to the best of our capabilities, to focus/stay-true on), and as a result then, not to default to something for the mere purpose of a false sense of comfort/pleasure, via authority or even ease/conveniency through authority or such. For instance, I appreciate Augustine's exegesis method of reading scripture through the "lense of Christ", and i agree with it, yet I disagree with Augustine's conclusions on scripture that lean towards a more Calvinistic reading, precisely because i think his exegesis method makes sense (as it adheres to the things that I deemed to be most reasonable as I ponder upon the things I come across). I encourage all of us to be continually open to new views/insights, in eagerness and diligence, and also in carefulness when examining things (especially towards ourselves): For if earnest yearning for truth is what we seek (as i hope for all of us), then we ought to be courageous, and through courage then hope (in our seekings), as we stay true to our convictions (to seek truth), then through courageousness, hopefulness then, in also examining the truths we find in ourselves. What I'm trying to say is If we want to earnestly seek truth, then we should also ask ourselves if entertainment/pleasure of any sort aligns with the aforementioned, and if it doesn't - does that reveal some sort of deficiency in us, e.g. in our temperaments/mindset - Is it truth that we seek? Or pleasure/amusement? Let truth guide the way as we share ideas, for truth speaks for itself; competition or pleasure shouldn't be in our aims/yearnings. My point is I think there can be pleasure from finding truth, but to be-careful to have pleasure included in one's aims (or partially), because it muddies things (e.g., for is it truth that we are after? Or comfort/pleasure/amusement?). For Insight, I find this true and as such paralleled in many things, e.g. to die is to gain/find life, or in contemporary philosophy, to experience pleasure perhaps then to not set pleasure as its own goal (the paradox of hedonism), or in life if you want an "easy" life then seek a "hard" one (but when fully carried-out, you won't really seek "easiness" then so to speak), etc & etc. Perhaps if we want to seek truth, then let us seek truth earnestly: let us be open to a wide-range of ideas (for there can be truths anywhere we journey, even to places where we "don't know", for truth exists in extents - to allegorise - metaphysically, a "lie" can't even be formed without the presence of "truths"), and let us not seek amusement/pleasure (from confirmation bias, or default to authority, or some sort of hopefulness/toying with ideas of "victories" without a battle), for it could deter us from the truth we want to seek in the first place (because our mindsets affect the way in which we conduct ourselves, and that affects the way we handle the truths that are presented to us/the truths we come across). And morever, we could always learn from one another, one has "truths" that the other doesn't know and vice-versa, we could all "win", and even if we lose some things then in a way there is no loss (for to lose is to gain). i pray and hope we all examine truths (in love), including the momentary truths & state of minds we find ourselves to be in, for it affects our views/the way in which we conduct ourselves, and that -> the "truths" we desire and/or form in each of our own journeys in this life. I appreciate Joe a lot - and I say this to hope we stay focused on what matters at the end of the day - truth (and Love), not competition. And a last note of encouragement to all of us for the sake of peace, be at peace for truth guides the way, For all of us (even if we turn out to be wrong about something, what is to be lost/gained except for what is "wrong" and what is "right"? - in essence we replace ideas as we get "closer" to the picture of truth, then like Joe's courage and mindset which I see to be something good, we ought to not fear and likewise be courageous (in faith & hope & love), for truth, there is no need to fear for even to lose is to gain. as humans we all experience fear, this is inherent to us as we developed this way, but what do we say to fear? likewise then as in all matters we focus ourselves on the truth (for we believe it is the better way), there is no need to fear - for even to lose is to gain as aforementioned. i say this because i recognize that and i know fear motivates us to react or say things in a certain way, even if this is not the case per say (perhaps simply asserting some sense of superiority; which may even be baseless, or whatever), limited as i am i can sense deficiencies (as in all of us), so i point things out not for the sake of superiority but rather in the teachings of Christ - what good is it to act in any way that is less than love? do we not forego a chance to love one another whenever we act in certain ways that are less than loving? why do this when we could be loving (if that is indeed a better way - as Christ explains in his Sermons for us to read)? as Christians, fear is the beginning of wisdom, but perfect love casts out all fear, for fear has to do with punishment, but the truth we know is that the truth sets us all free (in this life and forever more), there is never any real "loss" for anyone or anything. I believe in a God that is even more loving & perfect than the most caring/loving Father on earth, and as such never punishes out of hate, but for restoration like a father that reconciles his son for the sake of love (For the metaphysical essence of Love is that it seeks the others' good and not One's own good); for the good of his son. If we know love then, let us love and not speak of yearnings for truth & honest expressions with connotations of entertainment or competition, lest we reduce them to something less than what is love and good: truth. And we know the truth that there is so much suffering and misfortune on Earth (dissonance in the whole realm of the Universe we're in), what more then? Do we act and entertain likewise, in hopes of yielding some form of "good/pleasure" that we know pales in comparison to the truth that we know of to be a better way? Let us act like it as Light & Earnestness that shines through this dark & fallen world, and let us focus on it lest we forget what really matters. We're all going through it - there's enough chaos, pain, and suffering - there's no need to further it (there's no further good that can come out of it; and depending on your definitions - if "any" good, yet it pales to the foregone alternative). But the point is more than that, we could establish order even in this chaos we find ourselves in, with more Love/good in every situation we come across, always (this i firmly believe) - and this the most important point of all, that the greatest thing we can bring onto the Table is Love (In the words we have of Christ - But the Greatest of These is Love).

[@isaiahkinard9943]

Joe, as a Christian, this is so refreshing to me to meditate on and think about. Thank you for sharing. As a pastor, I’m excited to have these conversations with our next generation.

[@rachelayala6724]

Please do more of these episodes, I find them to be helpful and allows me to be reflective of my thoughts and faith.🙏

[@sophiaoyelakin5443]

Thank you for sharing this Joe. As a Christian, this is so rich and makes me want to to go even deeper.

[@trillj0sh]

Yessir feels like you be uploading at the perfect time

[@flightsfeelings]

🙏🏽

[@RuslanKD]

Your continued fascination with Christianity is poetic 😂😂😂 and I’m here for it! I’m only a few minutes and will update as I get deeper into the video.

[@RuslanKD]

9:56 it’s not about it being “easy” it’s about the simplest explanation being he actually rose. And it’s reasonable based on the historic facts (even Bart acknowledges) the evidence comes on me placing my faith IN the resurrection and living his ways that create the certainty. It’s like when I was first told eating my ideal body weight in grams of protein and brocolli every day will get me shredded. I was unsure, I didn’t necessarily prefer broccoli, the gym was hard. But I did it for 2/3 months and all the sudden had abs. I can pontificate on if Broccoli and chicken breast is a settled amongst the “scholars” but I’ve walked through the process. I’ve placed my confidence in the proposition and applied and got banging results.

[@RuslanKD]

10:28 brother you jumped from the resurrection the age of the earth 😂😂😂 you think christian scholarship debates the resurrection like the age of the earth. C’mon. There’s a diversity of views across the 4 main streams of Christianity regarding the age of the earth. There’s no debate amongst Christians about the resurrection.

[@RuslanKD]

11:32 no, the issue is secular humanist project their presupposition that a spiritual / supernatural world doesn’t exist and then they project that on the gospel accounts. This is one of the main reasons they refuse to date the gospels earlier. They believe there’s no way Jesus could have predicted the destruction of the temple. Therefore it must have been added later. Therefore eye witnesses didn’t really write the gospel. It’s all on their initial presupposition that miracles don’t exist and reading that into their scholarship.

[@RuslanKD]

19:01 if the resurrection is true WE OUGHT to trust Jesus words in the new testament documents and place our faith in him and live His ways. Even when those ways are incompatible with our pre suppositions are about ourselves or the world. There I fixed it.

[@RuslanKD]

19:37 yes it is ABSOLUTELY the best for you to follow Jesus. Unequivocally. No better world view to live out.

[@chiIShome]

Now this screams for a sit down/friendly debate with someone that can ask you logical questions about this topic at a live time and not just your thoughts alone, and vice versa to whom u may sit with. And honestly the best person would be Preston. Especially since u guys have history. It would be respectful and you guys should feel comfortable with each other.

[@Passion84GodAlways]

Looking forward to listening to this after I get outta class.

[@jayvansickle7607]

Even though I'm out of Christianity now... .I still listen to sermons (particularly from my old church), and some podcasts....and am amazed that I didn't question allot of things that are said. At least, question to the point of seeing the ridiculousness.

[@flightsfeelings]

man it’s wild lol. even listening back a few weeks ago to one of my FAVORITE preachers, Tim Keller. i was like “ehhhh… it don’t quite hit the same.” it’s like watching tv shows from the early 2000’s that got re-released on netflix. don’t quite hit the same lol

[@jacliveshere]

This was great! You have a gifted brain. I like that analogy with the continents: how walking on connected land is likened to reasoning while crossing bodies of water is likened to journeys between faith and reason. You are so right that "faith" is always a separate leap. And I think ever since evangelism was prepackaged to appeal to modern thinkers, the gaping hole of disingenuity got wider. I agree!! I enjoy listening to you. Some of what you say is often humourous but always intelligent!

[@dominicsey3032]

No faith, when it comes to all ideas to be substantiated, is the vehicle of attention finding roads of faithfulness to drive on to get through the labyrinth of ignorance, misunderstanding and instability, to get to some destination of what it means to be who you are in relation to life. I'm gonna make a video responding to this video if you're interested.

[@jacliveshere]

@@dominicsey3032 your comment supports Joe's point. Faith being a "vehicle" shows it's an extra step or means that transcends reasoning and logic (as you pointed out). It's about feelings, what people want to be true. The definition of faith is having confidence or trust in something as being true but without proof. Neither faith nor hope are needed when we accept and live by what is.

[@dominicsey3032]

@@jacliveshere no, the very act of thinking is dependent on faith, just like the frontal cortext is dependent on the emotional regions. There's relevance realization to quote cognitive scientist John Vervaeke, where value aids in the gestalting that makes experience and psychological activation intelligible. Faith drives on faithfulness to other paths of faithfulness, navigating around doubt, confusion, inadequacy, ignorance etc. What is is in great part an idea, and it evolves as we acquire more experience, understand understanding and misunderstanding, track how we know and what we don't know, discern gold from fools gold, substantiate what is valuable etc. Aside from certain mystical states and the permanent knowing and identification with totality, all takes to reality have faith. I'll put it more clear as a vehicle that drives on the undercurrent of life to find continuity through the irregular paths of confusion, ignorance, deception and the like. You get a thruline for many fragments, what characterizes intelligibility.

[@dominicsey3032]

@@jacliveshere for some reason my comment wouldn't post like my prior long comment. I'll make a video response to this. But no my comment doesn't, you ignored the properties and form and skewed it towards what you already think.

[@jacliveshere]

@@dominicsey3032 sadly your reply shows you have no manners so I'm muting you now.

[@princessm8977]

Now that I'm no longer a Christian, the resurrection almost seems unnecessary? If God is God and all powerful and all knowing and all loving, why didn't he just forgive us? Better yet, why did he make us so impure that he even needed to forgive us. No one asked him to kill his son who was himself and bring his son back. I can't believe I believed this for so many years. Another great video, Joe!

[@Zero090397]

Sorry to hear that you’re no longer Christian, God is all powerful, all knowing but he is not all loving, he never said that about himself, the god you’re talking about isn’t the one from the Bible but from your understanding, the God in the Bible gave you choice and you made yours, but if you lean not on your understanding you may know him

[@nishazana]

God gave us everything before the fall, we messed that up through choosing to play god and rebelling. There were severe consequences to that choice. But, God displays His nature to us throughout the bible story. He has always wanted relationship with us but there something in us that has us choosing otherwise and even in the times of being able to make offerings etc. people failed because God is the one we choose when it's going like we want but the minute His holiness is displayed through justice, we have things to say. Your question isn't new , we needed the one perfect sin offering to be reconciled to God now and fully at the time of glory revealed. God doesn't create us imperfect when Adam and Eve were presented with perfection, they felt it wasn't enough and chose death. God is so loving, merciful - He sent Jesus to save the world (all of His creation) from the eternal consequence but God does not force. He gives the choice , I know this answer is not well articulated but I do pray you meet God again and see God for who He truly is , I guarantee,He will meet you if you ask with a heart to hear. I've found His answer to be the perfect answer.

[@flightsfeelings]

@@nishazana the entire christian faith cannot be reconciled without violence at the very center of it. violence is the truest act of reconciliation. violence is the truest act of justice. violence is the truest prophecy. violence is the truest love.

[@j.pipparker]

@@nishazana i love how you said, “we.” Lol. I have a serious question for you. If your future wife handed you the forbidden apple, would you have chose to mess up and eat it?

[@dashaunjefferies1168]

Maybe Im stupid (I've replayed this so many times, Im embarrassed) but "rationality alone cannot get you to the act of faith itself" seems to be a reiteration of "there's a chasm btw faith and reason". And he seems to think this chasm is illustrated well by Kierkegaard's depiction of Abraham's leap to faith in the moment of sacrificing his son. No one can relate to Abraham's situation bc it's so private, inexplicable and so contrary to the agreed terms of social conduct (it's evil to murder his son) as well as being so absurd in this sense that he has to go against all reality to get the promise. So by the illustration, Abraham's naked faith (his posture of trust/commitment) is as isolated from reason as the resurrection is from a sense of ought to respond to the resurrection....This is just me trying to make sense of these ideas and not misrepresent in any way. The only thing I kept thinking was that relational experience is what cultivated faith as exemplified by offering Issac. What I mean is that Abraham didn't offer Issac in the face of absolute absurdity; he had God's promise, prior miracles & workings, and concluded God was not a liar. His WAY of thinking, I would say, changed: earthly thinking took backseat to supernatural thinking, figuring God is not a liar and had given Issac from dead loins to begin with, he is able to keep the promise of having many nations come from Issac. If what you mean is: Babel/reason will never be tall enough to reach heaven/faith (when mentioning infinity examples) or Hagar wont lend you the heir, I understand and agree. The whole of true examples of faith (via Abraham and the disciples) have rested on knowing the true God, having a relationship with him. And no amount of deduction yields relationship with another. Doesn't the infinite have to come to us in fractured ways? Isn't the distance btw 1 and infinity the same distance btw 1 and 2 (ie 1.1, 1.11, 1.1101, etc)? I think that's what Paul communicates on so many levels: (1) in his own expression of naked faith/being the knight of faith in 2 Cor 4:8-16, (2) in men's thinking not granting them sonship/relationship/trust in 1 Cor 1:22, and (3) how God has to come to us to be known when he quotes "do not say who will ascend into heaven or descend into the abyss, bc the word is here, near you". I say this as kinda thinking while typing, not to sway or anything. It seems like trust, even on a basic human-to-human level, is a more of a top-down or outside-in experience whereas reason is more of an inside-out, (common) ground-up experience.

[@dashaunjefferies1168]

It honestly makes me ponder again a tattoo I have that reads: "How could Abraham truly have Issac except through laying him down? How can you have Me without laying yourself down? You see the holes in My hands." You just might've put me on game with Soren haha..

[@dominicsey3032]

Beautifully put brotha

[@riissmith5836]

Love you brother. You're chosen as a human regardless of what you believe! God is using you, STILL. Keep leading.

[@jacliveshere]

That isn't biblical to be chosen by God or used by him regardless of beliefs. Whatever you admire about Joe, it's coming from his own brain. My experience is that the human brain works sharper without the hindrance of faith. He also seems to be intellectually gifted.

[@lamayasmith5854]

For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. (2 Corinthians 5:13) it’s true, faith requires us to let go of the way of rational. We are asked to step out of logical and into belief. And we step into belief our beliefs get reaffirmed by the experiences we gain as we trust. - Joe something profound is happening in your heart. We see you ❤

[@sking388]

imo any contemplative journey begins with faith, when st anselm said "faith seeks understanding" -- i think he is right in that that is the mode in which we engage our minds (we believe/hope that our reasoning/contemplative journey will yield some form of reason/whatever outcome). Whether or not this "faith" is implicit or made aware of I believe it is there in our minds (whenever we wish/decide to reason). Whatever the outcome we reach, it is first through the belief/hope/trust that an end could/will be reasonably reached (whatever end it may be--as through reason, or "reasoning"). i've always found the nature of faith to be a concept difficult to grasp, as well as its relation to reason, but what really helped me come to grasps with this, alongside with explications of faith that are of the nature above, is when paul said something along the lines of giving a reason to explain your hope or faith in Christ, it is there that i am reminded the two are somehow closely linked (for faith seeks understanding, and reasoning gives reasons for faith). the way i see it is that we begin with faith and end with faith, for it is faith that leads to reason, and reason that leads to faith (what i mean is that it is a mode - we first have faith (to some degree) as we engage in reason, then we are led to faith through reason. i doubt anyone has faith in something without reason, whether or not they can explicate that reason is another matter (or whether/in what way the "reason" maps to the picture of truth is also another) so i see faith more as a "mode", a sort of hope or belief or trust in "truth" - that there is some coherence or correspondence between our acts of consciousness and of reality (e.g. that i will investigate this because it will lead me somewhere, and that somewhere is indeed "somewhere"; something that holds truth (though how that truth maps onto our belief/faith; or whether it matters in a meaningful way is another matter -- as we may just as well be missing the mark, e.g. posing a dilemma when there is none -- perhaps asking the "right" questions gets us there half-way or the saying goes in my head). and that all this is possible because we put trust/belief in our reasoning (e.g. that there is correspondence between reality/truth with the conscious). or put it another way, having faith in our reasonings, that we trust our beliefs are "valid" because the underlying reasons for our belief are indeed true and that there is coherence of those reasons being true to reality (or our reasons map onto our beliefs in meaningful/and hence truthful ways). but the point you brought on about the finite and the infiniteness is true, for now in our finite beings/minds i find it true that it is as though we see only "as through a mirror" and we only know in "part", though that shouldn't deter us in any sense, for yet the truth is we could acquire parts of it and that is wonderful enough (as limited beings, though limited we could 'grasp' "truths"), and in good faith then we should seek out proper understanding precisely because we believe our paradigm is true (i hope so -- yet truth is not to be feared, for if there is less harmony the more we progress into truth, then it might not be true at all, but if something is not true at all then perhaps its best to just let truth guide the way and so whatever faith we had could just be given up). i suppose that is a more stoic belief though, e.g. no point fretting over something that is not "something". yet i think that is why faith is important, for it is the mode in which we acquire forms of truth -- that we are open to it and trust in some sense that there is correspondence or convergence between the conscious and reality. for instance, my faith is in Christ and him as the perfect fulfilment of what the OT was pointing to, and so to deal with the discrepancies in the OT, i still had faith in that if it is true then it should be reconcilable (for imo a good indicator of truth is in its coherence/the meaning of its coherency). i was led to find that as per my faith in Christ then (after a considerable amount of time), the proper hermeneutics as proposed by Augustine makes the most sense imo, that scripture should be interpreted through the lens of Christ (as perfect Love, anything less than that should be interpreted differently). this matches up (e.g. Christ said he is the closest we'll ever get to the Father), but yet as through faith (and i was curious too), i thought to myself that i ought to carry on through faith to find out if the OT sayings indeed could be interpreted differently, whether those interpretations make sense, and more than that in the way that it matters (as aforementioned if there is less harmony then i could turn out to hold onto a wrong belief). i find paul referencing the OT as being read spiritually/allegorically in the NT, and indeed that the stories of the OT carry significant spiritual parallels to the things in the NT (e.g. that the story of Isaac parallels Christ being offered to the World as a Sacrifice -- e.g. both Isaac and Christ were willing to be sacrificed, in goodwill obedient/harmonious to the Father's). And E.g. the Song of Solomon parallels the physical(fleshly) to the spiritual yearnings and relationship with the Divine. and more, but l digress. someone could say i'm not reading literarily, and that is an issue, but without pointing to the early church fathers who read the OT in likewise fashion, I find it funny to note that even in the show The Chosen, Christ was portrayed correctly as correcting the Pharisees interpretation/spiritual significance of the OT/Torah (and yet they probably had a closer interpretation in some sense at that time just because they were closer to that period and more of the stories' cultural/contextual meanings were retained). That should really point out and make us question about matters of interpretation then. though as you mentioned kierkegaard and james white, i find that one's interpretation greatly affects one's faith (one's interpretation and hence reasons affects their conclusions), i suspect our dealings(as in mine versus others like kierkegaard or calvin, etc.) differ because of our interpretations, e.g. on the meaning of the things we come across, e.g. one thinks Calvinism is of God/Truth, but the others(including me) think of it as being of the Devil XD metaphorically of course, or on the ideas of God's sovereignty, but alas i recognize none of us are without bias in some sense, for we are affected by nature & nurture, but yet i hold firm to the belief that truth sets us free may the truth, whatever it may be, may we walk in closeness to it and live accordingly much love

[@sking388]

also i want to clarify that i don't mean that we have faith and end with faith as though through circular reasoning (that seems vacuous to me; and somewhat meaningless) -- only to highlight that faith is best understood as a "mode"; for it holds explicatory power in our conceptions/usages of the term: e.g. that i have faith in this, one could say you're putting your trust in something, or i have "good faith" (being open to and trusting wherever reason leads, even if it is a rejection of belief), etc. for example i could have faith that i'll find the answer to something (faith seeking understanding) without determining the outcome (so faith in my reasoning faculties) then once i have formed an outcome/belief (after reasoning i have faith in something, e.g. God), perhaps i can have good faith (e.g. perhaps because overtime there has been an increase in the reasons formed, or the coherence of those reasons hold explanatory power especially in connection to others, etc. -> i have a certain confidence things in the future will be harmonious; and if not then i will journey on in reconciliation - either to my underlying reasons/beliefs or whatever belief/faith i have that is higher up top so to speak) thinking about it more, i understand some people can account for faith in their faculties in a naturalistic theory (e.g., that according to the way we evolve/develop, ascertaining truth properly helps aid with the purpose of survival and thriving, and so that is reasonable to be trusted) i agree - but yet in thinking of God, i think the whole picture ought to be more broad (as a firstpass at least; it befits the nature of the Transcendental), as in to existence in the first place, or on the essence or nature of things that we think about or come across just food for thought :) i really enjoy and appreciate these videos and i hope we both find the truth that we seek!

[@dominicsey3032]

I enjoyed reading your comment bro

[@prizramirez2075]

Dear Joseph, blessings to you . I dont prétend to know everything but i do know this , in all my years of studying and trying to pull apart and analogized faith , God, supernatural events and etc. I've realized this, for me it was this, I had an encounter with the Lord and with over in time the word of God i allow it to transform me . I think we try to figure God out we never will because in my humble opinion, he is too great and infinite. Now as i say in my humble opinion. I believe The Lord is something one must have a divine experience with God and his holy Spirit because weather , its me or aomeone else tells you anything of the bible or maybe even supernatural things , it will sound foreign to your ear. To know God is to believe he exists and to know Jesus is to know the Lord. But if anyone is not open that their is a God and they do exist this will sound strange to you. No one can put faith under a microscope you will goad trying to make logical understanding out of faith, because it is may ne simple for some and hard for others just to believe.

[@phronee99]

Thank you for sharing joe🍃🙏🏾very enlightening..more of these kinda stuff

[@Wakilispeare]

Thank you for sharing these thoughts and they truly help me to unpack a lot. I am grateful. Just one question, purely out of curiosity, if you don't mind; when you were still professing the Christian faith, when you were still a seeker what is it (if at all it is possible to point to something specific), what stopped from making that leap to faith; leap from the rational to faith?

[@tunyamu]

🤔 hmm..lots of useful thoughts to ponder here as per usual! I've been one in the past to simply say that science/reason tells us the "what" and faith tells us the "why" and that they're two parallel lines that run side by side, but this point highlighting the chasm between rationality and faith is interesting and will be food for thought and reflection. I'll def. plan to grab some of the books you referenced. unrelated: have you ever watched content from the channel "What the Theory!"? it is run by two philosophers who I think are based in Uganda. Y'all's uploads showed up on my feed one after the other, and it's always a treat to listen and reflect alongside all y'all.

[@adomarc]

Side-note, regarding your comment on the resurrection being anti-historical, I think there is a particularly interesting contribution that quantum physics adds to the discussion. Quantum physics shows that what we macroscopically may have called miracles cannot be ruled out by physics and in fact must be ruled in by quantum mechanics due to the non-zero probability of anything within a particles light cone being possible (see Neil Shenvi on "Quantum Mechanics and Materialism"). This ought to widely expand the realm of the possible even to the naturalist historian in terms of what is possible historically. Every worldview requires faith at the most fundamental level. Even if you want to rely purely on rationality you can apply an argument similar to the moral argument to rational laws. This does not necessarily imply all is absurd.

[@flightsfeelings]

it sounds like you may have misunderstood my point in saying that the resurrection is by anti-historical. the christian believes that what makes jesus special is that he claimed to be god and rose from the dead, making him the only one ever in human history to be god and rise from the dead (according to the christian). okay. IF that is the case, the resurrection is a lone event in history. the resurrection is important BECAUSE it is special. that's my point. history as a science is looking for the most reasonable explanation given what is NORMAL in history. even if the resurrection actually happened, it is not normal. hence, history, with its usual tools, is not equipped to find it. something as unusual as a resurrection, for normal non-theologically motivated history, would require very unusual evidence. so it's not to say that a resurrection by a divine being CANNOT happen. i'm saying, history isn't going to find it under normal circumstances. concerning the random appeal to quantum physics: briefly read through the article you suggested. i guess i shouldn't have been surprised that it was from a christian fundamentalist. but in any case, it's still irrelevant to my point, and even irrelevant to the resurrection itself. 1. if god exists, then there is no rational reason to believe that miracles can't exist. so there's not really any need to poke at QP. 2. what does quantum physics have to do with a god making the willful choice to raise someone from the dead? isn't the whole point of miracles to show that god is ABOVE natural laws, not simply obeying natural laws we just don't happen to understand? are you now relegating the power of god to the realm of quantum physics? but full circle to my actual point: LET'S SAY JESUS ROSE. that there is undeniable evidence of the resurrection of jesus. we built a time travel machine and were able to go back, see it, and even video record the whole process. AND let's even say, for whatever unnecessary reason, it had something to do with quantum physics too lol now what? what OUGHT we do about it, and why OUGHT we do it? "Even if you want to rely purely on rationality you can apply an argument similar to the moral argument to rational laws. " did you watch my video entirely? this statement makes me think you didn't. lastly, returning back to this insatiable need for christians to appeal to the ignorance of science when it suits them, i'll leave you with this quote from one of the realest christians to ever live “"...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer

[@adomarc]

​@@flightsfeelings "history as a science is looking for the most reasonable explanation given what is NORMAL in history" Do you feel that this begs the question by inserting the qualifier "normal"? Not sure why history should be understood this way. History is the study of what actually happened. Regardless of whether or not it was normal. All sorts of weird things happen in history. Unless by normal you mean natural and are making the point that history can only study the natural. Which gets into the question of supernatural vs natural as well as the contribution to this question from quantum mechanics. Not sure whether there is much value in commenting on Neil Shenvi's personal worldview unless you also intend to point out a falsity or issue with his argumentation. Love the questions you raise here: " isn't the whole point of miracles to show that god is ABOVE natural laws, not simply obeying natural laws we just don't happen to understand? are you now relegating the power of god to the realm of quantum physics?" I think this gets to a broader question of what is natural and what is supernatural. Is this an arbitrary distinction? If you define natural as everything that really exists then that would include God Himself. The interesting thing about quantum physics is that it is fundamentally incomplete. It is not merely incomplete because we do not know what we need to know and science will answer the question later on. Uncertainty is fundamentally part of quantum mechanics and there is no causal explanation for why a particular outcome arises when the wave function collapses as opposed to another. Nor can science give a causal explanation to why one outcome appears over another when the wave function collapses. This leaves the door not just merely cracked open but wide open for God's intervention especially given the proposition suggested by some interpretations of quantum mechanics that consciousness has causal powers. See Dr. Bruce L. Gordon's Argument form the Incompleteness of Nature which presents a much more precise version of the argument that I am making here. (Heads up, he happens to be a Christian too.) Regarding Dietrich Bonhoeffer's quote about a god of the gaps, the flipside of this error is a science of the gaps. Both present dangers. Regarding quantum however, incompleteness is intrinsically part of quantum meaning science can never fill the gap... and that's not just a Christian interpretation... What is a good argument? I think it may have been Alvin Plantiga who said something along the lines of: a good argument is one that is logically sound and whose intended audience finds its premises compelling. I see Jesus' resurrection as highly consequential for how one ought to live. You may not. Not sure if you would find any argument about the consequence of Jesus' resurrection for your living compelling.. Logical argumentation has is limits. Science has its limits. History has its limits. This is not just with respect to what these tools could tell us about Christianity but how they can inform other worldviews as well. Faith is necessary for all worldviews. That doesn't make these tools absurd or life absurd in my opinion, rather it perhaps makes certainty absurd. In my opinion, apologetics can give confidence but not certainty. If certainty is what you are after, apologetics cannot give that.. neither can history.. neither can science.. neither could complete knowledge of all future scientific discoveries. Apologetics cannot drive out the need for faith. Science cannot drive out the need for faith whether your worldview is Christian or not. All worldviews require putting your active trust in something. I think we are both in agreement on that.

[@flightsfeelings]

normal meaning natural, yes. i dont see why this is somehow a problem unless someone has theological necessities. again, this is not saying that things out of the norm CAN'T happen. i'm saying it's the not the best tool to go and find it. if jesus himself created wine out of water in a lab in front of our very eyes, if it were in fact miraculous, then scientists wouldn't even have the tools to explain the process. they would only tell you what the chemical composition was after the fact. "Not sure whether there is much value in commenting on Neil Shenvi's personal worldview". Nah it just the constant reminder that the average christian rarely ever actually engages thoughtfully with competing worldviews. they get their information chewed up and mushed for them by their people from their favorite camps. it protects them. i talk about that in this video actually. "the flipside of this error is a science of the gaps. Both present dangers. " uh yeah. sure ok. "This leaves the door not just merely cracked but wide open for God's intervention especially given the proposition suggested by some interpretations of quantum mechanics" lol i don't know why you're so pressed to bring quantum mechanics into this. why do you need quantum mechanics to "open the door for God's intervention" lol. he's GOD. i'm trying to HELP you stay consistent with your own theology lol. if god is god, then he doesn't need "the incompleteness of quantum mechanics" to open the door for him do anything. unless your god is the god that needs permission from the quantum realm to do a miracle. idk. i'm just trying to understand what is the point of trying invoke something you know little of to explain a specific phenomenon that happened at the classical mechanical level? or why you have feel you have any theological motivation to do so. maybe you're just not doing a good job explaining it. "the quantum realm exists, therefore that could explain jesus rising from the dead."? what dots are you connecting? what am i missing? " I see Jesus' resurrection as highly consequential for how one ought to live." precisely. subjective "ought" about an objective "is". which is fine. we all DO it somehow, but my point is let's not go on pretending that it's rationality that got you there. "Apologetics cannot drive out the need for faith. Science cannot drive out the need for faith whether your worldview is Christian or not." great. glad we're on the same page.

[@adomarc]

@@flightsfeelings “if god is god, then he doesn’t need “the incompleteness of quantum mechanics” to open the door for him to do anything”. That is absolutely correct. I don’t recall saying that God *needs* quantum mechanics to be causally incomplete. Of course He doesn’t. The point I was making was with respect to a materialist worldview a historian may hold. As much as a materialist may want to close the door on God or the miraculous, quantum forces it right open due to the non-zero probability a particle has to be anywhere in its light cone as described by its wave function. The materialist historian cannot therefore, with certainty, dismiss what macroscopically may be referred to as miraculous. Quantum mechanics shows us that certain miraculous events have non-zero probability. It also shows us the universe is far more strange than we had expected. Since you seem to enjoy reading philosophy I think you would find Dr. Bruce Gordon’s argument interesting even if you are not compelled by it. Can you tell me how you came to your conclusion regarding my knowledge of quantum mechanics? You are welcome to draw whatever conclusion you’d like about a person commenting on your video but without knowing much about a person’s background, education, reading, or occupation seems like agnosticism with respect to their knowledge may be warranted. May help to keep any dialogues you engage in more respectful and charitable as well. Wouldn’t you take issue with a presuppositionalist making assumptions about your knowledge? :) Why would an “ought” have to be subjective? Like I said logical argumentation, rationality, science, history all have limitations. Science has gaps. Gaps are in fact baked into science. It cannot answer every question about the physical world (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle for example shows science can never tell you the exact position and momentum of a particle). The limitations of these tools are not to say faith is irrational. These tools can give confidence in what you should put your trust in at the end of the day but they will not give certainty. There will always be a gap to cross. That’s not to say crossing the gap is irrational. (This is a side note but people can hold false beliefs on a rational basis too. Rationality does not necessarily say anything about the truth value of a proposition.) Anyway, keep searching. Jesus is risen. I know you may not find that consequential but I find it telling that this is the response you chose (to the extent that your purpose was a response) to the arguments for the resurrection you’ve been exposed to over the years.

[@flightsfeelings]

the quantum mechanics point is just moot and needless, especially in regards to a resurrection, regardless of the uncertainty. if you’re trying to connect the two, then resurrections could be happening all time. “it opens the door for god’s intervention”. you can use semantics all you want and say “it’s not that he *needs* it. gives him permission. opens a door that was proverbially closed. idk. if he doesn’t need it, then how is it a relevant point. it’s now just “hmm this is a cool fact about the universe. here’s a possibility.” the universe being “far more strange than we thought” is like … yeah. okay. cool. that is the UNIVERSE. the created thing in your theology. tf does that have to do with god becoming man and god dying? if you’re trying apply QM to the resurrection then where does it stop? jesus walking on water? the flood? the hypostatic union? will you not give your god credit for doing something on his own volition rather than limiting him to a dude named heisenberg?? and please stop tryin to explain what the heisenberg uncertainty principle is. i know what it is lol. “why would an ought have to be subjective?” you haven’t given an example yet that wouldn’t include some appeal to yourself or subjective will of a person. “gaps are in fact baked into science” you’re not saying anything profound. the gaps is what motivates science altogether. where the scientist boasts in ignorance, the theologian is perpetually trying to insert his doctrine. i don’t like bad faith arguments. i can’t respect them. the fact that you’re doing exactly what i addressed in the video is quite annoying. it’s a disrespect on your end to do it because it shows you don’t actually care to engage in good faith with what’s in the video so you didn’t watch it and you just wanted to get your rocks off OR you DID watch it, understood the point and still did it without giving any explanation why you chose to anyway. (sidenote: even you saying “ i find it telling…” is your presupposition about where i stand. ) the leap to faith is just that. quantum mechanics won’t be able to hold your hand across the water. that is a completely private affair on your end. you can have confidence to jump all you want, but that confidence does not come from a rational argument, as you seem to know but also seem to object to. confidence in a particular truth claim is not the same as the act of faith. and if you think it is, you don’t understand even your own faith and are putting it on “sinking sand” (or the uncertainty principle). again, thats been my point of the video that you clearly didn’t watch in its entirety or carefully.

[@realjeffreyjo]

The main point in all of this every Muslim,Atheist, Agnostic, and etc will have to speak account of there life on the earth. Whether Judgement day is real or fake but one day we will meet Jesus Christ telling us good faithful servant or depart from me.

[@flightsfeelings]

we shall see

[@dwhang18]

Well spoken and well thought out. I can't believe you did this without a script. However with that being said, if you're being honest about seeking answers, it doesn't seem that way. There are logical inconsistencies, standards not applied to both sides of the argument, and some really big assumptions made that are stated as matter of fact that shouldn't be. As someone else said in the comments, these conversations are not meant to be had alone. If accountability and honesty is what is being sought, that has to start with the self and being willing to be challenged and opposed. People are equal but ideas are not.

[@flightsfeelings]

so because i have not landed where you are, i am immediately disingenuous in my approach? let’s presume that i in fact do have logical inconsistencies, which happens all the time, fair. what about being mistaken in logical fallacies is inherently dishonest and rather than just misinformed? why must my integrity be called into question simply because i have logical inconsistencies? why must i have someone scrutinizing me on my channel in order to prove im on the right path? do you expect the same when you listen to people from your tribe? if i went through your saved playlists right now, would i find only* videos of cross examined conversations? do you expect the same for your sunday service? yet i’m the one with standards not being applied to both sides? the comment section is open. if you’d like to simply point out your disagreement, it’s not like i’m ignoring people. people are challenging and opposing me on literally every one of my videos lol. i probably have more people following me who DISAGREE with me than agree with me. this isn’t a vacuum. and i have been replying and elaborating on my stance. if you also want to log your opposition in the comments, you are free to do so. you can challenge my logic before challenging my integrity.

[@dwhang18]

I appreciate your response because i didn't expect it. And i didn't mean for my previous comment to go as far as to question your integrity. Far from it. Like i said, i view you as an equal, and therefore no judgement on you or your character. That's first and foremost, so i hope you understand that. Nothing else I say matters if you don't believe my intention. I don't think i explicitly stated before, but probably not hard to assume that yes, I am a Christian. Having said that, yes, i absolutely hold the same standard of consistency to both sides. Scripture calls us to test every spirit. That means having discernment even if it's my local church/pastor, a well-renowned pastor, or any other prominent Christian figure. The reason i watch your videos is not to just find ppl to argue with. I have better things to do with my time. I watch them because 1) you're very well thought out, read, and informed 2) you have a unique perspective and 3) i want to hear arguments from the other side. Again, testing every spirit. I'm always open to being convinced that what i believe isn't true. If these are the most important questions to all of existence and meaning, it doesn't make sense for me to get through my life without having a solid answer as if ignorance is bliss. I will say though that i haven't yet found an argument that is consistent, logical, or beautiful enough to convince me otherwise. Not saying Christianity checks off all those boxes perfectly, but when i can bridge the gap with faith (not blind faith), that makes it all but complete for me. A bit of an oversimplification, but i think you get it. I appreciate you brother. I have no stake in being right/wrong, but your soul matters

[@craigmerkey8518]

Really great! I enjoy your journey into thoughts!

[@flightsfeelings]

Thank you so much!

[@Idkidkidkidk]

Hey Joseph, I don’t know you at all nor am from mainline church thought, so a lot of the culture you’re from is alien to me. I left the church when I was maybe 11 or something and have been trying to be as intellectually honest while listening to what people have to say. I love that you found Kierkegaard because I’m planning on getting some of his quotes tatted on me soon. There’s a deep wisdom in what he talks about and I feel a little vindicated that our paths intellectually crossed. I respect you without even knowing your past for some reason and I really admire where you’re going with all of this. Please continue. PS, you have a LOT of weirdos commenting for and about you. I’m sorry you’re going through this. You have a lot of strength to argue with these people like this.

[@RDH1986]

Maaaaaaannnnn, I love your mind. Reminds me of my own deconstruction and decolonization journey. Check out John Shelby Spong for fun. He was a bishop who also followed a similar path.

[@Micah-kt2uw]

If the leap to faith is irrational, what reason could you have to make the leap? I think a common response is, "Since everything requires some sort of leap, one more leap doesn't make me any less justified," but I think this reasoning would allow anyone to believe literally anything by making whatever leaps they wanted to make, and is a poor justification for that reason. Another thread that it sounds like you've thought through is, "...to feel the chasm between faith and the rational world is to be the knight of faith." Surely this just means that things that appear rational to us without faith are, in their full context, not actually rational (or that things that seem irrational to us are not actually irrational). E.g., something like, "If we understood life from God's perspective, we'd see that the fear and trembling associated with faith are necessary to our growth/purpose/communion with God/His perfect plan for humankind, etc." My point is that irrationality, by definition, leads to absurdities and contradictions, and cannot qualify for justified belief/a reason to take an action (like the leap to faith), and that when folks point out that Christian faith seems/is irrational, it always seems to me like they really just mean that it only appears so to us limited humans. Would love to hear your thoughts if you end up reading this. Thanks for the video.

[@flightsfeelings]

yes i agree. i think ill do a video expounding on my own journey in regards to the limits of rationality as it pertains to the lived human experience but thats kinda what kinda hinting around at here. thats kind of the vulnerability. i dont find faith, especially the christian faith, to be a rational thing but cold rationalism is also not for the faint of heart.

[@Micah-kt2uw]

@@flightsfeelings Yeah, I definitely feel that. I dropped my faith altogether not too long ago and it felt like it was going to be the end of me for a while -- scariest, most vulnerable experience I've ever had. Looking forward to that video, thanks for the response!

[@amno3450]

i LOVE your videos and ideas but it feels like you're mainly addressing a Christian audience, or like it sounds that's who's at the other end of your conversation. As somebody who is no longer Christian, id love if you addressed us who are in the same deconstructed boat as you a little more often. Thank you for your content and openness though:)

[@levavarts2889]

Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing! The analogies and points raised are quite thought provoking and creative. Had not ever really considered the depth of evil that could be associated with the Abraham, Isaac faith story which is interesting... I agree that the story of both Jesus' Resurrection and birth are unique features in human history. I also think Jesus inspired Black Lightning and many, many, many other meta-human story lines. 😂 Really interesting overall, so much more to say on diverse points raised... Like, Gen 3:16-19

[@jpement]

Thanks for the video Joe. As a Christian, I was recently thinking about how faith and reason are diametrically opposed. Your word choice in a couple areas got me thinking that as humans we don’t have this utter allegiance to rationality. And rationality is not binding on our decision making. And that’s why crossing the chasm from reason to faith is easy for some. But difficult for those committed to rationality. From the apologist’s point of view our rational faculties have paradoxically led us to jump beyond rationality (though I don’t think irrationality is necessarily a bad thing - for example love is irrational and therein lies its beauty). So faith ceases to be rational, though the path all the way up to belief is a rational one. I’ll concede many apologists have done a poor job of explaining that and sometimes worse, masquerading faith as reason. To be honest I hadn’t thought much about the chasm between faith and rationality so thanks for highlighting that. I knew it was there, but did not dwell on it until recently. I’m realising it’s actually a mouthful to explain. And that may be why I don’t hear of it in online discussion. Separately on Abraham’s faith, I’ve heard people say that perhaps he believed that God would resurrect Isaac after the sacrifice in order to keep his promise in Genesis 12, 15, and 17. Have you heard that before or do you have thoughts on it?

[@DanielMorgan404]

Hey Joseph, From watching your videos you seem very familiar with presuppositional apologetics. How would you respond to the question; When you make the statement: “The irrationality of faith” On what basis do you assume the uniformity of nature and the reliability of reason/rationality, since these are foundational beliefs taken by faith in any worldview? I’d also say that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16 make clear that while "the faith" as a whole rests on the resurrection, our rational belief does not. “They will not believe even if someone rises from the dead.” Love the point you made about the people in the Bible not simply having their lives always joyful. I would say, that I think the entire point of Ecclesiastes IS that life is vanity without God. You seem to be wrestling (as we all should to a degree) with Ecclesiastes 3:11. I say this with love man, genuinely: at 43:43, in my view, this is exactly what life without God does ultimately lead to. Ironically, it seems to me that making complete "rational empiric proof" the basis for one's worldview, ultimately leads to irrationality and absurdity.

[@flightsfeelings]

i can’t say i’m very familiar with it. as much time as i’ve spent with and in it, i can’t say it ever really made sense to me as a whole, to the point that i’d be able to make a strongman argument for it. meaning, i understand generally what it’s trying to do. i’ve just never seen it become this undeniable thrust that it seems to advertise. in popular use, it gets wielded down to “can you account for xyz? exactly. the bible can though.” which isn’t all that compelling to me. i’ve never quite understood how the uniformity of nature points to god (because i also can’t see the lack of uniformity being a case against god. he could create both and everything in between). so maybe i just don’t understand the argument very well and you can explain it to me. so maybe you could help me.

[@flightsfeelings]

yeah i can concede that christian salvation relies on faith, and rationality alone won’t get you there. that’s not to let the christian off the hook tho, at least as far as traditional claims of christianity goes. paul says himself, if christ is not actually raised then your faith is in vain.

[@DanielMorgan404]

@@flightsfeelings For sure man. I'm still learning as well. (Thanks for putting me on Kierkegaard btw. I'm bout to go down the rabbit hole lol) So, the core of the argument is that rational inquiry itself presupposes and appeals to the uniformity of nature universal laws of logic, and the reliability of reason. However, without grounding these things in an immaterial, transcendent source of unchanging laws, they are reduced to arbitrary conventions with no justification for their universal validity. In a purely materialistic universe governed solely by matter and physical forces, there is no justifiable source for abstract, immutable conceptual realities like laws of logic. Matter can't adequately account for these immaterial universals. Therefore an eternal, rational, immaterial mind, is the only coherent foundation that can ground and give justification to these transcendental prerequisites of rationality. God, as a sovereign and consistent Creator, ensures the stability and predictability (uniformity) of the natural world, providing the necessary framework for scientific exploration, discovery, logic etc. . Put simply: God is the necessary precondition for reason. So in essence: The man who claim to not be able to rationally or empirically "prove God", is internally inconsistent, because his very appeal to reason relies on the existence of God. He is standing on a foundation, while denying its existence. You're 100% right about Christians using circular reasoning. The moral argument does it. I just did it. But I would say that all arguments become circular when we deal with ultimate standards. To justify an ultimate with something beyond itself, would render it no longer ultimate. The question is which circle is internally logically consistent within itself.

[@DanielMorgan404]

@@flightsfeelings Agreed, I affirm that. I'm just speaking to the idea that while the faith rests on the resurrection being true, the resurrection itself is not enough to convince someone in unbelief without the Spirit dropping the scales. Just wanna say I really appreciate your channel man. You challenge someone like me to refine how I would answer such questions/objections etc.

[@DanielMorgan404]

@@flightsfeelings "it gets wielded down to “can you account for xyz? exactly. the bible can though.” which isn’t all that compelling to me." I apologize, I didn't see this the first time I read it over, sorry if I explained something you already have heard. I would ask then, when we talk of reason/logic/rationality, do you not feel that epistemic foundations must be able to justify/explain the assumptions or presuppositions being held by someone? Is that not in itself irrational?

[@booksie1]

Very interesting….love listening - coming from the Christian (with questions) wing. Does it matter that God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son? Was it not just a test to see how far Abraham would go for God?

[@flightsfeelings]

whether or not it says something about the nature of god, is another discussion. but as it pertains to abraham’s movement of faith, abraham was not aware that god would provide a ram. he was only aware of a command. so for him, god called him to kill isaac and he was fully prepared to do so.

[@noahfletcher3019]

To the question of "why ought I obey a good God", the answer is you don't have to. If you're not interested in fellowshipping with a good God (assuming he exists) then I guess that's just it isn't it. If you don't want to align yourself with a good God then that's really up to you.

[@TylerCherry-p7p]

15:44 Osiris Dionysus Attis Inanna/Ishtar Tammuz Quetzalcoatl

[@christiang4497]

15:12 "I don't think that we're equipped historically or rationally"...I assume you were going to say "to establish a miracle"? "the fact that the resurrection is so unreasonable is what makes it sorta anti-historical" This line of reasoning is unfortunately the place that modern critical scholarship (including Ehrman's work) is in. So influenced by Hume's "Of Miracles", which tries to prove that miracle claims can never be believed in rationally. A deep dive into this reasoning shows it to be absolutely fallacious. Dr. Tim and Lydia McGrew have an essay that addresses this and applies Baysian probability to studying the likelihood of the resurrection. It's called "The Argument from Miracles". Check it out if you'd like.

[@flightsfeelings]

i think you’re misunderstanding my point or i’m not doing well to clarify. it’s not simply that miracles can’t be believed in historically or scientifically. it’s that if a miracle is something that is SUPERnatural, then by definition, it is the least likely natural explanation (truly not a natural explanation at all) and cannot be captured by natural methods like historical criticism or the scientific method. if miracles could be explained by natural methods, then by sheer definition, it is not a miracle. this is not to say miracles are impossible. i don’t believe miracles are impossible.

[@arin.officialwords]

I love your mind ✨it's beautiful!

[@lamayasmith5854]

You are missed Joe! Keep searching ❤

[@efrainbrown1]

Rationality can easily become an idol when it is in opposition of obeying God..

[@flightsfeelings]

sure. but that’s not quite the point of the video. the is point is rationality can’t get you to faith in the first place, even if you are trying to use it as a reason to obey God.

[@efrainbrown1]

⁠sparing what God said not to spare is evil. Think in terms of Saul or more so in the New Testament. LUKE 14:26 If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. To explain any idea in opposition to God’s idea it is evil. If Abraham would not have done what he did he would have been in place of disobedient and making him evil. God’s request isn’t evil not matter how extreme it is. Now is comfortable always no.

[@efrainbrown1]

@@flightsfeelings Abraham was made righteous through faith. In this term it is his complete surrender to God’s word.

[@flightsfeelings]

@@efrainbrown1 yes, i understand. i believe we are saying the same thing. you agree with Kierkegaard (he actually specifically brings up this passage about hating your mother and father in his book Fear and Trembling as a parallel with abahram's event). i think the wedge that's trying to be driven here though is that at some point, you are left with an infinite chasm between faith and rationality, and not merely a religious inconvenience. "sparing what god said not to spare is evil" is right by christian theology, but then you are not left with objective (or even normative) morality in the realm of faith. the only thing objective in the infinite real is god's authority. i add my own take on the argument in saying that any theological imperative you could make leads to some subjective claim to get there. "sparing what god said not to spare is evil" is an "is" statement, and "is" statements never get you to "ought" statements, at least not rationally. i do not arrive at what i ought to do simply by knowing that "sparing what god said not to spare is evil". i mean, as they say, even the devil knows theology. he knows what is evil and still does it. ought the devil follow god based on what he knows?

[@efrainbrown1]

@@flightsfeelings the devil is doing exactly what he was created to do give glory to God. Even in his rebellion he is doing ultimate what he was created to do. He even subjected to God ultimate authority. The devil does follow certain rules he has to go to God before he can touch someone. Ought to is subject to the person. Ought is based on opinion. Why we obey is based on many reason you can’t paint it with broad brush. I would say I ought listen to God because he is God. Creator of all things but not created. Like a child ought to obey his parents because they know better. In our finite knowledge we ought to obey God because infinite in his knowing.

[@sking388]

also on the is-ought question, imo i believe that it is one and the same, e.g. they collapse to the same thing and it is only differentiated in thought, when purpose is built into one's paradigm/metaphysics, e.g. from a purpose stand-point then, the is becomes the ought, or whatever oughts, are really just, "is" that are in accordance with purpose, that if our "end"/purpose is such and such that it follows that we should (in a nutshell). and of course purpose ties into intentions in some way -- i came across this concept in philosophy of mind more, where purely naturalistic accounts of consciousness face many problems that are reconciled through another (perhaps because those accounts have implicit assumptions that do not pertain to the actual metaphysics or plain physics that correspond to our reality) just thought it would be interesting to bring up because i realized purpose(shoulds) and talks of such to me have always been in the context of either morals or faith, but to see it in other fields like philosophy of mind are really cool (especially as appearing in metaphysics contra physicalist models)

[@mariobethell3731]

The New Testament makes bold and extraordinary assertions that both Jesus and the Apostle Paul claimed that the scriptures (the Old Testament) spoke of Jesus dying for our sins, being buried, and rising on the third day. Now these prophecies should be easy to find if indeed Moses and all the other prophets actually did write of them. So, would you kindly show me where these prophecies are of this dying messiah that l too might know of their existence in the scriptures. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: Luke 24:25-27 & 44-46 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

[@willl9046]

At 21:30 , isn’t the Christian belief that being good like god is good is the natural order for people? We were created to be good, pure, and holy and that is why we should desire to live like that? Idk, i know that was not the point of your video, though. If you haven’t already, watch the movie “Everything, Everywhere, All At Once”, it gives a lighter and happier ending to the point you were making in this video.

[@flightsfeelings]

"isn’t the Christian belief that being good like god is good is the natural order for people? We were created to be good, pure, and holy and that is why we should desire to live like that? Idk, i know that was not the point of your video, though. " yeah that would be the further outworking of the statement i made. but again, there is no rational way to make the step: the step of acting in faithful agreement to that statement. just because i was created to be good, why OUGHT i live in accordance with that purpose? no matter the answer you give, you will be left with an either circular or maybe infinitely regressive, subjective answer. there is no rational bridge.

[@begeeyed]

@@flightsfeelings our rationality doesn’t equate to what God believes to be rational. At the end of the day, it all comes down to faith and you either choose to actively exercise it due to your own volition or you put your faith in something else. There was no rationality when God asked Abraham to kill his son, there was no rationality when Jesus walked on water or any other miracles for that matter. It all boils down to a decision we make: to believe in the goodness of God or to not. Honestly, it makes no sense! I struggle with it myself and have been angry at God multiple times, even fell out of faith a few times, that’s why i appreciate your journey a lot and am always open to seeing other peoples perspectives. But I make the decision to believe because i see only one truth. Anyway, I appreciate your commentary, keep it up :))

[@flightsfeelings]

“there was no rationality when God told abraham to kill his son” yes, that’s the point of the video.

[@j.pipparker]

As someone who left “Christianity” last year after the most chaotic part of my life at age 30. I kept up with you since the chase wepisodes and felt sad when you left back in 2021. 2023 when i left, I explored things like determinism, (which has evidence of truth as far as events and moments in our lives) The Truman show(false life) and came across nihilism as well. In a sense, I feel like Determinism and nihilism have interesting truths to them. And even Christianity has parts of those as well. I say all this to ask, do you have any take or experience with determinism and or Nihilism in your life experiences?

[@jonathanhonorio9770]

Have you heard of Alvin Plantinga my G?

[@flightsfeelings]

i don’t believe so

[@jonathanhonorio9770]

You should check him out. He won a Templeton prize for his work on epistemology. He argues God is a properly basic belief. I recommend you read his book “Warranted Christian Belief. His work on reformed epistemology really helped me with some of the questions you’re asking.

[@jonathanhonorio9770]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqPSYWiIq7WAoacsi=ZYotL6jvLau6VIac

[@flightsfeelings]

this sounds like presuppositional apologetics, which has reformed epistemology as its basis. idk. the video was kinda short. but pretty on par with what i would hear in reformed apologetics.

[@mathieublake1670]

Gracias por compartir, brah. Found this instructive and enlightening at points. #delulu #solutionsbeingphilosophical #sorenkeikegard #StareIntoTheAbyss I appreciate being given the opportunity to bear witness to your odyssey. Gwaan row mi bwoy. (Jamiekan)

[@noahfletcher3019]

I have a lot to say but I'll just go with the most glaringly obvious problem. Your definition of faith is a strange one and echos the misunderstandings of early Internet atheism. Most Christians I know have faith in christs redeeming work on the cross and I believe this is the faith being spoken about in the passages you sited. The bible doesn't concern itself with faith in the epistemic sense because theism and supernatural events were taken for granted in those times. Atheism and skeptism emerged from the enlightenment and so is very new. For this reason, the use of the word "faith" in the bible is not so concerned with the facts of the resurrection and the idea of taking a "leap of faith" over some evidential chasm is not the concern. Faith in the bible refers to ones trust, orientation and allegiances. For this reason as well as the Greek translations, many recent scholars like NT Wright have proposed that the term "faith", should often be translated as "faithfulness" or "loyalty", "allegiance". I repeat, it has nothing to do with believing if something was true or not. The bible never teaches you to believe in things you don't think are true. Furthermore, there is no such thing as intellectual ascent to the ancient man. Faith was always participatory. Maybe try and understand the Christian position a bit better. I don't mean to offend though I expect you to not take offence since you were once a teacher yourself and probably have a lot of confidence about your knowledge. I can imagine you'll think I'm being patronising to a vet like yourself but it's clear to me that you don't understand some of the basic concepts in Christianity such as faith. I think it's fair to point that out. You wouldn't like it if someone misrepresented you so you should atleast try to represent the traditional Christian faith correctly. Otherwise nice video.

[@flightsfeelings]

but at the very center of this whole video is discussing “is” vs “ought”, saying “let’s suppose the resurrection did in fact happen, now what?”. meaning mental ascent to it was not even at the center of this. i’m not simply discussing intellectual ascent to evidences or facts. i.e. belief in the fact of the resurrection doesn’t get you to believing in christ as your savior or making faithful acts based on that knowledge. maybe you didn’t make it to that part of the video? idk. use the term faith explicitly in that sense in this video, as well as it encompassing it epistemically. because having faith in christ’s resurrection power is included in the supposition that there is a spiritual world for this take place in the first place. you’re driving a wedge between the two as if they have nothing to do with one another. it’s not a “strange one”. to participate in faith i must at least have faith in its general propositions (a god does exist, powers beyond what i normally see exist, there is something to be saved from, another man dying has eternal consequences on my life, etc), regardless if i’m an ancient man unaware of those presuppositions, as you suggest. it’s there. “there is no such thing as intellectual ascent to the ancient man”. maybe i’m misunderstanding you or you really downplaying the intellect of ancient humans lol. we had plato, pythagoras, socrates, epicurus, aristotle all walking around Rome before the coming of jesus. i think you’re mischaracterizing ancient people of those times or i could simply be misunderstanding your sentiment as an overstatement. maybe you’re speaking hyperbolically to make a point. i’ll grant ancient humans can often have very different categories than we do today. but broad stroking faith for them as an almost mindless act seems pretty anachronistic. there are many places, including paul in 1 Cor 15 for example, where followers must correct their worldview of possibilities so that they may be more faithful. “how do some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” clearly, some were struggling to accept a worldview that either 1. allowed for one man to die and rise and/or 2. allowed for many others to be raised many years after their own death. i see this as obviously a matter of intellectual ascent, that then bids someone do something “faithful” or “unfaithful” about it. propositional faith is not completely alien to participatory faith. even orthodoxy is not alien to orthopraxy. faith is participatory, yes. it is not ONLY participatory, as you seem to be suggesting. maybe try and understand my position a bit better. you’ve misrepresented me. or maybe there’s a semantic argument happening and im not using the specific language you’d like to split it or it doesn’t attack it as specifically as you’d like. maybe i didn’t elaborate enough. that’s a fair possibility. but to say i’m discussing faith as simple intellectual ascent shows you stopped ahead, or glossed over the center of the convo.

[@noahfletcher3019]

@@flightsfeelings But we both know that Christians don't just defend the resurrection. They defend the bible also. And if we take your hypothetical concession then surely that would only favour the validity of scripture. The gospels give an account of the resurrection so it would make very little sense to accept it's most supernatural claims yet doubt the theological consequences it lays out. I mean... I dunno, I just don't find these questions very sophisticated. You mean to tell me, you'd grant the resurrection and then call in to question the only source that records it? You mean to tell me you could grant the resurrection but call in to question every other passage in scripture that doesn't have a say about the resurrection? Is that even possible, since much of the accounts are laced with theology? Sure, we cannot have cartesian certainty I guess so I mean sure, you can say "sure the resurrection happened but that doesn't mean that the passage where Jesus said he is going to die for our sins is trustworthy." but I think that would certainly be more unreasonable than reasonable. That level of skepticism is one that would be tough to apply in all areas of life.

[@noahfletcher3019]

@@flightsfeelings But to answer your question more directly. The Christian faith concerns itself with a people. If you don't consider yourself somebody interested in what the Christian tradition considers as God's kingdom then the question of "ought" is a useless one to you. You don't have to do anything. You can simply live your life the way you want and ignore it. "Ought" is applied to those who are participators in this kingdom. It's the reason why Paul says not to bother yourself telling non believers what to do and what not to do: Something my fellow Christians are very bad at unfortunately.

[@noahfletcher3019]

@@flightsfeelings "to participate in a faith I must have faith in its general propositions". I take issue with his statement because of your choice of words. As I have said, we don't have faith in propositions. We are convinced of these propositions via reason and then we have faith in christ. I don't even know how to have faith in propositions. Propositions are true or false, it's not a matter of faith.

[@flightsfeelings]

“the gospels give an account of the resurrection so it would make very little sense to accept its most supernatural claims yet doubt the theological consequences it lays”. just wanna point out you’re switching your game plan up lol. you just drove a wedge between intellectual ascent and participation. believing the theological consequences is still simply giving intellectual ascent. that’s not participation. one could fully believe in the consequences and still not participate in faith. people do it all the time. many christian’s believe that’s exactly what satan is doing. this feels like an entirely different convo. forgive me if i’m missing the connection. but in any case, you think granting possibility for the resurrection and yet calling into question the veracity of the gospels is unsophisticated? on what basis? how is it unsophisticated to grant that an historical event happened while knowing our sources for it are limited or corrupted? how it that not possible? most of what we know about ancient history comes from historians making inferences on texts that may or may not be embellishing, telling one side, layered with mythology, etc. it doesn’t mean the thing didn’t happen at all. there are plenty of christian historians who believe in a resurrected jesus and still assert the new gospels full of embellishments, misremembered memories, factual errors, uncertain authorship, etc. i think the gospels are riddled with problems and yet still believe the historical jesus actually lived. you can call it skepticism or you can intellectual humility.

[@zm-bond1938]

If we go back to your scenario of "the resurrection as a special historical event", it makes reasonable sense to examine why this special event had to happen since it would defy the laws of science and human nature and what we know to be true about this world. One would have to grapple with Jesus' claims given that this is what he said he would do and what was said throughout scripture. Though, if I understand you correctly, it's still possible that individuals could subjectively decide to reject its implications for their own moral beliefs and actions. But at that point, Jesus' claims would be objectively true, which would substantiate the claims of the bible and its take on morality. Questions like "why I ought I do what he commands" or "why I should I listen to him" at that point would highlight a level of hubris, elevating the individual's sense of morality and truth above God's (given the claim Jesus is Lord would be true). re: your Abraham and Isaac point. There's a big elephant in the room, how the story ends. We see that ultimately God never wanted Abraham to kill Isaac, which is why the angel stopped him before he could complete the act. Now I don't think that we should expect God to put us in that same exact situation. Literally Abraham's whole story is a series of tests where God asks him to do absurd things or promises him absurd things, Abraham obeys most of the time, God delivers something good and the Lord is pleased. There's a reason for each of these tests given the special role that Abraham has. That's not necessarily us. But I think the takeaways from the story, to love God is to be obedient, God doesn't withhold good gifts to those he loves, God wants our heart, should inspire us to cross the chasm through faith. However, It's very possible to do something evil when you intended it to be for God but that's why Christian teaching emphasizes strong deliberation and proper understanding of God's character through scripture. Ayy man, if you do reply to this, just know I'm NOT trying to come for you personally. That's not my goal. Appreciate the video and forum to share thoughts

[@flightsfeelings]

granting the resurrection (which i only do for argument’s sake) does not get us to “the words of the gospels and new testament are true.” this is a christian assumption that does not have a logical necessity. it does nothing address the myriad of logical and historical conflicts that are still hotly debated. purely a christian assumption in order to make the apologetic dogma work. i’ve addressed your “elephant” in the comments. can’t remember if i did directly in the video. but saying “how the story ends” is skirting around the issue and not actually addressing the issue. saying “we know how the story ends” is selling faith at a bargain price. it diminishes the experience of abraham who did NOT know the end when he made the days long journey to the altar. saying “we know the end” only tells us something about God’s character/experience, which is also clear in your following points. but god is not the one who is having an experience of faith. abraham is. so if i want to know something about what FAITH is and the character/experience of abraham, assuming the end tells me nothing. abraham was not told the details. he was not promised that there would be a ram in the bush. if abraham knows the end, then it it is not faith and he is merely going through the motions.

[@zm-bond1938]

@@flightsfeelings could you name some of these logical/historical conflicts that are so hotly debated that they render Jesus' teachings as tenuous even if the resurrection did indeed happen (assuming we're keeping the same scenario)? I find it hard to believe given that these core beliefs are accepted by hundreds of millions all around the world and throughout history. Surely if it were so hotly debated, they would reach the same conclusion as you, right?

[@zm-bond1938]

@@flightsfeelings You're right Abraham knowing the end is not faith at all and would fail to capture the essence of the passage. But I disagree that it diminishes the experience of faith that Abraham had. When Isaac asks him where they are going and where is the lamb to be provided, he replies with "God himself will provide the burnt offering". He puts his trust in God because he knows who God is and his character despite not knowing why or what will happen.What more do you want?? You what to know more about Abraham's psyche at the time of stress and testing? You can re-read the times that Abraham failed the test of faith where he explains why he gave up Sarah to that foreign ruler for example. And even still, the Lord made the outcome work in Abraham's favor. The whole point is that faith makes sense because of the knowledge of God's character. It's still incredibly difficult and we are human after all but it doesn't mean its not worth the leap to faith. I guess I don't understand why you would completely dismiss this point. It makes me wonder if something happened or changed that would make you doubt God's goodness and dismiss faith.

[@flightsfeelings]

yes abraham has faith in god’s character despite not knowing what will happen. that is the point. what do you mean what more do i want? lol. my brother in christ, lol it seems you have totally misunderstood the point of my video because you just knew that you should disagree with me rather than asking. because a lot of christians watched this and got my point. “yes you’re right. faith is beyond the rational.” if you think i’m using abraham as a way to dismiss faith, you’re missing my point of the video. after all, i am explaining this experience of faith through the lens of soren kierkegaard who is a devout christian. the point is not that faith is bad. the point is that faith cannot be easily mediated at the rational/ethical level. faith is its own substance. faith is not a rational thing and if you think it is, you’re selling it at a bargain price. that’s my point and i even give praise to kierkegaard for this honesty and it has started me on my own personal trajectory of reexamining the whole enterprise of faith. i think christians are so apt to disagree with perceived opponents that they don’t even realize the nuance of a conversation.

[@flightsfeelings]

“could you name some of these conflicts that are so hotly debated?” if you have to ask, then this is a topic i just need to let you explore on your own time. couldn’t tell you the amount of books, articles, debates and articles, even whole youtube channels that are devoted to specifically this. if you think the historicity/reliability of the new testament is a simple straight forward conversation (from either side of the debate), then you haven’t spent much time in apologetics/new testament textual criticism. and if number of people who believe helps you determine if something is true (ad populum fallacy), then you are still very early in your journey of exploring rationality and belief and this video is assuming a lot of things you’ve not yet considered.

[@yeshuasaves217]

The gospels consist of eye witness accounts historical documents, two women were the first to witness christ which is not common during that time u definitely wouldn't put it as a fiction witness unless you needed to show the truth, there are codes, numerics, literary consistency, objective morality, the first 10 names in the Bible the Hebrew meanings of those names spell out the gospel. There is so much evidence that God gave us. Christ stated he was the only way only faith will save you that's what christ said. It's not a blind faith it's not bc I think it to be true its bc the evidence points to it being the truth.

[@flightsfeelings]

ok

[@mathieublake1670]

Just riffing through some thoughts ignited by your speech... The ethical plane, where evil is defined as anything that violates God's will or, even more narrowly, God's dictates subsumes Abraham's actions within the ethical plane. Would you agree? More philosopers are needed. (More philosophy.) Interacting with enquiry made in good faith, especially with people who have espoused beliefs similar to our own, whether they be dead or alive, and also when they look like us, is such an added benefit to our individual tussle with meaning. May those who teach, those who share insight, understandings, knowledge, be fed. U have patreon , bruv? To interrogating the nature of our reality.🍻 To philosophizing and airing those investigations. 🥃To means to share. And to community. Salud! 🙏

[@flightsfeelings]

"The ethical plane, where evil is defined as anything that violates God's will or, even more narrowly, God's dictates subsumes Abraham's actions within the ethical plane. Would you agree?" Kinda. i mean it kinda alludes to the bigger point that i (or kierkegaard) is trying to make. and im only standing firm on this distinction so that the proper discussion between faith and rationality can be had. to define the ethical plane as violating god's will is already assuming that god exist before ever having a rational discussion. so i say "kinda" because you are making a leap to faith before even addressing the rational, essentially doing away with reason before even having a discussion about it, which wouldn't be helpful here. i say kinda, because yes, in some sense, eventually, the ethical is subsumed and inferior to the infinite but to prematurely conflate the two would not allow us to say anything about the nature or "superiority" of faith. here, we are trying to address the relationship between faith and rationality. so yes, if Abraham is judged in the court of faith, he is considered "good" or "righteous", which is above the ethical or "universal" realm. the ethical, at least for sake of this conversation, is concerning our relationship to the society around us. and "doing god's will" may often overlap with and be seen as good by others in the ethical realm. but i Kierkegaard's reason for highlighting abraham is that his particular deed cannot be communicated in any ethical social sense. this is purely a private affair between abraham and his god. god suspends the "finite" for the "infinite". maybe it could be compared to miracles. christian theology asserts that god is responsible for creating the laws of nature, and yet, through miracles, he suspends the laws of nature at his will, and miracles cannot be communicated in any scientific sense that we are aware of. the laws of physics, for humans, are objective and unbreakable, but for god, they are merely the "norm" but not objective. likewise, even if we are to see morality for humans as objective (and i don't! lol but for sake of conversation), then humans are bound to them. but for god, morality is merely the "norm", but not objective.

[@mathieublake1670]

@thshores That spells sense. Thanks for helping to clarify. I wonder why Christians argue for objective morality on an ethical plane if they do. Having taken the leap to faith, "ethics" go out the window, and all is judged in relation to the infinite. Um, Christians appeal to faith being arrived at on the basis of evidence. And you posit that to believe vis a vis faith is unlike and untethered to evidence, the latter which can be 'touched' by rationality and faith being of another realm altogether. . . . I believe you would be acquainted with arguments that present christian faith as not being "blind " but based on hearing... There's also a stream of thought which proffers faith as being "a gift of God". I guess I'd find it helpful if you say what faith is as you employ it in this discourse.

[@coltonlevi4385]

Christ died physically on the cross but when he came back for 40days, he was of Spirit. Love your music, saddens my heart that you allowed the ways of this world to deconstruct you. All love. ❤

[@bitta8433]

he was a glorified body not a spirit per say because he could eat and people could feel his wounds and etc

[@coltonlevi4385]

@@bitta8433 I guess I should’ve said that but I figured it’s the same. He was able to appear and disappear to different people throughout. Wasn’t it like 500 folk?

[@bitta8433]

@coltonlevi4385 yes you are right ✅️ 500 , my comment was to clarify, so for anyone who will read this, will understand what you and i understand 👍

[@flightsfeelings]

hilarious. it’s funny you end up agreeing with someone who basically said the same thing i said in this video. read your bible. paul belabors the point that it was a physical resurrection because there were literally people saying exactly what you were saying: that it was a Spirit resurrection. he refuted the very thing you were saying. i highlighted the difference in his physical body in this video. basically the same thing this other person in this comment thread was saying and you end up agreeing with them lol but i guess because im not actually a christian, idk what im talking about. saddens my heart that you haven’t taken the time to explore basic orthodoxy of your own faith before commenting.

[@coltonlevi4385]

@@flightsfeelings He didn’t refute anything. He died a physical death. Came back in his glorified body. Of the spirit. You could still fill his holes in his hands and feet. 1 Peter 3:18, it says, "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit.” "So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." I was making the point because when you brought it up in your video, you gave a slight eye roll and smirkiness about you as though your like “supposedly this happened” “walking through walls but still was *flesh*” Also, giving you a compliment on your singing and yet you would to pick out flaws that weren’t even there to begin with. Your high horse has a wound in its side. It’s quite obvious. Seems as though you have a few scriptures in the Bible that you just can’t get around in your head so you choose to belittle people now.

[@davidwhitcher1708]

Its click bait and dishonesty because you mistitled your video on purpose.

[@flightsfeelings]

i literally talked about the resurrection and the irrationality of faith for much of the entire video lol even the thumbnail said “your faith is absurd” and that was the final conclusion of the video. there’s soren kierkegaard in the background, a painting of the risen jesus, and a classic existentialist painting in the corner, and i talk about existentialism in this video lol. what are you talking about

[@NajTheGreat]

Luke 15: 4-6

[@Doubtyadoubts]

Oh jeez 🤦🏾‍♂️🤦🏾‍♂️

[@flightsfeelings]

just say you didn’t actually watch the video and move on lol “oh jeez” while having a name that i inspired is wild lol