Comment: hmm

(See in situ)


hmm

Personal barriers go up in many directions when people change in any direction, I think I know what it's like, but I think it has more to do with the people involved than the change itself. a lot of people have been put to death for becoming Christians. In nazi Germany, a lot of pastors were thrown out of their churches, and replaced because they wouldn't change their views in favor of the nazi's. Some imprisoned, some killed.

Here's my braindump after listening,though it's more random comments than a structured response:

He doesn't sound so well informed either, he has some of the same issues as the other guy. He says Christians say to ignore the old testament, which makes me wonder what kind of Christians he was involved with, as I've never heard that from Christians. He says people said he was never a Christian when he left, and then compares himself to Dan Barker as his rebuttal. Dan Barker wasn't much in christian spheres either; a pentecostal youth pastor? come on. I have doubts about the prominence of his parents, as well, its very easy to start a church or write sermons for people who speak at them. The reason people would say he was never a Christian is because of a scripture which teaches that those who were truly Christian would stay Christian. People look at the outward appearance of profession of faith, but God looks at the heart.
Then he complains that people use the bible to support the bible, but even in a court of Law, if someone is on trial, their own testimony is admissible as evidence. His parents seemed committed to young earth creationism, but the principle of charity would have him evaluate Christianity based on the most cogent forms rather than the most easily faulted forms.
He objects to pre-mosaic incest, although there were no incest laws at the time, which is anachronistic.
He says that since the bible says not to kill, he thinks it's inconsistent that God would kill. To me it's an issue of property rights, if all life was designed and created by God, parents are only stewards of the children that God puts under them. So if God owns the life, its not our prerogative to take it, but it is his prerogative to take it. He goes on to say that this alleged inconsistency makes it difficult to know whether God is good; probably appealing to euthyphro's dilemma(which isn't a great argument either). But it seems inconsistent to me that he would be concerned about what is objectively good and evil if he is an atheist with a naturalistic materialistic worldview in which we are all just chance formations of material structures only different from germs in relative perspective, and where good and evil have no real meaning outside of subjectivity. He calls the transmission of scripture 'God's best shot' implying God's failure, preferring it would be sent by e-mail. This seems to be a relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiayuxWwuI ...Aside from the silly anachronism, this atheist assumes that God would have the same goals as him if he were God, such as e-mail thousands of years ago. It's as if he sees an entitlement for God's creatures, sort of like the liberal welfare people who think the government should pay for their living and their cable TV. He says he thought he was supposed to be the most important creature in the universe to God, and doesn't understand why God would allow confusion. Yet The same bible he encourages people to read demonstrates that God prohibited the gospel from being proclaimed in certain regions at certain times. From a biblical perspective, there is no such thing as entitlement to the Gospel, every sinner deserves the penalty for sin because of the seriousness of their sin and God's holiness, yet God shows unmerited grace and has mercy on whom he will out of his own charity. The atheist seems to think his own human comprehension limits the possibility for God to have purpose for something. On the one hand, he says he stopped feeling guilty about bad thoughts when he became an atheist, and felt like he was letting go of weight, but on the other hand he said that a truthful harder life is more worth living, so there is a bit of tension there.
He admitted that he used to cherry pick scriptures when he was supposedly christian, but I have no reason to think he's changed.
He thinks that God shouldn't punish people for asking questions and asking for proof, and I would agree to an extent. There are ways of asking questions which are not meant to gather information but meant to provide excuses for things, and Romans 1 mentions an active suppression of truth in unrighteousness. The fact that God knows the heart would have bearing on if God was judging someone for 'testing' him in an immoral way, but there are places in the bible where God encourages testing and questioning of sorts.