Alex O'Connor Challenges 25 Christians on Suffering, Genocide, and the Resurrection at Jubilee Debate

but when a child dies of leukemia could there be a purpose to it did God command the ethnic cleansing of the land of Israel I'm not saying the Scribe made something up I'm saying the Scribe has a command so where did they get that command from from God I had Jesus appeared to Me 3 years ago I don't know what's happening there I have to suspect it's some kind of psychological phenomenon hi my name is Alex o Conor I'm an atheist and host of the within reason podcast and today I'm surrounded by 25 Christians who God willing might be able to change my mind my first claim is that suffering makes God's EX distance unlikely good work heex how's it going how's it going nice to meet you Sage why don't you just begin why why is uh suffering or evil make God's existence unlikely I think we're confronted with two hypotheses so atheism naturalism or theism we should ask what we expect would occur under either hypothesis and then we look at the world and we see what does actually occur and what do we find we find I think most relevant here a system of natural selection the mechanism by which God apparently chose to bring animals and ultimately human beings into existence a system which is defined by suffering survival of the fittest is the same thing as the death and suffering and destruction of the unfit I'm told the very mechanism that God chose to bring about the human species as the ultimate end of his creation was one that is imbued with suffering such that 99.9% of all the species let alone animals that have ever existed on planet Earth have been brutally wiped from existence into exension and I think that that's less likely on theism if you assume atheism or materialism not only do you explain this you also come to expect it what is your I guess epistemology how would you how do you know that this is the case that it's less likely and that you know an atheist worldview naturalistic worldview would look like the way it is today of course we don't know but that's why I use the phraseology of unlikely I think that if you were to tell somebody who was sort of in some um you know rulian state of nature hadn't seen the world and you said that the world has been created by an omni benevolent all powerful God what kind of world would that person be imagining and if you dropped them into the world if you if you were given the opportunity to become a wild animal like in 2 seconds I was just going to turn you into a random wild animal somewhere on planet Earth I think I like being a guy I think you probably kill yourself before I had the opportunity because you know that the life of these animals is almost defined in terms of their suffering I guess I just don't really see how you can justify that claim per se um what I would say is that if we actually take into account the holistic view of the scriptures which I do think that you have to do we see that it's actually much more coherent once you acknowledge that evil itself doesn't have on ology evil is not a thing you don't look under a rock and say there's the evil right so I'm not really talking about evil here because that's of course a moral term I'm talking about suffering you can you distinct IE suffering and evil so evil is a moral term evil means that something is bad it's immoral you need to have a moral ontology for that suffering is just any experience that's not wanted when experienced right and so even if you don't have a moral objectivism you can still say that suffering exists so here's a question a deer gets its leg caught under the branch of a tree that's fallen over in the world and it starves to death in confused Agony why does God oversees this and why does God set the natural world up such that events like this occur well because the ultimate view here is that okay pause nice to meet good work how my Manet okay so my first question to start out with is what exactly about suffering makes this unlikely on the condition that God exists I think that if God is all loving then he probably wouldn't want his creatures to suffer and so I think that the fact that they do suffer makes his existence less likely okay perfect and is there some specific aspect of suffering that you're particularly honing in on horrendous or whatever in particular nonhuman animal suffering because I think that the Christianity has a celebrated tradition of theodes trying to explain why suffering exists human free will the development of the Soul higher order goods all of this kind of stuff none of which apply to the suffering of non-human animals have you heard of the axiological expectation mismatch problem I have not okay so philosophers of religion have started to understand that the thing that actually generates a problem between God and suffering is actually the value system you attach to the very attribute of perfect lovingness because the problem of evil is an internal critique you have to look at a very specific version of theism and how it defines perfect lovingness I want to present to you a version where my version of perfect lovingness does not actually constitute a problem and a misalignment that mismatch between the suffering of animals just to say the profusion of suffering of animals and existence of god so let's hear what what kind of God are we imagining that would allow and oversee and do nothing to prevent billions of years of Untold animal suffering right so you're talking about non- prevention or or setting up the system that is natural selection such that that it relies upon things like predation disease well the first part is I don't agree with the whole setting up the system part so I'm not one of those theists that believes that God does this select and pick idea of creating worlds I don't think that God actually creates worlds I think that God lets worlds develop according in a certain way but because God can oversee an overarching narrative he knows exactly how he can redeem anything so the first sorry go ahead could God have made it such that animals were all herbivores instead of uh carnivores and omnivores yes he could totally do that okay so so had he done that here's an instant way to to reduce by orders of magnitude the amount of suffering that exists but hold on that's particularly assuming a value Theory already that I haven't told you I'm adopting that has a problem with the evil so I have to give you my value Theory first for you to show that misalignment let's let's hear perfect okay so my value Theory says that it's not the most important thing about a sentient creature is not what merely happens to them it's about the total timeline of their life and how and where their life permanently ends meaning if you were to judge an author of a narrative and the first few chapters let's say there's a lot of bad things happening but the end ends with this Crescendo where there's Victorious there's Redemption there's Beauty and everyone in the story actually endorses their entire existence that they live they can look at their whole they can look at the total timeline and they actually each subjectively come to the conclusion I'm glad I was made and I totally see what my suffering was for that's the particular I'm I'm using with so we have to judge hold on we like John hick says we have to judge the very nature of God's lovingness by what he does in the end not these few time slices that we observe right now for you to show that there's a problem you have to show to me that the suffering of animals cannot be transformed are intrinsically cut off from being transformed into a life that they will endorse there's a couple thesis on the table but sure go ahead okay so so are you talking about the end of their life is in their end of life on Earth or you talking about the afterlife I'm I'm anorm postmortem okay because if you're just talking about life on Earth then I would say that if you were if you had an author writing a book and a character if we were trying to figure out the relationship between that author and the person in the book and that person in the book shows up for 5 seconds in the first chapter and is a child who almost immediately dies of cancer in an incredibly painful way and there's no development there's no there's no sort of bringing back to life and suddenly everyone's grateful for it is just this miserable tragic experience and I asked well what did the author not wants do for the story of the book but wants to do for that character I think it would be pretty damning and and also when it comes to animals we're talking about animals who who are predated on from the moment that they begin existence they sort of have disease you know zebras when they're killed by lions are often too big to be killed instantly so they die over minutes with their wind pipes caught in the jaws of a lion how can this be developing a zebra which by the way probably doesn't even have the same kind of first person conscious experience that humans do in order to sort of rationalize and abstract and learn from their their sort of past and morally develop in that way they just suffer and and and what kind of God could oversee this okay so there's there's a lot of assumptions on the table again again you're assuming a particular value system that I'm not I'll tell you what I'm assuming here what I'm assuming here is that God would a good God would not allow unnecessary suffering to obtain okay gotcha so we can talk age we can talk about unnecessary suffering we're talking about the just the justifying norms for suffering you're saying it has to be in terms of necessity which is an evil is only authoriz by God if it's in connection to a greater good or prevention of a greater evil correct if there's some kind of justification for allowing that but you're saying it's a necessary connection why you what's the term of necessity so so perhaps I should say unjustified instead of unnecessary okay so we both agree I do not believe that God can authorize justifi unjustified suffering tell tell me how that example that I gave you the deer with his leg starving is Justified because it's intrinsically redeemable and my the Norms I'm working with is not this NE this not this necessity condition that you're working with mine is about redeemable suffering redeemability or we call De feasability if that suffering can be defeated within the creatur's life and I'll Define what I mean by defeat which is that they can retroactively look back at what they went through and integrate it into your life history where they look at their life I have to interrupt because the example I gave you is one where the deer dies yes the deer dies but here's the thing what you're you're probably talking about this postmortem example I'm going to put one thesis on the table there's two philosophers that defend exactly what this goes through one one defends that animals will be given a martyrdom status well God will be able to present them himself in a way to animals in the afterlife such that in the same way you could give praise to a dog and the dog emotionally recognizes that he's loved and that his life is worth living right to these animals that suffered like that there's one view on the table which is that God will give them a praiseworthy status where they will be able to to actually see can we talk about that claim because these animals are suffering for what I mean God God might cause them to suffer me end God might cause them to suffer a bunch and then essentially redeem them in the after like but what for like why do this if if I were to punch you in the face and then give you $20,000 afterwards you might be grateful for the $20,000 but why couldn't I just give you the $20,000 well see so so that's assuming so I saw your debate with Trent you've been voted out by the majority your seat good stuff so close hey nice to meet you Hayden how are you Hayden nice to me would you say that theism or atheism better account for the idea that suffering exists and a purpose for it depends exactly what you mean uh because of course you might say that the world itself is more expected on theism and since suffering you know needs the existence of the world that it's theism but granted the existence of a material world let's say I think atheism okay why does suffering exist at all uh like in an atheistic worldview what is the cause of suffering oh well because however life began it developed through a series of natural selection which requires animals to develop senses that they wish to avoid in order to be more likely to survive and that's why pain receptors evolve in a world where not all of these pains are actually going to kill us we're left with situations in which we're in a lot of pain but don't end up dying for it would you agree that Consciousness is necessary for suffering uh I would say probably yeah does atheism account for Consciousness yes that's what I was talking about a moment ago perhaps not maybe theism accounts better for Consciousness than atheism does so if there is no consciousness there is no suffering is that right that's probably true yeah so if atheism cannot account for Consciousness then it cannot account for suffering would you agree with that I I so I think what doing here is we're sort of slightly Shifting the goalposts um if if you don't want to Grant the existence of the material world before we start talking about this we can do an argument from Consciousness but then we need to debate whether Consciousness is more is explicable on atheism what I'm going to say is this what I'm going to say is this Consciousness may seem to imply the existence of a conscious creator of the universe we're here talking about I suppose we're talking about Christianity the claim was about God but the god that you believe in let's say uh if we grant that there is a Creator deity who sort of brings about the universe of conscious creatures have you ever heard of the evil God hypo that Steven La popularized or came with so the idea is that like imagine that there's a God who brings about the world and creates the world but does it maliciously because he wants human beings to suffering uh to suffer he brings about a world in order so that human beings will suffer right that seems like a plausible hypothesis and even if you think that Consciousness points towards God the kind of God that that a lot of Christians think is a sort of necessary quality of God which is to be all loving might not have to apply here can I ask a question yes if Christianity were true is it plausible that suffering is necessary Neary for God's purpose for if Christianity is true then I think it must be necessary because there be no other expl okay so we're not talking about whether or not Christianity is true but if you're asking me if it's plausible that Christianity is true and therefore suffering is necessary I would say probably not because I don't think suffering could should be necessary or could be necessary in an atheistic world view I would agree with you it makes no sense at all but okay I would ask this question so so can I ask you why why then if God exists and wants to come to know everybody and wants to love everybody and does so for the sake of human beings why he chose to imbue the world with so much suffering that is at least seemingly completely inexplicable are you a father no I'm a father mhm I want my son to become just like I am better than I am I should say I want him to become the best that he can be is it possible for him to become to reach his potential without suffering in his life perhaps not but there's two there so suffering is necessary there are a few things I want to say here firstly that kind of moral development doesn't apply to non-human animals as I've already said right that does not account for that does not account for the brutal death of animals in the also if I don't want to talk about your son because it's tragic to think about but somebody else's son has suffered and died immediately as a result of that suffering they don't get to develop in the same way I would agree that on a micro level it's very hard to justify and we can ask the question why doesn't God intervene on all you might be able to justify an amount of suffering right but the fact that there's so much gratuitous suffering in the world is what I think makes God's existence unlikely there are some instances where maybe a certain amount of suffering brings about a certain amount of good in a situation that by the way would coun as ajus ification but when a child dies of Leukemia and they're dead could there be a purpose to it what if what if the death of the child brings their parents to God then perh then then the parents should be grateful that their child got leukemia because it's doing the will of the Lord necessar that seems to me please return to your seat you're so cool hey hey how's it going I'm awesome I would love to pull back a little bit sure and ask you what are your values kind of rooted in and grounded in where would we start with ah so I'm an ethical emotivist which is a form of ethical non-cognitivism I don't think that ethical claims have truth value I think they're expressions of emotion if we're pulling back a little bit I remember reading at the end of Richard Dawkins book The The God Delusion that we can't trust our senses because Evolution doesn't really care about making truth claims it cares about surviving I I don't agre that I don't think Dawkins actually endorsed that argument but but it's a good argument CS Lewis Alin planting the argument from reason sure but would you agree or disagree with that well I mean I I remain agnostic on what reason is but I think it's a powerful argument when it comes to determining if suffering is wrong or right so okay so crucially I'm not saying that suffering is morally wrong outside of the senses that I as an emotivist will just Express an emotion towards it that I don't like it I'm not claiming that it's immoral that it's objectively bad what I'm claiming is that suffering is unexpected on theism it's an internal critique right Lincoln said of slavery if this is not wrong then nothing is wrong you don't have to believe that something's wrong but if there is such a thing as objective morality I don't think that it would consist in a God who oversees the amount of suffering that we have on planet Earth uh Timothy Keller does the story about NOS have have you heard of the no story no yeah so he says if if you have a tent and you look in there and you say hey I think I have some dogs on the tent maybe like for example I have golden doodle he's a killer that was just a joke but we can move on and if I said hey I have a golden doodle inside the tent you would expect to see one but if I said hey there's some no seum the these little knots are so tiny they actually go through the screen sure he says there's some no seum in the tent you might look in there and go I don't see any no CMS mhm but of course you don't see no CMS because nobody can see them okay so just because there's maybe not a reason that we can identify does it mean that there can't be a reason now it's kind of cold comfort that doesn't get us 100% of the way there but it it gets us part of the way there that's true so so the existence of evil is not logically or suffering is not logically incompatible with God's existence but it's a bit like if somebody came up to to me right now and stole my friend's wallet in front of me and shot him dead and ran away and I was grieving and somebody said to me well hey man you don't know that person might have worked for the CIA and your your friend might have secretly been harboring the nuclear codes and killing him might have been good for the country and he stole the wallet because that's where the codes were and I would say well what evidence do you have for that and you say well look just because I don't have evidence for it doesn't mean that there might not be some evidence that I don't know about I would say until I see why I should think that's the case I'm not going to believe it and I'm certainly not going to be less upset in my grieving over my friend because of the possibility that there could be an expl an explanation for it there's so much suffering imbued in The Human Experience that if somebody says well look there could be an explanation it's like okay fine but let me know when you know what it is is I think the right pause you've been voted out by the majority please return to your seats all right thank you good fun hello hey nice to meet you meet you good repeat your claim one more time that suffering is unexpected if a good God exists unexpected So when you say unexpected like you're caught off guard by it or you're expecting like all good things to happen over time that if I assume that there is a good god supervising and vigila the universe that I would not expect to see so much suffering right so much gratuitous seemingly unnecessary suffering right and you know the most beautiful thing is that our God is Not unfamiliar with suffering as he suffered himself so would you say that there is like some beauty in suffering in some way uh I would say that there there can be sort of poetically you can look at suffering and think that's a beautiful story but I don't think that the person suffering especially if they die as a direct result might think that also I think that if if I knew someone whose child died of Leukemia and suffered for it right and I went to them and said but hey there's some beauty in the suffering isn't there I think I'd be kicked out of the funeral right well I would say like the same thing for a woman giving birth right it's suffering like it sucks it hurts sure but imagine you could have the giving birth without the pain of giving birth would you prefer that of course yeah you will prefer that so then if God can bring about the good stuff without the bad stuff then there's no reason to bring about the bad stuff so what we have to show is why the bad stuff is necessary to bring about the good stuff otherwise it's not just right well could you say that the result of why we suffer is because of fall of Man I would say not cuz I don't believe in the fall of Man um but I also don't think that that explains non-human animal suffering the big thing that I want to keep pressing is that the theodes that we talk about Free Will full of man all of this kind of stuff I don't think applies to that deer with its leg caught under the branch that's dying in confused Agony what's this for so what what is it about animals that seem so like more important than a human it's not that they're more important it's that as you say like it seems plausible at least that a human can suffer and then be sort of better off for it or that they can enjoy poetry of suff the Poetry of suffering animals can't do that animals can't enjoy the Poetry of suffering well I mean I wouldn't know I never like talked to an animal and said like hey I I have they just haven't they just haven't talked back is the problem but I I just don't see why we would expect that God would oversee this system of natural selection billions of animals suffering and d and dying predation disease eating each other alive leaving each other to bleed out on the floor and this is being supervised by an all loving God well do you think that's God's intention from the very beginning of creation of all things I think that God oversees the mechanism MH God could have made it for example one example that I've already given is that God could have made anal herbivores which just eliminates the problem of predation I mean there are some animals there are there are but he could have made more of them he could have made all animals herbivores thereby eliminating the suffering of predation so the issue of them eating each other that's one issue that's one way that God could have sort of I think quite trivially reduced the amount of suffering David atra once said of his documentaries people who complain that we put too much violence in the documentaries should see what we leave in The Cutting Room floor the animal world is just filled with unimaginable suffering just predation is there's also things about like you know otter holding hands so they don't swim away without suffering that's the question thanks so much fun that conversation was so interesting it reminds me of that unfortunate time that Billy R his unicycle to an open pothole yeah didn't he like dislocate both his arms and break his leg and even lose a tooth yeah I'm so glad he recovered from that he went through such a treacherous process trying to Sue and he barely even got compensated it must have taken him like 3 to four months to get a lawyer it was it was horrible yeah the sad part was his legal feeds were comparable to compensation I mean I'm sure there's a firm out there that does online appointments and all the paperwork for you and at no cost unless you win your case you mean Morgan and Morgan America's largest injury Law Firm Morgan and Morgan specializes in a wide range of different personal injury cases when you hire them you don't just get a lawyer they give you a dedicated legal team that does all the research and paperwork for you that's right Jules they've recovered over 20 billion for their clients just in the past couple months they saw verdicts of over 12 million in Florida 2 6 million in Philly and 6.8 million in New York that's up to 40 times the highest insurance offer and guess what they don't charge for any sign up fees or any other upfront costs it's all free unless you win your case submitting a claim has never been easier whoa that was weird if you've also been a victim of personal injury or any other serious accidents like our friend Billy your case might be worth millions and you're only a few clicks away from potentially changing your life you can visit www. forthepeople.com Jubilee to start your free claim today or you can click the link in the description below thanks to Morgan and Morgan for sponsoring this portion of this episode could we please get back to the video my next claim is that God commands genocide in the Bible hey how's it going nice to meet you right this is a bummer of a claim right like when you look at scripture right I agree there is a myriad of problematic things we see in scripture from genocide to misogyny to slavery right and I would say that we find genocide in scripture I would argue though do you agree with my claim yeah I think it's in scripture yeah I mean I think it's in there okay well thanks for watching everyone yeah this is good yeah good stuff so I mean but here's what I would say I ought to do with this claim as a Christian if you're okay with entertaining that idea right so we see mass murder in scripture right and so one of my greatest friends Rabbi Josh Stanton he's a rabbi the Hebrew scriptures are his that's where we're finding these genocides right yeah so so to spell it out we've got I think the two most problematic in 1 Samuel 15 the destruction of AMC and in the Book of Joshua the destruction of Jericho and the destruction of I so for the sake of the audience who might not know about this in 1 Samuel for example the amalekites are a Canaanite tribe they're in the land that's been promised to Israel Israel are instructed through the prophet Samuel King Saul is told to completely destroy the amalekites leave nothing alive that breathes kill man and woman child and infant cattle and sheep and in fact when Israel does us there instructed they destroy AMC uh except Saul decides to keep the King as a captive and he also saves the best of the animals the prophet Samuel comes to him and says what have you done and he says well we we kept the best of the of the animals in order to sacrifice to the Lord and it says twice that God regrets that he made Saul King why does he regret that he made Saul King because Saul didn't follow his commandment to completely destroy the amalekites by keeping the king alive and by keeping the best of the livestock Saul says we kept the livestock alive to burn as a sacrifice to the Lord and Samuel says what pleases the Lord more burnt offerings or the following of his commands sure and so we know that we're talking about what I would Define here as a genocide yeah so it's in there right and I would say this is a great place where things like Progressive Christianity serve us quite well not in the idea that God is progressing but humanity is progressing further to a greater understanding of God's ethic and Justice I would also say when I look at scripture I would actually be opposite for most of my contemporaries here I don't read it as 100% literal like I don't need Scripture to be a history book a literal book so I look and I have to say well what is this telling me and it's a awful story might I say a story for us to have to go through and navate G right and I would go back to my friend again who was a rabbi who we had this conversation just in Friendship about how he reconciles to the Holocaust I haven't been a part of this genocide but he's talking about the one you're referencing in scripture right I wasn't around for it but this is one that is in relatable human history that we can have family members that were a part of right and for my friend who has had this not compromise his faith that was the question I asked him right like this is a genocide that was against your people and your religion and and for people that really loved God on a deep and a profound level like how is this not shaking your faith and for him and for me and for many others as you look at scripture I mean I think that God is ultimately always pulling us toward greater levels of justice and when we look into this story in history like I think people are recording a potentially historic genocide that they are trying to make sense of in their religious worldview and so they're super impoving language for God do you think that God commanded this to happen I am not super interested in that conversation but I would say potentially okay because for me the problem is that if you have God explicit L commanding this to happen Okay pause I think you're asking the Bible to do what it wasn't intended to do is what I would say sure than you've been voted out please return to your seat I'm sitting okay if he touched it first if he touched it first then yes I need to get down the adrenaline just a little bit after that run um yeah I think um what you bring is interesting like I think you know if we were to look at the literal definition of Bible I think we can see that God commanded a person to commit genocide so I think we're aligned there you mean the definition of genocide yes yeah so with that being said though I I think when we look at Christian theology in the full when Adam and Eve decide to disobey god um technically we're all you know subjected to death subjected to the wages of sin the penalty of sin I'm not a perfect person I deserve the worst right and that's because and the only reason why I'm happily breathing is because you know Jesus saved me right and so when we look at this pretense like because we fell um you know I know this is a very unpopular thing God can do whatever he wants right whether it's you know genocide putting us to death you know we've talked about suffering and all these things so can I ask you a question then yes suppose that you woke up tomorrow and you've been sort of transported into Canaan you wake up and you're a Canaanite and you think you haven't done anything particularly wrong but you're a bad person you're a sinner right and then the Israelites come knocking at the door and you know that they've been sent by God and they come to your door and you say to yourself well I know that this is the will of God even though it's really horrible God can do whatever he likes so you say please don't kill me Mr Israelite instead let me first betray my family to you because I know the will of the Lord would you allow that to happen I will contest it with this right we are all we all fall short of the glory of God it says that in Romans right so like whatever I'm subjected to I'm not entitled to a good life like I think even me living is a gift from God the fact that I can talk to you is a gift do you think that applies to like infants yes unfortunately yes I know it's an unpopular opinion so you think infants are deserving of the treatment they're given in Samuel I think because we all fell yes I'm sorry you've been voted out please return to your seat that was so good to meet you hey how's it going nice to meet you okay uh I disagree I'd love to look at the case of the uh the amalekites in 1 Samuel 15 sure so 1 Samuel 15 it says he uses that phrase every man woman child and then the lists off the animals right so we presume that by the end of that if only AAG and the animal comes comes back that they're all dead and then they show up right later chapter 27 and in Chapter 30 uh even King AAG his descendants come up in the Book of Esther yes that's right so like if we if we're if we're saying just for example we have verification that there are children related to amalekites who must have been there because it's aag's children where else would they be and they're alive because his descendants go on through hmon which comes up in Esther so yeah how do you there are a few things to say firstly one of the points where uh some of the amalekites uh come up again it's explicitly said that these are who escaped these are people who escaped and so it's possible that God commanded that all of AMC was destroyed and the word heram there means utterly destroy that might also involve a driving out of the land so it's possible that some of them escaped and that's where we get the descendants from that that seems totally plausible to me the question is did God command a genocide by the way genocide includes forcible expulsion from somebody's land in a case of ethnic cleansing what I'm looking at here is did God command the ethnic cleansing of the land of Israel from people like the amalekites people like I people like Jericho and I think the answer is clearly yes like for example do you think that any innocent children maybe let's not use the word innocent for theological reasons but do you think that any infants were killed in the destruction of AMC I have no idea I don't think that it's recorded okay but you think that God definitely commanded the the killing of no I don't think I think that's I think that's hyperbolic phrasing and I and I know I've heard you say it before I heard you talk about this you know you've heard that before that it's hyperbole but I think you can demonstrate it in Babylonian Sumerian writings very similar there's even there's an Egyptian Steely which says that Israel was wiped out and their seed was utterly removed it was gone and so we've got like comparable phrases used in other ancient near Eastern communities uh in their historical texts that talk very similarly but like we know that the Jews persisted to exist in Israel even though the Egyptians said that they were no more and they that text explicitly says man woman and child that's hyperbolic language that even we used today like for example in World War II there those huge posters that were put up every man woman and child is needed you know like that's I can read that and go sure sure but so imagine for example I mean there's a there's a discussion at the moment about whether Israel is committing a genocide in Palestine today now suppose a lot of people said but you're killing children and Israel said yeah but that's just product of War imagine if we discovered that behind the scenes prime minister of Israel had said leave alive nothing that breathes kill everyone kill man kill woman kill child and infant kill the animals kill the donkeys don't leave anything alive that breathes even if he was trying to sort of make a hyperbolic point the fact that children are then dying as a result I think that we could lay some blame At His Feet here we have God saying that th those are the words that are recorded also on the point of hyperbole when we get into the Book of Joshua and the destruction of the nation of I it's explicitly said that 12,000 people died that day all the people of I it's says it does imply that some people ran away because it says I have it here in uh in Joshua chapter 8 when Israel had finished killing all of the men of eye in the fields and the Wilderness where they had chased them and by the way earlier it says not a man remained in I or bethl who did not go after Israel because Israel sort of draw them out of the city and they'd pretend to run away and I runs after them it says not a man remained in I it then says when Israel had finished killing all of the men in the fields in the wilderness where they chased them and when every one of them been put to the sword the Israelites turned around returned to I and killed everyone who was left if there was not a man who was left in I who hadn't run out and been killed in the wilderness when they turn around and kill everyone who's left who is it that they're killing it's the women it's the children we're then told that 12,000 people fell that day all the people of I and it says 12,000 men and women so we know that women who were non-combatants were also killed even if there's hyperbolic language being used here we know that we're being told that specifically 12,000 people died including non-combatant women uh okay so I think for the example in 1 Samuel 15 these are ancient texts you know it's literature so we don't like go over and above like how interpreting literature works so even though the text can saying this is what God said well it's it's still in a literary form do you think God said that do you think it's accur well I mean I wasn't there I didn't hear it I think that the Old Testament scripture is inspired and I think that it doesn't fail in its representation of revealing God like for example like we talked about the New Testament right um John Chapter 2 he puts the the the temple expulsion moment at the beginning of his gospel do I think that John is actually concerned with the chronology there no I don't think that I think it's a literary tool so and I think the Bible is full of that they're literary text and they're assembled in a certain way so I don't think that uh necessarily that means that God was the one using the hyperbole but describe recording the events and sort of summarizing what happened says okay so God commands to attack the amalekites but that does that mean that God is the one who did the hyperbolizing I don't think think it be problematic you mentioned the cleansing of the temple and you said that even though the chronology is off the the point is recorded if we had a story of the cleansing of the temple if we discovered some early manuscript some some version of John where Jesus goes into the temple he starts cleansing the temple flipping over tables and then he starts beating up children just starts punching them because he's so angry right what would you think of that you'd probably think either it didn't happen or if you could prove that it diden happen that Jesus was less moral than you thought he was or if for some reason people believe that that's what he did I think it' be a problem for you and I think that if you're looking at a good God here the fact that even this is reported as something that he said and this is part of the Jewish tradition that basically nobody disputes is at least theologically accurate but you to demonst children being killed in the Old Testament you you haven't actually shown that so yes I would find that to be problematic but you haven't shown innocent children being killed in the old there's the command to kill children right I just we just W talked through all of that so so you think God was hyperbolizing I think scri is hyperbolizing I think the Scribe izing God's command okay fine so you think that the Scribe has inaccurately recorded the command of God therefore the Old Testament is so like that's not the same thing though I'm like I'm not saying the Scribe made something up I'm saying the Scribe has a command so where did they get that command from from God delivered through a prophet so but did did did God say to the prophet Samuel leave Al nothing that breathes kill every man and woman I don't I don't necess know that I would I would think that because if if he did then we've got the command to kill innocent children if he didn't then we've got a problem of of the accuracy of the old test no I I don't agree with that at all like I said it's literature right so God can say something and the recording of the event can employ literary devices like hyper which what I think is happening I want to go to to Jericho what you're talking about there because you talked about that a lot more uh I think for example like with with uh Jericho we have all the reason to believe that Jericho is a military stronghold um I think that's the case I think that's historically accurate and so we're not like just looking at Israel going in and you know just uh just sort like killing for no reason right it's it's a it's a military conquest I I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single nation in all of human history that was founded without violence I agree right that's never happened I understand why you would say it's problematic that God is instructing that which which I get God would not instruct that I mean you know my country is thought of as beginning in 1066 with the Norman Invasion right and like it may be I can imagine there was some report that that said that you know that King was shouting you know kill them and then go and kill their wives and then go and kill their children leave like show no mercy I can totally see someone saying that and in them not being taken literally but if God says that this is still part of the Eternal scripture of God that people have in their pews that's in the hotel room I don't know so much anymore in secular America do you open it up to a random page especially given the undertones of what's happening in the world right now honestly I'm not like if I'm going to be completely honest I think uh in the Book of Genesis when God leads Abraham to the promised land he says to them I'll bring you back here in several Generations when the Amorite sin is is filled up like that language when the bucket is all the way filled sinful people right so I and I understand why that can be problematic but I when I when I read the text I believe that that God is allowed to judge people being that he created everything and he's allowed to use human beings to do that including human being okay pause you've been voted out by the majority please your seat all right really quick before we begin the discussion I'm going to give you this gift and also use my point for the topic of genocide because you're saying that God commands genocide correct so you're making this God sound like a very hating God that like hateful just genocidal like genocidal okay so here's this personal gift I would like to to give to you it says cast your anxieties because he cares for you the way how you're portraying this God when you say that very broad statement of God commanding genocide I disagree because in the beginning of the Bible God is love at the end of the Bible God is love our fellow peer he stated that our God is a very just God so can we argue that or say that even though this God perhaps like in the beginning of the Old Testament that's where the genocide occurs a lot we can also say that so do you think genocide does occur if it did say that in the Bible I just want to say that like these people also went to heaven it's not like they're getting like killed and punished in that moment he's also taking these Souls of the woman and children and taking them with him if that's the case but the whole argument is about God like okay I I have a question then do you think it's okay to kill people because they'll eventually just go to heaven anyway after you kill them it's not about killing it's just like people who get abortions doing their unborn children a favor by killing them in the womb therefore giving them a fast track to heav this is a different approach to genocide but I just want to say like I don't think you get to inflict a side and then sort of just make up for it with the fact that you send them to Heaven afterwards I maybe you do but the problem is that the Israelites are also sinful people and when the Israelites are sinful they get the prophet of God with literal stone tablets telling them how to correct their path the Canaanites are sinful people and when they're sinful people they get the Israelites coming in and wiping but our God is a just God and I feel like even sinful people pause you've been voted out your chair hello hello hi Alex nice to meet you so you you pointed out several passages but the prophets through and through condemn Israel in much harsher terms and in fact God dispersed them in much greater judgments because they were and in fact in Ezekiel it says that because you were supposed to be the light of the world you are judged all the more strictly and are more responsible so God was just with Israel in fact he placed more of a burden and a mantle and a responsibility on them and judge them for it than he did the Nations and case in point what's already brought up was the the the number Generations that passed before the amalekites were judged and the Canaanites were judged y but we can come back to that point okay can I ask you then yes how do you define genocide right if I may I actually have a question I wanted to ask you first I think it's important to know what we're talking about what is a genocide based on the word genome obviously emically we understand that it's you're taking it as a tribal seed line which is fair be tribe religion I can I can understand and we're talking about the destruction or attempted destruction Orion People based on characteristics here's the problem genocide uh the way it's especially the way it's used today implies that it's based on the race and that is categorically against the command of God to conquer the Canaanites it had nothing to do with their race it had to do with their sin and in fact this is so you know that when when AMC is attacked right uh Israel first warns another tribe that they're coming yes and says get out of here CU cuz you were good to us when we came out of Egypt AMC battled them when they came out of Egypt he say to this other tribe you guys get out of here they warn them right right they don't say Hey you get to stay here they say you've got to go but we're going to warn you first that we don't totally destroy you that's right in other words it does seem to be I mean why is it why is it that Israel are going into this land the nation why are they going into this land because it was the land promised to them by God why does it need to be cleansed because there are people in that land to beuy chap 7 chapter 9 he says do not think that it is because of your righteousness or because of anything has to do with you that I brought you into the sign but it was because of the sins of the Nations that I gave it gave it to you this is Deuteronomy chapter 9 so it's not it's not because he promised them based on some sort of ethnic requisite he in fact the whole premise behind the destruction was the Prototype of Sodom and Gomorrah so yeah so so so then a question which iype because Noah was a question which I think I'll know the answer to then do you think there was not one sort of good person no exactly and that's the point and if that's the cas that's why brought let me ask you a second question well on let me let me answer your question a little bit more fully there any good people in Israel in the nation of Israel right so let me answer your question if the answer is that there were bad people in Israel too why is it that they don't get killed as well well the slaughter of the children has the slaughter of the children has the same problem because it has to do with innocence okay so let me address that that problem no no nobody's Innocent but my my my specific question is no but you're saying the children in the in the land of Canaan are are innocent and they're being slaughtered no I'm not that's not what I'm saying right now what I'm saying is what I'm saying is that I I retracted the word innocent because I know it can be a bit tricky um but what I'm saying specifically here is that if the reason why Canan is destroyed is because they're immoral there's all kinds of immorality happening within the Israelite hold on hold on happening within the Israelite Nation as well if it's not about Nation if it's not about tribe then why is it that Israel aren't told to kill the immoral people in their tribe but only people in the other tribe no no they are and in fact that's what they do and in fact the entire generation that was promised the promised land died out without seeing the promised land because of their sin but not but not at the hands of the Israelites okay fine but but the Israelites are not told to expunge their own nation of theill their children and killing their animals give you a yeah perfect I'll give you a thought experiment let's suppose let's suppose that tomorrow we find out that the uh pedophilia rings that conspiracy theory is somehow true like just imagine like uh you know V Vendetta style like imagine like hackers just broadcast everything that was was going on the the all the all the blackmail tapes the Diddy files the whatever okay you get the point so you have you have this sudden revelation of this Grand conspiracy and it's and it's on a scale that no one ever imagined okay would you say that there is Justice in bringing those people obviously no one would disagree in fact the public opinion on execution might change at that point and even the guillotine might come back who knows if if but I wouldn't kill that children no right okay so I'm getting there so we'll get there step by step let's start with the men and the women so let's suppose this in this example the conspiracy theory is true and everybody finds out and then everybody agrees that the men and the women that were involved in this pedophilia ring let's say uh need to be judged okay someone has to do it we have no problem executing them we have the benefit of technology that gives us a bit of IND indirectness but if you didn't have that you would have to either do it yourself or have your execution we're talking here about military execution of non combatants which is a war crime right so no no no it's a war crime by quoting yeah but let me but you've been voted out by the majority it's [Music] okay it's great to see you let's hear it one more time well okay one thing when it comes to ex Jesus and actually try to understand what scripture is saying I feel like we're playing an impossible game right now one of my friends Elijah is bringing up these great points about how there's intermarriage you know talked about not to do that after we're driving out people so crucially on that point sure it it says totally destroy them do not inter Mar with them do not and and I can totally people say well why would they be told not to intermar if they were told to destroy them because you can imagine that there's a bunch of people like who want to invade a land and take their daughters as wives and God says no no no destroy them completely don't marry them don't interbreed with them don't don't take them as captives kill them all entirely this is not inconsistent with with the command of heram of utter destruction my my point is though we're playing an impossible game because we're reading this or at least we're talking about it right now like modern readers and not like ancient readers I mean it's almost like if somebody were to pull out the Book of Revelation right now and say hey look the Bible says that he's going to pull people from all four corners of the earth that must mean that the earth I mean I would just be going that's not that's not exactly how we interpret scripture all right that's time I'm sorry really oh I'm sorry sorry man I'm sorry we didn't time sorry man thank you my next claim is is that there is insufficient evidence to believe in the resurrection okay okay nice to meet you how's it going this is a really interdisciplinary question for the resurrection of Jesus and in my experience it kind of boils down into two categories M the prior probability of the resurrection of Jesus and the data itself so what I'm really interested in is the historical case of the resurrection of Jesus okay I want to ask a clarifying question because I I would love to talk about data but if I were to give you a model of the gospels that I would call like the historical reportage model which would says something along the lines of the authors of the gospels were close to the times and places of the historical Jesus they rooted their historical work in eyewitness testimony and did not feel the freedom to make up historical facts because of that we can extract all the testimonies from these gospels and we have access to what the original eyewitnesses actually said and did okay so who do you think of the eyewitnesses that the testimony is being based on so this is where I'm not a walking encyclopedia but I would say if you you looked at all the testimonies we have 21 unique testimonies that are going to be polymodal in nature they're going to have semblances of Independence and interdependence and some dependence because of the synoptic problem all that stuff if we were to get there would that be enough for you to say the probability that the resurrection happened relative to any other countering theory is higher uh no I don't think so so that tells me then that one it could be the prior probability still though that's an issue mhm cuz if that's not enough evidence it's not that I think that the authors of the gospels specifically on the resurrection can't be trusted to be giving an accurate account of what happened yeah that's why I'm asking if we had this historical reportage model and that was true if it were true that they were reporting historical events then it would be a historical event yeah so let me clarify I don't think that they are yeah I got where let me clarify one thing here the historical reportage model does not entail what the reporting actually happened all I'm saying is that we can extract from there is that these were the actual eyewitness testimonies to the Risen Jesus okay so I have a question for you do you think that Jesus is the only person outside of the people that Jesus and the apostles Rose in the dead do you think that he's the only person in human history that's risen from the dead yes okay so Matthew's gospel in Matthew chapter 27 says that at the time of the death of Jesus the graves of Jerusalem opened and the holy ones got out of their graves and then interestingly says then after the resurrection appeared to many many of them walked around appearing to many do you think that that happened so I would just say that if the historical report model is true then yes so think but hold on the problem there is those are also talking about resuscitations most likely not resurrections yeah but what we're talking about here is is the graves of Jerusalem opening and many people getting out of their graves walking around Jerusalem and appearing to many I say yes what's at if this happened this would be the most extraordinary event that's ever happened in human history and yet and then you're going to make an argument from Silence from there some arguments from Silence do work it is but then that's only one piece of EV anywhere it's not reported of theels it's not in Josephus it's so but let me finish this because this is important a lot of most Christian uh Scholars I think so people like Dale Allison for example believe that this didn't actually happen well I'm not interested when Allison is going to say the door that this opens what I'm interested in is what the data says so if we have the historical reportage model right but you keep saying we have this model like that's fine let me give you some let me give you some evidence for the historical reportage model if this model is true one of the things I would expect to see be things like undesigned coincidences within the gospels tiny little in for the sake of time I I I understand what you're saying so so I think that a lot in the gospels is historically reliable and a lot is not things like undesigned coincidences you taking a paropy by paropy approach to this or how is like what methodology taking a story by story I don't think that the I think that's the I don't think that's a good methodolog I don't think that the graves of Jerusalem were opened I don't think that there were people around understand where com if that's the case and that means that at least the author of Matthew is willing to invent stories of Resurrection in order to makeig difference there right because I know I know you like to for instance you like to talk about the flight to Egypt and you like to say that Matthew invented the flight to Egypt L um no Luke does Luke's the one that doesn't mention it Matthew's the one that mentions it sorry sorry Matthew sorry yeah Matthew and then typically the way you run this argument is Matthew invented the flight to Egypt Luke doesn't mention it the reason why Luke doesn't mention it is because it didn't happen Matthew mentions it and he tells us why to put Jesus into prophecy here's a counter hypothesis what if it's just the case that Matthew is not making up historical facts and he's doing some sort of midrash and what I mean by this is that he's looking at this historical thing that happened the flight to Egypt and taking this Hosea passage which by the way would be kind of a clunky passage to use if you wanted to make up a historical fact for prophecy because that Hosea passage is not inherently I think we might I have to be allowed to speak here I think we had been slightly off topic the problem with the birth narrative story is not just that a story is being invented to fulfill prophecy although we're told that that's why it's done the problem is that it contradicts the other account that I'm totally fine with that so if you look at the birth narratives Al together I think there's room for one discrepancy and that is that Luke doesn't mention it l Luke says that they go to the temple what Luke says that they go to the temple yeah so so hold on let me finish it Luke says that the family go to the temple and present Jesus in Jerusalem Matthew says that they go to Egypt they're very far away from each other and we're told that they stay in Egypt until after the death of Herod this is a contradiction no I I so again I okay pause you've been voted out by the majority please return to your seat [Music] good good to see again good to see you okay so historical case for the resurrection well before we get there I actually my main contention had to do with the example that was just brought up about the flight to Egypt I mean we can talk about it but what I really want to know here is how we know that the the resurrection of Jesus historically so so can I start with a question for you for example do you believe that the graves opened and that the holy ones were walking around the city of Jerusalem appearing why reped other gospels anywhere this is the extraordinary that's ever happed in history right so the also sorry I don't mean to interrupt but also crucially Matthew says at the time of Jesus's death there was a huge earthquake the second earthquake the graves opened and that then the holy ones appeared to people after the resurrection to many so there's this very very strange passage which seems strange on the surface but also says that the the graves opened at the time of the crucifixion but they weren't walking around and appearing to people until after the resurrection it seems conf it seems contrived unless they were like hanging out dead in open Graves for like 3 days until they got up or something it's a very very strange passage which I think has no hyic behind sure but that's not the same as the claim you originally brought up which is the resurrection of Christ himself yeah so what I'm trying to say is if that's un so if I were I understand so if I were to connect the two what I would say what I would say is the the the historicity for the resurrection of Christ um has the same type of data that the historicity of the resurrection of these holy ones in end of Matthew because uh the appearances of these holy ones and the appearances of Christ correlate they correspond and so the reports of their appearances is just as likely uh like for example uh you're aware of the passage in first obviously Corinthians 15 which is one of the earliest attestations of the uh you know the formal uh traditional Creed that states about uh the U the resurrection of Christ and and the appearance to 500 and this States within the first five within five years of of Christ's Resurrection so arguably yeah I mean it's unclear I mean are you as I understand you do grant that possibility I grant the pool's very early I don't know about 5 years sure but well the the tradition on which it's based because he's quoting a very specific midrashic formula I agree Paul inserts himself into that formula he says finally appear to me so at some point the formula stops and Paul's own words actually that that demonstrates the proof of the formula rather than rather than uh subverts it so I I don't know where the formula ends that's fine my point my point is to say that there are early attestations that are no different in nature than the attestations of the uh the holy ones that Rose from the from the so crucially so if you don't if you if you reject the resurrection of Christ based on the data of eyewitness testimony then of course you're going to reject the resurrection or the rest resuscitation let's say either one of the Holy ones uh based on the eyewitness testimony F if you believe that I just know that a lot of Christians don't so I establish that first otherwise it's irrelevant let's forget about so we did your passage can we do mine yeah sure we can forget about the the graves opening thing sounds good so let's go toose if you don't if you don't mind so in Hosea you have actually a fantastic example of how the uh the Prophecies of Christ are being fulfilled at deeper multivalent levels right it's a metalepsis of prophetic fulfillment so to answer the discrepancy between Luke and Matthew first of all you have the time of the uh purification right for the the mother it lasts 33 days after the circumcision of the infant and therefore it's a 40-day period before they're presented at the temple this takes place before they flee to Egypt now I understand the difficulty in in the verse right after Luke's paropy about the uh presentation of the temple with Zachariah because it says that they returned to Nazareth yes he says afterward they returned to Nazareth maybe they went to Egypt in between right exactly that's what I'm trying to say Can Can I can I just say that that may be the case I I think that's an unnatural reading of the of the case but I'll just grant you for a moment let's say that the birth narratives don't contradict each other that's fine let's say that the birth narratives are not historically unreliable for that reason evidence of the Resurrection I'm looking for right now sure I understand that but I get where you want add but there are contradictions in the gospels that's a whole another so sorry you been voted out by the majority [Music] okay so there's one point you kind of keep going back to is the opening of the graves and you're saying we're not seeing that anywhere in history and I kind of agree with what than was saying is this is an argument of Silence so we don't see anywhere in history the destruction of Pompei being written down through vus this is a huge event sure why don't we see that but if we had accounts describing Pompei around the time that happened and they just didn't mention it you don't think that would be a bit suspect well we don't we don't see anything talking about the destruction of pompe sure but if if we had accounts that were written about Pompei at the time of the destruction and they didn't mention it do you think that would be weird yeah I do think that would be a little we have accounts written about Jesus in Jerusalem at the time that this extraordinary event was supposed to take place and they didn't even think to mention it so can I tell you why I think the story is in there because Jesus is supposed to be the firstborn of the dead and and Jesus is an apocalyptic prophet in the synoptic gospels predicting that the end of the world is going to come soon the general resurrection of the dead and Jesus Jesus is going to be the firstborn of the dead so I think Matthew invents this story so that these people rise from their grave but they don't start appearing to people till after the resurrection because Jesus is the firstborn of the dead and this is the general Resurrection th