Within Reason - #87 Cliffe and Stuart Knechtle - Biblical Slaves, Women, and the Unforgivable Sin

Episode Date: November 13, 2024

Cliffe and Stuart Knechtle run the extremely popular online Christian ministry ‪'Give Me an Answer'‬. In this episode they discuss troubling passages in the Old Testament, New Testament sexism, Job, doubting Thomas, the unforgivable sin (blaspheming the Holy Spirit), and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Cliff and Stuart Connectly, thanks for coming on the show. Thank you, Alex. How did I do? Did I get it right? Awesome. Nailed it. Yeah, okay. Okay, good, good, good. We're going to dive right into the deep end here. What is, if you had to summarize, the ultimate two-sentence blurb summary of what Christianity is all about? What's its main message?

That God created us to love him with our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbors ourselves. At times we've done it, at times we haven't. don't, that's called sin, and it leads to a consequence, separation from God, death, and hell. But God loves us so much that he sent his only son, Jesus, to bleed and die on a cross, to forgive us, to offer us a free gift, grace, forgiveness, and eternal life. And now, as we put our faith in him, he gives us that gift, and we begin life with him now and for eternity. And that gift has a lot to do with forgiveness for the sorry state that we find ourselves in. Now, what I really want to begin by digging into is, firstly, why we're in such a sorry state, whether it's our fault, and then also what it means for this Jesus figure to be coming along and forgiving us of our sins.

So the way that you just described, the fact that we were created for some purpose, which is to love God, but we so routinely don't do that. What's your analysis of why that's the case, why people are in need of this Jesus figure to come along and save us? well we see it across the country right now with what i would call revival we might define revival differently probably would all three of us but there's a god-shaped hole that every single college student i've seen truly has and there's all of a sudden randomly this pervasive desire to fill that hole and whether it was the wake-up call from covid with a lot of suffering that came from there whether it's where our culture is at right now and just the suffocation that's going on with busyness, with technology, you name it. They are getting rattled to the point of saying,

wow, I need something that really called me into a higher standard, but I'm also in a high level of pain. That's why you see divorce rates, 54%, anxiety rates on college campuses, 60%, 90% of people say that they have immense amounts of anxiety, depression, skyrocketing, obviously suicide, to deal with a few suicide cases recently and then also on college campuses, I have people come up to me all the time sobbing saying, I was considering taking my life or I have a family member or a friend who just did. And so there's some pain there and they're trying to figure out what to fill it with. There's definitely something going on. People often talk about the meaning crisis, existentialism. And I wonder how confidently you can attribute that to something like

secularism or atheism as opposed to say the unimaginable shift in our communication with things like social media. If I sort of analyze my daily life and think, well, if I'm feeling anxious or depressed, why is that? Is it because I haven't been to church today because I don't believe in God? Or is it because I've just scrolled through a news feed that tells me that some country has just been bombed and has told me that my favorite celebrity has, you know, said something they shouldn't and now they're getting canceled and I have to decide whether to cancel my subscription to their and I sort of have a hundred messages to respond to and emails and this kind of thing. I feel like the meaning crisis and the anxiety and the sort of the strange emptiness and

shallowness of modern life is often just trivially attributed to the decline of religion, whereas I wonder if we can really be as confident about that. Well, according to the latest Harvard studies, we can be. Now we're talking. And now we're talking is right. And so one was titled, if spirituality could be put into a pill, it would save unless amounts of lives. So Harvard has done three different studies over the last few decades on religion and mental, physical health, so longevity. And so the latest one was those who go to church, doesn't work with social clubs or anything of the like, church weekly, have the women have a 60 percent.

higher chance of not remaining hooked on drugs, emotional well-being skyrockets, longevity skyrockets, and those who bring their kids to church on a regular basis, those kids in their 20s have a much, much higher percentage of well-being, happiness, and flourishing. And the studies are longer than that, like obviously altruism, skyrockets for those who go to church and that sort of thing. So this is a very secular, slightly academic study that, that has shown this numerous times. So I think the meaning crisis, yes, it has a lot to do with church. I think you probably know Andrew Del Bonco, who wrote The American Dream.

He was a secularist, and he charted the history of the U.S. and showed how it wasn't too long ago when the nation really elevated God and church. And then it kind of shifted to patriotism and focusing on country and fighting for your country. So it's still something outside of yourself. But now secularism has poisoned our nation. because it brings a high level of individualism and a focus on the self rather than something higher. And by doing so, that's why there's a meaning crisis,

according to this secularist. Yeah, there's a lot to say about secularism in the United States in particular. It's interesting hearing it framed in those terms. I mean, because one of my other thoughts on this is that something that Americans might have lost is that national identity. I've previously talked about how I watched

sort of political debates from not even that long ago, maybe the 70s or 80s, and people are quoting the founding fathers like they're quoting hadiths of the prophet Muhammad, as if it like settles debates, you know. And there seemed to be this, this mythos around the founding of America and all of these stories and the almost religious art, you know, that you see the Declaration of Independence or Washington crossing the Delaware. And I thought to myself, well, maybe Americans are missing that as well. Maybe it's not so much the God stuff that's been tying them together this long, but that they have this kind of national story to

identify with. But you would say that that's not the case. I heard a commentator recently, again, non-Christian, say that Christian nationalism is basically being spawned out of those who are not going to church regularly. So if you increase religion, you will do away with Christian nationalism. But a far, far, far right fringe would be considered Christian nationalists and they have assumed a political identity that they've deified. And so that has formed what we would call Christian nationalism. And that's why the term evangelical has been poisoned as well. Poor Billy Graham and others would be rolling over in their graves right now because that's not what they meant it to be. So that's what happens when you put nation ahead of everything

else. My point is God is the only thing that can ultimately sustain the weight of your greatest desires and your meaning. You said secularism has poisoned our nation, your nation. Is it secularism or is it atheism? These are two different things. You can have a nation of atheists living in some kind of theocracy, right? But you could also have a nation of Christian believers living in a secular state. Do you think that would be as much of a problem? Is it the fact that they don't believe or is the fact that this is not sort of built into

the institutions of government? Well, I like Charles Taylor in a secular age when he talks about the buffer itself. Yes. Yeah. And when you look at the buffer itself, you are going to have to grab on to something here. and deify it. And infinite jest as well, David Foster Wallace talked about if you worship, everybody worships, he says, and obviously a strong atheist, everybody worships. If you worship something finite, it will eat you alive. If you worship something infinite, it will sustain you,

no matter what, and give you joy and happiness. So I think secularism for me, there's many ways to define it. You'd probably know more than me. But one is nowism. It's like, what's happening now? there's no future now and for me charles taylor would step in and say the buffer itself so there's nothing above you and so you're going to have to find something and it typically yourself to fall into to find ultimately your meaning of purpose but if there's again with the buffer itself if there is no eternal perspective if there is nothing above just death and the finite then any meaning purpose and happiness that you gain here nowism seculari is ultimately going to fail you if suffering comes along. But for a Christian, suffering comes along and your meaning only grows from that

eternal perspective. Yeah, there are a few things to say. I mean, first is to ask, maybe you don't know this, but this correlation between wellness and religious practice, is this about religion or is it about Christianity? I mean, do Muslims experience the same kind of thing? I mean, as far as I know, that's also the case, right? It's something not necessarily we haven't got there. about Christianity or Christ, but something about the transcendent, something about religious communities coming together, something like that? Or is it something

about Christianity that gives people this well-being? Yeah, that study was not done on mosques and other faiths, so I don't know exactly, but I do believe, based out of Dartmouth is near us, and Dartmouth did a bunch of studies showing that those who are able to look upward first

and have God, and then, so it's basically like, Love the word you got with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength and love your neighbor as yourself, those who are able to get outside of themselves like that, rather than fall in on themselves, which is the majority of Americans right now, they have that type of mental health. So I believe, basically it's conjecture. My theory would be identity. I think those who go to church frequently have a more durable identity because it's not the kind of the more traditional type where it's your parents determine or your culture determines your identity. And it's not the more modern type, which is I determine my own identity. So I get that through. achievement for example i get that through looking my own inward desires or i get that through it's just because it's postmodern it's kind of just true for me so i think identity and then something beyond something like the secular version of hope which is just blind optimism or maybe not blind but some level of optimism Christianity gives you an eternal form of hope that gets you through things so

those will be i think there's many categories but those would be two that the church gives how suspicious are you of something like christianity in so far as it does seem to answer something like existential dread. In the way that you say, look, if you don't believe in God, then it ends at death. And when you suffer, your suffering is meaningless. Whereas if you become a Christian, it fills you with meaning, it fills you with purpose. It sort of brings you sort of self-assurance that life is still worth living. And I think to myself, okay, is the problem of evil, a response to Christianity? Or is Christianity a response to the problem of evil? Are there a bunch of people suffering, unsure of their existence? They don't know why they're here. They don't

know why they suffer. They don't know why good people suffer and bad people don't. And so here's a story we can tell ourselves, which will help us overcome that. And there are two thesis here. One is that that that's because it's true, and this is how the world is supposed to be. And one is that, well, it's because of all of the suffering and the meaninglessness that people have created this story of Christianity to overcome it. I mean, I'm always, my suspicion of a position almost exactly correlates with how convenient it is either spiritually, politically. And in this case, it seems like Christianity is like the ultimate spiritual convenience, given the world we find ourselves in. I mean, does that trouble you at all?

One of the reasons I respect Sir Arthur Gatama Buddha is because he struggled through the problem of suffering, and I respect that highly. But his conclusion, I find to be totally inadequate. Suffering is an illusion. Are you kidding me? No, suffering is not an illusion. Suffering is something that every single one of us is going to experience. And that is why I'm so grateful for the biblical worldview that says God created and you did a good job in Genesis chapter 1. But then the world was cursed. The world got unhinged and suffering and chaos and evil and injustice entered the experience of humankind as a result of human rebellion against God.

And then it's fascinating to watch different parts of the Bible address the issue of suffering. And one of my favorites is the book of Job. And I think one of the main points of Job is life is unfair. God is fair. Don't get the two mixed up. Life is unfair. God is fair. Don't wave your fist in God's face when you suffer. because it's not God's fault, it's the unfairness of life that is smacking the living daylights out of you. And then when you get to Christ, you see that God is a suffering God who becomes a human being and life kicked his teeth in, no question about it. And he suffered, and then he bled and died on a cross. And I think right at that point you're confronted by one of the most amazing things of God's character, which is his humility. He humbles himself, becomes a human being, suffers in order to provide the ultimate solution for suffering. forgiveness in eternal life.

And then when you get to the book of Revelation at the end of the Bible, you've got in Revelation 214, He will wipe every tear from their eyes and that we no more death or mourning or crying or pain for the old order has been wiped away, behold all things have become new. And that is the hope that we have as followers of Christ

that Jesus will return one day. There'll be a day of judgment to heaven and a hell. We will receive new resurrection bodies to live for eternity with God in heaven. Which means if my secular atheist friend and I are standing on either side to the bed where the little babies or a young child is lying whose body's being shredded by some weird, grotesque disease. The question is, is there a solution? And if my atheist secular friend is going to be honest, there is no solution.

Hunk of primordial slime evolved to a higher order is falling apart. Tough lug, kid. That's just fate, destiny, chance. But a follow of Christ will walk the other side of the bed and will hold that child's hand and seek to comfort that child. But in Jesus Christ, we have a suffering God. who provides the ultimate solution for suffering and death, eternal life in heaven. So I feel like in so many words, you're saying the same thing as me, but concluding something different. That is like, the atheist also wants to comfort that child.

They also want to take, but they find themselves unable to do so because they know that it is all meaningless, that it is all just molecules in motion, that suffering has no redemption or justification. And so then you say, well, hold on, if you're a believer in, Christ that problem goes away and I go huh that sounds pretty good it almost sounds too good to be true you see what I'm saying like it's so convenient it's so brilliant at overcoming the the most fundamental deepest existential problems of humanity that it sort of garners some suspicion I mean what is the message of the book of Job like well who the hell are you to ask questions you know don't don't don't even go there who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without

knowledge you know like that doesn't come to a later no like it it It's okay to ask, but then he gets shamed because he's asking too much, it seems. Yeah. Well, I'm interested in, well, perhaps we can do a sort of job exegesis, but you see what I'm saying about the convenience thing, right? Because everything you've just said, where you've said, well, look, we live in a world and suffering is real. Yes, I agree.

And like, as an atheist, you're going to look at that and you're going to go, this is all meaningless. Yes, I agree. And Christianity allows you to say it's not. Yes, I agree, but, you know, like, so would a great many beliefs that I could probably invent. they wouldn't be as comprehensive or impressive as the Christian world view, for sure. But the very fact that it serves that purpose makes me suspicious as to its, you know, its psychological origin, you know what you bet. But when you love and when you are loved,

it's almost too good to be true. Yeah. When you experience joy, real joy that's not based on the circumstances of life, but that goes far deeper than that, it's almost too good to be true. You're right. And hope, hope for a future that doesn't end in the grave, there's more to us than just becoming fertilizer. Instead, we're human beings created to enjoy God for eternity, and God has put eternity in our hearts, and that's why we have this longing for eternal life. Yeah, maybe it is too good to be true. And that's why a careful study of the Gospels, I think, is so important to find out,

did Jesus really rise from the dead or not? Is this just a pipe dream, or is there some substance to this? Well, perhaps we can do that. I mean, there are so many angles to take here. I don't know if there's anything more you want to say on Job before we do the resurrection stuff, because I read the book of Job. I'm fascinated by Joe, and I guess my only question, was your point that Job wasn't allowed to doubt? No. Or what was exactly your point?

He's allowed to doubt, but of course, who knows what Job is really about? There's a kind of irony in Job. My old tutor, Dr. Catherine Southwood, actually thinks that Job should be read as a comedy. It's so many different interpretations. There's an irony underlying the book of Job, which is that Job never knows and never finds out why he's suffering, but we do, the reader does. We're in the knowledge. We know what's going on. We know that this is essentially God's counsel, including the accuser, this one of the earliest inclusions of this character of Satan, who is essentially challenging God and saying, like,

you know, he only worships you because you're good to him. And Satan says, okay, give me some authority over his life. Let me do some things to him and God allows him. And so he's suffering. And we know this as the reader. And Job is left with his friends to spend most of the book just like, what went wrong? What have I done? Could it be this? Well, you must have done a sin. No, that, that's not right. This isn't right. Until finally God speaks back and doesn't reveal the answer, but says like, you know, who the hell are you to ask these questions? Who do you think? Who do you think you are. You know nothing about like how the world works or how it was put together or anything like that. And then Job immediately upon seeing this repents in dust and ashes, right? And then

he sort of gets a house back and he gets a new wife and kids, right? But wait a say, I think the solution there that God gives Job is not just shut up and don't ask questions. I think the real solution is the presence of God. God gives Job an overwhelming sense, I am with you. And I think that is where real comfort comes in this life when we begin to grasp the fact that God is with me. No, he doesn't, you're right, he does not answer any of Job's intellectual questions,

but he gives him a profound sense, Job, I am with you. And I think that is a crucial ingredient in a follower of Christ dealing with suffering. No, I ultimately don't know why my little niece died at the age of seven in a horrible car wreck. But as I'm with my brother,

who's a transplant surgeon, he's far more intelligent than I'll ever be. No, I can't answer those questions. Why didn't the babysitter see the stop sign? Why did the babysitter go right through the stop sign and a pickup truck just at 55 miles an hour goes crashing into the car, sending my 7-year-old niece to an early grave?

We don't know why, but we do know that God is with us. And to know that God is with us, that he grieves with us, and that he's not just sitting on his hands, but he's going to provide the ultimate solution. I think that helps us tremendously when it comes to comfort and dealing with this incredibly difficult problem of suffering. But do you think that is the message of Job? I mean, if God had spoken from the whirlwind and said, Job, I hear you, you can't understand what's happening to you, but know that I'm here, know that I love you, you know, then maybe. But he doesn't. He seems almost angry.

He seems like there's this one translation, it's sort of, I found this poetic translation. I wish I could remember who it was, but sort of tries to keep some of the verse of Job. And he has God say, instead of, you know, gird up thy loins, I will question you, and you'll give me an answer. He says, you know, stand up like a man. Because I'm going to ask you some questions. Please, instruct me. That's what he says. Please, instruct me.

It's almost sarcastic, right? Because the feeling that you get from God here is like this terrifying rant, right? It doesn't scream love to me. It doesn't scream, hey, I'm with you. I'm holding your hand. It screams, you should almost be, like, terrified into submission. You know, like, Job repents in dust and ashes. He sort of falls to the floor.

Like, the image in your head is a dramatic one. You know, it's not like Jesus healing a paralytic or something. It's not this nice renaissance, happy, smiley image. It's this thunderstorm, this whirlwind. And so, like, the message. I get is one of God almost feeling that you have no right to answer. And that's why I do make that criticism that it's not that he's not allowed to ask questions, but it's almost like he has no right to do so. It's like when bad things happen to you, it's not just you won't be able

to understand this, but you have no right to ask questions that you couldn't hope to understand the answer. But within it, he's giving evidence of his beauty through the lightning, through the thunder, through talking about the foundations of this world, who set the foundations in place. So within, yes, the command, the imperative, the angry voice, perhaps. I've always looked at the story and thought, wow, that's exactly right, because I'm a doubter. I've always, unfortunately, been the one out of me and my brothers to doubt. And my oldest daughter right now, just the other day was just asking these penetrating questions about how do you actually believe God exists? And she's five years old. And so I've got a doubter too. But so for me,

I've always looked at that as, yes, he gets angry, but he has a right to get angry there. And he's giving evidence as well. Who are you to question me in this sense? Wake up, Job. I created everything. Everything. And then you have doubting Thomas. I think it's very similar with Jesus. Because first, Jesus talks about you have the disciples who already gave you the evidence there. And now you come and you get physical evidence from me in terms of putting your hand in the spear wound, looking at the actual nail prints in my hands. Here's physical evidence. Now stop doubting and believe. So he scolds him there as well. But I see those stories as very similar in a way, where the evidence first and then pause waits, but now here comes the scold. We'll get back to the conversation in just a moment,

but first, do you trust the news? I don't. And a lot of that's got to do with the bias that inevitably seeps into media reporting. That is where today's sponsor, Ground News, can help. Ground News aggregates thousands of local and international news outlets all in one place, so you can compare directly the way that different outlets are reporting on the same story. Try it out for yourself at ground.news forward slash Alex O.C. Take a look at this story about an anti-suicide religious group filing a constitutional challenge against the city of Waterloo in Quebec. I can see that of all the sources reporting on this,

56% of them are left-leaning and only 19% are right-leaning. This means that if you only read right-leaning news, you could have missed this story altogether. And whilst 94% of the sources have a high factuality rating, only 7% of the sources are independently owned. And Ground News has a feature called My News Bias, which is a personal dashboard, giving me a detailed look at the news that I'm reading, showing me which sources I check out the most, their bias, who owns them, and which geographic regions the stories are related to. Ground News helps you to cut through media bias and get to the truth. Try it out for yourself at ground.

Dot News, forward slash Alex O.C. Use my link to get 50% off their unlimited access advantage plan just for the holiday season. And with that said, back to Cliff and Stewart. Do you think Thomas touches the wounds of Christ? In John's gospel, Thomas is with the disciples and he says, until I touch his wounds and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And then later Jesus appears to him and says, you know, here I am Thomas, come and touch me, at which point Thomas says, my Lord and my God. Well, we're never actually told that he touches the wounds. And so I'm interested in your interpretation of the story because there's a reading of this text, which is that like Thomas is saying, I need evidence.

you know, show me the evidence. As soon as Jesus is there in front of him and says, well, if that's what you really want, go ahead. It's almost like he immediately realizes that it's a ridiculous request or it wasn't needed anyway. It's almost a message of like the realization that it's not about the empirical evidence. Because otherwise, I struggle to really get to grips with what the message of doubting Thomas could be. Because you're right to sort of, it's an astute comparison to this Job thing. Here's somebody saying, like, hey, like, I want an answer here. and God like gives him something at which point he sort of brought to his knees like what do you think is the message there he says you have believed because you've seen me and bear in mind seen not touched blessed are those who believe without seeing how are we supposed to read that as anything other than a message that like you should believe without evidence

oh i don't think i could ever conclude that that is you should believe without evidence Thomas had asked and said, unless I can see, I'm not going to believe. And Jesus didn't reprimand him and say, you idiot, you dumb nitwit. No, Jesus stands here and says, right here, Thomas, my man, take your hands and put them in the nilprins in my hands. Take your hand and thrust it in a spear wound in my side. And you're right, the text is silent about whether he actually physically put his hands in the nail prints in Christ's hands. But obviously, Thomas hits the ground and says, my Lord and my God, and he worships him. And Jesus accepts that worship as an appropriate response to him.

So I think it's real clear that Jesus honored that man. And I think part of the reason he honored that man is because when Jesus said to his disciples, let's go to Bethany, Thomas says, yeah, let's go with him to die. So Thomas was not playing this silly, silly game of, let's play the doubting game. No, Thomas was incredibly devoted to Christ, incredibly devoted to thinking through. is Jesus who he claims to be and he was willing to die so he was not some

ridiculously naive game player but then when he hits a wall of doubt Christ honors him and says okay here I am and when Christ says yeah you believe because you've seen the blessed of those who will believe even though they've not seen I don't think Christ

is saying evidence is unimportant I think clearly he has honored Thomas's request for evidence and said but not everyone's going to be able to see my wounds, Thomas, and blessed are those who will believe even though they've not seen. Hmm, yeah. Have you always taken that to mean blind gollability?

He's calling you to blindness. No, no, I think that there's, it's almost, it's difficult to get the tone of Jesus there. I mean, is he saying like, it's almost a weird thing to say, right? Like when Thomas finally believes, why is Jesus making this comment? Why is he saying, you believe because you've seen, blessed of those who believe with seeing it's almost like saying look I've given you this I've given you this as a gift you know and a lot of the time when Jesus does these extraordinary things are individuals like healing people he's overcome with with emotion it's almost like he's not doing it because

that's what God's supposed to but because he's like go on then you know the word like when when he comes across somebody who needs healing and and the gospel says you know he was overcome with passion the word the Greek word I wish I could remember it's a beautiful word but it literally means like your gut like it comes from the gut you know There's something, and maybe there's something like that going on here, you know, Thomas is like, I need to see. And Jesus says, okay. And then he says to Thomas, you believe because you've seen. Blessed of those who believe without seeing. It's almost like a moral message. It's like, I'm giving you this, but really, you should have believed without the evidence, you know? At the very least, Jesus is saying that there's something good and worthwhile in believing despite the fact that you don't get to see, you know? And so I especially, there are thousands of exegesis that you could give here, right? But as a, as a skeptic, coming to this text, reading this, it seems like a perfectly natural reading to say that Jesus is there saying, yeah, like, the best sort of approach to this is to believe without the empirical evidence. Well, wait. Think about how many people who saw him truly, like all the proofs he gave. Once the resurrection occurred to the ascension, text clearly states he gave many, many proofs, evidence of who he was and what he did. sure physically he was with them and the end of Matthew 28 it talks about how some doubted and the text even seems there to be implying that some fell away so that shows the human heart clearly that there's some type of emotional bias or it's volitional where whether it's not want to live for myself or this is too good to be true whatever it might be and so secondly blaze pascal picks up on this you know i love his quote when he talks about how god has given enough evidence for those who are truly they're going to believe and or

open to it, and not enough for those who are closed off. But he also goes on to say that if you had a God who just came to you, just to show you himself. So just look at me, just look at me. You would come to him out of fear because he's so powerful and he's this demigod. Yeah, better worship him versus the one who comes with that type of power, but also as a lowly servant saying I'm going to connect with you, but it's going to be in such a way where I'm building a relationship and it's not going to be this power play of here's proof and now you better worship me and i'm fearful and i better worship so i like that blaze pascal gets after that in the sense of it's not all about seeing and if god just were to come and prove himself to you right now you would feel compelled to believe in him

just because he's so powerful and oh my gosh he exists rather than if there's a mix of belief evidence some physical proof when he when jesus was here now all of a sudden you're looking at it at it differently do you think thomas sinned by not believing the disciples on their testimony? I think he was getting very close to sinning. Any example we get of doubting in scripture where it's consistent, eventually that's a sin. But I like that Dipsico Greek word in James, because it kind of picks up on this. Because James, it sounds like it's an encouragement to doubt almost.

But then all of a sudden Dipsico is living in two minds. And so the man who doubts is like one who is blown and tossed by the wind. that man should not expect anything from God. And so I think what hits there with James is, it seems like it's intellectual doubt, but then all of a sudden, Dipsico is, volitionally, I'm living in a different kind of way. So I think that's what God starts to see,

whether it's honest doubt that's going to lead to real truth-seeking and perhaps belief, or if it's, no, I'm not really doubting. This is something else. We're told, you know, where Jesus says, Blessed are those who believe without seeing,

a lot of people tell me that the reading of this is supposed to be that he's chastising Thomas here, essentially, but in the sense of saying, look, you had what you needed. You had the testimony. It's not an, it's not an argument that you should believe without any evidence, but the testimony should have been enough, right? Good. But again, it seems like not the most natural reading of the text to me, you know. It seems like it's a strange thing for Jesus to say. I mean, there are lots of reasons why that could be the case. I like to think that there are like historical reasons why Thomas might have been embarrassed there, you know, the early Thomasites who started revering Thomas

around the time of the writing of John's Gospel, and this story only appearing in John's gospel as like a deliberate attempt to embarrass their favorite disciple. He's the most maligned disciple, given that earlier in the Gospels, when Jesus wants to go and raise someone from the dead and the disciples say, what's the point? She's dead. Who's the one who has faith and says, no, let's go. Jesus said, let's go, let's go. It's Thomas. It should be, you know, faithful Thomas, not doubting Thomas, right? It's just, it's a weird story. I mean, it also seems to sort of slot right in there at the end of John's Gospel. It's kind of, I don't know, it's a little bit suspicious. I mean, what do you think of the historicity of a story like Doubting

Thomas? It appears in one source. It seems to serve a pretty significant theological purpose. Do you think that this is something that actually happened? And if so, is that because of your general reliability of the scripture that you believe in anyway? Or do you think there's some way that we could have good reason to think that this episode actually happened? It's because the evidence is the gospels are historically reliable. No, there are There are errors, their manuscript variance, but the Gospels are overall historically reliable, and that's why, yes, I accept the account of Thomas coming to Christ at that moment of doubt, and Christ treating him with a great deal of understanding and a real deal of gentleness.

So I don't see it as a very harsh thing. I love also what James writes when he writes that, you believe there's one God? Good. Even the demons believe that and shudder. So obviously I think faith is more than just an intellectual thing where I say, okay, the evidence is God exists. I think God exists. No, I think that God has to go much further than that to the point of Job saying, I know his character is good, though he slay me, yet will I trust in him? Where the author of Hebrews writes it in Hebrews 116, without faith it is impossible to please God because anyone

who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. In other words, God is good. He wants to reward us. He wants to shower us with blessings, with joy, with delight. In fact, God is the most joyful being in the universe. That's part of what drives me to get to know him better. So faith is not just an intellectual gymnastic. Faith is a personal commitment and a trust in Christ, a response to his love, to his warming our hearts with his love. I must say that's not the picture I get of God from the Old Testament. I want to talk about gospel reliability, but perhaps we should do this in order. Even, even Even Christians today will speak as if the God of the Old Testament is like a different character.

There's the God of the Old Testament and there's Jesus. And they're kind of the same. But the God of the Old Testament is Yahweh and Jesus is Yahweh. But like they talk about them differently. And I suppose the first question is can you understand why at least people are doing that? If you read the Old Testament and you see a much more military, jealous, apparently, indicative, one who regrets things, one who seems to physically sort of walk amongst sort of the Garden of Eden, but is also sort of really far away, but it's also kind of localized in a temple.

And then you have this Jesus figure, the meek and mild, the endlessly loving, impossible to picture as anything other than just like love and softness and beautiful. Can you understand why people see these as incompatible? Sure. But I hope God is jealous. I hope you're jealous. If you have children and they're starting to entertain the friendship of a drug dealer, I hope that you're going to be jealous for your child's attention and loyalty. And when you see a drug dealer begin to weasel his way into their lives and suck them into drug addiction, I hope that you will have a selfless jealousy where you will seek to win your child back. I hope you'll be angry at times with a righteous indignation. I mean, if I beat you up and steal your wallet, the police come in because

these guys call the police. Stewart calls the police. And the police say, Cliff, you beat up Alex. You stole his wallet. Now let's go to Starbucks. Well, that's ridiculous. Moral outrage is appropriate. Why? Because injustice is horrendous. Well, the same people who object to that will say, oh, well, God's just loving and forgiving. Oh, no, no, no. God in both the Old Testament and the New Testament is angry about evil. Good gracious. Jesus took a whip of cords and drove the religious hypocrites out of the temple. And the bloodiest book in the Bible is not in the Old Testament, it's in the New Testament. The last book of the New Testament, book of Revelation, the blood flows like no other place in the Bible. So the Bible is very consistent. God has a

righteous jealousy, a righteous anger, but he's a God of mercy and grace. And yes, he will judge. And Jesus said, I'm going to be the one to judge you. Let's talk about that righteous anger, because I think righteous is the operative word there. If you were to, if you were to beat me up, Mm-hmm. You would start attacking me. Yes. These fine people called the police, and the police showed up. Yep.

And said, what are you doing? But then it actually transpired that I was your slave. And the Book of Exodus clearly states that if you beat up your slave, as long as they get up after a few days, you're not to be punished. And they say, oh, well, sorry to disturb you gentlemen. And they go to Starbucks. Mm-hmm. Right.

You see what I'm saying. Mm-hmm. The righteous part is important here, right? The commands that God is giving, the things that he's angry about, the things that he demands of the nation of Israel seem to run contrary to a lot of our moral intuitions. Now, perhaps we can start by talking about the slavery thing. Yes. I understand that the word slavery is a promiscuous term that can mean lots of different things.

When you say slavery, people immediately think of antebellum American South slavery, right? The kind of slavery that appears in the Hebrew Bible is going to be very different. And it's going to vary depending on what kind of slaves you're talking about. there will be indentured servants. There will be, and also it's a different kind of society, right, where people literally cannot survive except insofar as being a servant of a house. And there are rules about what you can do and what you can't do. But it does seem at the very least that the Hebrew Bible,

we can perhaps begin with this as a premise, does not condemn, in principle, the ownership of other human beings as private property. Would you disagree with that? Yes. so where the Hebrew Bible says things like you know if he gets up after a day or two you're not to be the slave owner is not to be punished because the slave is his property and where he says your male and female slaves may come from the nations around you from them you may buy and sell slaves you may also purchase some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clan but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly clearly here we're dealing with the ownership of other human beings as private property. Clearly, God is legislating in such a way, sometimes seeming as not to condemn it there and then,

and sometimes saying, you may do this. And I wonder if he's not at least implicitly condoning that. What is he doing in those verses? He's giving instruction, not approval. He's giving regulation, not affirmation of it. And the key to this is what Jesus says in. Matthew chapter 19 when he's asked what about divorce right and Jesus points out yeah had divorce is wrong well then why did Moses say give your wife a certificate

of divorce and send her on her way and Jesus says something fascinating he says Moses permitted this because your hearts were hard gets right back to the book of Job we live in an unfair cursed messed up world and unfortunately if there's been adultery divorce is permissible before God but that is not the way it was from the beginning, from Genesis 2.24, for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother, be united to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So remember, those laws in the Old Testament are instructions, not approval, regulations, not endorsement. I have heard this response before, right? The idea is that there are two ways to look at this.

One is to say, well, actually, God was perfectly okay with it, but it just wasn't. as bad as you think. And one way is to say, actually, it is pretty bad, but it's not okay with it, right? For example, in the book of Exodus, where the law of God says, if you have a Hebrew slave, he used to go free after seven years. If he has a wife when he comes to you, then the wife goes free to. But if, while he's your slave, he takes a wife and has children, the wife and children stay with you. They don't get to go with him. If, however, it says the man decides that he loves his wife and he loves his children and he loves his master, as if those three have to come together. Maybe he just loves his wife and kids. Well, he can stay with them, but in doing so,

he's taken somewhere, he has his ear pierced, like cattle, and then he remains a slave for life in order that he can be with his wife and children. Now, I understand the idea that maybe God for some reason, couldn't abolish slavery. Maybe the society just couldn't do without it, whatever the reason may be. It seems to me that it wouldn't have been too much to ask for God to say, if he has a wife and children, then when he goes free, his wife and kids should go with him.

Because I'm a God who believes in the family. I believe in marriage. I believe in sort of the proper upraising of children. And so if you're going to let that man go, it's a real priority that his wife and kids go with him. But no, instead, for some reason, that's not allowed. So in other words, if it were just the case that we had a list of commands where God said, listen, if you're going to beat your slave, then this is going to happen, then fine, maybe he's trying to sort of ready us for an abolitionist world. But there are a lot of cases where he seems not to do that.

So once again, must read in context. So you've got Genesis 1, God creates us in his image, male and female. male, we all have equal dignity. Second greatest miracle in the Old Testament, God frees the Hebrew slaves from Egypt. Luke 4, first sermon of Jesus. He almost loses his life because he communicates to Jews. God loves Gentiles just as much as he does you Jews. Best known parable, Luke chapter 10, parable of Good Samaritan.

Jesus makes a direct frontal attack on racism as he tells how a Samaritan gets down on his hands and knees and cleans out the cuts and bandages the wounds of a Jew. Galatians 328. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free. Very clearly, the first century Church of Jesus Christ was committed to slavery is unacceptable. Ah, well, that's interesting because, well, Cliff, I wonder if you know what you've just committed yourself to. I didn't know that you were also a woke gender abolitionist. because I often hear people quote this particular verse.

They say, look, I know that God seemed to suggest that he was sort of maybe pro-slavery, but look, we have it in the scripture, there is neither slave nor free, for we're all one in Christ. Well, it also says there's no male or female. There's no male, no female, no slave, no free, no Jew, no Gentile, for we're all one in Jesus. If we're supposed to interpret that as God condemning the earthly practice of slavery, because there is no slave and there is no master. Well, he also says there is no male and there is no female. So is God also a gender abolitionist?

I would say, I mean, I don't want to guess your position. I don't think you'd believe that. If that's the case, then the fact that God is saying that there's no male and although there's male and female on earth, of course, in Christ, we're all one. Even though there's male and female on earth, in Christ, we're all one. And so if we're going to interpret that that way, I think we also have to say, even though, of course, on earth there's slave and master, of course, but we're all one in Christ. In other words, I think this might be a reaffirmation of the earthly practice of slavery.

Well, I would take it totally differently. I would take it that Stephen Carter, who teaches at Yale Law School, black intellectual, is absolutely correct when he points out the demographic that has the highest percentage of followers of Christ in the world is women of color. And the demographic in the United States that has the highest percentage of followers of Christ is black women. Yeah, women get it.

there is nobody who has elevated the position of women as much as Jesus Christ has. And then when you keep on reading Paul, you get to the letter of Philemon, and he's asking a slaveholder, Philemon, to accept his runaway slave onesim his back, no longer as a slave, but as a brother in Christ. So I think it's abundantly clear that God is totally against slavery, and it's abundantly clear that God is against chauvinism and sexism and women being degraded by men. Ah, and over 60% of atheists worldwide are white male.

And just about every single humanist conference year round is all represented by white Western countries. Now, that's funny. I've seen this before. It was a great debate with Tom Holland and A.C. Grayling, where they're talking about whether, you know, Western values are ultimately Christian. And there's this kind of slightly mic-drop moment where I think Tom Holland points out that all of these humanist conferences all crop up in like Western Christian nations. But then in fairness, there is something to be said for the fact that that is where like this response to Christianity is. Of course, the response to Christianity that is humanism is going to crop up where Christianity is dominant, right? And so in so far, sorry? Because the fumes, it writes the fumes of Christianity, Tom Holland would say.

Sure. So Tom Holland would say that, but there's also a thesis that, okay, sure, you know, humanism crops up in Christian culture. Is that because humanism is ultimately Christian and nature secretly? Or is it just because it is a response to Christianity? And so, of course, that's where it's where it's particular, that verse, right, where people say that this is God condemning slavery. This is God condemning slavery. There is neither male, there is neither slave nor freedom. When he then says there's neither male nor female, how can we not interpret that in the same way that he's sort of like, you know, somehow condemning gender categories. If that's what he's doing to slavery in that verse, why is that not what he's doing to gender in the same verse? Well, just study the first century church and the first century society. Just watch the movie Yento. Barbara Streisand plays a young lady who has to disguise herself as a man in order to get an education.

I completely agree, which is that that's obviously not what God's doing. But if that's not what God's doing in the gender case, then I don't think it's what God's doing in the slavery case either. So if it is the case that, well, look at the early church, Obviously, God is not, you know, condemning gender categories here. Well, if he's saying there's neither male nor female, and yet in doing so not actually condemning this earthly distinction, then when he says there's neither slave nor free, and he's not condemning that either. I don't think Christ is, I don't think Paul is writing there that there's no literal distinction between a male and a female in terms of gender. I think he's attacking the sexism, the chauvinism, right?

the minimizing of women that was so rampant in that culture. I mean, women weren't not allowed to get an education. They weren't allowed to testify in court. I mean, they were viewed a scum of the earth and it was tragic. Weren't allowed to speak in church? Yeah. But then wait a second. They also can speak in church if they have their heads covered.

If they're prophesying. All right. And Aquila and Priscilla taught the great preacher Apollos. So Priscilla, who's obviously not a guy, is teaching a man. And Paul is going, bravo, Priscilla, keep going. Yeah, I was being a little cheeky there. But you know what I'm getting at, right? Yes, sure.

So, I mean, let's talk about the position of women here. Yes. And like, it is interesting. It's an interesting fact that the demographics of faith here, right? But it is possible that, like, a lot of Christian believers might be actually quite surprised at what they learn when they read the New Testament, even the New Testament, especially when it comes to women. I mean, the slavery stuff, the genocide stuff, that's all kind of the Old Testament God. There he is again. But the women stuff crops up in the New Testament too.

So I was wondering if perhaps we could go through some of the most problematic verses as pertains to gender relations in the New Testament and see what you have to think about them. You're running it. Go for it. Let's do it. Yeah, I guess this is my show. This is my show, but it's your barn. It all gets a bit complicated. And it's an honor to be here. Yes, it is with you.

It's a, it's a privilege. And I'm very grateful for your time and for hosting us here as well. But it's a pleasure. I think we should start perhaps with what I think is maybe the most problematic, because it's problematic on various levels, which is 1 Corinthians chapter 14 versus 34 to 35, if you're following along at home. Women should be silent in the churches,

for they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is something they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. thoughts context worship services have denigrated into shouting matches into total chaos why women are abusing the new freedom that they have and paul says stop it also women are trying to teach and they've not gotten an education which is tragic because they weren't allowed to go to school

but women who have an education are to teach that's why priscilla taught the great teacher preacher apollos so it's fascinating that paul also writes there right there in 1st Corinthians when women pray and prophesy there to have their heads covered well what would imagine with you paul are you schizophrenic didn't you remember what you just said are you contradicting yourself no he's not he's addressing two different situations i believe there chaos and worship and as a pastor i have to be careful that our worship services don't deteriorate into chaos because we have some very emotionally charged people who uh can just rip the shreds out of a worship service with chaos and disorder and so no you're not going to speak at this time

because of order, but then women were allowed to pray and prophesy. But before raising objections, I don't know, Stuart, if you agree with that analysis, if you have anything to add? No, that's where my mind goes, not directly related to this passage, but we have, at minimum one, maybe two, fascinating discourse between two ancient Roman emperors talking about a Christian disciple who's a female, and Mathetas in the Greek is teacher, And so they are scoffing over this, this discourse of theirs, that we have this ancient manuscript, saying, can you believe that Christians actually have females teaching? And so whether that is discordant and contradictory to what's going on here, I don't think so.

I would add another interpretation of women should remain silent, as you probably know, contextually speaking, even with other civilizations. If you were to remain silent in a service like that, it meant you already knew what was being taught. and those who were speaking up didn't quite know yet. So I would agree with this if we were talking about First Timothy. If we're talking about First Timothy 212, I think that this interpretation works very well. It's all about context. In fact, just to read that verse, because it's actually very similar. First Timothy 212, I suffer not a woman to teach, not to assert authority over a man.

Rather, she should remain silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceit, you know, and so on and so forth. So women shouldn't speak in churches. this kind of thing. Now, there is so much about that verse, which I think you can apply this kind of critical scholarship to. You know, the word for authority, I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to assert authority over a man. It's almost like the authority and the teaching sort of go together. It's almost like by teaching, assume authority, and particularly authority that they

don't have. In fact, the words that Paul uses there in the Greek, I think it's authenticity. I don't how to pronounce it, Authentine, is this word for authority, which in other context tends to mean seizing authority that you don't have, that you shouldn't have. And in fact, Paul uses a different word to say authority elsewhere. So there's something very particular going on here. You know, women shouldn't speak or assume authority over men, rather they should remain silent. That is, women shouldn't like take authority that they don't have and speak with that kind of thing. Something a bit like what you're saying there. And also there's this idea that there were sort of these these cults of feminine divinity that were cropping up like

the cult of Artemis which which had you know these these these women preachers and and it may be that you know Paul is writing to Ephesus here he's writing to a specific church and he's saying okay these women are taking authority that they don't have to speak with knowledge that they that they don't have that they think they have and they shouldn't do that they should be quiet right fine that's Timothy the problem with the quote from 1 Corinthians is that women should be silent in churches. Firstly, we don't have this same thing with like the authority and what like. It just says women should be silent in churches.

They're not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate as the law also says. It's now a reference to their subordination under law, which doesn't arise in Timothy. Also, if there is something they want to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. If this was just a case of these incredibly knowledgeable women who were sort of speaking too much, or maybe they had to remain silent because they already knew what they were talking about. Why would Paul say, if they have a question, they should go and ask their husbands at home? Like, it seems like a much more troublesome verse, for it is shameful for women to speak in church. Like, my solution to this, I don't think Paul wrote these words, especially given that, like you say, just a moment ago,

Paul has said that women should cover their hair when they prophesy. Firstly, it's not necessarily the, I suppose you could prophesy outside of a church, right? Like, it's not necessarily a contradiction. You could say, like, somebody's prophesying out on the street. And if you're going to do that, cover your hair. Right, that it doesn't say to, I don't think Paul would be contradicting himself just to say that women shouldn't speak in church. Because when he says that women should cover their hair, it's specifically when they prophesy. It's not when they speak in church.

It's when they prophesy, right? But it does seem like maybe he's being a bit contradictory here. Also, he's referencing the law. They should be in submission as the law also says, which is a very, like, un-puline thing to do. Paul is all about like Christ and grace and the law is something, and yet here this appeal is being made to the law. So he seems to contradict himself. And he also seems to make a very unpauline, you know, assertion. But also, this is the only verse in any of Paul's letters, which in our earliest manuscripts moves around in the manuscript. Sometimes it's up

here. Sometimes it's down here in the earliest manuscripts. And so it's this weird thing where, and also, if you read the text, Paul is talking about, like, Paul is speaking to the Corinthians about Corinthian matters, and he's talking about other stuff. And then suddenly out of nowhere is this verse. Women should be silent in the churches, you know, if they've got anything to ask, they should go and ask it at the home. And then it's right back to talking about to the Corinthians on a completely different subject matter. So it seems to me that Paul didn't write these words. These words found their way into Paul's letter, even though he never actually. wrote them. And there's some interesting scholarship to suggest that that might be the case.

What seems to have possibly happened here is that a scribe who's copying out Paul's letter sees him talking about like women prophesying and all of this kind of stuff. And so he writes in the margin his own note, like yeah, but women should remain silent. It's a disgrace. You know, they should go home and ask their husbands. And as these manuscripts get copied, it finds its way into the text, which is not an uncommon thing in the ancient world for that kind of thing to happen, something to find its way into the text like that. That would also explain. why it moves around. It would also explain why he contradicts something he said a moment ago. It would also explain why it's not very Paul line. And the funny thing is, he's probably saying

that because he's read it in Timothy, even though arguably Paul didn't write the entire letter of Timothy, right? And so, in other words, my solution to this, my salvation of Paul here is just to say, well, he didn't write those words. And interestingly, that allows me to absolve Paul. I'm obviously, no, Paul is this, this radical feminist. He goes, we're more rights than anyone else in the world. But at the cost of undermining our belief in the scriptural legitimacy, I mean, given the fact that this first moves around, and it's the only one that does so, given the fact that it seems to contradict what he's just said, given the fact that it's a very unpauline assertion, don't you think there's some reason to think that maybe Paul actually didn't write these words? It's a very difficult question, you're raising, and I appreciate it. But I like what Mark Twain said. Mark Twain said, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that disturbed me. It's the parts of the Bible. Bible that I do understand that disturbed me. And to be honest with you, I have a harder time with First Timothy, too, that you said

did not present as big a problem to you. But when you read that kind of literature, you begin to understand some things are going on here that I'm not sure I understand. For instance, at the end of First Timothy two, he says, women will be saved through childbearing. Yeah, right. Oh, my goodness. What are you telling me, Paul? That women are going to be saved by having babies?

No. But obviously, Gnosticism taught the physical child brain children in the world is dirty and inferior. And I think the Bible clearly teaches, no, the body is a beautiful gift from God. So don't trivialize childbearing and think it's wrong. Also, when he says, Adam was formed first, who gives a rip unless you're dealing with pantheism, which says Mother Earth, that's what's really significant. And if you're battling in Ephesus, pantheism that says we worship planet earth, we worship nature. And you're saying, oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.

We don't worship nature. We worship the God who created nature. That's very similar to the First Commandment. I am the Lord your God who brought you out of slavery, out of the land of Egypt. You're to have nor other gods before me. Well, why is he so fascinating about nor the gods before me? Because of polytheism. And I think Moses is pointing out to the Jewish people.

We are not polytheists. We don't believe in many gods dancing on the clouds. We believe in one creator of heaven and earth. So I think understanding the culture that is being addressed, by these authors is very important, be it Paul in 1st Corinthians, Paul in 1st Timothy 2, or a lot of the Old Testament. Or indeed, whoever it was that actually wrote the book of Timothy. I'm interested Christians have different views on how reliable the text should be in terms of like. Some Christians are more comfortable saying, oh, maybe Paul didn't write Ephesians, maybe Paul probably definitely isn't right Timothy.

But he definitely wrote 1st Corinthians, this kind of stuff. But do you think that Paul is the author of all of the Pauline texts that we have in the New Testament? canon. I mean, in the canonical literature, Paul warns against other letters being written in his name. So we know that there are fraudulent pool and letters circulating. How do you have a confidence that Paul is the author of these letters, especially given that sort of secular, biblical scholarship is highly suspicious, to the extent that there are like the set agreed upon Pauline and the more dubious suspicious ones? I mean, what is your confidence level? in other words, about the Pauline authorship of these letters.

My, Paul, I mean, my confidence in authorship has always just lied in the Gospels because of what Papius said and because there's no real reason why Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John would have been picked. I mean, other than Luke, I guess he was a doctor. But while I would have been picked, Papius mentions it. So it makes a lot of sense. It fits. But Pauline, I've just always accepted it because of church history.

And I've seen consistency down the line. I have rarely, very rarely been asked about the authorship behind his epistles. I mean, Hebrews is the one book that a lot of people wonder, was it Paul or a woman who wrote it? And so for me, it's more so a matter of Paul gets charged for inventing a new type of Christianity. Yeah. It's not so much the authorship that really matters. Have you heard a theory on that? No, I haven't.

But I'm a, I'm very common. confident that those 27 New Testament books are the accurate canon. Why? Because the test that were used to determine canonicity, or basically, was it written by an eyewitness of Christ or someone who knew an eyewitness? Was it sticking to the Orthodox Christian faith? And was it accepted by the worldwide church, you know, from Rome, Italy, down around the Mediterranean to Alexandria, Egypt. And there was some debate about Shepherd of Hermes and other documents, right? But the Paulian epistles and the Gospels and eventually Hebrews, James, 2nd, 3rd, John even, and 1st and 2nd Peter and Jude and Revelation were accepted. And it was a worldwide thing.

It was not some council that had a little decision off in some cranny and some Catholic Pope made an arbitrary decision. No, it was the worldwide Christian community that used those three tests written by an eyewitness or by someone who knew an eyewitness, stuck with the Orthodox Christian faith with obviously the Gnostic Gospels did not. And then was it accepted by that worldwide church? Was it orthodox? Was it written by an eyewitness?

Of course, as Christians as well, you have the added benefit of this sort of guidance of the Holy Spirit, right? You're sort of able to say that God wouldn't allow non-canonical texts to find their way into the New Testament in this way. But I think a lot of people will be interested in that process. I mean, at the time of the formation of the New Testament canon, it had already been hundreds of years since the authorship of these texts. And so it's at least plausible that even the people debating and discussing, you might have got something wrong, especially given that we're talking about 27 books here. Like, in other words, what I'm asking you is like your credence level. Are you willing to say, I am certain, I am certain that the books in the New Testament were written by who they claim to be written by are inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or would you say, you know, like I'm pretty sure.

I'm 80%. You know, chances are maybe one of them is wrong. I don't know which. Like, where's your confidence level at? I always come right up to the line of heresy on this one. Because I go right back to the evidence, and Barterman himself said there's 15 non-canonical extradical sources for the resurrection, which I was blown away by when I first heard that from Barton, it was 15, and way more for the Gospels, for example.

And so for me, looking at something like that from a skeptic and atheist perspective, means a ton for something like the resurrection. And then you have at least seven sources within the Bible as sources for the resurrection itself. Now, more pointedly to the reliability of the Bible and whether it's the Holy Spirit and what is inspiration look like, what is anerrancy look like,

does it have to be infallible? All of these big terms. I think we need to be really careful with them because even before a word of the Bible was penned, standing in Rome in the Coliseum, I'm standing there hearing from this tour guide, who's a Christian, explaining how 360,000 Christians were butchered to death in less than 100 years in this one single Coliseum for what they claimed to have seen or had a very close friend who was an eyewitness of what occurred.

Okay, no text had been written then. And so, yes, do I take the Bible seriously as the Word of God? Absolutely. But I go, I push back to before it. Now, secondly, we think of oral tradition, and so telephone whistling down the hall. You have legends growing after 200 years. So you look at the Apocrypha, definitely, there's some legend going on there, even though we can mine some wisdom from the apocrypha.

So you have clearly different sources, footnotes within scripture. And it was when the eyewitnesses were dying off, getting older. That's why Paul can say in 1st Corinthians 15, 3 through 8, consult those who have not fallen asleep, those who have not died. And so he's saying, go check them out. talk to them. And we have all these sources throughout the New Testament. Why are they named? It's written like C.S. Lewis, your boy talks about. It's written as nonfiction, not fiction. So you can discount it, but don't discount it as fiction. Like everybody likes to do it. Oh, sure,

sure. Discounted as nonfiction. Yeah, the genre of like an epistle. It's an epistle. It's a letter. Like the only way that something like a letter of Paul could be untrue would be either like in the sense of its moral message or something. Or in the sense, that it's fraudulently, you know, attributed to Paul and Paul didn't actually write it. You know, I'm not a biblical scholar. I don't really know what the latest literature says, but I think it's, from my understanding, when I speak to people, it's very sort of widely accepted that at least, for example, it's more likely that Paul didn't write Timothy than that he wrote 1st Corinthians. Like, no one disputes 1 Corinthians, for example. Like, is there any room? I don't think you're like biblical fundamentalists in the sense of taking everything.

literally and not thinking there can be poetry and this kind of stuff. We handle snakes occasionally. Yeah, yeah, sure. Until one bit us. I imagine. Scientists were really close to them. Yeah. Yeah.

It was like. Although if you were being biblical literal literalist about snakes, you'd have to believe that I suppose that they once had feet or wings, right? Because if God punishes the serpent by like saying he'd crawl on his belly, then, what does this being look like before the fool? You know, the sort of like monstrous looking thing. But yeah, I wouldn't, you know, if we were talking about Genesis, if I was talking about that story and I said, well, look, do you know, do you really believe that there was a talking snake? You could say, look, Alex, it's the wrong genre. I'm not going to say that that's wrong or that it was, like, falsely included. You're just, like, misunderstanding what it's about. With something like Paul's epistles, I don't think you can do that in the same way. And so is there any room for you to say, like, maybe, like, these texts are wrong. Some of them aren't actually part of the New Testament canon. Like, or, Or would that like, would that shake your faith to the extent that if I could, if I could prove that, you know, Jesus never wrote from the dead, you can no longer be a Christian? But if I proved to you that, say, all of Paul's letters were forged, were fraudulent, you know, would that be like a big problem to you? Because it seems like the only thing that can really affect is your trust in the biblical canon, which is not the Word of God, because the Word of God is not the Bible.

the word of God is Jesus. And so, like, how, how much wiggle room is there for somebody, for a secular biblical scholar to come in and say, hey, man, you know, Ephesians, not whole. If someone were to come along and show me that Paul wrote none of the Paulian epistles, yeah, that would be a big hit to my faith. But I can promise you, Alex, just because Greek manuscripts, we got over 5,800 of the New Testament, have certain lines of Paul in different areas. is in a chapter, I feel that is very small, not a real problem. Not a real problem at all. See, I like to be a skeptic, but I don't respect hyper-scepticism. Sure. I want to be a skeptic regarding you, regarding him, regarding everybody. I don't want to blindly gullibly believe, but hyper-skepticism isolates me because it prevents me from ever trusting you. Well, the same thing with God,

the same thing with Christ. Yes, I'm skeptical, but to be a hyper-sceptic means, I'm going to get stuck in always questioning the motive, always questioning, did this really happen? Because I can't prove anything. The question for me as a thinking person is, what is most reasonable in light of the evidence? What is most plausible in the light of the evidence? Now, one of my heroes is a woman who teaches at MIT. Her name is Rosalind Pickard. She was a very intelligent little girl.

She felt she was too smart for God. So she was an atheist. But in high school, she had a friend who was highly intelligent, very athletic, and he was a follow of Christ. And so she began to begin to wonder, wow, what's happening here? Then she went to college, and she built a friendship with a family that went to church. And she didn't want to go to church, but they encouraged her to read the Bible for herself. She didn't want to, but eventually she got around to reading Proverbs and the Gospels. And all of a sudden she realized, this makes a ton of sense.

This is real wisdom in Proverbs. And wow, the attractiveness of Jesus Christ is overwhelming. And eventually, after reading for a while, she came to the spot where she said, Lord, I hand my life over to you. I want you to be the Lord of my life. And it's like a whole new dimension is the way she puts it, opened up for her. And she began to see a beauty in life and experience a joy in life that she had never known before. And now she continues as a very talented professor at MIT, as a woman of deep profound

faith. So I think that there is real power in the Scriptures that God speaks through the scriptures. And I think, as you and I had just talked about, Alex, it's important that we read them for ourselves and not read a little verse and then dismiss it as ridiculous, but really read the scriptures, read them in context, and then make our own decision. Does the evidence of the way he lived, taught, died, and rose from the dead, point to the reliability of Christ, or does it not? And this is where I really see a lot of embarrassment. I am genuinely embarrassed for some of these big atheists we've debated over the past year, they will talk about all of the terrible atrocities, the moral monster of the Old Testament. And then I will push them and they will

totally tune out or just roll their eyes and just like almost get offset when I bring up Genesis chapter 12 where you have Abraham and God and they strike this big covenant. And if you were to break the covenant, God says, then you are to be like the pieces of these shredded animals. and so you're thinking Abraham is going to walk down. He's the human, right? Obviously, he would be the one to break it. So he's going to walk down and basically it's saying you're going to be cursed if you break the covenant. And you're going to be like these animals.

But instead, it's God who walks down. Okay, that's the cross right there. Because obviously it's going to be Abraham as well as mankind who breaks the promise. And yet it's God walking down between these cut animals, just shredded animals, saying, I will take the blood for you. I will take this great hit for you. But then you go to Habakkuk, another doubter who says, God, I thought you were from eternal to eternal. He's just bashing God, and God allows it.

I read the Psalms every single night, and I just hear David saying, how long, oh, Lord, death is my only friend. In God, you are completely silent. Bash the baby's heads on rocks. All of this crazy language that God allows and understands from a man who's speaking so desperately, whose son is trying to get him, whose boss is trying to kill him. who made these huge mistakes of adultery and murder and yet God calls him the man after my own heart or rewind a little bit to Hagar, the slave girl who is the outcast she's sent out after Sarah is so jealous of her

and she's the first to name God for the very first one Hagar says the God who sees and so you have endless amounts examples of grace and love throughout the Old Testament but all these celebrity atheist types never want to acknowledge not even one And so it gets back to exactly what you're just saying right now. It's biblical illiteracy is so extremely high.

It's scary, especially amongst more secular but also Christians. And when that occurs and the biblical narrative is not actually fleshed out, say like a Robert Alter fleshes it out, but you don't even need a Walter who's the top Jewish commentator. You can just read it yourself. Yeah. When that's not done, then it's just the microbytes. Yeah. And that's what we've formed here, this narrative of.

moral monster or the Biden was a joke and it's just the Bible tells me so and that's the only reason why you guys actually believe it what how do you do you see grace in the old testament does this you asked us the question i'm just wondering oh yeah well well look i mean for clarity i'm yeah way less familiar with the old testament than i am with new and and unfortunately as a product of what i do for a living most of my familiarity with the old testament comes in the form of these difficult verses which you you read on a website somewhere and you go oh god support slavery and then you hear Christian saying, actually, did you know that's not the case? And then you go, and so suddenly I'm like, I know everything about all of the,

all of the contemporary laws of the time of all the surrounding cultures, and I know exactly what's happening in this narrative and that narrative, but that's for some reason where the focus went. So I'm, I'm going to be biased for that reason. But I mean, I don't know about grace. The thing is, the Bible being a library, there are so many different genres of texts. and so many different sort of impressions of this character of God that you get. I mean, what is God in the Psalms?

It's kind of like an object of devotion and a person of somebody to sort of shout, cry out to or to sing praises to or something. He's not really a character in the book so much as he's like, he's like Shakespeare's lover, you know. He's a person that's being written about, but in a kind of celebratory way. There are others where he's really a character in the text. There are others where he doesn't really seem to sort of exist as a character at all, like in Ecclesiastes. He's not really a character in that book. He's sort of mentioned.

But he's not in there doing stuff, you know. And so I don't know, so it's much more difficult to get a grasp of God's character in a lot of these texts. But when it comes to those instances where God is actually intervening, he is saying, here I am, here's what I say, here are my laws. I must say that the impression I get of God is not one of love and charity and grace, but one of anger and wrath. And maybe that's rightful anger and wrath, but the problem is that when I look at what he's angry about, what it is that he's commanding, I find it difficult to square that. And that's the same thing that happened to Marcian. We mentioned Gnosticism earlier. My listeners will know that I'm fascinated by the history of

Gnosticism. And a lot of Christians get very upset when I even bring it up. They think I'm getting like obsessed with Gnosticism for some reason. It's really interesting actually like how people, I've been talking about it so much that I watch people reacting to my content and being like, oh, he's talking about narcissism again. But it's fascinating as a historical project, when Marcian develops what is the first New Testament canon ever, the first attempt, he reads the Old Testament, he reads the New Testament. He writes a book which we now don't have anymore, the antithesis, we don't have the text anymore, but we know what he talks about, where he lists comparisons between the Old Testament God and Jesus and their behavior. And they're

behaviors and the way that they respond to certain circumstances. And his conclusion is that this is not the same God. This is not the God of Jesus. And so the Old Testament gets excluded from the canon. The earliest, it's not, sorry, the New Testament canons, it's the earliest biblical canon. The earliest Christian biblical canon excludes the Old Testament entirely. And I think he was pretty literate in the text. Like, I don't think that this trouble with the Old Testament character of God can just be a proper. the biblical illiteracy. Of course, it can sometimes be. But I think that there are many people who read the Bible cover to cover and think, who is this guy? Who is this man? Who is this God?

I mean, what kind of God could behave in this way? And so I don't think it's just that, in other words. And I don't come away from the Old Testament with that as my overriding picture of who this God is. I mean, when you read the New Testament and you read Jesus, you're doing word association, you know, Jesus. What word comes to mind? Probably love. Maybe you would say forgiveness, grace, something like that, but it'd be one of these kinds of words, right? I would get through a whole lot more words if you ask me about Yahweh. I mean, even like if you're being honest with me, if I say Yahweh, and I use the term Yahweh, what comes to mind? For me, it's something more pointed and sharp and angry and serious and stormy than Jesus, which is much more sort of soft and loving and whatnot.

And I wonder if you, even if you sort of would end up sort of talking yourself out of it, do you have that same initial gut reaction when you hear the name Yahweh? Is it one that inspires fear more than love? I understand totally what you're saying, Alex. I mean, it's very reasonable. But what is also interesting is that Jesus had John the Baptist come first. Whoa, you're talking about a hellfire brimstone guy. That dude was intense.

why in earth do we have John the Baptist with his hellfire preceding Jesus? Is it an accurate revelation of God that God is holy and just and angry about evil? And God is also loving and merciful and forgiving and gracious. And I think that's what both the Old and New Testaments insist. And I think, as Stuart was pointing out, there's a tremendous amount of grace in the New Testament. I mean, gosh, Alex, there could not be a clear revelation of God's love than the Book of Holy Testament. Josea from my perspective. I mean, the dude is married to a woman Gomer. She plays the prostitute. He's holding his first kid and all of a sudden he realizes, I ain't the daddy. Second King,

I'm not the daddy. Third kid, I'm not the daddy. And then her lovers bring it down to the slave market to sell her to the highest bidder. And Josea goes down to the slave market and barters against other men to buy back his wife. And then on the way home, he's saying, okay, you're no longer going to play the prostitute. You're going to be my faithful wife. And God, is saying to Jose, do you know the pain that you've experienced over your wife's sexual and faithfulness? Well, that's similar to the pain that I experienced because human beings who I have created to live in relationship with me have turned their backs on me and gone their own way. I mean, I don't know how you could get more desperately caught up in the amazing love

and commitment and forgiveness of God than the book of Josea. In the Old Testament of all places. Sure. And our culture today wants to talk about God in a way where it's whoever you created God to be, typically in your own image. So for me, a redheaded six foot two white male who likes to play basketball, similar to you. And so there's something called moral therapeutic deism. Have you heard of this terminology before? Moral therapeutic deism? No, I don't think so. So moral therapeutic deism is basically, I won't flesh the whole thing out, just the therapeutic side is what Americans love, which is God is my therapist. And so even if I do bad things, it's that whole unconditional positive regard

where you want to divorce your wife, Alex, you go right ahead, no fault divorce, whatever it might be, go right ahead. It's about your freedom, your pleasure. And so that's what God is now. It's a higher power and it's whoever you make God to be. I would agree in the sense of, yes, God and human form in the New Testament

makes a lot more sense. We can connect to him more. But remember, Jesus talks more about hell than all the other writers combined. And also, back to the Old Testament, though, you do have his attributes there. You know, you talked about how he came in an earthquake. So earthquake, wind, fire, with Elijah. But then he came in a still small voice to connect with him because he was depressed

and really disillusioned about a lot of things. And he kind of played a cognitive behavioral therapist saying, no, there are many, many 4,000 prophets still alive. Now, suck it up and get up Elijah after he gave him some food through an angel. So you have different depictions, but the Psalms, every single night, I'm blown away. by the comprehensive characteristics that you have of God because I can forget him. He can forget them. We're pastors and we do this thing on university campuses. We can still forget. It is so easy to forget characteristics. So in the Psalms, it talks about he is a judge,

he's all loving, he's omniscient, omnipotent, unconditionally gracious with us. And so it brings all these different pieces of the puzzle into this beautiful puzzle in terms of understanding and knowing who God is. And yes, to your point, still, my mind connects with Jesus Christ as a historical figure who actually was a human being that had flesh. But I still, in the Old Testament there, though, you still, especially compared to any culture that I know of,

you have such a clear depiction of who Yahweh is, Adonai is, and that's who we can really connect with if we have a healthy prayer life and scripture reading. And yes, the Holy Spirit actually even connects with us. And the Holy Spirit is something that so many people in the U.S. talk about all the time, but they just call it spirit. Everybody says they're spiritual in some kind of way.

But then you say, Holy Spirit, now you're, again, you're calling me to something higher, something where I can't just decide what to do on my own any old time, and I don't like that. Do you think that this grace, this omnipotence, this love and charity of the Old Testament God, is expressed in the instances where he commands the complete obliteration of entire nations of people, including the women and the children, and even the animals, in multiple, at multiple

points throughout the history of the Israelites trying to conquer their holy land, which is promised them by God, such that if anybody is already living there, they're driven out. and if they refuse to leave, they're chased out and they're killed, and then they come back and they kill the women and the children. Do you think that this is the same graceful, loving God that's issuing these commands? No. Instead, I think we've got to read very carefully. First point, do I allow God to judge?

In my culture, that's unacceptable. And yet the Bible insists God does have the right to judge. second point is exaggeration being used is hyperbole being used in a lot of those passages yes it is because clearly obviously many of those people who were supposedly all wiped out appear in the next book so you know that they weren't all wiped out thirdly you look at the archaeological evidence for jericho and i and you begin to realize those were probably smaller fortresses yes rehab was in there as a prostitute, but those were not just families and women and children. Those were fortresses that were protecting the families that lived out in the countryside around them. Next point

is, I think that there is not the emphasis on individualism in the Old Testament that we have in our culture. And yet, the more we struggle with through children of alcoholics and realize that there are real consequences that stretch down through the generations, and I think the Old Testament does present a picture that we are more interconnected than we as American individualists would like to admit. And when God judges a people group, yes, some innocent people are swept along in the judgment. And that bugs me. I don't like that. And yet that is part of, I think, what the Bible is talking about when it says we're created the image of God, meaning that we do have free will, which means there are consequences to my decisions that affect my children, that affect my grandchildren.

were more interconnected than we would like to admit. So no, those children are not being punished for anything they did wrong, but yes, they're born into a cursed, messed up world, and there are consequences to that. I mean, I benefited from going to Davidson College, and a lot of people sacrificed to put Davidson together. You benefited from going to Oxford University. And there are a lot of people who have over many years given

sacrificially to build that. So there are real consequences that stretch down through the generations of our decisions. decisions. And also, the Bible never says that those children and all those people go to eternity separate from God. I'm convinced that we will see those children in heaven if they were killed before an age of accountability. So the justice of God will ultimately triumph. Yeah. But do I have problems with the text? Yes, of course I have problems with the text. I don't understand it exactly. I don't understand what God is doing exactly there, why he says that kind of thing. But I'm also convinced

that hyperbole is being used. And I think that's a very important thing. For instance, when I was in high school, we used to say, we're going to kill the opposing team that we're going to play that weekend. Not meaning we're literally going to kill them. And the whole idea of, in the Hebrew harem, H-E-R-E-M, of clearing out these people from the promised land, the whole idea that God had given them over 400 years to repent and they had chosen not to. And now God clears them out. you know, I think it's a complex issue, more complex than the person would allow it to be who just says, I just can't believe that God would do something like that. What kind of instruction had these people been given, you know, like the people of I, the people of Jericho, the Canaanites? I mean, did they have Jewish prophets coming to them and saying, you should repent of your way, or were they just sort of expected to work it out on their own?

Fascinating question. I'm not sure. I do not know. Obviously they have consciences. We all have consciences. Yeah. And when you study ethics from around the world, it's amazing that the scenes are all like reading off the same sheet music. Yeah. And there's more and more research coming out, too, on just how bad these people groups. Sure. Right, right. I'm seeing more of this. Child sacrifice. Yeah, exactly. It just gets worse every year. Like, how bad is going to get. And so, but the second one, have you wrestled with this being a really culturally conditioned question? Oh, absolutely. Yeah. The Chinese don't struggle with this one. Yeah.

I've talked to people of other cultures, and I brought it up and been like, that's totally fine that God judges in that kind of way. It's so much worse, because it's not just like culturally relative. Like, I'm a moral anti-realist. I don't believe in the existence of objective moral values, right? And so, like, you know, what could I possibly be meaning here? But I don't wrestle with it because my job here isn't to say that this is wrong. My job is to say something like what Lincoln said of slavery. If this isn't wrong, then nothing is wrong.

If there is such a thing as objective morality, I find it very, I mean, look, we just condemned the Canaanites in part for, you know, well, they were killing children. That's exactly what God ordered the Israelites to do when they came into their nation. And we say, okay, well, these people were sinful, idolatrous, and they should have repented. Well, the same is true of the Israelites. They were sinful. They were idolatrous. And yet they had the benefit of having the prophet of God come to them with literal stone tablets, telling them what to do. And even then it took them a few tries to get right.

The Canaanites didn't have that. And yet when the Israelites are sinful, they get a prophet who comes and sets them straight. When the Canaanites are sinful, they get obliterated. They get exterminated. They get chased out. Just the same way the Israelites were, at first the hands of the Assyrians and then the Babylonians. But it was wrong for the Assyrians to do that. It was wrong for the Babylonians to do that.

Yeah, but the Old Testament insists that that was part of God's judgment on the Israelites for them, doing the child sacrifice, temple prostitution, idolatry. So it's not, it's God, it gets, often it gets back to, does God have the right to judge? Yes, he judged the Canaanites, but then remember, a few hundred years later, he judged the Jews, first at the hands of the Assyrians and then the Babylonians. So I wanted to talk about the hyperbole thing, right?

Because maybe we're not talking about killing everybody, maybe. We're obviously not, because they were occurring in the next book. But, okay, so. For example, in the destruction of I, 12,000 people fell that day, all the people of I. That's what's said in the book of Joshua. Now, maybe all the people of I is like an exaggeration, but 12,000 people, it's pretty specific. It'd be a weird thing to be doing as hyperbole, right? We have a number of people, 12,000 people.

We know it's men, we know it's women, we know its children are slaughtered. We know that that's not hyperbole. We know that thousands of men were killed. know that it i should i should quite i i don't want to get this wrong perhaps we should um look at the text yeah so in um in joshua chapter eight when israel had finished killing all of the men of i in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them and when every one of them had been put to the sword all of the israelites returned to i and killed those who were in it 12 000 people fell that day 12 000 men and women fell that day all the people of

So we know that women are being killed, non-combatants are being killed. We know that there are thousands of them. We also know that there were people who had left. They'd run into the wilderness. They were out of the promised land. But the Israelites chased after them and then killed them in the wilderness. And it says all of them were put to the sword. Maybe that's an exaggeration.

Maybe that some of them ran away. Maybe all of the ones that they captured were put to the sword. But some of them managed to actually run away. And those are the people who show up in the next chapter. But it's only because, you know, for want of trying that they managed to survive. But maybe it is just hyperbole. 12,000 people were killed. We know that the Israelites then turned around after killing the fleeing combatants, came back into the city and killed who's left? Well, who's left? The women, the children,

the disabled. So even if there's some hyperbole being involved here in terms of the complete destruction, maybe it's not a genocide, but it certainly still seems to be the kind of military practice, which, if done today, would see condemnation and a lot more from the United Nations. In first, Samuel there's this again I should read the text to to be sure and I do have it have it written down this is the destruction of the Amalekites God issues the command now go attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them do not spare them put to the death men and women children and infants cattle and sheep camels and donkeys of course this can't be literal, because it's not just the camels and sheeps and the donkeys. Oh, but you can leave

the, you know, you can leave the pigs or whatever. True, this is sort of like slightly rhetorical language. But it's very clear, like, leave alive nothing that breathes. Kill the men, kill the women, kill the animals, kill the cattle. And in fact, when Saul decides at the end of the battle to keep alive the king, take him as a hostage, and also keeps alive some of the animals to sacrifice, to slaughter as a sacrifice to God, what happens? He's condemned. And God says, or the scripture says, that God regretted that he made Saul King. He regretted that he made Saul King because he didn't follow his command. What command didn't he follow? That after wiping out the Amalekites, he refused to also kill all of the animals and he kept the king alive as a hostage.

And that was enough for God to say, I regret that I ever made Saul King because he didn't follow my commands. And so I understand that there may be some hyperbole involved here, but in the case where Saul is punished, specifically not for killing all of the animals, it's hard for me to imagine how much scope there is for hyperbole here in terms of undermining the criticism that we are talking about the slaughter of innocent people here. It shows the importance and just how clear God wants to make it that Israelites are to be set apart and a holy people. And so whether it's an aunt or a soldier all the way down, we see with sinful human beings just how easy it is for them to slip into prostitution, but more so getting a harem,

more so whatever this might be, and slip into assimilation of some sort with other civilizations. And so God has to act in this kind of way, however extreme it seems, to show them, whether it's Aiken later on, in Acts chapter 5, for example, the temptation and how quick this happens. It's such a slippery slope where God is saying, here's the line. And we have to do away with any level of temptation. You talked about temptation earlier. We know how easy is it to fall pretty at temptation. This is another thing with university students and older people. All they want to talk about is temptation and how easy it is to fall typically into like porn addiction and these kinds of things. Very similar to what's going on there in terms of you have to kill off any and everything

that's going to cause temptation because you are God's wholly chosen people. Okay, well, whoa, isn't that really ethnocentric? Isn't that a big issue still? I don't see that in my mind, because I believe what's going on in the Old Testament of the Israelite people is probably the most exclusive inclusivity you could ever imagine, which is God is this God of the Israelites who are holy people who are not supposed to mix at all, even with an animal, with people of another civilization. So that's how exclusive they are, but how inclusive in the sense of very, light to all the nations and eventually it's going to come through the son of god jesus christ who is literally samaritan child woman all the oppressed people groups and zakias like we talked

about earlier luke chapter 19 and the second of our tree who attached the vector probably very wealthy so it's a light to all nations and that separateness that word holy and righteousness he takes so seriously and so extreme i wish it wasn't that extreme but it stacks up to me it also makes sense, seeing how powerful human temptation really is and how hard it is to restrain yourself. Do you believe that, to be clear, do you believe that innocent children were killed by Israelites on the command of God? It's a historical fact. I believe that innocent children were killed by Israeli bombs, and they happened to be Palestinians, part of Hamas maybe, or Hezbollah. I believe that there are consequences to human decisions that stretch down through the generations

and then impact a lot of innocent people. And I think we're a little naive if we think that we can go into Iraq or fight a desert storm and no innocent people are going to be killed. It's one of the tragedies of war, which is the result of the sinful human heart. But suppose, you know, the Israeli government said, leave alive nothing that breathes. Kill the soldiers, but then once you've done that, turn around, go back. kill the women, kill the children, kill their animals. Because this land is yours.

Mm-hmm. I think that people wouldn't be satisfied on falling back on the defense of, hey, this is the consequence of war, this is what happens. I think people would say, okay, but the fundamental rule of just war, which I'm told is sort of stems out of the Christian tradition,

is, you know, proportionate response. Yes, and I agree with you. Okay, but here's another problem. God told Abraham to take Isaac up on Mount Moriah and sacrifice his son. Now, if someone interprets that as being God's laying down wise principles for good parenting, they're an idiot. Sure, yeah. That is not what Genesis chapter 2 is communicating. God gave Abraham a very specific command, and it was not to give an example of wise parenting.

It was Abraham, who's number one in your heart? Is it going to be God or is it going to be your son? Who are you going to build your future on? Your son or me? Similarly, what Israel does there in the Old Testament is not examples of just war theory. No, it is a unique example of God using a theocracy, and we don't live in a theocracy,

we don't have a theocracy in Israel now, we're definitely not a theocracy in the United States or in UK. God using a theocracy to carve out a land that he brings then Messiah into. That's a one-time deed, because you're absolutely right. It is not an example of just war. No way. I recoil at that as you do, I'm sure. Yeah, because, of course, the difference in this case is that you have the orders from the top man.

It's sort of, if there is some extraordinary circumstance in which this kind of otherwise morally condemnable behavior can be justified, you better have the authority. to know that you're making the right decision and in this case you know the christian will be able to say that they did have that authority but i mean it's it's a struggle you know yes it is we're talking about the intentional killing of non-combatant children here we're taught and and i read this text as a land dispute i read in deuteronomy where god gives instructions when you march up onto a city to attack it, like in the broad sense, when you march up to attack a city, make its people on offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labour and shall work for you, some peace. If they refuse to make

peace and engage you in battle, which isn't entirely unreasonable given what the terms of peace are, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the all the men in it. As for the women, the children, and the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves, and you may use the plunder the Lord gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nation's nearby. Women and children being described as plunder, plunder that can be used because God has given them to you as plunder. But of course, those are the people who you're attacking not because they're in the promised land. And it's just, well, we gave them a chance

to leave. What are we supposed to do? This is God's chosen. No, these are other cities. Because it goes on. However, in the cities of the nations, the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes, completely destroy them. The Hittites, the Amarites, the Canaanites, and lists, you know, the Jesuits, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all detestable things that they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God. So clearly what you're saying about them, being these detestable characters and God is issuing his judgment must be true here because it's saying otherwise if you don't destroy them completely you know they will they will teach you their ways

you will fall into sin but this idea of you know marching up to a city and even if they accept you they're going to become you know your your indentured servants and if they don't then you may take the women and children as plunder and you may use the plunder the Lord gives you but of course if you're marching into a city of one of the nations that you've been promised by God, oh, then don't leave live anything that breathes, kill all of the children, kill all of the women. I mean, the difference there, in other words, about the people in the inherited lands and the people outside of it tells me that the explanation for why these people need to be completely and utterly destroyed is because this is our land, you know, we want this land.

It seems to be, and when I read about somebody intentionally driving out or killing nations of people so that they can sort of essentially ethnically cleanse a land. I don't know what else to call that other than a genocide. But it's still eventually the point is to welcome them in. It's not like they're going to sit in the land flowing of milk and honey forever. And again, be God's chosen people. And that's it. So that's one.

Secondly, we're reading this again from our 21st century Judeo-Christian lens. so your outrage and indignation over this is entirely Christian. That's why the Bible is self-criticking, which I love about it. Thirdly, putting to the sword, even women and children, as much up as that sounds, many would say that that was actually more gracious in that time period than other civilizations who rape, they're going to rape the rest of their lives, right? And just horrific things that are unimaginable to us. So that's another really important thing to remember.

And then lastly, the one you got to wrestle with is, okay, so in an ancient near-eastern culture, you're looking for God to act in a very humane kind of way. All right, to what extent? And what extent does free will come into play as well? Not just the evil heart of humankind. But how exactly do you want to play God? Because I want to play God too in those passages.

But what does that look like? What specifically does that look like? I'm interested in whether you think that the Bible is self-critical specifically on this point. That is like the Israelite treatment of the Canaanites. But before I just, I'll ask you a question that I asked to William Lane Craig. I'm interested in your response, which is, suppose you woke up tomorrow and you were a Canaanite. You just sort of woke up into one else's body. You travel back in time. You're a Canaanite now. You live in that

community. You're surrounded by temptations. And you're a sinful man. You give in to some of them. Then the Israelites come marching in and start attacking you. They start trying to kill you and your family would you fight back yes I'd probably fight back I would try to defend myself and defend my family would you be wrong to do that was suppose probably not suppose that you go back now and you retain the knowledge you have you think is very strange that I just woken up in the body of a Canaan night but I remember I remember where I was I remember doing that podcast with Alex and no one believes you they don't even know what a podcast is what a glorious time to be alive

And you know where you are, you recognize it, you're like, I've been put here, this is a test. God is testing me somehow. I don't know what's going on, but I'm a Canaan right now, and the armies of Moses are coming towards you. And you know that they're the Israelites. You know that they've got God on their side. Do you still fight back? Well, I think the problem with your use of the word genocide or ethnic cleansing is that a few hundred years later, the God used first the Assyrians and then the Babylonians to punish the Jews for their

immorality. So this is not just a land squabble that we're reading about in the Old Testament. We're reading about a God who is a judge, judges the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amarites, and then a few hundred years later, he judges the Jews. And they're swept into captivity. And that was the judgment of God, according to the Hebrew prophets. That was the judgment of God. Would you accept that judgment? I mean, and especially if you were transported back with your family. And you know, you know for a fact that, okay, I'm the arcane knight, I'm a sinful man, you know, maybe, maybe I have the strength to say, okay, God is issuing his judgment on me. I'll repent in my last moments. I'll let that soldier put me to the sword as God has commanded and hopefully I'll be showing the grace of God. But would you be willing to say, oh yeah, my, my child, my two-year-old child, yeah, sure, yeah. No, this is what God wants. This is what's going to happen. You know, like, it seems to me an absurd request to make of somebody. Of course they couldn't do it. that and yet we're painting these these canaanitesies these terrible immoral people and maybe

they were but like I struggle to think that even if that were the case that the right thing to do is to just sort of accept the judgment of God and say okay yeah that's my child mm-hmm in fact I'll point them out to you you know they're hiding in the room upstairs because I know that it's the will of God that for some reason you know they all be killed I know that for some reason even the children even the instant children God for some reason that I'll never understand and wants them to be put to the sort. And so I tell you what, Mr. Mr. Kane, I don't kill me yet because I'm first going to betray my family and tell you where they all are, because I know that's the will of God.

You know, I think it would, it would be an insane prospect to even consider it. You bet. That would be insane. It's also kind of difficult to think about Jesus Christ, bleeding and dying on a cross, to make atonement for human sin. That's kind of repugnant in one sense. So there are a lot of things when it comes to dealing with a problem of sin and the judgment of God that are very difficult. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? I mean, is that really necessary?

Why can't just God wave a wand and say you're all forgiven? Why is the cross so necessary? Is that not morally repugnant in some ways? Well, in some ways, I think it is morally repugnant. And yet that is how God brings justice and mercy together. there at the cross. And so, yes, God is a God who judges, and I have a problem with his judgment often. I don't like it. And I struggle with the Old Testament wars. I struggle with the cross in terms of Jesus absorbing the hit from my sin. And at times I'm like Jesus in the guard of Gassimini. Father,

if it's possible, take this cup from me, and why shouldn't it be possible? So there are a lot of deep questions that I don't have easy answers for but I think that Job we started off with is quite an example though he slay me yet well I trusted him I don't understand why he judges the way he does why he allows certain things to happen exactly the way they happen I don't understand exactly why Christ had to sacrifice his life on a cross that was an incredibly painful experience obviously and yet I am committed to justice being a real value that flows from the character of God and the way God dispenses justice is really often outside my understanding at this point. And why, when it comes to valuing these children and these women,

if you were back in that day and age, you wouldn't be asking that question. You wouldn't be struggling with that. You would say, oh, women and children have no value. That's fine if they get put to the sword or if they get plundered in any kind of way. you if there is no god and if if thank heaven turn the roman empire being created the image of god like luke ferri the atheist talked about swept across the known world and changed the value of every single human being which was totally foreign to every other civilization but if you look at those children if you look at those women at that time period of course put them to the sword they have no ultimate value i mean i'm not a historian no my understanding is that you know the traditional idea of men going to war and women saying at home it's like men go to protect their homeland, to protect their wives, to protect their children. That's what it is that they're protecting. It's the men who are the expendable ones, because they're the ones that the state says,

OK, we must protect our nation. So we're going to take all of our men, and we're going to send them out. And they could all die, but we're going to do that, implying that the thing that needs protecting, the thing that's valuable are the women and the children that stay at home and, you know, the buildings and the culture, whatever. And it's the men who are expendable. Yeah, send them out, you know, cannon fodder, and they'll get killed. And so, you know, I struggle to believe that even as an ancient person, I think in other words, if somebody bursts into my home at almost any point in history, the expectation of the culture that I found myself in at random would be that I throw myself in front of my wife and children, you know, because I'm the man at the house.

I wouldn't say, oh goodness, some of us is someone's going to die here. Let me grab my wife and my child and use them as shields because they have no value. But you wouldn't do it for somebody of a different kind. Well, I probably wouldn't. I mean, maybe I would jump in front of a stranger. Why during that time period would you do that? Well, I'd be as likely to do that, I think, as I think somebody would today, because people did do that. But particularly with women, I mean. But from your position, when it comes to the value of a human being from your worldview, sure.

Why would you do that? Oh, I mean, I don't know. Like, why would I do that? So my point was larger than your good thing. It's just a value question. Yeah. This is another reason why it gets back to your very initial question to us before we started. Yeah.

Meaning value. What is this hole that so many people in the U.S. are all of a sudden feeling, it seems. And a big part of it is value. I ascribe value to you if I so desire. If you're going to help me climb the corporate ladder in some kind of way, I'll ascribe more value to you. Otherwise, you're just in my way. Yeah. And we see this time and time again.

Yeah. And so from a Christian lens in worldview, we're looking back on the Old Testament yet again, and we're saying value, value, value, but during that time period, if you're telling us to become Canaanites during that time period, well, we're not looking ultimately at women and children as valuable, even if the man, perhaps, yes, lays down the life for the children. Yet again, we have to figure out, we have to get to the point of saying, okay, where did this value for human beings come from? Where did the value for animals come from? Why do they have value objectively. And I've never heard a fulfilling response to that one from a secularist.

Oh, sure. Or an atheist, perhaps. I suppose you could be a religious secularist, right? Yeah, yeah. Right. And then they might think that everyone's made in the image of God, but we shouldn't, you know, embody that spirit into the, you know, institution of government. Here's an analogy that helps me. Airplane goes down. Five people swimming in the water, life raft that could only fit four. How do you make the decision? Which one you're going to allow to drown and which four you're going to put in the life raft? And so a professor stands in front of his class and says, come on, guys, give me an answer. Yeah.

All right? And everybody squirms. Well, are we going to let the cheerleader go in because she's really pretty? We're going to let this very intelligent one, number one in the class, go in because he's very intelligent. We're going to let the superstar athlete go in there. And then I guess the little nobody just drowns. And see, the professor says, see, it's just relative. no it's not all just relative professor the reason that we're having a real problem right now

the reason we're confronted by an ethical dilemma right now professor is because we really understand human value if humans were not valuable it really wouldn't matter which four you put in the rife raft and which one you let drown it's all just chance and they're all we're all just glorified apes so how would you make that decision because suppose it's the other way around And suppose that there are five people are in the boat and it's sinking. Yeah. And all five are going to die. Someone's got to get thrown out because no one's volunteering.

You know, in a way, you might say, well, I just wouldn't be willing to do that. So I'll just let the boat sink. But then you're self sacrificing. So you may as well to jump out the boat yourself. Oh, maybe that would be honest. Maybe it would be like, well, I'll jump out of the boat then. But, you know, how would you go about trying to make that decision? Suppose you're not in the decision.

You've got to dictate the terms of the decision making. I mean, do you have like anything to say for a situation like that? Yeah, I sure would. not saying that I would do it but I hope that I would sacrifice my life and jump out and let the other four live that's what Christ calls me to do but no guarantees obviously

I'm not claiming to be some super sacrificial guy suppose you're like super glue to the boat right you can't jump out it's not possible right but you you know you're Cliff you're the intellectual guy with the YouTube channel like people listen to you you get to make the decision

and it's going down and no one's volunteering I mean, you're going to die anyway. You're super glued to the thing, right? So, but you don't want to save yourself. You just know that everyone's going to die if you don't throw someone out. Or do you say, all right, everybody, I think we should all take one for the team here. Right. Is that probably what you'd say?

Sure. I would try and exercise leadership. But remember now, the whole reason we're facing an ethical dilemma is because we believe that there is a God who created people in his image, who loves them, people are valuable. Therefore, we just can't discard in person. But if there is no God, it's all. no God, it's all a cosmic crapshoot. So would that mean, then, in that situation, you would be forced into one of those sort of counterintuitive, but ultimately maybe sensible scenarios where you say, look,

if no one's volunteering, then the boat goes down and all five of us die. Because we're not utilitarians here. We're not like, oh, there are many situations where you'd let many people die. Yeah. But is that how you would approach a situation like that? You would say that because it's wrong to force someone over the side of the boat, all five of us are going to die now. Would that be probably your response to that?

Might be. I can promise you, Alex, in that situation, I really don't know what I would do. I'm fascinated by these kinds of cases. I mean, we test our intuitions. It's like, you know, the ticking time bomb case for torture, people who think that torture is totally immoral, they say, well, what if a bomb was about to go off in Manhattan? I like to, I like to adapt this for my Catholic friends when it comes to the institution of confession. This is a really interesting idea, because the Catholic confessional is sacred.

It's not like when you go to therapy, and they say, this is confidential. unless, of course, you say anything that's going to put someone in danger. It's like, no, this is confidential. Like, there's not, I'm not allowed to say anything. And so someone comes in and says, Father, I've just, I've just poisoned the chalice with which, you know, Father David out there is about to serve Mass. Mm-hmm. Do you say something? And I think for the Catholic, they are committed to the view of saying, actually, no, the priest would have to let that happen.

Because otherwise it would require breaking the seal of the confessional. Mm-hmm. I mean, even if you sort of burst out of the room and you run over there and you knock over them, and say, no one drink it, right? You've given away information that you've obviously just learned in confessional, which is also not allowed. I mean, maybe there'd be a way of doing it. And I've talked to my Catholic friends about this, especially priests and people who are training to be priests, you know. What would you do here? And they're like, well, maybe I would find a way to sort of go and take the wine and swap it out and make it look like I'm doing something else.

And then, well, what if they asked you? And I said, why are you doing that? You're going to lie? you're not allowed to lie either like what are you going to do you know but there's a similar circumstance there of like you know what if the person says father I've just planted a bomb in Manhattan

and it's about to go off and of course the Catholic priest would probably say well as part of your penance ten hell maries two our fathers and a call to the NYPD with the exact location and how to disarm the bomb but suppose the person halfway through the confession sort of goes

and I regret this I regret this and they sort of run away you know I think a Catholic is committed to this counterintuitive position of saying, as weird as it seems, the right thing to do here because we have our principle, and a principle is only a principle when it's tested, is that, yeah, we let that bomb go off. Now, we can take umbrage with that, because we could say that maybe the Catholic confessional is, is wrong for that reason. Um, and, but in this case, maybe that's a more reasonable example. Maybe, maybe that is just what you do, you let them sink. Um, but I don't know, what a hundred people? A thousand people. Well, a hundred,

What if it's five people in a boat and there are two children, or two babies in the boat? You know, and someone's got to go overboard, otherwise everyone drowns, including the babies. Is it still just like, well, okay, you know, we'll just let it sink? Or is it like actually, you know, any, meeny, money off your pop, you know? And I'm not necessarily asking what you would do here, because of course, moral strength is different thing. But what should you do here? Is there not a scenario where you would say, look, you know, someone's got to go overboard here. let's just do a raffle let's make it as fair as possibly can be but whatever comes up you're off the boat

okay maybe a raffle but if you start choosing that is that is such a slippery slope it's scary yeah but that's the problem right is that but then but then the other scary alternative is that you let those five babies in the boat just drown right but yet again you know this is this type of worldview that you're spousing and the indignation you have here was not set by the Greeks but not set by the Romans, was not set by A.C. Grayling. It was not set by any these guys. This came directly out of the Christian worldview where all of a sudden you're having such a, you're such, you're so focused in such a razor sharp kind of way on the value of each and every individual in there when so clearly the Greeks would have said, oh, get the women out first. Oh, obviously

get the babies out. First, let them all drown and the men will stay in here. That's totally normal. As the Christian would have said, just, well, God's obviously judging us somehow, putting us in the but in the first place, why don't we just exterminate them all and keep in the table? Oh, what about your pet dog at home? Well, somebody better say alive. We better save somebody so they can go back and kill everyone else who's left at home. I don't know.

I don't know. Look, I think, I almost want to sort of end here because this is very full circle. I think we've covered a lot of grounds, but I did want to ask about one more thing, which is something that's been mentioned a couple of times. We mentioned at the beginning, which is this concept of forgiveness,

this concept of Jesus. It's a bit a it's a bit of a well it's not a segue but I really wanted to ask you this while you're here the concept of forgiveness in Christianity is I think so beautiful right I know so many people who think well this is a disgusting idea how could you forgive somebody for for doing this or doing that you know but I think gosh like if Jeffrey Dahmer at the end of his life is genuine in his repentance and requests for forgiveness. It's something amazingly reassuring about the fact that if he can be forgiven, then so can I. And also, I think people don't consider the seriousness with which it would hit you to repent of

Jeffrey Dahmer's sins. There's that meme of, that family guy meme of Osama bin Laden, they sort of burst into the compound, hold him at gunpoint. And he goes, I accept my, Jesus is my Lord and Savior. And then he gets shot and he gets into heaven. He's like, as long as you just sort of, oh, you can just do whatever you want as long as you say sorry, you know. It's not as long as you say sorry, it's as long as you are sorry.

Imagine waking up tomorrow and finding yourself responsible for Jeffrey Dahmer's crimes. Imagine you just somehow, it was like a drunken night out or something. You don't know, but you wake up tomorrow and you find yourself responsible for murder and dismemberment and all kinds of horrible crimes that, you know, are too revolting to. to specify. How would you feel? It wouldn't be like a, oh, sorry, I guess I'm fine now. But to be actually sorry for that would be like an unfathomable feeling, right, which is a kind of punishment that I can't even imagine. Of course, a legal system still needs to exist because you can never be sure if somebody actually thinks that or if they're just feeling that, but

of course, God knows. And the fact that everybody has that chance to be forgiven, there's something beautiful about it, but there is also something really troubling about it. You can sort of, you can sort of get away with that. You know, you can do that. And the fact that you're a Jeffrey Dharma figure, and if his repentance was sincere at the end of his life, he's in heaven right now. But like, I don't know, name any sort of good, I don't know, like Steve Irwin, you know, like says this guy, I don't know if he was a Christian, I actually don't know, but suppose he's not, right? He's just like a nice guy. He loves animals. He does. this thing. He lives his life. He's a happy guy. Treats his wife and kids really well. And then

he gets killed by a stingray. But oh, well, he didn't repent of his sins. And so he's in hell. Is that a problem for you? Rewind the tape on Jeffrey Dahmer for a second. He was interviewed while he was in his jail cell right after he did all those crimes. And he said, oh, the reason why I did this is because I live in a godless society where there is no moral obligation. And so I could live out my desires any old way I want to. And so I killed an eight. Killed an eight. Okay, I don't, he didn't need to plead for insanity. That was too beautifully logically put. So if there is no God, Jeffrey Dahmer understood, I can do whatever I want. You live that out. Yeah. So starting there, is that the better

alternative? Because I think he's being very consistent in his worldview. And then yes, if I woke up as a mental health counselor, I do believe there was probably some mental health issues going on if I woke up and all of a sudden I had done this, but that's the freakish thing about grace. When Jesus calls us to forgive 70 times seven, an endless number. First, I hated that when I heard that as a little kid, because I didn't want to forgive my brothers for everything. Now I love it because I want somebody forgive me that often. Well, that's the thing is that probably at that age, you hadn't been in need of much forgiveness yourself. Oh, yes, I had. Well, I got all those spankings behind the garage, you know, that was me.

No, no. So I, so the freakish thing is, you know, it goes black, since we started with slavery, it goes right back to the black church. The black church and the Amish have understood it better than anybody I've seen in the last 10 years. And that was when the Amish church got shot up. And it was all those little kids who were homeschooled. And the guy who shot him up, shot him up because his wife couldn't get pregnant, I believe,

or he lost a daughter in stillbirth. And they said that week, we're going to take care of your wife, because you're going to jail, obviously, for life. We're going to have her into our Bible study, and we're going to feed her and give her a roof over her head. It was a knee-jerk act of forgiveness. And then you go to the black church, the A&E church. If you remember in South Carolina, I got shot up by that racist white boy, executionary style in church on a Wednesday night. their response and if you see interviews of even the kids kids their most of them were college age immediately sobbing but saying of course I forgive knee jerk like out of the heart it wasn't like

I'm going to kill this kid and forgive they also stated we want him to come to our next Bible study that week and then you have another example of a black guy who is wrongfully shot by a racist white cop, Botham Gene, I don't know if you remember that story, where his brother gives us testimony after he is shot and she is being tried in the courtroom. He asked the judge, can I give her a hug? He's just completely sobbing, walks across the courtroom, gives her a hug, she completely breaks down and states in his testimony, I forgive you because of what Jesus has done for me, how he's forgiven me. Yes. How much he loves me, the God of the universe loves me. So my natural instinct is to love you and the change that you saw that white race officer.

I don't know if she put her faith in Christ, I'm not sure. But it's the historic black church who've been completely shredded to pieces by injustice their entire antebellum throughout and how they're trying to figure out early on, do I forgive my white racist slave owner who was saying slaves obey your masters through the Bible? Are they getting the wrong or right? Down to I'm still being treated in a racist kind of way, even now, no matter how woke the culture sound there is racism still out there and yet that shows the historicity of this freakish nature of forgiveness that comes only through the cross of christ and how it is the biggest apologetic in my

mind for christians in this day and age because everybody just wants justice everybody just wants you offend me once i'm done with you everybody just wants oh you're part of that tribe over there well you wronged my ancestors i'm done with you there's something attractive about grace where i want a second I want a third chance, and I actually potentially want to be reconciled with you, but how do I do this outside of the cross of Christ? Matt DeLahante said to me on one of our debates, he said, Stuart, forgiveness is an interesting thing, but shouldn't you just do it for yourself? That's my atheistic worldview. Do it for your own kind of emotional well-being. And I said, Matt, that's a great point. Yes, that's one of the reasons why you forgive, but no, I believe Christ calls us. to forgive in such a way where we pour out love to people who are completely different from us,

whether that be religion, politically, an alienated family member who really did you wrong, whatever it might be, because that pulls together family, society, and the world. So forgiveness is not just a selfish thing, but it goes way beyond that, reaches beyond that. So everybody wants it.

I don't think Jeffrey Dahmer, when Kira Knightley, for example, says, oh, it's so easy to be a Christian, all you have to do is, say I'm sorry after you did something wrong and then you just go live like hell obviously that's taking part in cheap grace which Bonhoeffer called out

so many of the churches formed during Nazi Germany called them out and said no genuine faith is you come to know Christ you're going to keep messing up but you genuinely respond asking for his grace and forgiveness and that changes you yeah you don't say sorry you are sorry and there's a two very different things

C.S. Lewis said I forgive the unforgivable in others because God has forgiven the unfavorable forgivable in me. And well, he has a way with words. Of course, we're talking here about forgiveness of humans by humans. We're talking about, and I think these stories are beautiful. I have seen, I saw on social media recently, some kind of convict. I don't know what he'd done, but victim family members sort of getting up on the sand and one of them says you're going to rod in hell and that's where you belong and the hurt you've

caused blah blah blah all this kind of stuff right understandably of course just and there's just one man who gets up afterwards and he says something like you've made it very difficult for me to act in accordance with what I believe is true you made it incredibly difficult but I know what my God tells me to do and I forgive you and it's the only thing that anybody said that seems to make the convict actually emotionally respond you know it's almost as if in that moment he kind of gets what he's done wrong it's it's very easy to i don't know if um if i if i if i've done something wrong if i sort of upset a friend or done something a bit sort of dodgy and they sort of say like hey man you shouldn't have done that i'm like oh i

mean i didn't really do that i was kind it's kind of fine oh i did it for this reason you're sort of having a bit of a spat whatever whereas if if they just sort of say like you know It's all right. Like, I don't mind. Then you're like, oh man, I shouldn't have done that man. I'm so sorry. And it sort of brings something out of you. So, you know, to be crude and reductionistic, that might be part of the reason why our desire for this kind of situation evolutionarily evolves. A lot of people have a problem with saying that like, okay, fine. Well, if you want to forgive that man, you go ahead. If somebody like kills your wife and you forgive them in court, fine. But God does not have the right to do that on my behalf. If somebody wrongs me, I'm the one who gets to forgive them, not even just for my sake, but because I'm the one that's wronged here, God doesn't get to do that for me. There are some people who say, I don't want to forgive the person who has wronged me. And maybe they should, whatever, but they don't, right?

And that's their prerogative, right? If you're in a secular context, especially if someone says, well, I don't forgive them, you say, well, look, that's your choice to make. You have the freedom to forgive them or not. But if you say to them, but it doesn't matter because God's forgiven them anyway. And say, well, hold on, I'm the one who was wronged here. This is me, right? And especially give, okay, well, maybe we should start that.

I mean, I know God is the creator of the universe, etc. But does that sort of automatically give him the right to forgive people for the sins that they've committed in part against other people? I mean, you might want to say, well, every sin is a sin against God, right? Well, David says, yeah. It's not against two people, you know, it's an affront to two people, it's an affront to God and it's in front to the person. So maybe God can sort of half forgive them. But surely for that full forgiveness, there needs to be some, you know, free deliverance from the person who's actually wronged there, right? So I think forgiveness is crazy and stupid. I have never heard of a porpoise for giving a shark for eating up a porpoise friend. We live in a dog, eat dog world. We don't. don't live in a dog forgive dog world, right? But if there is a god at the center of the cosmos

who is just and also forgiving, then all of a sudden forgiveness makes sense, especially when you think about how important relationships are. And although I've been a very nice guy so far with you, Alex, and I think I have been, I just think I've been totally awesome with you. You don't, won't have to sit around me too long before I will hurt you, be mean to you, be self-absorbed, offend you and the relationship will take a hit and in order for a relationship to grow and deepen in order for a marriage to grow in deep in order for a family to grow in deep in order for real friendship to grow and deepen friendship forgiveness is going to have to take place because we're not perfect and we hurt each other now if there's a god at the center of the being at the center of the

universe who really does forgive and if god has really forgiven us then we have no option but to forgive others and to say but wait a second you have no right god to forgive that person for hurting my son what i'm doing is i'm being trapped in arrogance what do i mean god you have no right it's not me who gives god right god is god i'm not god in the same way when i look back and say you know if i was god i would create a better world where there wasn't so much evil in suffering well excuse me you're not god you don't have that power you don't you're not in that position so i think we go down a path of pride hubris arrogance when we start saying well god doesn't have that right to forgive someone when they hurt me god's going to hold everybody responsible and there are

punishments for all of us and all of us are going to be judged but god's grace is very real and very operative when jesus was dying on the cross two thieves were hung you to the side and the first thief turned to Jesus and said, come on miracle boy from Nazareth, save our back sides, and then we'll believe in you. Second criminal looks at the first criminal and says, you idiot, we bleed and die here because we deserve it. But this Jesus, he's the innocent, holy, purison of God. And that second criminal looks into Jesus' face and says, Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom. And right there, it's right on a table. Jesus could have said, whoa, whoa, time out. Get off the cross, 12 hell marries, work in a soup kitchen, and if you do a good

enough job, maybe you'll make it. No, Jesus didn't say that. Instead, he said, I tell you the truth, today you'll be with me in paradise. That is grace, undeserved generosity, that is forgiveness. And that is what is at the heart of the universe. And the challenge for me as a fault of Christ is not to overcome evil with evil, but to overcome evil with good. And part of the big battle of overcoming evil with good is to forgive. Does it trouble you that? Jeffrey Dahmer might be in heaven. Steve Irwin might not be. Because it's beautiful.

It's beautiful. It's beautiful the fact that that, that, like you say it, it's crazy and stupid and generous. I mean, I mean, this, this forgiveness, that despite what you've done, like, you don't need to go and do your hell marries. I, I, I forgive you. But then when you place it in this context, right? It becomes sort of difficult to swallow, right? Yeah, I don't think it's beautiful. And you know why I don't think it's beautiful?

Because I'm no Jeffrey Dahmer. I'm a great guy. I mean, Alex, I tried to convince you that I don't think I've done one thing against you since we met five hours ago. I've been morally, morally perfect. The problem is, Alex, I'm not this morally perfect person that I wish you would believe that I am. I've got a real sin problem, and I need forgiveness. I would need it from you if our relationship would grow, and I definitely need it from Jesus Christ. Christianity says, what Jesus says,

It doesn't matter what you've done. It doesn't matter who you are. It doesn't matter how bad it was. If you repent of your sin, I'll forgive you. But Lord, I killed my own child. It's okay. Repent, and I'll forgive you. But Lord, I did this.

But Lord, I did that. You know, but Lord, I lied to my partner. It's okay. Repent, and I will forgive you. And it doesn't matter how long ago it was, all you have to do is repent and you'll be welcomed into the kingdom of God until you die

it's like oh but Lord I died yesterday oh well you're dead oh well then the game's up tough luck right you'll be forgiven of anything you like but if you die unrepentant and you're not making it into the kingdom of God this this unconditional

forgiveness on grounds of repentance seems to sort of time out at the point of death. Now, death is quite significant, but why would it be that someone who died yesterday confronted with, you know, whatever it might be eternal torment, eternal separation from God, and decides, actually, I don't know about this, at least in a lot of traditional Christian teachings, it's too late for them. Why, why doesn't this sort of unadulterated willingness to forgive extend beyond the

grave. Which means whoever tells you that it doesn't matter how you live is smoking something. I don't want to smoke. Because what Jesus points out is, it matters desperately how you live. It matters desperately what decisions you make in life because the decisions that you make in this life have eternal ramifications. But why does that generosity end at death? I mean, as Christians, you believe that you're not really a body.

you have a body right you are you're a soul there's an immaterial component to you you are you and when you die in your body decomposes there will still be a you that will exist so we'll get a new body whatever your eschatology is fine and so it's it's like you're still there you're still a sinner and maybe you'll decide that you're repentant but something about the fact that you've gone through this transition from material life to you know immaterial existence suddenly forgiveness is just no longer on offer. It's like the door just slams, this generosity, this beauty, this grace.

It just vanishes. And especially when you consider the fact, I mean, suppose that I, next week, I'm going to have a religious conversion. I'm going to have some kind of conversation. Oh, perhaps this conversation. Maybe you're going to say something at the end of this conversation.

I'm going to go home and I'm going to think, you know what, they were right. And I'm going to convert to Christianity and I'm going to repent of my sins and I'm going to be entered into the kingdom of God. But you presumably also believe that humans have libertarian free will. That's one of the reasons why evil exists in the first place, is that people are free to do what they like, and God cannot control them,

which means that any one of our crew here could walk over right now, take a big blunt object, whack me over the head, and murder me. If they were to do that right now, I would not go to the kingdom of heaven. And yet, if they hadn't done that, and an hour later, somebody had done it instead, then I get into heaven. And that's just because of somebody else's decision to do it now rather than later, right? In other words, the person who dictates there whether I get to go to heaven or I have to go to hell, it's not God, it's not me, but seemingly is the person who decides whether or not to whack me over the head with a blunt object.

It seems almost arbitrary. I mean, death is very significant for an atheist, but for a Christian, death is just one thing that happens to you. It seems very arbitrary that this beautiful story of forgiveness and grace and charity and beauty just stops. when you die, especially when you consider that your death is out of your hands. You don't get to choose when that happened, and somebody else can bring that on prematurely for you, and it doesn't matter what you would have done in the future, now you're condemned to an eternity in hell. If the universe was religiously ambiguous, I think you'd have a point. Because God has made his existence so clear, because Jesus has communicated his love so clearly and so deeply,

we don't have a good excuse for rejecting him right now. And yet it's still the case. I mean, maybe, okay, maybe, yeah, I deserve to go to hell because I've rejected Christ, but the message of Christianity is that everybody deserves to go to hell, even those who've accepted Jesus. They just repent and they accept the grace, right? But it does, does it seem a bit arbitrary that, like, if I accept that grace five minutes from now, I get to go to heaven.

And let's say that that is set in. Like, that's what I'm going to do. In five minutes, I'm going to repent. I just literally haven't had the time to think about it because I'm too busy thinking about the words that are coming out my mouth. in this particular sentence, but the very next bit of mental energy will be spent on repenting. And yet, just before I get there, someone comes and kills me. Well, now I go to hell. Maybe I deserve to go to hell, but I deserve to go to hell five minutes

later and ten minutes later anyway. It's just that because I didn't get killed by that random person, just as chance would have it, I've managed to get to a point of repentance and now I get to go to heaven. Aren't you seeing here what you're setting up? You're setting up Hinduism, secularism, atheism, all the other religions here on one side, because I'm hearing deserved language. I'm hearing, if I don't repent language. So it's all about up to me. If I do this, that, and the other, then don't I deserve to go to heaven? And if I don't do it, don't I deserve to go to hell? Versus the Christian faith is the only faith that says it actually has nothing to do with you deserving anything, because you cannot deserve it on your, God owes us nothing. And we

cannot create ourselves, and we cannot give ourselves eternal life. It has to be, some, something from the outside that we are saying, there's nothing, like AA talks about, there's nothing in and of myself that I can do to save myself from this alcoholism. It has to be God. And so my whole point would be, I don't think with a Jeffrey Dahmer, first off, I think he's probably seared his conscience. The exposure I've had with inmates, usually that type is totally sued their conscience. It takes a while for them to come up to know Christ and have radical change, which is why I think part of the death penalty is so sad, because some who've changed after 15 years or genuine life changers, now they're going to get put to death.

For me, though, it gets at the character of Christ and that this whole Christian thing is just a matter of the heart. And I think you know that you have a self, that you have a heart, and I think you know you are attracted to beauty. And I think you know that the narrative that you are most attracted to, and so are all Europeans and Americans and how the Christian faith has spread all over the world, how it's not remained in just one spot, says something about how worldwide we find the beauty in good triumphing over evil out of their being a protagonist and antagonist and how ultimately the leader of the entire story is the best most beautiful person imaginable who actually sacrifices for us even harry potter who christians hate harry potter but even

harry potter is fully christian in every kind of way and so for me that's the whole piece i think you need to look at Dostoevsky, and I'm sure you have Dostoevsky's life when he became a Christian. I believe that the longest road, like everybody says, is from the head to the heart, and that was the longest road, definitely for Dostoevsky. He's probably the best author ever, and he walked in randomly to a church one day, and he looked at a cross for four hours straight, and all of a sudden this understanding of love and forgiveness, and it wasn't up to whether I convert in repentant, was repentant one minute before I died or anything like that. It was full. God dying on the cross from me, and he could not resist that beauty. And that's why he became

a Christian. Doessev, he went on to write to a friend if I discovered that all of the facts lay outside of Christ, I would sooner throw myself in with Christ and reject the facts, and throw myself in with the facts and rejects Christ. And I suppose, depending on who you're talking to, that can either be a cardinal virtue or a cardinal vice. I understand what you're saying, but of course, I'm imagining, okay, now I'm the killer, right? And suppose that I know, So suppose there's like a friend of mine who's very impressionable, and I know that he's going to go to church next week, he's been invited, and I just know that he's going to be talked into it. I know that he's going to think this makes sense. He's right on the brink. That's all he needs, and he's going to convert to Christianity. So I decide to kill him, because I'm a malicious person. And I decide to kill him now, specifically because I know that if I kill him now, he's going to go to hell. Whereas if I kill him next week, he's going to go to heaven. So I kill him today, knowing that he has to go to hell. hasn't repented yet so that I can send him to hell. Can I really believe that I live in a theological universe where I have that power? I have the ability to dictate that he goes to hell

instead of heaven because I've made that decision to kill him and I've done it on purpose. I find it difficult to believe that a good God would oversee that kind of possibility at all. And some people say to me, well, that's because God knows that he was going to repent. And that's what it is. Of course, yeah, you're killing him prematurely, but God knows that he would have repented next week and therefore you know he still gets to go to heaven because god knows what would have happened you know in that case what's the point in this veil of tears in the first place god knows what you're going to do anyway what's the point in the life what's the point in the test what's the point in the freedom right but like framed in those terms i'm not even sure exactly what the

problem is that i'm putting forward i couldn't quite put it into like a syllogism but you understand the the criticism i'm making here of this of this picture that it seems like i have this power to send somebody to hell right now instead of heaven. And I get to make that decision on their behalf. That seems crazy. You bet it is because you don't. You don't have the ability to send anybody to heaven. You don't have the ability to send anybody to hell.

Because look at the scenario you're setting up. You're setting up. I know that if he goes to church, he's going to accept Christ. So I'm going to kill him before he goes to church. You don't know that. You don't know who's going to accept Christ and who's not going to accept Christ. that's a decision between them and Christ. Secondly, God is all-knowing.

God is fair. God is good? And I think that's really what this issue gets down to. Is God fair? Is God going to judge justly? Or is God going to rip somebody off because they got killed, murdered before they went to church? And the answer to that is, no. Nobody's going to hell because they got murdered before they went to church.

Nobody. Because God is all-knowing, he's fair, and he's just. Even if I went back in time in a time machine, I know. I know that this person has repented. You can't go back in a time machine. Yeah, I think that's also probably true. Okay. Final thing on forgiveness here.

Jesus says that every sin will be forgiven or can be forgiven, except one. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, that is the sin which will never be forgiven. Now, Jesus says this, I mean, our earlier source will be Mark chapter 3, speaking to the Pharisee. and the Pharisees accuse Jesus of being demonic. They say that the reason he's able to cast out demons of people is because he is a demon himself, he is Satan, whatever it is. And Jesus says, how can this be the case? A house divided cannot stand.

You know, if I'm a demon, I can't be casting out demons. Then he goes on to say that all sins can be forgiven, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, will not and cannot be forgiven. I provide the context there because I'm told that it's quite important. This is enough to send a shiver down your spine, Jesus saying, if you do this thing, you will not be forgiven. I've heard stories of Christians who sort of are up at night and cold sweat thinking,

have I blasphemed the Holy Spirit? When I made that joke at Christmas about bringing in the Holy Spirit, was that, oh my God, you know, what is blaspheming the Holy Spirit and why is it unforgivable? Blastuming the Holy Spirit, I would relate to Roman Jesus. chapter one when paul talks about how eventually god gave them over to their own desires so blasphemy of the holy spirit is not i'm driving down the merit and all of a sudden i get into this incredible road rage and i curse at somebody or i curse at god and that there's the last words on my lips and i die in this road rage so it's a sin i'm committing at the end of my life so obviously it's going to send me to

hell no it has nothing to do with that blasphemy of the holy spirit is is deciding on my own, my own volition. It's like Pharaoh, to be honest, that's another example of hardening my own heart and then eventually God hardens my heart. So it's, I'm going to live any old way I want to, Romans chapter one, and then God gives me over to my own desires. And so it's not a specific act.

It's instead, it's grieving the Holy Spirit, living in line with the flesh, not the spirit. Because if you're living in line with the genuine spirit, you're growing out of the fruits of the spirit. Galatians 522, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, kindness, kindness, kindness, self-control, in a botanical kind of way. It's always shown as fruit. So you're supposed to be growing in these areas. So blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unfragable sin is back to your original question. Can I just ask for forgiveness in the end of my life?

And God, you'll just grant me my wish to go into heaven. Kira Knightley, live any old way you want. And it's so easy for Christians, because then at the end of their lives, they can just say, God, forgive me. No Kira. I love Pirates of the Caribbean, but no Kira. That's completely wrong. Blastomy of the Holy Spirit is, God, I'm playing a dirty trick with you.

I think you'll forgive me no matter what. So I'm going to live any old kind of way that I want. And that eventually, God gives you over to those desires. Now, the thing that really strikes me about this is unforgivable. Like, forgiveness is something that. has done retrospectively for something that's already been done and now regretted and apologised for. So I understand the idea that like there are people who become so consumed with their own desires, that their hearts are hardened, that maybe for some reason God then like reinforces

that by extra hardening their heart or whatever, but like locking it in somehow as if to say that, I mean, what does it mean for it to be unforgivable? It means that if that person does that they live that way i mean suppose i've been thinking to myself like well i'm not sure if i should really be living this way but i'm sure that one day i'll have a religious experience and i'm sure god will forgive me and it'll be okay i'm starting to live like that right i'm starting to do that and then one day i what was i thinking this is this is this is terrible i i should never have done that i'm really sorry about it well tough luck you can't be forgiven you don't have to worry about that blasphemy against the holy spirit means i have played so much

many games with God that I've reached the point where my heart is so hard. I never hear the voice of God. I am not sorry for the wrong that I've done. Therefore, the only people who blasphoned the Holy Spirit are those who could give a rip. They're totally unconcerned because they're totally dead towards God in their spirit. Pharaoh six times hardened his heart. Then we read the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart. Well, you take the first six times out and you're thinking, What Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart? What does that mean? No, Pharaoh hardened his heart. And I can do that. We all can do that. But if a person has any desire at all to say, Lord, forgive me, of course the Lord forgives them. It's only those who have no desire to ask for forgiveness who have possibly committed that sins. So why does God then harden the Pharaoh's heart, right? He's already hardening his heart. Why is it that God does this extra thing? I'm now going to harden your heart. As if the imagery I'm getting there, if this is indeed what? what's something like blaspheming the Holy Spirit is and becomes the unforgivable sin.

It's almost like God himself is like locking that in. It's like, well, Pharaoh's been hardening his heart. He's been, you know, rejecting God's advances. And so God says, okay, I'm going to grab you by a hold of the heart and I'm going to sort of switch off this possibility for you. As if God is like doing that to Pharaoh. Right. No, he's not doing that to Pharaoh. It's more a statement that Pharaoh, you have hardened your heart so much that you are now shutting yourself off from me.

No, the offer of Christ, the offer of God, for God, forgiveness is always open to every single human being. And there are countless illustrations of the grace of God working with some of the biggest wretches on earth. So we don't have to worry about that. But is it impossible in principle for somebody to have once blasphemed the Holy Spirit and then regret it? Yeah, that's not going to happen. Because when you blaspheme the Holy Spirit, you don't have the ability to repent. You don't have the ability to be sensitive towards God because you are so hardened, so separated from God, there's no hope for you. That sort of seems to make it worse to me.

It's like, whatever I may have done. Because the thing is that you might say, well, look, you hardened your heart. You did this. You turned yourself away from God. And so now you're in a state where you can't even possibly come to repentance. And I would say, that seems a little unfair, you know? It's like, well, it's your fault. You did it.

But the whole point of Christianity is that like, well, yeah, you did this. Yeah, you did that for years. but I'm still going to forgive you as long as you regret it. But you're telling me that there's something a person can do that makes it such that it is literally impossible for them even to want to repent, let alone being forgiven for it. That seems like really difficult to square

with the sort of eternally forgiving God. We're talking about something that's unforgivable. When you say, well, if somebody dies in a state where their heart is hardened to God, that's true of any sin. If you die in sin without repentance, you know, you're not going to be entered into the, You're not going to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

To say that this is unforgivable. And you're telling me now something like, well, they've done something to the extent that now it does not matter what they do. They will never be able to repent. It's a full lifestyle, though. Just like in Matthew 25, when Jesus is talking about the sheep and the goats, he's saying, I never knew you, depart from me. I never knew you depart from me. The Pharisees shiny on the outside with the cup. but completely rotten on the inside.

Their father's the devil. Okay, that's blaspheming as the Holy Spirit, where it's a hypocritical, hypocritical lifestyle all lifelong. But there's no way that those Pharisees could ever have snapped out of it and been like, I don't know what I was thinking. I was wrong. I regret it. I'm sorry, Lord.

No. And Jesus wouldn't forgive them. We may disagree on this point, but Pharaoh, I think God judges Pharaoh. I think it was Pharaoh's free will at first, but then I think judgment came. And thank heaven it came. Ferry was a nasty, brutish guy, was he not? So Judgment Day, I'm looking forward to because I think judgment needs to happen. At the same time, I'm not looking forward to it because I realize I've done wrong.

But so for me, it's, yes, God eventually judges. But I think you keep taking, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is like a one-time thing. Because you started off this way. You started off making it sound like you're at a Christmas party and all of a sudden you said the wrong thing against the Holy Spirit. You're going to hell. Well, that's radically different from what we're talking about. But we know it's not that, right? But I think there are things that you can do.

I mean, all kinds of things. You could be in an adulterous affair for 10 years. It's something you do over 10 years. And then on, you know, the very next day, you could suddenly realize it was wrong, suddenly repent of it. And if, as long as you're genuine, you're forgiven. You're telling me that there's something people can do. Not asking for forgiveness. But like, that's, I mean, yeah.

If I steal your wallet and you. say, Cliff, I offer to forgive you. And I say, forgive me for what? I haven't done anything wrong. Oh, no, Cliff, you stole my wallet. Well, so what? Yeah. So then I say that what you're doing there is unforgivable, right? I'm not going to forgive you for what you're doing right now. And so then tomorrow, when you come to me and say, you know, yesterday when I was sort of like refusing to even acknowledge, I was wrong. I'm sorry about that. And I say, hey, man, I already told you. I'm not forgiving you for that. Christ will always forgive the person who is repentant. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an unrepentant, hardened heart.

there's no need there there's no understanding of my need for forgiveness and once you get into that state there's no possibility for redemption correct so like i mean what do you imagine like how old is a person in this state like how long does it take what do they have to do you know we don't have the faintest idea because because those people are what they've done we don't know that's between them and god i find that so so difficult like it's sure it's difficult unforgivable because they're not asking for forgiveness correct You cannot be forgiven unless you ask for forgiveness. You humble yourself.

So it's unforgivable to not ask for forgiveness. But the problem is there's sort of two levels here, right? There's not asking for forgiveness, which of course, you can't be forgiven if you don't ask for forgiveness. But we're saying here now, it's not, you can't be forgiven if you don't ask for forgiveness. It's you can't be forgiven for the state of not asking for forgiveness. If blaspheming the Holy Spirit is something like not asking for forgiveness. To say that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unforgivable, is not to say that when you blaspheme the Holy Spirit, you know, like, you're not going, like, okay, you're not being forgiven right now because you're not apologizing. There's one thing to say you're not being forgiven for not apologizing.

It's another thing to say that you will not be forgiven, like full stop ever, for the fact that right now you're unforgiven. You see what I'm saying? the only person who's committed that sin could care less. God is irrelevant. God is not part of the equation. My sin is not part of the equation. I'm totally shut off.

It's a lifestyle, not a one-time thing. Right. Because it sounds like you keep picking it back to a one-time thing, but we're saying it's a full lifestyle. Sure, age of accountability, you bring in 12 years old. So after 12, maybe.

But it's the sheep and the goats. Matthew 25. I understand it's a terrifying passage. I've had some students come to us crying. I get it. We need safe spaces for them. But I think for us, it's a matter of what are your motives? When I am sitting in an Uber with an Hindu, going to a temple with a Hindu and sitting in an Uber with a Muslim, I hear very similar things when it comes to I have to do X, Y, and Z to get out of this cast in order to get out of a certain cycle. I have to do X, Y, and Z for my heart to be lighter than a feather to get to

paradise. It's all me, me, I have to do these things versus I'm doing these things, but what is my true motive? Motives don't matter here with these two. It's just you have to do good things. Here it's a heart motive in the sense of who am I doing it for? Why am I doing it, God? Am I genuine in my relationship with you? Am I genuinely loving you? Am I genuinely loving others? Or is this simply just a sick game where it's a hypocritical lifestyle? And I think we all know, let's be real i think we all know when we're living in a hypocritical kind of way and the answer is if you if you do that long enough then you just enter into a state where now for the rest of your life no matter what you do no not no matter what you do if you repent you'll be forgiven but these

people can't repent right because they blaspheme the holy spirit it's impossible for them to repent they have so hard in their hearts that they have no interest in repenting if you have a slight interest in repenting, Christ will forgive you. You think it's possible to be in a state where you have no interest in repentance for 10 years? And then the 11th year, regain it somehow? Good. Sure, that happens to many people. Yeah.

So they, those people didn't blasphemy in the Holy Spirit for 10 years? They were sinners, but they chose to repent and that's, that's, well, that's a thief on the cross. The thief on the cross, just remember him. Yeah. I mean, I must admit, it's one of the most theological, theologically troubling things. I mean, there's troubling and then there's troubling, right? Like, I find the Old Testament passages troubling.

I could tell. They're kind of, they're kind of, well, gave it away. You know, I'm sort of like, oh, this seems immoral, this seems wrong, right? But maybe it fits in, maybe, maybe that was just fine, maybe whatever, you know. The women versus, I find those challenging. Yeah, but maybe, you know, maybe women shouldn't speak in church. Maybe that's just true. But with this, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, it's not just difficult because I think it's like,

oh, that's really immoral or that's kind of evil. I just, firstly, I didn't really understand what it means. And secondly, it seems just like so, it's the reason it sends a shiver down your spine is because it seems so out of character for Jesus. You know, it's like, you know, come to me, child, and forgive and go and sin no more. You will never be forgiven out of it. And you're, whoa, you know, what are you talking about? And so I must say that of all the things we've spoken about so far, it's been the, it's, it's the most theological. ideologically challenging to me. I suppose to round out. I'm interested of the things we've spoken about and the things that we haven't because there are a lot more. What troubles you the most? What keeps you up at night the most? When a student comes up to the microphone and says, I want to ask about this, and you go, oh boy, here we go. I don't know about this. For me, it's some of the issues you've already raised. Slavery and some of the wars in the Old Testament. Those are very difficult.

issues for me. I don't understand them. Secondly, the problem of suffering when I sit with parents who've lost a child due to a horrible car accident, you know, why didn't God allow the babysitters to see the stop sign? Why did they go right through the stop sign and then hit by a pickup truck coming down at 55 miles an hour? So the problem of suffering, why does God intervene in certain situations and not in others? That's a very difficult issue. So there are a number of very difficult issues for me. And I am convinced to the root of my being that Jesus Christ is the truth, but I can't prove that. I struggle with doubt. I struggle with uncertainty. So I don't mean to communicate to you, Alex, that I've got it all nailed down, because I don't. There's

tremendous uncertainty. There's tremendous doubt that I experience on a regular basis. But the overwhelming evidence in my experience of life, in what Christ has done in my life, when I was 10 years old, separated from my family and really got lonely in upstate new york and for the first time in my life i cried out from the depth of my being jesus if you're really there i want to know you because i'm lonely right now and i hate it and christ gave me an overwhelming sense of his presence his witness with me so in spite of the doubts in spite of the uncertainties um the reality of christ in my life as i observe others as i experience life convinces me that he is by far the best option Let me give you one closing illustration.

I was doing open-air Columbia, and a professor invited me to come into his class. He was a post-doc student from UK, and the class was a discussion on the difference between Zwingli and Calvin's view of war. And the guy was brilliant, and the discussion was off the charts amazing. So I'm walking out of the classroom with a guy, and I turned him and say, Professor, that was amazing. Thank you so much. Now, let me ask you, what do you live in for? and what's the evidence of whatever it is you're living for is true and this brilliant postdoc student from UK looks me in the face and says I'm not a good person to ask that question of that's scary

and yet it's been my experience too often that too many people have to answer the same way don't ask me that question what am I living for and what's the evidence of what I am living for is true because they have not thought through what am I really living for what motivates me me. Why do I get up in the morning? Why do I do what I do? Why do I work the way I work? Why do I treat people the way I treat people? What's going to happen after death? They just haven't thought about it. And yet they're living for something. And the question is, what's the evidence of which you are living for is true? So in spite of my uncertainty, in spite of the fact I can't prove God exists or prove that Christ rose from the dead, the evidence is God does exist, the evidence is

he really does love me and the evidence is the resurrection took place and therefore i will follow the evidence to christ not that it's perfect it's not not not they're not not that they're not problems in the bible there are but gosh when you look at the way he loves you and me when you look at the experiences of life that you get and the experiences of others it's real clear to me trust in him is true my biggest one really hasn't changed since I was five years old

which is my closest friend is somebody I can't connect with the five senses especially I can't see and my biggest piece of grief and sadness

for people who don't believe in God gets back to one thing you said in the beginning they lack objective meaning and purpose in their life and I always thought that was kind of something like a God argument that that was kind of theoretical but now I'm getting in the trenches

with so many university students at Yale and Yukon this week and it's in living color and one of my best friends recently broke down who's an atheist and he said I'm so jealous and envious that you have objective meaning and purpose in life

I can't find mine and it's falling apart and he's this incredible incredible athlete Brilliant. He has the world at his fingertips, money, everything. And yet he's breaking down, crying. And then I have another woman who's one of the best artists probably on the East Coast. And she's in the psych unit because she tried to find her meaning and purpose in her art. And so for my biggest heartache for those who don't believe in God is where are you going to find your objective meaning and purpose. And it goes right back to infinite jest. started David Foster Wallace. It's probably the best, he was going to be the best writer of our generation, strong atheist, but he said, be careful. If there is no God, if there is nothing infinite, you're going to worship something here on this planet, and it's going to eat you

alive, and you'll have no meaning and purpose. And throughout my training, masters in psychology, I loved Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankel, and how even as a secular Jew, he really teased this out with being in the prison of war camps, those who believed in God, or at least that they would see a loved one again one day outside of Auschwitz and others. They were the ones who weren't nasty, brutish. They were the ones who didn't just die in the war camp, but they actually still had hope. And so I just see all this. I wrestle with it, but I kind of like my dad said, a lot of people say, oh, you know, just the cumulative case for Christianity. and that's why I believe in God.

So like the moral argument, teleological in these. Look, I'm good with that. But that's still the intellectual, rational side. I would say it's the cumulative case in the sense of intellectual, rational, emotional, and cultural. And does the Christian worldview play out in all these areas? Or does the secular worldview make more sense and stack up in a cumulative way that's more satisfying? so far I'll end with the strong agnostic over in the UK who wrote the book the things that are amiss the things that are missing I think it was the title Harwas and he talked about how as an agnostic there are so many things missing

in the secular worldview that can't be accounted for and you can't see these things touch these things but as a materialist, so many materialists are searching for these meaning and consciousness and understanding what love is, but there's no love if you're a materialist. And he said, that's why the Christian worldview makes the most sense. And these are not theoretical things. I see them played out in the counseling office. I see them played out on the university campus in the church, one-on-one conversations. And so there's a God-shaped hole, and we've got to find a way to fill it.

And I think any and everything will rattle around in that God-shaped hole other than God himself. Hmm. Well, I hope people listening, well, I really appreciate the way you to conduct your outreach and your, I don't know what you'd call it, apologetics, proselytizing, evangelizing, whatever you want to call it, I think, you know, the videos have been getting really popular the past year or two, and I think for good reason, he goes, do you have a way of reaching people, but I hope this has been a fairly penetrating discussion. I hope that you've got to have. Definitely has, maybe. Thank you so much. Have, uh, have, uh, who are listening have to.