Classic case of Turek saying, “It doesn’t mean what it seems to mean. And even if it does it’s not as bad as it seems to be. And even if it is, the atheist isn’t allowed to say anything about it.” Thanks, Randal, for being the most honest and understanding (of others) Christian I know.

@josephocallaghan3000

Ай бұрын

The OT Israelite leaders and people were largely rebels against God - they stayed 40 yrs in the wilderness going in circles due to God's wrath upon this stubborn people; they constantly reverted to following idols. Did God tell Moses to take concubines/wives? Did he command Moses make laws to rape the women, or forcefully take slaves and teach slaves with violence? Thousands of laws were made by the Israeites - cceremonial, moral, civil, it does not mean God commanded them. God gave the 10 commandments - we know that with certainty so where is a child stoned, his name, his father's name? ---- and more - stoned to death or even expelled from the camp, in the whole of the Bible? Christianity is not the Old Testament, btw, it's the 2nd and New Covenant

@leslieviljoen

Ай бұрын

​@@josephocallaghan3000 does it matter that a specific case is not mentioned? Is your claim that this law was never applied? Is the man being stoned for picking up sticks on the sabbath not a good enough example?

@josephocallaghan3000

Ай бұрын

@@leslieviljoen It does matter. If my country put in a law of stoning children I would as a lawyer wnat to see how, and to whom - look up the full history, how it was empolyed and social and societal effects A parent might warn his strong headed young teenager that he will be [within the law] thrown out of the house - or put into care if s/he continues to beat up his mother and siblings- warnings serve a perpose in themselves, even though they might never be employed

@josephocallaghan3000

Ай бұрын

@@leslieviljoen ....having found out there is no evidence the law was ever put into effect.... we can address the OT laws. God states he ''winked the eye'' eg when men took several wives and many other things. If God had not He would have wiped the rebels - all His chosen people [and more]- off the face of the earth That was the OT, with its civil laws, ceremonial laws... The NT is a NEW COVENANT. Changes are made which Christ & Paul [mostly] speak about. Eg ''One man for one woman in marriage'' The 10 Commandments for Christians are condensed to ''Love God, love your neighbout''. Love/pray for your enemy also mentioned. Ceremonial Laws on - eg - food and clothing end - Christians can now eat pork, all foods pronounced clean to eat. Sabbaths no longer have to be kept. Atheists mostly fail to see the differences of the two covenants; the 1st concerns God's wrath, and is largely legalistic... the 2nd, His grace and mercy ...but for a specific time-span

@josephocallaghan3000

Ай бұрын

@@leslieviljoen Man gathering sticks. Case/s of rebellion against God, eg, Lott's wife turned to stone bringing judgement. I am sure you can find many things that are odd to you but are not odd to God. There will always be thousands of things that remain a mystery to evil, moral, self-centred man; to fathom out a holy, perfect, eternal God Numbers 15:32-35 'we read a startling story about a man who gathered some sticks on the Sabbath Day. God had forbidden the Jews under Mosaic Law from working on Saturdays (i.e., the seventh day of the week, their Sabbath). They weren't even allowed to light a fire. No doubt this man was gathering sticks for fire wood. No work was allowed on the Sabbath Day. NOTHING could be done on the Sabbath that involved work and there's very good reason why, which I'll explain in a moment. But first, here's the story of a man who was sentenced to death by God for picking up sticks... What was the Sabbath Day? The Sabbath was a ceremonial law given only to Old Testament Jews living in Palestine. Ceremonial laws pictured divine truths. Some were shadows of things to come. Colossians 2:14-17 teaches that the ceremonial laws ceased at Calvary when Jesus died on the cross. God had commanded the Jews to work 6-days, but on the Sabbath they were to rest completely. COMPLETELY!!! The 6-days of man working represents human effort in salvation. No amount of human effort can save. The Sabbath is our precious Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom we rest completely for salvation. The Sabbath was a shadow of the coming Messiah, “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). God is telling us through the death of this man that adding even the smallest amount of human effort will send us to Hell forever.''

As so many have said, Christians like Turek just help anyone with a shred of decency to leave the faith. He HELPS people deconstruct.

@namelastname8393

2 ай бұрын

Turek is basically saying that the reason why Israel laws allowed stoning children was because it was directly governed by God. Now that countries are governed by humans, this form of punishment is no longer acceptable. How does this not imply that humans are morally better than God? I wonder if he is an atheist disguised as a Christian apologist whose goal is to drive people away from faith.

@DoloresLehmann

Ай бұрын

@@namelastname8393 Now that's a solid hypothesis! Never seen it that way, but it actually makes a lot of sense.

Man... I'm so glad you're back making videos Randal! The game needs you. 🏀 lol If we can get one of your followers to get you a SM-7B and a lil sony mirrorless camera and a colored light for the background; I'll be extremely happy. We need a conversation between you and "The New Evangelicals" channel or even better "Deconstruction Zone"

First of all, it doesn't mean what it says... can't get more Frank than that.😂

Followed you since your debate with alex. Appreciated this

So you're saying God never commands the stoning of people?

@AaronGardner98

2 ай бұрын

Yes.

@Tim.Foster123

2 ай бұрын

​@@AaronGardner98 Let me guess... And God never sent a flood to drown anyone anywhere, God never called down fire and brimstone on anyone; God never sent Ten Plagues to destroy a bunch of animals and people; God never set the Red Sea on soldiers; etc, etc Is there a hell, I wonder? Jesus said a bunch of people deserved to go there.

@christianuniversalist

2 ай бұрын

“Is there a hell, I wonder?” Nope. Not in the way you’ve probably understood it, at least.

@AaronGardner98

2 ай бұрын

@@Tim.Foster123 by “hell”, you mean Gehenna, right? I have friends who have visited there in recent years, and they say it is absolutely lovely.

@xaelath7771

2 ай бұрын

@@AaronGardner98 So what do you call the lake of fire in Revelation 20? The place were Satan, the beast, and all who's names are not written in book of life will be cast, where their is weeping, and gnashing of teeth? What exactly is it that Jesus came to save us from?

Boils down to what you choose to believe.

@aubreyleonae4108

2 ай бұрын

How does one "choose" belief ?

@bohem5568

2 ай бұрын

@@aubreyleonae4108 By trusting the information you've attained and/or your own reasoning and believing it.

@Tim.Foster123

2 ай бұрын

@@aubreyleonae4108 Search for truth. When you find it, hold on to it even if it's unpleasant or unpopular. (Finding truth is the tricky part. Schools don't teach logic anymore. Consequently, there's more flat-earthers now than there were 50 years ago: people get on TikTok and don't know how to think critically and logically. So they believe all kinds of foul crap.)

@w0rmblood323

2 ай бұрын

You have forgotten to consider the opposite proposition, sure, if we take your response that's fine, but let's consider that from the other side; If one chooses their belief then the validity/truth of that belief becomes irrelevant, because you could choose to believe anything, for any reason, including things known to be false. I can choose to believe the earth is flat, even though it's not, I can choose to believe black people are inferior to white people, I can choose to believe having sex with children is OK, I can choose to believe the holocaust was was a good thing, etc If you want to believe as many true things as possible, and care about whether the things you believe are true then choice should not be a factor in your reasoning, introducing personal biases and preference (choice) opens you to all sorts of problems. The argument, it's structure, soundness and validity, true premises leading to true conclusions stand on their own merits, my accepting of something true has no baring on that thing being true.

@Tim.Foster123

2 ай бұрын

@@w0rmblood323 The choice part is choosing to ignore your feelings and preferences, and go with what is true.

It's ironic that you end your video saying Frank has not answered the objection, because you never even attempt to answer it? Am I missing something, aren't you a Christian Apologist?

@itsyaboidaniel2919

2 ай бұрын

You should've paid closer attention, Randal says God simply didn't command such a thing.

@johnroemeeks_apologetics

2 ай бұрын

@@itsyaboidaniel2919 So he doesn't believe the Bible?

@itsyaboidaniel2919

2 ай бұрын

@@johnroemeeks_apologetics I think that's a leap. I could be mistaken, but that appeared to be human law rather than Godly law. Although I'd say he doesn't have to think every single thing about the Bible is true, especially since war propaganda would be a thing, while still thinking the Bible is true overall, most importantly with the sacrifice of Jesus. But I don't want to speak too much for Randal, since I am unfortunately not a Randal Rauser expert, I've merely seen a few videos of his.

@johnroemeeks_apologetics

2 ай бұрын

@itsyaboidaniel2919 ‭Deuteronomy 21:18-21 NIV‬ [18] If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, [19] his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. [20] They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” [21] Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. God clearly commanded to stone disobedient children. I think it's dishonest to try to get around that. With that being said I do think it is justified. First of all, I know God’s character. He is love, he has immeasurable compassion, grace, mercy, and kindness. So if God commands something he has very good reasons for doing so. Second, those laws were for a certain people at a certain time in history, the Israelites. They were to be a holy people and the Messiah was to come through them. God was constantly trying to keep them pure, from idolatry through other nations and corruption from within them. Third, Notice in the passage it says the child will not obey and will not listen when they discipline him. So it's not as if they just talk back to their parents and then you kill them, it's saying over a long period of time the child is incorrigible, he will not obey nor respect his parents, he is not open to correction and discipline. Fourth, Notice the passage says he is a glutton and a drunkard. So not only is the child just incorrigible, but he is also a glutton and a drunkard. It may seem harsh in our modern culture because we have a sinful culture that accepts wickedness, like homosexuality, transgenderism, and the murder of children (abortion), but in those days especially for God's chosen people who was to be holy and bring the Savior for the rest of mankind, God was just. Could you imagine all of Israel falling into complete corruption and Mary (Jesus' mother) becoming a temple prostitute following pagan gods? God's laws were to Israel and to pave the way for Jesus to bring salvation to mankind, past, present, and future. Dishonoring and disobedience to your parents is evil. Being a glutton and drunkard is evil. God was just! I think it's dishonest to try to say that God didn't command that. It's much more honest to give reasons why God was just! ‭Proverbs 4:13-27 NIV‬ [13] Hold on to instruction, do not let it go; guard it well, for it is your life. [14] Do not set foot on the path of the wicked or walk in the way of evildoers. [15] Avoid it, do not travel on it; turn from it and go on your way. [16] For they cannot rest until they do evil; they are robbed of sleep till they make someone stumble. [17] They eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence. [18] The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day. [19] But the way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know what makes them stumble. [20] My son, pay attention to what I say; turn your ear to my words. [21] Do not let them out of your sight, keep them within your heart; [22] for they are life to those who find them and health to one’s whole body. [23] Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it. [24] Keep your mouth free of perversity; keep corrupt talk far from your lips. [25] Let your eyes look straight ahead; fix your gaze directly before you. [26] Give careful thought to the paths for your feet and be steadfast in all your ways. [27] Do not turn to the right or the left; keep your foot from evil. ‭Galatians 5:9 NIV‬ [9] “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” ‭1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 NIV‬ [19] Do not quench the Spirit. [20] Do not treat prophecies with contempt [21] but test them all; hold on to what is good, [22] reject every kind of evil. ‭Psalms 1:1-6 NIV‬ [1] Blessed is the one who does not walk in step with the wicked or stand in the way that sinners take or sit in the company of mockers, [2] but whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who meditates on his law day and night. [3] That person is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither- whatever they do prospers. [4] Not so the wicked! They are like chaff that the wind blows away. [5] Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. [6] For the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.

Turek debates like a video game NPC, picking from a set of pre-determined responses. One of the most obnoxious apologists, because he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

@kamilgregor

2 ай бұрын

Turek genuinely makes me consider that some people might not have qualia

The specific scriptural reference in Deuteronomy 21 is this (KJV) : 18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: 19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; 20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, *and a drunkard* . 21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. I've highlighted "and a drunkard" from verse 20. This does not appear to mean the discipline of *children* ; your repeated emotionalizing the passage is worse than anything Turek gets wrong. I agree that Turek's answer here seems weak. What would have been a better response?

@jenniferhunter4074

2 ай бұрын

As an atheist, this is how I would respond. It is a "law" that is the equivalent of "If you don't do x, Santa won't give you a present". It's used as a deterrence so that young men will be less rebellious. We do this with our laws as well. For example, our murder laws are meant to deter as much as used as a category for crime. I mean, imagine your boss does something and you're angry. yeah...that law is meant to deter enough so that murders don't happen discriminately. Of course, the problem is that this law is claimed to be temporary or whatever and then, the conservative Christian will bang that bible while decrying LGBTQ+ people because their god's word is eternal or something. They're too sick to see the inconsistency in their delusion. (no offense but my personal belief is that religiosity of this sort is a form of illness. Mentally healthy people would have verified the claims and seen that LGBTQ+ people aren't hurting anybody and golden rule applies. What is it to me to freak out over some stranger's private life? No harm has occurred.)

Turek confirmed morality is relative without realizing it. But the 10 commandments are perfect for all time, really? "You shall not covet your neighbour's slave". Oops...

@johnelliott5859

Ай бұрын

When you end up arguing that god has a moral reason for it, then things like slavery, genocide, misogyny and child sacrifice end up being moral acts when god does or allows them, even though a rational person would call each of those things universally immoral. It can't get more relative than that - it's moral if god does it.

Did holy God command children to be stoned to death, or was it evil man? so where is a child stoned ---- and more - stoned to death or even expelled from the camp, in the whole of the Bible? What is his / her name? If it actually - among Jews or Christians - happened at least provide the factual evidence

Once again, Randal Rauser being my favorite Christian apologist of all time, because he has what's known as basic moral sensibilities. It's a shame that Frank Turek's response to hard questions is reframing it as much as possible, rather than answering directly. And to dismiss a fellow Christian like that for asking a question is very disingenuous.

The problem is in assuming our current moral standards are superior just because they are current. We don't like God's justice, therefore God is "evil". Maybe disobeying your parents to the point that they themselves (along with all the Elders) want to have you executed rather than allow your rebellion to continue is itself a greater crime? We are incredibly rich today, to the point that even the poorest in our soceities have no fear of starving to death over winter - that was not the case when God gave Israel these laws. Rebellious sons who eat all the grain and get drunk instead of helping to get in the harvest could easily get the whole family killed. And a child who rebels against earthly parents isn't likely to obey his heavenly Father either - think what terrible sins the Canaanites were commiting, sacrificing their children to demons, having sex with animals, rape and all kinds of violence. God, in his infinite wisdom, knew that worse things would occur if justice were not strict. Assuming we know better is anachronistic and it is presumptious.

@johnelliott5859

Ай бұрын

God delayed his "justice " on the Canaanites till it was evil enough. He let more children be sacrificed. Then at the time of his choosing he had all the children killed. How any of that can be considered moral is beyond reason. Only one with blind faith could accept the stoning of one's own child as a moral justice. The god of the bible is not a source of absolute universal morals. He condones slavery, commands and commits genocide, promotes misogyny and accepts child sacrifice. Doesn't seem like a deity worthy of worship.

Turek is defending the (misunderstanding) of the letter of the Scriptures over the revelation of the actual nature of the Spirit through Christ.

It's important to point out - granted I imagine you won't care - that it also states "He is a glutton and a drunkard", regarding the rebellious son. This is not a small child that we are talking about. Granted it certainly makes it a lot more emotional if you imagine this is just a small 6 year old child we are talking about. Frank also brings up a valid point about the volatile culture and dangerous times of that era. Of course it seems cruel when you project our incredibly safe, well regulated, and cushy modern western societies onto it. The story of the rebellious son is a cultural law meant for the Israelites of that specific time. It's like the old saying "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel". In dangerous and volatile times, you should never underestimate the negative influence and impact that allowing dangerous and evil behavior can have on a wider population. These were not times where you could just call the cops when criminal activity is happening or simply go to the supermarket if you are feeling hungry. Everyone needs to be productive, or at least not encourage others to be unproductive.

@AaronGardner98

2 ай бұрын

Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a drunkard, too. Food for thought.

@calebp6114

2 ай бұрын

Very good point Aaron!

@dillydally19

2 ай бұрын

You make a very good point about the times. Easy for us to judge today in our cushy lifestyles. Also children does not necessarily mean young. I have a 36 year old child.

It is always good to be reminded of the fact that most Christians are sensible decent people wo do not seek to make excuses for the worst parts of the Bible. That they can talk about it without the Evangelical nonsense

"Why did God make immoral commandments?" Turek: "They lived in a theocracy, so people would not have accepted the commandments if they didn't already agree with them" So he himself admits that "theocracy" doesn't mean "do what your God wants", but instead, "do what the men want who say they speak for God". The cognitive dissonance is astonishing.

"Here its important we have a clear grasp of what we're talking about." True. 1. You can't assume that God does not exist in calculating the correct motal judgment. If heaven exists and God wants perfect justice there could be situations in which the most perfect choice is to send someone to his presence and not to keep them killing the society he created. 2. Why are you all using the word child? isn't that misleading? didn't that culture use this word for young people up to age 25 or more. the teaching didn't say to stone young children for misbehavior. it was speaking of those who were without help 3 if God really exists then he was there talking in their midst so this moral idea wouldnt slide easily into another place void of his presence 4 this never actually happened in their culture as far as I'm aware. let's not act like his perfect justice led to heinous crimes. as donald yrump said other countries have less drug crime because they have capital pinishment whether you agree with God's existence or not i don't think you get it

Genuine humble question. Would a better answer be "The point was to show that a better way is needed". Jesus showed that way.

@skippy675

2 ай бұрын

Nope! God very, very intentionally engineered the exact circumstances that arose. God created Lucifer knowing exactly well what he would become in Satan. God faces zero temptation himself, yet jumps all over people for failure to deal with it. Jesus solves nothing. All murderers, rapists, theives, liars are still at large. None have been punished by God with Jesus. Only innocence was punished in the person of Jesus.

@christianuniversalist

2 ай бұрын

Satan is not, and has never been Lucifer. That is a myth perpetrated amongst Biblically illiterate Christians.

@mastergunzz

2 ай бұрын

A better answer would be is that the law was intended for the Hebrews only.

Is just telling you what was going on back in the Old Testament- God was not approving that type of behavior ok

I've seen Frank debate before. He's insufferable.

frank also believes that the world is billions of years old, so......

@asphalthedgehog6580

2 ай бұрын

Isn't it?

Frank Turek just sounds ridiculous. When asked a simple question he puts together a word salad and gets aggressive because his way of thinking has no good justification.

Your wrong…

No one was a victim to these harsh laws. They were meant as deterrents for a particular society, and it worked. So no one was harmed. God knew he would later change the law with a new covenant for all. That's what we need to focus on, not laws given to a very primitive society, who had primitive customs themselves to begin with.

I think this shows another problem with apologetics as Frank does it. He brutally undercuts the premises of other apologetics that he uses. In this case, the moral argument for God. The moral argument for God is based on Christian morality being 'objective', and thus superior to any non-theistic morality. When asked to provide an answer about why non-objective morality fails, the standard response is cultural relativism. Different cultures believe different things are right, and without grounding our morality in the unchanging nature and commands of God we are unable to say that our culture's perception of morality is superior. If stoning children to death is wrong in our culture, but it was morally acceptable in ancient Israel, then Christian morality (according to Frank) is culturally relative and not objective. There goes the moral argument. He also demonstrates how his subjective Christian morality is inferior to most atheistic moralities. An atheist may (according to him) be unable to prove that a culture that stones it's children to death is morally wrong to do so. That's still better than the Christian position (according to him) that a culture that stones it's children to death is morally right to do so.

This guy is an insufferable liar. Over & over the OT says that the laws are forever. Exodus 30 Leviticus 17 Reading what the actual "new covenant" and what it actually will be it says it will be written on their hearts that they will DO IT. Jeremiah 31. This kid doesnt know his bible & Frank knows this & is taking advantage of it.

@byrondickens

2 ай бұрын

And what people was the law of Moses given to, pray tell?

It’s dishonoring to God to argue that God said to stone children

I agree witj Seth Andrew religion makes me talk like an idiot. The problem is that frank (a doctor in bs), doesn't even realize that it's stupid to defend christianity.

So Frank wants “proof of God’s existence “? This religious stuff is popcorn worthy!

Honestly, I no longer have faith in the Christian God. For me, he behaves like a tyrant, thirsty for blood. It is impossible to reconcile a tyrant God with the attributes of love and benevolence.

Frank is as much wrong as you and most commenters are. Never heard of the Talmud did we? It seems like every person think they can go to religious discussion without studying it first.