1 Atheist vs. 20 Christian Women | The Bridge

Because suffering exists, an all good, all powerful, all- knowing deity cannot exist.

From your world view, where do we get our sense of morality from?

I actually don't think it has anything to do with morality. Suffering is a conscious experience that can evolutionarily be explained.

Christianity has the answer to why we suffer. And it is because anything evil that goes against God's holy nature is horrific. It's what we see here on earth. is blatant evil.

The concept of the Christian hell is both illogical and immoral.

So if you sin against an eternal God, I do think it naturally follows that there are eternal consequences associated with that.

I think it is immoral for a creator being to set up a system in which people would end up suffering forever. The three moons on your necklace, they symbol symbolize the divine feminine, a triple deity.

Thank you. Christianity has done more harm globally than good. You have to go out of your way to completely dismiss the good. If it wasn't for Christianity, my ancestors would still have been enslaved.

This would imply this would imply necessarily. No, necessarily. This implies that moral systems with strong claims are doing some sort of harm because they're making a moral system.

The existence of the natural world does not imply a creator made it.

But what about consciousness and like our conscience and morality? To me, there has to be some sort of basis for that. Everything follows cause and effect, right? So, it poses the question, why is there anything at all? If you're going to apply cause and effect to something outside of this universe, then you would have to keep going and say that someone designed the designer. Christianity is inherently patriarchal and therefore harmful to women.

The world is inherently patriarchal. without the Bible, without Christianity even being um established,

polytheistic religions were less rigid in gender roles. And so that lack of rigidity allowed for more freedom of different genders being able to do different things. All right, Casey, that was great. That was a really exciting conversation. Now, you're going to have the opportunity to choose one of the ladies that you would like to speak with oneonone.

Hello everyone. Welcome to the Dr. Dav Show. I'm your host Dr. Michelle Da and today we're having a conversation with one atheist and 20 Christians. I'm here today with Casey and she created her own prompts. So Casey, let us know what your first prompt is.

Because suffering exists, an all good, all powerful, all knowing deity cannot exist. Hi, I'm Casey.

Hi, I'm Alexis. I'm Nikia. Emily, I'm Maya.

Okay. Because suffering exists, an all good, all powerful, all knowing deity cannot exist. So to just break down each component of that, I see four premises and a conclusion. And all good means in this case I think in Christian in my understanding of Christian theology that is synonymous with all loving. So we can kind of interchange that if that's if you're comfortable with that. But wanting the best for all and wanting to minimize or erase suffering in the case of God. All powerful being able to do literally anything. No ca no no um maximum. All knowing knowing everything that has ever happened. knowing everything that's going to happen, knowing everything at once. Suffering is the the conscious experience of pain or something that we don't want to happen. And because those first three, my statement is that those first three do not allow for logically the the fourth one to exist, the suffering.

Okay. So, because this question deals with morality, from your world view, where do we get our sense of morality from?

I actually don't think it has anything to do with morality. We can talk about that, but suffering is a conscious experience. Um, that we that can evolutionarily be explained away by not wanting the opposite of suffering would being wanting to um experience the the experiences that would lead to the reproduction essentially. So evolution can explain suffering by saying this, you know, if we're harming each other, if we're not in communion with each other, if we're um hurting the youth, right? That lead that that causes suffering, but it can be explained by it doesn't further life. I don't think this is specifically a question of morality. So yeah.

So then wouldn't it be true that the definition of suffering would be able to change based on your personal preference, based on what society deems as either good or bad? Where do we get this this law, this standard that's innately in us? That's more so my question.

Sure. I do think that it that taps into something really important because whenever we talk about suffering, it's very very personal to people and that's not something that I feel comfortable speaking to for everyone. I'm 99, you know, I'm agnostic, so I don't know anything for certain. I'm 99% certain that people whatever they consider suffering, they don't enjoy it, but you know, there's the 1% odd ends here and there who might, who knows? Um, so I think you're right that it is very personal and important.

I think your claim presupposes two things. Um, first I think it presupposes that suffering is objectively wrong, which I don't really understand from the atheistic viewpoint, but I also think it presupposes that the existence of suffering being A and the existence of the attributes of God being B are contradictory and they're not because A can exist and B can exist and they're also not contradictory because a characteristic of God is suffering. He not only explains why we have suffering because of sin in Genesis, but he also explains um how to deal with suffering, why there is suffering and he embodies suffering. When Christ came to earth, he took on the most severe form of suffering that any of us could ever comprehend. I mean, not only living his life free of sin when sin was all around him. So being involved in his creation dayto-day that was a form of internal suffering that he had to deal with. Um, a grieving of his heart and then you see the suffering of his crucifixion. Um, he was beaten, mocked, beard hair ripped out. But I think we also don't even understand the complexity of that beating of that crucifixion. He was flogged with a whip that had pieces of glass on the end of it among other sharp things. and his flesh was ripped open, nervous system exposed. I mean, medical examiners have done extensive research on this, on the crucifixion, what it would have caused. Flesh, you know, out, nervous system out, bones exposed, bones broken, carrying a 300 lb cross over a mile up to where he was crucified, and then the nails, not small nails, but nails, probably railroad size, into his hands and his feet. And he did that out of love. So I think that if you look to the Bible and you look to God, I don't think that suffering is something that he deems as contradictory to himself and his existence.

Okay, a few things here. So at the beginning, I gave a very brief synopsis of what I was working with as far as all goodall loving, which is to erase as much suffering as possible. And you do have to put all three of the characteristics of God according to the Christian definition of God, which is all good, all powerful, all knowing. So, not just able to, but wants to. That does contradict with suffering existing. Um, the other thing about Jesus's crucifixion, um, whether or not that happened isn't really part of the prompt. I will say that this is a case of I'm not going to be the one to compare the suffering of anyone to the people who are suffering right here, right now, who are more innocent than an an adult man, who are children going through extremely excruciating circumstances. The kind of comparison of suffering I do I am going to push back on for the sake of people in this world right now who are going through real suffering.

I think that's a good point, but I would argue that children are not more innocent than Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is

I would disagree with that strongly. Well, we're all sinners, you know. You don't have Well, you don't have to teach a child how to do wrong. You have to teach a child to do what is right from the get-go. Don't hit, don't lie, because it's innately in them to do those things.

I don't think that means that they're deserving of suffering. And I deserving and again, I will I will not back down on children being more innocent than any adult, period.

I love these points that you're making. I think this is such a big deal because many people feel this way, Christians and non-Christians. And I think there's two things really happening here. We're talking about we're talking about suffering in general. I love the point that she made and that it is a part of the human experience, a part of what we find in the scriptures and there's actually an encouragement of valuing that suffering and as as opposed to, you know, it's not good. I'm suffering. I must be far from God. It's actually the opposite where we are to value suffering so that it can produce things like character, hope, perseverance. So there's that one side. I think that the Bible shows that it's valuable to value suffering. I think the other side is the repercussions of free will. I think God being all loving, all good, he created his children and he gives us that free will to decide. So yes, if and because he's not going to control us all and make us machines, he is going to allow us to build our life. And un fortunately and unfortunately, you have the bad and the good that comes with it. So it does show him as a good and loving and if he says he gives us free will, he's going to follow through with that. And I think that also shows his love for his people that he trusts us for the better and the worst of that. And yes, there's so much suffering and there's so much injustice. I don't believe that it's God that it's proof that God doesn't exist. I believe that it's proof that God is all loving and he is allowing uh leadership in within his people. And so we're seeing that play out. I would say it's more dangerous to not have God have the God of the Bible because you you know if someone says I actually believe that it's good to harm children and that's their belief and they have no basis or they have no foundation. I think that's where it can get really murky. But I think it's two separate things and I think there is a value to suffering. So that I believe that and what I see in the scriptures is it leads us to God. It leads us to look up. It leads us to go why why is this happening? And I think instead of trying to prove that they're more than likely it he doesn't exist. I think instead it makes us it should hopefully make us to want to experience this true God that is all loving that is all good. I think that's where the direction should actually go.

So yeah. So you brought up a lot of interesting points. Free will is really interesting. So we can get back to that.

Um, but the the value of suffering is tricky. I think we need to be really careful when we say when we make assertions that there should be value in suffering. I don't know if that's appropriate to tell people who are suffering.

Um Victor Frankle comes to mind who was a survivor of the Holocaust. He wrote an entire book and developed logootherapy which is the process of finding meaning in suffering. There is a there is that possibility. I do think that can be really powerful because you're right that suffering exists and I think it can be really transformative and important whenever we all go through that journey of how can I take this harm this suffering and transmute it into something better for the collective. I think that's one of the most beautiful parts of the human experience. I'm literally getting chills right now. the the the concern I have is that the message of saying you should value your suffering not by you certainly not by you has been manipulated so intensely to keep people complacent compliant and controlled so I just wanted to bring that up for anyone watching that who is going through suffering there could be a light at the end of the t tunnel that does not I do I don't I don't find it appropriate to say that but your suffering is good it can be if they want it to be going back to um you were kind of talking about whether or not I think a deity exists. I don't think that's really part of what I was saying with the prompt. I was saying that maybe it's better to say if a creator being exists, we already talked about all of that earlier, but if one exists, all good, all powerful, and all knowing does not make sense with so much suffering. I think we're kind of brushing over the all powerful part because I think there are ways if free will exists for it's it's it's almost like inappropriate to suggest that an all powerful being couldn't possibly design a life and a universe where the suffering is at the without the scale of suffering that we see. I mean some of this stuff if is just asinine and un unnecessary. There's no reason for animals to suffer. There's no reason for children to suffer. They're not learning from their mistakes. They're children. Animals aren't learning from their stakes. Their mistakes even from my understanding of the Christian worldview. Animals don't have souls. So where's the redemption there? And I understand the fallen world argument. Um, but going back to the prompt, I still don't think that those three characteristics of a deity make sense with the scope and scale of suffering that we see.

Yes. Um, thank you so much for choosing this prompt. Um, I relate to it very personally. Growing up in very dysfunctional home, being a black woman and being in healthc care provider, I see suffering throughout my life. Um, I do not under it. It seems like there is a gap between suffering and saying that these characteristics can't be true for God. And I say that because when God created earth, when he created the universe, he created it good. Everything was going according to his plan. And he did give us free will. He is a just God, an all powerful God, allloving God. However, because of our free will, we did make a choice. Adam and Eve did. And that not only affected humans but creation in and of itself. So there we invited dysfunction in in that way. And then suffering is very very personal like you said. I just do not want to understate that. And we have books like Job where he's suffering because Satan wanted to prove a point that the only reason why Job loved God was because good things were happening to him. And we see that Job still loved God even when he was suffering so much. He lost everything. And it's not an award for him to get double what he got back. But I think we need to realize the point where God actually he didn't answer his question directly about why he was suffering. He actually asked he just start telling him about the universe. He's like, "I can see everything. You're not going to understand everything. That does not mean suffering is good, but I see everything and that I know I can restore everything. And despite what you're going through, I know that you're not suffering because you're a bad person." He even rebuked uh Job's friends for saying it was as a consequence of something he did. Sometimes suffering happens because there's dysfunction entered into the world because of sin. It's not always a cause and effect. like you did something wrong, now you're going to suffer. And then we have books like Ecclesiastes that specifically say it is not fair. I've done everything right and I'm still suffering. There's people out there doing things that are bad and they get good things. So what what you know like why does this make sense? Again, it's because there's dysfunction in this world and we still have people making choices out there. Um, so this started in the beginning and it isn't going to be perfect all the way through and that does not say that God isn't good. God isn't all powerful. It means he's just things will work out not all the time, not the way we think it, but there is dysfunction that we cannot control. And the although he's all powerful, he's not going to take away our um free will. And he's going to let things play out the way they are. And there's going to be consequences, good or bad for our choices um personally and for others. And it reflects not only in our time, but throughout time. And then we have Psalms where we have David and other people just crying out to God. So those laments, it's not is saying that God doesn't ignore suffering. He not saying necessarily that it's good. He acknowledges it. He honors us and that he he lets us know that he's present. And um my whole point of all of this is that his characteristics are real despite there being bad things in this world. And I feel like there is a missing piece as to first of all why we think suffering is bad. There has to be morality behind that. It's some objective truth that we think it's bad. Otherwise, why are we even talking about it? If suffering is something that's just not physiological, just not um um neurological as in us experiencing pain. It's there for a reason. And that's why I find Christianity Christianity so compelling is that it explains why it's here. it gives us hope to stop it for ourselves and for others around us and that there's redemption coming in the future.

Yes. Um, thank you so much for choosing this prompt. Um, I relate to it very personally. Growing up in very dysfunctional home, being a black woman and being in healthc care provider, I see suffering throughout my life. Um, I do not under it. It seems like there is a gap between suffering and saying that these characteristics can't be true for God. And I say that because when God created earth, when he created the universe, he created it good. Everything was going according to his plan. And he did give us free will. He is a just God, an all powerful God, allloving God. However, because of our free will, we did make a choice. Adam and Eve did. And that not only affected humans but creation in and of itself. So there we invited dysfunction in in that way. And then suffering is very very personal like you said. I just do not want to understate that. And we have books like Job where he's suffering because Satan wanted to prove a point that the only reason why Job loved God was because good things were happening to him. And we see that Job still loved God even when he was suffering so much. He lost everything. And it's not an award for him to get double what he got back. But I think we need to realize the point where God actually he didn't answer his question directly about why he was suffering. He actually asked he just start telling him about the universe. He's like, "I can see everything. You're not going to understand everything. That does not mean suffering is good, but I see everything and that I know I can restore everything. And despite what you're going through, I know that you're not suffering because you're a bad person." He even rebuked uh Job's friends for saying it was as a consequence of something he did. Sometimes suffering happens because there's dysfunction entered into the world because of sin. It's not always a cause and effect. like you did something wrong, now you're going to suffer. And then we have books like Ecclesiastes that specifically say it is not fair. I've done everything right and I'm still suffering. There's people out there doing things that are bad and they get good things. So what what you know like why does this make sense? Again, it's because there's dysfunction in this world and we still have people making choices out there. Um, so this started in the beginning and it isn't going to be perfect all the way through and that does not say that God isn't good. God isn't all powerful. It means he's just things will work out not all the time, not the way we think it, but there is dysfunction that we cannot control. And the although he's all powerful, he's not going to take away our um free will. And he's going to let things play out the way they are. And there's going to be consequences, good or bad for our choices um personally and for others. And it reflects not only in our time, but throughout time. And then we have Psalms where we have David and other people just crying out to God. So those laments, it's not is saying that God doesn't ignore suffering. He not saying necessarily that it's good. He acknowledges it. He honors us and that he he lets us know that he's present. And um my whole point of all of this is that his characteristics are real despite there being bad things in this world. And I feel like there is a missing piece as to first of all why we think suffering is bad. There has to be morality behind that. It's some objective truth that we think it's bad. Otherwise, why are we even talking about it? If suffering is something that's just not physiological, just not um um neurological as in us experiencing pain. It's there for a reason. And that's why I find Christianity Christianity so compelling is that it explains why it's here. it gives us hope to stop it for ourselves and for others around us and that there's redemption coming in the future.

I think to that I would say a few things here. Um, if if the tradeoff according to this argument for free will which is the only reason I've heard that God has this all powerful all knowing um all good creator being not just allows but because is all powerful brought into existence our suffering doesn't just allow brought into existence the entirety of this universe which includes suffering um and perpetuates it continuously. I would like to just go on record and say you can have my free will. I do not consider that to be a sufficient tradeoff. I don't necessarily think that that's the case. I'm just saying if that were the case, you can have my free will. I would rather be a robot than watch the atrocities that are having happening. Um, that's a personal take. Again, we're all kind of bringing our personal takes into this. Um, and then the I still don't see how if we're going back to the all powerful and all- knowing aspect, how that that is yet a justification. If if you're saying there's absolutely no way, two things. If you're saying that absolutely no way that an all powerful deity could allow for free will, create us with free will to choose him or to have like a smaller scope of suffering, right? a smaller way of understanding redemption than all of this destruction, what you call dysfunction, which is I mean the the vast majority of the universe, the vast majority of life as we know it is suffering. And so I I don't know if the if the scale is really balanced there for so but don't worry, there will be redemption. I I don't see that. Um, maybe I'm missing something. Um, but then the the on the other side, I don't know if you kind of alluded to it or someone did, but us not understanding the plan doesn't really mean that there is one. So, that's kind of what I would say to that.

I would like to say that I don't think God having all of the power to destroy suffering um negates that. I think that it shows his patience because if he were to perform perfect justice for all of the people that perpetuate that suffering who commit child abuse, murder, all of that, his wrath would come and come quickly. Um, and I think that people would be uh very much um regretful of wishing that perfect justice would come. Um, and I think that with God knowing everything, him being all knowing doesn't mean causality. I could, you know, know that something is going to happen in the next 24 hours that doesn't make me the the perpetuator of that. Um, God is not the author of sin. So, anything that occurs because of sin, um, he is not to be blamed for that. I think that we can definitely question even as Christians, God, why would you allow this? You know what I mean? But it it does go back to redemption. It does go back to Jesus Christ because he wishes that none should perish but all should come to repentance and he is giving mankind time to repent and he's extending that grace and he will perform perfect justice against those things that cause suffering or people. So with you saying redemption in the cross, I want to get to that because this is the basis of suffering, we have to grasp there. I guess my question for you before I even get into this, what does what is the hope behind suffering? What is the reason for suffering from your world view?

I don't think it's appropriate for me to say why anyone else's suffering has meaning. I that's not the stance I'm taking. I can find my own meaning in my own suffering. And I do think it is possible for people to create and find and share their meaning in their own suffering. But I'm not going to make a blanket statement like that. I don't think it's appropriate. Christianity has the answer to why we suffer. And it is because anything evil that goes against God's holy nature, that is that is what evil is. Anything that goes against God's holy nature because he is holy, all knowing, all powerful, allloving. Anything that goes against him is horrific. It's what we see here on earth. It is blatant evil. But because we made that choice, humanity made that choice to go against God's nature and God's character. This is the repercussion of that. But what Christianity does is it gives us a hope. I asked you what your hope is. You have your own personal hope. Jesus offers a hope for everybody who would believe that if every that if you would just confess with your mouth and believe with your heart that he is Lord that you would not just on this earth have a band-aid on suffering but that to come there would be an earth you you think that there should be an earth with no crying no mourning no tears that is to come that is the promise of Christianity that there will be a time when there is no more mourning he will wipe every tear from our eye there is there is no more pain that we feel but I it just it boggles me You know that there's something in you that says this is wrong, that this is right. Where does that come from? Who gave you that? Do you think because we're cells and we're atoms that it's just here? No. God gave you that desire of your heart to stand up for things that are injust to be angry when you see the persecution of children. But if we are image bearsers of him, how much more does he also share that anger for our suffering? But he didn't throw up his hands and say, "Well, figure it out, humanity." He became suffering for us where there is deep um where you where you go against God and there is a there is a deep um Lord Jesus give me the word when you go against God he takes that serious because he's just and because he is just there had to be a repercussion for what humanity chose he didn't just decide to throw up his hands like I said he became both the judge and the judge in what he did on the cross. So all I can say even if you never just hear anything out, I would say look back on the cross. You studied theology, you went to school for it, but I I would almost say that sometimes our knowledge and our desire for knowledge gets in the way of what the Lord wants to do in your heart. So that is all I have to say. Look to the cross. The cross is the reason why we have redemption for the very evil that is here on the world. is very evident that you have a lot of conviction with what you're saying and that it means a lot to you and that it perhaps is transformative for you and I think that matters and I'm certainly not trying to take that away from you. I think everything you said if that means something to you that's great and I want that for you. I want your well-being. I I'm not really open or available to suggestions or any assumptions about me or what's in my heart. I don't think that's appropriate because I'm not doing that to anyone here. So going back to the prompt, not much of what you were talking about had to do with why suffering exists. Uh there areist wasn't finished. I wasn't finished. So I wasn't finished.

By our choice, that's why suffering exists.

So that is not enough for me. I don't I don't think that that's enough of an explanation for the scale of why children are going through what they're going through because someone a couple thousand years ago ate an apple.

This episode of the Dr. Dap Show is brought to you by Alloy Health. Let's be real for a second. Aging can be kind of brutal. We're talking sleepless nights, hot flashes, brain fog, weight gain, and even a drop in the libido. And the thing is, menopause is inevitable, but suffering through it, that does not have to be. What's shocking is that almost half of women wait over three years before getting any help. And honestly, it makes sense. 43% of women say their doctor never even mentioned menopause hormone therapy as an option. And another 40% didn't even know where to go for help. That's exactly why Alloy exists. Alloy helps you to feel like yourself again with expert menopause specialized physicians and safe sciencebacked treatments for symptoms as well as support for your skin, hair, weight, and sexual wellness. All delivered straight to your door. And the best part, everything is done online. So no waiting rooms, no pharmacy lines, just real care from the comfort of your home. Here's how it works. First, you complete a quick intake and verification. Then, you're matched with a menopause specialized doctor who creates a personalized treatment plan just for you. And once you're approved, your 3mon supply is shipped directly to your door with automatic refills. I have seen firsthand how tough this can be for women in my life, especially when they're not getting clear answers or support from their doctors. That's why I genuinely love what Alloy is doing. It removes so much of the confusion and makes getting help feel easy, private, and actually effective. I cannot recommend Alloy enough. Join 95% of women who tried alloy and saw relief in the first 2 weeks. Head to myalloy.com and use the code daff and tell them all about your symptoms and you'll get a fully customized treatment plan and unlimited messaging with your doctor. Plus, you will get $20 off of your first order today. Head to m y a ll y.com and use a code DAP to get $20 off of your first order.

The concept of the Christian hell is both illogical and immoral.

Hi, I'm Casey.

I'm Angie. I'm Chadil.

I'm Chinasa.

I'm Jillian.

Nice to meet you. So the concept of the Christian hell is both illogical and immoral. So two parts here illogical. I think from that I really find the idea of omniscience with God which is the Christian God is everywhere. Um, and also the Christian understanding of hell is defined as a separate well in many definitions defined as a separation from God. I don't think that that is logical. It doesn't make sense in the parameters of that logic. And then immoral. I do not see any moral justification for an eternity of of torture. Um, again, this is the widest understanding of the Christian hell. Um, we're we are totally open to talk about different iterations. There are other kinds of hell, but from the the majority of Christian the understanding of Christian hell, illogical and immoral.

A part of your argument speaks to the proportionality of punishment. And I wanted to bring you back to some real life examples of punishment that are not exactly commensurate to the proportionality of the time that it took to commit the crime. Um, I like to say that I have a prosecutorial background. I was a prosecutor for a few years. So, I understand how crimes are done and a lot of things are taken into consideration when determining that proport uh proportionality. For example, if a criminal walks into the court and they have a history of doing that same crime, we do what's called enhancing their punishment because they have a history of doing the same thing. We get to take that into context. And I think what happens is when this conversation comes up as it relates to the prop proportionality specifically, I cannot say that word today. We like to reduce crimes against God, which is what the Christian understands as sin, to these instances and these moments and these minor things. But in reality, all sin and all wrongdoing is sin against an eternal God. So if you sin against an an eternal God, I do think it naturally follows that there are eternal consequences associated with that. Even when you look at the crimes that are done against certain public figures, like as a previous prosecutor, there's a different sentencing range for harm against a prosecutor or against a judge. And it's not because they're better than anyone, but it's because of what they represent. If a judge is representing the law and enacting the law, if a crime that is done against the judge is measured out, it is a defiance against the law itself. So when you say that it is, I guess, illogical to have the punishment be eternal when we are talking about an eternal God, I think it fails to take into those those things into consideration. And I also want to say one thing that people may not always consider is the inertia of the soul. If for example someone hates God, who's to say they're going to stop hating God for eternity? The idea is that my position here on earth is only a precursor of what my position and my perspective is going to be for an eternity. And if God is a God that is loving, I think the most loving thing that he could do is to respect a person's free will. If you didn't want God in the past, why would it make sense for you to want God in the future? We have to understand that naturally we are eternal. We have an eternal soul and so we're gravitating towards eternity. It just depends on where we're going. And the things that I stated before are things that I think we have to take into consideration. So I'm not sure that the again this is kind of going into because we have free will therefore this scope and magnitude of suffering this case in the hell of in the case of hell resonates. I I'm not sure that that tracks because again this goes back to another component of the concept of the Christian hell being immoral is because I think it is immoral for a creator being to set up a system in which people would end up suffering forever after that creator being created those people. Yes, free will exists. Free will was created by God according to Christian understanding. Everyone who was going to be on these paths of eternal torture were created with the knowledge and understanding by a supposedly perfectly moral creator being. And that logic doesn't track to then therefore create them know that they would supposedly use their free will for eternal damnation. And again, I I you know, we are finite beings. Um, there is there are atrocities that are committed on this world that are felt for generations. I mean, generations upon generations of time due to one person in some cases or a multitude of people and their actions and their choices. That is certainly not to be downplayed. There is no conceptualization of an eternity of a neverending amount of time that is justifiable for even generations because it's long for us to think of generations of harm. But that is nothing. It's literally nothing nothing in the in the face of an eternity. So why would a creator being who is supposedly perfectly moral create these people knowing and creating them anyway? Not just that they were going to be damned forever. I guess we'll stick with the prompt that they'll be damned forever. I don't think that's moral for the same reason that anyone procreates. When you have a baby, you know that there's a possibility that this child could grow up to be a Hitler or they could grow up to be a Martin Luther King. But because of the outpouring of love that you have in your heart for you and possibly your spouse, you decide to procreate, make a child, essentially like God did, making us in his own image. So God does see the future. God is also loving. And because of the outpouring of love that he had, he made a decision to have creation, to have them made. And as a result of that, one thing that you I guess it's I won't say it's dismissive, but one thing that I you kind of just skirt to the side is the fact that we being created in his image necessarily means that just as he has valition, we have valition. So if God is loving and he wants to have pure love reciprocated back, it's necessarily free will is necessary to that equation. We can't just be created without any real meaningful choice. Otherwise, you claim that you want the to be a robot, but I don't believe that. You're too passionate. You're very passionate. You're very articulate. You think things through. I don't believe obviously that's a hypothetical, but I don't believe that you would be comfortable with not having a free will for the sake of not having sin or consequences or suffering like in the past prompt. So, that's to answer that specific point. I was saying that I would give up my free will for the sake of any and all of other people's suffering. It wasn't really like my personal circumstances. But again going back to the free will um I don't think that an all powerful God is completely is limited at all right conceptually. So the nature oh the parents that's what it was. So you were saying it's just like a parent having a child and not knowing if they were going to be Hitler or Martin Luther King Jr. many differences there, but probably the key one for this argument is that God would know. God would know and therefore would end up intentionally, I guess, creating Hitler. Um, so I don't agree with like that analogy. I understand your point and you know, we can have a separate conversation about justice in in general, but my question was, is there free will in heaven?

Free will in heaven.

Yeah.

I thought we were talking about hell,

right? This is related.

Yes, there's free will in heaven. But

there is free will in heaven.

Yes, there's free will everywhere

to turn away from the creator to turn away.

Okay. So, this concept of eternity and eternal bliss is not accurate according to Christian understanding. We could be you could leave heaven.

Well, yeah, you can get kicked out of heaven.

You can get kicked out of heaven. Okay. I didn't know that. I don't think that's the general understanding of the Christian heaven and hell. So, we might be having a different conversation.

I disagree with that. I would say that in heaven when you reach that place your will is surrendered and your will is united with the will of God. So there's not a need or a desire to have a will in that sense.

It's extrapolating what we have here onto onto the heavenly realm.

So we're talking about the surrender of free will.

Okay. So that that's kind of my point here. And also I would like to point out that apparently God can create a perfect utopia where people have sort of a surrender of free will which is still a choice which is technically free will. So again the logic of of a heaven and hell really does break down with that.

I do want to say um there again there are more than 45,000 different like interpretations of Christianity that exist today. So there that in that that means there are multiple uh opinions on what hell actually looks like. The Bible does describe that hell exists. Some people believe that that means that non-believers are burning up in hell for all of eternity. I don't believe that personally. Um, and in the Bible it actually doesn't really describe that. It describes that like the judgment like there is judgment. There's no denying that judgment does happen. People are judged for what they do on earth um according to like Christian faith. However, um in Revelations, it only describes that the devil um the devil, the false prophet, and uh I believe the antichrist are the ones who are thrown into the lake of fire, and they are the ones who are tormented forever and ever. Whenever it gets to the point when it talks about how the non-Christians are thrown into the lake of fire, it is the second death. It is described as like an ending. And I think mo even most atheists or agnostics today, you believe like whenever you die, what happens? It's just like everything's over.

No idea. I I don't I don't think there's sufficient evidence to make any positive claim that there is or isn't anything. I have no idea.

Okay. But in general, from what I and and I appreciate that, thank you for speaking. But um in general, I believe like the opinion is just like it's just nothing like for like in general, it's just nothing after. So whenever we get to applying like Christianity, there's the idea of like there is a resurrection for the sec for like judgment on judgment day. Everyone is resurrected. They are judged according to the law. Anyone who's not written the lamb's book of life, they are judged and then they die a second death. But that means that but it's not an eternal conscious torment, which I believe is which is what you're talking about when you say the Christian iteration of hell, eternal conscious torment. I do believe that that is actually

something not of God. I do think that that is immoral and not reflective of God's nature. I think you bring up something really interesting which is the the the fact that according to like the general apparently not yours understanding of the Christian hell going back to the prompt a little bit um is is this this concept of free will but I guess really the crux of this is can we choose our beliefs because I don't know if if free will is about making choices and making you know sinful or non- sinful choices that's one thing but the The hinging of the tra traditional understanding of the Christian hell is if you confess with your mouth and you believe in your heart that God rose Jesus from the dead Romans 10:9 or 9:10 I don't know um I don't remember but um you will be saved thank you so with that contingency there with that like understanding can we choose our beliefs like to me that is really the crux of I in that case not necessarily in your understanding of hell in that case it is immoral to set up someone who can't choose their beliefs because how does that work and then therefore is sent to an eternity of torture? Because I guess what I would ask is like do I choose personally to have like pride in my heart?

I want to go back to your prompt. Hell wasn't intended for people. It was intended for God's angels and for those that were going against him because they did have free will.

Okay, great. So, so is does is the concept of free will who go against and the angels as you said do do they have free will and if so do like I guess what I'm asking is do do angels have free will?

Yeah, angels have free will just like we have free will because we're all his creation and if you're against God if you're not for God you're against God and there is a place for you. So God created everything and everybody to follow him and to serve him. If you're not a part of that plan then there is a place for you. It wasn't intended for people, but if you want to follow that route, you can follow that route and you'll have the same ending.

So, I love where this conversation is. I do want to get back on topic, but um on the matter of heaven and legalities and the law, right? I want to ex just explain a little bit about what I believe what will what everything will look like in heaven when we die as followers of Christ Jesus. those who obey his commandments, those who walk in his ways. There is a covenant that is made. Now, a covenant is an alliance. A covenant is a treaty. It is a legal term. Okay? When we decide that we are going to obey the commandments of God, we have made a covenant. So, when we walk in that covenant, observe that covenant, and obey that covenant, we have broken the covenant that sin made that with with Adam and Eve. We have broken that covenant that Adam and Eve made with sin, with Satan. So when we go to heaven, we no longer have the sinful covenant that we had binded at the very beginning. So with that in mind, I do want to talk about the law because it is very very important to think about that when we go to heaven, right, the law will be reestablished. We will obey Sabbath. We will follow the ten commandments. This is just biblical prophecy. And it's also talked about throughout Genesis when Abraham is being promised his descendants through his seed. Now, that is a completely different topic. But when we think about the law and we think about morality, I did want to talk about your jewelry because here's the thing. Um, do you know what the sigil necklace? I believe it's for the goddess of Hecati.

So here's here's uh what I see. I um I study the occult. I do study religion. Um these are the founding principles of our world's morality. So the three moons on your necklace, they symbol symbolize the divine feminine, a triple deity.

Thank you.

Yeah. And on top of that, the pentagram represents Bamit or the bull. So you have an androgynous sigil there. Now let's talk about the formation of the law because I I do want to help you understand what it looks like on a on a term of morality. I want to help you under understand that because I know that you haven't, you know, read your Bible in a little bit. And I hope that this may, you know, make you want to do that. I just would say that if you call into question the legitimacy of hell because you feel like it's illogical, then it undermines justice in general. If you don't agree or like the concept of hell, that's the one thing. But if we were talking about cause and effect and how logic follows certain formats, then we have to consider that there are consequences to our actions. And that's essentially what hell is.

But to interrupt, I'm sorry, but like the consequences of our actions, how the Bible describes it, the wages of sin is death.

It's death. It doesn't say eternal conscious torment forever and ever. It is death. It is an ending. But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ. So I think that's something that like what she's talking about is the fact that a lot of Christians believe that there is going that there are going to be billions of humans just tormented in hell forever and ever while we are just in bliss in heaven. That's supposed to be something good and that a a good moral go like creator god would agree to. And I the key because I I think the argument is that

the the concept of justice I'm certainly not denying. I'm not an expert in justice. But I understand that there are consequences for actions. But if we take that to the step of the Christian understanding, a creator being who's supposedly perfectly moral created these people to make these terrible decisions to then end up in hell for eternity. whereas we've already established that there can be a perfectly lawful according to this logic a perfectly lawful where we have free will kind of heaven without eternal torturing to her point

well the formation of the law came from obviously the story of Moses in Exodus okay and why I found your necklace so very intriguing is because the entire foundation of God leading Moses to create literally uh become the leader of the Torah was based on genocide to an androgynous God. So when you are

You've mentioned a lot the abuse of children, and I love that you have this moral sense in yourself that you would never want to see children suffering. But what happened in Exodus? Pharaoh literally saw the Hebrews thriving. They were literally doing according to what God said to be fruitful, multiply, living in harmony, following in his ways. The new pharaoh saw that and he wanted to genocide them. So he did it in his religious way because he actually participated in water worship and not just water worship but he participated in the worship of the god Hapi which was an androgynous deity that represented not only the triple deities that we see in the Egyptian pantheon but also represented this basically blood sacrificial uh transaction between children and between also virgins etc. So Pharaoh sacrificed those children because he was religiously inclined to do so. So would you say that that Pharaoh deserves punishment, deserves justice for what he did to Hebrew baby boys who did nothing?

>> Yes, I do 100% think that justice should be served. If you're going to talk about the story in Exodus though, I would like to point out that the spirit of God, he him pronouns, came down and killed the firstborn children of all of the Egyptians as punishment. So maybe the punishment has been served there if if that god committed infanticide.

But I guess just in general what you and I agree on I or what I will say I do believe that there is judgment that God will judge all of us for our actions. However, I 100% agree with you in the fact that it does not make sense that human beings would be tortured forever and ever. In the Bible, if you actually look at the text, it doesn't actually fully support that. You have to really use your your do some deep exogetical study to understand like all the context of everything said because we're we're talking about the prompt and the prompt is you think hell is immoral and I just want to say that everyone is right. I believe that I agree with all the women, but it is not. And you said an eternal fire. That's because God is living out of time. It is eternity. So, he's creating it for what he's creating it for. He did not intend it for us. He gave us free will. He intended it for his angels and for those who went against him. So, yeah, we have free will too. So, we get the same punishment as them if we go against God. Therefore, we are separated from God. No, he is he is omn uh omnipresent. He is in hell. There's this is in scripture that God is in hell. He's present in heaven and hell. He's we're separated from him. So once we die, we go to hell and we're separated from him. It wasn't for us. So to answer your prompt, yes, it is immoral, but when we're immoral, we go into immoral things, and that's hell. Okay. Hell exists. Hell to hell exist, but humans do not burn in hell for all of eternity.

>> Well done. Well done. Christianity has done more harm globally than good.

>> Hi, I'm Casey.

>> Hi, I'm Marian.

>> Hi, I'm Shayla Perez.

>> Kyla Alicia.

Cool. Christianity has done more harm globally than good. So, I think globally in this case also includes throughout time and not just um like geographically. But my point here is that the the organization, the belief system and the entire project, the entire Christian project has led to more violence, more control, more colonialism than the benefits that the organization has offered, which I do recognize it has offered. We're just talking about a net, you know, net worth over net good. Um, so in recognizing that there are good things that Christians have done, that's different. Christian individuals I think is different in this case. We can talk about that but it is even like Christian organizations the good that they have done um does not outweigh.

I strongly disagree with that because when we look at Christian charity, what has come from not like we said individuals but what has come out of Christianity as a whole, we see the virtue of Christian charity. And I would say that some of the most good that we can measure in the world is because of hospitals, orphanages, universities, elderly care. All of that comes out of Christian charity. So I'd say that we can contribute all those institutions to the innovation that Christianity gives us in our charity work. and historians, sociologists, they'll agree that, hey, maybe I'm a secular atheist. I'm sure you said you're a deconstructionist, so I'm sure you're very aware of Bart Urman. He's a New Testament scholar who's an atheist, but he still says we have all of our values and our moral framework today because of Christian virtue. So I could I I'm not sure how you're quantifying harm over good, but I think that we can look at those institutions and say those have done probably the most good in the world for society and for individuals. And so I'm not sure how you would measure harm being greater than that.

That's tricky there because the there's a lot of different claims that you made there. One of them being that the virtues that we have come from Christian morality. And I definitely refute that. I think that the more I I think just evidenced by the fact that Christian morality has changed over time. It has

>> agree though. Would you agree that like a western liberal democracy Sarah Payne says western liberal democracies are built on uh what is it Roman bureaucracy, Greek philosophy, Christian theology. Would you deny that western liberal democracies emerge dominantly out of this theological and philosophical system?

>> I would recognize Christianity's role in it. I don't think it is because of Christianity and I also don't think that again going back to the prompt that some of these good values one we can we can debate whether or not they're inherently Christian or if they're just human and people called them Christian um but I I still don't think that the violence and the harm that has been done and h is still being done in the name of Christianity. I mean we're we're hospitals are are wonderful things. I don't think that health care is inherently Christian. So it's hard to say I'm not done. So hospitals or um other charities are always inherently Christian. They might might be funded by Christians, right? So if we're talking about Christianity as a whole there in the name of Christianity because of Christianity because of Christian supposed values of whatever time and place that we're talking about the scale of violence of death and of forced conversions and subjugation does outweigh the the few organizations that do something good in the name of

>> just yeah

>> Christian Christianity.

>> Do you think that civilization broadly has done more harm than good?

>> Oh, that's a good question. I guess yeah.

>> So, we should just go back to monkeys and trees.

>> I don't think that doing okay. Civilization doing harm more good is different is a different question from whether or not we have progressed. Um I do think we have

>> that was my question here.

>> Does Christianity do more harm than good? Well, we're talking about global systems, right? Any global system has lots of harm and has lots of good. What I would compare to but the difference between Christianity and for example atheism is that Christianity is making the point of saying this is the perfect moral belief system that is very very different than a than just the global system that happens to be capitalist and patriarchal etc.

>> Do you think all religions then are bad fundamentally?

>> Oh, that's tricky because fundamentally,

>> well, if they're in Hold on, hold on. That's tricky because there are very small like um sects of different religions that are communal and really have not have do more good than harm, but as a whole um the the the ones that we have witnessed have done more harm than good. If I can just quickly mention, okay, because I have to say I just find that entire prompt extremely illogical. I think that it is you have to go out of your way to completely dismiss the good that as she said hospitals, orphanages, missions trips that provide aid, right? We even even if you just take the Amish, hold on one moment, one moment. If you just take the Amish themselves, they build thousands of homes for people in disaster zones, right? and they are completely Christian. I understand what you're saying about suffering. I'm a black woman, right? My family, you know, my ancestors went through slavery. But when we look at the realities of what suffering is, the world is full of suffering. It's in more instances than not that Christianity actually stops certain suffering than perpetuates it. If it wasn't for Christianity, my ancestors would still have been enslaved. If it wasn't for Christianity or for white settlers bringing us over here and teaching us Christianity, I might be the descendant of someone that wants to force me into female, you know, genital, what is it called? Female circumcision, right? Or be forced to have something that's called dry sex. Look that up. That's insane. But many African cultures believe that it is um that it is sinful for a woman to be aroused. So, they literally put sand, look this up, they put sand inside of them before having sex. This is the the pagan cultures that Christianity went out and eradicated. And I will agree that it was frustratingly difficult to to accept that part of Christianity. But when you look at what they were doing, when you look at child sacrifices, when you look at human sacrifices, when we look at the Mayans and the fact that they would take entire villages, then atheism is the next best step. If paganism was bad and Christianity was better than Christianity, then atheism atheist atheists have but atheists have killed more people too, right? Look at Hitler wasn't

>> I'm not making a claim that atheism is any kind of the again going back to the difference between in this case Christianity and atheism is that atheism is not claiming to be a moral belief system that is perfect in essence. Okay, Christianity is

>> this would imply this would imply necessarily no necessarily this implies moral systems with strong claims are doing some sort of harm because they're making a moral system. I want to go back to the the orphanages and mission trips which to to be completely to to be completely realistic when we look at history they those are not you said that as if they're always good and we're not looking at the orphanages and the force conversions slash mission trips done against the indigenous population of North America. I mean the indigenous population but what were those people doing to their children? What were they doing to villages that they conquered? How I'm being serious? Can I make a a quick cuz we started with my original claim. These are Christian innovations. I'm not saying that no one ever took care of a kid in a charitable way before Christianity. I'm saying that it is because the framework that Jesus Christ set to take care of the vulnerable, the widows, the orphans. That was an inherently new value system that Christianity brought to the forefront. And that is why we now see no it is. We have histori secular historians. Have you ever read Tom Holland's book? He's a secular Greco Roman historian. He's not Christian. And he says that the values that we have that created, specifically hospitals and orphanages are coming out of a Christian moral framework that the Greco Roman world really didn't have or practice. So I'm not saying that every charity is Christian or no one could have been kind or good before Christianity. I'm just saying that the innovations we have today, we don't even realize it, but they are inherently Christian.

>> I I'd like to add something. Um, first I wanted to say thank you for like having this prompt. Um, I I actually ended up um increasing my faith more. So, thank you. Um, to add to what she was saying about uh ancient time with like Greco Roman period, children were not seen as humans until the age of three. So, people could do what they will. There was a case of like a child being buried up to his neck and was left starving for three days and they would put food in front of them just so they could take nutrients off of it to or off of it. I mean that's how they were speaking off of the child to make love potions off of it. And there was also um like infanticide was running rampant as well. And I mean the children that did get saved by by people, I mean it wasn't really save because they would just be put into slavery or prostitution and like children suffered. It's horrible like some of the stuff that I was reading and Christianity creating these orphanages provided a haven. I know that there were people that were not perfect. However, like even though like people weren't doing the appropriate things, the church was still condemning these bad actions. So, I would like to know like what are your thoughts on that?

>> A few different things here. First of all, hold on. I do think that everyday Christians all over the place, 20 of them in this room, do more good than harm. This is not a personal attack on anyone. The organization of Christian as a whole, the concept, the belief system is something that I will not back down on causing more harm than good. But I do think everyone here hold on. I'm not done. I was going to answer her thing. I just wanted to make it clear that I see you guys all as really good people. So your question of h how to square the the good that Christians have done in in the that case of the orphan orphanages absolutely celebrated 100%. I do recognize that so much good has been done in the name of Christianity. Honestly, the the argument that I can see the most here from your side is that the personal transformation that so many people claim from Christianity bringing them a sense of purpose or making meaning out of their suffering under the the mythology of Christianity. I can see that as a better argument than for the organization itself, which through colonialism, through the Inquisition, through the Crusades, I'm not done. And also in the Salem witch trials, all of that harm does outweigh the good that it's done. And in the case in the historical case of the suffragette movement um historically speaking the abolitionists were were Christian. That's correct. But they were at first the minority and the organizations that they had to fight and this is also the the case for the suffragette movement. They were there were a lot of Christians who were the suffragist. The organizations that they had to fight were Christian. So I don't think that that argument really I just want to ask our numbers just really quick. Can you give us your numbers on this suffering that you're claiming is that much less or much horrible in Christian in in Christianity? Right? Like you mentioned you mentioned the Salem witch trials that was only about 60,000 people tops that were killed, right? So when we're talking about cuz I like numbers. How many people do you think were actually killed in the name of Christianity? And then I'd like for us to come back with some numbers on things like how many babies were saved from abortion and things like that.

>> Two million. No big deal.

>> A better question. A better question, sorry. So I think a better way of wording that question because obviously it's impossible to have these type of metrics is how are you measuring this? By what scale are you saying it's done more harm than good? The reason that I chose those four institutions is because I think anyone even you know as an atheist if I say who has done the most good or what institutions have done the most good you would name some of these things which once again I believe they're Christian innovations. So, how are you quantifying, I guess, there being more harm done contributed to Christianity if we were to consider all of those uh institutions that have done good?

>> That's a fair question. I I I we're not going to get into numbers, but the numbers of death, the scale of atrocities through colonialism, through the hundreds of years of war.

>> Was colonialism all Christianity? I I'm

>> No. No. To be fair, to be fair, I knowledge colonialism predates Christianity

>> to correct, but but after Christianity really took a stronghold. Also, there are other religions that are so colonial in nature. This is kind of like what I was talking about earlier. It's like colonialism exists, patriarchy exists, but colonialism is actually inherent in the nature of Christianity, which is why I think it causes more harm than good through evidenced by the nature of evangelizing and proilitizing and going out into all of the world. I think that is a colonial concept.

>> It's not a political system though.

>> It's not a political system. You're right. But I the the the holy wars, the Crusades, the mission, the missionaries who did more harm than good. Not all mission not not all mission trips, but they they were done in the name of Christianity. And so when we're talking about the good that has been done, I I like you were saying earlier that the values that we have are Christian in nature. And I just disagree with that because those values did predate Christianity. And also people have those values while they don't call themselves Christians.

>> Once again, I would like to add a clarifier on what I mean. So once again, I'm not saying that someone couldn't have been nice or, you know, done some sort of generosity before Christianity. I'm saying the value that Jesus Christ set up that said to love your neighbor as yourself. Bartman just wrote a book on this. Like I said, secular historian. He's not he's atheistic. He actually is a deconstructed Christian as well. And he's come to the conclusion when we look at the historicity of what has come out of Christianity, he says it is a the invention of charity work outside of just your own people group that comes from Christianity because yes did uh you know Greor Roman cultures and other cultures take care of their own kind. Yes. But it is a innovation and an invention of Christianity to say what the good Samaritan uh the parable of the good Samaritan not just to care about our own people but no matter what class system, ethnicity or gender they are. We're all made in the day. That's a Christian doctrine that says we all have innate values simply because we're human. I don't think that you can find anything that teaches that pre-Christianity or that's why I believe Jesus revolutionized the world and we see these institutions because of Christianity. I think something that's interesting that's happening in your argument is you're tying Christianity to colonialism but then when we point well liberal democracy I'm curious your thoughts. Do you think that western liberal democracy is like the best system that we have arrived at as humanity so far as a political system?

>> Yeah.

>> Is there a better one?

>> No I Yeah, it is.

>> Yeah. So far I'm not saying theoretically a better version. Yeah. So it's interesting because all the sins of kind of western heedgemonic do dominance. It feels like you're very willing to tie to Christianity because you understand the importance of Christianity in western liberal democracy tradition. But then when we point to all of the good that is also built into the ideas and concepts of western liberal democracy, right? Equal before the eyes of law. This does actually come out of Christian philosophy. This is this is where it began to be born. You start seeing Greco and Roman references to these ideas as a result of Christian work. not just Jewish work, but specifically Christian work, right? And so I think we're doing this dangerous thing where we look at all of the atrocities that are legitimate. I'm not a lover of the Crusades. And I look at when institutions steal religion and use it for evil and I would say that does happen. It's why I'm very

>> I think we're we're we're we're there on that because I I think it's appropriate and thank you for bringing it up to separate some of the Christian philosophy from the organization itself. the philosophies and the values um are I would say are more good than harmful right for the most part getting somewhere

>> for the most part. But to your point, all of the organizations, all of the governments, all of the things that have been done in the name of Christianity, and I I'm I'm not really going to be available for no truth Scotsman because at the end of the day, Christianity does create a culture, I want to get you. Hold on. uh does create a culture of allowing these this violence to be adopted on behalf of Christianity. So we have to question why this belief system allows for all of this atrocity to be done in the name of Christianity.

>> In the same way that like uh democracy and liberalism is supposed to be about the equal treatment and yet liberals for almost all of American history just let black people be slaves, right? And you're like that's not liberal. That's like the opposite. I think so I get to do this cuz I'm a based liberal Christian. Okay. And I am not a fundamentalist. I'm not a fundamentalist Christian. Never have been. I look at the story of the Bible of God trying to lead people towards his moral truth and people being really miserably bad at it. Right? This is why I'm so violently and aggress not literally violently in a in a Minecraft. Okay. Um uh against the blending of church and state because what I think what often happens when institutions rob religions is that it loses the heart and soul of what the religion is, right? And so I think one of the things that's really important to do here is you kept on bringing up there's this no true Scotsman. This is not a no true Scotsman when I say when the institutions did evil it wasn't Christian because the fundamental definition of Christianity is the apostles creed right it is this idea of Virgin Mary

>> depending on who you ask

>> I there is almost no sect of Christianity that will reject the Apostles Creed including Mormons. modern Quakers might not, but they're kind of weird and then I don't know if they're I don't they might not even think that they're Christian anymore, but most would just agree to Apostles Creed, right? And so what's happening if you do no true Scotsman is if you point to the crusaders who were actually embodying the definition of Christianity and going, "Oh, well actually now defi Christianity means this new thing so that I can exclude these people." But I don't think that's what anyone's doing here. Christianity as a fundamental idea is a monotheistic religion that believes in a God that is supreme and all loving, all powerful, blah, all the alls, right? And that we as fallen humans should be as maximally in pursuit of enacting his will into this world as individuals, right? And when you see people acting from that predilction, that's where charity comes from. That is where like the Christians do the most charity. They do the more support. They do the most helping of the poor, the lonely, the homeless. Like Christians are embodying this, which is why I agree Christians have done great harm as all great civilizations have. But I do believe that Christians have done more good.

>> I think it's totally fair to again separate the the philosophy and apparently what is the ultimate understanding of Christianity as a concept from the political structures built around it in a um like intellectual conversation. But if again if we're looking at the material conditions of all of the people who called themselves Christian, I'm sorry, but they said that they were doing it in the name of Christianity, which is what I was talking about in the prompt, that resulted in more harm than good. It doesn't you just don't hear about

>> I'm I just again

>> I like numbers. We don't need to if you're going to give me a quantifiable statement, you're going to say it has done more harm, then we need to talk numbers because we cannot define what is more or less, right? So when you look at the deaths from the crusades etc. the totality of Christian related deaths it is somewhere around 8 to 10 million people ever ever as far as recorded history. When we look simply at the amount of babies that have been saved from abortion through uh Christianun clinics, it is between estimated between 10 million to 15 million and that's just in the United States since Roie Wade in the 70s. So quantifiably quantifi you you know what I'm saying? Quantifiably it is illogical to suggest that Christianity as a as an entity has done more harm than good. numerically. That is an unfair thing to say. I understand if you want to feel that way because you just don't like the institution. But we have to be fair in our judgments and when you look at the numbers, I'm just talking about abortion. If we talk about the people helped admissions trips, if we talk about the long-term results of hospitals, etc., it is absolutely false that Christianity has done more harm than good. If you're going to include the unborn in the numbers, to your point, if we're talking about numbers, then you have to include all of the unborn who were um all of the people who were not born because of the the mass atrocities in the numbers of millions, by the way, that um were killed in the name of Jesus. Um well done. Well done. The existence of the natural world does not imply a creator made it. Sorry.

>> Hi, I'm Casey.

>> I'm Kaitia Lammore.

>> I'm Aaliyah.

>> I'm Ayra.

>> I'm Tahhira.

Nice to meet you. The existence of the natural world does not imply a creator made it. So, this one is pretty sticky and it's pretty tricky, but really the meat and potatoes of what I'm talking about here is all of the observations and measurements and understandings and conscious experience of the natural world or the universe and all that is contained therein does not imply or h allow us to find any evidence of anything outside of it.

>> And just as a well, first of all, thank you for being here. I think you're doing a great job articulating yourself and being respectful. I do appreciate that. And obviously I believe in the creator of the Bible, but when you talk about a creator, are you just saying any religion, any creator? Are you mentioning the universe? Like is there any sort of like created designer? Um or is it just the Christian creator that you're mentioning when it talk when you're talking about the world and its creation?

>> So both. We don't have any awareness or ability to evidentially substantiate any designer outside of the universe. In this context, we can or not we can or not speak specifically of the Christian God, which I think is even less likely than a designer of any kind.

>> Okay. And so your worldview is evolution big bang. Like could you explain your thoughts on how the how creation came to be just so that we're clear because there's so many opinions about it. So I would like to know so we have a good basis for the conversation.

>> Sure. So I think that there are so I do I do believe in the being I do recognize the legitimacy of the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. I do think that we can study and measure and understand not just with our tools but logically speaking all the way up in our past up until t equals zero which is to say the very beginning of time in this universe we can understand all the way up until that point I'm not a physicist physicist but they're talking about soups soup of particles I don't know what that means but they're talking about it they've got that figured out um I don't think we can know what was before that. So as far as what do I believe? I don't have any stance. I don't think that it implies a creator being this could be a simulation. This could be a dream of an alien. You know, I don't I think that that certain um ideas are more likely than others. Like I it's probably not a pink unicorn. You know what I mean? So um as far as what I believe, I don't really have a belief because I don't try to have beliefs about what's outside of this universe.

>> Okay. And I would say just for me personally, um, I like bringing up the topic of apologetics because I do believe that there are people who are very well studied. I know you mentioned that some people have things figured out. I don't think anybody does. I think there's a faith aspect to any belief, even if it's atheist, because none of us were there. So, I feel like through my studying of apologetics and the archaeologists, historians, and all that, there's actually a really good documentary called Is Genesis History? That's where I learned a lot about when you're talking about carbon dating, when you're talking about evolution, and when you're talking about um the flood and sediment and just all the the age of the earth. I don't think that 5,000 years versus billions of years is a heaven or hell issue, but I do think there's a lot of things that people have studied that have drawn more evidence to a biblical creator versus um just coming out of an explosion or a big bang. And I would say um that's where I come from, but I understand um what you're saying that it's I mean it's hard to imagine even for us as Christians like there was something before nothing like there was something before this. And I think one thing personally that stands out to me outside the Bible is just consciousness like we came from an explosion or these single cells organisms and then it's like but what about conscience consciousness and like our conscience and morality to me there has to be some sort of basis for that in a creator. So that's like my personal stance of and how I feel about it. But also like I said apologetics I think is very important and I'd want to give other people a chance too. But I would also like to know from your standpoint with apologists and experts in their field, where do you think they're getting this information or do you think they're misconstring it to fit a certain belief or like what are your thoughts um on that specifically?

>> Sure. So, a couple different things there. I know that there is this assumption that atheists believe there is no God and that might be true, but the technical definition and the way that I identify as an atheist is a lack of belief in God. And that is very different because the I don't I'm not making the claim that there is nothing. I'm making the claim that because there is a universe that doesn't imply that there's something. I'm not going to be the one that to say that there for sure is either way. Right? So this is why we kind of talk about the evidence being the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. And in this case an extraordinary claim is that there is anything outside of this universe that we can't measure, we can't understand, that we can't study. So I want to give everyone else a chance to as well I guess.

>> Thank you for for that.

>> So essentially we have to pay attention to what's around us right from a practical standpoint uh we can infer or conclude that uh a book has an author or a uh let's say my shoes they have someone who created them. So on a very very practical level we can conceptualize that everything we see in the 3D realm has a designer. Um the scripture also says that in psalm that um the heavens declare the glory of God. So, you know, we can't ignore the fact that we are in a realm um and God has given us the opportunity to relate and to connect and to find meaning um of the things that are around us. Um and then how do you reconcile gravitational strength and cosmological consistency? Um, if we were to just imagine or reverse engineer everything that was created, we go back to the creation of the world. Um, how do you reconcile the scientific structure or perfection or or order that even gives us the ability to, you know, be here?

>> Mhm. Yeah, that's a good question. So going back to just because we see books have authors, watches have designers, just because we are able to create things does not imply that everything was made by a creator, it's possible, but that doesn't really imply, which going back to the prompt as far as the fine-tuning problem, why this is the this universe is perfect for our species of life, um, and the earth, all of that, the the mathematical constants. I grant you that for sure. So, this is kind of I think it's called the observer paradox, but we as this species, as humans, can only observe this one because of all of these fine-tuned constants, because of all of these very specific um physics. That does not mean that there are not other universes, the multiverse theory, that there are not other ways of life, that there are not other mathematical constants that don't exist outside of this universe. So that doesn't really again imply that a creator made this one. The existence of consciousness exists in this universe. That doesn't imply that it doesn't exist in others.

>> I think that that doesn't really point back to the prompt of like why like okay, you could say that because we have the natural world that that doesn't imply a creator and that you reject the intelligent design theory. But there's still something rather than nothing. And I think that that poses the question of God question mark. like there has to be an a reason for all of this because there's features of the universe that cannot be causly attri like attributed to anything else in the universe. So whether or not you want to deduce it to like oh it's the Christian God, the Muslim God, it's just it's a just a necessary being because everything follows cause and effect, right? Well, that's how we explain it in this world and this universe, right? So it poses the question, why is there anything at all? Like why me? Why you why trees? Why sun? Why air? That's really what the question of like what it is, you know?

>> Yeah, that that's a great question. I'm glad you brought it up. I I'm not I am comfortable with the God question mark. You know, if this is here, is there something? I'm comfortable with that question. Where we kind of crossed here is the fact that everything has a cause and effect on quantum mechanical levels. Um, there is no cause and effect. There are probabilistic laws. So the cause and effect of this happened because something else happened because something else happened that breaks down on the smallest levels at that point. It's like an 80% chance of something's going to happen. So the concept of cause and effect does break down when you get into the really small physics. Um, and so and and and again I don't think that because in this universe cause and effect is always a thing suggests that outside of this universe that is also the case.

>> I understand that. Um, I think too but God is outside of space and time and when we see the first line in Genesis where it says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth that's also now understood theologically to say as God was creating. So when you said we have to understand where t equals zero like the beginning of time. God is still constantly co-creating and sustaining this universe right now. So I think that it poses the question of like and I like how you said that it's not that you don't believe that there's like no God. There's a lack of belief in God. So I think it just poses the the question to conceive like okay it is plausible to believe that there's a god like you would you would say that right because you didn't say that you didn't believe that it was like like illogical you just said you have a lack of of belief in it

>> I think it's more likely that there is not one

>> okay and wait why would that be in considering you just considering like the creation of earth and that there is a universe like why would that be

>> why would why do I believe that or why does the universe exist No. Why would it why that that it's more plausible that there would be no God at all?

>> Good question. I don't think it is philosophically, logically, even evident evidentiarily possible to prove, understand, or see any evidence of anything outside of this universe. So, if the Christian God is outside of time and space, I don't I'm not going to put my faith into something that might be like that. That's That's just not how my brain works. I guess

>> I understand that. I think you said though, I love that you said this. You said logically, philosophically deduce. So when you're going by logic that I feel like the good logic will follow that you see that there's X kind of thing like there's humans, there's dogs and then there you keep going down that there's going to be a reason why there's a Y for each kind of cause of thing. Not saying that there's a cause. You said the cause and effect breaks down. But if you keep going down, logically you could say, well, there's there's something rather than nothing. Logically, what do I deduce from there? There's some necessary being. Even if you don't want to call it God, that would be the next step in logic.

>> So logic, traditional logic, and I'm I'm not an expert, but traditional logic only works if there are if it has a scope, which is to say parameters of its logic. So the logic of what we're talking about here within this universe there may be cause and effect all the way down infinite regress but that does not because logic has a scope that you you can't take that logic and apply it to anything outside of it.

>> There's also intuitive logic too. Um

>> that that doesn't necessarily

>> but that follows in the natural world even when we have math and computers it that is not based on classical logic it's based on intuitive logic out and there's variables outside of scope. So what I'm saying is that the creator God is outside of space and time. Even though he's outside of the scope of this material world, that does not mean that it's um implausible or illogical to believe that he exists because even in computation, we know that there's variables that are outside of scope that still affect the programming that's going on.

>> If you're going to apply cause and effect to something outside of this universe, then you would have to keep going and say that someone designed the designer.

>> I have a question. Were you deep into your Bible before you became an atheist or were you always an atheist?

>> I was very very Christian.

>> Very very Christian. Okay. Would you say your transition or where you're at right now was deduced to a lack of belief or people not actually applying what they believe?

>> I see we're venturing into the no true Scotsman territory. But I went to public university to study religious studies and try and prove the validity of the Bible. That was what I thought my mission was. And as I studied more and more, the logic and the belief broke down and I was not able to turn back and lie to myself anymore.

>> Okay. Okay. I when I hear stuff like this, I always think about what side of Christianity people were on. I think there's the full scope of Christianity and then there's disciplehip and what people actually apply and how hard they go and how they live it out. I think there's a lot of things, I don't even think there's so much throughout the whole entire Bible that speaks of the natural world and speaks of how everything is put together, even as far as what we should eat and what we shouldn't eat. And when you actually break that down on a scientific level, it actually makes sense because you have these things in the ocean that are eating other things. And if we eat it, it makes us sick. Hey, New Testament, God gave us free will and said, "Hey, you can choose now." But it's just very interesting to see how he designs and set everything up. And when you break it down and study it out, it makes sense. Half the people that have something to say about the Bible are not even people that really studied it or even fully lived it out to a certain extent or saw it through. But I also believe that yes, there's always going to be a cause and effect. There's always a reaction for every reaction due to his third law. So I'm just I don't know. I'm very curious as to why if you've read your Bible and you see all these natural things, why are you so against it? Because the reality, the study of it on a scientific level is what's already there. They're studying what's already put there, trying to figure out how it got there.

>> What do you mean against it? Against what?

>> The the um the idea that God could be the one that created all of this. Well, it was it was a slow trickle, but it started with the lack of recognition that the Bible could be perfectly divinely inspired because of the history of the text and how it's been mistransated on purpose to manipulate political agendas, all of that. So, it's it get it that's why we call deconstruction a journey, right? It ends up okay, well, if that's not true, then what about this? If that's not true, then what about this? And it got me all the way to my belief in God not really working. And to your point, we have a 100% historical record of in the past whenever we didn't understand lightning and we said, "Well, it must be God." When we didn't understand volcanoes, well, it must be God. We have a 100% record so far of everything that we attributed to gods because we didn't understand it or God of eventually scientifically explaining it.

>> Scientifically explaining how it was created or the dynamic of it and how those things happened. So my point is that just because we don't understand the initial cause of the universe. Um, this is called the god of the gaps theory, it does not mean specifically that there has to be a god. I'm just saying that up until now historically we've had a 100% track record of proving things that we didn't understand and that we called god maybe in the future that which we called god the initiate the initiation of the universe would be scientifically explained. I'm saying that based on our track record that seems likely. I disagree with that fully.

>> Okay. I was going to say too, I think what she was saying is not that um like understanding how something works isn't understanding why it's even there at all. And then to pivot back to what we last said, um I don't think that when you get back to well, you have to say that someone created the creator. God is not a creation like us. God is outside of space and time. He's not one of the things that you see inside inside the universe at all. He's completely separate and different from our understanding. So you don't have to say that God was created because he's not a being like us.

>> Right. So my totally my point was that if you're using the logic within the universe that we see that for the most part works of cause and effect there's always a designer of something if you're using that logic to something outside of the universe which is to say that because this un universe exists it must have a cause. So something outside of it created it. If you're taking that logic and transposing it to something outside of this universe, then you would also have to start proving why that cause was caused. You're taking the logic of what we see in here, trying to transpose it outside of the universe. And that's what I mean by in that case, I'm not saying at all times, but in that case, if you're using that logic, you do have to show that God was created.

>> And that's why it goes back to, I think, my previous point, um, is when we're talking about the beginning, it takes faith no matter what. Because I mean we could all agree with that and be like God was not created what like I don't think we could

>> understand that

>> in our mind like how that works but I feel like similarly with the big bang big bang what like from what like it's kind of same.

>> So so I I'm glad that you agree with that and I do feel like some some of the comments that you're making about like God question mark you can kind of see that it does seem more agnostic than atheist. Um, I could be the same thing but I am both so.

>> Oh okay. All right. Well, I from my understanding it was very very

different things, but I understand what you're saying. Now, real quickly, just definition. So, agnostic, again, this is like everyone can call themselves whatever they want. But in my case, the agnostic refers to whether or not I think we can know something and I tend to be agnostic as in I don't think we can be 100% certain about anything. Atheist is specific to the fact that I don't see the evidence for a creator being. So, those are one's about knowledge, one's about God. I think fundamentally the core difference is belief versus disbelief. Um and faith versus not having faith. Um and the Bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Um and I don't think as humans we were given the capacity to know or to see everything. Um but with faith we can um work with what we have and um it will give us a better understanding of who God is and bring us closer to him and his will. So that's what I would say.

Well done. Christianity is inherently patriarchal and therefore harmful to women. Hi, I'm Casey. I'm Winter. Desiree. Veronica. Ashley. Hello. So, Christianity is inherently patriarchal and therefore harmful to women. So, with that, there's a few different components here. I think the word inherently speaks to the foundational understanding of Christianity as a whole throughout hundreds of years. the hierarchical system of power surrounding this um create person called Jesus has established a patriarchal system of belief. And that looks hierarchical because the preachers and pastors and priests um have historically speaking all been male. And then all of the translators of the Bible have all been male. And there are certainly, you know, women in the Bible who are spoken of. But the differences between how women and men are spoken of in the Bible is inherent in a patriarchal culture. And so then the second part of the statement is harmful to women. I would probably extend that further and say harmful to all genders, both men and women on and all the others. Um but specifically harmful to women in many different ways.

So would you mind des um defining patriarchy?

Sure. So in patriarchy there is no equality of the genders. There is more power and um rights and property ownership. And really it does break down to power for men. But that in the material world looks like access to education. and here in more modern times, but also throughout history, access to employment and the really specific to Christianity is the more socially direct access to the de deity of Christianity, the Christian God, um through the male priesthood throughout the ages. And so that is specifically patriarchy in Christianity, but patriarchy is essentially global. um and speaks to the inequal power dynamics between men and women. I think I think a better way we can frame this is the world is inherently patriarchal. Without the Bible, without Christianity even being um established, pagan cultures were already patriarchal like actually more harmful to women. I would say what what would you say to that?

I would disagree. So it can be both that the world is generally patriarchal and also Christianity is inherently patriarchal. the if you're talking about pagan and more polytheistic cultures, that's actually not true that they were more harmful to women. We have a lot of anthropology and history that shows that more polytheistic religions were less religious or rigid in gender roles and so that lack of rigidity allowed for more freedom of you know different genders being able to do different things. So in more monotheistic and therefore in this this case patriarchal specifically with a male he him deity um which we can certainly talk about that uh it is Christianity is inherently patriarchal from its foundation through the manifestations over the centuries we are seeing more um more women in leadership positions uh but that is has historically not been the case and so again it can be true that the world is generally patriarchal but So is Christianity.

Would you say that before I say anything else that people are perfect?

No, I'm just I promise there's a point.

I don't think I would apply morality to humanity like that.

So I don't really know if that's a question I can answer.

Okay. No, I respect that. Um, I ask because what we see, you know, with the teachings of Jesus specifically, we see him take on a role that was not seen in the time period because I agree and especially during that time period, it was very patriarchal. Women, you know, were treated as property. They had monetary value based on their virginity, their purity if they were married. So I can definitely agree in saying that the time period was patriarchal, but I do think that Jesus in that time period introduced very progressive views for Rome. He was doing things you didn't see men doing. He was washing the feet of the apostles and treating his disciples and there to serve, which as you know, we know throughout history, that was not something that men did. That wasn't a Rome or a Greek belief to have the men serve. And there like throughout the Bible after that when we see Paul, we see Paul's description of male headship and he essentially turned it on its head for that time period because the male's role short in marriage specifically was sacrificial. It was a mutual submission of sorts. And I think that for that time period that would actually lean more towards a progressive viewpoint. And I do think that today we have a lot of people who claim the name of God, claim the name of Jesus that will manipulate these things to have power. But we see that in almost every religion.

Few different things here. First one being Jesus. I think that there can be a lot of and there is a lot of beauty in the story of a resistance against tyranny in the time of the Roman Empire. I don't think that that shows that there that he if you can talk to me about stories specifically where Jesus not isn't you know just nice to women around him but is standing up and asking women to lead and speaking to the men around him in the culture of patriarchy in which Christianity was founded through him historically. um the then I then we could have a different conversation. But standing up and being progressive to an empire, as wonderful and as inspiring that might be, that does not equate to it not being patriarchal from the beginning. Secondarily, we talked about Paul a little bit, who I haven't opened my Bible in years, and I don't plan to, but I believe was kind of one of the initial voices that really helped establish the kind of church and doctrine that so many people have drawn from over hundreds of years. Now, the problem with saying that he the mutual submission, I'm not sure there's there's a scripture that says that men submit to your wives, but correct me if I'm wrong. Um the the problem that we have with Paul is that maybe Paul was being progressive and radical for his time. But again, if hundreds of years of people interpreting those scriptures and those those doctrines as women shouldn't be in leadership, women should stay in the home that that is patriarchal. That is patriarchy. And therefore, again going back to the prompt prompt, it is foundational in the structure of Christianity itself. And the last thing you said, oh, about the no true Scotsman argument of saying some people are doing things in the name of God and but they're not doing it right is probably something we're going to run into a lot today. But I I'm going to do my best to call it out every single time. Just saying that someone might say something or call themselves a Christian, but they're not a true Christian or they're not actually doing something in the name of God doesn't really work argumentatively. So that's what I would say to that. We can talk more about Paul. Um, because those verses actually they bother me. Like Mark Twain did say um it's not the verses of the Bible that I don't understand. It's ones I do.

So I believe that God has order. Um, a lot of if I think you were speaking about first Corinthians, right, when he speaks about women being quiet or women um asking their husbands and things like that. Um, if we look at the context of the time the Corinthian people were not um upholding the values of the church um that he wanted to establish. There was a lot of disorder. There were a lot of um at that time women weren't as educated as men. There's a lot of scholarly articles that talk about that verse. Um, and in a few verses ahead of that one where he says women should ask their husbands this and that. It speaks about women prophesying. Um, also in re um, I believe it's Acts it says that in the last days the spirit will be upon the earth and sons and daughters will um preach and prophesy. So in terms of um saying that it's inherently patriarchal this and that I believe the world is inherently patriarchal. I think God is trying to bring us back to him being in control him having power. I feel like would you rather a matriarchy like who do you want to actually like be in control?

So equality of the sexes is all that not patriarchy would look like. Patriarchy just means inequality of the sexes. So equality of the sexes is the counter to that. As far as the cultural context for when Paul was speaking, I still don't think the argument of Christianity is inherently patriarchal breaks down when we're talking about cultural context because again it was founded around that time and just because the world was patriarchal. You would hope that a perfectly moral and perfect belief system was not just following the times. But here we are. I think something I want to point out um is the fact that there are 45,000 different types of Christianity. Are you referring to all or just one specific one in particular?

That's a great question. I would say kind of all but some more than others is what I would say.

As a woman, we're a woman here. So, it would be wrong for us to be like, you know, oh, there's no way that, you know, women didn't suffer or that they didn't uh experience so much trauma. And it's one of those things that I think it's really important to respect each other's beliefs despite what we follow. Um, but I also think one of the most important things is unfortunately in a lot of my experiences, um, I have dealt with some people who wanted to claim to be religious and who wanted to follow God and his teachings, um, but they were straight up hateful or negative. And I think it's really important to really follow what we believe it's right. It's great if some people want to follow the teachings that are in the Bible, but we also got to be mindful over the fact that um, you know, it it wasn't written by the creator himself and it was by his disciples and a lot of things get misinterpreted and a lot of times people want to take things out of context and be like oh no this is the right away you've got to follow this. You know personally I don't follow everything that the church preaches because that's what feels right for me. I know everyone else has their own beliefs and I respect that and I'm glad that you did mention that because I I do see your standpoint on that where um it has become a big issue especially in regards to the way that we live our life um especially how politics plays a huge role not just religion. So, it's one of those things where it's like we also have to consider the factors that um, you know, it really runs the way that we choose to live our life whether we like it or not unfortunately you know um, it really affects so many systems especially with politics you know politics I'm not a big fan of but it's important to educate ourselves because it really does play a huge role in how we choose to live our lives especially as minorities and um, it affects our justice system our healthcare system housing, immigration, um, you know, so many different things.

So I think you bring up a really good point um about all of us analyzing our beliefs, recognizing the world we live in, and doing our best. I agree. I also agree that scriptures were written by men and that they were have been sometimes mistranslated, but very oftentimes intentionally manipulated on behalf of real world political agendas. again falling back to the patriarchal standards around all of the men who have touched the Bible and have spoken on its behalf on the this creator being's behalf. So I think where we get back to and I do want to make this really clear. I don't think that every individual Christian let me reverse that. I think it's possible for an individual Christian to be a feminist and not patriarchal. Right. So the the organization, the belief system, the construct of Christianity is is inherently patriarchal. But to your point, I think it's up to each of us to really decide what that means to us. Um, that's a little bit murky, but I do want to recognize that I I recognize that there are Christian feminists.

Can I ask you what is your definition of feminism?

Believing in the equal believing and standing up for the equality of the sexes in all material conditions.

And when it comes to feminism, do you consider yourself to be a feminist?

Okay. And what is a problem that you have came across when it comes to feminists? Because in my personal experience, I find it very interesting how some women want to claim to be feminists, but then um, they go about it in the wrong way. I think it's one of those things where they tend to excuse a lot of behaviors from women that are just manipulative or abusive for that instance. Um, and it's it's very skewed in a way where they want to be like, "Oh, a girl's girl." But in reality, it's one of those things where it's just like they want to really have a certain view of like, oh, all men ain't

I agree that the label of feminist can be used in all different kinds of ways. The definition of feminism is different from the adherence of feminist. That's kind of like the reverse no true Scotsman. There's a definition of Christianity and all different kinds of people who call themselves Christians.

Um, so the prompt you chose was Christianity is inherently patriarchal, so therefore like harm to women. I was curious about the harm of the woman like what what is your views around that?

That is very in-depth. I think over the ages it's gotten a little bit better but initially real violence was not just allowed but according to Christian understanding of the Bible commanded by God um whenever she stepped out of line. There have been plenty of documentation of people using religion to keep women in abusive relationships. Christianity has not allowed women for the vast I mean like 90% of its history to allow women in positions of leadership period. That as a as a foundational um stance for the church to take that women can't be leaders that is patriarchy and that is harmful because when we don't have women and even to the extent of like diverse perspectives and positions of leadership interpreting what is supposed to be the mystery of the universe that does lead to harm. Yeah.

Yeah, especially for children actually, I would say.

Yeah. No, I think I think um actually Jesus would agree with you in that as as well. And I believe that in in scripture it actually showed the progression of how upset he had the same views that you had where I think people had taken out of context what Christianity was. So he came down to pro to demonstrate exactly what you're saying is by by sewing love, by sewing um what it really means to to have a relationship and not to uh oppress despite gender, despite the views. And and I wanted to go back to what you mentioned about uh the ways that Jesus were progressive, but there was not really much to say about the women there. Um, we know that around the history everything has been written by men. It has been you know everything was in in a sense run by men. But what was so unique at the time is like uh in the New Testament they were actually through the gospel uh highlighting that women were the first to witness Jesus' resurrection and that they were highlighted by name and and even um throughout the Bible they are called by name which in around that time woman would not be mentioned and I I believe with the relationship with Jesus is like uh him being God that went down and demonstrated what he was actually talking about based off of scripture. He wanted to he was actually upset with his church. And that's what this whole part is is that he was upset that they were taking his name out of context because at the end of the day, he had uh he had not rested. So the whole uh seven days that he created the earth, he had not rested until the woman was made to to demonstrate his own image. So anything that is condemned against women is condemning God because we are an image barrier to as women of his name. So anyone who is oppressing or um going against a woman, you're actually going against God. So he's not liking the patriarchal sense of what you might be demonstrating which is this this like you know lack of you know respect, lack of um uh hearing or whatever that would means the harm. He is not liking that because that's his name. And at the end of the day, we are, you know, made image of him. So if you're going against woman, you're going against God. So anyone who's preaching or teaching anything of that, they're they're don't know and have a relationship with God. So I just wanted to say that.

Um, I just wanted to say, you know, I agree with her perspective. It was a really good perspective. We see Jesus time and time again go against the Pharisees and that's what we see after the point. History is repeating itself over and over and over again. It's a disaster loop. But we see when he comes during that time, it is against the it is against the Pharisees. It is against the legalists of the time. And I think to apply Christianity to every single person who claims it is harmful and not really a true understanding of what it's supposed to be versus what we manipulate because everything is manipulated, you know, to an extent.

All right, Casey, that was great. That was a really exciting conversation. Now, you're going to have the opportunity to choose one of the ladies that you would like to speak with one-on-one. They will choose their own prompt and you can discuss it. Tell me why you're going to choose whoever you're going to choose.

Well, first of all, thank you for this opportunity. I think an incredible discussion was had all around. I'm choosing this person because I think that part of this show, something that's really unique about it is the respect and the ability to have meaningful conversation from different belief backgrounds. So, that is why I'm choosing this person.

Okay. And who is this person that you're choosing?

Tia.

Tia. Okay. Come on down.

So, I guess what is your prompt?

Hi, Casey. Thanks for doing this to me. I would say, and like I said, it's just a conversation. I'm not an expert debater. I'm shocked that you picked me. Um, but I would say patriarchy is innately good and not evil.

Oh, that's an interesting one. H, I knew we would have fun. Okay.

Came up with this like 5 seconds ago.

Okay. Do you do you want to kind of explain your reasoning behind that?

Um, I think for a lot of people when they think of Christianity, they put men as a head, men as a protector, men as a leader in the category of evil. And I don't think it's innately evil at all. I think it just is, we were kind of talking about this earlier, I think it's biological. I think it's organic. And I think that's why um, God is male. Trinity is male. Um, and we have Jesus obviously who came in the flesh as God. Um, but obviously there's a lot of the Bible that is written by men. And I think there's a reason for that. A lot of leadership, a lot of protecting. Um, I think comes innately embedded in men to um take dominion over the earth, whether it's people or animals or whatever. what was what it was meant to do before the fall as we've talked about was to um protect was to lead and not to lord himself over. Um, so I think innately patriarchy was always meant to be good and not evil. Does that make sense?

It makes sense. Um, a few clarifying questions. So does that mean you think that that God set up patriarchy that that it's good that it's good because

by God's design Adam was made first. Eve was his helpmate. I think by design that's how God created it and that's why it's biblical and obviously as a Christian who believes in the Bible I would agree that that's good and not evil as God's design.

So what about patriarchy being good leads to the overwhelming evidence of harm against women on behalf of men because they didn't have the education, the employment, the um power in these social structures.

I understand that. Okay. I understand that this is a according to what you were saying a fallen version of patriarchy. is that

yeah, I would say I'm speaking more to in a perfect world the perfect scenario the way God designed it is good and not evil and I think in a lot of senses despite the fallen world or whatever a lot of women will say innately it's unfair um especially a lot of feminists will say we're not equal but even the in the Bible in Ephesians it's like submit ye to one another and not lord yourself over another submit respect love so I'd say if we were going perfectly according to the Bible according to how God calls it to be. It would be like um the utopia like how we talked about perfect heaven, no more suffering, all that stuff. I think that's what it was always meant to be. But because we failed there's so many things including abuse, including um rape and all that. And I think that we as society have seen that have seen men take advantage of abuse and we have this rising up of feminism which is supposed to be equality but in a lot of ways it's become more toxic and it's almost like we need to do away with men. Men are the problem. Men are the issue and it should actually and I guess I would even ask you someone said this earlier and I can't remember if you answered it but it was like should we be a matriarchy? Like what should it look like? What would a perfect society look like for you if patriarchy is evil? And I'm not even saying like if you're disagreeing with me, like if that's what you mean, but you can even say like how do you feel about this or what are your your thoughts so that I can converse with you better.

Totally.

Sorry, my voice is

No, you're doing great.

Okay, so a few things here. Okay, to answer your question, the uh my understanding of matriarchy, a lot of times when that's used, it it can be considered just like a flip of patriarchy. So women have all this hierarchical power. My understanding of matriarchy like the actual definition is more um we talk about like vertical authority versus horizontal authority. So in patriarchy um the there's a hierarchy of authority. There's um a leader, there's a god, there's you know and it everyone follow falls in line. And then um more egalitarian kinds of societies which do do and have existed are more communal in the when it comes to leadership authority and power like these really big words that mean who gets to eat who's deciding who gets to eat who's going to be safe from whom or whatever. So to me that concept of egalitarian or matriarchy is not just a flip of we're doing away with all men. I totally agree with you that like there's a lot of there's a lot of okay there's a lot of anger. Okay. There's a lot of justifiable anger on behalf of women under patriarchy that I don't want to erase because I think that whenever some of us become aware of all of the harm of the current existing we'll get back to the utopian kind but the current existing patriarchy is so the scope is so severe and it is so intense and is it is so much everywhere that I I don't want to erase the anger of you know brand new feminists or people who come to terms with the understanding of all of But at the same time, I also know that like that anger isn't always, it can be, it isn't always like the most productive way of going about this. So, I understand that like, you know, it's hard for me to say to tell someone like, "Don't be a man hater because look, if you've got to have that anger, I would rather you get it out because this is this is intense and this is hard and I I don't really subscribe to the suppression of emotions. Get it out." But I don't I agree that like the concept of man-hating or just doing away with all of the men, even men in leadership, is not really what I'm looking for. That's not really what where I've come to in my feminist journey.

Do you think that innately, biologically, and even just like in our minds that men and women um have different giftings as far as like leadership, nurturing, do you think that we're made differently? Because I know some people are saying men and women are created exactly the same kind of thing which I think is like um not true and I think we can just if you live in the world and you have eyes and ears you can see that that's not the case but would you say because you talked about communal and I think that that's true but I think even in a perfect utopian community there would still be people who are like I'm better at this innately in my nature this is what I'm going to like want to do. Um, and it goes into the whole like wage gap thing with men and women where it's like, well, women are choosing to be nurses, women are choosing to be teachers. So, if we if all of us as men and women decided we all like the same jobs, we all have the same gifts and talents, I think it would be more even, but it's not that way. Um, and like I said, it's a fallen world. It's not perfect, so we can't create a a utopia. But I think like basically the basis of my argument is like if there wasn't sin, if there wasn't a fallen man, the design for patriarchy, which in my sense is men in leadership and women supporting, not being lorded over, but supporting them. That would be the best case scenario. And like that's just how God created us to be. So that's like my main point. But as we are and as we live, it's not that way. So I can see how people would be angry, enraged um for people who have taken advantage of their power. Mhm. Okay. Super interesting. A few things here. So, there's a yes and a no to that. Do I think that all humans are the same when it comes to their dignity and deserving of access to resources, access to power, which does translate then into resources? Because at the end of the day, it's all great to talk about who can read more books, but I'm more, you know, if we're really talking about the nuts and the the nuts and bolts, I'm more interested in who can eat, who has access to safety, shelter, stuff like that. that human dignity, I don't think it matters on how you were born. In fact, all life deserves that dignity.

Um, in as far as like the differences, of course, I I would go further than just the difference between man man and woman. I would say everyone has a uniqueness. I do recognize that certain people according to their background, according to their physical, according to their um mental characteristics have very unique gifts. Then you kind of got into something that I think is really interesting which is like how that plays out. Um, yeah, it's you um how that plays out in the society that we live um, which is who has access to more wages and therefore resources. So that kind of brings in here in the United States where we're talking about the wage gap under capitalism and the the structure of power in place. It's not just that, well, women chose to be nurses and therefore they're not getting paid as much as doctors. I I think a big part of the argument here is that like I don't see how caretaking is any less valuable to the f to the protection of children, to the protection of the innocent of of the elderly. I don't see how that is any less valuable than than a doctor who performs surgery, which is equally valuable. And I think that's an interesting point um that you brought up because how do we decide who gets what? I mean we talk about NBA players and it's like so you really good at basketball and you're like a millionaire like what? Um, but somebody who's saving lives like this is what they're getting. So in in a perfect world to you idealistically as it pertains to the wage gap if you want to go there would you say every single job should have the same wage or like what does that look like to you as far as like what would the solution be?

Well, perfect world is tricky. Um, you know, why money is is that answer?

Um,

we're trading apples and now we have dollar bills. Who did that?

Totally. Totally. I think to to your question of how would we decide who does what? I think it can be a combination of credentiing and desire, right? So like who wants to stay at home with the kids and who do we trust to stay at home with the you know um, but going back to the concept of like egalitarian communal kinds of societies

in that in that case under those like systems of structure because those egalitarian um societies historically distribute resources more fairly amongst everyone and it's not like it's not hierarchical you know you give this to this person and then you can decide who gets all of these resources and they can decide who gets all these resources. It's more communal in nature. Um,

and there was an example of that even in scripture where it said everyone sold everything and they had everything in common. There wasn't like, well, I have this much money, you have that much money, so we live a different lifestyle. It was like, let's sell everything. We all are on equal footing. Um, it didn't seem to last very long because people can be greedy. Um, but the reason why I mainly brought this up was, can you remind me the wording of your first prompt because it had to do with patriarchy, I think. Right. Um, my initial prompt was Christianity is inherently patriarchal and therefore harmful to women. And it sounds like you don't think patriarchy as a concept is inherently harmful, but it is under a fallen world. Is that right?

That's what I would say. Inherently, it's not evil, but we living in a fallen world. It's not We're not playing it out according to God's design. So, I'm curious to you, would you agree or disagree with that? If you believed in the Bible and things were meant to be a certain way and there was no fall and there was equality and everything, would you say maybe it would have been okay that God created things in a patriarchal sense if it all played out the way that he would have designed it or are you saying just period it shouldn't be that way because it's inherently evil?

Okay. in the context of do I think that even if we were in a utopia certain genders according to what the definition of patriarchy is should have more access to power and therefore resources no I wouldn't agree with that if like you said in the it was actually equality then it wouldn't be patriarchy

okay so if they were to say I have access to this but in a sense of responsibility because I feel like that's what it is it's like when you have with great power comes great responsibility So when you have that power, I think you're responsible to use it well. And I think that's what it was meant to be. So it's not to create inequality to lord it over people, but I believe what God designed was to steward it well. So I guess really I don't know what a utopia perfect scenario would look like, so it's hard for me to wager either way. So I guess in the end, we did great.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good job.

So Casey, you did a great job. Thank you. What was your experience like talking to these women?

I really enjoyed the conversation. I think everyone showed up and and brought the meat and potatoes of really interesting and important conversations. Um, and it was a delight in the end.

It's great. Did you feel intimidated by anything?

It was a lot. It was not nothing to be asked to debate 20 people um for at once, but it was invigorating. I very much enjoyed it. Is there anyone that you spoke to that impressed you or made you rethink some of the things that you previously were thinking?

Yes, I do. One of the reasons I was grateful for the invitation is because I do think it's important to challenge our own understandings of the world, but also be open to tweaking them instead of just doubling down because whenever we identify with our beliefs, I think that's when a lot of the turmoil really happens. So it did challenge me in that way and I have opened up my um world view a little bit.

Wonderful. Are there any final thoughts that you want to leave us with?

Good job everyone.

Thank you. Well, thank you so much for being here and sharing and thank you at home for watching. Let us know in the comments anything that you thought while listening to this episode. We would love to hear. And until next time, bye-bye.

Thanks guys. He's fantastic.