AA started as a Christian group and they’ve since dropped that association because nobody likes getting preached to

It made sense to secularize the program so that it could be applied to a wider audience. AA is extremely widespread in Iran for example.

Uh…what do you think sociologists do for a living?

I suspect a non-trivial amount of them teach sociology

Though if you mean there’s no drug that can be administered to cure someone, that’s because addiction is first and foremost a social issue.

Social issues are definitely a part of the disease of addiction but it’s also a spiritual issue. It’s not like if every toxic relationship was “fixed” they would stop using. My friend in particular came from a loving household where every basic need was met. There are many cases like his where no matter how amenable the circumstances the addiction rages.

People don’t relapse because of the chemical addiction, they do it because they feel hopeless.

The memory of the rush is part of it but I agree that hopelessness is the tipping point. It’s the moment the addict gives in.

It’s a lot closer to homelessness than cancer

I guess. My point is that there is that recovery programs address, primarily, a spiritual issue. It’s not materialistic or empiricist. It is social, sure, but also metaphysical. That’s what makes the difference. It’s the reason participants have to “work the steps”. Transformation comes from working through suffering. It’s an intensely personal experience of accepting shortcomings, submitting to a higher power and only then, in the company of others, working to rebuild your life step by step. Much like the battle against sin the battle against addiction is a daily struggle and we all fall short.

My best friend went through the NA program and he is, to the best of my knowledge, an atheist. NA is less overtly religious than AA. He did have to acknowledge things outside of his control and you are correct that the acknowdgement of a higher power does not have to be God. In his case it was “the universe”. They don’t talk about religion but it is a spiritual program that begins by submitting to something greater than yourself. Relinquishing control and submitting to the vulnerability of admitting that one’s life has become unmanageable is still a key part of the program. Admission of failure, forgiving and seeking forgiveness are as well. These secularized concepts are rooted in Christianity. What’s interesting is that no scientific approach with drugs etc has reached the level of success as these programs.

That was a really rough watch. Most of these aren’t arguments that atheists make…they’re invented stances because the narrator thought of a zinger. Some are real (and argued against poorly) but the majority are just strawman

I’ve personally heard quite a few of these and even asked some of the more embarassing ones when I was younger.

So the video creator doesn’t know anything about science. How unsurprising.

He is scratching at Empiricism with a capital E. The scientific method is ultimately about observation and measurement. If a scientist is talking about something that can’t be observed or measured then it’s a theory/metaphysical concept. The refutation is usually to ask someone to epistemically justify why science (aka empiricism) should be considered the source of knowledge/arbiter of truth etc

Medically documented cases of demonic possession

I don’t know much about this topic

Why does that make more sense? No justification, just “it makes a lot more sense”?

The justification (usually The Transcendental Argument for God) for this would have to be a video in and of itself. Jay Dyer uses TAG in his debates.

To quote the narrator, that’s not the gotcha you think it is. The all-powerful God made us capable of evil so we can prove our love for him by not being evil. Cool guy!

“We deserve it” is a very neo-Catholic interpretation. The Orthodox perspective is suffering didn’t exist until man separated himself from God by sinning. Sin = Death. Reunion with God will end all suffering until then we live in a fallen world of our own making. The purpose of life is life is Theosis. (In short, living according to the commandments in the earnest hope of becoming as much like Jesus Christ as possible.)

Evil is largely defined by the actions of the individual. Intent matters but the road to hell was paved in good intentions, after all. God unfortunately meets the definition by knowingly giving kids cancer and creating evil humans.

I wasn’t expecting the “If God why bad thing happen?” objection after your first criticism but the reason God allows suffering is because we are in a fallen state and suffering is key to the spiritual transformation necessary to commune with God. Have you ever met someone who went through trauma and came out the other side with a newfound humbleness, perspective or charitable nature? As a friend of many addicts I can assure you that adherence to their recovery programs, which involve submitting to a higher power, unveils staggering perspective that they would never have otherwise. It’s the same with art, music, writing. Often times overcoming great pain is when we discover who we are and what it means to be human. We are images of Christ who suffered and died on the cross to sanctify our nature.

So…he invented a problem in order to get praised for solving it? What is he, a middle manager?

He explains this well. “Evil is just a lack of good” God gives us (and heavenly beings) the ability to make choices. The result is the possibility to act outside the boundaries of God’s commandments including evil. He is glorified for overcoming it because despite the evil that we commit in life he loves and forgives us.

People fall in love with stuff that’s not real all the time so what point is this trying to make?

I would categorize the atheist objection he’s responding to as one of the dumber ones.

An acid trip feels different than a mushroom trip. Hmmm it’s almost like the specific chemicals matter…

But then again…

My mans can’t even Google a definition.

Truth is analogous to faith here. I’m not sure why you’re picking at that point. You’re acting like he doesnt know the dictionary definition of faith which is, ironically, a bad faith rebuttal. It’s almost like I don’t trust your intentions now… 😉

That’s just your metanarrative.

Per my description it’s a pseudo-meme video with oversimplified apologetics. That being said most of what was mentioned is a fair ELI5 one sentence response behind which are tomes of argumentation to dive into. I’m not suggesting this video solves apologetics against atheists.

Ignores the term exegesis which exists because objectivity is impossible when reading historical texts

Doubles down on anachronistic interpretation that projects modern poltical and social climate onto 2000 year old scriptures which by own admission require anthropological awareness

Another ad hominem for good measure

Won’t touch argument about origin of the scriptural canon with a ten foot pole

Ad hominem

Unjustified claim

nth challenge to theological position ignored in favor of the above-mentioned

I have a Bible. I want to know where you get your screwball exegesis from.

Fair enough. Can you send me a link to whatever source you are using for this theology? (assuming you didnt just make it up)

When you say “what Church are you a member of” - you are looking for labels.

I’m trying to understand your worldview.

You talk about the age of your cult as if that gives it authority. You are looking for a way to disengage from the topic of scripture so that you can compare institutional history. This is bad faith.

I’m starting to think you lack an understanding of church history. The “cult” of the Orthodox Church produced the scriptures you’re citing. Based on your responses I’m certain you cannot give an account for why the scriptures are inerrant much less why your interpretation is correct. Christ left us the church not a bible. The church produced the canon of scriptures after many hundreds of years being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Early Christians might have only had one book of what we recognize as the New Testament in the first centuries following Christs resurrection. How would your worldview apply then? Early Christians engaged in liturgical worship led by an episcopate. (e.g. the churches the apostles set up in Ephesus, Corinth, Alexandria etc.) Tradition was integral to Christian life as was an episcopate that extended throughout the known world.

Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi who taught and practiced Judaism. I follow those teachings and the scripture upon which they are based. I do follow Roman cults or the unscriptural Hellenist paganism they have added. That is the “tradition” you mention.

Lol okay now we’re getting somewhere. When Christ died on the cross the old covenant ended, human nature was sanctified and he preached to all the souls in Hades until he was resurrected on the third day. When Christ ascended into heaven the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles who then ministered to gentiles that they might receive Christ and enter the Kingdom of God. In 70AD the Jewish Temple was destroyed ending Temple Judaism entirely. Rabbinical Judaism which is what exists today would not reach any kind of formal existence until the 7th century.

The Old Testament is Christian. Isaiah isn’t called the fifth gospel for no reason. Theophanies in the old testament reveal the trinitarian nature of God. Modern jews are schismatics who denied their Messiah despite Christ ministering only to jews during the life of his ministry.

What Jesus taught is painfully simple: the way you treat others, God takes that personally. Love (respect/honor/obey/take joy in) God and love (respect/honor/obey/take joy in) others as you would God. These are the commandments upon which all other Law is based.

God has commandments. Love is his cardinal commandment but it is paired with repentance. (e.g. faith amd works)

Whatever else you believe is inconsequential, unless it runs afoul of those.

Hating sin does not run afoul of loving someone. Loving each other despite our sinful natures actually what being a Christian is all about.

Also unrepentant sin is literally the only thing God will not forgive. It’s not inconsequential which is why allowing sin in a place of worship is most egregious.

I warn you, that twisting scriptures explicitly concerning abuse of others into something else entirely - and the biases and treatment of others result from such twisted reinterpretations - that is a danger to both you and others.

You are the one that eschewing “labels”, using a (I’m assuming edited) bible that was received from the church you call a cult yet acting as if you have any authority to tell anyone anything. It’s peak hypocrisy.

Woe to you, conservative politicians and religious leaders; you hypocrites! You close off the Kingdom of Heaven to others. It is not enough that that you do not enter, but you block the entrance for others trying to go in!

…

Woe to you, conservative politicians and religious leaders. Hypocrites! You travel far and wide (over land and sea) to win one convert, and when you are done with them, they are twice the force of evil that you are.

This bit kind of explains this dialog. Historical Christianity doesn’t fit the insane politics and values of today so it needs to be edited to make things like homosexuality tenable.

conservative politicians

Where is this in scripture?

…

And honestly I have to know where you are getting this stuff please give me link.

Edit: Also a clarification that should be made because I get the feeling you think I want to set gay people on fire or something. Homosexuals can (and absolutely should) be welcomed as Christians but part of that is repenting of sins including but not limited to anything related to acting on their same sex attraction. We all must repent. Be it envy, sloth, lust, pride etc etc

He states with no basis for his claims.

The problem you are having is that you have no concept of the culture or context in which scripture sits.

🤔

This has never been a mystery. This interpretation did not appear until around 1000AD as part of the Roman cult’s ongoing attempts to distance themselves from Judaism… the religion that Jesus taught and practiced.

Again asserted without justification. Are you a gnostic? Because this is quite the theory. Do you believe in the trinity?

I do not follow scribes and Pharisees or their unscriptural anti-Christ teachings.

It doesn’t sound like you follow anything because the early church would not agree with you.

Last bit: I am pointing out that this phrase is not scripture. You quoted it as if it was. This is a common problem in the modern church… it does not teach or understand scripture, its context, or its purpose. It’s little more than a political tool meant to keep peasantry in line.

Lol… I am an Orthodox Christian. It is THE ancient church. Their canons and interpretations are locked in time from the 8th century. It is the one holy Catholic and Apostolic church left to humanity at Pentecost. I do not attend a “modern” church. The church has scripture AND tradition that is passed down from the time of Christ. There is innate understanding of the culture and practices at the time of Christ and tomes of literature by Church Fathers and scholars to illustrate that point.

You make broad sweeping claims with no justification while accusing me of being a heretic. Homosexuality is a sin. It’s in the scriptures, it’s in the tradition and it’s in the history of the church. The Orthodox church has two millenia of teachings to back up their interpretations. This is the same church that produced the Christian canon that you are citing to me.

Regardless I can tell we arent going to get anywhere. You didn’t reveal which church you’re a member of which leads me to believe you are a gnostic or some other sect that claims to “know better”.

Regarding your first point – Jesus makes clear the way we should live our lives by his words and his actions. He is compassionate and, as you mentioned, demands that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us especially if we don’t want to for whatever reason. He made an example of this multiple times by conversing with schismatics, gentiles, prostitutes, tax collectors etc Through his love these people repent of their sins. God loves us but demands we have faith and earnestly try to obey his commandments if we want to enter the Kingdom of God.

Also I don’t see how you are using Leviticus 20 to say homosexuality (specifically acting on same sex attraction) is not a sin. It says the exact opposite.

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:26-27 also calls out homosexual acts between men as sin.

Homosexuality is not a sin and no scripture supports such an interpretation. Paul’s letters also do not support such an interpretation. Any scripture used to defend such an anti-Christ stance is a gross and deliberate mistranslation.

You’ve provided no justification while disagreeing with over 2000 years Christian teachings. Which church do you attend?

What Jesus also taught is to live by example, not to judge others, and to not worry about what you perceive other’s shortcomings to be. (Matthew 7)

Sure. I try and fail everyday to live up to the standards of Christ. Such is the life of a Christian. When I speak about Churches failing I’m not happy about it. I legitmately sympathize. When I talk about homosexuality being a sin I’m not puffing up my chest. I feel empathy for people who are either ignorant of or struggling with that lifestyle. Furthermore as a sinner I am in the same boat. My sins are different but every bit as sinful. I pray daily for the mercy of God.

Also: “Hate the sin, but love the sinner” is not scriptural. It is a corruption of a saying from Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: “with love for mankind and hatred of sins.”

The two phrases literally mean the same thing. It is scripturally based. Christ loves us but hates our sin. Christ died on the cross for our sins. We must accept Christ and work daily to abide by his commandments.

I don’t understand your point. We should love the sinner but hate the sin. We should certainly never condone it as part of church teaching and culture.

I agree. I come from a protestant background and am now Orthodox. I never knew why I was so disinterested in church as a kid. I guess it seemed disingenous, trivial or arbitrary. This turned out to be true. A few years ago I acknowleged that something was missing and attended an Orthodox church. I had been researching for a while.

It is a world of difference. The problem with a lot of these denominations is that they try to “stay relevant” when Christ is always relevant. The liturgy does not put man at the center either. The entire parish faces God. Much of Western Christendom is falling victim to the self worship of the secular world. You can see it most recently with the acceptance of the gay agenda splitting the last remaining mainline protestant denominations even though it is clearly a sin.

People want boundaries and guidance. They hunger for it. The Orthodox church has changed very little in 1300 years and provides clear direction. The structure seems constricting from the outside but in reality it is freedom. Freedom from sin and to worship God in the way of the apostles.

There’s no way to make it “more relevant” because everything else is irrelevant.

You’ll have to seek white papers on your own but there is value in seeing something with your own eyes and having it corroborated with stories from other parishioners around the country.

It’s happening all throughout the United States. Look at the availability of English-translated Orthodox writings and devotionals 20 years ago vs now. Even 10 or 5 years ago. Western laity is insatiably seeking a true faith as their churches fail to hold up in the post-modern world. As he mentions in the video people want a church that won’t leave them. Orthodoxy also promotes having many children which is different from what I see elsewhere and amplifies the growth.

The watered down and misdirected Christianity in the States is one of the reasons this instance and many people in general are so hostile to Christians. It goes back further though. Even the violence of the medieval periods where Catholics were converting nations at the edge of a sword. Orthodoxy has by and large spread peacefully and embraces the Christ in the native cultures (as opposed to being monolithically Roman) which is why there are many different jurisdictions for the different nations of people. The Aleut people of Alaska are a great example of what I mentioned above.

All Christians are hypocrites that fall short of Christ but only Orthodoxy teaches the religion of the apostles in it’s fullness especially in regard to Christology and sotieriology.

My parish has doubled in size in the last two years.

Orthodoxy is indeed blooming in the West

The “caveat” could so easily come with qualifiers to prevent scandal or disorientation but it doesn’t.

Just like prostitution, abusiveness etc transgenderism and homosexual acts are sins. We are all sinners but we must renounce our sin when we enter the Church and try our best to live a repentant life that reflects such things. E.g. No same-sex unions or living as the opposite sex.

I’m not Catholic so this doesn’t directly affect me but it seems like an unhealthy ecumenism with sin not the sinner. With the Catholic church being so large it’s sad to see this happening. This follows after the other “innovation” of blessing same sex unions.

Lord have mercy.