Ep 1196 | Where the Jordan Peterson vs. Atheists 'Jubilee' Debate Went Wrong

Summary

Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey
Episode: Ep 1196 | Where the Jordan Peterson vs. Atheists 'Jubilee' Debate Went Wrong
Release Date: May 28, 2025
Host: Allie Beth Stuckey
Network: Blaze Podcast Network

---

Introduction

In Episode 1196 of Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey, hosted by Allie Beth Stuckey from Blaze Podcast Network, Allie delves into the contentious debate between renowned psychologist Jordan Peterson and a panel of atheists orchestrated by the YouTube channel Jubilee. The debate, part of Jubilee's "Surrounded" series, witnessed Peterson facing off against approximately 20 to 25 atheists in a high-pressure, fast-paced setting designed to challenge his theological stances from a Christian conservative perspective.

Overview of Jubilee's 'Surrounded' Debate Format

Jubilee's "Surrounded" series is known for pitting a single individual holding a particular viewpoint against a large group embodying the opposing stance. Previous matchups include figures like Ben Shapiro against Kamala Harris supporters and Charlie Kirk against "woke" students, garnering millions of views due to their viral, clip-friendly nature.

In this episode, Jordan Peterson participated in a debate labeled initially as "Christian vs. Atheist," which was later corrected to "Jordan Peterson vs. Atheist" to accurately reflect Peterson's non-committal stance towards formal Christianity during the debate. Allie Beth critiques Peterson's performance, particularly his handling of theological apologetics when confronted by atheist challengers.

Claim 1: Atheists Reject God, But They Don't Know What They're Rejecting

Debate Highlight:

At [10:02], an atheist participant named David questions Peterson by asking, "Do you believe in Lono?" Lono being a Polynesian deity, David attempts to challenge Peterson's assertion that atheists reject God without understanding what "God" entails.

Notable Exchange:

• David [10:02]: "Do you believe in Lono?"
• Peterson [10:12]: "I'm not rejecting it no more than I'm rejecting."
• David [10:58]: "Do you believe that Lono exists in the world, exists in the universe, that exists in the existence of everything?"

Allie Beth's Analysis:

Allie contends that rejecting a deity doesn't necessitate a comprehensive understanding of that being. She references Isaiah 44:5, stating, "I am the Lord and there is no other besides me. There is no God," to emphasize the Christian belief in an exclusive monotheism. Allie argues that Christians can steadfastly reject other gods, such as Lono, based on the foundational belief in the singular God revealed in Scripture, irrespective of detailed knowledge about other deities.

Quote:

"You don't have to know something to reject it... it's logically and theologically possible to reject an idea or an entity that you don't know about or understand." [11:43]

Claim 2: Morality and Purpose Can't Be Found Within Science

Debate Highlight:

At [38:49], participant Xena raises concerns about biblical endorsements of slavery and genocide, questioning the alignment of such scriptures with Christian ethics.

Notable Exchange:

• Xena [38:49]: "In the Bible, it talks a lot about slavery, right?"
• Greg [38:52]: "Yes."
• Xena [39:05]: "But why does the Bible predicate and tell people exactly how to take care of a slave? Isn't that immoral?"

Allie Beth's Analysis:

Allie rebuts by clarifying that biblical references to slavery differ vastly from modern understandings and practices. She explains that Old Testament laws regulated slavery to protect the rights and dignity of slaves, who were viewed as image-bearers of God, rather than as mere property. Furthermore, Allie emphasizes that Christianity played a pivotal role in abolishing slavery by instilling the intrinsic value of every human being, as derived from the belief in being made in God's image.

She criticizes the atheist perspective that attributes moral progress solely to cultural evolution, asserting that Christian moral frameworks were fundamental in advancing human rights and ethics, thereby challenging Peterson's claim that morality cannot be grounded in science or secular reasoning alone.

Quote:

"Christianity's influence has grown. ... How in the world would that naturally happen?" [40:00]

Claim 3: Everyone Worships Something

Debate Highlight:

At [48:11], Danny, an atheist participant, confronts Peterson on his Christian identity, suggesting that Peterson may not align with traditional Christian doctrines, particularly regarding the Immaculate Conception and the veneration of Mary in Catholicism.

Notable Exchange:

• Danny [52:38]: "Are you familiar with the Immaculate Conception?"
• Danny [53:10]: "A Christian or you're not. Which one is it?"
• Peterson [53:28]: Retorts harshly, indicating disagreement.

Allie Beth's Analysis:

Allie appreciates Xena for embodying a genuine attempt to understand and represent Christian beliefs accurately. However, she critiques Danny's aggressive stance, emphasizing that authentic worship in Christianity centers on Jesus Christ rather than ritualistic practices. Allie argues that while Peterson claims "everyone worships something," atheists often unknowingly prioritize self-interest, materialism, or other secular ideologies, which mirror forms of worship despite lacking spiritual foundations.

She underscores that true Christian worship is oriented towards a relationship with God through Jesus, which transcends mere prioritization or attendance to practices.

Quote:

"Immense character differences, atheists are unknowingly worshipping things that are meaningless in a spiritual sense." [48:13]

Claim 4: Atheists Accept Christian Morality, But Deny Their Religious Foundations

Debate Highlight:

At [58:15], Xena questions the morality of certain Old Testament actions attributed to God, such as slavery and genocide, challenging their compatibility with Christian ethics.

Notable Exchange:

• Xena [58:15]: "God says that you can own people as property... Is all of this in line with Christian ethics?"
• Greg [58:35]: Responds by urging contextual understanding of Scripture.

Allie Beth's Analysis:

Allie articulates that many Old Testament narratives are often misconstrued without proper contextualization. She explains that actions like the instructed destruction of the Amalekites were specific to historical and cultural contexts aimed at curbing rampant oppression and are not prescriptive for contemporary Christian ethics. Allie draws parallels between Old Testament actions and New Testament teachings, emphasizing that God's ultimate revelation through Jesus Christ redefines and fulfills the moral imperatives initially established.

She highlights the transformative impact of Christianity on Western civilization's moral compass, attributing advancements in human rights and the abolition of practices like slavery to Christian ethical foundations rather than secular evolution.

Quote:

"Christianity has forged Western civilization in a way that has completely revolutionized how the world sees people." [60:00]

Allie Beth's Overall Assessment

Allie Beth acknowledges that while Jordan Peterson handled certain aspects of the debate better than his online critics suggested, he fell short in authentically representing Christian theological perspectives. She emphasizes the necessity for a genuine Christian apologist in such settings to effectively counter atheist arguments and provide a robust defense of Christian doctrines.

Allie underscores the importance of understanding and articulating the Christian faith beyond superficial knowledge, highlighting the distinction between mere religious observance and the transformative power of genuine faith in Jesus Christ.

Conclusion and Insights:

Allie concludes that the Jubilee debate presented an opportunity for meaningful dialogue between theism and atheism but ultimately missed the mark by not featuring a true Christian representative. She advocates for future debates to include knowledgeable Christian apologists who can accurately and passionately defend the faith, thereby fostering more constructive and insightful discussions.

Final Quote:

"I really hope Jubilee does this again with a Christian apologist that can answer some of these questions." [67:00]

---

Key Takeaways

1. Understanding Context: Biblical narratives, especially from the Old Testament, require contextualization to avoid misinterpretation and ensure ethical conclusions align with overall Christian teachings.

2. Worship Defined: True worship in Christianity is relational and centered on Jesus Christ, distinguishing it from mere prioritization or secular ideologies.

3. Christian Influence on Morality: Christian ethics have significantly shaped Western moral progress, challenging the notion that morality solely evolves through secular or scientific means.

4. Need for Genuine Representation: Effective theological debates necessitate authentic and knowledgeable Christian voices to accurately represent and defend the faith against atheist critiques.

---

This episode of Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey offers a comprehensive exploration of the complexities involved in debates between theists and atheists, highlighting the critical need for genuine theological understanding and representation in such high-stakes discussions.

Transcript

[Ali Stuckey]

Jordan Peterson debated 20 atheists. We'll go through some of his answers today and I will give you what I would say as a Christian to some of these atheists claims. This episode is brought to you by our friends at Good ranchers. Go to good ranchers.com use code ALI at. Check out this good ranchers.com code ALI foreign. Hey, guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. Hope everyone is having a wonderful week so far. All right, today we are talking about Jordan Peterson's recent debate on Jubilee. That's a YouTube channel. They have a series called Surrounded where they have one person who holds one position and then 20 to 25 people surrounding that person in a semicircle who. Who hold the opposing position. So, for example, they've done Ben Shapiro versus 25 Kamala Harris voters, one progressive versus 20 conservatives. Dr. Mike, I don't know who that is. Versus 20 anti vaxxers, one LGBTQ activist versus 25 conservatives. So that's the kind of thing they do. They've done Charlie Kirk versus like 20 woke students, which was just a piece of cake for Charlie because that's basically what he travels around the country doing. And that has like 28 million views. So these are very, very popular debates. A lot of people watch them. They're extremely clippable. And so you see the clips circulating social media. And the most recent debate is Jordan Peterson versus 20 atheists. Is it 20 or 25 atheists? A lot of atheists. And at first, the YouTube video said one Christian versus 25 atheists, and then they changed that very quickly because Jordan Peterson does not actually publicly identify as a Christian in this debate. He says that that's not just me trying to determine what his faith is. He actually says he doesn't identify as a Christian. And we see that throughout the debate. There are a lot of clips circulating and a lot of people criticizing Jordan Peterson for his answers to these theological apologetics, questions and challenges that are being lodged at him from this variety of atheists. And so I wanted to go through some of the claims that are being made by these atheists and what I would say to them as a Christian and, and not just what I would say to them, the opposing atheists, but also what I would say to you because I get so many questions from you about a variety of things, but specifically about theology. What do I say to this? How do I answer this question? And so I will go through, we'll play some clips, go through some of the things being said, what I really agree, agree on with Jordan Peterson and the things that I disagree on and would have answered differently. And I will reference Scripture in some of these. And I know that a lot of you out there will be like, well, atheists don't believe in the Bible, and so you can't say that. And I will explain why I reference Scripture in some of my answers, but also know that I am communicating to you, my Christian audience, people who believe in God's word as inerrant, as infallible, as authoritative. Because I also want you to understand why we believe what we believe and how we contend with these arguments. Now, I am not an apologist by trade. There are a lot of people out there who are much better versed in apologetics than I am. But I do know my Bible. Not perfectly. And again, a lot of people are superior in that realm to me. They've just been around longer. They've been studying longer than I have. But I have been gifted by my parents, by my upbringing, with a lot of evangelical theological and apologetics training. And I like to think about these things. And I'm very thankful for the wisdom that I have gleaned from professional apologists and theologians and scholars who are much, much smarter than I am. And they have given us a huge gift in the books that they've written and the wisdom that they share. And I've been able to glean from that. So I hope to be able to share some of that clarity with you today in a way that's edifying. Okay, so let's go through some of these clips, and we can't go through all of them. This is like an hour and a half debate. And so if you want all of the context for every single question and every single answer, then you can go and you can watch that. I'm not trying to decontextualize or misrepresent anyone. I'm not trying to slam Jordan Peterson on this. As I said, and as I will say, there are some things that he answered that I thought were really good that I would affirm and say as well. And then there were other things that I'm like, that is not at all the Christian perspective. And I'm kind of confused about what exactly is going on here. So within this debate, there are four claims that are made by the one opposing person in the middle. So in this case, the. I don't know, I guess I could call Jordan Peterson the theist because they changed it from Christian versus Atheist to Jordan Peterson versus Atheist. So I think I could safely say that Jordan Peterson believes in God. I think he's been visiting Catholic church churches. I think that his wife became Catholic, but he hasn't said that he's become Catholic. So I think that I would say that he's a theist. So he goes through these four claims and everyone around him is trying to contend with these claims. And they literally race to the chair to try to debate with Jordan Peterson. There seems like there's some voting process by the other participants that when the person debating Jordan, Jordan Peterson either like uses a logical fallacy or they've just like spent enough time arguing with them, they raised their red flags and they're ready to move on to the next person. And then a cluster of them races to the seat, they take their seat, they have a few minutes to debate. So it's very fast paced, very high stress and intense probably for everyone involved. But here are the four claims that they're supposed to be contending with that Jordan Peterson makes. Claim one is atheists reject God, but they don't know what they're rejecting. And then we've got claim two, and that is morality and purpose can't be found within science. And then Jordan Peterson's third claim is that everyone worships something. And then his last claim is that atheists accept Christian morality. They just deny the religious foundation of Christian morality. So we'll go through some of these clips and I'll tell you what Jordan Peterson said and what I would say to these things, both to you and in some way to these atheists. But before we get into it, let me go ahead and pause and tell you about our first sponsor for the day. It's Interior Delights, y' all. Interior Delights is an amazing Colorado based company. It's a Christian owned company. Sarah started Interior Delights because of her passion for design, for making spaces beautiful. And she was offering her services to those in her community. And then she started selling the products that she noticed her customers were loving most. And now she has this online collection of these beautiful, classic, just so perfectly curated pieces that can brighten and freshen your home. I am a simple gal and so the design choices that I have for my home are very simple and minimal. But I love a classic, traditional, bright style that can make my home feel fresh. And that's exactly what you will get at Interior Delights. They make design really easy. If you are like me and you don't have a whole lot of capacity and time to think about all of these like intricate design choices, style to like perfectly make your home, you know, Instagram aesthetic, then you need to go to Interior Delights because they make it easy to make your home absolutely beautiful. They've got brand new collections. They show you exactly how to style them. Once you have a few of these core pieces you can mix and match, move them around and you're done. It's. It's really amazing. It's so good to walk into a room and feel like that room is just complete. Go to interior delights.net ally you can use code ALI for 10% off your first purchase. That's interior delights.net ally all right, claim one. Atheists don't know what they're rejecting. So Jordan Peterson said atheists reject God, but they don't actually know what they are rejecting. So here is someone named David, one of the atheists that rushed to the chair, got to the chair first, sat down and asked this question, sought 1.

[David]

Tell me everything that you know about the Polynesian deity Lono. L o n o. I don't know.

[Greg]

Anything about the Polynesian deity Lono.

[David]

So you're rejecting something without knowledge of what you're rejecting?

[Greg]

I'm not rejecting it no more than I'm rejecting.

[David]

Do you believe in Lono?

[Greg]

I don't know anything about it.

[David]

Do you believe in Lono? I do you believe that he is a deity that exists in the world, exists in the universe, that exists in the existence of everything? Do you. Do you believe that lo.

[Greg]

I'll answer that question once you answer my question, which is do I reject everything that I'm ignorant of? Because that's your presupposition that undergirds your argument. And unless you can prove that that's valid, then there's no point.

[David]

My question is quite simple.

[Greg]

Yeah, but that doesn't formulate it accurately.

[David]

Do you believe that Lono exists? Yes or no?

[Greg]

I'm not going to answer that question for the reasons I just described.

[Ali Stuckey]

Okay, so here's what I would say. You don't have to know something to reject it. You don't have to understand something to reject it if what you accept precludes the validity or existence of the thing you're rejecting. Okay, so let me explain what I mean. So I am a Christian. Christians believe in the triune God of the Bible. The God we believe in says this about himself in Isaiah 44. Five, I am the Lord and there is no other besides me. There is no God. So because I am a Christian, because Christians believe in God and because Christians believe the Bible is God's word.

[Greg]

And.

[Ali Stuckey]

And because the Bible tells us that there is no God besides my God, I don't believe in Lono or any other false God. You don't have to know something or understand something even to reject it. I married my husband. I reject all other men, even though I don't know most of them. But marriage is by nature, by definition exclusive. And so you are announcing your rejection of all others when you enter into that covenant. The Christian God is by nature exclusive. And believing in him means believing that he is the way, the truth, the life, as we read in God's word in John 14:6. And again, you may say, well, atheists don't believe that. They'd rebut that by saying they don't believe in God. They don't believe in the Bible. Yes, but that's actually irrelevant right now to the question that's being asked. The claim and the counterclaim that are being leveled right now. What's relevant is that it is logically and theologically possible to reject an idea or an entity that you don't know about or understand. And Jordan Peterson's claim that atheists reject what they don't understand can still be true. And in light of this answer, because Jordan did not actually claim that, you can never reject that which you don't understand. That's not what he said. That's what this atheist is assuming that he meant by his claim, but that's not actually what he said in his claim. He claimed that atheists specifically reject that which they don't understand, not that no one can reject anything that they don't understand. Now, I don't know if Jordan Peterson's claim is true. It's not a claim that I would make in a debate because I have found through experience that you are more likely to win an argument if you overestimate your opponent rather than underestimate him. So you go into an argument assuming that your opponent is very smart, very logical, prepared, has a full understanding of what they believe and why. When you assume that going into an argument, rather than assuming that your opponent is stupid and that you're so much smarter than them, when you assume that they are smart and logical, you will come up in your preparation with much better arguments. I would assume that everyone in that room knows Christianity well and is well versed in the arguments against it. Now, I don't know if that's true, but it is a safer assumption. It's safer for me to assume that than to assume that they don't know what they're talking about and they don't know what they're rejecting, because Then when they prove very quickly that they're not stupid, that they do have a good understanding of what they're rejecting, then you're left looking unprepared. And I'm not saying that Jordan Peterson is consciously thinking these people are stupid and I'm so much smarter than them. I'm not assuming that he's thinking that. But to start with the claim that atheists never know, they don't know what they're rejecting when they are rejecting God, I think that is a difficult and dangerous and slippery place to start as a debater. But for the record, like, this guy didn't actually have a good question because, again, he's not actually direct, directly addressing the claim that Jordan Peterson made there. He's not really contending with the argument. He thinks that he made a good claim, but he didn't really. Okay, then we have someone who is addressing this claim, one named Greg. Actually, he went before the Lono guy. So his. No, his name is not Greg, it's Kate. He says, my background is in studying to become a traditional Catholic priest. Daily mass, daily rosary, going on long retreats, deep into the magisterium and biblical hermeneutics. Like, I was thoroughly in it, and it seems I do know what I'm missing. Is there something that I missed over years of studying both of this issue formally and living out religion so deeply? And Jordan Peterson said, well, obviously, you know, there's something that you were missing during this training for the priesthood. But Jordan Peterson didn't really elaborate on that. I would say in the beginning, Jordan got better throughout the debate. He seemed very agitated, I would say, by the first people who sat down across from them. And it's true that the opponents are going to be kind of adversarial. Everyone is feeling very tense and agitated because it is so quick and it's such an intense experience. Even just the look of it is very intense. And so I. There was a. There was a lot of tension, I would say, between them. But I don't think that Cade got a very good answer for what he said, because he's trying to say, okay, you're telling me I don't know what I'm missing, but I know religion, I. I know Catholicism, I studied the Bible, I studied these religious traditions. I prayed every day. How could you tell me that I don't know what I'm missing? And I think that that's a fair point, which is why I don't think the claim that you don't even understand what you're arguing. Atheist is a good place to start, because then how do you respond to someone like this who has been studying religion in Catholicism specifically for so long? But the truth is, Cade misses what it actually means to be a Christian. It's not primarily about formality of study. It is not about how deeply religious life is lived out. It's not about how many times you pray the rosary. It's not about going to seminary. It's not about, you know, participating in the worship team. This is actually what separates Christianity from every other religion in the world. We don't become Christians by the behavior that we live out. We don't become Christians or become reconciled to God through works of our own. The Bible actually says that our righteousness is like filthy rags, but we are justified by grace through faith in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We read that in Ephesians 2:8,9. We read in Titus 3:5 6, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior. There is a saying that says often heaven is missed by 18 inches. 18 inches is roughly the distance between the head and the heart. So it could be possible, Cade, that you did have the head knowledge, that you knew about the doctrines of Catholicism, you participated in the sacraments, but that you didn't know the gospel, that you didn't understand it, that you didn't really believe it. I think that's true of a lot of people, whether you're Protestant, whether you are Catholic, that you can have all of the head theological knowledge, but it's never been embedded into your heart. So that you can look at a chair and say, I know that's a chair, but you'll never sit in it because you don't really believe that it can hold you. That means you have knowledge of what something is, but you don't have faith in its function, in its power. And in Christianity, it is the faith that is given to us as a gift of grace by God that saves us, not our actions. So maybe this is what Jordan Peterson was implying when he said, well, obviously you missed something when you were studying for the priesthood. I might say the same thing. But I would want to explain what he actually missed. That just because you have a cognitive understanding of Christianity does not actually mean that you understood God or you understood what it means to have a relationship with God, or you understood the crux of what it means to be a Christian, which is the gospel. So I would say that that was a missed opportunity there. And again, when you have someone who doesn't identify as a Christian, you're debating with a bunch of people, as we'll see later, who thought that they were going to. To be debating a Christian. You get a lot of things that are just missed. They're kind of speaking past each other because there are different expectations and different definitions of things. And we see in this debate that Jordan Peterson doesn't actually believe in God as the Bible describes God. He believes in God as your conscience here sought to.

[Greg]

So Elijah, the prophet Elijah defined God in the Old Testament as the voice of conscience within. Okay, that's a definition.

[Lucas]

So you're saying by that definition of God. See, this kind of goes back to what I'm saying initially.

[Greg]

I'm not defining it. Elijah defines it.

[Lucas]

Okay, so as Elijah defines God, it's.

[Greg]

Defined that way in Jonah, too. Okay, so as Cardinal Newman also defined.

[Lucas]

It that way, as I'm sure you know many people. People who've defined it that way. And it's impressive. You're a very knowledgeable person.

[Greg]

I'm not trying to be impressive. I'm just pointing out to you how God is defined in the Old Testament.

[Lucas]

All right, so to respond to that, I do think there are lots of interesting ways to define God. And that goes back to my.

[Greg]

Then how do we specify what we're arguing about?

[Lucas]

We use context clues. Again, it goes back to my example.

[Greg]

Of Mona Lisa defining God as conscience.

[Lucas]

Okay, so that's interesting. But then you're kind of expanding the meaning of God.

[Greg]

No, I'm not. That's how it's defined in the Old Testament. Okay, so in Elijah and in Jonah.

[Lucas]

Sure. So whoever.

[Greg]

So not whoever. Elijah is one of the major Old Testament prophets. He's equal in statute to Moses. Okay, so it's not arbitrary.

[Lucas]

All right, so that is interesting, but it's not relevant to the context with which I am using the term God directly.

[Greg]

Relevant. Atheists reject God, but they don't understand what they're rejecting. You accept conscience as a guide, and consciousness is one of the defining characteristics of God in the Old Testament.

[Lucas]

I think you're being intellectually disingenuous.

[Greg]

In what way? Because I asked you if you believe that conscience guided.

[Lucas]

You just asked me a question and then you stopped me from answering it. In this setting, you understand the way I am using the term God and belief.

[Greg]

Not in the least. I don't understand how you're using it in the least. That's why I'm trying to define. Define it. My definition of God as conscience is a lot more precise and oriented than your definition of the God that you hypothetically disbelieve in.

[Ali Stuckey]

Okay, I've got a response to that, but before I get into it, let me remind you about Share the Arrows. Share the Arrows 2025, October 11th Dallas, Texas. This is for women. It is a women's only conference and we will be talking about apologetics and theology and motherhood and health and politics. Share the Arrows this year is brought to you by our friends at Carly Jean Los Angeles. I don't know any other women's conference like this, as hard hitting, as profound as this one. This is not just about feelings. It's not just about self esteem. This is about challenging you with the truth of God's word. With edifying worship that's led by Francesca Battistelli. You, you will be surrounded by thousands of like minded women. Come by yourself. I promise that you'll make friends. Or you can come with your small group, your family, your friends. It is going to be amazing. It was incredible last year and y' all, let me just say, I know that y' all were obsessed with the merch last year. I am still obsessed with the merch from last year. I just saw the designs for the merch for this year. They're better somehow. Somehow. These shirts and the hats and the totes that we are going to have this year only at Share the Arrows are even better than last year. Still brought to you by cjla. So same amazing comfort, but even better designs. I am so excited. Okay, go to share the arrows.com get your tickets today. VIP or general admission? Both are great. Go to sharethe arrows.com okay, let's respond to that long clip. And I know it was longer than clips I typically play, but that's because there was a lot of context. I actually like wanted to play their whole exchange. I really liked this guy. His name was Greg. I just really liked his demeanor. So he's trying to get Jordan Peterson to nail down his definition of God. Which is fair because for any conversation, especially a debate that you have, you need to define your terms. I learned that even more during 2020 when we're talking about racism and justice and equality and equity. All of these things have so many nowadays malleable meanings and for Christ. We need to be able to define what they are for everyone, but especially for Christians. So we define them in reality and morality in the Bible, most importantly. And when you're having a debate with Someone that you have a totally different worldview from. You need to be able to decide upon a shared definition so you can have a conversation that's like the basis of communication. That's why the Tower of Babel was such a curse, because no one had the same words. So. So he is trying to nail down what do you, Jordan Peterson, actually believe about God? So we can debate if we even disagree. So they both agree. They both agree on that. They both agree that they can't really have this debate if they can't see eye to eye on who God is. But as a Christian, I have no idea what Peterson is talking about there. Like, I have no idea. I share Greg's frustration here. God is not conscious. He's. He's not. Not according to the Christian worldview. He's not. Maybe there are some people who call themselves Christians who would say that, but there are a lot of people who call themselves Christians who say a lot of wacky things. And that is why we have the Bible as our authority. God convicts our conscience, our mechanism of discerning right and wrong. He can use His Holy Spirit to convict us of right and wrong. I think he can choose to reveal to the non Christian what's right and wrong. I think being made in God's image, having eternity written on the human heart as we read in Ecclesiastes 3:11, I think all of that gives all people some innate sense of justice versus injustice. In the New Testament we see this word conscience quite a few times. Several times Paul references his own conscience, saying, my conscience is clear, I have a good conscience. So, so he's saying in context there, and even if you look at the original Greek, he's saying like, I told the truth. I. I did what I said I was going to do. I acted with integrity, I obeyed God, I did right by others. And first Timothy 4 we read that in the end times, sinners, consciences will be seared. That word seared, that means burned to the point of no longer having functioning nerve endings. So, meaning that their consciences won't be able to feel the prick of convention, of conviction. Rather so God is not conscience. He created the conscience, he can govern the conscience, but He Himself is not conscience. He doesn't give us that option in Scripture, Genesis 1, 1 very first verse of the first chapter of the first book of the Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth. So in that very first verse we read that God is far more than conscience. He is creator. And in John 1 we see that Jesus is this God that everything God the Father did in the Old Testament, Jesus participated in as the second and equal person in the Trinity along with the Holy Spirit. So that means that God is creator and he is Savior. So if I were there, I'd say we are talking about. I am talking about God is the creator of the universe, the authority over all of it. The God is defined by the Bible, Alpha, Omega, the whole shebang, and then we could go from there. Obviously that person would disagree that that entity exists, that God exists, but we would need to agree that that is who we are talking about. This person claims, this person, Greg, who seems like a nice person, misguided I would say, but nice. He claimed that his conscience is dictated by empathy, restrained by reason. Okay, that's interesting. That's actually better, I would say, than what a lot of progressives would say. They would say that they are led by empathy, completely untethered empathy, no parameters on their empathy. That's why I wrote the book Toxic Empathy. But Peterson asks a good question to Greg. He says, what is the mediating principle between two people's contradicting empathetic feelings? If that's what you're led by. If you're led by empathy that is bound by some sort of reason. What if two people have contradicting ideas of like, what is most empathetic in that scenario? And Greg concedes that that's a good question. And he doesn't really know if he has the answer to that. Greg says, you know, that's when you talk it out. And I just wish that they would have gone further on that because that's really it. That's really it. And the guy didn't have a good answer for it, is that the atheist really doesn't have a good answer for why morality exists or where it comes from, but they all agree that some kind of moral principle is necessary to govern society. So I would ask, when he says, you know, it's empathy guided by reason, I would have asked him, what is reason and why? Like what reason is guiding you and why? Why does your empathy have to be dictated by reason? And what guide are you using to constrain your empathy and define your reason? He uses an example. Greg uses an example of he's driving and he sees a kitten being stuck in the middle of the road. He says he would feel empathy for the kitten and he'd be really sad, but he wouldn't stop because he says reason tells him it's dangerous to stop for the kitten. So is it self interest that guides your Reason to constrain your empathy? Is it interest for others well being which one? And if so, why? Why is your life, Greg, or the life of the people on the road more important than this kitten's life? What tells you that it's not reason alone. It can't be reason alone that's constraining your empathy. In that case, it is an inherent understanding that your life and the lives of the other humans on the road are, are more important than this singular kitten's life. And I bet that calculation would change hopefully if you saw a grandmother or a child standing in the middle of the road. And the question is why? The question is what are the inputs for the atheist moral calculations? It's not just reason, it's not just rationale, it's not just logic. Because reason alone cannot tell you why your life is more valuable than a stray cat's life. That is the interesting question and I've never heard an atheist answer it well. So I wish that they would have gone more into that. Now, this idea of God is conscience. Peterson, when he says Elijah refers to God as conscience. I was trying to figure out what exactly he meant by that. There could be something that I've never heard of. There could be a teaching that I have not seen. Scene I think he might be referring to God speaking to Elijah after the whirlwind, after the storm, in a still small voice. He might be proof texting that. So he might be taking that and saying, oh, still small voice. That kind of sounds like how we refer to our conscience. But Elijah certainly did not believe that God was simply conscience. Elijah would have believed, would have known, as Moses knew like, that God is the great I am, that he is the Creator, that he is the lawgiver. He is the beginning and the end. God spoke to Moses through a burning bush, not as his conscience, but as his God as his ruler, to tell him how to save and preserve his people. People. And so just because God decides to talk to Elijah in a different way than he talked to Moses does not mean that God is conscience. Again, God can govern conscience as he did to for Moses, as he did for Elijah, as he does to his people. But that doesn't mean that God is conscience. So that's a different definition there. I think that this section of the debate brings to light the fact that Jordan Peterson's belief in the Scriptures is not actually based on a Christian understanding of who God is and what Christ has done to save humanity. Like Christ is not just an archetype. This is not just a meta narrative that we can kind of like copy and paste here today. It's not just that. I think that there are symbols and lessons and archetypes that we can look for in the Bible. But that's not the point. That's not the point of Scripture. That's not the point of the ark of redemption. That's not the point of Christ. That's not the point of God's eternal plan of redemption. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:19, if in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people, most to be pitied. So it's not just that the Bible gives us some good lessons and some good regulations or that Jesus helps us navigate this life in some kind of upward trajectory, as I heard Jordan Peterson say throughout this debate. It is that he gives us real resurrection, hope for the next life. And if he doesn't give us that, then we are a people to be shamed and we should be embarrassed. Christianity without the hope of the resurrection, without the hope, hope of the next life. The greatest evangelist in the world, Paul says it is embarrassing. So I, I see this a lot. I've seen this with Richard Dawkins. I've seen this with a lot of people who seem to be really attracted to the traditions of Christianity and the lessons of Christianity, who don't buy in to this whole Emmanuel God made flesh thing, this whole resurrection thing. And it's actually, we could look at that and say, well, that's useful, that's practical, that's better than, you know, than believing in Islam. And yes, pragmatically that may be true, but the Bible says it's actually embarrassing to have that kind of short sighted, just earthly faith. And it is. Why sacrifice for something that is going to end you up in the same place as atheism or anything else will, will lead you to. All right, okay, so the second claim. That's just the first claim. We're only in the first claim. The second claim is morality and purpose Jordan Peterson says can't be found within science. All right, we'll get into that in just a second. Let me pause and tell you about our next sponsor. It's Good Ranchers. Y' all know how much I love good ranchers. I am eating good Ranchers in our home every night. Last night we had some stuff, steak. We just put it on the cast iron skillet. Salt and pepper. That's really all you need, y' all. I had a filet from Good Ranchers a couple weeks ago. It was amazing. I am not exaggerating when I say it was better than most, if not all steaks that I've had in a restaurant. That's what you're getting from good ranchers. All American steak. Better than organic chicken, ground beef. You've got seafood. It's supporting American farms and ranches. This is a Christian family owned, owned American company. I know Ben and Coily. They are the real deal. They really just care about American farms and ranches. They care about America. They care about glorifying God and everything they do. It's such a win all around. Subscribe. You'll get that box of meat to your front door every month. They'll do a free add on of meat for the life of your subscription. Plus when you use my link goodranchers.com ally you get $40 off your order. Go to goodranchers.com ally code alley. That's good ranchers.com ally code alley okay, now we have Lucas. So under this claim that morality and purpose can't be found within science. And I guess the implication, although maybe, maybe it's too far to say, the implication is that morality and purpose have to be from God. I would say from Christianity, not just from any supernatural entity. But that seems to be the implication here. And actually the implication is what most of the debaters are debating against. And maybe that's their error or maybe it's a safe assumption. But that's what this person Lucas is doing. He says that he is a former young earth fundamentalist YouTube apologist. Interesting. And yet he doesn't know the answer to one of the most basic. It's a good question, but one of the most basic apologetics questions, which is like why did God allow, or does God allow bad things to happen? And how do we reconcile the fact that slavery existed in the Old Testament and God seems to not have done anything about it? Here's thought 3.

[Xena]

In the Bible, it talks a lot about slavery, right?

[Greg]

Yes.

[Xena]

Yes. So in that it teaches you how to take care of a slave rather than saying slavery is wrong, I think it should.

[Greg]

It says that in the story of.

[Xena]

Moses it says slavery is incorrect. It says it's immoral.

[Greg]

That's why Moses leads his people away from slavery.

[Xena]

But why does the Bible predicate and tell people exactly how to take care of a slave? Isn't that immoral? Wouldn't you say that culturally we've evolved as a species, as he said earlier, about empathy?

[Greg]

Yeah. I would say that the reason we evolved, so to speak, away from slavery was because the west was founded on Judeo Christian morality and the presumption that every person was made in the image of God. And so slavery itself became immoral. And that was established by Protestant Christians in the UK who then convinced the UK government for 200 years to go to war on slavery.

[Xena]

And what did you say that this is about the cultural evolution of humans in general rather than just.

[Greg]

No, I think it's the flowering of the ideas that were embedded in the biblical texts across long spans of time.

[Xena]

I feel like this is just humans editing based on the cultural evolution.

[Greg]

What do you mean by just.

[Ali Stuckey]

Okay, I liked the last part of Jordan Peterson's answer there because he is absolutely right and I'm sorry, but this is not actually a good sound. Interesting argument from Lucas. I think he could have stopped where he said, well, why doesn't the Bible condemn slavery? But then to say that human beings in general have evolved to the point of not liking slavery, that's just not true. This is not true. I mean, look at the world. This is such a basic talking point from secular progressives. And I find it so interesting how many apparently former fundamentalists, former churchgoers, they claim that they had been in church forever. They transition into these atheists or agnostics, and they come out swinging with the most basic tired arguments about the Bible and Christianity. I see it on social media every single day. Okay, here's what I would say. Not every part, and this is like mostly to Christians, but I'd probably try to explain the Christian position to an atheist like this too. Not every part of the Bible is prescriptive. Some of it is just descriptive. It's true that the Old Testament law did not ban outright the owning of slaves. But we see in Deuteronomy 24 and elsewhere in the Old Testament that slavery was to be the last resort for someone who could not provide for his family. It was actually a way for destitute people to be cared for. And in Deuteronomy and Exodus, God gives very clear specifications for how slaves were to be treated. They had rights as image bearers of God. They had protections under the law. They were not to be treated as objects or as property. God is categorically, we see throughout Scripture against oppression. The kind of slavery that Israelites were enduring in Egypt was oppressive, and God freed them from that. And in the New Testament, slavery in the Roman Empire was acknowledged. Slaves were told to obey their masters, but they were also encouraged to seek freedom if they could. And masters were instructed to care for their slaves. In, for example, Ephesians 6, 9, slaves were told that in Christ they had the same position before God as free people did. Galatians 3. 28. Paul doesn't tell Philemon to free Onesimus, but encourages Philemon to welcome him as he would a brother. So it is true that the Bible does not outright condemn every single form of slavery. But the biblical attitude toward slaves as made in God's image as people with rights, as people fully able to receive salvation by grace through faith, receive riches in Christ completely contradicted how, how every other culture and religion has viewed slavery throughout history, which was and still is in many cultures today, an amoral fact of life. It was not, as Jordan Peterson pointed out, until Christians in the west started making an issue of slavery, that it was eventually fought against and defeated. Slavery still exists today around the world. To say that people have just evolved and so we don't accept slavery anymore, I mean, that is so myopic. And it is so often atheists and progressives who say that while we Americans, we're just so blinded by our Western lens and we just need to open our eyes to the way that other countries do things. Well, Africa still has slavery. China still has slavery. Africa sold slaves to Americans hundreds of years ago, and they still sell and use slaves to this day. China makes its weaker Muslim population slaves. So no, humanity in general has not evolved. Christianity's influence has grown. I've talked about this many times, how in the Roman pagan world, people's worth was determined by their Logos, little l Logos. So their ability to reason, their ability to rationalize. And it was believed by the scholars of that time that only the adult free male had the fullness of Logos, and therefore the adult free male only had the fullness of value as a human being. And consequently other kinds of people were treated as subhuman, especially children. That's why abortion and infanticide, a terrible practice called exposure, where unwanted newborns were placed on a hill, exposed to the elements to die. All of that was a widespread, well documented practice. And it took years and, and years to change that, to stigmatize those practices, to stigmatize child sex slavery, which was rampant in the pagan Roman Empire at the time, to stigmatize and eventually criminalize the mistreatment of the poor and the homeless and the sick. And how was that stigmatized? How were those brutal practices eventually criminalized? How were they eventually replaced? Placed with taking special care of the widow and the child and the orphan and the sick and the poor? It didn't just evolve in that way, it was Christians. Christians entered the scene. Christians who preached the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth. Christians who worshiped a God who came to earth as an embryo, who was heralded by the kicks of an unborn. John the Baptist, who was born as an infant in a manger, who as an adult, against the protestation of his disciples, said, let the little children come to me, for such as these belong the kingdom of heaven. This Jesus who healed the sick, who helped the poor, who told his people to do the same. The people, the followers of the way Christians little Christ change how the world saw children, changed how the world defined right and wrong, changed how the world defined justice, introduced the world to the concept of human rights. That didn't just naturally happen. How in the world would that naturally happen? Can't you look at history? Can't you look at the world today and see that humans err towards oppression and selfishness and violence and injustice? And it takes effort to go the opposite direction. Holy Spirit empowered efforts to go the opposite direction. So even just the most basic observation can see that human beings don't evolve towards empathy and goodness and virtue. Christianity has forged Western civilization in a way that has completely revolutionized how the world sees people. And. And Jordan Peterson is right that. Well, we'll get to that. I'm getting a little ahead of myself. That progressives take for granted the rights and the values and the virtues that have been long heralded by the west and they reject their religious, their Christian foundations. So this person who claims to know so much about the Bible really doesn't know that much about Christianity. Okay, let's move on. I'm trying to. I'm running out of time here. And so I have to skip ahead. There are some other interesting questions that were asked by different atheists under that one, that second claim, but we just don't have time for it. So here's claim three. Everyone worships something, including atheists. So Xena, I think she's one of my favorite participants in this debate. She asked some really good questions. Jordan Peterson really liked her too. Here's what she has to say. Stop for what makes someone a Christian and what makes someone not a Christian? What makes. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

[Greg]

Because that's a good question.

[Ali Stuckey]

Yes.

[Greg]

Yeah. Well, probably the deepest answer to that is willingness to shoulder your cross voluntarily and trudge uphill regardless of circumstances.

[Ali Stuckey]

Okay. So she goes on to say that she doesn't think you can get that definition of Christian what Jordan Peterson just articulated from the Bible and that anyone could orient their lives in that way without Being a Christian. And she is correct. Like I just appreciate that she a lot of these people, not all of them, but she at least has a good understanding of what Christians say we believe. And like I said at the beginning, it is always better to start from that position. And she's very effective I think in this conversation because she's steel manning the argument. She's not straw manning it, she's steel manning it. She is trying her best to accurately represent what Christians believe so then she can properly argue against it. The truth is, is that being self sacrificial does not matter. I mean spiritually, eternity eternally at all, unless you believe Jesus is who he says he is, God, and that he died for your sins and rose from the dead. Lots of people are self sacrificial who are not Christian. Christianity is a faith. It is a faith. It is not a set of rules. Faith is something you believe. Hebrews 11:1. Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for. Think about that. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Galatians 3:24 says that we Christians are justified. We are made right, made righteous before God by faith. We are justified by our faith. Peterson says that when Jesus says not all who say Lord, Lord will be saved, he mentions that verse in this debate. He says that the differentiator between those who just say Lord, Lord, and those who are really Christian is about your actions. And I could see how he would think that maybe from Matthew 25. But as he also points out in different parts of this debate, you have to look at Scripture in light of the rest of Scripture. You have to look at Scripture in context. And when we see that, we can see that. When we do that, we can see that it's not your works that justify you. It's not true that the differentiator for Christians is the behavior. It's about who actually believes it. And the work will follow true faith and true belief. But it is the faith given to us by God's grace that justifies us. That's Ephesians 2, 8, 10. It's not the works of the law that justify you. It is not your righteousness, it's not your good works, it's not your prayers. It is actually the faith that is given to you by God that justifies you and makes you right before God. So he's simply not correct when he defines what it actually means to be a Christian. All right, we've got someone who's pointing out, well, it doesn't seem like you are A Christian, Jordan Peterson. And Jordan Peterson's got an interesting answer. Let me pause and tell you about our next sponsor. That is Faith Under Siege. This is a really interesting documentary. It's about the persecution of Christians. There is persecution of Christians happening right now in Ukraine. This is called the Faith Under Siege. Russia's Hidden War on Ukraine. Christians and a region once celebrated as the post Soviet Bible Belt. A rapidly growing community of evangelical and Protestant believers has become a prime target under Russia's expanding occupation. This film recently gained exposure at the Museum of the Bible. Producers hope to shed light on the crisis and mobilize critical Christians to see this film. To learn more about what is going on with our brothers and sisters in Christ over there, Visitfaith under siege dot com. You can also download their prayer guide to pray for peace in Ukraine, the return of abducted children, freedom for Christians under occupation. Go to Faith Under Siege dot com. All right, so this person Danny says, well, I don't think you're a Christian. Stop. 5.

[Danny]

Are you familiar with the Immaculate Conception?

[Greg]

Why is that relevant?

[Danny]

Because you go to a Catholic church, don't you? Or you've attended recently. You're interested in Catholicism, aren't you?

[Greg]

Sure.

[Danny]

All right. Are you familiar with their doctrines?

[Greg]

Somewhat.

[Danny]

Okay, you're familiar. How do they regard. How do they regard Mary?

[Greg]

Why are you asking me that?

[Danny]

Because you're a Christian.

[Greg]

You say that. I haven't claimed that.

[Danny]

Oh, what is this? Is this Christians versus Atheists?

[Greg]

I don't know.

[Danny]

You don't know where you are right now?

[Greg]

Don't be a smart. A smart ass.

[Danny]

Well, and I mean, either you're a Christian or you're not.

[Greg]

If you're a smart ass, either you're.

[Danny]

A Christian or you're not. Which one is it?

[Greg]

I could be either of them, but I don't have to tell you.

[Danny]

You don't have to tell me. I was under the impression I was invited to talk to a Christian. Am I not talking to a Christian?

[Greg]

No, you were invited to.

[Danny]

I think everyone should look at the title of the YouTube channel. You're probably in the wrong YouTube video.

[Greg]

You're really quite something, you are.

[Danny]

Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing.

[Ali Stuckey]

Right?

[Danny]

You're not a Christian.

[Greg]

I'm done with him.

[Ali Stuckey]

Okay? Reddit. Timothy Shamalay. He was a snooty. I didn't like Danny. Okay? I didn't like Danny. I liked some of these other participants, did not like Danny. I actually do not blame Jordan Peterson for how he reacted because I don't think this guy was trying to have an honest debate. This clip is going around as some sort of like dunk on Jordan, Jordan Peterson. But I, I, I don't see it as that, Like I see this guy as acting in bad faith. Okay? So I will, I will answer this. And obviously I am a Protestant. I'm sure that you have gathered that if you are new here. And I really appreciate my Catholic listeners so much and there's so much that we, so much that we agree on and so many things I appreciate about my Catholic friends and followers. But what I'm about to say is probably going to ruffle feathers, which I totally understand. So just stick with me. Okay? I'm not totally sure what Danny was getting at when he was asking about Mary and if Catholics worship Mary. I am all for a good veneration of Mary debate and I'm going to get into some points in a second, but I'm not sure what he was trying to prove here or how the Catholic veneration of Mary would disprove Peterson's claim that everyone worships something. Maybe he was going to say, I'm gonna give Danny the benefit of the doubt and act like he had like a thought out argument here. And maybe he did so to assume the best. Maybe he was going to say this, that Catholics say they don't worship Mary, but they pray to her, they have iconography of her, they prioritize her, they ascribe to her superhuman qualities like the ability to understand all the languages of the world and carry those prayers to God. And this in Danny, this atheist might be saying, well, that seems to fit your definition of worship. And Jordan's definition of worship is to attend to or prioritize. And Catholics attend to, he might say and prioritize Mary, but they say they don't worship her. So Danny is probably trying to argue in the same way atheists attend to and prioritize certain things, but they don't worship them. Okay, as a Protestant, I would say no, that is worship. I know Catholics say that they don't worship Mary, I totally understand that. But I would say praying to an icon of something daily and giving someone characteristics that are biblically only reserved for God. Jesus is the mediator between God and man. Jesus gives us peace, the Holy Spirit tells us what to pray, hears our prayers, intercedes for us. Jesus is the only sinless one. Jesus is the only one who is immaculately conceived. All of that, no matter what you call it, does seem to amount to worship. And by the way, this is an aside we don't see this reflected in Scripture at all. The Bible gives us the best picture of what the early church was like. In Acts and in the Epistles, we see no mention at all of honoring Mary in this way, not even a slight implication of it. So that line of argumentation from Danny wouldn't have worked on me. Um, but Peterson is right in this claim. Everyone worships something. You might worship money, your job, your free time, sex, sports. And I don't think prioritize and attend to is a bad definition of worship. But there's more. I would say it is. What do you orient your life around? What directs you? I'd. I'd argue that most atheist today, and even those who claim to be religious, worship the God of self. It can also mean, like, to adulate or to adore and, or to, to praise. And so there, I think, is an expanded definition of what worship can actually mean. And I think that the claim is an interesting one, and I wish they would have gone a little bit different of a direction, at least with Danny. Is that his name? At least with Danny. But there are some interesting parts in that, and I do encourage you to go back and to watch that part of the debate. Okay, here's the last claim. Atheists accept Christian morality. Jordan Peterson claims, but deny their religious foundations, which I agree with. Okay, here is what Ian has to say. Ian might be, I think, more irritating than Danny. And that's. That's a lot. Here's thought six.

[Xena]

So God says that you can own people as property. He says that you can beat them with a rod too. He commands genocide and Deuteronomy and in numbers. And in Samuel. I mean, they have a baby barbecue in numbers. Like is. Is all of this in line with Christian ethics?

[Greg]

No.

[Xena]

So then God doesn't fit within Christian ethics?

[Greg]

Well, the biblical library is a continuing story, and everything written in it has to be contextualized by the entire text. There's 65,000 hyperlinks in the biblical text. You can take pieces of it out, out of context and criticize them. And that's what you're doing. But that's a mistake. I think it's an analytic mistake because you're putting the cart before the horse.

[Ali Stuckey]

Okay, first of all, God does not say that you can own people as property. As we've already explained about slavery, those people are still made in the image of God. That was a relief from their destitution and from their severe poverty. Last resort. So that part is not true. And so he's proof, texting it. He is putting his idea into Scripture. And Jordan Peterson is right that you do have to read scripture in light of Scripture. And I will give this guy credit. At least he. He was able to articulate the entire thrust of his argument, unlike our friend Danny. So Peterson says more about that. And he is absolutely right that decontextualizing Scripture to make a point is an analytical mistake. To read Scripture in context, and as you would read any other historical account, or even a literary account, if you don't think that this is real history, is to know that not everything is prescriptive. As we've already noted, Solomon had lots of wives. That is descriptive, not prescriptive. And not everything that God prescribed to Israel at that time is a prescription for us today. So looking at the whole biblical narrative, we see that Israel was God's chosen people. He created all people, but not all people were His. We see throughout the Old Testament that God will stop at nothing to glorify Himself and to protect his chosen people, to preserve them, to fight on their behalf, even when they sinned, even when they rebelled because of his mercy, he preserved them. And in the New Testament, we see that God again stops at nothing to save his own people, a new people made up of both Jews and Gentiles through Christ, for which he sacrifices his own son. So the bloody brutality endured by God's enemies to save Israel points to the bloody brutality endured by God's son to save his enemies. That's us. So I'll repeat what I said a couple weeks ago about Passover that explains this. And I was telling the story about when my daughter asked why people would celebrate Passover if children in Egypt died. And this is not the explanation I gave to her, who is five. This is the explanation that I'm giving you adults. But Passover is celebrated not because of the death that occurred, but because God was making a way for his people to be saved. And it took this action, this killing, to convince Pharaoh to let God's people go and free them from slavery. The lamb's blood over the door frames of the houses of Israel that signaled God's spirit to pass over them was a signifier of what was to come. The blood of the final spotless lamb, Jesus, which cleanses us from sin and saves us from eternal death. Also in Exodus 4:22, God calls Israel his firstborn son. He says, you, Egypt, and Pharaoh, you're killing and oppressing my firstborn. I will now kill your firstborn. So here he kills his enemy's firstborn son to save his own firstborn son, Israel. But in the New Testament, what does God do? He kills his own son to save his enemies who become his sons and daughters. So in the Old Testament, he kills his enemy to save his children. In the New Testament, he kills his child to save his enemies. I think of Romans 5:15, for if many died through one man's trespass, that's Adam. Much more have the grace of God and the free gift of the grace of that one man, Jesus Christ abounded for the many. We also see that God hates oppression. He hates sin, he hates injustice. He flooded the earth because of the evil happening in the world. And he commanded Israel to wipe out the Amalekites because of their sin and oppression. That's what this guy was talking about here, the defeat of the Amalekites and how God instructed Israel to kill all of them, including their children and their infants. But again, context. The Amalekites were known as nomadic plunderers. For centuries they traveled around terrorizing people groups and preying upon the weakest among them, women and children. They did this to Israel. We see this in Deuteronomy and Exodus and 1st Samuel. Several references to the wickedness of the Amalekites throughout the Old Testament show that just kind of darkness that they were up against. So God wanted to ensure that no descendants of the Amalekites would be able to inflict this kind of terror again. So in 1st Samuel 15, he tells King Saul, not everyone, everywhere, at all times. He tells King Saul, you need to totally destroy the Amalekites, including their children. And Saul disobeyed, by the way, and he didn't destroy everyone. And the Amalekites continued to terrorize Israel and other people groups for centuries, killing other women and children. So I think we have no clue the wickedness committed by some of these pagan societies. We do know that child sacrifice was rampant. All kinds of depravity and violence were the norm. I saw the other day someone posted this archaeological finding. It was a picture of this mask that had been dug up that was believed to be worn in ancient societies. It was written about or worn in ancient societies to mock the victims of child sacrifice as they were screaming, being fed to the fire to please their gods. When you read things like that, the kind of malice and deep depravity that existed, it's like, it's no wonder that God ordered for the destruction of some of these groups. And actually the children were probably spared torture and torment by God carrying this out. No one likes the idea of babies dying. Well, I don't like the idea of babies dying. I would actually say it's a little ironic because pro abortionists have no problem with this. Which is of course the irony here that this guy more than likely celebrates abortion, which is widespread infanticide, and thinks that he's morally superior to Christians who have been on the front lines against infanticide and child sex trafficking and slavery and the mistreatment of orphans and widows and the poor for millennia. The hard truth is there are things about the Bible and history and God that we do not understand. If there are things that we understand that kids can't understand just in general, and we're two finite beings, then how much bigger is the gap of understanding between us and God? Finite beings in an infinite one. We don't explain everything to our toddlers that they don't understand because we know that telling them too many details would probably make them more anxious. And so don't you think it's possible that God doesn't explain everything to us because we don't have the capacity full to fully understand it? And by the way, the inclusion of stories like that in scripture actually lend to Scripture's credibility. Like if the Bible were just compiled by men who wanted to assert their religion and way of life onto society, they would have excluded all the difficult to understand stuff. They wouldn't have included the passages about about God destroying or ordering the destruction of societies. They would have just made a PR pamphlet for him. Instead, they included the hard stuff. They included the stuff that shows how difficult God's people have it. So that's that. I probably wouldn't have time to answer that thoroughly in that kind of setting, but that's what I would say. It's a good question. It's a difficult question, but it is an answerable question. Now, whether or not that answer is satisfactory to the atheists there, I don't know. All in all, I actually think that Jordan Peterson did a lot better than some critics on social media are saying. I think it was a missed opportunity. However, there should have been a Christian. There should have been a Christian representing the Christian position. And I'm not even sure that Peterson really believes in God. It sounds to me like he believes an idea of God that could be the conscience, that could perhaps be. Be other things. I'm not even sure that fits the definition of theism. So it's a really big missed opportunity here. It was more of an opportunity for atheists to dunk on someone who is opposing them. I really hope Jubilee does this again with a Christian apologist that can answer some of these questions. But kudos to everyone who volunteered for that because that's very intense and very tough. And I enjoyed watching it and it made me think myself, and I always welcomed the opportunity to think more deeply about my faith and why I believe what I believe. All right, just to close this out, I want to remind you to subscribe to Blaze tv. It's how you protect your ability to watch us. You protect this community, you protect our content. We are always battling with big tech, whether it is YouTube, whether it is Apple, trying to ensure that our content is actually seen, that it's not being censored. One place that I am never, ever censored, I have complete freedom of thought, freedom of speech is at Blaze tv. And so I hope that you join us. We've got behind the Paywall content only for our subscribers. When you go to blazetv.com ally you get a discount on your subscription and you get access to all of the Blaze TV host content. Go to blazetv.com ally code ally. All right, that's all we got time for today. We'll be back here tomorrow.

[Xena]

Sa.