Joe, who's on line two, so we're going to go to Joe.
Joe, can you hear us?
J: Yes, I can hear you.
T: Hi Joe, this is Tracie and Don is with me today.
Welcome to the show.
J: Right. Hi Tracie and Don
and thanks so much for taking my call.
T: Sure. Before you go on, I was just going to say:
The screeners have put up that you are saying
that 'god is the ultimate source of love in the world'.
T: Is that about right? Is that what you're ...
J: Well, right. T: Okay.
J: Yes, and there's a couple of corollaries which go with that.
And first of all, your show is great. I love your show.
Unfortunately, I don't have the intellectual horsepower,
debate horsepower that you guys do. T: Neither do I.
You're very good at what you do.
But ... And you're probably actually
more moral than many Christians out there.
So I think, you know,
good people can be non-religious people, too.
We're both just seeking the truth, actually.
I think certain people do that today,
where they approach it with some intellectual rigour,
seeking the truth.
And you know, I listened to ...
Dawkins
and he kind of converted young
because he didn't find the god of explanation.
He found natural selection with random mutations
as being evolution.
He really didn't need a god of explanation.
And I agree with him a lot.
I think we can explain a lot of things,
maybe the beginning of the Big Bang ...
T: Go on. J: The rest is science,
J: and science will fill in the gaps.
But what I believe in, I think there is a god of love.
I think love is a metaphysical ... component.
There are changes in brain chemistry
but they seem to happen after the feelings of love are initiated.
So, it's like the chicken-and-egg. T: Wait a minute.
T: You're saying then that you do not believe
that things like ... that the chemicals in your brain
like dopamine and that
are actually what drives the feelings that you feel.
You say you don't believe that your brain chemistry ...
J: No, I ... By that I ... T: Because that flies in the face
T: of the models of how emotional feedback occurs.
You have an event that happens,
you feed that into your brain,
then your brain responds with an emotional response
that it gives back to you and then you become aware of it.
T: That's the model of emotion. J: You become aware of love?
D: Yeah.
T: You become aware of fear, of anger,
of all of it once your brain feeds it back to you
and then your conscious self is given that information
from the unconscious parts of your brain
that regulate that.
J: Right. There's just no doubt, you look at cocaine,
you take the cocaine, you get the neurotransmitter release.
And then you have the feeling. T: Right.
T: And when you have a person, when you bond with another person,
it's the same thing.
That person then sets off these good chemicals
that then give you these good feelings.
T: It's the same way. You have a stimulus and a response.
J: Right. But if you think about ...
D: What we're fishing for ... T: Hold on. Let him go.
J: ... the instantaneous ... T: Go ahead.
J: ... instantaneous love feeling,
you can instantaneously measure neurotransmitters in the brain.
They're not nearly at the level of what you would get
by using cocaine or something like that.
T: Wait a minute. D: Do you have a citation for this?
T: I guess my question would be ...
T: Some of the most intense feelings that people can have
are things like fear, like traumatic responses, extremely intense.
There are going to be things
that make me have more intense fear than other things, correct?
T: I'm more afraid of a cockroach than of a grasshopper,
I can promise you.
If I see a grasshopper on me, I'll probably just brush it off.
If I saw a cockroach on me,
I'd be screaming and running around the room.
So, there's intensity differentials,
depending on the stimulus.
I don't know whether or not it's true about cocaine
but to me it's an irrelevancy
because I already would grant you
that different stimulus will stimulate
different levels of emotional response.
J: Well, correct. But I mean, it's just my personal opinion
that love goes beyond neurotransmitters.
T: What do you mean when you say, it's just your personal opinion?
T: What does that mean?
T: You just think it for ... reasons? D: It sounds to me like
D: you got this big and wonderful thing J: No, because there's ...
J: ... delay in neurotransmission after the initial feeling.
T: You wouldn't be aware of it ... J: It's not just ...
T: If your brain had not sent you the signal,
you wouldn't be aware of it.
You're basically saying 'I feel pain before my nerves
go to my brain and send back the signal of pain',
that doesn't even make sense.
That makes no sense.
You're saying that you feel it
before the stimulus is actually fed into your brain,
which then issues the response to your conscious self.
And that doesn't fit the model of feedback.
T: The feedback ... D: We'd love a scientific paper on this.
T: I would say you might want to look into intrapersonal communication,
which is how you communicate with yourself.
Because that's what we're talking about here.
How your brain provides feedback to you,
so that you communicate into your brain,
there's this dog growling at me,
then your brain kicks back 'fear' or 'defense'
or whatever your brain kicks back, depending on who you are.
Different people will respond differently to that.
But it doesn't make sense to say
I'm feeling fear before my brain has even processed
that I'm in a situation that puts me into a state
where I should be afraid.
J: I think we're just talking about the timing of ...
T: But the timing is important.
Because the timing you're describing does not make sense.
It doesn't seem ...
D: That's why I'm fishing for a scientific paper.
J: You're saying the ... of love ... D: You've got this claim
D: and you're not backing it up with evidence.
D: And I understand that maybe you read it somewhere or whatever.
But we'd welcome to take this offline
on the tv@atheistexperience.com.
T: I'm going ... Go ahead, go for it another couple of minutes,
go for a minute or two,
just let me know if I've misunderstood something.
J: No, I don't think you misunderstood.
I think we're just talking about
the timing of neurotransmitter release.
And if we just take the premise
that love is also metaphysical, that entire ...
T: I don't know what that means.
Can you define what you mean by 'metaphysical'?
J: It's part of the soul, D: It's mysterious.
J: part of our spiritual nature.
T: I don't understand what a soul and spiritual nature are.
Can you explain what you mean by that?
J: Okay. I believe we are people that are both spirit and physical.
T: What are you calling 'spirit'?
J: Spiritual ... soul.
T: That doesn't help
because I don't know what a soul is either.
So can you explain to me
what is a soul, what is a spirit?
D: My last show was 'the failure of the soul'.
T: What part of me is the soul?
When I'm looking for a soul
and you can make it an emotional response,
whatever you want to call it.
What would I understand, what would I interpret as my soul?
J: I think your soul is basically your personality, your spiritual ...
I don't think personality is based on the brain.
T: It is. J: The soul is ...
D: When you have brain damage, your personality can change.
J: ... being spiritual. No, I agree with you totally on that.
T: Wait, wait. Let me break this down.
And I'm not harsh here on you,
I just want to help you understand the trouble that I'm having.
When someone says, this is metaphysical,
and I say, what is metaphysical?
-- 'It has to do with soul and spirit'.
-- 'What do you mean [by that]? Let's talk about that.'
Then you say, 'It's like your personality
what you, Tracie, might relate to what I'm calling soul.'
-- 'I got you, personality.'
Then you say, 'You'd probably say this is a brain function
but I'm thinking more on a spiritual level',
which means the thing that I just identified with,
with you describing where I said okay, I get you,
now I don't get you anymore.
Because when you told me 'personality',
I got the idea, I understand personality,
where that comes from, how that functions.
But then when you say,
'except not personality like you're thinking of it, Tracie,
it's like a different spiritual personality',
now I no longer ...
now even personality doesn't mean personality anymore to me.
So, I'm trying to figure out
what would I identify as a soul or a spirit?
J: Right. And I'm saying
it's the dual nature that I believe people are there.
T: I know you believe it.
I'm trying to figure out what you believe.
What is it that you're calling the part of the nature
that I have trouble identifying?
Like, what is that? J: I know, yeah.
J: And I really have trouble defining a soul,
I don't even think theologians can exactly
define what a soul is,
except our spiritual, everlasting nature ...
D: It seems like you're inventing a mystery so that god can explain it,
is what I'm hearing here.
T: My problem is that I don't know
that what you're describing has been identified.
And I don't know what to relate it to in reality.
In reality, what I experience, J: Right. I don't ...
T: I don't know what this is that we're discussing.
J: Sure. And there's no scientific proof of a soul either.
But I wanted to ask you a question.
T: But you have to mean something by it.
It doesn't matter if there's scientific proof,
you have to mean something,
this 'soul' points to something that you're describing,
and that's what I'm kind of most interested in.
J: Okay. Let's take it I know you won't believe this either
but a near-death experience where people say
their soul leaves the body, they rise up
and then they kind of
move through a tunnel of light or something.
Some people say it's the dying brain,
some people say it's more than that.
It's that entity that when we die,
rises up of our body just like in a near-death experience,
so it's spiritual and not dependent on our bodies for life.
T: What would that be?
What would that be?
Because if your brain ... I mean I don't ... where would ...
I don't know even how to express it.
I don't know what that would be.
D: It seems like it's a common facette J: It's not physical.
of a lot of religions that you're going to cheat death,
live on and be a spirit
T: I guess here's the thing. D: ... or a ghost or a soul.
T: Other species, other social species
have emotions, emotional feedback.
They have similar emotional feedback to what we experience.
I guess my question would be
-- and I'm not being flip --
but e. g. rats are very social.
They're social, they've been involved in experiments
where they show what seems to be a tendency
towards sometimes [maybe not] altruism, but empathy
towards other rats, for example.
They'll get disturbed by another rat experiencing pain.
I guess my question would be,
do you think that when a rat dies,
that a rat is seeing itself
and that the rat personality is embodied somehow in what?
What embodies that?
T: What would it be? J: Yeah. No.
J: I'll totally agree with you with the rat.
And mostly because the rat has no concept of reason or morality.
T: Certainly they have reason. They're very good at mazes.
They understand the goal and how to ...
You have to able to reason
or you couldn't do ... work a maze.
J: I guess I'm talking about the higher levels
of functioning of morality, of Right and Wrong. Rats don't know.
T: Do you have to have right and wrong ...
The rat does have ... he does understand though,
that there's something not right
when the other rat is being tortured,
the rat won't eat if the other rat's shocked
when he eats and he sees that.
So, how is that not a concept of 'Wrong'
when he says, 'If I eat, that rat suffers,
so I'm not going to eat'?
Isn't that kind of a demonstration of a moral tendency?
J: I think that's just some simple reflex of survival.
T: How does it help the rat survive to not eat because another rat suffers?
D: Only humans have souls, right?
J: Because the rat would be suffering if he ate.
He's seeing that, you know.
He's associating Pavlovian with eating and suffering.
J: But if ... T: Wait a minute.
T: That is not at all the theory behind what the rats do
and primates and other animals do this as well.
Empathy and the empathetic response
is actually considered to be
a demonstration of a moral tendency in an animal.
And for you to say that animals don't have this, I mean,
animal behavioural psychologists
have studied moral tendencies in other species
and we do have more than just the rat study.
There're other examples, other research as well
into what would be either morality
or what some people feel more comfortable calling protomorality.
I'm okay calling it morality because it's a group ...
D: We're far more like other animals
than a lot of people want to admit.
T: I just have ... J: Right. But I do not think
J: animals have a high concept of Right and Wrong.
T: But they have personalities.
I have cats and they're all different.
J: They have personality.
J: But they don't have higher level cognitive function
or distinguish right and wrong. T: Why would higher level
T: cognitive function ... Wait a minute.
T: Why would higher level cognitive function be important
if personality can transcend the physical?
Why wouldn't the personality of the cat transcend the physical?
Why would their level of reasoning matter?
Do you think that people
who e. g. have damaged brains no longer have souls?
J: No. But from the point of view ... T: They can't reason.
J: If a monkey steals another monkey's banana,
it doesn't view that as right.
T: Why does that matter to the concept of the personality,
that if I have an existent personality,
it can transcend a physical body.
Why would whether or not you have moral reasoning
be important to that?
This feeds into that initial question, what is a soul?
Because why would a soul
require higher level reasoning or morality?
Why wouldn't it just require
particular bonding feelings for example?
J: Because I think a soul becomes responsible for its actions,
whereas a monkey is not. T: Why?
D: We can have morals without god, believe it or not.
T: I agree with you about morals without god
but I'm more curious about why the type of personality matters.
If it has a personality, why wouldn't that personality
transcend the death of the rat, the dog, the monkey or the person?
If personality can go on,
if that part of the brain that produces personality
can go on after the brain dies in some unexplained way,
why would being able to understand morality even matter?
J: Well, it wouldn't.
T: Okay, then a soul is not contingent
on whether or not you have capacity for moral reasoning?
D: You think religions have anything positive to say about morality?
T: That's a whole kind of other thing.
D: That's a big [...], isn't it?
T: But I mean ... J: You know, but of course I do
J: but I think I do a lot of things wrong, too.
There's one question I've always been wanting to ask.
D: Okay, tell us. J: Do you believe there's no greater love
J: than laying down your life for your friend?
D: I don't know that love requires death.
T: He's not asking that.
He's asking, would there be some other example of a greater love ...
Yes, there might be a greater love.
T: Let's see. So, for example ... D: Taking care of somebody who's sick
D: ... is a fine example. T: God wanted Abraham ...
T: to prove his love by killing his son, not by killing himself.
T: Right?
J: Right. But you go barking up the wrong tree
because I think the bible is corrupt in so many ways.
T: Wait. But the point is what if somebody said,
I will kill somebody else that I love
because I love you more.
T: I would sacrifice someone else I love.
T: That's the whole Jesus story, right?
God loves you so much, he killed his son.
J: No, two wrongs still don't make it right.
The American soldier
who throws himself on a hand grenade
to save his platoon,
what greater love could he have done?
T: Losing someone he loves more than himself.
T: If I love someone more than myself,
let's say I say I love you and you say,
is that the greatest love?
And I say, yes, I have the greatest love.
If you were in a chair and my child was in a chair
and I could only save one of you,
you both were going to be electrocuted
and I had to push the button,
I would save you and let my child die.
That's not me murdering my child.
I have to make a choice, someone's going to die.
But I would kill my kid before I kill you,
the whole biblical story is based on the idea
that that would mean that I love you more
than even someone I love more than myself.
I love my child more than myself
but I would even sacrifice my child for you.
Isn't that the idea?
J: I really don't think it is the idea.
J: I think it's just a ... T: Would it be a greater love?
T: Than killing myself?
It would be easy for me to say, 'I'll die to save you'.
It would be hard for me to say,
'I'd let my child die in order to save you'.
That would be much harder for me
to not kill someone else
but to allow that person to die, I'd rather sacrifice --
A lot of people say, I'd rather sacrifice myself
than someone that I care about, to save someone else.
The whole Trolley Dilemma,
there are people who are like,
'If I could be on the track and kill myself,
I'd do that if I could derail the train and die.
I don't want to kill anybody on the tracks,
neither the hitchhiker nor the group,
I'd rather just kill myself.'
J: I'm not talking about suicide or suicide by proxy.
I'm not talking about something like that.
I'm talking about, you're in a situation
like the American soldier that threw himself on a hand grenade.
T: Sure. And you said is there a greater love?
J: ... he knew that would have killed his friends.
T: But you asked, is there any greater love?
And I'm saying, maybe if I would choose you
to save over my child, that might be a greater love
because I would almost rather die
than kill my own child to save someone.
But if I was willing to kill my child to save them,
then that would be me giving up somebody
I love more than my own life to save you.
I think that would be a greater love.
D: I think that's a fine example.
Unfortunately, it doesn't relate to any religious parables.
T: No, it does because ... J: No, it doesn't.
T: 'no greater love hath any man
than to lay down his life for his friends'.
And I'm saying the guy who would kill
his own child for his friends loves them more.
D: That's right. Good beer buddies.
J: You're bringing the child into it.
T: Because you asked if there was a greater love.
D: She answered your question.
T: That would be a greater love. D: What was the point of the question?
J: The point of love is if your life is in peril or --
J: The story of -- St. Maximilian Kolbe
was a Catholic priest in a concentration camp
and there was an escape
and the Nazi guards took out 10 prisoners to shoot randomly,
took out one guy, he said 'I have a family, I have a daughter'.
The priest came, he said 'No, take me', put him back in line.
T: Sure. J: 'I'm a Catholic priest'.
J: That's the types of situation I'm talking about,
not choosing between a kid and me and all that other stuff.
T: What if the guards said, J: If you were in a concentration camp ...
T: ... 'We will let this guy with the family go,
but we won't take you,
but we will take your wife',
and now he still says 'okay'?
J: Well, I mean I think that would be up to the wife
to make that decision. But just go with ...
T: The guards are making the decision really.
T: They're going to kill somebody
and it's up to him to decide who. J: How would I make the decision?
T: It's a situation where the guards
put everybody in a situation where no one may act morally, really.
They're all going to act in a way that is difficult.
Like you said, he can give his own life
but what if they said
this man will only see his children again
if you give up your wife, and the guy loves his wife
T: and would rather die. J: I understand.
T: But he can't.
J: Right. Catholic priests aren't married.
T: Sure. J: So the only thing
he could give up was his life.
And in that situation would there have been
a greater love that he could have committed?
T: What if it was his mother?
J: Would it be a greater love to stay in line
and say, 'Hell, no. I'm not being executed.'
T: No, I would agree with you
that you would have to have some compassion
or concern or care or call it love
in order to be willing to
put yourself in there for that child.
E. g., if someone were to murder a child
and put a gun to a child's head
and then said, 'It's either this kid or you'
yes, I would die for that child.
I think most people would.
I think some people wouldn't
and I would not fault them for that.
I don't think they're evil
but I wouldn't even think about it.
I think I would just instinctively be like, 'do not kill this child'.
D: Let's pop up a little what does this have to do with god?
J: Well, I'm just saying that because at the time
for example no Sanhedrin person
would give up their life for a beggar, at the time.
The only time where you would die
would be in the glory of battle.
T: Who? Wait. What are you talking about?
T: When? Is this the story you were talking about?
Is that the context .. J: No. I'm talking ...
J: The topic is love of god
and I'm saying this is the quote from Jesus,
which was kind of novel at the time.
T: No, because people have been dying for other people
since there's been wars.
You go off to war to protect the people you leave home.
So, people have been dying for each other
since there's been opportunity to do so.
J: Right. 'I said mine is the glory
that had been there for dying for one's country in war'.
That was promulgated through the army.
T: You don't think there was such a thing as self-sacrifice,
that people died e. g. for their children
or threw their lives on the line for --
or for their communities.
D: Like there's not enough food. Who gets the food?
D: Generally the kids do.
J: Yes, usually the child gets the food. T: Sometimes.
J: The parents do that.
Yes, not all of the times, you're right.
But all I'm saying is that it's possibly true
that there is no greater love than doing that.
T: I guess a person can look at that.
I'm not going to argue with you
about the value that you place on
particular types, styles or demonstrations of love.
It's kind of [...]
D: Can we agree that killing your kid is a bad thing
and it's not a demonstration of love?
J: Oh my god, that's the most perverse thing
when people say the person was possessed
or god made me kill this person.
T: I think ...
D: So, when god kills Jesus,
that was a bad thing, right?
And not a demonstration of love. J: No. I ...
T: It's perverse. D: It's perverse.
J: I think besides the finish --
I don't want to go on that
but if he said it and he did it --
when I was in the army,
the drill sergeant did everything we did
D: Beside what the stories said.
J: and we had a lot more respect for him.
J: Christ went through life as god
so that when we suffer, when we're in prison,
like he said, 'I've always done it for you,
I came and I did it for you as a human being'.
D: Yeah. Bullshit.
J: Just like the drill sergeant.
You have much more respect
when someone goes through those exercises
and basic training in the army
and does it better than you,
than just telling you to do it.
T: Do you think if someone commits murder
and someone else is willing to go to the chair for them,
that we should allow that?
D: Is that a good thing?
D: What is it called? Substitutionary sacrifice?
T: If the innocent says,
'I'll take the chair and let this murderer go free',
would that be good?
D: I think it's morally reprehensible.
J: Yes. Right. I would wonder why
this person who is guilty would take that place of that --
T: No, the person who is innocent -- D: Who made the rule
T: Wait a minute. D: that there had to be a sacrifice?
T: Let's say it's somebody
against the death penalty who says,
'I will die as an innocent to save this other person
because I find death penalty completely wrong.
The whole idea that --
The only reason in the bible anybody had to die
is because god set up this system of sacrifice,
which is really weird.
D: So he's killing himself to appease himself
for a rule that he made up. What a bunch of bullshit.
T: He could have just said, treat people well
and I will judge you on that.
Instead of 'people must die'.
T: Right? Nobody had -- let's be clear on this.
D: Let's just kill people and call it love.
T: No one had to die.
This is an example where you have a situation
where all these people -- you have the military troop there,
they're not in any danger
and someone pulls the pin on a hand grenade,
throws it down and then jumps on the grenade themselves.
How does that even make sense? D: That's love.
J: Well, because all four people would die that were there.
T: But the guy who pulled the pin
gets snaps for then sacrificing himself
on the grenade that he just unloaded?
J: Oh, I see, you're talking about the same guy.
T: Yeah! The guy who set up, sacrifices himself
actually put everybody in the situation where they're going to die.
D: That's what we're talking about here,
Jesus as god and the son, it's all confused.
T: Who would applaud that?
Why do you get snaps for that?
D: It's like gory performance -- J: I'm talking about a grenade
j: thrown in from the enemies --
T: Wait, but if I'm talking about Jesus
and you're saying that he is god,
he pretty much said he's the one
that pulled the pin on the grenade.
He pulled it himself,
then threw himself on it. Right?
J: Yes, that's right. I agree with you, Tracie, completely.
I don't think that for our,
for our Christian salvation and god for our salvation
that Christ needed to die.
J: He did not need to die. T: Correct.
J: That could have ... and saved us.
T: Sure. Then you don't get glitz for killing yourself
when you made the need to die. D: That's not compelling, is it?
J: But just don't look at the killing, look at the suffering, right?
T: There was no need for the suffering!
Is it just self-important?
D: I would love it if Christians worried more
about the suffering that they have caused
other people in the world.
D: Christians have murdered and tortured Jews,
burned witches and all these things.
They caused far more suffering than Jesus ever went through.
T: If Jesus went through any. I mean ...
D: If he even existed.
T: I guess my whole thing is
I don't get this whole suffer porn thing.
That reminds me of Mother Theresa
and how she was all into the suffering and seeing people suffer
and it's just like 'What in the ...'.
How is that beautiful for someone to suffer?
And how is it meaningful for them to suffer unnecessarily?
Or to just sort of self-flagellate, how is that beautiful?
T: I don't get it. J: I agree with you.
J: I don't think self-flagellation --
Some people unfortunately and in my profession I see
cancer people suffering all the time --
T: Wait. But the story of Jesus is a story of self-flagellation.
This is what I'm saying. Jesus tortured himself.
He didn't have to. He just sat there and went through this.
Instead he didn't have to set up the system this way.
He chose a course where he would suffer
just for the sake of suffering.
Because it wasn't necessary.
J: Right. But he did nothing to himself.
J: It was all the Romans ... T: He created the entire situation.
T: He orchestrated this whole thing. D: Is Jesus god or not?
T: When I went to church, they called this the plan of god.
God's plan for salvation.
So, how do we sit here and say
Jesus didn't do it to himself? He surely did.
He set up the whole thing.
D: Either it was a plan or it was a fuck-up. Pick one.
J: Well, I think he accepted it.
J: But let's just take an ... T: He created it!
T: He didn't just accept it. He orchestrated this.
T: On himself for no reason.
J: You think he made the Sanhedrin and Judas and all those people
come to him, arrest him, prosecute him and try him ...
T: If I believe that salvation comes through Christ
and this was god's plan of salvation,
the answer to that question has to be Yes.
T: 'Yes, I believe Jesus did and orchestrated all of this.'
J: That's kind of mind control over all these people, right?
J: A kind of mind control. T: No, what I'm saying is ...
T: that when you are a god
and this is what your plan is contingent on,
it's not going to fail.
God created the universe according to the story, did he not?
D: Is god the same as Jesus or not?
T: Did he know, when he created the universe,
the course of events through to the end of time?
Is he all-knowing?
J: Yes.
T: Okay, so then he knew when he built it
that he built it in such a way
that all of these events were going to play out
exactly as they did.
Did he not set up a universe
where the Sanhedrin would do what they did?
He could have built a different universe. He built this one.
So, yes, he did build the universe in such a way
that this would necessarily occur.
T: That's impossible to argue otherwise. J: Yes.
J: Yes, I know. I'm not going to argue with that.
T: So then, yes, he did set it up
to where the Sanhedrin would do this,
to where Pilate would do this,
to where the Jews would do this, to where ... yes.
D: All say in unison.
J: I think he knew as how they would do it.
But I don't think he made them do it.
T: He set up a universe J: He knew that ...
T: that would do this. He could have set up a different universe.
J: He knew that with free will we'd choose to do this.
T: But he could have had ... D: You can't have it both ways.
T: He set the universe up in such a way that this would occur.
J: Right. He giving us free will ... T: This is the one he chose for.
T: Of all the universes that could have been built,
he chose the one where the Sanhedrin would do this.
So, yes, he gets the credit for what the Sanhedrin has done.
T: 'Cause he chose the universe. J: And in [...] he said,
J: 'if it's your will father, please let this cup pass me by'.
T: Which makes no sense. J: He knew exactly
J: what was going to happen.
T: Why would you ask [that]
if you know that god knew at the beginning of time
everything that was going to play out exactly [like that].
This is the way it was going to be.
T: Why would you even ask J: I know, I think that ...
T: that it should be otherwise? J: But if you knew,
J: wouldn't that be your human nature, too?
Because he is fully human, too.
T: But he was god, so he also knew the plan.
And he knew that this wasn't going to pass.
It's really weird that he's asking himself
to let himself off the hook, don't you think?
D: What a drama. T: It's weird.
J: I think as a human ...
J: But look at it this way, too, okay?
How about the political prisoners that are being tortured?
How about the people that suffer ... T: Yeah, thank you god
T: for setting up a universe where all these people would be tortured.
T: Thank you god for setting up a universe
where we have child rape. D: Thanks for Ebola!
T: This is the universe he chose for. D: The very best one
T: He saw and said, D: he could ever come up with.
T: this is what I want. This is the one I'm going to build.
D: This is the best one, yep.
J: No, it's obviously not the perfect one.
J: But you know, you get ... T: It was the one he chose for.
D: He kind of fucked it up then, didn't he?
T: Maybe he didn't want a perfect one.
T: I don't know what god was thinking. J: Wait, wait.
J: Do you know the value of a feast before you fast?
You have to fast to know the value of a feast.
You have to feast to know the value of a fast.
J: So, ... D: Is god omniscient or not?
T: I don't really buy this 'you have to ...'
D: We're not omniscient,
D: so I agree. We don't necessarily know that.
T: I think we need to move on.
D: Thanks for the fun. T: Thank you.
T: It was an interesting call. Really honestly,
nothing sarcastic about that. I really do appreciate the call.
It was an interesting set of conversations.
T: And that would be ... Joe. D: Thank you.
T: Thank you Joe, I'm glad that you called.
D: Thank you. J: And the other [...] for hell,
hell is eternal suicide for hating love. That's all it is.
T: Alright, we'll figure that one out in the next hour.
J: If you don't need love ... D: God is love and if you hate god,
D: you're going to hell. T: We have other callers
T: and we need to get rolling here. So let's move along.
J: I know. Thank you for giving me so much time.
T: We did. I'm hurting. I'm sure people are like, 'Oh Tracie'. Okay.
For more infomation >> Toy Story versão CCA: A Trilogia Completa [HD 1080p] - Duration: 14:42. 
For more infomation >> Funniest Homeland Security Clip Ever - Duration: 1:22. 
For more infomation >> HonCon Jensen/Misha (Sub.español) Parte 2 - Duration: 4:09. 
For more infomation >> Создавая Гранд Тур: Американизация (Русские субтитры) - Duration: 1:14. 
For more infomation >> Closers: El momento de Misteltein [Sub Español] - Duration: 1:54. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét