Dr. Randal Rauser and I explore the arguments of his new book, The Wideness of the Sea: How to be Evangelical and Gay-Affirming, wherein he offers a four-part case for including a gay-affirming perspective within the fold of Christian orthodoxy: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:12 The tale of Eugene Peterson

00:04:45 What is evangelical Christianity?

00:09:10 Affirming vs. non-affirming perspectives

00:14:55 Why do evangelicals care so much about gay relationships?

00:24:19 Argument #1: The Bible

00:40:25 Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man..."

00:45:10 Romans 1:26-27 - "God gave them over..."

00:50:05 Argument #2: Reason

00:51:11 William Lane Craig's case against homosexuality

00:54:22 Against natural law?

00:58:32 Argument #3: Tradition

01:07:28 Argument #4: Experience

Talia Mae Bettcher explains why she recently moved from the United States, the Trump administration's recent policy changes targeting trans people, and debates the merits of a biological understanding of sex and gender.

Check out Talia's latest book, Beyond Personhood: An Essay in Trans Philosophy.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating, either via PayPal or Buy Me a Coffee.

Follow me on X-formerly-Twitter.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:52 Why did you move from the U.S.?

00:10:00 How did the U.S. get here?

00:15:34 Has your religious upbringing informed your work today?

00:20:46 Methodology and biological theories of gender

00:27:50 What is trans philosophy?

00:32:10 Can a traditionalist engage in trans philosophy?

00:36:36 Answering Matt Walsh: what is a woman?

00:50:17 Circular definitions of gender

00:52:46 Trans people can be mistaken in their gender identity

00:58:30 Trans woman and prison placement

01:11:20 Is "it's complicated" a cop-out?

Stephen Law, professor of philosophy at Oxford, discusses his "evil god challenge" to theists: prove that God is not perfectly evil. That challenge, we will see, is surprisingly difficult to meet. Check out Stephen's paper outlining the evil-god challenge, as well as Mooney and Hendricks paper critiquing the challenge.

To support the channel, do please oh please consider donating via⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠PayPal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Buy Me a Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

Feel free to follow me ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

EPISODE CHAPTERS

00:00:00 Introduction

00:00:06 The evil-god challenge

00:11:03 The versions of the challenge

00:17:02 Does the moral argument break the parallel?

00:24:28 Skeptical theism will not undercut the challenge

00:34:07 Does skeptical theism lead to skepticism about everything?

00:46:30 The neutral-god challenge

00:53:13 Theodicies won't undercut the challenge, either

00:59:39 Would Jesus' resurrection break the parallel?

01:07:57 Is an evil god logically incoherent?

01:16:47 What are you most uncertain about?