Prophet of Zod vs. His Former Pastor - Part 1 of 2

Описание: In this video I finally get around to something I'd planned on for a while: Addressing the brashly presented amateur-hour apologetics of my former pastor. Most of his material is the pretty standard copy-and-paste stuff that circulates endlessly through Christianity, and I recognize it's beneath most of my audience. Thus my focus tends to be on breaking down ways he manipulates his audience. I began with people I knew from his congregation in mind, and hopefully it can be of some value in offering yet one more way of articulating what's wrong with some of the standard tricks he uses.

I have no grudge against him personally, and I left the job at his school amicably and still mostly convincing myself I was a Christian (for the sake of full disclosure, we did have a bit of a run-in later, but it was resolved in a friendly manner). I do take great issue with him, but it's a legitimate objection with how he handles people both over the pulpit and behind the scenes. Imagine what rises up inside you when you watch him speak, magnified by knowing him and the victims of his manipulation personally, and you'll get an idea of what I mean.

OTHER RANDOM NOTES:
1) I don't dig into the details of archaeology (Get it? Get it?) in this video. I know a LOT more could be said to challenge his assertions, but as I hinted before, I'm more interested in his broad strategy of manipulation than in specific claims. Part of this is because of time, and part of it is because a congregation will rarely be convinced by academic minutia, both because it's unintuitive and because the pastor knows how to fast-talk his way around it. Just watch a used car salesman like William Lane Craig talk circles around one of his academic superiors in a debate, and you'll get what I'm talking about. My point is to cut him off on that front by stating that even if everything he said about archaeological finds WERE true, it wouldn't matter, and his reasons for telling them it matters are so mistaken that he's either dishonest for saying so or and idiot for believing so.
2) I recognize that Heinrich Schliemann is far from a stellar example of disciplined, accurate archaeological practices. My point in referring to him was to provide an intuitive and accessible example of how someone can recognize a text's value in helping locate something while still understanding its supernatural claims were crazy.