@rorrt The issue of condoms does indeed seem to be a touchy subject. For me, it is a compelling demonstration of an essential conflict between supernaturalism and science. Modern scientific medicine has shown unequivocally that condoms are an important part of our effort to reduce HIV transmission. Some (not all) supernaturalists declare condom use an evil--even in same-sex encounters---without verifiable evidence. Consequently, some people are infected unnecessarily. Amazing.
Indeed the church over there presents abstinence, and loyalty to prevent the spread of AIDs. That clearly hasnt helped these people, transmitting aids, over and over.
What i really hate about what the church are doing over in Africa is the way that they boast "We have 1 billion souls". With those billion they could do so much good.
They could potentially wipe out AIDs, in these societies.
@rorrt While marital fidelity may be an admirable goal, it takes two to ensure fidelity. The problem has been that the husband has extramarital sex and, encouraged by supernaturalism, refuses to employ a condom, thus acquiring the virus from prostitutes and transmitting it to his wife. A very sad situation. And entirely preventable.
@sciencelives2000 And as you know, condoms aren't always trustworthy i.e. they break, and viruses can still be spread. I'll give you a scientific method that is proven and sure to work each and every time: Abstinence.
@SplatteredRemnants First, condoms when used correctly, are 95% effective. In studies where the husband is HIV poz and the wife neg, condoms were effective in blocking transmission of the virus for decades. Your argument is thereby falsified.
Re: abstinence. Abstinence is effective but it has severe disadvantages, especially with married couples. To deny a couple the pleasures and unification of sex when condoms would allow it is absurd and inhumane.
@sciencelives2000 95% isn't enough of a percentage that I'd feel comfortable with. If there was even 1% chance of dying or causing death to another in some unneccesary situation, I wouldn't do it.
What is more important here? Sexual pleasure or staying safe and keeping your spouse safe? No need for unnecessary risks.
Are you aware that Mendel's work was not the "forerunner" of Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Darwin published "Origin of Species" in 1859, completely unaware of genetics. Indeed, that is partly what makes Darwin such a genius. Knowing nothing of genetics, he destroyed previous concepts of biology. Mendel's work was not widely recognized until 1900, when it was actually re-discovered.
One other issue is that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for "heretically" advocating heliocentrism.
Not to defend Dan Brown at all (!), but you speak here as though the Church is not now, nor has ever been in conflict with science. Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 2010 Pope Benedict XVI said "the Church is convinced that scientific activity is only of benefit to itself when it recognizes the spiritual dimension of man and the existence of a dimension that eludes understanding."
Also in 2010, he said: "Science alone is not enough to understand reality." That irks!
@DaithiDublin You raise excellent points. More and more scientists are realizing that supernaturalism and science are fundamentally and inextricably at odds. Stephen Jay Gould's attempt at "two magisteria" has been repudiated. While there are supernaturalist scientists who attempt to compartmentalize their science, it really doesn't work for a growing number of scientists who desire integration of their worldview. Supernaturalism has no need for verifiable evidence---science requires it.
From the mid-14th century to the end of the 18th century, torture was a common and sanctioned part of the legal proceedings of most European countries which was approved by the inquisition in cases of heresy. The most common means of torture included burning, beating and suffocating. Over three hundred years of torture and murder should just be overlooked, clearly science is the oppressor.
@CoryTheRaven You ever ask yourself why the past is different from today? You think it just magically happened that people could question the Catholic Church without being tortured by the Inquisition? It took hundreds of years and the blood of many secular thinkers to get to where we are today.
IF the Vatican is supportive of scientific endeavors TODAY it's because brave men and women of science have laid down their lives for the advancement of humanity; need I mention names?
Do you think the Church woke up one morning and had an epiphany, "ohh jeez, this burning at the stake thing is quite inhumane and barbaric, we need to mend our ways"?
No. Good men had to stand up to the Leviathan that is the Catholic Church in order to bring about change , and humanity is forever indebted to them
@ezemdi Oy vey! Sometimes I don't know why I bother... But friend, that is just so simplistic and one-sided. Yes indeed, lots of religious people made lots of very bad practical and theoretical judgments in regard to teh sciences, but lots and lots and lots of religious people have been massively supportive of the sciences, including, to name a few, Newton, Descartes, Tycho Brache, Gregor Mendel, Copernicus, and Fr. Georges Le Maitre, forumulator of the Big Bang theory.
@wordonfirevideo The historical figures you mentioned lived during a time period in which speaking out openly against the church was punishable by imprisonment and death. You cannot ascertain what their true opinion of the church really was as, for all intense and purposes, supporting the church was necessary for their self preservation.
@ezemdi Why do people with your mindset forget to mention the thousands upon thousands of Christians who have been persecuted since the beginning of the faith? Why do people with your mindset care so much about people being allegedly persecuted by Christians when they support genocide (abortion)? Contradictions!
@SplatteredRemnants Actually, many of those persecuted Christians were persecuted by their fellow Christians. Many others were persecuted by fellow supernaturalists, with competitive brands of supernaturalism. This happened particularly when Christians tried to foist their brand of supernaturalism onto them. History is replete with supernaturalists persecuting each other. I would admit that in some cases non-supernaturalists have persecuted supernaturalists, but the reverse also happened.
@sciencelives2000 I like how you didn't address the second part of my comment. I don't know your take on abortion, but many people believe it is something that is O.K., but then in the same breath whine about homosexual rights and human rights, and moan about people who were allegedly put to death by Christians. IMO, these people have no place speaking about human rights when they support mass genocide of helpless, innocent babies.
Its been a great week here in Ireland. Our new priminister finally gave the pope a proper going over re: the lies, cover ups, and ongoing abuses of the catholic church in relation to innocent children. Telling him that the rule of law supercedes canon law. Not being from Ireland, you would never appreciate the control the church had on all levels of government, the police, and everyday people. The church was never questioned and we have a history of destroyed lives because of blind faith!
Dan Brown's fiction is self indulgent nonsense. It is a great pity that he is heeded enough to have to be debunked.
And Browns claim that the Roman Church is the Focus Of All Evil is tireseome. He does it bcause it is an article of his faith that faith and reason are polar opposites.
they are not , of course, but atheistic natural philosophy (I do not call it science for it is not ) needs this false dichotomy. SO Brown, the hack writer, peddles it for all he is worth
I think I speak for many when I say, purely as a critic of literature, Brown's books are based on questionable research (conducted by his wife I believe) and are written in a rather simplistic way
And people always say read the Bible and ill understand, but when you ask any Bible thumper about the Bible they forget about the Old Testament unless it is about creation, otherwise you follow nothing but the New Testament , how convenient that is, pick and choose. How religous of you. Guess if people actually know the real truth about things they might not want to be in your club anymore. You don't need religion to beleive in anything higher or to be a good Human, enough said!
So the church isn't in it for itself? I guess every Catholic or all Christ followers live the nice lifestyle that the Cardinals and clergy in the Vatican live. And how did they get all their riches and castles and paintings, guess it was the donations from willing people throughout time? No it was blood money from killing the people with free minds and thinking. Give all the money to your beleivers and live a humble and Christlike life and then come talk to me HYPOCRITE!
I like how the whole "Galileo Tragedy" wasn't really a big deal and just you know sucks that it happened lol, and how the Church doesn't try and tear down Science. You don't need churches or preists or even Religions to beleive in something higher than what we are, or to be a good human being, or to live in peach with other humans and your surroundings. To say you do need those things means your selling something and what your selling is probably for your own good and not that of mankind!
@TheDanimal1983 I like how you say the world probably in your last sentence as if it can be proven empirically that the church is in it for the good of itself. If you read the bible you would understand that it is simply spreading the good news. Fr. Barron also states that the Galileo Tragedy was a big deal and was complex on many levels. But he also states that the Church has done more with science than just that incident. Don't undermine someone out of prejudice, but out of facts.
Invalid point after invalid point. It's idiotic to say the movie is backwards - it's the plot, it has no forwards/backwards. I think it's funny that Dan Brown writes books for entertainment value and the church either boycotts or emphatically tears down the story. To misterzonker's point, the church has historically refuted scientific discoveries that conflicted with doctrine. Lastly, you're using the broken argument that since some scientists were religious, it bolsters your case. Not true.
@NullIsNotAnObject I would like you to note another time that the church has refuted scientific discoveries. Not to mention that MOST scientists that are the foundation for modern science were religious. The sad thing is that few people tell you the motivation of the men/women that discovered many of the sciences today in school. They just say "Einstein did this" or "Kepler did that" never stating that Einstein was a devout Jew and Kepler footnoted his religious beliefs to the science discovered
It is a myth that the Church is opposed to science today, but the same cannot be said a few hundred years ago with complete honesty. And science does not reveal a great harmonious nature of the universe with a loving God, given the abundance of natural evil and putting aside the fine tuning argument. Nevertheless, I do find this message hopeful, even though it greatly downplays the brutality of the Church toward certain scientists those years ago, and I even learned a few things!
It's refreshing to see Fr. Barron addressing the typical, weak one-liners posed by anti-religious web surfers. I would contend that mainstream scientific thought is a watered-down derivative of a long process that is shaped by an anti-catholic purpose, much like the development of Protestantism. The fathers of modern science and Protestantism both began there philosophical (may I use that term?) journey with an anti-roman compass. Something had to fill their respective void. The rest is history.
@jormorcastan Hey, I pay taxes evey year. Do you want to see my returns? And to say that the letter to the Romans, the Gospel of Luke, first and second Samuel, and the book of Chronicles are simply "fiction," is to prove either that you haven't read those texts or you don't know the meaning of the term!
@jormorcastan Well I assume you know why this is the case. The churches do all sorts of things--from education to feeding the hungry, to caring for the sick--that the state would have to do otherwise. Exempting churches from taxation, therefore, is not some kind of perk; it's strict justice.
@jormorcastan The Catholic Church is only telling the truth. A wonderful event occurred 2000 years ago and they are retelling that story. Why do you call that indocrination? Is it because there is no DVD of the event? Would that satisfy you? Secondly, how can you not see that Church 'indocrination' occurs inside the church but everywhere else we are bombarded by pseudo-scientific nonsense - TV, internet, media, politicians, etc. With the church you can choose not to go into one.
@PuraguCryostato DVD is a great idea!!! Why Jesus didn't think about it, If he would have been born 2000 year later we wouldn't have this dialogue, provably you're smarter than Jesus God. Talking about indoctrination only inside of the church, in my TV i can find 14 difrent christian chanels, you can find bibles in every hotel arround the world
@wordonfirevideo All catholic schools in my hometown in Mexico are for welthy people
Thanks to the company my father worked for I was able to atended one. My father los his job and i lost my frends and the right to attend that expensive catholic school, is that the kind sorts of things you are refering the churches do?
@jormorcastan Are Catholic schools in Mexico subsidised by the Church? Aren't they Catholic in name only, run by secular administrators and probably falling under your Dept of Education? Mexico is a quasi-socialist Marxist country AFAIK. Don't they get the benefit of low pay yet highly educated and motivated nuns and monks teaching for them?
@PuraguCryostato Ok, the name Father Marcial Maciel tells you something?, if it doesn't he was the founder of the Legion of Christ (Legionarios de Cristo) He fouded Schools only for rich very rich people and only RICH!!!
@jormorcastan Studies show that religious people are happier. Would you rather spend the money on anti-depressants, ERs, sick leave and psychiatrists? BTW what's with the remaining 3/4's of the property which is not taxed? Do you also have issues against that?
You know, it's too bad the Ewan MacGregor character ended up being the bad guy, because I thought what he said in the Conclave was quite true: that science is good, but there are some things science "is too young to understand."
This movie does sound pretty ridiculous. In spite of some incendiary swipes at the Vatican that, let's face it, aren't entirely undeserved (the Galileo incident, for example), this sounds like pure potboiler material. The Big Bang, since you mention it, doesn't really stand in contrast to religion (God can be behind it), but I think if you follow evolution to its logical extreme (does not support Adam and Eve and contrasts intelligent design), Catholic theology will not support it.
@misterzonker2584 Why can't God be behind evolution? Father Barron has another video you should see titled "Father Barron on Religion and Science" at: =B8yRWrUjnL8. Also, yes, evolution may not support the Adam and Eve story on a completely literal level, but perhaps this portion of scripture shouldn't be taken at its literal level.
Aristotelian science was not a big deal for the Church to support, since it made no contradictions with the bible and being a geocentric model fit very well with the genesis story.
As for Lemaitre's Big Bang, he came up with it because it supported the idea of a moment of creation, while Hoyle's steady state did not. The fact that it's our best theory now doesn't change that he had an ulterior motive in trying to come up with an alternative to steady state.
Condoms and the contraceptive pill, I immediately thought, only to discover that I had beaten to the posting. Anyway, surely, the refusal to accept the use of these things is the poster child of religious ideology in the face of scientific developments. The Pill, for some reason not good enough for some religious organizatios (what could that be? ( hmmm something to do with catholic birth rate)) is possibly the most liberating scientific discovery ever to emerge.
@Sarusource the church is not stupid. it knows that Catholics use contraceptives at a higher rate than non catholics. (near 99% of catholics ). it is cliche for an agnostic (or whatever you are ) to say they do it so that the church can indoctrinate more "little Catholics" and make more money (or whatever you think is in it for "them")
@ned262626 I was talking about the official position of the Catholic Church on contraception and suggesting that it was an example of being anti-scientific.Perhaps I could use your word ‘stupid’ to describe this dogma. I was not referring to actual contraceptive usage. Would you oblige me with your data source for religions and contraceptive usage. 99%?
My reference to Catholic birth rate as a strategy was a surmisation. However, I am not sure that if something is a cliché it means it is untrue
The fact that movies can be made about the mythical battle between Catholicism and rationality is perhaps important? I just accept it as a film. I wouldn't expect you to like it because it knocks your employers. You say Catholicism is an advocate of science - what about the science of contraception or fertility - or gene therapy or embryonic research geared to improve the lot of mankind and correct the flawed genetic creation you hold so dear? IRTBC!
I dig the purpose, but you just sound like Bill Maher's P.C mirror image.
Plus the Camerlengo's objective was basically turned around for this movie from what it was in the book. In the book, he's basically a psychotic, but he's well meaning and pretty deep.
@BlizBob The "Vatican" does not espouse any particular scientific view of the world. The Church is concerned with theology, metaphysics,morality, and spirituality. It leaves the determination of the details of astrophysics to the experts.
Quite right. I've been listening to so many accusing the Church of contradicting the results of science, but without giving ONE instance of where this is supposed to be true. I'd like to know what the Mother Church is saying that is supposed to be so "contrary to scientific disovery." Where's the evidence of this? Too often the Church gets wrongly tossed in with Biblical fundamentalism, the view that seems to get the most publicity because it makes the most noise.
Lots of love to you, my wonderful sheppard, I follow your tapes and am so proud of having you to explain so patiently everything! I learn so many things with you, but most of all, to be patient with these people fed only by propaganda. God bless you.
I pray that you would be the next pope. But maybe you would be less free! I love you.
Dear Father! You're the Patience in persona! This adstanra is an ignorant dude that doesn't know ANYTHING but only the clichés that midia tells him. I am sure that he never knew that BigBang theory was held by a priest. (...)
(...) The problem is that in the interior of our beautiful religion there are very obscures minds, that fought against beautiful thinkers like Teilhard de Chardin, paleonthologue, jesuit and teologian. And to these obscures minds, a wonderful priest like you, too, would be problem.
@Will224000 I hesitate on replying to this hateful and meaningless post. I don't pretend to know you...but from your post, I would encourage you to look at your OWN sins...ask forgiveness and do penance.
A non christian friend of mine mentioned that she saw this movie and surprised me and when she told me that the movie in a sense scared her because she thought it was based on reality. I then explained the truth abt the iluminati..it got me thinking that if my own friend thought that how many other people are out there who believe in the false representations of our Catholic faith? and that to me was a bit of a scary thought!
Becoming tedious to hear christians take credit for science. Not sure Copernicus, Galileo, Newton ( was he a christian?) or Einstein ( a jew) would concur.Science has been driven by multiple factors including the economy, the great schism, the enlightenment and it's success.The intelligability of the world was defined by Pythagorus, Aristotle and the ancient Greeks. I think it is fair to say that the church, for much of its history ( not all), has been a hinderance to free scientific enquiry
@adstanra as the church finds it tedious to be made the arch nemesis of science. Would you say that the nazi experiments were not free scientific inquiry? I'm guessing the answer to that would be a NO but one one could argue that what they were doing was for the benefit for humanity and for the sake of scientific research. Extreme Measures a movie I once saw (not the best movie) opened up the discussion between ethical and unethical scientific research. How does one know to draw the line?
@adstanra Oh give me a break! You want to talk tedious? How about the repetition, ad nauseam, that religion is the enemy of science! I think it's funny that when a religious person dares to raise his voice against this massive anti-religious propaganda, he's being "tedious."
@wordonfirevideo It is also tedious to hear Christians whine about being persecuted. I have not persecuted anyone. It is called criticism, and its not a bad thing. Religion has intruded itself upon science by often making truth claims about the physical world. When it does, it invariably looses because it is not grounded in verifiable facts.
The above post was in resonse to a claim that christianity should get credit for scince. I thought the greeks should get some..lol
@wordonfirevideo Hmm. strange response word..You claimed that Xians are being persecuted in some way after I pointed out that the ancient Greeks should get credit for showing the intelligibility of the universe. Are you denying the "real" persecution that the church dolled out against anyone who diagreed with them for centuries ? Are you denying that the church has , at times, hindered scientific progress? And when have I avoided answering your "obsrvations?
@adstanra Well friend, it doesn't matter particularly who first "discovered" the intelligibility of the world. What's important (and quite interesting) is the assertion that a mind must stand behind that intelligibility. With this idea firmly established, Christians gave rise to the physical sciences in the West. Whatever conflict there might have been between science and religion is far less important than this deep congruence--recognized by all of the great founders of the modern sciences.
@wordonfirevideo As you know, the Greeks often referred to the Logos.They did believe that the intelligability of the universe could be traced to a devine mind. It was not christians who established this idea.
Of couse ( lol) both christians and greeks were wrong on that. A mind does not necessarily exist behind the intelligability, but intelligence arises out of the order established by impersonal laws.
wordonfirevideio: Regarding the Church's position concerning Copernicus' heliocentric system, in 1616, Pope Paul V (1552-1621) issued a bull which condemned the Copernican system as heretical. It called the theory "more scandalous, more detestable, and more pernicious to Christianity than any contained in the books of Calvin, Luther and of all other heretics put together." In 1620, the Inquisition banned all publications that taught the Copernican system.
wordonfirevideo: Although historical circumstances (pre late 19th century) did not bode well for a climate of dialogue between religion and science, the founding of the Vatican Observatory in 1891 was a major step towards concordance. A well educated Pius XII, coupled with the considerable influence of Priest/Cosmologist Georges Lemaître, facilitated that dialogue. So the counter-evidence is rather recent.
wordonfirevideo Your characterization of the Church's compatible relationship with science is inaccurate. Galileo's condemnation for claiming a heliocentric world was not an anomaly. Galileo's fate is well known only because of his fame. 33 years prior to Galileo's conviction of heresy, Giordano Bruno was burned to death by the Church for expressing views about other worlds considered contrary to scripture. Copernicus' writings (+ many others) were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
@PWJ57 I've never denied that certain churchmen, even of a very high rank, got this one wrong. But given the massive amount of counter-evidence, I've argued that it's extremely unfair to say simply that "the church" has always been opposed to science. And here's what's really important: there is no question that today the Church is deeply interested in a creative dialogue with the sciences.
I'm responsible for my own actions yes, as is everyone else. but if we're going to point fingers, then let's not JUST do it at "organized" religion (or specifically the Catholic Church), as some are wont to do. I mainly see people being hypocritical, because they consider something wrong when the Church does it or says it, but not when other folks do it or say it (or they don't bother to criticize, strangely)
And MLK Jr. certainly did evil things, he was a womanizer and a plagiarist. And like I said, without his movement a lot of people might have stayed alive or not been beaten. Now you might argue (as most would) that the gains of his movement were worth the risks and the missteps can be forgiven in light of the accomplishments. But if you believe he was right and a saint, then you can't deny he did it because of his religious beliefs and he "won" because he appealed to the religion of others
Of course he used the tools available to him, why wouldn't he?
I've never said people shouldn't do good deeds simply because they are based on religous beliefs, what I am saying is don't do deeds that your own moral code normally wouldn't allow simply because you have been told that god says it's ok in this case.
Religion can and always has been able to do a lot more good when it is organized. do you think the civil rights movement or the Indian independence movement would have worked if you only had charismatic figures like MLK Jr or Gandhi, doing it? No. You needed the religious base and community with shared values and beliefs for those leaders to tap into. otherwise those movements would have died when those leaders died. all religiously based social movements were done with groups, not individuals
What's interesting in all this though is that for the lifespan of Christianity, a good portion of its energy has been used, not to eliminate human desires, but to control them. So if you have (rightly) discovered the source of human moral evil is result of desires, then you should be in favor of its quest to bring them under regulation or moderation (several great religions have come to similar conclusions, I might add)
@TurumbarTurin why do we bother to create laws and why uphold them?
if you believe there is a system of morality upon which we should make laws, then you are advocating a philosophical or religious system. if you believe laws can be unjust and should be changed, ditto. If you believe that is the case, how do you propose laws get changed if people don't organize? should we just be ruled by atheist dictators? doesn't seem to work too well, as history has shown
I've said it before and I'll say it again since it does not seem to sink in, I am not against organisations.
I am against organisations that indoctrinate people to put the focus in this life on an afterlife and a deity that supposedly has super human morals so that any deed can be justified.
People organising to change an unjust law is not of the latter category.
what you're really arguing for then is the elimination of human desires. are we going to eliminate not only the sense of private property, family and selfhood, but consciousness itself? because that would seem the only way. otherwise I can come to the conclusion that something (or someone) I value is threatened and therefore I need to respond (which could result in something bad happening)
But like it or not, Christianity, by and large is an "organization religion," and always has been (not surprisingly, since it's founder and principle documents all advocate for organization).
The notion that you can be a "lone wolf" Christian, who rejects any notion of a "Church" and still be faithful to its founding principles is a very modern idea.
@TurumbarTurin it's just that if you base your morality on just what modern people think, then you'd be foolish to argue against my position, because more people are religious than not. likewise, in EVERY era, people have believed in what "modern" (for them, the present) people believed. so you could never judge any other time period, because they're doing just what you're doing. but we can and do judge things. was slavery morally right in 1807, but morally wrong in 1866?
Incidentally, people on "deserted" islands apparently did practice "organized religion," since they could do things like send letters to other human beings. I concede that without forms of communication this would be difficult outside of societies. The "Church" is a universal body, not just a local congregation or a tribe or national group, and has been since the first century.
@TurumbarTurin so you're saying the only valid religion is on that can be practiced by an individual alone? the idea that religion is a private "individual thing" is a modern idea. I didn't say modern was bad, but it's simply that human philosophy has decided such things are important. there were Christian hermits for thousands of years, they just walked to town when necessary or were visited by priests (eventually they banded together to form monasteries)
If the "Church" claimed to be made up of only perfect people and their sales pitch was that by obeying them you'd also be morally perfect in this life, then maybe I could see this argument against it existing. This is not nor has ever been the claim. Too often I hear that, and it's based upon the assumption that Christians think they are morally perfect and that is the reason why their teachings (and preachings to other, non-perfect people) are true. Stranger to hear it from a "Christian."
You make a big point about "oganization" but I don't see how that's even a valid anyway.... why is the organization wrong? That's like saying we can have teachers but we shouldn't have schools. I agree with education, just not "organized education."
@TurumbarTurin most teachers have absolute certainty in what they are saying. that's why we call them "facts." are you saying we perpetually doubt EVERYTHING, or just religious beliefs? philosophy is just as "delusional" as religion, and yet without it you have NO standard by which to judge other people or systems
@TurumbarTurin I'd say teachers (or the school system) has more power than the churches. You can go to jail if you don't send your children to school, for example. teachers can get kids taken away from their parents by reporting them for "child abuse." teachers have also (even though they're not supposed to obviously) gotten away with child sexual abuse on a scale greater than any church, due to the unequal enforcement of laws. so teachers are more 'dangerous' than clergymen, at least in America
one doesn't have to be a "suicide bomber" to be a "victim" of a dangerous ideology. plenty of people shoot up or blow up their schools, but even putting aside those folks, you've never heard of the "student radical"? I wasn't talking about that, I was actually talking about teachers who molest students or subject them to psychological abuse. if we're going to denounce institutions for that sort of thing, public education (not just private) would be liable
This is just like the common fallacy often articulated by anti-Christians to the effect that "I'll become a Christian when Christians are perfect."
Ideals are things we strive for, and just because nobody completely lives up to them (and some fail miserably), we don't abandon them. But I guess some folks have similar stupid logic... which is why they say we should legalize drugs BECAUSE people use drugs illegally (ditto with prostitution, or abortion, etc). that's invalid
Had they been morally superior it would be a compelling reason to believe, without it there is none, with such slaughter for the greater glory of god, there is even less.
@TurumbarTurin the moral superiority of a person has nothing to do with the truth of what they are saying.
If a man tells me that his car can fly, it doesn't matter how morally pure he is, the car won't fly. you may say "ah, but if he's honest he wouldn't say that" but that's presuming he couldn't be absolutely certain that it could fly (but sincerely mistaken). many wonderful, well meaning people are nevertheless wrong.
In fact, just about every "great man" (or woman) in history did something wrong, or believed something today we'd find fault with. Therefore to expect that a moral teacher must be morally perfect is simply ridiculous. Ditto with lawmakers. Politicians have broken the law. Should we get rid of laws (or ignore them) too? There's no human being that is perfect. You've embraced the fallacy that the truth of something is based on the purity of the one giving the message.
It follows that since I could never believe the church's claims I can't see why anyone else would.
I understand that they do, just not why, especially when it leaves them open to doing acts they would never do had they followed their own moral code.
@TurumbarTurin you're assuming everyone else in the world thinks like you, and holds value in what you do. Maybe they don't? You don't have a consistent method to judge other belief systems or determine morality, so why should I listen to your judgments on why religion is wrong? Are you saying religious people would never do "acts" against their moral code if they had not been religious? That makes no sense. Other people do those things, and lack a moral code against them? (still wrong?)
@TurumbarTurin are you aware of the Mormons or the Amish? Both morally very excellent people as a whole. Does that prove their teachings are true, because of their clean living and kindness? You might wish to believe what they say because they are so nice, but logically speaking, their niceness has nothing to do with the accuracy of what they're saying. Your rude, curmudgeony physics teacher with bad breath is still right.
the Amish's message is no more provable than any other religious one. but I said if you're going to judge them based on their "moral behavior" (not just what their code states), then you're going to have to say they're right (unless you consider pacificism and "anti-modernity" to constitute an immoral philosophy, in which case you'd consider them wrong I guess).
This stuff about "Track record" is wrong headed and where's a contemporary example. Martin Luther King Jr. Great man, or wicked evil person?
Most consider him a great man for what he did for civil (and human) rights, helping end racial segregation and overturning other unjust laws, giving hope to oppressed people, etc.
But guess what? He also cheated on his wife and plagiarized his dissertation. So he was dishonest and a cheat. Does that mean his message was wrong?
MLK's message could be proven to hold water and not cause evil, also it and his persona and rhetoric gathered a massive following that did no evil in it's name. That is why he is great.
@TurumbarTurin on the contrary, you could say that had MLK Jr. never stood up and invigorated the movement he helped lead, it wouldn't have resulted in his assassination, nor would it have resulted in the beatings, bombings and murders of the civil rights workers. he emboldened them, which in turn infuriated racists. you could argue that some of the failures of his movement also encouraged militant groups like the Black Panthers and others who didn't have a non-violent code
If we're not responsible for other people's actions, then this lets religious leaders (that you had previously condemned) off the hook. after all, they didn't force anybody to do wrong, even if they weren't misunderstood when they preached violence, intolerance, greed, or whatever it is you think they're guilty of
The "moral track record" argument is extremely stupid. Here's why... somebody could take your argument to heart and do this:
Start a brand new organization, that just happened to believe exactly as the Catholic Church did, but distinguished themselves from it, and boom, you would have no argument against it. That's been the Protestant strategy for about 500 years (whenever the "Church" does something wrong, leave and start your own!)
"organized religion"? That's like saying "you can believe in free speech, so long as you don't organize."
The fact is that people with like minded beliefs and/or goals will organize. What are you going to do, stop it by force? Besides, for your OWN beliefs or goals to have influence, you're going to have to organize, or remain powerless. that's life in a society. If you don't like it, go to a deserted island and then you can be king I guess
I´m not against organisations, I´m against organisations that indoctrinates people to put the focus in this life on an afterlife and a deity that supposedly has super human morals so that any deed can be justified.
It's like your saying that if people want to be suicide bombers it's their business.
Secular powers can't push people as far (at least not to the same extent) and can be held accountable. I mean you know where to find a country or a corporation, not so with congregations.
Tell that to an anarchist, or to a chimpanzee. seems we survived for millions of years without this stuff. I'm not saying it's not useful, but if you're going to go that route...
Face it, we need religion, that's why there are so few true atheists, and the ones out there (that are honest) turn to philosophy as a substitute (or end up self destructing, sadly)
We have survived long without them yes, though not in the numbers we are now.
There might be a way to implement an anarchistic system that can support us but I think that would be even more difficult than getting a fair and working communist society going, don't think many of us think that should be tried again though...
I think it is clear that I don't feel I need to "face it".
But let's say I did face it, still no reason to have organised religion.
There's countless reasons to have organized religion. again, I as I pointed out, your simplistic explanations, which are repeated ad naseum by folks who haven't studied it (Ie: it's to explain natural phenomenon pre-science, or it's for the power elite to control the ignorant masses, etc) don't cut the mustard. if you don't see the "need" for organized religion then you don't believe your own explanations. come back to planet earth!
what youv'e done is boil down religion (specifically the Church) to "bad religion" (ie: the tool of the state to dominate the masses, the inadequate substitute for scientific explanation of the natural world, and a "tool of indoctrination"). Again, there's no way for you to get rid of it, you won't solve any problems by doing so, and you can't prove you're right. so what?
Thank you Father Barron, I was actually recently debating a friend about science and the Catholic Church and I was glad to be able to link him to this video. :) I enjoyed watching it and the rest of your videos.
- and it is more commonly becoming the case that many practicing Catholics are highly educated and knowledgeable people who would not be very easy to dupe or trick.
@TurumbarTurin what makes the Catholic Church "unnecessary" in your mind? Because you don't believe in what it teaches?
By that logic, EVER religion is unnecessary, because they all believe in something somebody, somewhere, doesn't agree with. And last I checked, they didn't exist solely to believe in things you don't agree with.
The Church has nothing with which it can force people to do anything including following any of its doctrines or teachings. I know many Catholics, as you may as well, who barely ever attend mass and don't really believe much of what the Church teaches - they are free to make those choices, the Church can't make them attend mass or obey the teachings through any kind of force. Those that truly follow the Catholic faith, or at least the vast majority of them, are those that truly desire to do so -
Force? No, but it can give support to secular powers and thus endow it's actions with a divine stamp of approval which is a powerful tool to get tools in line.
The Church and the catholic faith are not the same, but they are far more entwined than I think you give credit to. Without the one the other would most definitely fall apart - and if you mean to imply that the Catholic faith itself is innately evil, then I think it would be interesting for you to learn more about it. Also, you give very little credit to people themselves. We no longer live in a church-state society or in a political world governed by the Church.
Oooh, there is a bit of a touchy subject with the ol' Pope and condoms...
Scientifically proven not to spread diseases...
I think there's a case of religion not facing facts, scientific fact.
PS The best part of the film has to be said helicopter scene...Its so pompous and preposterous.
rorrt 1 week ago
@rorrt The issue of condoms does indeed seem to be a touchy subject. For me, it is a compelling demonstration of an essential conflict between supernaturalism and science. Modern scientific medicine has shown unequivocally that condoms are an important part of our effort to reduce HIV transmission. Some (not all) supernaturalists declare condom use an evil--even in same-sex encounters---without verifiable evidence. Consequently, some people are infected unnecessarily. Amazing.
sciencelives2000 1 day ago
@sciencelives2000
Indeed the church over there presents abstinence, and loyalty to prevent the spread of AIDs. That clearly hasnt helped these people, transmitting aids, over and over.
What i really hate about what the church are doing over in Africa is the way that they boast "We have 1 billion souls". With those billion they could do so much good.
They could potentially wipe out AIDs, in these societies.
rorrt 1 day ago
@rorrt While marital fidelity may be an admirable goal, it takes two to ensure fidelity. The problem has been that the husband has extramarital sex and, encouraged by supernaturalism, refuses to employ a condom, thus acquiring the virus from prostitutes and transmitting it to his wife. A very sad situation. And entirely preventable.
sciencelives2000 1 day ago
@sciencelives2000 And as you know, condoms aren't always trustworthy i.e. they break, and viruses can still be spread. I'll give you a scientific method that is proven and sure to work each and every time: Abstinence.
SplatteredRemnants 17 hours ago
@SplatteredRemnants First, condoms when used correctly, are 95% effective. In studies where the husband is HIV poz and the wife neg, condoms were effective in blocking transmission of the virus for decades. Your argument is thereby falsified.
Re: abstinence. Abstinence is effective but it has severe disadvantages, especially with married couples. To deny a couple the pleasures and unification of sex when condoms would allow it is absurd and inhumane.
sciencelives2000 12 hours ago
@sciencelives2000 95% isn't enough of a percentage that I'd feel comfortable with. If there was even 1% chance of dying or causing death to another in some unneccesary situation, I wouldn't do it.
What is more important here? Sexual pleasure or staying safe and keeping your spouse safe? No need for unnecessary risks.
SplatteredRemnants 11 hours ago
Comment removed
sciencelives2000 1 week ago
Are you aware that Mendel's work was not the "forerunner" of Darwin's Theory of Evolution? Darwin published "Origin of Species" in 1859, completely unaware of genetics. Indeed, that is partly what makes Darwin such a genius. Knowing nothing of genetics, he destroyed previous concepts of biology. Mendel's work was not widely recognized until 1900, when it was actually re-discovered.
One other issue is that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for "heretically" advocating heliocentrism.
sciencelives2000 1 week ago
Not to defend Dan Brown at all (!), but you speak here as though the Church is not now, nor has ever been in conflict with science. Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 2010 Pope Benedict XVI said "the Church is convinced that scientific activity is only of benefit to itself when it recognizes the spiritual dimension of man and the existence of a dimension that eludes understanding."
Also in 2010, he said: "Science alone is not enough to understand reality." That irks!
DaithiDublin 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
sciencelives2000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DaithiDublin You raise excellent points. More and more scientists are realizing that supernaturalism and science are fundamentally and inextricably at odds. Stephen Jay Gould's attempt at "two magisteria" has been repudiated. While there are supernaturalist scientists who attempt to compartmentalize their science, it really doesn't work for a growing number of scientists who desire integration of their worldview. Supernaturalism has no need for verifiable evidence---science requires it.
sciencelives2000 1 week ago
oh how i wish string theory is right.
gagatep450 1 month ago
From the mid-14th century to the end of the 18th century, torture was a common and sanctioned part of the legal proceedings of most European countries which was approved by the inquisition in cases of heresy. The most common means of torture included burning, beating and suffocating. Over three hundred years of torture and murder should just be overlooked, clearly science is the oppressor.
TheMischaReviews 1 month ago
@TheMischaReviews THIS JUST IN: the past was different from today. Film at eleven.
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
@CoryTheRaven You ever ask yourself why the past is different from today? You think it just magically happened that people could question the Catholic Church without being tortured by the Inquisition? It took hundreds of years and the blood of many secular thinkers to get to where we are today.
TheMischaReviews 3 weeks ago
@TheMischaReviews I'm a Lutheran, so not only do I know, but I'm even offended that you're trying to take the credit for it!
CoryTheRaven 3 weeks ago
i would Father to explain why the vatican hides things chritians, like the reason that it will remove your free will to believe in the Lord.
StartContaversy1 1 month ago
IF the Vatican is supportive of scientific endeavors TODAY it's because brave men and women of science have laid down their lives for the advancement of humanity; need I mention names?
Do you think the Church woke up one morning and had an epiphany, "ohh jeez, this burning at the stake thing is quite inhumane and barbaric, we need to mend our ways"?
No. Good men had to stand up to the Leviathan that is the Catholic Church in order to bring about change , and humanity is forever indebted to them
ezemdi 4 months ago
@ezemdi Oy vey! Sometimes I don't know why I bother... But friend, that is just so simplistic and one-sided. Yes indeed, lots of religious people made lots of very bad practical and theoretical judgments in regard to teh sciences, but lots and lots and lots of religious people have been massively supportive of the sciences, including, to name a few, Newton, Descartes, Tycho Brache, Gregor Mendel, Copernicus, and Fr. Georges Le Maitre, forumulator of the Big Bang theory.
wordonfirevideo 4 months ago 12
@wordonfirevideo The historical figures you mentioned lived during a time period in which speaking out openly against the church was punishable by imprisonment and death. You cannot ascertain what their true opinion of the church really was as, for all intense and purposes, supporting the church was necessary for their self preservation.
TheMischaReviews 1 month ago
@ezemdi someone's been watching a lot of underdog movies :) you know those movies about the little guy sticking it to the man? yup.
lovellespice 1 month ago
@ezemdi Why do people with your mindset forget to mention the thousands upon thousands of Christians who have been persecuted since the beginning of the faith? Why do people with your mindset care so much about people being allegedly persecuted by Christians when they support genocide (abortion)? Contradictions!
SplatteredRemnants 17 hours ago
@SplatteredRemnants Actually, many of those persecuted Christians were persecuted by their fellow Christians. Many others were persecuted by fellow supernaturalists, with competitive brands of supernaturalism. This happened particularly when Christians tried to foist their brand of supernaturalism onto them. History is replete with supernaturalists persecuting each other. I would admit that in some cases non-supernaturalists have persecuted supernaturalists, but the reverse also happened.
sciencelives2000 12 hours ago
@sciencelives2000 I like how you didn't address the second part of my comment. I don't know your take on abortion, but many people believe it is something that is O.K., but then in the same breath whine about homosexual rights and human rights, and moan about people who were allegedly put to death by Christians. IMO, these people have no place speaking about human rights when they support mass genocide of helpless, innocent babies.
SplatteredRemnants 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its been a great week here in Ireland. Our new priminister finally gave the pope a proper going over re: the lies, cover ups, and ongoing abuses of the catholic church in relation to innocent children. Telling him that the rule of law supercedes canon law. Not being from Ireland, you would never appreciate the control the church had on all levels of government, the police, and everyday people. The church was never questioned and we have a history of destroyed lives because of blind faith!
newfrontier01 6 months ago
Dan Brown's fiction is self indulgent nonsense. It is a great pity that he is heeded enough to have to be debunked.
And Browns claim that the Roman Church is the Focus Of All Evil is tireseome. He does it bcause it is an article of his faith that faith and reason are polar opposites.
they are not , of course, but atheistic natural philosophy (I do not call it science for it is not ) needs this false dichotomy. SO Brown, the hack writer, peddles it for all he is worth
Strefanasha 7 months ago
@Strefanasha Well said!
thegorn68 6 months ago
@Strefanasha Could not have said it better myself! Seriously I couldn't have, lol.
TheFutureengineer20 2 months ago
I think I speak for many when I say, purely as a critic of literature, Brown's books are based on questionable research (conducted by his wife I believe) and are written in a rather simplistic way
mintrack5 8 months ago
And people always say read the Bible and ill understand, but when you ask any Bible thumper about the Bible they forget about the Old Testament unless it is about creation, otherwise you follow nothing but the New Testament , how convenient that is, pick and choose. How religous of you. Guess if people actually know the real truth about things they might not want to be in your club anymore. You don't need religion to beleive in anything higher or to be a good Human, enough said!
TheDanimal1983 10 months ago
So the church isn't in it for itself? I guess every Catholic or all Christ followers live the nice lifestyle that the Cardinals and clergy in the Vatican live. And how did they get all their riches and castles and paintings, guess it was the donations from willing people throughout time? No it was blood money from killing the people with free minds and thinking. Give all the money to your beleivers and live a humble and Christlike life and then come talk to me HYPOCRITE!
TheDanimal1983 10 months ago
I like how the whole "Galileo Tragedy" wasn't really a big deal and just you know sucks that it happened lol, and how the Church doesn't try and tear down Science. You don't need churches or preists or even Religions to beleive in something higher than what we are, or to be a good human being, or to live in peach with other humans and your surroundings. To say you do need those things means your selling something and what your selling is probably for your own good and not that of mankind!
TheDanimal1983 10 months ago
@TheDanimal1983 I like how you say the world probably in your last sentence as if it can be proven empirically that the church is in it for the good of itself. If you read the bible you would understand that it is simply spreading the good news. Fr. Barron also states that the Galileo Tragedy was a big deal and was complex on many levels. But he also states that the Church has done more with science than just that incident. Don't undermine someone out of prejudice, but out of facts.
chess12345789 10 months ago
Invalid point after invalid point. It's idiotic to say the movie is backwards - it's the plot, it has no forwards/backwards. I think it's funny that Dan Brown writes books for entertainment value and the church either boycotts or emphatically tears down the story. To misterzonker's point, the church has historically refuted scientific discoveries that conflicted with doctrine. Lastly, you're using the broken argument that since some scientists were religious, it bolsters your case. Not true.
NullIsNotAnObject 11 months ago
@NullIsNotAnObject I would like you to note another time that the church has refuted scientific discoveries. Not to mention that MOST scientists that are the foundation for modern science were religious. The sad thing is that few people tell you the motivation of the men/women that discovered many of the sciences today in school. They just say "Einstein did this" or "Kepler did that" never stating that Einstein was a devout Jew and Kepler footnoted his religious beliefs to the science discovered
chess12345789 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Father Barron,
thank you.
yankeesuperstar 1 year ago
Father Baron,
thank you.
yankeesuperstar 1 year ago
I am so glad that Fr. Barron commented on this movie!! Yes!!
MalakhiElohim 1 year ago
It is a myth that the Church is opposed to science today, but the same cannot be said a few hundred years ago with complete honesty. And science does not reveal a great harmonious nature of the universe with a loving God, given the abundance of natural evil and putting aside the fine tuning argument. Nevertheless, I do find this message hopeful, even though it greatly downplays the brutality of the Church toward certain scientists those years ago, and I even learned a few things!
misterzonker2584 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
simply looking for friends naneedj.info
kumaratilak 1 year ago
Comment removed
benabaxter 1 year ago
Search Google this quote if you want a laugh.
"So Langdon is not the brilliant hero of this film … he’s the patsy. The plot is so preposterous that only he would believe it."
benabaxter 1 year ago
Cool video!
KyrieEleison46 1 year ago
It's refreshing to see Fr. Barron addressing the typical, weak one-liners posed by anti-religious web surfers. I would contend that mainstream scientific thought is a watered-down derivative of a long process that is shaped by an anti-catholic purpose, much like the development of Protestantism. The fathers of modern science and Protestantism both began there philosophical (may I use that term?) journey with an anti-roman compass. Something had to fill their respective void. The rest is history.
SAINThoodSEEKER 1 year ago
@Father Barron Come on Father that movie is as fictional as the bible, the only diferece is that the movie producers pay taxes
jormorcastan 1 year ago
@jormorcastan Hey, I pay taxes evey year. Do you want to see my returns? And to say that the letter to the Romans, the Gospel of Luke, first and second Samuel, and the book of Chronicles are simply "fiction," is to prove either that you haven't read those texts or you don't know the meaning of the term!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 21
@wordonfirevideo Of the $20,000,000,000 worth of U. S. property exempt from taxation, nearly one quarter is owned by churches.
jormorcastan 1 year ago
@jormorcastan Well I assume you know why this is the case. The churches do all sorts of things--from education to feeding the hungry, to caring for the sick--that the state would have to do otherwise. Exempting churches from taxation, therefore, is not some kind of perk; it's strict justice.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 34
But why churches have to be exempted of taxation for indoctrination services?
jormorcastan 1 year ago
@jormorcastan
You mean education?
Childinfaith 1 year ago
@jormorcastan The Catholic Church is only telling the truth. A wonderful event occurred 2000 years ago and they are retelling that story. Why do you call that indocrination? Is it because there is no DVD of the event? Would that satisfy you? Secondly, how can you not see that Church 'indocrination' occurs inside the church but everywhere else we are bombarded by pseudo-scientific nonsense - TV, internet, media, politicians, etc. With the church you can choose not to go into one.
PuraguCryostato 1 year ago
@PuraguCryostato DVD is a great idea!!! Why Jesus didn't think about it, If he would have been born 2000 year later we wouldn't have this dialogue, provably you're smarter than Jesus God. Talking about indoctrination only inside of the church, in my TV i can find 14 difrent christian chanels, you can find bibles in every hotel arround the world
jormorcastan 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo All catholic schools in my hometown in Mexico are for welthy people
Thanks to the company my father worked for I was able to atended one. My father los his job and i lost my frends and the right to attend that expensive catholic school, is that the kind sorts of things you are refering the churches do?
jormorcastan 1 year ago
@jormorcastan Are Catholic schools in Mexico subsidised by the Church? Aren't they Catholic in name only, run by secular administrators and probably falling under your Dept of Education? Mexico is a quasi-socialist Marxist country AFAIK. Don't they get the benefit of low pay yet highly educated and motivated nuns and monks teaching for them?
PuraguCryostato 1 year ago
@PuraguCryostato Ok, the name Father Marcial Maciel tells you something?, if it doesn't he was the founder of the Legion of Christ (Legionarios de Cristo) He fouded Schools only for rich very rich people and only RICH!!!
jormorcastan 1 year ago
@jormorcastan Studies show that religious people are happier. Would you rather spend the money on anti-depressants, ERs, sick leave and psychiatrists? BTW what's with the remaining 3/4's of the property which is not taxed? Do you also have issues against that?
PuraguCryostato 1 year ago
@PuraguCryostato Drunk people are happier than sober as well.
The other 3/4 exempt of taxation are iqually part of the unfairness.
jormorcastan 1 year ago
You know, it's too bad the Ewan MacGregor character ended up being the bad guy, because I thought what he said in the Conclave was quite true: that science is good, but there are some things science "is too young to understand."
1r1shCath0l1c 1 year ago
@1r1shCath0l1c agreed
hpa2005 1 year ago
This movie does sound pretty ridiculous. In spite of some incendiary swipes at the Vatican that, let's face it, aren't entirely undeserved (the Galileo incident, for example), this sounds like pure potboiler material. The Big Bang, since you mention it, doesn't really stand in contrast to religion (God can be behind it), but I think if you follow evolution to its logical extreme (does not support Adam and Eve and contrasts intelligent design), Catholic theology will not support it.
misterzonker2584 1 year ago
Comment removed
SuperA1steaksauce 1 year ago
@misterzonker2584 Why can't God be behind evolution? Father Barron has another video you should see titled "Father Barron on Religion and Science" at: =B8yRWrUjnL8. Also, yes, evolution may not support the Adam and Eve story on a completely literal level, but perhaps this portion of scripture shouldn't be taken at its literal level.
SuperA1steaksauce 1 year ago
Science and reason led me to the Church. Great video,as always, Fr Barron!
huntinggods 1 year ago
Aristotelian science was not a big deal for the Church to support, since it made no contradictions with the bible and being a geocentric model fit very well with the genesis story.
As for Lemaitre's Big Bang, he came up with it because it supported the idea of a moment of creation, while Hoyle's steady state did not. The fact that it's our best theory now doesn't change that he had an ulterior motive in trying to come up with an alternative to steady state.
Nemesis000000 1 year ago
Condoms and the contraceptive pill, I immediately thought, only to discover that I had beaten to the posting. Anyway, surely, the refusal to accept the use of these things is the poster child of religious ideology in the face of scientific developments. The Pill, for some reason not good enough for some religious organizatios (what could that be? ( hmmm something to do with catholic birth rate)) is possibly the most liberating scientific discovery ever to emerge.
Sarusource 1 year ago
@Sarusource the church is not stupid. it knows that Catholics use contraceptives at a higher rate than non catholics. (near 99% of catholics ). it is cliche for an agnostic (or whatever you are ) to say they do it so that the church can indoctrinate more "little Catholics" and make more money (or whatever you think is in it for "them")
ned262626 1 year ago
@ned262626 I was talking about the official position of the Catholic Church on contraception and suggesting that it was an example of being anti-scientific.Perhaps I could use your word ‘stupid’ to describe this dogma. I was not referring to actual contraceptive usage. Would you oblige me with your data source for religions and contraceptive usage. 99%?
My reference to Catholic birth rate as a strategy was a surmisation. However, I am not sure that if something is a cliché it means it is untrue
Sarusource 1 year ago
The fact that movies can be made about the mythical battle between Catholicism and rationality is perhaps important? I just accept it as a film. I wouldn't expect you to like it because it knocks your employers. You say Catholicism is an advocate of science - what about the science of contraception or fertility - or gene therapy or embryonic research geared to improve the lot of mankind and correct the flawed genetic creation you hold so dear? IRTBC!
bigguitar22 1 year ago
I dig the purpose, but you just sound like Bill Maher's P.C mirror image.
Plus the Camerlengo's objective was basically turned around for this movie from what it was in the book. In the book, he's basically a psychotic, but he's well meaning and pretty deep.
Noxshus 1 year ago
Vatican is not against science that might support their view of the world.
Vatican is against science that does not support their view of the world.
BlizBob 1 year ago
@BlizBob The "Vatican" does not espouse any particular scientific view of the world. The Church is concerned with theology, metaphysics,morality, and spirituality. It leaves the determination of the details of astrophysics to the experts.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 33
@wordonfirevideo
Quite right. I've been listening to so many accusing the Church of contradicting the results of science, but without giving ONE instance of where this is supposed to be true. I'd like to know what the Mother Church is saying that is supposed to be so "contrary to scientific disovery." Where's the evidence of this? Too often the Church gets wrongly tossed in with Biblical fundamentalism, the view that seems to get the most publicity because it makes the most noise.
mypolicy9 1 year ago 2
@mypolicy9
Where's the evidence?
Seriously?!
Noxshus 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Why did I discover this just now? I am learning so much from you. Thank you!
279cute 10 months ago
how does the Church defend: AIDs in africa, contraception and birth control, stem cell research and cloning?
ccheng21 1 year ago
@ccheng21 Well, lasts time I checked, the chuch wasn't defending those things; it was against them!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 4
Lots of love to you, my wonderful sheppard, I follow your tapes and am so proud of having you to explain so patiently everything! I learn so many things with you, but most of all, to be patient with these people fed only by propaganda. God bless you.
I pray that you would be the next pope. But maybe you would be less free! I love you.
Onlylovesaves 1 year ago
Dear Father! You're the Patience in persona! This adstanra is an ignorant dude that doesn't know ANYTHING but only the clichés that midia tells him. I am sure that he never knew that BigBang theory was held by a priest. (...)
Onlylovesaves 1 year ago
(...) The problem is that in the interior of our beautiful religion there are very obscures minds, that fought against beautiful thinkers like Teilhard de Chardin, paleonthologue, jesuit and teologian. And to these obscures minds, a wonderful priest like you, too, would be problem.
Onlylovesaves 1 year ago
...I do not feel that the Catholic Church is in need of detractors...
...they have done well enough on their own...
...the Pope has need to bow before the entire world and ask forgiveness for the *Sins of the Church* against mankind...
...the Church itself is Anti-Christic...
Will224000 1 year ago
@Will224000 I hesitate on replying to this hateful and meaningless post. I don't pretend to know you...but from your post, I would encourage you to look at your OWN sins...ask forgiveness and do penance.
May God forgive you for your words.
Irishwpride 1 year ago
A non christian friend of mine mentioned that she saw this movie and surprised me and when she told me that the movie in a sense scared her because she thought it was based on reality. I then explained the truth abt the iluminati..it got me thinking that if my own friend thought that how many other people are out there who believe in the false representations of our Catholic faith? and that to me was a bit of a scary thought!
leakim26 1 year ago
Becoming tedious to hear christians take credit for science. Not sure Copernicus, Galileo, Newton ( was he a christian?) or Einstein ( a jew) would concur.Science has been driven by multiple factors including the economy, the great schism, the enlightenment and it's success.The intelligability of the world was defined by Pythagorus, Aristotle and the ancient Greeks. I think it is fair to say that the church, for much of its history ( not all), has been a hinderance to free scientific enquiry
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra as the church finds it tedious to be made the arch nemesis of science. Would you say that the nazi experiments were not free scientific inquiry? I'm guessing the answer to that would be a NO but one one could argue that what they were doing was for the benefit for humanity and for the sake of scientific research. Extreme Measures a movie I once saw (not the best movie) opened up the discussion between ethical and unethical scientific research. How does one know to draw the line?
leakim26 1 year ago
@adstanra Oh give me a break! You want to talk tedious? How about the repetition, ad nauseam, that religion is the enemy of science! I think it's funny that when a religious person dares to raise his voice against this massive anti-religious propaganda, he's being "tedious."
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo It is also tedious to hear Christians whine about being persecuted. I have not persecuted anyone. It is called criticism, and its not a bad thing. Religion has intruded itself upon science by often making truth claims about the physical world. When it does, it invariably looses because it is not grounded in verifiable facts.
The above post was in resonse to a claim that christianity should get credit for scince. I thought the greeks should get some..lol
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra And I've criticized you right back. So stop whining--and answer my observations.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Hmm. strange response word..You claimed that Xians are being persecuted in some way after I pointed out that the ancient Greeks should get credit for showing the intelligibility of the universe. Are you denying the "real" persecution that the church dolled out against anyone who diagreed with them for centuries ? Are you denying that the church has , at times, hindered scientific progress? And when have I avoided answering your "obsrvations?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Well friend, it doesn't matter particularly who first "discovered" the intelligibility of the world. What's important (and quite interesting) is the assertion that a mind must stand behind that intelligibility. With this idea firmly established, Christians gave rise to the physical sciences in the West. Whatever conflict there might have been between science and religion is far less important than this deep congruence--recognized by all of the great founders of the modern sciences.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 6
@wordonfirevideo As you know, the Greeks often referred to the Logos.They did believe that the intelligability of the universe could be traced to a devine mind. It was not christians who established this idea.
Of couse ( lol) both christians and greeks were wrong on that. A mind does not necessarily exist behind the intelligability, but intelligence arises out of the order established by impersonal laws.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Hi, me again. Just wondering... you're an atheist right?
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne hey Blood..hope you are well. Yes, I am an atheist.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Aye, I'm good! Still a deluded Catholic, ya know. Still giving the Farther grief, eh?
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@BloodOfRayne well I try, but you know, he can hold his own..lol
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Are you saying he makes you think? Be careful now! lol
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Awww... man! Are you sure? The earth is definitely old earth? What am I supposed to believe now? My head is blown man!
BloodOfRayne 1 year ago
wordonfirevideio: Regarding the Church's position concerning Copernicus' heliocentric system, in 1616, Pope Paul V (1552-1621) issued a bull which condemned the Copernican system as heretical. It called the theory "more scandalous, more detestable, and more pernicious to Christianity than any contained in the books of Calvin, Luther and of all other heretics put together." In 1620, the Inquisition banned all publications that taught the Copernican system.
PWJ57 1 year ago 2
wordonfirevideo: Although historical circumstances (pre late 19th century) did not bode well for a climate of dialogue between religion and science, the founding of the Vatican Observatory in 1891 was a major step towards concordance. A well educated Pius XII, coupled with the considerable influence of Priest/Cosmologist Georges Lemaître, facilitated that dialogue. So the counter-evidence is rather recent.
PWJ57 1 year ago
wordonfirevideo Your characterization of the Church's compatible relationship with science is inaccurate. Galileo's condemnation for claiming a heliocentric world was not an anomaly. Galileo's fate is well known only because of his fame. 33 years prior to Galileo's conviction of heresy, Giordano Bruno was burned to death by the Church for expressing views about other worlds considered contrary to scripture. Copernicus' writings (+ many others) were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books.
PWJ57 1 year ago
@PWJ57 I've never denied that certain churchmen, even of a very high rank, got this one wrong. But given the massive amount of counter-evidence, I've argued that it's extremely unfair to say simply that "the church" has always been opposed to science. And here's what's really important: there is no question that today the Church is deeply interested in a creative dialogue with the sciences.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
I'm responsible for my own actions yes, as is everyone else. but if we're going to point fingers, then let's not JUST do it at "organized" religion (or specifically the Catholic Church), as some are wont to do. I mainly see people being hypocritical, because they consider something wrong when the Church does it or says it, but not when other folks do it or say it (or they don't bother to criticize, strangely)
XSC3 2 years ago
I'm always ready to condemn evil deeds no matter who is responsible.
There are worse things than the rcc in this world but we were discussing the church and not the state of the world.
I think we´ve hi-jacked this thread long enough, I'll send further responses directly to you.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
And MLK Jr. certainly did evil things, he was a womanizer and a plagiarist. And like I said, without his movement a lot of people might have stayed alive or not been beaten. Now you might argue (as most would) that the gains of his movement were worth the risks and the missteps can be forgiven in light of the accomplishments. But if you believe he was right and a saint, then you can't deny he did it because of his religious beliefs and he "won" because he appealed to the religion of others
XSC3 2 years ago
Of course he used the tools available to him, why wouldn't he?
I've never said people shouldn't do good deeds simply because they are based on religous beliefs, what I am saying is don't do deeds that your own moral code normally wouldn't allow simply because you have been told that god says it's ok in this case.
Do you see a difference at all in the two?
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
Religion can and always has been able to do a lot more good when it is organized. do you think the civil rights movement or the Indian independence movement would have worked if you only had charismatic figures like MLK Jr or Gandhi, doing it? No. You needed the religious base and community with shared values and beliefs for those leaders to tap into. otherwise those movements would have died when those leaders died. all religiously based social movements were done with groups, not individuals
XSC3 2 years ago
Comment removed
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
A charismatic leader and a goal in people´s interest is enough.
The goal does not die with the leaders.
I'm not denying that religious belief is a powerful tool, in fact it is my argument.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
What's interesting in all this though is that for the lifespan of Christianity, a good portion of its energy has been used, not to eliminate human desires, but to control them. So if you have (rightly) discovered the source of human moral evil is result of desires, then you should be in favor of its quest to bring them under regulation or moderation (several great religions have come to similar conclusions, I might add)
XSC3 2 years ago
Resources used to uphold the mumbo jumbo would be more effective if put to upholding laws.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin why do we bother to create laws and why uphold them?
if you believe there is a system of morality upon which we should make laws, then you are advocating a philosophical or religious system. if you believe laws can be unjust and should be changed, ditto. If you believe that is the case, how do you propose laws get changed if people don't organize? should we just be ruled by atheist dictators? doesn't seem to work too well, as history has shown
XSC3 2 years ago
I've said it before and I'll say it again since it does not seem to sink in, I am not against organisations.
I am against organisations that indoctrinate people to put the focus in this life on an afterlife and a deity that supposedly has super human morals so that any deed can be justified.
People organising to change an unjust law is not of the latter category.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
what you're really arguing for then is the elimination of human desires. are we going to eliminate not only the sense of private property, family and selfhood, but consciousness itself? because that would seem the only way. otherwise I can come to the conclusion that something (or someone) I value is threatened and therefore I need to respond (which could result in something bad happening)
XSC3 2 years ago
No I am not and you know I am not.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
But like it or not, Christianity, by and large is an "organization religion," and always has been (not surprisingly, since it's founder and principle documents all advocate for organization).
The notion that you can be a "lone wolf" Christian, who rejects any notion of a "Church" and still be faithful to its founding principles is a very modern idea.
XSC3 2 years ago
Do you equate modern with bad?
If not, then how is this an argument against my position?
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin it's just that if you base your morality on just what modern people think, then you'd be foolish to argue against my position, because more people are religious than not. likewise, in EVERY era, people have believed in what "modern" (for them, the present) people believed. so you could never judge any other time period, because they're doing just what you're doing. but we can and do judge things. was slavery morally right in 1807, but morally wrong in 1866?
XSC3 2 years ago
My moral code is what I judge by, how modern people think does not enter into it.
Sure they acted after what the people around them deemed appropriate but that does not take away my right to an opinion on what they did.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
Incidentally, people on "deserted" islands apparently did practice "organized religion," since they could do things like send letters to other human beings. I concede that without forms of communication this would be difficult outside of societies. The "Church" is a universal body, not just a local congregation or a tribe or national group, and has been since the first century.
XSC3 2 years ago
Sending a letter had less effect than prayer if you believe prayer and about as much if you don't.
So it's only possibly organised religion.
Still could not go to mass or recieve sacraments or confess as prescreibed.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin so you're saying the only valid religion is on that can be practiced by an individual alone? the idea that religion is a private "individual thing" is a modern idea. I didn't say modern was bad, but it's simply that human philosophy has decided such things are important. there were Christian hermits for thousands of years, they just walked to town when necessary or were visited by priests (eventually they banded together to form monasteries)
XSC3 2 years ago
I' saying that is the preferable way to have faith.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
If the "Church" claimed to be made up of only perfect people and their sales pitch was that by obeying them you'd also be morally perfect in this life, then maybe I could see this argument against it existing. This is not nor has ever been the claim. Too often I hear that, and it's based upon the assumption that Christians think they are morally perfect and that is the reason why their teachings (and preachings to other, non-perfect people) are true. Stranger to hear it from a "Christian."
XSC3 2 years ago
If there is no reason to believe fantastical claims you should not.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin you believe all religion is false, there's no God, no supernatural, right?
Or do you believe that there are objective moral principles that exist outside of human laws and regardless of whether human society recognizes them?
XSC3 2 years ago
I think all religions I've had a look at are false.
I've seen no evidence for objective moral principles.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
continued:
You make a big point about "oganization" but I don't see how that's even a valid anyway.... why is the organization wrong? That's like saying we can have teachers but we shouldn't have schools. I agree with education, just not "organized education."
XSC3 2 years ago
Teachers only teach how parts of the world works without the delusional absolute certainty of faith.
Teachers don't have the power churches do so it doesn't carry the dangers with it and it is more efficient to have schools.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin most teachers have absolute certainty in what they are saying. that's why we call them "facts." are you saying we perpetually doubt EVERYTHING, or just religious beliefs? philosophy is just as "delusional" as religion, and yet without it you have NO standard by which to judge other people or systems
XSC3 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin I'd say teachers (or the school system) has more power than the churches. You can go to jail if you don't send your children to school, for example. teachers can get kids taken away from their parents by reporting them for "child abuse." teachers have also (even though they're not supposed to obviously) gotten away with child sexual abuse on a scale greater than any church, due to the unequal enforcement of laws. so teachers are more 'dangerous' than clergymen, at least in America
XSC3 2 years ago
Never heard of anyone becomming a suicide bomber because a teacher in his/her capacity as a teacher told them to.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
one doesn't have to be a "suicide bomber" to be a "victim" of a dangerous ideology. plenty of people shoot up or blow up their schools, but even putting aside those folks, you've never heard of the "student radical"? I wasn't talking about that, I was actually talking about teachers who molest students or subject them to psychological abuse. if we're going to denounce institutions for that sort of thing, public education (not just private) would be liable
XSC3 2 years ago
Yet again, there is a reason for having public education, not so with churches, and it is less dangerous to have schools.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
This is just like the common fallacy often articulated by anti-Christians to the effect that "I'll become a Christian when Christians are perfect."
Ideals are things we strive for, and just because nobody completely lives up to them (and some fail miserably), we don't abandon them. But I guess some folks have similar stupid logic... which is why they say we should legalize drugs BECAUSE people use drugs illegally (ditto with prostitution, or abortion, etc). that's invalid
XSC3 2 years ago
Had they been morally superior it would be a compelling reason to believe, without it there is none, with such slaughter for the greater glory of god, there is even less.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin the moral superiority of a person has nothing to do with the truth of what they are saying.
If a man tells me that his car can fly, it doesn't matter how morally pure he is, the car won't fly. you may say "ah, but if he's honest he wouldn't say that" but that's presuming he couldn't be absolutely certain that it could fly (but sincerely mistaken). many wonderful, well meaning people are nevertheless wrong.
XSC3 2 years ago
See answer below.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
In fact, just about every "great man" (or woman) in history did something wrong, or believed something today we'd find fault with. Therefore to expect that a moral teacher must be morally perfect is simply ridiculous. Ditto with lawmakers. Politicians have broken the law. Should we get rid of laws (or ignore them) too? There's no human being that is perfect. You've embraced the fallacy that the truth of something is based on the purity of the one giving the message.
XSC3 2 years ago
Laws are pure might makes right, it has nothing to do with morality they simply state; do this and this will happen to you.
Again, I´m not saying the claims of the church can't be believed just that there is no reason to and therefore I can't believe it.
Especially since believing is only self serving, I bring as much good and none of the guilt a catholic does.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
It follows that since I could never believe the church's claims I can't see why anyone else would.
I understand that they do, just not why, especially when it leaves them open to doing acts they would never do had they followed their own moral code.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin you're assuming everyone else in the world thinks like you, and holds value in what you do. Maybe they don't? You don't have a consistent method to judge other belief systems or determine morality, so why should I listen to your judgments on why religion is wrong? Are you saying religious people would never do "acts" against their moral code if they had not been religious? That makes no sense. Other people do those things, and lack a moral code against them? (still wrong?)
XSC3 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin are you aware of the Mormons or the Amish? Both morally very excellent people as a whole. Does that prove their teachings are true, because of their clean living and kindness? You might wish to believe what they say because they are so nice, but logically speaking, their niceness has nothing to do with the accuracy of what they're saying. Your rude, curmudgeony physics teacher with bad breath is still right.
XSC3 2 years ago
I've repeatedly said that the message is not automatically true or false because of the proponent's of said message clean living or superior morality.
But a known liar will be treated with more skepticism and even more so if his claims are fantastical.
Mormon claims on truth are quite hard to believe but there is reason to look again at the Amish message.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
the Amish's message is no more provable than any other religious one. but I said if you're going to judge them based on their "moral behavior" (not just what their code states), then you're going to have to say they're right (unless you consider pacificism and "anti-modernity" to constitute an immoral philosophy, in which case you'd consider them wrong I guess).
XSC3 2 years ago
Did I say the amish message should be swallowed hook, line and sinker?
Simply said I should take a look.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
This stuff about "Track record" is wrong headed and where's a contemporary example. Martin Luther King Jr. Great man, or wicked evil person?
Most consider him a great man for what he did for civil (and human) rights, helping end racial segregation and overturning other unjust laws, giving hope to oppressed people, etc.
But guess what? He also cheated on his wife and plagiarized his dissertation. So he was dishonest and a cheat. Does that mean his message was wrong?
XSC3 2 years ago
MLK's message could be proven to hold water and not cause evil, also it and his persona and rhetoric gathered a massive following that did no evil in it's name. That is why he is great.
Nothing of the above can be said about the rcc.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin on the contrary, you could say that had MLK Jr. never stood up and invigorated the movement he helped lead, it wouldn't have resulted in his assassination, nor would it have resulted in the beatings, bombings and murders of the civil rights workers. he emboldened them, which in turn infuriated racists. you could argue that some of the failures of his movement also encouraged militant groups like the Black Panthers and others who didn't have a non-violent code
XSC3 2 years ago
Are you responsible for other people´s actions?
A reasonable act met with an unreasonable reaction makes the reasonable party responsible?
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
If we're not responsible for other people's actions, then this lets religious leaders (that you had previously condemned) off the hook. after all, they didn't force anybody to do wrong, even if they weren't misunderstood when they preached violence, intolerance, greed, or whatever it is you think they're guilty of
XSC3 2 years ago
Would you say Stalin is blameless?
As far as I know he killed no one himself.
I'd say there is a difference between ordering violence and being the victim of violence.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
The "moral track record" argument is extremely stupid. Here's why... somebody could take your argument to heart and do this:
Start a brand new organization, that just happened to believe exactly as the Catholic Church did, but distinguished themselves from it, and boom, you would have no argument against it. That's been the Protestant strategy for about 500 years (whenever the "Church" does something wrong, leave and start your own!)
XSC3 2 years ago
I will always have an argument against organised religion.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
"organized religion"? That's like saying "you can believe in free speech, so long as you don't organize."
The fact is that people with like minded beliefs and/or goals will organize. What are you going to do, stop it by force? Besides, for your OWN beliefs or goals to have influence, you're going to have to organize, or remain powerless. that's life in a society. If you don't like it, go to a deserted island and then you can be king I guess
XSC3 2 years ago
I´m not against organisations, I´m against organisations that indoctrinates people to put the focus in this life on an afterlife and a deity that supposedly has super human morals so that any deed can be justified.
It's like your saying that if people want to be suicide bombers it's their business.
Secular powers can't push people as far (at least not to the same extent) and can be held accountable. I mean you know where to find a country or a corporation, not so with congregations.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin
Tell that to an anarchist, or to a chimpanzee. seems we survived for millions of years without this stuff. I'm not saying it's not useful, but if you're going to go that route...
Face it, we need religion, that's why there are so few true atheists, and the ones out there (that are honest) turn to philosophy as a substitute (or end up self destructing, sadly)
XSC3 2 years ago
We have survived long without them yes, though not in the numbers we are now.
There might be a way to implement an anarchistic system that can support us but I think that would be even more difficult than getting a fair and working communist society going, don't think many of us think that should be tried again though...
I think it is clear that I don't feel I need to "face it".
But let's say I did face it, still no reason to have organised religion.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
There's countless reasons to have organized religion. again, I as I pointed out, your simplistic explanations, which are repeated ad naseum by folks who haven't studied it (Ie: it's to explain natural phenomenon pre-science, or it's for the power elite to control the ignorant masses, etc) don't cut the mustard. if you don't see the "need" for organized religion then you don't believe your own explanations. come back to planet earth!
XSC3 2 years ago
Name a few of those "countless reasons" and each and every one will be shot down.
If I saw the need for organised religion it would be pretty pointless saying it does not need to exist.
Saying I don't believe my own explanations does not make it so.
Gibbity gibbity goop come back to planet earth!
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin
what youv'e done is boil down religion (specifically the Church) to "bad religion" (ie: the tool of the state to dominate the masses, the inadequate substitute for scientific explanation of the natural world, and a "tool of indoctrination"). Again, there's no way for you to get rid of it, you won't solve any problems by doing so, and you can't prove you're right. so what?
XSC3 2 years ago
If you know something is wrong you have to fight it no matter the odds.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
Thank you Father Barron, I was actually recently debating a friend about science and the Catholic Church and I was glad to be able to link him to this video. :) I enjoyed watching it and the rest of your videos.
Awesomesome 2 years ago
- and it is more commonly becoming the case that many practicing Catholics are highly educated and knowledgeable people who would not be very easy to dupe or trick.
R987654321D 2 years ago
And yet they follow a faith which is as likely as winning the lottery to have any benefits.
That is to be duped.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
@TurumbarTurin what makes the Catholic Church "unnecessary" in your mind? Because you don't believe in what it teaches?
By that logic, EVER religion is unnecessary, because they all believe in something somebody, somewhere, doesn't agree with. And last I checked, they didn't exist solely to believe in things you don't agree with.
XSC3 2 years ago
Not because it teaches things I don't believe in.
It is just that it is as necessary as a real estate agent is when you know the buyer.
You can have a independant relationship with god but pay the church for it anyway...
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
The Church has nothing with which it can force people to do anything including following any of its doctrines or teachings. I know many Catholics, as you may as well, who barely ever attend mass and don't really believe much of what the Church teaches - they are free to make those choices, the Church can't make them attend mass or obey the teachings through any kind of force. Those that truly follow the Catholic faith, or at least the vast majority of them, are those that truly desire to do so -
R987654321D 2 years ago
Force? No, but it can give support to secular powers and thus endow it's actions with a divine stamp of approval which is a powerful tool to get tools in line.
TurumbarTurin 2 years ago
To TurumbarTurin
The Church and the catholic faith are not the same, but they are far more entwined than I think you give credit to. Without the one the other would most definitely fall apart - and if you mean to imply that the Catholic faith itself is innately evil, then I think it would be interesting for you to learn more about it. Also, you give very little credit to people themselves. We no longer live in a church-state society or in a political world governed by the Church.
R987654321D 2 years ago