Batman and his counterparts are just killing off the symptoms of the disease, not the real disease. It should be both violence and reform of society. What they should do is change society.
Let's not forget that what father is saying, that it's not non-violence that is the answer to violence. You would just get killed. But Jesus is the answer. One day He will come back and take away all the evil from this world. On His own terms. Ofcourse, non-violence is surely the best way to go.
What about the bombing of Japan? Didn't the absolutely totally violent act of the two atom bombs put an end to the war, bringing about the peace following the war?
@savioblanc It put an end to A war, but it subsequently led to a nuclear arms race and tension between 2 superpowers that led to several other smaller wars that we are still feeling the effects of in the violence of today. Violence will never do away with violence absolutely.
@dannytibi I can see ure point but don't u think not throwing those bombs would have led to millions more American and Allied forces dying in Japan? WW2 would likely never have gotten over and we would very likely be in a horrible stalemate, which would mean Japan would be more like North Korea, divided likely between two parts - one still honouring the Emperor and the other democratic and under the Allied forces. I seriously believe, for all the smaller wars later, those bombs put an end to WW2
@savioblanc I don't think that is the case historically either. I don't think the bombs were the only option. But I am willing to grant for this discussion that it was the only way to end that specific conflict. Did it lead to an end in the cycle of violence? No, it only fuelled more violence later on. We can delude ourselves into thinking that as long as we can put an end to specific conflicts by means of violence, we will have a custom made solution to this problem... (cont...)
@dannytibi But the "solution" will only ever be superficial at best, and at worst it will keep fuelling the vicious cycle. Maybe there was no other way out for Harry Truman and the US army in WWII, but that does not mean we can regard the atom bomb as an acceptable solution, if it were, there are so many of them that violence should not be a problem any more.
I would disagree with you father on one simple point. Violence can contain violence to the point that it is worth doing. Example: WWII. The Nazis violent acts are stopped by the Allies' violent acts and Europe is recreated. Sure it did not solve the base problem but it did save the lives of millions of people.
I think Father Barron is overlooking the nature of Batman's actions in the film. Batman does use violence to combat violence, but he doesn't use it as the final solution. Criminals use violence as the final solution to their problems. Batman uses violence to bring them down, then delivers them to the authorities so that they can be tried and convicted. The law is the final solution for Batman, and he is simply uses violence to deliver criminals to that solution. That's also why he works...
Ah, excellent point...in a sense, it kind of does, ALMOST, add to the Christ effect. Except, Christ is the law so he, in amazing away, use combat violence on pouring it in himself and at the same time is the authority of tried and convicting those through the means of justice. I hope that makes sense.
However, I do have to agree with some points from Father Barron.
@RogerSands1 You said you still agreed with some of Father Barron's points. I was just asking if those points were the ones he makes about other superheroes like Spiderman and Superman ineffectively fighting violence with violence.
Well, now I think about it...batman is the only character that comes the closes to using violence but as you said his purpose was to bring justice by giving it to the authorities. I don't know why father barron mentioned superman because superman is by far the nearest image of Christ.
I am an atheist, but as a fair-minded person, I have to say this guy is intelligent and understands his subjects. Barron's insight that Batman cannot win over evil through violence or an attempt to control, but only through loving self-sacrifice - seems to be the premise of The Dark Knight Rises: Many fans suspect that Batman will stop fighting and "give himself" up as a sacrifice to save Gotham. Fr. Barron and Mr. Nolan are on the same page I think - though Nolan is no Christian.
so when you say the jews were looking for the davidman you are saying that all the wars that god commanded were the wrong way of doing at things, which puts the word of god as wrong and to a lesser way jesus in overturning the tables of the money lenders was wrong as it was a aggressive act, and to my mind an act which only could come from anger
That "two sides of the same coin" comment was quite clever, given the inclusion of Two-Face. I also think you are quite correct about this, Father Barron (even Batman might admit it, depending upon who was writing him.... ;)
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you should always use violence to solve a problem. I believe a non-violent answer is always better than a violent one.
I'm just saying, it's not that black and white as "violence never solves violence". Me being violent to my bully absolutly did solve my problem.
Of course that only solved the violence against me. So did it actually "solve" the problem of him being violent? I don't think so, but it did solve him being violent to me.
@MontChevalier I already responded to this comment, but I though I'd phrase it a bit different.
It is self defence, but it's also a clear case of violence solving violence.
He was hitting me (violence). I did nothing (non-violence). He continued to hit me (violence). I finally decided I would fight back (violence). The violence ended (violence solving violence).
That's not always true. People say "violence never solves anything", but when I was in 6th grade there was an older kid that used to pick on me. He never did any real damage, but he'd push me around, punch me in the arm etc.
Anyway, one day I just decided I would fight back. I punched him in the jaw 1 time. He looked at me like he just couldn't believe it. Then he turned around and walked away. He never touched me again.
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!
Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism to name but a few that have survived Christianity would give you an argument on just how morally corrupt Christianity is. even worse if JC was real, to follow a terrorist now that takes religion, good job the Romans excecuted him or God knows what damage he and his Taliban would have done .
"You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other"
I've hears original Batman comic did not intend to portray the Dark Night as a hero. He was a rather vicious vigilante who did not hesitate to kill the criminals he caught, even those guilty of relatively minor crimes. Later his behavior was moderated and a sympathetic back story added due to public outcry.
@georgiaissexay have you ever heard of the liar lunatic lord argument? it has been proven that there was a real man named Jesus, who was thought to be the messiah. This man said he was god. He could be a liar, but would his disciples and friends really die for a man who was not God? I mean, if you were around a guy who said he was God for about three years, I think it would be real easy to tell if he was lying. same with a lunatic. so the only other option is that he is the lord
as i was reading nastassja08's point of view, i thought that maybe the reason why we as humans can't stop violence without violence (the police force or other security forces) is because we are not God. I mean, how could a people full of sin (and sin's nature is violence) expect to control or end violence? Only some one who was sinless, like God or Jesus could end it.
These videos are really interesting and informative for theists and atheists alike.
I'm an amateur artists of sorts and while I like super hero movie and such I always tried to avoid creating the standard type of superhero in my work. Oddly enough I've been working a project with a character that's exactly like that at first. I'm know looking for ways for them to 'save the world' without having to resort only to violence. Jesus, Buddha and Gandhi are proving to be a great inspiration for me.
i disagree, father. the batman's (or spiderman;s/superman's) revenge on violence is man's search for justice. even man's response to control violence. that's why we have the police or other security forces. in reality, we just can't turn the other cheek.even the church turned to violence for hundreds of years until it abdicated that function to newly formed nation states independent of rome. nature will always produce violence , so we need violence of the good kind to counter it.
Um....its been two millenia and some change since this solar deity had himself sacrificed and I can't say that has solved anything. Also I like that you use Batman as a foil to yet another fictional character. I am referring to Christ of course. As far as I can tell Bruce Wayne never preached that through him is the only way to escape the fires of hell.
@rhatcher010 I might recommend an elementary book of Catholic theology in order to clear up the misunderstandings you have. And if you think Jesus was a fictional character, you've read none of the critical literature on the historical Jesus. I don't know any reputable scholars--left and right, believer and non-believer--who don't accept the historicity of Jesus.
Who are you talking about, Josephus? The comment about Jesus, brother of James is highly dubious. Who are these scholars? Are they referring back to the Josephus' Antiquities? If that's the case you are really not standing on much ground. Jesus would have been crucified 4 years before Josephus was even born. Paul was just a nut who never mentions the crucifixion. There really is not anything to confirm a Jesus actually existed. No Jesus, No Resurrection, - hence- your faith is in vain.
@TheRoach007 Which scholars? Oh I don't know: Raymond Brown, John Meier, N.T. Wright, Ernst Kasemann, Hans Kung Edward Schillebeeckx, J.D. Crossan, Marcus Borg, Albert Schweizer, Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham, James Dunn... Honestly, friend, you're the one who is on very shaky grounds, academically speaking.
@rhatcher010 The amount of change as a result of Christian ethics is staggering actually. Not going to repeat what Fr. Barron has covered, but on a side note, Batman has oft been surmised as actually being Catholic, and that his example of a willing servant in suffering to combat evil, all evil, within and without isn't the easy Messiah archetype many liken Superman to, but as hero, despite limitation, emptying himself in pursuit of a greater truth than himself. So your comparison is misplaced.
While I understand the idea of Yeshua absorbing all the violence of the world upon himself rather than continuing to perpetuate it, there's something vaguely creepy about how more...well, let's say "committed" Christians like Mel Gibson are infatuated with the violence inflicted upon Yeshua.
PASSION OF THE CHRIST was almost a "torture porn" flick no better than the HOSTEL films, in addition to being unpleasantly antisemitic.
Very good, I never thought of this way. It made me think of Colossians 1:24; how Paul spoke of "absorbing the violence" like Jesus:
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions."
@wordonfirevideo thats because the "Jesus' " story is taken from ancient religion much older than Christianity, and Jesus is the next chapter in History behind Mithra , Horus , and Krishna. But I am sure the "Mountain of Literature" doesn't mention anything about them an how their stories are exactly like the coming about and life of Jesus . And where is the Literature on what happened from birth to the early 30's of Jesus. Weird how that just dissapeared into the sands of time lol.
I agree with your view on violence; however, I am not sure if that is the point of TDK. The point of this film is that Batman is a metaphor for Jesus. He is a person who gives hope. Now look at how the people of Gotham treat this character of hope. They blame him for their problems. Don't we sometimes blame God for our problems. The entire film is about understanding that we should not blame God for our problems. Yes, sometimes God does not do the perfect thing, but he always looks for the best
One concept that is often missed with Batman comics is that Batman and the Joker are similar in kind, the only difference is that Batman never crossed the line, as the Joker did.
(continued)From the start Batman concerns himself with becoming a symbol. The violence he employs is not to simply achieve the physical end results (as shown by his decision in the first move), but to remind people of the fight, to give people hope that there was someone who held evil accountable, to give people hope that there is something worth fighting for. Now how successful this fight can be is another issue, but Batman's motives aren't for vengeance, it's a striving to a higher order.
I agree with you that violence can never overcome violence but (with all due respect) I believe your review is somewhat short sighted. Batman's ultimate purpose is not to beat every criminal off of Gotham's streets. In the first movie, Batman Begins, he has this possibility to join a group that will violently stop all criminals. He turns it down and fights against them. In their eyes "justice" was the ultimate goal and violence was acceptable, and necessary to carry out justice. From the
There's not always a new villain because the hero's violence incites villainy. There is always a new villain, because without a villain, the franchise ceases to be.
Nice to see there hasn't been any violence since Jesus fixed the problem....
The sacrificial lamb is a terrible doctrine. A modern analogy would be a law-abiding citizen entering a prison and allowing himself to be executed so that all the guys on death-row could be pardoned. There's nothing moral about it. And I'm not so sure that would stop the cycle of violence in their lives, either.
@ScienceWinsEveryTime, the doctrine that God Himself, took upon Himself the entire violence and anger of the entire world upon His heart and offered Himself as an offering of love back unto Himself, Christ to the Father, as love more pleasing than the sinfulness of the world, that men might be restored from the disorder of sin to an obedient will of goodness guided by grace? It's a sacrifice of love, the Judge pardons by suffering with and lifting up the afflicted as Divine lover. It's beautiful
@ScienceWinsEveryTime Are you not confusing Protestant theology with Catholic there? No-one said all violence would end. People are free to reject Christ at any time and they do so by committing sins and not repenting for them.
@PuraguCryostato I was responding to Barron's words in the video, as he said that Jesus dealt with the problem of violence by absorbing it. And my response is that violence in the world was unaffected ultimately. In fact, Christianity itself has done its share of violence. And my other point is that a scapegoat, even a willing scapegoat like Jesus, is immoral because it lessens the responsibility that a person has for the pain they cause in the world, at the expense of someone else's suffering.
@ScienceWinsEveryTime Jesus' death on the cross is God's great answer to violence and sin. Now he invites all of us to participate in the space that he opened up. This is why we need a church. Catholic theology says that the definitive battle has been won by Christ but that lots of mop-up work remains--much as D-Day was followed by some difficult slogging on the way to Berlin. That's why Jesus' death doesn't absolve me from responsibility; it invites me to imitate what he did.
@wordonfirevideo I agree that the invitation is there, and more power to you for accepting it. However, as a student of many religions, I am always a bit perplexed that though most faiths' teachers preach non-violence and emulation of its "founder", many don't follow through on the invitation, and instead can become lazy or self-righteous in the safety of their doctrines. Arguably, one is excused from responsibility of doing ultimate good as long as they can follow the practices of their faith.
@ScienceWinsEveryTime I agree with you: there are and have been lots of bad Christians. But Christian doctrine prepares us for this truth by declaring that we are all fallen. We all come of age in a world that is radically conditioned by hatred, violence, stupidity, etc. Chesterton said that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and never tried!
the argument that violence leads to more violence is just stupid. Of course sometimes its true but sometimes it also stops it. Taking a comic for an example is just the worst. Of course there are new enemies all the time because the fans want to see more and the writer of the comic delivers new content.
Of course you are right on some points for the dark knight. For example that batman and the joker arnt that different. Still taking the movie to prove some wild theory in real life doesnt work
the argument that violence leads to more violence is just stupid. Of course sometimes its true but sometimes it also stops it. Taking a comic for an example is just the worst. Of course there are new enemies all the time because the fans want to see more and the writer of the comic delivers new content.
Of course you are right on some points for the dark knight. For example that batman and the joker arnt that different. Still - taking the movie to prove some wild theory in real life doesnt work
I kind of disagree with the desire for vengance origin theory there... there is an exploration of violance and origins in violance in comics especially with the Batman story but it usually takes the form of mobilisation rather than a quest for vengeance
Batman is against killing, against guns, etc.
Ex.: The "Red Mask" story line is precisely about a victim of the Joker blaming Batman for never having simply killed the Joker...
So Batman is about fighting for justice while not losing your way.
@emacrisema But why are you necessarily skeptical of the claims to miraculous acts? Do you deny that God could perform them? Do you think that otherwise reliable witnesses, who went to the death to defend what they claimed, just made things up for their own entertainment?
@wordonfirevideo "Do you think that otherwise reliable witnesses, who went to the death to defend what they claimed, just made things up for their own entertainment?" .. Ofcourse not, but clearly the people involved had the means and the motive to create a convincing lie. The motives weren't sinister or unworthy. Some realized primitive society needs a belief to be moral. Some did it to get out from under roman rule. Most were just insane and taken advantage of by smart people with a motive.
@LaserBlowFish Come on, friend, that's way too cynical. Those who propagated belief in the resurrection already had a vibrant religion and morality. Why would they have needed another "story?" And how in the world would a tale of a resurrected victim of Roman justice have "gotten them out from under Roman rule?" I mean, the first Christians were routinely persecuted by Rome. And how condescending and simplistic to say "most of the early Christians were insane!"
@wordonfirevideo "Why another "story?"" .. well maybe because they read Plato ? Conservatives still think they live in the republic even today.
"how in the world" .. well revolts by messianic movements were common at the time and miracle claims do unite people
And I'm sorry the word insane was badly chosen, I meant no offense by it. It is a psychological fact that cognitive dissonance can lead perfectly sane people to incorrect conclusions.
@LaserBlowFish Not at all sure what Plato's Republic has to do with anything here. And yes, there were anti-Roman rebellions, like Bar-Kochba's, which were brutally put down. The first Christians never launched such a rebellion; rather they were put to death in great numbers by Rome. And why would you think you are any freer of cognitive dissonance than anyone else?!
@wordonfirevideo Plato's Republic promotes the idea that democracy doesn't work, that the only way to create order is by totalitarian or religious means. There are people who agree with that even today, even if I'm not one of them.
"why would you think you are any freer" .. I don't, but I'm aware of it and I take active steps to reduce its effect by rejecting the notion of absolute certainty. So my epistemological commitment is postpositivism and model dependent realism.
@LaserBlowFish Come on, friend. No one can "reject the notion of absolute certainty," for it involves you in a formal operational contradiction. And if you think the first Christians were dependent upon Plato, take a look at first Corinthians sometime. Paul says that what he preaches is a "scandal to the Jews and folly to the Greeks."
@wordonfirevideo What contradiction ? Richard Feynman, one of the greatest minds of the last century, describes this perfectly: watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is
In that passage he talks about teaching "Christ crucified" specifically. Ofcourse that was hard to accept for the Jews and the Greeks but Corinthians actually proves my point at "Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom". He was aware of and respected greek philosophy and knew that Jews needed signs of God in order to make them believe it.
@LaserBlowFish Which begs the question how you can be sure that either dependent realism or postpositivism actually provide enough validity to assume them as your mode of thinking. It seems you are overconfident in this regard. As someone who studies biological systems I would be afraid of over confidence. That's what that taught me. If all viewpoints are equal, being pragmatic in your first choice is valid.
@PuraguCryostato Heh, yeah the standard objection. `Absolute certainty is impossible` .. how can you be absolutely certain about that :). Except I didn't say that it's impossible. I'm saying that I don't how you could assert that it IS possible without appealing to a statement which is arbitrarily assumed to be absolutely certain. I don't know whether it's possible or not, but under those circumstances, not assuming that it is seems to be justified, you'd have to prove otherwise.
@LaserBlowFish Then we need to completely move away from eye witness testimony of any sort in courts of law or journalism. We also need to burn most of our history books. In medicine we should stop asking patients' histories because they are worthless. I think the ferocity you are attacking the origins of Christianity with should be used for more meaningful exploits which have serious materialistic and societal implications.
@PuraguCryostato Nope, we have lie detectors for example to verify eye witness accounts. We can also do brain scans to determine mental health. It's not a hopeless situation. Historical claims where the evidence is scarce do need to be viewed with skepticism but as long as they create a coherent picture I don't see why we'd have to resort to what you said. Attack with ferocity ? Please .. reserve those words for those who say "HAHA! Christians are morons", I'm not one of them.
@PuraguCryostato Well yeah and we can't possibly know either way. The question is whether the things we do know would make more sense if we assume that they did. I've watched some debates over the historicity but certainly I haven't studied it in any great depth. Nevertheless I can say that at this point to me it seems more plausible than assuming, also without proof, that they were either completely crazy or malevolent or correct.
@emacrisema Jesus lived in the stone age?? Man, you gotta revisit some of those high school science books! Do you believe what has been written about Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Herod, Mark Antony, Augustus, Cicero, Virgil, Agrippa,St. Paul, and Philo? Well, they all lived around the time of Jesus, and we know about them through literary texts. You have absolutely no reason to be as skeptical as you are about the historicity of Jesus.
So, killing yourself solves violence better than targeting criminals?
If a mugger is holding a gun to your head, what would make you feel better, Batman swooping in and disarming him, or Jesus getting down there and and saying "hold on, could you hand me those nails?", while getting up on a cross?
The notion that violence can't be solved with violence is true... to a reasonable extent. Even law enforcement must use violence at times.
Thanks for this great message, Father. I just started RCIA to join the Church, so I'm hungry for as much knowledge as I can get. Thanks for a message that speaks to the heart of this comic book geek! Much love and blessings to you, Father.
I enjoy watching the films you make. I like to try to pick them apart and really listen to all sides of the story. I am a methodist and a strong believer and i just felt like posting this to see if youd respond. I enjoy reading the comments you write back to people. I've noticed that people love to respond to your videos that are non believers or upset by points you make.
@haileyandshawn And I have also noticed that people who are believers respond negatively to some video responses to your videos made by nonbelievers. Everyone wants to be right and it is a very tough thing. I find it all very interesting and as i get older( im 16 haha) i learn more and more about how difficult it is. But all worth it and a great experience. I guess im just going on and on with no point but what im trying to say is that I glad your doing what your doing.
I enjoy your work and love to hear a good religious debate. I spend a lot of time looking for answers that i may never find on this earth. So i always pray to God that he will supply me with a personal "Book of Answers" as soon as i arrive!:) Thanks again
Respond to this video... I enjoy your work and love to hear a good religious debate. I spend a lot of time looking for answers that i may never find on this earth. So i always pray to God that he will supply me with a personal "Book of Answers" as soon as i arrive!:) Thanks again
Well Batman and the Joker is polar opposites of each other. First Batman is a detective, which is called in by the Gotham police to solve cases (much like Sherlock Holmes, but doesn't get paid though). He sets himself in danger to save innocent lives for nothing else than his conscience doesn't allow him to stand idly by, because he himself suffered a loss which he doesn't want other innocents to experience, that is why he is uncorruptible. In the ending he even takes the sins of the city on him
@TuringMech The Joker on the other hand thrives on the distrust between people to corrupt them, and in the end create anarchy. Simply said the Joker is a figment of chaos and Batman is a figment of order and justice. Well thats my interpretation of the movie anyway. By the way the Joker uses in the ferry incident an example of game theory called the prisoners dilemma. It could be a good topic in itself for a video. Thanks for the video even though I respectfully disagree with you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Such b.s.! This Father Barron is just forgetting one thing! Jesus MAY HAVE NEVER EXISTED! The Bible is a work of fiction some scribes made up! All religion is human made fiction! He means well but the bottom line is the ALL religion is human made fiction! Get over it! Smart people should not be believing religious b.s.!
@Satchel334 Smart people should look into the mountain of literature showing the clear scholarly consensus that the historicity of Jesus is almost universally accepted.
where is this mountain of literature? does it explain what happened to Jesus from the age of 12 to 30? The gospels themselves are not historical accounts, they were written many years after Jesus' death. You talk about Gandhi learning his non-violence stance from the new testament, then surely hitler, stalin and pol pot all learnt there genocidial ways in the books of the old testament. It tells us of a jealous vengeful god who wipes out his enemies in acts of violence.
@rainzoro Well, the great Gandhi learned his non-violence from his reading of the New Testament when he was a law student in London. As to the Vatican, why do you think beauty dedicated to God is a bad thing?
@wordonfirevideo I'm glad you asked. This is my thing, and correct me if I'm wrong. When I think of Jesus, the image I portray is a humble man who traveled in foot and on a donkey, curing and helping out the poor. He ate bread and wine, did not collect offerings to bulid his own empire. I also remember a passage where Jesus talks about how rich men have slight chance to heaven. He, in my opinion, was always on the side of the unfortunates. Again, correct me here.
@wordonfirevideo IF I am right about my image, then isn't it fair to say the Vatican palace contradicts Jesus' way of life. I admire Michelangelo's work, but in fact, he did get paid a sum of money, and also got smacked in the head by the pope for being slow. I don't see much of a "beautiful dedication" in this, and even though it was, I think Jesus would've approved MORE on spending that construction fee for the unfortunates. Isn't it unfair that Jesus wore rugs, and the Pope lives like a king.
@wordonfirevideo And about great Gandhi learning his non violence from his reading of the new testament, yea i know that, and that is why i said he was more Jesus-like. However, it is obvoius that the Popes have learned the wisdom of the new testament how is it that they are sitting on a throne. What sort of message are we suppose to learn from this?
@wordonfirevideo Ghandi actually wanted a violent revolution against the british, he simply didn't have the guns, however he understood that peace can be used the same way as violence can. And sorry to burst your bubble, but Ghandi was a paedofile and a racist, he wrote 11 columns in his own newspaper about how he hated africans, he hated their culture and hated being around them, he called them niggers and kaffirs, Ghandi in fact just trying to stop being thrown in the same pot by the british.
ghandi was a racist. in his early work when he lived in africa he said the africans was below him and his people. look it up, its crazy, changed my whole view on ghandi. he cared about HIS peoples freedom no one elses. could care less for the black man.
You miss the point about the fact that he did not alleviate the situation. Though the battle is ongoing regardless, Jesus' death upon the cross changed nothing. Suffering and wars continue.
Unlike Batman, he adds another reason for wars, or creates a controversy worth battling over.
I'm not arguing the message of Jesus. I'm arguing against Fr. Barron's point. Batman at least attempts to reduce violence personally.
Jesus' message is simply unheard by those who is violent.
@darketernal3 Well, first of all, don't blame Jesus for the bad actions of some of his followers. Second, Jesus' action on the cross--as it has been carried down through the centuries by the church--has created a field of force of enormous power. Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King, John Paul II, and yes even Gandhi, would be unthinkable apart from it.
Very good video, but I have one counter point to this. Sometimes in life, being kind and giving love can get you kiled. Don't get me wrong, I espouce being kind and giving love. I also espouse self defense and defense of others through rightouse violence, there is such a thing in a kill or be killed situation. It can be tough in life to discern, but sometimes force and lethal force are called for.
@PacmanBonez Just curious: what do you call your father? And how do you refer to him in the third person? And in Matthew 23: 10, Jesus tells us not to call anyone on earth our teacher. Well, "doctor" is just a fancy way of saying "teacher." So are Dr. Billy Graham, Dr. Jerry Falwell, and Dr. Charles Stanley not in violation of the Lord's word? I might suggest, friend, that you're over-literalizing this text a bit.
Well using that logic, EVERYONE has a religious worldview, no matter how twisted or distant from that worldview they become, including the "New Atheists." Unless they're from a planet where there's no religion, they can't be said to be unaffected in their thinking by religious philosophy, themes, structures, etc. not to mention reacting to (or against) those things. Point is, Hitler's Catholicism didn't drive him to mass murder.
But the Catholic Church didn't make those guys shoot abortion providers, blow up abortion clinics or inflict violence on homosexuals for being gay, did they? In fact, if you'll read the teachings of the Catholic Church you'll see that that's precisely the opposite of how they were supposed to treat those people. simply because the Church teaches that something is a sin doesn't automatically translate to "now go kill, maim or torture that person to death"
@XSC3 See. Here is where reading comprehension is nice. I was referring to Christian extremists as a whole, not the Catholics in particular. Now, in America it may be that more of the extremist types are Protestants, but hey there are more Protestants here than Catholic, its just how the odds are. I am opposing the extremism that exposes the flaws in the reasoning that Christian doctrine leads to only good things. That seems to be the outrageous claim of Father Barron.
Prior to the talk of Christianity I agree with his thoughts on the film 100%. He should have quoted the Joker from the scene to add to his point: You have nothing to threaten me with, nothing to do with all your strength. The Dark Knight owns. But I am not sure that most Christians truly follow the ideas that Barron is trying to convey in his videos.Abortion clincs are still blown up, doctors are still murdered, and gay men and women face the threat of violence daily.
@lazerbeam134 the abortion clinic bombers are in a sense following the "superhero" mould that was being talked about though, aren't they? They're doing what these guys are doing in these action movies... "killing the bad guys for the greater good." Now you can turn around and say "but abortion isn't a cause worth killing for" but I'm sure you believe there are such causes, hence from their point of view it's a necessary evil to bring about greater good. just food for thought.
@XSC3 Yeah, shitty food. The fact is that you cannot point to a religion and say "look this is all about being a good person!" and then go and do something that is wrong. In your own religion's morality no less. The point I make is that for one thing, evil wasn't defeated by Jesus' death. The whole video goes on about how violence begets voilence. Alright that's a fair point. But to say that Jesus' death was effective against violence ignores history, and current events.
So because Jesus defeated evil/sin by absorbing it and not fighting it like Batman does the Joker, there weren't any more manifestations of evil to spring up? that his sacrifice ended evil? Superhero justice is clearly the MORE EFFECTIVE way to dispatch villainy. Also, you've forgotten the end of the movie where Batman does the "Jesus thing" and takes responsibility for 2-faces crimes, absorbing them into his symbolic legacy of moral justice, albeit vigilantism. Sorry for being 2 years late
There is something the movie does not deal well at the end: the ethical dilemmas. The 'boat problem' does not have a solution in theory, but with Batman intervention, the decision that were taken turned out to be the best - because of the consequences: no one died. Joker didn't fulfill his will because Batman prevent him to explode the boats. Do you think Batman personifies a non-omnipotent deity that protects humanity? (Thought I think this question fits better with Superman)
@pedroamaralcouto The ethical issue regarded what choice would the hostages make. And they chose to not murder each other. The Joker wanting to kill them anyway is not relevant to the dilemma, it is merely a character trait that makes the setup possible. He is a liar, and the whole dilemma runs on the assumption that he is a "man of his word", which seemed to be the case, as he had up until then, made good on his threats. He lied in subtle ways throughout, but in ways that would not be public.
no...its because its an inherent part of the human condition. not to mention a matter of perspective and contextual situation may make one act in a way, which may be perceived as evil from other people outside the framed reality.
So Jesus is 'Scapegoat Man' absorbing the sins of man/woman, including the silly "sin" of eating an apple at the beginning of time. Scape goating is a way to avoid responsibility and immoral.
I like your positive religious input on many thing, but I must say that the reason a new nemesis, foe, representation or evil always emerges in these is so the serious can go on and it will feed the bottom line, Money
Some Christians are Anti Semites ... Most are not. None should be and it is a sin to be (Pope Paul VI made it a sin to be anti Semite)...There is solid historical Evidence that when Isabel the Catholic expelled the Jews from Spain, it was to protect them from upcoming persecution. The way she is normally portrayed is as an anti Semite.
Every time someone wants to justify why they do not want to believe, they'll throw in the "Inquisition card" . It is cheap. The worst part about it is that most people do not even know what the Inquisition was all about...
Actually Father, Spider-Man's turn to crimefighting was more shame and obligation than vengeance. Remember, the guy who killed his uncle was a guy that he could've stopped previously. Spider-Man's whole deal is 'With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility'.
if he didn't have the god/religion armchair philosophical bit, he could be a great movie reviewer. but no, he screws it up by trying to make christianity relevant by attempting to tie it with cool concepts in a movie.
Sorry, Mr. Barron, but batman wasn't particularly made to convey your flowery sugar-coated religious concepts.
Maybe one reason Batman is so cool is the fact that he doesn't have super powers or magic. He actually has a bit of credibility...unlike magical superheros...hint..hint
While the basic point you're making about violence is apt enough from the perspective of Christianity, you are mistaken where Superman is concerned. Traditionally, Superman shuns violence unless it's absolutely neccessary and promotes a message of peace and love, just like Christ's.
I agree violence feed violence, which is why respect Gandhi. Here comes my point, and it's an important one so read well. Violence's nature is coercion (forcing it without logics or negotiation with the person's opinion). Faith has the same nature of coercion because it FORCES us to believe in it no matter our logics. I question how was it created in 7 days. They answer IT JUST IS. To me, that is GREATLY offending, especially on my knowledge and logics.
this is stupid, why couldnt comic book creators jsut make violence work to solve the problem. Well there is no reason beyond the fact that they would no longer have much of a comic book. soooo maybe this isnt a very good religious comparison
Thankyou. Jesus literally transcends darkness and fear (sin, obscurity, ego, strangeness) by being light and love, and simply shining forth that which He is. Jesus said: "If you want to be like Me, follow Me and I will show you the way; if you don't want to be like Me, I will wait until you change your mind." These words will be like a fire in your heart and gradually burn hotter if you just show a little willingness. And you will love them, because they will be simple and familiar to you.
well, this is actually quite good commentary. Reminds me of the sociologist Rene Girard and his concept of mimetic violence.Jesus reveals the futility of the karmic cycle of this sort of violence.
It is interesting from another point of view that God who accept such a violent death as atonement for sin.
@gavbag1234 Name precisely how many people died defending the historical existence of Batman. In the case of Jesus, I can mention Peter, James, John, Matthew, Phillip, Bartholomew, Paul...shall I go on?
If the most widely held belief was the correct one you guys would've been right and Galileo would've been wrong. Unfortunately that's not how the universe works.
(by the way, you can "name" as many as you like, that doesn't mean you're citing real people. As you said in another video the bible is a library, not a book. Your mistake was presuming this library has a non-fiction section)
If the stories make you happy, and if they don't harm others. I don't begrudge you them.
@gavbag1234 So the entire Bible, every single word of it, was just made up. There is no historical density whatsoever to the stories of David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Babylonian captivity, the Maccabbean wars, King Herod, Jesus and Pontius Pilate, Peter, John, and Paul? Nothing. Just all made up like a fairy tale. Come on, friend, who's living in fantasy land?
Well, look at the times in which it was written. The large period of time it was written over. Sure, there may be a vague historicity, but it's like the ultimate game of Chinese whispers. Let me say what I feel you should be saying on the matter: I simply do not know.
I just wonder what it is that's letting you take the guess that your book is right. I mean, there are other books. It's a very strange belief sir. Some would say absurd.
@gavbag1234 No serious scholar thinks that's right. Ancient cultures were extremely interested in historicity and oral traditions relied on very careful memorization and preservation of the sayings and actions of their key figures. Would a book written today about the JFK assassination, and based on records from the time and eyewitnesses, necessarily be misleading history?
Well, if the question is at what point is the account of eyewitnesses the most valuable it's typically before they've been swayed by popular opinion or wishful thinking. However we're not talking about wanton dishonesty as much as we are the chances that, given the circumstances, inconsistencies, translations and number of original sources.....How do we decide which parts of the bible we take literally and what is "fiction" as you say.
@wordonfirevideo The key phrase there is 'would a book written today'. The key word in that phrase is 'book'. Books are mediums capable of preserving information intact and unchanged for decades, even centuries. Oral traditions are not capable of that, as human history indicates globally. The Iliad is based on an oral tradition - is it historically accurate, even for a work of fiction?
@dbrandow The oral traditions that preserved the words and deeds of Jesus existed for perhaps thirty or forty years before the Gospels were written. And they were preserved by a tight network of Christians, many of whom vividly remembered Jesus. And why this prejudice against the oral communication of history? Is Merle Miller's oral history of Harry Truman just a tissue of lies? Are the works of Studs Terkel nothing but distortion?
@wordonfirevideo Miller based his book on filmed interviews, not a purely oral tradition a generation old, so that is, frankly, a terrible comparison. I'm not familiar with Terkel's works, so I can't comment.
Any book based purely on an oral tradition 30-40 years old must be treated as gravely suspect, be it the Bible or Elvis' biography. One would not treat it as a "tissue of lies" purely on that basis, of course, but rather most probably full of distorted and erroneous information.
@wordonfirevideo As for the accusation of prejudice, the reason for my prejudice, if you must call it that, against the oral communication of history is that history has shown it to be an entirely unreliable means of preserving information without distortions and errors entering into the mix. To rely on oral communication to reliably preserve information and thus base your faith on is to build one's castle upon the sand. You can build the walls as well as you like, but it'll still crumble.
@wordonfirevideo you bring to mind a game i used to play in 2nd grade (bare with me) where my classmates and myself would sit in a circle on the floor. one would whisper a phrase into the ear of his nieghbor. and that nieghbor would do the same until the phraze came back to the origional whisperer. without fail the phaze would be completely dissimilar than when it started. lacking often times even the same basic message. a childs game built on the fallibility of verbal communication.
@wordonfirevideo Are the stories of David, Solomon, et. al. based on real life historical figures and deeds? Probably, in some cases almost certainly. Are those stories historically accurate? No, based on what other sources, archaeology and common sense tells us. There are grains of truth, to be sure, but how does one reliably separate the wheat from the chaff?
Batman and his counterparts are just killing off the symptoms of the disease, not the real disease. It should be both violence and reform of society. What they should do is change society.
HolyknightVader999 4 days ago
Let's not forget that what father is saying, that it's not non-violence that is the answer to violence. You would just get killed. But Jesus is the answer. One day He will come back and take away all the evil from this world. On His own terms. Ofcourse, non-violence is surely the best way to go.
blablabla1864 1 month ago
I understand. But I always kind of saw myself similar to Batman. Quick to temper, misunderstood, but always wanting to help people.
licewithrice 1 month ago
What about the bombing of Japan? Didn't the absolutely totally violent act of the two atom bombs put an end to the war, bringing about the peace following the war?
savioblanc 1 month ago in playlist More videos from wordonfirevideo
@savioblanc It put an end to A war, but it subsequently led to a nuclear arms race and tension between 2 superpowers that led to several other smaller wars that we are still feeling the effects of in the violence of today. Violence will never do away with violence absolutely.
dannytibi 1 month ago
@dannytibi I can see ure point but don't u think not throwing those bombs would have led to millions more American and Allied forces dying in Japan? WW2 would likely never have gotten over and we would very likely be in a horrible stalemate, which would mean Japan would be more like North Korea, divided likely between two parts - one still honouring the Emperor and the other democratic and under the Allied forces. I seriously believe, for all the smaller wars later, those bombs put an end to WW2
savioblanc 1 month ago
@savioblanc I don't think that is the case historically either. I don't think the bombs were the only option. But I am willing to grant for this discussion that it was the only way to end that specific conflict. Did it lead to an end in the cycle of violence? No, it only fuelled more violence later on. We can delude ourselves into thinking that as long as we can put an end to specific conflicts by means of violence, we will have a custom made solution to this problem... (cont...)
dannytibi 1 month ago
@dannytibi But the "solution" will only ever be superficial at best, and at worst it will keep fuelling the vicious cycle. Maybe there was no other way out for Harry Truman and the US army in WWII, but that does not mean we can regard the atom bomb as an acceptable solution, if it were, there are so many of them that violence should not be a problem any more.
dannytibi 1 month ago
I would disagree with you father on one simple point. Violence can contain violence to the point that it is worth doing. Example: WWII. The Nazis violent acts are stopped by the Allies' violent acts and Europe is recreated. Sure it did not solve the base problem but it did save the lives of millions of people.
TheRekcabOfTheD 1 month ago
@TheRekcabOfTheD Yes, but remember, it was the violence of WW1 that caused WW2
FalconPunch256 1 month ago
@FalconPunch256 That is a very fair point that I hadn't considered.
TheRekcabOfTheD 1 month ago
...closely with Lieutenant Gordon and Harvey Dent.
truecinema 2 months ago
I think Father Barron is overlooking the nature of Batman's actions in the film. Batman does use violence to combat violence, but he doesn't use it as the final solution. Criminals use violence as the final solution to their problems. Batman uses violence to bring them down, then delivers them to the authorities so that they can be tried and convicted. The law is the final solution for Batman, and he is simply uses violence to deliver criminals to that solution. That's also why he works...
truecinema 2 months ago
@truecinema
Ah, excellent point...in a sense, it kind of does, ALMOST, add to the Christ effect. Except, Christ is the law so he, in amazing away, use combat violence on pouring it in himself and at the same time is the authority of tried and convicting those through the means of justice. I hope that makes sense.
However, I do have to agree with some points from Father Barron.
RogerSands1 1 month ago
@RogerSands1 About other superheroes like Spiderman and Superman?
truecinema 1 month ago
@truecinema
I'm sorry, other superheroes? What was your question referring to?
RogerSands1 1 month ago
@RogerSands1 You said you still agreed with some of Father Barron's points. I was just asking if those points were the ones he makes about other superheroes like Spiderman and Superman ineffectively fighting violence with violence.
truecinema 1 month ago
@truecinema
Well, now I think about it...batman is the only character that comes the closes to using violence but as you said his purpose was to bring justice by giving it to the authorities. I don't know why father barron mentioned superman because superman is by far the nearest image of Christ.
RogerSands1 1 month ago
One cool priest - totally changed my stereotypical view of catholic priests
GregariousGorilla 4 months ago 3
i am supposed to take comic books heroes so seriously as to mine them for meaning as this preacher does?
or i simply enjoy a work of fiction
Strefanasha 4 months ago
@Strefanasha Why do you think it's an either/or?
wordonfirevideo 4 months ago 6
I am an atheist, but as a fair-minded person, I have to say this guy is intelligent and understands his subjects. Barron's insight that Batman cannot win over evil through violence or an attempt to control, but only through loving self-sacrifice - seems to be the premise of The Dark Knight Rises: Many fans suspect that Batman will stop fighting and "give himself" up as a sacrifice to save Gotham. Fr. Barron and Mr. Nolan are on the same page I think - though Nolan is no Christian.
Vincentaneous 5 months ago
so when you say the jews were looking for the davidman you are saying that all the wars that god commanded were the wrong way of doing at things, which puts the word of god as wrong and to a lesser way jesus in overturning the tables of the money lenders was wrong as it was a aggressive act, and to my mind an act which only could come from anger
333derick333 5 months ago
That "two sides of the same coin" comment was quite clever, given the inclusion of Two-Face. I also think you are quite correct about this, Father Barron (even Batman might admit it, depending upon who was writing him.... ;)
TSLittleMermaid 6 months ago
@Markemark44 UH...STOP watching...
wordonfirevideo 6 months ago 5
@wordonfirevideo hehe. right on.
quezcatol 6 months ago
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you should always use violence to solve a problem. I believe a non-violent answer is always better than a violent one.
I'm just saying, it's not that black and white as "violence never solves violence". Me being violent to my bully absolutly did solve my problem.
Of course that only solved the violence against me. So did it actually "solve" the problem of him being violent? I don't think so, but it did solve him being violent to me.
Zentz29 7 months ago
@Zentz29 That's called Self-defense.
MontChevalier 6 months ago
@MontChevalier It's also called violence solving violence...
He was hitting me. I hit him back. The violence ended. Violence solving violence.
Zentz29 6 months ago
@MontChevalier I already responded to this comment, but I though I'd phrase it a bit different.
It is self defence, but it's also a clear case of violence solving violence.
He was hitting me (violence). I did nothing (non-violence). He continued to hit me (violence). I finally decided I would fight back (violence). The violence ended (violence solving violence).
Zentz29 6 months ago
"You never solve violence with violence"
That's not always true. People say "violence never solves anything", but when I was in 6th grade there was an older kid that used to pick on me. He never did any real damage, but he'd push me around, punch me in the arm etc.
Anyway, one day I just decided I would fight back. I punched him in the jaw 1 time. He looked at me like he just couldn't believe it. Then he turned around and walked away. He never touched me again.
Zentz29 7 months 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 7 months ago
I believe in God and Jesus is a messenger of God, so guess what am i? :)
YaItsRiff 7 months ago
Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism to name but a few that have survived Christianity would give you an argument on just how morally corrupt Christianity is. even worse if JC was real, to follow a terrorist now that takes religion, good job the Romans excecuted him or God knows what damage he and his Taliban would have done .
PJMAC999 8 months ago
"You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other"
I've hears original Batman comic did not intend to portray the Dark Night as a hero. He was a rather vicious vigilante who did not hesitate to kill the criminals he caught, even those guilty of relatively minor crimes. Later his behavior was moderated and a sympathetic back story added due to public outcry.
magister343 8 months ago
@georgiaissexay have you ever heard of the liar lunatic lord argument? it has been proven that there was a real man named Jesus, who was thought to be the messiah. This man said he was god. He could be a liar, but would his disciples and friends really die for a man who was not God? I mean, if you were around a guy who said he was God for about three years, I think it would be real easy to tell if he was lying. same with a lunatic. so the only other option is that he is the lord
caseyalex11 9 months ago
as i was reading nastassja08's point of view, i thought that maybe the reason why we as humans can't stop violence without violence (the police force or other security forces) is because we are not God. I mean, how could a people full of sin (and sin's nature is violence) expect to control or end violence? Only some one who was sinless, like God or Jesus could end it.
caseyalex11 9 months ago
These videos are really interesting and informative for theists and atheists alike.
I'm an amateur artists of sorts and while I like super hero movie and such I always tried to avoid creating the standard type of superhero in my work. Oddly enough I've been working a project with a character that's exactly like that at first. I'm know looking for ways for them to 'save the world' without having to resort only to violence. Jesus, Buddha and Gandhi are proving to be a great inspiration for me.
XeroBlue 9 months ago
i disagree, father. the batman's (or spiderman;s/superman's) revenge on violence is man's search for justice. even man's response to control violence. that's why we have the police or other security forces. in reality, we just can't turn the other cheek.even the church turned to violence for hundreds of years until it abdicated that function to newly formed nation states independent of rome. nature will always produce violence , so we need violence of the good kind to counter it.
nastassja08 9 months ago
@georgiaissexay Must confess I have no idea what you're talking about here...
If you're really interested in Catholic theology, I would recommend the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
wordonfirevideo 9 months ago 6
Um....its been two millenia and some change since this solar deity had himself sacrificed and I can't say that has solved anything. Also I like that you use Batman as a foil to yet another fictional character. I am referring to Christ of course. As far as I can tell Bruce Wayne never preached that through him is the only way to escape the fires of hell.
rhatcher010 10 months ago
@rhatcher010 I might recommend an elementary book of Catholic theology in order to clear up the misunderstandings you have. And if you think Jesus was a fictional character, you've read none of the critical literature on the historical Jesus. I don't know any reputable scholars--left and right, believer and non-believer--who don't accept the historicity of Jesus.
wordonfirevideo 10 months ago
Who are you talking about, Josephus? The comment about Jesus, brother of James is highly dubious. Who are these scholars? Are they referring back to the Josephus' Antiquities? If that's the case you are really not standing on much ground. Jesus would have been crucified 4 years before Josephus was even born. Paul was just a nut who never mentions the crucifixion. There really is not anything to confirm a Jesus actually existed. No Jesus, No Resurrection, - hence- your faith is in vain.
TheRoach007 8 months ago
@TheRoach007 Which scholars? Oh I don't know: Raymond Brown, John Meier, N.T. Wright, Ernst Kasemann, Hans Kung Edward Schillebeeckx, J.D. Crossan, Marcus Borg, Albert Schweizer, Ben Witherington, Richard Bauckham, James Dunn... Honestly, friend, you're the one who is on very shaky grounds, academically speaking.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago 3
@rhatcher010 The amount of change as a result of Christian ethics is staggering actually. Not going to repeat what Fr. Barron has covered, but on a side note, Batman has oft been surmised as actually being Catholic, and that his example of a willing servant in suffering to combat evil, all evil, within and without isn't the easy Messiah archetype many liken Superman to, but as hero, despite limitation, emptying himself in pursuit of a greater truth than himself. So your comparison is misplaced.
NilDesperandum777 9 months ago
While I understand the idea of Yeshua absorbing all the violence of the world upon himself rather than continuing to perpetuate it, there's something vaguely creepy about how more...well, let's say "committed" Christians like Mel Gibson are infatuated with the violence inflicted upon Yeshua.
PASSION OF THE CHRIST was almost a "torture porn" flick no better than the HOSTEL films, in addition to being unpleasantly antisemitic.
TheBermudaMan 10 months ago
Very good, I never thought of this way. It made me think of Colossians 1:24; how Paul spoke of "absorbing the violence" like Jesus:
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions."
PrimalRhythm 11 months ago
@wordonfirevideo thats because the "Jesus' " story is taken from ancient religion much older than Christianity, and Jesus is the next chapter in History behind Mithra , Horus , and Krishna. But I am sure the "Mountain of Literature" doesn't mention anything about them an how their stories are exactly like the coming about and life of Jesus . And where is the Literature on what happened from birth to the early 30's of Jesus. Weird how that just dissapeared into the sands of time lol.
TheDanimal1983 11 months ago
There is a continuation of evil guys in the batman because the creators of the story want it to continue.
Thor101101 11 months ago
Continued-In us.
TonyMaster007 11 months ago
I agree with your view on violence; however, I am not sure if that is the point of TDK. The point of this film is that Batman is a metaphor for Jesus. He is a person who gives hope. Now look at how the people of Gotham treat this character of hope. They blame him for their problems. Don't we sometimes blame God for our problems. The entire film is about understanding that we should not blame God for our problems. Yes, sometimes God does not do the perfect thing, but he always looks for the best
TonyMaster007 11 months ago
One concept that is often missed with Batman comics is that Batman and the Joker are similar in kind, the only difference is that Batman never crossed the line, as the Joker did.
Stitchman3875 11 months ago
(continued)From the start Batman concerns himself with becoming a symbol. The violence he employs is not to simply achieve the physical end results (as shown by his decision in the first move), but to remind people of the fight, to give people hope that there was someone who held evil accountable, to give people hope that there is something worth fighting for. Now how successful this fight can be is another issue, but Batman's motives aren't for vengeance, it's a striving to a higher order.
CatandMaster 11 months ago 3
I agree with you that violence can never overcome violence but (with all due respect) I believe your review is somewhat short sighted. Batman's ultimate purpose is not to beat every criminal off of Gotham's streets. In the first movie, Batman Begins, he has this possibility to join a group that will violently stop all criminals. He turns it down and fights against them. In their eyes "justice" was the ultimate goal and violence was acceptable, and necessary to carry out justice. From the
CatandMaster 11 months ago 3
father what are your views on the joker complex?
do you believe in the psychology of madness?
That there are forces out there that cannot be reasoned with and who just want to watch the world burn
failblorg 1 year ago
There's not always a new villain because the hero's violence incites villainy. There is always a new villain, because without a villain, the franchise ceases to be.
VexonCross 1 year ago
Nice to see there hasn't been any violence since Jesus fixed the problem....
The sacrificial lamb is a terrible doctrine. A modern analogy would be a law-abiding citizen entering a prison and allowing himself to be executed so that all the guys on death-row could be pardoned. There's nothing moral about it. And I'm not so sure that would stop the cycle of violence in their lives, either.
ScienceWinsEveryTime 1 year ago
@ScienceWinsEveryTime, the doctrine that God Himself, took upon Himself the entire violence and anger of the entire world upon His heart and offered Himself as an offering of love back unto Himself, Christ to the Father, as love more pleasing than the sinfulness of the world, that men might be restored from the disorder of sin to an obedient will of goodness guided by grace? It's a sacrifice of love, the Judge pardons by suffering with and lifting up the afflicted as Divine lover. It's beautiful
cooliodraw2 1 year ago
@ScienceWinsEveryTime Are you not confusing Protestant theology with Catholic there? No-one said all violence would end. People are free to reject Christ at any time and they do so by committing sins and not repenting for them.
PuraguCryostato 1 year ago
@ScienceWinsEveryTime Are you a scientist BTW?
PuraguCryostato 1 year ago
@PuraguCryostato I was responding to Barron's words in the video, as he said that Jesus dealt with the problem of violence by absorbing it. And my response is that violence in the world was unaffected ultimately. In fact, Christianity itself has done its share of violence. And my other point is that a scapegoat, even a willing scapegoat like Jesus, is immoral because it lessens the responsibility that a person has for the pain they cause in the world, at the expense of someone else's suffering.
ScienceWinsEveryTime 1 year ago
@ScienceWinsEveryTime Jesus' death on the cross is God's great answer to violence and sin. Now he invites all of us to participate in the space that he opened up. This is why we need a church. Catholic theology says that the definitive battle has been won by Christ but that lots of mop-up work remains--much as D-Day was followed by some difficult slogging on the way to Berlin. That's why Jesus' death doesn't absolve me from responsibility; it invites me to imitate what he did.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo I agree that the invitation is there, and more power to you for accepting it. However, as a student of many religions, I am always a bit perplexed that though most faiths' teachers preach non-violence and emulation of its "founder", many don't follow through on the invitation, and instead can become lazy or self-righteous in the safety of their doctrines. Arguably, one is excused from responsibility of doing ultimate good as long as they can follow the practices of their faith.
ScienceWinsEveryTime 1 year ago
@ScienceWinsEveryTime I agree with you: there are and have been lots of bad Christians. But Christian doctrine prepares us for this truth by declaring that we are all fallen. We all come of age in a world that is radically conditioned by hatred, violence, stupidity, etc. Chesterton said that Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and never tried!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
the argument that violence leads to more violence is just stupid. Of course sometimes its true but sometimes it also stops it. Taking a comic for an example is just the worst. Of course there are new enemies all the time because the fans want to see more and the writer of the comic delivers new content.
Of course you are right on some points for the dark knight. For example that batman and the joker arnt that different. Still taking the movie to prove some wild theory in real life doesnt work
warlordryudo 1 year ago
the argument that violence leads to more violence is just stupid. Of course sometimes its true but sometimes it also stops it. Taking a comic for an example is just the worst. Of course there are new enemies all the time because the fans want to see more and the writer of the comic delivers new content.
Of course you are right on some points for the dark knight. For example that batman and the joker arnt that different. Still - taking the movie to prove some wild theory in real life doesnt work
warlordryudo 1 year ago
I kind of disagree with the desire for vengance origin theory there... there is an exploration of violance and origins in violance in comics especially with the Batman story but it usually takes the form of mobilisation rather than a quest for vengeance
Batman is against killing, against guns, etc.
Ex.: The "Red Mask" story line is precisely about a victim of the Joker blaming Batman for never having simply killed the Joker...
So Batman is about fighting for justice while not losing your way.
HarfangX 1 year ago
@emacrisema But why are you necessarily skeptical of the claims to miraculous acts? Do you deny that God could perform them? Do you think that otherwise reliable witnesses, who went to the death to defend what they claimed, just made things up for their own entertainment?
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo "Do you think that otherwise reliable witnesses, who went to the death to defend what they claimed, just made things up for their own entertainment?" .. Ofcourse not, but clearly the people involved had the means and the motive to create a convincing lie. The motives weren't sinister or unworthy. Some realized primitive society needs a belief to be moral. Some did it to get out from under roman rule. Most were just insane and taken advantage of by smart people with a motive.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Come on, friend, that's way too cynical. Those who propagated belief in the resurrection already had a vibrant religion and morality. Why would they have needed another "story?" And how in the world would a tale of a resurrected victim of Roman justice have "gotten them out from under Roman rule?" I mean, the first Christians were routinely persecuted by Rome. And how condescending and simplistic to say "most of the early Christians were insane!"
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo "Why another "story?"" .. well maybe because they read Plato ? Conservatives still think they live in the republic even today.
"how in the world" .. well revolts by messianic movements were common at the time and miracle claims do unite people
And I'm sorry the word insane was badly chosen, I meant no offense by it. It is a psychological fact that cognitive dissonance can lead perfectly sane people to incorrect conclusions.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Not at all sure what Plato's Republic has to do with anything here. And yes, there were anti-Roman rebellions, like Bar-Kochba's, which were brutally put down. The first Christians never launched such a rebellion; rather they were put to death in great numbers by Rome. And why would you think you are any freer of cognitive dissonance than anyone else?!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Plato's Republic promotes the idea that democracy doesn't work, that the only way to create order is by totalitarian or religious means. There are people who agree with that even today, even if I'm not one of them.
"why would you think you are any freer" .. I don't, but I'm aware of it and I take active steps to reduce its effect by rejecting the notion of absolute certainty. So my epistemological commitment is postpositivism and model dependent realism.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Come on, friend. No one can "reject the notion of absolute certainty," for it involves you in a formal operational contradiction. And if you think the first Christians were dependent upon Plato, take a look at first Corinthians sometime. Paul says that what he preaches is a "scandal to the Jews and folly to the Greeks."
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo What contradiction ? Richard Feynman, one of the greatest minds of the last century, describes this perfectly: watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is
In that passage he talks about teaching "Christ crucified" specifically. Ofcourse that was hard to accept for the Jews and the Greeks but Corinthians actually proves my point at "Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom". He was aware of and respected greek philosophy and knew that Jews needed signs of God in order to make them believe it.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Which begs the question how you can be sure that either dependent realism or postpositivism actually provide enough validity to assume them as your mode of thinking. It seems you are overconfident in this regard. As someone who studies biological systems I would be afraid of over confidence. That's what that taught me. If all viewpoints are equal, being pragmatic in your first choice is valid.
PuraguCryostato 1 year ago
@PuraguCryostato Heh, yeah the standard objection. `Absolute certainty is impossible` .. how can you be absolutely certain about that :). Except I didn't say that it's impossible. I'm saying that I don't how you could assert that it IS possible without appealing to a statement which is arbitrarily assumed to be absolutely certain. I don't know whether it's possible or not, but under those circumstances, not assuming that it is seems to be justified, you'd have to prove otherwise.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish Then we need to completely move away from eye witness testimony of any sort in courts of law or journalism. We also need to burn most of our history books. In medicine we should stop asking patients' histories because they are worthless. I think the ferocity you are attacking the origins of Christianity with should be used for more meaningful exploits which have serious materialistic and societal implications.
PuraguCryostato 1 year ago
@PuraguCryostato Nope, we have lie detectors for example to verify eye witness accounts. We can also do brain scans to determine mental health. It's not a hopeless situation. Historical claims where the evidence is scarce do need to be viewed with skepticism but as long as they create a coherent picture I don't see why we'd have to resort to what you said. Attack with ferocity ? Please .. reserve those words for those who say "HAHA! Christians are morons", I'm not one of them.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@LaserBlowFish But you assume they suffered from cognitive dissonance without proof.
PuraguCryostato 1 year ago
@PuraguCryostato Well yeah and we can't possibly know either way. The question is whether the things we do know would make more sense if we assume that they did. I've watched some debates over the historicity but certainly I haven't studied it in any great depth. Nevertheless I can say that at this point to me it seems more plausible than assuming, also without proof, that they were either completely crazy or malevolent or correct.
LaserBlowFish 1 year ago
@emacrisema Jesus lived in the stone age?? Man, you gotta revisit some of those high school science books! Do you believe what has been written about Julius Caesar, Cleopatra, Herod, Mark Antony, Augustus, Cicero, Virgil, Agrippa,St. Paul, and Philo? Well, they all lived around the time of Jesus, and we know about them through literary texts. You have absolutely no reason to be as skeptical as you are about the historicity of Jesus.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
So, killing yourself solves violence better than targeting criminals?
If a mugger is holding a gun to your head, what would make you feel better, Batman swooping in and disarming him, or Jesus getting down there and and saying "hold on, could you hand me those nails?", while getting up on a cross?
The notion that violence can't be solved with violence is true... to a reasonable extent. Even law enforcement must use violence at times.
thisxgreatxdecay 1 year ago
absorbed violence? hell we built the atomic bomb i dont think he was a very good sponge
KidCubensis 1 year ago
It's funny. I don't remember Jesus ever solving violence by dying.
TheShadowSatey 1 year ago
Thanks for this great message, Father. I just started RCIA to join the Church, so I'm hungry for as much knowledge as I can get. Thanks for a message that speaks to the heart of this comic book geek! Much love and blessings to you, Father.
backwoodsninja 1 year ago
I enjoy watching the films you make. I like to try to pick them apart and really listen to all sides of the story. I am a methodist and a strong believer and i just felt like posting this to see if youd respond. I enjoy reading the comments you write back to people. I've noticed that people love to respond to your videos that are non believers or upset by points you make.
haileyandshawn 1 year ago
@haileyandshawn And I have also noticed that people who are believers respond negatively to some video responses to your videos made by nonbelievers. Everyone wants to be right and it is a very tough thing. I find it all very interesting and as i get older( im 16 haha) i learn more and more about how difficult it is. But all worth it and a great experience. I guess im just going on and on with no point but what im trying to say is that I glad your doing what your doing.
haileyandshawn 1 year ago
I enjoy your work and love to hear a good religious debate. I spend a lot of time looking for answers that i may never find on this earth. So i always pray to God that he will supply me with a personal "Book of Answers" as soon as i arrive!:) Thanks again
haileyandshawn 1 year ago
Respond to this video... I enjoy your work and love to hear a good religious debate. I spend a lot of time looking for answers that i may never find on this earth. So i always pray to God that he will supply me with a personal "Book of Answers" as soon as i arrive!:) Thanks again
haileyandshawn 1 year ago
Well Batman and the Joker is polar opposites of each other. First Batman is a detective, which is called in by the Gotham police to solve cases (much like Sherlock Holmes, but doesn't get paid though). He sets himself in danger to save innocent lives for nothing else than his conscience doesn't allow him to stand idly by, because he himself suffered a loss which he doesn't want other innocents to experience, that is why he is uncorruptible. In the ending he even takes the sins of the city on him
TuringMech 1 year ago
@TuringMech The Joker on the other hand thrives on the distrust between people to corrupt them, and in the end create anarchy. Simply said the Joker is a figment of chaos and Batman is a figment of order and justice. Well thats my interpretation of the movie anyway. By the way the Joker uses in the ferry incident an example of game theory called the prisoners dilemma. It could be a good topic in itself for a video. Thanks for the video even though I respectfully disagree with you.
TuringMech 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Such b.s.! This Father Barron is just forgetting one thing! Jesus MAY HAVE NEVER EXISTED! The Bible is a work of fiction some scribes made up! All religion is human made fiction! He means well but the bottom line is the ALL religion is human made fiction! Get over it! Smart people should not be believing religious b.s.!
Satchel334 1 year ago
@Satchel334 Smart people should look into the mountain of literature showing the clear scholarly consensus that the historicity of Jesus is almost universally accepted.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 27
@wordonfirevideo one credible source???
spites1 1 year ago
@spites1 Not sure what you mean. This is not a term paper; it's my point of view. Do I need a source?
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo
where is this mountain of literature? does it explain what happened to Jesus from the age of 12 to 30? The gospels themselves are not historical accounts, they were written many years after Jesus' death. You talk about Gandhi learning his non-violence stance from the new testament, then surely hitler, stalin and pol pot all learnt there genocidial ways in the books of the old testament. It tells us of a jealous vengeful god who wipes out his enemies in acts of violence.
butternutsquashist 10 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Almost universally accepted among *whom*?
polymath7 6 months ago
@Satchel334 WOW AMAZING MAN you know it all..... TYPICAL IGNORANT = ARROGANT= DUMB= SHUT UP
Enigmatik691 1 year ago
father, please do inception next.
ginsengaddict 1 year ago
@ginsengaddict
There is a Word on Fire video for Inception.
SuperA1steaksauce 1 year ago
christopher nolan fan!
ginsengaddict 1 year ago
The Great Ghandi was more Jesus-like than any Pope we had in the past.
Look at the Vatican and tell me, yea that totally looks like what Jesus would've bulit.
rainzoro 1 year ago
@rainzoro Well, the great Gandhi learned his non-violence from his reading of the New Testament when he was a law student in London. As to the Vatican, why do you think beauty dedicated to God is a bad thing?
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 17
@wordonfirevideo I'm glad you asked. This is my thing, and correct me if I'm wrong. When I think of Jesus, the image I portray is a humble man who traveled in foot and on a donkey, curing and helping out the poor. He ate bread and wine, did not collect offerings to bulid his own empire. I also remember a passage where Jesus talks about how rich men have slight chance to heaven. He, in my opinion, was always on the side of the unfortunates. Again, correct me here.
rainzoro 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo IF I am right about my image, then isn't it fair to say the Vatican palace contradicts Jesus' way of life. I admire Michelangelo's work, but in fact, he did get paid a sum of money, and also got smacked in the head by the pope for being slow. I don't see much of a "beautiful dedication" in this, and even though it was, I think Jesus would've approved MORE on spending that construction fee for the unfortunates. Isn't it unfair that Jesus wore rugs, and the Pope lives like a king.
rainzoro 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo And about great Gandhi learning his non violence from his reading of the new testament, yea i know that, and that is why i said he was more Jesus-like. However, it is obvoius that the Popes have learned the wisdom of the new testament how is it that they are sitting on a throne. What sort of message are we suppose to learn from this?
rainzoro 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Ghandi actually wanted a violent revolution against the british, he simply didn't have the guns, however he understood that peace can be used the same way as violence can. And sorry to burst your bubble, but Ghandi was a paedofile and a racist, he wrote 11 columns in his own newspaper about how he hated africans, he hated their culture and hated being around them, he called them niggers and kaffirs, Ghandi in fact just trying to stop being thrown in the same pot by the british.
KingAdonisDNA 5 months ago
ghandi was a racist. in his early work when he lived in africa he said the africans was below him and his people. look it up, its crazy, changed my whole view on ghandi. he cared about HIS peoples freedom no one elses. could care less for the black man.
scienceatheism 1 year ago
If Jesus was real, how happy would he be knowing how much blood has been shed in his name?
darketernal3 1 year ago
@darketernal3 Well, first of all, he was and is real. And second, he told his followers to love their enemies. That should answer your question.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo
You miss the point about the fact that he did not alleviate the situation. Though the battle is ongoing regardless, Jesus' death upon the cross changed nothing. Suffering and wars continue.
Unlike Batman, he adds another reason for wars, or creates a controversy worth battling over.
I'm not arguing the message of Jesus. I'm arguing against Fr. Barron's point. Batman at least attempts to reduce violence personally.
Jesus' message is simply unheard by those who is violent.
darketernal3 1 year ago
@darketernal3 Well, first of all, don't blame Jesus for the bad actions of some of his followers. Second, Jesus' action on the cross--as it has been carried down through the centuries by the church--has created a field of force of enormous power. Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther King, John Paul II, and yes even Gandhi, would be unthinkable apart from it.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 3
@wordonfirevideo
I'm sure the actions of Batman inspired others to help fight against crime as well.
The point is simple:
Bad people will do bad things. All you can do is to prevent/stop/recover from it.
And no, I don't blame him for the wars
I am however saying, there's no more reason to fuel the fire or give them unnecessary excuse to validate their actions.
darketernal3 1 year ago
@darketernal3 "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried."
- G. K. Chesterton
Selaphiel83 1 year ago
Very good video, but I have one counter point to this. Sometimes in life, being kind and giving love can get you kiled. Don't get me wrong, I espouce being kind and giving love. I also espouse self defense and defense of others through rightouse violence, there is such a thing in a kill or be killed situation. It can be tough in life to discern, but sometimes force and lethal force are called for.
mojothemigo 1 year ago
Nananananananananananana JE-SUS
fredjamejames 1 year ago 3
hey mr. robert barron.. WHAT DOES MATTHEW 23:9 say?????? yea u better relay it to all your catholic buddies too
PacmanBonez 1 year ago
@PacmanBonez Just curious: what do you call your father? And how do you refer to him in the third person? And in Matthew 23: 10, Jesus tells us not to call anyone on earth our teacher. Well, "doctor" is just a fancy way of saying "teacher." So are Dr. Billy Graham, Dr. Jerry Falwell, and Dr. Charles Stanley not in violation of the Lord's word? I might suggest, friend, that you're over-literalizing this text a bit.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 2
Well using that logic, EVERYONE has a religious worldview, no matter how twisted or distant from that worldview they become, including the "New Atheists." Unless they're from a planet where there's no religion, they can't be said to be unaffected in their thinking by religious philosophy, themes, structures, etc. not to mention reacting to (or against) those things. Point is, Hitler's Catholicism didn't drive him to mass murder.
XSC3 1 year ago
I'm surprised. This is actually very good analysis.
VastedCouth 1 year ago
But the Catholic Church didn't make those guys shoot abortion providers, blow up abortion clinics or inflict violence on homosexuals for being gay, did they? In fact, if you'll read the teachings of the Catholic Church you'll see that that's precisely the opposite of how they were supposed to treat those people. simply because the Church teaches that something is a sin doesn't automatically translate to "now go kill, maim or torture that person to death"
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 See. Here is where reading comprehension is nice. I was referring to Christian extremists as a whole, not the Catholics in particular. Now, in America it may be that more of the extremist types are Protestants, but hey there are more Protestants here than Catholic, its just how the odds are. I am opposing the extremism that exposes the flaws in the reasoning that Christian doctrine leads to only good things. That seems to be the outrageous claim of Father Barron.
lazerbeam134 1 year ago
Prior to the talk of Christianity I agree with his thoughts on the film 100%. He should have quoted the Joker from the scene to add to his point: You have nothing to threaten me with, nothing to do with all your strength. The Dark Knight owns. But I am not sure that most Christians truly follow the ideas that Barron is trying to convey in his videos.Abortion clincs are still blown up, doctors are still murdered, and gay men and women face the threat of violence daily.
lazerbeam134 1 year ago
@lazerbeam134 the abortion clinic bombers are in a sense following the "superhero" mould that was being talked about though, aren't they? They're doing what these guys are doing in these action movies... "killing the bad guys for the greater good." Now you can turn around and say "but abortion isn't a cause worth killing for" but I'm sure you believe there are such causes, hence from their point of view it's a necessary evil to bring about greater good. just food for thought.
XSC3 1 year ago
@XSC3 Yeah, shitty food. The fact is that you cannot point to a religion and say "look this is all about being a good person!" and then go and do something that is wrong. In your own religion's morality no less. The point I make is that for one thing, evil wasn't defeated by Jesus' death. The whole video goes on about how violence begets voilence. Alright that's a fair point. But to say that Jesus' death was effective against violence ignores history, and current events.
lazerbeam134 1 year ago
This is hilarious!
Noxshus 1 year ago
So because Jesus defeated evil/sin by absorbing it and not fighting it like Batman does the Joker, there weren't any more manifestations of evil to spring up? that his sacrifice ended evil? Superhero justice is clearly the MORE EFFECTIVE way to dispatch villainy. Also, you've forgotten the end of the movie where Batman does the "Jesus thing" and takes responsibility for 2-faces crimes, absorbing them into his symbolic legacy of moral justice, albeit vigilantism. Sorry for being 2 years late
PaulYall27 1 year ago
There is something the movie does not deal well at the end: the ethical dilemmas. The 'boat problem' does not have a solution in theory, but with Batman intervention, the decision that were taken turned out to be the best - because of the consequences: no one died. Joker didn't fulfill his will because Batman prevent him to explode the boats. Do you think Batman personifies a non-omnipotent deity that protects humanity? (Thought I think this question fits better with Superman)
pedroamaralcouto 1 year ago
@pedroamaralcouto The ethical issue regarded what choice would the hostages make. And they chose to not murder each other. The Joker wanting to kill them anyway is not relevant to the dilemma, it is merely a character trait that makes the setup possible. He is a liar, and the whole dilemma runs on the assumption that he is a "man of his word", which seemed to be the case, as he had up until then, made good on his threats. He lied in subtle ways throughout, but in ways that would not be public.
lazerbeam134 1 year ago
Comment removed
zakiechan 1 year ago
@zakiechan
no...its because its an inherent part of the human condition. not to mention a matter of perspective and contextual situation may make one act in a way, which may be perceived as evil from other people outside the framed reality.
Adastra14 1 year ago
So Jesus is 'Scapegoat Man' absorbing the sins of man/woman, including the silly "sin" of eating an apple at the beginning of time. Scape goating is a way to avoid responsibility and immoral.
virtualsurrealism 1 year ago
I like your positive religious input on many thing, but I must say that the reason a new nemesis, foe, representation or evil always emerges in these is so the serious can go on and it will feed the bottom line, Money
96ej 1 year ago
the reason a new villain always comes along is because artist, writers, directors ect. gotta get payed.
homer091 1 year ago
Some Christians are Anti Semites ... Most are not. None should be and it is a sin to be (Pope Paul VI made it a sin to be anti Semite)...There is solid historical Evidence that when Isabel the Catholic expelled the Jews from Spain, it was to protect them from upcoming persecution. The way she is normally portrayed is as an anti Semite.
zp5xf 1 year ago
Every time someone wants to justify why they do not want to believe, they'll throw in the "Inquisition card" . It is cheap. The worst part about it is that most people do not even know what the Inquisition was all about...
zp5xf 1 year ago
Actually Father, Spider-Man's turn to crimefighting was more shame and obligation than vengeance. Remember, the guy who killed his uncle was a guy that he could've stopped previously. Spider-Man's whole deal is 'With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility'.
TakumProti 1 year ago
if he didn't have the god/religion armchair philosophical bit, he could be a great movie reviewer. but no, he screws it up by trying to make christianity relevant by attempting to tie it with cool concepts in a movie.
Sorry, Mr. Barron, but batman wasn't particularly made to convey your flowery sugar-coated religious concepts.
Maybe one reason Batman is so cool is the fact that he doesn't have super powers or magic. He actually has a bit of credibility...unlike magical superheros...hint..hint
Thrashaero 1 year ago
While the basic point you're making about violence is apt enough from the perspective of Christianity, you are mistaken where Superman is concerned. Traditionally, Superman shuns violence unless it's absolutely neccessary and promotes a message of peace and love, just like Christ's.
Nuclearman2 1 year ago
I agree violence feed violence, which is why respect Gandhi. Here comes my point, and it's an important one so read well. Violence's nature is coercion (forcing it without logics or negotiation with the person's opinion). Faith has the same nature of coercion because it FORCES us to believe in it no matter our logics. I question how was it created in 7 days. They answer IT JUST IS. To me, that is GREATLY offending, especially on my knowledge and logics.
rainzoro 1 year ago
this is stupid, why couldnt comic book creators jsut make violence work to solve the problem. Well there is no reason beyond the fact that they would no longer have much of a comic book. soooo maybe this isnt a very good religious comparison
thezim 1 year ago
Thankyou. Jesus literally transcends darkness and fear (sin, obscurity, ego, strangeness) by being light and love, and simply shining forth that which He is. Jesus said: "If you want to be like Me, follow Me and I will show you the way; if you don't want to be like Me, I will wait until you change your mind." These words will be like a fire in your heart and gradually burn hotter if you just show a little willingness. And you will love them, because they will be simple and familiar to you.
jdw211 1 year ago
..wow.. from the dark knight to jesus..
KougasPrincess 1 year ago
well, this is actually quite good commentary. Reminds me of the sociologist Rene Girard and his concept of mimetic violence.Jesus reveals the futility of the karmic cycle of this sort of violence.
It is interesting from another point of view that God who accept such a violent death as atonement for sin.
adstanra 1 year ago
Jesus was my second favorite fictional character too.
Batman FTW
gavbag1234 1 year ago
@gavbag1234 Name precisely how many people died defending the historical existence of Batman. In the case of Jesus, I can mention Peter, James, John, Matthew, Phillip, Bartholomew, Paul...shall I go on?
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo
If the most widely held belief was the correct one you guys would've been right and Galileo would've been wrong. Unfortunately that's not how the universe works.
(by the way, you can "name" as many as you like, that doesn't mean you're citing real people. As you said in another video the bible is a library, not a book. Your mistake was presuming this library has a non-fiction section)
If the stories make you happy, and if they don't harm others. I don't begrudge you them.
gavbag1234 1 year ago
@gavbag1234 So the entire Bible, every single word of it, was just made up. There is no historical density whatsoever to the stories of David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Babylonian captivity, the Maccabbean wars, King Herod, Jesus and Pontius Pilate, Peter, John, and Paul? Nothing. Just all made up like a fairy tale. Come on, friend, who's living in fantasy land?
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo
Well, look at the times in which it was written. The large period of time it was written over. Sure, there may be a vague historicity, but it's like the ultimate game of Chinese whispers. Let me say what I feel you should be saying on the matter: I simply do not know.
I just wonder what it is that's letting you take the guess that your book is right. I mean, there are other books. It's a very strange belief sir. Some would say absurd.
gavbag1234 1 year ago
@gavbag1234 No serious scholar thinks that's right. Ancient cultures were extremely interested in historicity and oral traditions relied on very careful memorization and preservation of the sayings and actions of their key figures. Would a book written today about the JFK assassination, and based on records from the time and eyewitnesses, necessarily be misleading history?
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo
Well, if the question is at what point is the account of eyewitnesses the most valuable it's typically before they've been swayed by popular opinion or wishful thinking. However we're not talking about wanton dishonesty as much as we are the chances that, given the circumstances, inconsistencies, translations and number of original sources.....How do we decide which parts of the bible we take literally and what is "fiction" as you say.
gavbag1234 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo The key phrase there is 'would a book written today'. The key word in that phrase is 'book'. Books are mediums capable of preserving information intact and unchanged for decades, even centuries. Oral traditions are not capable of that, as human history indicates globally. The Iliad is based on an oral tradition - is it historically accurate, even for a work of fiction?
dbrandow 1 year ago
@dbrandow The oral traditions that preserved the words and deeds of Jesus existed for perhaps thirty or forty years before the Gospels were written. And they were preserved by a tight network of Christians, many of whom vividly remembered Jesus. And why this prejudice against the oral communication of history? Is Merle Miller's oral history of Harry Truman just a tissue of lies? Are the works of Studs Terkel nothing but distortion?
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 4
@wordonfirevideo Miller based his book on filmed interviews, not a purely oral tradition a generation old, so that is, frankly, a terrible comparison. I'm not familiar with Terkel's works, so I can't comment.
Any book based purely on an oral tradition 30-40 years old must be treated as gravely suspect, be it the Bible or Elvis' biography. One would not treat it as a "tissue of lies" purely on that basis, of course, but rather most probably full of distorted and erroneous information.
dbrandow 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo As for the accusation of prejudice, the reason for my prejudice, if you must call it that, against the oral communication of history is that history has shown it to be an entirely unreliable means of preserving information without distortions and errors entering into the mix. To rely on oral communication to reliably preserve information and thus base your faith on is to build one's castle upon the sand. You can build the walls as well as you like, but it'll still crumble.
dbrandow 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo you bring to mind a game i used to play in 2nd grade (bare with me) where my classmates and myself would sit in a circle on the floor. one would whisper a phrase into the ear of his nieghbor. and that nieghbor would do the same until the phraze came back to the origional whisperer. without fail the phaze would be completely dissimilar than when it started. lacking often times even the same basic message. a childs game built on the fallibility of verbal communication.
Chriscade09 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo and your talking about a number of years versus. literally seconds.
Chriscade09 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Are the stories of David, Solomon, et. al. based on real life historical figures and deeds? Probably, in some cases almost certainly. Are those stories historically accurate? No, based on what other sources, archaeology and common sense tells us. There are grains of truth, to be sure, but how does one reliably separate the wheat from the chaff?
dbrandow 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo How many people died denying the existence of Jesus? Don't even play the death card til you can justify that.
atimnie 1 year ago
@atimnie I don't see your point. Who died as a martyr to the non-existence of Jesus?!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 3