Interesting given that more than %99.9 of the universe is actually hostile to human life. Also interesting that pretty much all of the matter that our bodies come from is the result of stars that violently exploded.
@elzoog Why would you think that the universe revolves around human beings?! Take a look at the 40th chapter of the book of Job, especially the verses dealing with Leviathan and Behemoth.
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox." More than %99.9 of the universe would also be hostile to the life of a behemoth. I would also like to point out that I would not put a bunch of toys on the floor along with a bottle of bleach and tell the 5 year old "You can play with any toy you want, but don't touch the bleach." If I really don't want the 5 year old to touch it, I would put it out of reach.
@elzoog Did I say that Behemoth was the center of the universe?! The point is that God surveys and provides for all of his creation. Our sense of cosmic right and wrong is based upon a hopelessly limited vision of the whole. And what makes you think that physical death is the worst-case scenario?
@bradyhater1 Christ (Christ-ian) is explicit on loving your enemy. Don't make the mistake of laying Hebrew Bible literalism at the door of Catholics either. Whilst the Hebrew Bible is held as indespensable it is not the literal 'word of God' ie there is no direct dictation. Christ is our lodestone for everything, thus we interpret the Hebrew Bible through the perspective He offers. In this way we distinguish between human input and divine wisdom.
@ndzoko Untrue, there is far less that divides the vast majority of Christian denominations than divides them.
Further, as a scientist, I, daily, deal with data and ideas which are subject to 100 different interpretations by different people. This does not mean there is no truth in that which is being investigated, only that the truth requires a great deal of work to discern.
The same must be true when dealing with the phenomenon ultimate in complexity of thought and action.
@MrWildbill20056 Man the ideas about the meaning of the gospels and the way to live them are as diverse as white is from black. As an exemple one believes the eucharist is the body and blood of christ. many denominations think that is Bulls..
@ndzoko No, you totally misrepresent the situation my friend.
There is a significant difference of belief, true, but the importance and reverence for the Eucharist in all Christian denominations is universal. Whilst the main bulk of Christians (Roman Catholics) believe it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, others think it solemnly represents this new covenant. That which divides is less than that which unites.
There are no significant lifestyle variations stemming from the Gospels.
@MrWildbill20056 There are no significant lifestyle variations stemming from the Gospels. What can be more opposite, as one denomination saying communion is receiving the body of christ, and others claiming it is not ? If there is so little difference as you say, why is there so much in-fighting, so much competition between the denominations ? Look around on Youtube.
@ndzoko Let us see what is retained by all: sharing of the eucharist, breaking of bread, reverance for the new Covenant, reverance for the word of Christ. A belief that the Eucharist is mandated by Christ. In all but attitude to what is being consumed, the act and reverance is maintained.
Why is there so much fighting? Because man is imperfect and creates dischord, not because his Scriptural interpretation tells him so, but because it is in his heart to do so, and any excuse will do.
@MrWildbill20056 Look over the fence, my friend, you have no clue what`s out there. There are even congregations calling themselves christians who do not believe in a god. Some congregations must take the bible litterally, others have a more liberal view. There is fighting because there is no central authority. This holy spirti forgot to appoint those with the necessary credentials to interpret the bible.
@MrWildbill20056 Biblical interpretation is, certain philosophies aside, very straight forwards when one has sufficient knowledge of language and historical context.>>
Everything is straightforward, when you have suffcient knowledge. Is the bible written for theologians, scholars etc ? What about the common man ? Does he have a right to understand the bible ? That`s one of the reasons the bible can never be the word of god.
The common man needs to be well guided, and on his/her part to seek out the best guidance.
Yes there are some parts of the Gospels which need careful consideration and require insights from those well versed in the history and linguistics of their creation period.
However the central teachings of Christ are incredibly simple: Love God, Love your neighbour.
@MrWildbill20056 teachings of Christ are incredibly simple: Love God, Love your neighbour.
: EXACTLY, Why do we need 3,000 pages of mostly meaningless texts, demonstrations of god`d anger, revenge, mass-murder, silly stories, written by ignorant people from 3.000 years ago.
@MrWildbill20056 you clearly have no personal, extensive knowledge of the material you are criticizing.>> On what basis do you make such a silly assumption ? What historical accounts are you talking about. The Exodus ? Even Jewish rabbies admit, there is not a shred of evidence. I am not interested in philosophical enquiry. I make a realistic assesment. What is" philosophical enquiry" and "poetry" doing in god`s manual for salvation. If I want poetry I prefer Shakespeare.
@ndzoko I base my assumption upon the commentary you make.
You cherry pick one story, one, and one character, Moses. On that basis you suggest that the 'Bible' (remember it is a collection of books) is non-historical.
I already referenced you to a useful text, read it.
What is philosophy doing in a book which deals with God, morality, divinity, and eternity?
Do I really have to answer that?
Poetry, similarly, why wouldn't art be made in response to the ultimate 'good?'!
@ndzoko Youtube is not the place for lengthy quotes or citations. Hence I refer you to an appropriate work. I now include a second: 'The Bible as History' by Werner Herzog.
The point I am making is that there is so much reliable, and verifiable historical content within the books of the 'Bible' they warrant books, not one off citations!
However you are still stuck with the wrong idea that because one character in one book of the Bible has questionable provenance, all is non historical.
@MrWildbill20056 Yeah you continue to claim that the bible is a reliable historical document. Give me one exemple of that reliable historical document, which is relevant to the salvation story. Besides the existence and location of certain towns, the existence of a couple of historical figures,Jesus, Pontius Pilate, Herod etc. and the description of a few customs. there is nothing, absolutely nothing historical in the bible.
@ndzoko Everything you say re the historicity of the Bible is one long assertion.
I am now tired of referring you to extensive works on the subject.
However with regards to the Gospels, you have no reason to question their reliability out of anything other than personal desire or opinion.
However the facts are these: Peter, Paul, and other notable figures are known to be historically real and martyred for their belief. Do you think J.K.Rowling would do the same for Harry Potter?
@MrWildbill20056 Man Oh man, are you full of nonsense. Would you mind looking up a christian apologetics site, which in a nutshell says this; The reports of the martyrdom of the apostles (Except one)and early christians were written down by bishop Eusebius around 300 AD. We have no reason to believe that he intentionally lied in this reports, but since so much time elapsed between the facts and the reports, their historicity is doubtful.
@MrWildbill20056 Man, What fantasy. Did you really read what Plinus the younger wrote ?But it doesn`t matter, I didn`t make up that quote. If you have any qualmss as to the objectivity, look it up on you computer and tell the people , who made that christian apologetics site, how wrong they are.
That aside, of course I have read it, and it is precisely as I stated: a very early reference to Christian martyrs, many of whom would have been contemporaries of the major Biblical players, save Christ.
Like I said, Clement references Peter very very early, and we have no reason to doubt his veracity.
So yes, the apologetics site is presenting a poorly made, ill informed case :)
@MrWildbill20056 I am happy that you are better informed then the people who wrote that article and whose mission it is to defend the faith. Congratulations.
@MrWildbill20056 However with regards to the Gospels, you have no reason to question their reliability out of anything other than personal desire or opinion... You can``t be more wrong. You believe what you want. If it makes you happy, fine. Just don#t claim evidence whent there is none.. And if you have REAL evidence, I am listening.
@ndzoko 1) I spectacularly doubt that the non-Christians of the world, have as a unit, take the same length of time to investigate the historical credibility of the Gospels.
Further Islam broadly acknowledges the historical value of the Gospels, to a great degree they simply put a different spin on the events recorded therein.
Absolute proof isn't on offer I'm afraid, in material terms we have evidence and we make the best, simplest explanation of what we have to hand.
Why not ? Doesn`t he love us so much that he came to die for us. He wants us to believe and sacrificing himself is not too much, but leaving some iirefutable evidence behind for future generations to believe, that seems a problem !! Why ?
Fourth, they are full of the promise of Christ. Moses, Elijah, all who come before simply point towards Christ. Christ's place of supreme authority is detailed and guaranteed by divine promises made hundreds/thousands of years beforehand and recorded there.
Fifth, ignorant? Hardly, simply people dealing with a different time and different ideas and knowledge sets. However, they were great story tellers and philosophers too.
@MrWildbill20056 Moses is a jewish fictional charakter, untill any evidence for his existence comes forward.
>>all who come before simply point towards Christ<, and yet the jews were so uneducated(lol) in scripture that they did not recognise him !! What a bunch of 6th graders. You are obviously a good christian scholar, defender. It`s useless to pose even one of the thousand questions about the lacking logic, the contradictions, the simple impossiblities, and fantasies in scripture.
@ndzoko You mean apart from the Jews who formed the Christian movement during his lifetime and afterwards? I do not recognise this mass unit of 'Jews' you speak of.
I guarantee you, all of your difficulties with scripture are comfortably allowed for.
With regards to Moses, I refer to you to Graham Philips: the Moses legacy.
It can be seen that corrolation of known historical events can give credance to Moses, not as described perhaps, but certainly an avatar for historical reality.
@MrWildbill20056 ; Why did the jews crufify him, because they did not recognise him as their mEssiah, Even now after reviewing their holy book for over 2,000 years, do they maintain he was not the Messiah. As for Moses, the BAS, Jewish archeaologists and rabbies, even the" Jerusalem Post"( a very influencial Jewish newspaper) state there is no evidence for Moses or the Exodus, NONE !!
@MrWildbill20056 Who were Christ's earliest followers? Jews... HOW MANY ? Of course, it all started in Jerusalem. No one witnessed the resurrection, untill you prove it`s historicity.
Messianic Jews ?? How many, a handful. They do not represent mainstream jewish belief, not at all.Ever heard of Paul letters to the christians of Jerusalem, or Betlehem. or Nazareth ? Why not ? Because the christians there were an insignificant number.
@ndzoko How many? Really? I'm sorry all I was doing was demonstrating your false use of the term 'the Jews.'
No one witnessed it till I prove it? That's an argument by wishful thinking friend. I can be 100% sure that those who claimed to have witnessed it believed that was precisely what they had seen.
Eye witness testimony is the backbone of historical research, and criminal investigation.
Back to numbers, it doesn't matter. Your block of 'Jews' didn't, and doesn't exist :)
@MrWildbill20056 Eye witness testimony is the backbone of historical research, and criminal investigation Exactly. Now show me your eyewitness accounts. Thank you.
Just give me one piece of evidence for the resurrection ! How many did resurrect on the first Easter !! About 12,000 are they also true !!
violence.... it is present SO MUCH in the OT, and I tried watching your other videos, and I still don't get it! as a Christian, I CANNOT reconcile the OT God with the NT God!!
your god doesn't go out to conquer and vanquish other gods??? really? what's the whole thing about being a "jealous god" and christian's willingness to declare "holy wars"? what were the crusades all about? what are missionaries doing but going out to conquer other cultures and planting the flag of christianity, destroying their religion and culture? Your religion is no different from any other. and like any other religion, it likes to think it's different.
@caffingdu How could the one who made absolutely everything other than himself possibly be jealous?! Whatever being exists outside of God is the gift of God. And friend, I agree with you: there have been lots of bad Christians over the centuries. But bad Christians don't equate to bad Christianity.
@wordonfirevideo "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5) And I agree that Christianity in and of itself is not a "bad" religion. Of course it has many good ideas. one of my favorite quotes by Mahandas Gandhi is this "I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
@badpanda84 That's why those passages have to be interpreted carefully. The Bible also speaks of God's anger, but that shouldn't be read as a passing snit into which God falls. It is his passion to set things right. God is "jealous" precisely because he doesn't want us going down the self-destructive path of worshipping false gods.
@wordonfirevideo that the problem with the entire old testment -- because it dosent fit with many of todays chirstains view.. they say "its out of context" or "you are misintepreating it"
If I say that it was raining cats and dogs would you get upset at me and call me a liar? You fail at understanding metaphors and allegorical writing in scripture. People do all sorts of crazy things my friend, a very smart man once said, "one should not judge a philosophy by it's abuses."
I think he's old fashioned, the world is intrinsically empty without origination, self and being. In this primordial chaos God speaks his word. God creates beyond time but traditional theology speaks as if God is done with creation, I think God cannot be done creating. How can the best artist in the world stop drawing? I think the death of God has taken creation to a new level and we experience in the death of religion and atheism...Wonder what mystery awaits us....
@wordonfirevideo "Thomas Aquinas holds that God is creating the universe every moment: "creatio continua."
--Father, I never clearly understood this doctrine of continuous creation. Do you mean God is "always" creating more things ex nihilo or simply sustaining in existence that which already exists because it is contingent? Or perhaps both?
@rowanrox Whereas most translations of the first verse of Genesis say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth," a more literal translation from the original Hebrew is "In the beginning Of God's Creation of the heavens and the Earth..." The decision to translate it into the Perfect tense verb denoting a completed act was a poor one. It could continue.Also note that it should not be broken up into such small sentences, which allow for the interpolation of a gap where there is none.
Hello Father ... Just wondering and confused that how can we be related in human nature if Adam and Eva were our first human father and mother ? Aren't we all real brothers and Sisters by the Adam and Eva' s blood ? Why are we becoming different skins, colours , and speak in different languages, and we also marry to others whom are coming from the same genes of adam and Eva ?
I don't understand how "intelligeability" means that the world was "spoken" into creation. That's a pretty mighty jump and it's one that I'm not able to make based on what you've explained here. Not arguing that it wasn't created by God, I actually do beleive that. I just don't understand this explanation of it.
Do you address this concept of creation in the book of Genesis as literal or figurative? When you refer to Adam's sin, do you refer to an actual man created by God in a garden, or the idea of man being fundamentally sinful?
@Awesomesome There's nothing preventing us from applying the same "loose kind of analysis" on stories of Roman or Greek gods. But we commit a false analogy if we do. In polytheistic religions that Father mentions, there is no absolutely sovereign power; there is always fighting. With the God of the Bible there is no fighting. When He does something, it's done. There is no possible resistance to Omnipotence even if there is "violence." This Omnipotence IS Love, not the God of love. God bless you.
I'm always happy to see Christians placing such an emphasis on non-violence. Where would the disastrous Bush war effort have been without the support of right-wing Christians?
However, I find the topic of non-violence rather ironic in the context of understanding God through the Old Testament. God is the most violent character, by far, in the OT. What do you make of all the smiting and flooding and rending of foes, all by God or in the name of God, that appears in the OT?
Father, you mention in this video about how God speaks the world into existence. What about mental imagery of God birthing the world, like a child being born? Would that be invalid/heretical? It is a nonviolent idea, that of birthing the world into being, like a woman bearing a child into life. Some folks aren't comfortable with "masculine" imagery so they think in terms of "feminine" imagery, like birth and nurturing, etc.
Its funny how the atheists don't even reflect but just type...you should do one LONG video JUST on the 5 reasons for God's existance and find many atheist claims to refute..
The entire universe, which is 99.999999% deadly to mankind, was made from love? Yahweh brought order via slaughter of entire cultures, including women, infants and animals. Jesus called some dogs and stated he didn't come to bring peace. He also murdered an entire herd of pigs. Not sure we can ignore these issues and call it wonderful and full of grace......
You make a broad sweep of salvation history here. My first question would be - "who is asking you to ignore these 'issues'?"
1. If God had made the universe a giant trampoline, would that be love?...This is in jest but you get my point...death is a part of life. We are not made for eternal life in this world. Some of the most beautiful natural creations on Earth also have an element of danger associated with them. I don't think that proves an absence of love.
@hodie1211 --If one suggests I look at the universe as a creation of love, it prompts a reaction of astonishment. The universe is an impersonal space that, I think, is faulty to think it was built out of love. As for "elements of danger," I think that I wouldn't have built such things as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes to cause so much suffering. I don't see that as love.
@Greynomad38 " I don't see that as love." And therein lies the problem. The notion of Love is supremely misunderstood and misused and abused, twisted beyond recognition. If you don't see how what God did was out of Love then you could reconsider what you see as love and compare it to what Christ revealed to us as Love and see where the discrepancy lies.
@alvc22 If, as you say, the notion of love is supremely misunderstood then perhaps your notion, as well, is twisted beyond recognition. I can only judge based on my definition of love which includes helping those I love when they need it or ask for it. When a young girl prays to "God" to save her from a man raping her and he doesn't, that's not love. That's negligence. I also think the Gospels were written by men so I'm not sure why I need to look to them for a descrepency.
@Greynomad38 I'm not suggesting that you take my word that the Christian notion of Love is the good oone. I suggested you compare yours with what the Christian notion of Love is. And then see what is similar and what is different.
@Greynomad38 I don't know why you brought that up about the young girl praying to be saved from rape. But you did. And it strikes a chord in me because I'm that young girl. It happened to me this summer :(( What's happened since then has been nothing short of miraculous. I had been praying for years for God to deliver me from abusive situations and nothing was happening. It took that horrible event for me to finally be able to see the missing key.
@alvc22 Since then I've been able to see things that I needed to see so that I can keep myself not only safe in the future, but also thrive in my life. The perpetrator was someone I had befriended and early on there were red flags that I ignored for reasons known to me now, but not then. They say that God allows evil so that greater good can come out. This is my situation. I can see and accept the "good" that has come out of it. I'm able to access a deeper healing unavailable to me before.
@alvc22 And it is my belief in God that is helping me survive all the aftermath, PTSD n all. Knowing that "God is always with you" I know he was there to while this was happening to me. I don't ask "why did you let this happen to me or why didn't you stop it" I know why. But I do ask "How were you able to withstand it? being there and witness it taking place?" I haven't been able to find the answer to that till now through your post.
@alvc22 This was my second rape. And I've suffered much sexual trauma since the first one 12 years ago. The first time I just pretended I agreed to it so i wouldn't have to deal with it. I do believe that it was through God's grace that I opened up my eyes to the realities of this violent crime and it's effect on my life (past and present)
@alvc22 I truly do think that if he had to allow that to happen to me then he must have loved me that much to be able to resist jumping in and saving me on the spot. It's easy to talk smack about God in the abstract but it's an entire different matter when it's personal and you live the Grace that flows from his love. He didn't jump in and save me then but he's sure making up for it through the many blessings in my life now. When I come out a victor it will be to his Glory. Thank You. :-)
2. Yahweh's 'order' was an act of mercy, was it not? Was the 'culture' destroying itself and all the neighboring cultures? Example please
3. Exactly. He came to light the world on fire (Luke12)...but i would say it is a very warm and purifying fire, possibly painful at times..dogs..think observation here, not judgment.
4. kill vs murder. Definition. Jesus healed the Gerasene Demoniac (Luke ch8) and the "Legion" entered the swine which in turn ran into the lake
there is a difference between giving up and admitting that this is a topic which humanity currently knows very little about. it is not a virtue to accept the easy answer. a coherant answer? since you had to bring generalazations into this i suppouse i could say the same of most christians. takeing the easy answer they want to hear. things being complex on no basis needs a creator. i am asking you to prove your creator theory. my ignorance does not qualify your claims as truth.
how i explain it is of no consequence and i would not presume to have an ultimatum answer. what does matter however, is that you are presuming god. which is simply a falicious leap i am not willing to take. and how is that you do not know the laws HAD to be this way? how do you know it was a conscious force? in this realm of knowledge very little is certain. and i find it contemptous to assume you know the answer.
@twistedcard I think my answer--that stunning, universal intelligibility is grounded in a great Intelligence that thought it into being--is pretty satisfying. And you haven't even begun to offer a coherent answer. Like most atheists, you just give up. Until you can offer a really compelling answer that's better than mine, I'll stick with God.
@wordonfirevideo Stunning, universal intelligibility is the result of Oneness wanting to experience itself in relationship to something, which has given rise to the illusion of duality.
@wordonfirevideo pisumalu sounds like he or she is approaching it via the Vedic tradition. Oneness would be God the Father, the desire to experience itself in relationship to something would result in the birth of the Son, but I'm not quite sure how the Holy Spirit would fit into this. I suppose that makes it a rather imperfect approach to the Divine life. Maybe that helps a bit?
@wordonfirevideo Perhaps the Holy Spirit part would come in where people realize that the duality is illusory, that at our foundation we really are all brothers and sisters in God, just as you mentioned in this (awesome) video.
@sterlingrose33 That seems accurate to me, the Holy Spirit being analogous to the Absolute Oneness experienced in the stillness of the "Kingdom Within". But actually, Robert made the point I was getting at quite eloquently, "Whatever!". Whether it is the God of his story or the Oneness of the story I threw out, they are just stories, a collection of thoughts. As such, they are meaningless. Yet if they lead us to the experience of Divine Truth within, that is priceless. "Whatever", indeed.
@pisumalu No! I will not let you co-opt my "whatever!" The true God has no need of anything outside of himself. That is precisely why we say that the world has been loved into being. The God who needs the world--like the Absolute that you and Hegel and Whitehead defend--will eventually manipulate the world for his own purposes.
@wordonfirevideo I'm teasing with you, I don't take the story I threw out as capturing the Truth. My point is that both of us are talking about mental stories, collections of thought, which will never capture or define the "true God". What these stories can do is act as a barrier of separation, conflict and pain between those that in Truth are united in Divine Love that may be experienced in the stillness of every heart, but never contained by a story.
@pisumalu No. We're not just all equally right and equally wrong. Some tellings of the story are more adequate than others. A telling of the story that makes the Absolute needful of something outside of itself is ultimately contradictory.
@wordonfirevideo Robert, I have lived and worked in Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu and Christian cultures. In each I have met folks who, like you, insist their religious story reigns supreme, as well as those who see the experience of the Divine as paramount to the story that points to it. I've watched the former argue, insult, discriminate and kill one another in their story's defense. You have convinced me of neither the superiority of your story, nor the wisdom of insisting it is so.
@pisumalu And as I have told you a dozen times, you are defending (quite strongly) your own version of the Great Story. And as I also told you over and again, essential to the Great Story of Christianity is the non-violence of the cross. So I will resist your self-righteousness and keep proclaiming Jesus as the Lord!
@wordonfirevideo I see. So it is self-righteous of me to say that the Divine Love of God can be experienced within the stillness of everyone's heart, but it is beyond human understanding. So. any attempt by me or anyone else to capture it in words is not only futile, but often results in creating barriers, pain and suffering between people. However, it is not self-righteous for you to say Christianity is superior to all other religions? Am I correct?
@pisumalu Friend, what I've been arguing ad nauseam is that both of us hold strongly to our own positions. Good. What I resist is the implication that you're somehow "above the fray" while I am going about my divisive business. What I have always wanted is a return to real argument about our differing positions, but you keep saying, incoherently in my judgment, that religious argument is a bad thing.
@wordonfirevideo Above the fray? Hardly, I'm in the fray as much as anyone.
I enjoy religious/spiritual discussion that nurtures us toward a fuller experience of the love and compassion of Divine Truth, regardless of source. But when one begins to argue a religious point of view, at best it conveys an oxymoronic superiority in knowledge and understanding of Divine Mystery; at worst it can lead to division hatred and violence. I see great value in the discussion, none in the argument.
@pisumalu Let me elaborate. I would not criticize Christianity. I have known Christians whose faith has led them to a selfless love and compassion that is near Christ-like, a wonderful ideal for anyone. However, I would not criticize Buddhism, Hinduism nor Islam. I have seen people motivated by these faiths raise to similar heights of selfless love, often in the midst of unthinkable violence. The Divine is a mystery I feel we can only know from the inside of our own experience.
@wordonfirevideo I said the Truth of the Divine will not be found in argument, not that I am beyond argument. If you find the Peace of God in "proclaiming Jesus as the Lord" and I respond that your path is "inadequate", I am presuming to know the workings of the Divine not only in my own life, but yours as well. The working of the Divine in my life is enough of a mystery, let alone how It might work in yours. It is also a fact that such a stance has often led to tremendous suffering. Con't.
@pisumalu If I claim to embrace love, compassion and non-violence, are these not better served by accepting the mystery of the Divine and celebrating the peace your path brings you, even if our paths differ? Are we not better able to support one another in nurturing our relationships with the Divine in the face of anger, pain and aggression in the world, speaking as a unified voice for peace, if we are not challenging one another to argument and conflict? Would argument change your belief?
@pisumalu If you have ever heard anyone saying that one religion is "better" than another then that's merely a childish/immature way of expressing their faith, so forget about it. What do you want? You have free will, so use it. Do you want to cease to exist after you die? Atheism would be for you. Would you want to be absorbed into the divine without any identity of your own? Be a Bhudhist. ctd...
@alvc22 Do you want to have great food, have lots of sex and pleasure with Virgins and NEVER meet God? Check out Islam. Do you want to love and be loved for who you are, and experience eternal life with the Creator and everyone else you've known and loved? Do you wish to love God who loves you so much that he climbed down from heaven just to be with YOU? God has revealed himself to us and and has given you the CHOICE to know and love him. It's on you to believe and accept.
@alvc22 The Church has put God's offer of love and eternal life on the table for you. There is no imposition and there is no division. It's your call and if you don't answer then it's on you. That people like to divide themselves and war... well as Fr. Barron has quoted Chesterton..."We are all in the same boat and we're all seasick!!" In this sense, it's silly to fight and divide since when one goes down we all do!!
@alvc22 One more thing... and this you will object to. You can go ahead and chose to believe what you like about the other religions, but how can you be sure that they are for real? No other religion is so audatious as to say that they are the ONLY one that comes with a guarantee. Only the Catholic church. If you go ahead and chose anything but Christ, you've got to consider that whatever promises the other religions made may not come to fruition. Because there is only ONE God, ONE creator.
Non violence is not part of Catholic Church which conquers, murders and rapes as evidenced by Inquisition, crusades, child molestation, mistreatment of women, mistreatment of natives in America, etc. etc.
"Non violence is not part of Catholic Church which conquers, murders and rapes as evidenced by Inquisition, crusades, child molestation, mistreatment of women, mistreatment of natives in America, etc. etc"
----Wow! Who made who the arbiter of Christendom and the history of the New World?
p.s. - at the high point of Catholic Europe (1000-1200AD) women had MORE rights and leadership roles than during the Enlightment.
@sunbeamcatcher it is true that some Christians have not practiced the Non-Violence that Jesus taught and has been part of Catholic teaching and Tradition for centuries. The world has always been violent and Jesus came to the world to transfigure it and transfigure hearts. People are stuborn and that's why it's taken over 2000 to get through to our thick skulls!!
@alvc22 ah, the fault is always those "stubborn" people, isn't it? That is the definition of dysfunctional communities - the self- appointed authority will always seek religion to justify its perversion
Hey Father, thanks for taking the time. In these days where the Church is taking a beating in the media, your clips are a welcome relief and remedy to the anti Catholic vitriol that is being dished out.
Hey Father, thanks for taking the time. In these days where the Church is taking a beating in the media, your clips are a welcome relief and remedy to the anti Catholic vitriol that is being dished out.
it seems to me a large amount of unjustified leaps and impartial conclusions. there is no battle between science and religion, but not for the reason you state, which is absurd. simply because the world can be "known" does not mean it has to be thought into being. through our senses, we understand;albeit on an incomplete level. on what basis do you make the assumption that to understand something it has to be thought into being?
@twistedcard How do you explain the stunningly complex intelligibility that is evident at all levels of reality, microscopically and macrocosmically? Or to state it differently, what accounts for the mathematically precise laws of nature? "Science" can't possibly explain this, since science rests on it.
Some non-Christians I have known have always argued that if your point is true, then why is God violent in the OT.
I have always responded that (in Ancient Israel) the individual was subordinate to society. Also, the part of the job of the Prophets was to give Israel fair warning that something bad was going to happen if they didn't "clean up their act." So all of the violence is a "divine spanking" at the level of society. Am I correct?
@sulkow82 The books in the OT were historical in nature yet not historical in the sense that we know history today where it is about facts and figures and events. Their sense of history back then was more related to the significance of an event as opposed to the facutality of the event. Fr. Barron explains that the warring of Israel was a metaphor for how one is supposed to blast the enemy entirely. Get rid of evil 100%, i.e. put it under a ban.
@alvc22 - I don't understand the distinction you're making. I do agree it's wrong to expect the people of the OT to have the same sense of history as we do. In fact, since I don't believe in God, I think the OT can best be seen as an expression of Israelite culture. Like most people of that time and place, they were a primitive and vengeful lot. But they also seem to have gotten bullied and kicked around a lot. The God of the OT, therefore, is an excercise in Israelite wish fulfillment.
@jontv Excellent! "The God of the OT, therefore, is an excercise in Israelite wish fulfillment." That is certainly one way of looking at God as presented in the OT. It reminds me of a documentary that talked about how the Israelites passed on these stories to teach a moral lesson, i.e. to eradicate evil, evil being anything that was against God. So in the stories, evil was worshiping other Gods, offering children in sacrifice, and the killing of one another.
@alvc22 And if you look at it in that sense, for those who DO believe that God exists, then he really isn't violent. Because he didn't actually command them to exterminate anyone nor did they do it.
@alvc22 - I think that mythology is always one of the greatest expressions of the particular culture it comes from. It's something that builds up over time, with many, many people involved it its creation. It is tested over that time.
Religions evolve like anything else. They express the fears and ideals of the people who observe them. What seems to work is retained, and what doesn't is left behind. The idea that religions are eternal and absolute is absurd. They all change over time.
@jontv "Religions evolve like anything else." Speaking for Catholicism only. Our understanding of the revealed truth has certainly evolved and grown as time goes by. Also, the way we pass on that understanding has also evolved as new ways of communicating have become available. For us, the Word of God is living, and as such it is dynamic, intimate, and interactive with those of us who live in community with God. As we change our interaction with God (who is constant and eternal) changes.
@alvc22 - Well, I wouldn't say that. Depends on your approach. I think there are universal aspects to all proper mythologies that speak to the human condition and are relevant across time.
But all mythologies have aspects that are particular to their time and place, and if you try to apply them too literally in a different setting, you get trouble. For example, the homophobia of many churches is an anachronism, based in fear and ignorance from the past -- i.e. neither universal or necessary .
Most religious doctrines have a basis in common sense, what is best for humanity. The idea of the sabbath, for example. I don't think it's important for everyone to go to a particular kind of church on a particular day, but I think it's important for everyone to have a chance for rest and reflection on a regular basis. That is something most Americans could use more of, whether they are religious or not.
@jontv I actually agree with you that you can't apply things literal and take them out of their context or their moral meaning. I won't get into the homophobia subject... creation is enough!!
@alvc22 Getting back to your original comment about God in the OT being violent. I actually think that this argument is often passed around without enough thought or reflection being given to it. That comment in an of itself IS the taking something out of context and applying it litterally. So it doesn't really wash. ;-)
@alvc22 - For me, the violent nature of God in the OT is interesting because it's such a contrast to the philosophy of Jesus in the NT. Those two views are really NOT very compatible. I think we have both come to the natural conclusion: the view of God in the OT tells us more about the Israelites than it does about God. The difference: I find this to be good (but far from the only) evidence that ALL religions are cultural constructs and NONE are reliable accounts of the origins of the universe.
@sulkow82 Hi! my post was in answer to your question of "am I correct?" and I was offering an additional perspective to the "God is violent" notion, I apologize if I did not make that clear. :-)
how beautiful! It is so great to see a talk that has good scholarship and also show a relationship with God- and wonderment! Thank you, Father! Yet another one of your videos is going straight to my facebook page.
the fundamental laws of biology are based upon predation. A biological world based upon survival of the fittest, where smallpox, malaria thrive.all life subsists naturally upon death, where starvation, disease, suffering is a knife's edge away. a world where 99.9 % of all species that ever existed on the planet are now extinct. where children and the meek and poor suffer the most. hmmmmmm
@niinja2 hey niinja2, Yes i suppose i have a dream about how the universe could be. It would not involve malaria and smallpox and predation ( at least amongst humans). If we are going to realise that reality, it will have to be through our own efforts against nature. In many ways , we are doing it.
@adstanra But you haven't seen to the metaphysical level. At the deepest level, all things are here and now coming forth from that which exists through the power of its own essence.
@wordonfirevideo you haven't seen to the metaphysical level either ( if such a thing exists).. The universe exists through the power of it's own essence, and it is one governed by cold impersonal laws of physics. Fr Barron lives in a dream world. This universe is going to end in heat death. Life on this earth is governed by predation, which has produced a nested heirarchial bush of life. Of course , we are going to do better if we cooperate, but this has nothing to do with a supernatural agent
@adstanra Contigent realties do not exist through the power of their own essence. Father Barron may be living in a dream world, but from your description of reality, you are living in the midst of a nightmare.
@TELEMACUS800 No reason to believe that they can't. This universe , in fact, looks exactly like it should if it was nondeterministic. I am not living in a nightmare. in fact, my world is as good as it has ever been for a life form on this planet. But I am wise enough to know , that my reality is probabilistic in nature. I just won the lottery!
@TELEMACUS800 well yes. In that lottery, there was a 100 % chance that someone was going to lose, but the loser was randomly chosen. The laws of physics are very much like that.
@alvc22 Einstein famously said that " God does not play with dice". The laws of physics and the events that follow are determined by mindless probabilities. Not the sort of way you would think an intentional being would create, with no garentee that anything will happen. Eg, 98 % of all species that ever existed are failed rolls of the dice. Genesis describes how an intensional being creates, by placing things in their intended position ( " to mark the seasons" etc). Not the pattern we see
@adstanra "with no garentee that anything will happen" This pretty much sounds like how God works. He doesn't guarantee anything in this world. He guarantees it only in Heaven with Him in eternal union. As far as "failed rolls of dice" that is a subjective judgment depending on how you look at it. How do you know that the intention was not for it to subsist for a certain amount of time? i.e. planned obsolescence? Truly only GOD knows why he does things the way he does.
@alvc22 And I agree with Einstein. God does not play with dice. There is always a greater reason as far as why he does what he does. It is just that we don't have knowledge of it now because of our limitations and it will all be revealed once we are with HIM in heaven.
@alvc22 this is the unknown reasons defence again and the sort of argument can be used to argue for any absurdity ( or any proposition at all). " we are just not capable of understanding".......the fact is, the laws of physics care not about any person and are mindless and probabilistic.......not consistent with intension. no one intended, for eg, the tseunami of 2004 which killed 200,000 people ( some kids playing on the beach).
Interesting given that more than %99.9 of the universe is actually hostile to human life. Also interesting that pretty much all of the matter that our bodies come from is the result of stars that violently exploded.
elzoog 4 months ago
@elzoog Why would you think that the universe revolves around human beings?! Take a look at the 40th chapter of the book of Job, especially the verses dealing with Leviathan and Behemoth.
wordonfirevideo 4 months ago
@wordonfirevideo
"Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox." More than %99.9 of the universe would also be hostile to the life of a behemoth. I would also like to point out that I would not put a bunch of toys on the floor along with a bottle of bleach and tell the 5 year old "You can play with any toy you want, but don't touch the bleach." If I really don't want the 5 year old to touch it, I would put it out of reach.
elzoog 4 months ago
@elzoog Did I say that Behemoth was the center of the universe?! The point is that God surveys and provides for all of his creation. Our sense of cosmic right and wrong is based upon a hopelessly limited vision of the whole. And what makes you think that physical death is the worst-case scenario?
wordonfirevideo 4 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo "Why would you think that the universe revolves around human beings?!"
I thought that God created to share his glory. Share it with whom? Humans, presumably.
Mystagogia87 2 months ago
I could watch this video five thousand times and it will never get old.
ladylejean215 4 months ago 2
That's beautiful
mdleavitt2112 5 months ago
@bradyhater1 Christ (Christ-ian) is explicit on loving your enemy. Don't make the mistake of laying Hebrew Bible literalism at the door of Catholics either. Whilst the Hebrew Bible is held as indespensable it is not the literal 'word of God' ie there is no direct dictation. Christ is our lodestone for everything, thus we interpret the Hebrew Bible through the perspective He offers. In this way we distinguish between human input and divine wisdom.
MrWildbill20056 8 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 . In this way we distinguish between human input and divine wisdom...
Unfortunately 35,0000 have made different distinctions between human input and divine wisdom, hence all those christian denominations.
ndzoko 2 months ago
@ndzoko Untrue, there is far less that divides the vast majority of Christian denominations than divides them.
Further, as a scientist, I, daily, deal with data and ideas which are subject to 100 different interpretations by different people. This does not mean there is no truth in that which is being investigated, only that the truth requires a great deal of work to discern.
The same must be true when dealing with the phenomenon ultimate in complexity of thought and action.
MrWildbill20056 2 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Man the ideas about the meaning of the gospels and the way to live them are as diverse as white is from black. As an exemple one believes the eucharist is the body and blood of christ. many denominations think that is Bulls..
ndzoko 2 months ago
@ndzoko No, you totally misrepresent the situation my friend.
There is a significant difference of belief, true, but the importance and reverence for the Eucharist in all Christian denominations is universal. Whilst the main bulk of Christians (Roman Catholics) believe it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, others think it solemnly represents this new covenant. That which divides is less than that which unites.
There are no significant lifestyle variations stemming from the Gospels.
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 There are no significant lifestyle variations stemming from the Gospels. What can be more opposite, as one denomination saying communion is receiving the body of christ, and others claiming it is not ? If there is so little difference as you say, why is there so much in-fighting, so much competition between the denominations ? Look around on Youtube.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Democrats and Republicans fight all the time. Does that mean that all politics is a waste of time or that there is no political truth?
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@ndzoko Let us see what is retained by all: sharing of the eucharist, breaking of bread, reverance for the new Covenant, reverance for the word of Christ. A belief that the Eucharist is mandated by Christ. In all but attitude to what is being consumed, the act and reverance is maintained.
Why is there so much fighting? Because man is imperfect and creates dischord, not because his Scriptural interpretation tells him so, but because it is in his heart to do so, and any excuse will do.
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 Look over the fence, my friend, you have no clue what`s out there. There are even congregations calling themselves christians who do not believe in a god. Some congregations must take the bible litterally, others have a more liberal view. There is fighting because there is no central authority. This holy spirti forgot to appoint those with the necessary credentials to interpret the bible.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko I simply go back to my original point. These differences are really very minor when compared to that which unites: Jesus Christ.
Conflict only arises when the evil in the hearts of men causes them to find excuses for their actions within Scripture.
Biblical interpretation is, certain philosophies aside, very straight forwards when one has sufficient knowledge of language and historical context.
The credentials exist, the evil in the hearts of men refuses to acknowledge it :)
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 Biblical interpretation is, certain philosophies aside, very straight forwards when one has sufficient knowledge of language and historical context.>>
Everything is straightforward, when you have suffcient knowledge. Is the bible written for theologians, scholars etc ? What about the common man ? Does he have a right to understand the bible ? That`s one of the reasons the bible can never be the word of god.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Indeed, 'what about the common man?'
The common man needs to be well guided, and on his/her part to seek out the best guidance.
Yes there are some parts of the Gospels which need careful consideration and require insights from those well versed in the history and linguistics of their creation period.
However the central teachings of Christ are incredibly simple: Love God, Love your neighbour.
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 teachings of Christ are incredibly simple: Love God, Love your neighbour.
: EXACTLY, Why do we need 3,000 pages of mostly meaningless texts, demonstrations of god`d anger, revenge, mass-murder, silly stories, written by ignorant people from 3.000 years ago.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko No, you clearly have no personal, extensive knowledge of the material you are criticizing.
To categorize the Hebrew Bible as meaningless tales of divine anger, murder written by the ignorant is simply to fly in the face of reality.
the Hebrew texts are FULL of historical accounts (not every book certainly, but see Werner Keller: the Bible as history.)
Second they are full of philosophical enquiry.
Third they are full of poetry: See Genesis or the song of Solomon.
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 you clearly have no personal, extensive knowledge of the material you are criticizing.>> On what basis do you make such a silly assumption ? What historical accounts are you talking about. The Exodus ? Even Jewish rabbies admit, there is not a shred of evidence. I am not interested in philosophical enquiry. I make a realistic assesment. What is" philosophical enquiry" and "poetry" doing in god`s manual for salvation. If I want poetry I prefer Shakespeare.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko I base my assumption upon the commentary you make.
You cherry pick one story, one, and one character, Moses. On that basis you suggest that the 'Bible' (remember it is a collection of books) is non-historical.
I already referenced you to a useful text, read it.
What is philosophy doing in a book which deals with God, morality, divinity, and eternity?
Do I really have to answer that?
Poetry, similarly, why wouldn't art be made in response to the ultimate 'good?'!
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 On that basis you suggest that the 'Bible' (remember it is a collection of books) is non-historical..
On the same basis I assume that you are ignorant of history and reality. Give me ONE piece of YOUR historical evidence . Please.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Youtube is not the place for lengthy quotes or citations. Hence I refer you to an appropriate work. I now include a second: 'The Bible as History' by Werner Herzog.
The point I am making is that there is so much reliable, and verifiable historical content within the books of the 'Bible' they warrant books, not one off citations!
However you are still stuck with the wrong idea that because one character in one book of the Bible has questionable provenance, all is non historical.
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 Yeah you continue to claim that the bible is a reliable historical document. Give me one exemple of that reliable historical document, which is relevant to the salvation story. Besides the existence and location of certain towns, the existence of a couple of historical figures,Jesus, Pontius Pilate, Herod etc. and the description of a few customs. there is nothing, absolutely nothing historical in the bible.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Everything you say re the historicity of the Bible is one long assertion.
I am now tired of referring you to extensive works on the subject.
However with regards to the Gospels, you have no reason to question their reliability out of anything other than personal desire or opinion.
However the facts are these: Peter, Paul, and other notable figures are known to be historically real and martyred for their belief. Do you think J.K.Rowling would do the same for Harry Potter?
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 Man Oh man, are you full of nonsense. Would you mind looking up a christian apologetics site, which in a nutshell says this; The reports of the martyrdom of the apostles (Except one)and early christians were written down by bishop Eusebius around 300 AD. We have no reason to believe that he intentionally lied in this reports, but since so much time elapsed between the facts and the reports, their historicity is doubtful.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Oh and btw this objection would be interesting were it not for Eusabius explicitly referencing earlier historical records by known figures.
Further there are earlier references to Christian Martyrs, as you should well know: see Pliny the Younger, around 111 AD.
Oh and of course Clement inside the first century references Peter's martyrdom etc.
To say it all just appears in the 4th century is just wrong, plain and simple :)
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 Man, What fantasy. Did you really read what Plinus the younger wrote ?But it doesn`t matter, I didn`t make up that quote. If you have any qualmss as to the objectivity, look it up on you computer and tell the people , who made that christian apologetics site, how wrong they are.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Plinus? o.O Perhaps you mean Plinius.
That aside, of course I have read it, and it is precisely as I stated: a very early reference to Christian martyrs, many of whom would have been contemporaries of the major Biblical players, save Christ.
Like I said, Clement references Peter very very early, and we have no reason to doubt his veracity.
So yes, the apologetics site is presenting a poorly made, ill informed case :)
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 I am happy that you are better informed then the people who wrote that article and whose mission it is to defend the faith. Congratulations.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 However with regards to the Gospels, you have no reason to question their reliability out of anything other than personal desire or opinion... You can``t be more wrong. You believe what you want. If it makes you happy, fine. Just don#t claim evidence whent there is none.. And if you have REAL evidence, I am listening.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko I'm sorry, but you have fallen into the erroneous position of discarding the gospels themselves as reliable historical testimony.
Saying they don't represent evidence, is simply wishful ignorance.
That combined with extra biblical references, less so to Jesus, but more so with regards to the acts of apostles/early Christians.
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 I'm sorry, but you have fallen into the erroneous position of discarding the gospels themselves as reliable historical testimony.
Sorry to tell you, I am one of the 5 billion people on earth who fell in that erroneous position.
I am still waiting for one piece of irrefuatble evidence for the salvation story. It must be extremely difficult to produce !!
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko 1) I spectacularly doubt that the non-Christians of the world, have as a unit, take the same length of time to investigate the historical credibility of the Gospels.
Further Islam broadly acknowledges the historical value of the Gospels, to a great degree they simply put a different spin on the events recorded therein.
Absolute proof isn't on offer I'm afraid, in material terms we have evidence and we make the best, simplest explanation of what we have to hand.
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 Absolute proof isn't on offer I'm afraid. >>
Why not ? Doesn`t he love us so much that he came to die for us. He wants us to believe and sacrificing himself is not too much, but leaving some iirefutable evidence behind for future generations to believe, that seems a problem !! Why ?
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Simply because absolute proofs only exist in mathematics, and purely mechanical areas of science.
In every other area of research and human enquiry we simply have the best possible explanations for the phenomena we observe.
The evidence for the life of Christ, as God, is compelling.
It makes sense of the world and speaks to my heart and soul. I find no reason to disbelieve it, and every reason to accept it with open arms :)
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 Good for you. Have a good life.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Continuing:
Fourth, they are full of the promise of Christ. Moses, Elijah, all who come before simply point towards Christ. Christ's place of supreme authority is detailed and guaranteed by divine promises made hundreds/thousands of years beforehand and recorded there.
Fifth, ignorant? Hardly, simply people dealing with a different time and different ideas and knowledge sets. However, they were great story tellers and philosophers too.
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 Moses is a jewish fictional charakter, untill any evidence for his existence comes forward.
>>all who come before simply point towards Christ<, and yet the jews were so uneducated(lol) in scripture that they did not recognise him !! What a bunch of 6th graders. You are obviously a good christian scholar, defender. It`s useless to pose even one of the thousand questions about the lacking logic, the contradictions, the simple impossiblities, and fantasies in scripture.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko You mean apart from the Jews who formed the Christian movement during his lifetime and afterwards? I do not recognise this mass unit of 'Jews' you speak of.
I guarantee you, all of your difficulties with scripture are comfortably allowed for.
With regards to Moses, I refer to you to Graham Philips: the Moses legacy.
It can be seen that corrolation of known historical events can give credance to Moses, not as described perhaps, but certainly an avatar for historical reality.
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 ; Why did the jews crufify him, because they did not recognise him as their mEssiah, Even now after reviewing their holy book for over 2,000 years, do they maintain he was not the Messiah. As for Moses, the BAS, Jewish archeaologists and rabbies, even the" Jerusalem Post"( a very influencial Jewish newspaper) state there is no evidence for Moses or the Exodus, NONE !!
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko This is the second time you have referred to 'the Jews' as some sort of monolithic block.
Who were Christ's earliest followers? Jews
Who were the earliest evangelisers? Jews
Who witnessed to His resurrection? That's right, Jews.
Have you never heard of Messianic Jews or 'Jews for Jesus?'
Oh back to Moses again, you love Moses :P Again, read as referenced by me.
We know however that there was extensive slavery of Jewish people prior to 1446BC.
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 Who were Christ's earliest followers? Jews... HOW MANY ? Of course, it all started in Jerusalem. No one witnessed the resurrection, untill you prove it`s historicity.
Messianic Jews ?? How many, a handful. They do not represent mainstream jewish belief, not at all.Ever heard of Paul letters to the christians of Jerusalem, or Betlehem. or Nazareth ? Why not ? Because the christians there were an insignificant number.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko How many? Really? I'm sorry all I was doing was demonstrating your false use of the term 'the Jews.'
No one witnessed it till I prove it? That's an argument by wishful thinking friend. I can be 100% sure that those who claimed to have witnessed it believed that was precisely what they had seen.
Eye witness testimony is the backbone of historical research, and criminal investigation.
Back to numbers, it doesn't matter. Your block of 'Jews' didn't, and doesn't exist :)
MrWildbill20056 1 month ago
@MrWildbill20056 Eye witness testimony is the backbone of historical research, and criminal investigation Exactly. Now show me your eyewitness accounts. Thank you.
Just give me one piece of evidence for the resurrection ! How many did resurrect on the first Easter !! About 12,000 are they also true !!
ndzoko 1 month ago
violence.... it is present SO MUCH in the OT, and I tried watching your other videos, and I still don't get it! as a Christian, I CANNOT reconcile the OT God with the NT God!!
6MemoryOfForever9 1 year ago
your god doesn't go out to conquer and vanquish other gods??? really? what's the whole thing about being a "jealous god" and christian's willingness to declare "holy wars"? what were the crusades all about? what are missionaries doing but going out to conquer other cultures and planting the flag of christianity, destroying their religion and culture? Your religion is no different from any other. and like any other religion, it likes to think it's different.
caffingdu 1 year ago
@caffingdu How could the one who made absolutely everything other than himself possibly be jealous?! Whatever being exists outside of God is the gift of God. And friend, I agree with you: there have been lots of bad Christians over the centuries. But bad Christians don't equate to bad Christianity.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 12
@wordonfirevideo "You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5) And I agree that Christianity in and of itself is not a "bad" religion. Of course it has many good ideas. one of my favorite quotes by Mahandas Gandhi is this "I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
caffingdu 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Doesn't the first commandment say exactly that your god is jealous though?
AlausBaronas 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo "How could the one who made absolutely everything other than himself possibly be jealous?! "
but that is exactly what it say in the bible several times -- and then the first 4 of the ten commandment are about not worshiping any other Gods..
badpanda84 10 months ago
@badpanda84 That's why those passages have to be interpreted carefully. The Bible also speaks of God's anger, but that shouldn't be read as a passing snit into which God falls. It is his passion to set things right. God is "jealous" precisely because he doesn't want us going down the self-destructive path of worshipping false gods.
wordonfirevideo 10 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Right "interperated carefully"
thats just as bad as "its out of context" everytime some God kills people in the old testement .
that is just a cop out..
badpanda84 10 months ago
@wordonfirevideo that the problem with the entire old testment -- because it dosent fit with many of todays chirstains view.. they say "its out of context" or "you are misintepreating it"
badpanda84 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo
the bible says, the evangelist says, believer says, that god is a jealous god.
Exodus 20:5
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God
chesster423 4 months ago
@caffingdu
If I say that it was raining cats and dogs would you get upset at me and call me a liar? You fail at understanding metaphors and allegorical writing in scripture. People do all sorts of crazy things my friend, a very smart man once said, "one should not judge a philosophy by it's abuses."
ocja0201 1 year ago
I think he's old fashioned, the world is intrinsically empty without origination, self and being. In this primordial chaos God speaks his word. God creates beyond time but traditional theology speaks as if God is done with creation, I think God cannot be done creating. How can the best artist in the world stop drawing? I think the death of God has taken creation to a new level and we experience in the death of religion and atheism...Wonder what mystery awaits us....
rowanrox 1 year ago
@rowanrox Thomas Aquinas holds that God is creating the universe every moment: "creatio continua."
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 9
@wordonfirevideo : Thank you...So our destiny is not some lost essence, right?
rowanrox 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo "Thomas Aquinas holds that God is creating the universe every moment: "creatio continua."
--Father, I never clearly understood this doctrine of continuous creation. Do you mean God is "always" creating more things ex nihilo or simply sustaining in existence that which already exists because it is contingent? Or perhaps both?
grunderlyme 7 months ago
@rowanrox Whereas most translations of the first verse of Genesis say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth," a more literal translation from the original Hebrew is "In the beginning Of God's Creation of the heavens and the Earth..." The decision to translate it into the Perfect tense verb denoting a completed act was a poor one. It could continue.Also note that it should not be broken up into such small sentences, which allow for the interpolation of a gap where there is none.
magister343 8 months ago
Hello Father ... Just wondering and confused that how can we be related in human nature if Adam and Eva were our first human father and mother ? Aren't we all real brothers and Sisters by the Adam and Eva' s blood ? Why are we becoming different skins, colours , and speak in different languages, and we also marry to others whom are coming from the same genes of adam and Eva ?
647SuperJet 1 year ago
I don't understand how "intelligeability" means that the world was "spoken" into creation. That's a pretty mighty jump and it's one that I'm not able to make based on what you've explained here. Not arguing that it wasn't created by God, I actually do beleive that. I just don't understand this explanation of it.
alvc22 1 year ago
Fr. Barron:
Do you address this concept of creation in the book of Genesis as literal or figurative? When you refer to Adam's sin, do you refer to an actual man created by God in a garden, or the idea of man being fundamentally sinful?
Thanks for the clarification
davidennett 1 year ago
@Awesomesome There's nothing preventing us from applying the same "loose kind of analysis" on stories of Roman or Greek gods. But we commit a false analogy if we do. In polytheistic religions that Father mentions, there is no absolutely sovereign power; there is always fighting. With the God of the Bible there is no fighting. When He does something, it's done. There is no possible resistance to Omnipotence even if there is "violence." This Omnipotence IS Love, not the God of love. God bless you.
richgr1123 1 year ago 2
A Priestly Rockstar. This is fantastic. Father, you're a GENIUS!
Much LOVE from California
factionxvt408x 1 year ago 10
I'm always happy to see Christians placing such an emphasis on non-violence. Where would the disastrous Bush war effort have been without the support of right-wing Christians?
However, I find the topic of non-violence rather ironic in the context of understanding God through the Old Testament. God is the most violent character, by far, in the OT. What do you make of all the smiting and flooding and rending of foes, all by God or in the name of God, that appears in the OT?
jontv 1 year ago
@jontv see my reply to @sulkow82 below...
alvc22 1 year ago
Father, you mention in this video about how God speaks the world into existence. What about mental imagery of God birthing the world, like a child being born? Would that be invalid/heretical? It is a nonviolent idea, that of birthing the world into being, like a woman bearing a child into life. Some folks aren't comfortable with "masculine" imagery so they think in terms of "feminine" imagery, like birth and nurturing, etc.
sterlingrose33 1 year ago
Where was this shot? What was the event? You're not in vestments so you're not preaching and it's not Mass....
sterlingrose33 1 year ago
Wow Father, you ARE on fire! How wonderful!
sterlingrose33 1 year ago 2
Its funny how the atheists don't even reflect but just type...you should do one LONG video JUST on the 5 reasons for God's existance and find many atheist claims to refute..
AdmiralThrawn000 1 year ago
Absolutely wonderful. Thank you Father.
raventelevision 1 year ago
WHY am I sitting here, watching this, and there are tears running down my face?!
SUCH brilliant stuff!
sterlingrose33 1 year ago
GO Father! GO Father! GO GO GO Father! By Our Lady, you SO ROCK!!
More like this please! WOOOOHOOO!
God is SO AWESOME!!
sterlingrose33 1 year ago
The entire universe, which is 99.999999% deadly to mankind, was made from love? Yahweh brought order via slaughter of entire cultures, including women, infants and animals. Jesus called some dogs and stated he didn't come to bring peace. He also murdered an entire herd of pigs. Not sure we can ignore these issues and call it wonderful and full of grace......
Greynomad38 1 year ago
@Greynomad38
You make a broad sweep of salvation history here. My first question would be - "who is asking you to ignore these 'issues'?"
1. If God had made the universe a giant trampoline, would that be love?...This is in jest but you get my point...death is a part of life. We are not made for eternal life in this world. Some of the most beautiful natural creations on Earth also have an element of danger associated with them. I don't think that proves an absence of love.
hodie1211 1 year ago
@hodie1211 --If one suggests I look at the universe as a creation of love, it prompts a reaction of astonishment. The universe is an impersonal space that, I think, is faulty to think it was built out of love. As for "elements of danger," I think that I wouldn't have built such things as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes to cause so much suffering. I don't see that as love.
Greynomad38 1 year ago
@Greynomad38 " I don't see that as love." And therein lies the problem. The notion of Love is supremely misunderstood and misused and abused, twisted beyond recognition. If you don't see how what God did was out of Love then you could reconsider what you see as love and compare it to what Christ revealed to us as Love and see where the discrepancy lies.
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 If, as you say, the notion of love is supremely misunderstood then perhaps your notion, as well, is twisted beyond recognition. I can only judge based on my definition of love which includes helping those I love when they need it or ask for it. When a young girl prays to "God" to save her from a man raping her and he doesn't, that's not love. That's negligence. I also think the Gospels were written by men so I'm not sure why I need to look to them for a descrepency.
Greynomad38 1 year ago
@Greynomad38 I'm not suggesting that you take my word that the Christian notion of Love is the good oone. I suggested you compare yours with what the Christian notion of Love is. And then see what is similar and what is different.
alvc22 1 year ago
@Greynomad38 I don't know why you brought that up about the young girl praying to be saved from rape. But you did. And it strikes a chord in me because I'm that young girl. It happened to me this summer :(( What's happened since then has been nothing short of miraculous. I had been praying for years for God to deliver me from abusive situations and nothing was happening. It took that horrible event for me to finally be able to see the missing key.
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 Since then I've been able to see things that I needed to see so that I can keep myself not only safe in the future, but also thrive in my life. The perpetrator was someone I had befriended and early on there were red flags that I ignored for reasons known to me now, but not then. They say that God allows evil so that greater good can come out. This is my situation. I can see and accept the "good" that has come out of it. I'm able to access a deeper healing unavailable to me before.
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 And it is my belief in God that is helping me survive all the aftermath, PTSD n all. Knowing that "God is always with you" I know he was there to while this was happening to me. I don't ask "why did you let this happen to me or why didn't you stop it" I know why. But I do ask "How were you able to withstand it? being there and witness it taking place?" I haven't been able to find the answer to that till now through your post.
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 This was my second rape. And I've suffered much sexual trauma since the first one 12 years ago. The first time I just pretended I agreed to it so i wouldn't have to deal with it. I do believe that it was through God's grace that I opened up my eyes to the realities of this violent crime and it's effect on my life (past and present)
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 I truly do think that if he had to allow that to happen to me then he must have loved me that much to be able to resist jumping in and saving me on the spot. It's easy to talk smack about God in the abstract but it's an entire different matter when it's personal and you live the Grace that flows from his love. He didn't jump in and save me then but he's sure making up for it through the many blessings in my life now. When I come out a victor it will be to his Glory. Thank You. :-)
alvc22 1 year ago
@Greynomad38
2. Yahweh's 'order' was an act of mercy, was it not? Was the 'culture' destroying itself and all the neighboring cultures? Example please
3. Exactly. He came to light the world on fire (Luke12)...but i would say it is a very warm and purifying fire, possibly painful at times..dogs..think observation here, not judgment.
4. kill vs murder. Definition. Jesus healed the Gerasene Demoniac (Luke ch8) and the "Legion" entered the swine which in turn ran into the lake
hodie1211 1 year ago
@Greynomad38 Who said mankind is the center of the universe?
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
there is a difference between giving up and admitting that this is a topic which humanity currently knows very little about. it is not a virtue to accept the easy answer. a coherant answer? since you had to bring generalazations into this i suppouse i could say the same of most christians. takeing the easy answer they want to hear. things being complex on no basis needs a creator. i am asking you to prove your creator theory. my ignorance does not qualify your claims as truth.
twistedcard 1 year ago
how i explain it is of no consequence and i would not presume to have an ultimatum answer. what does matter however, is that you are presuming god. which is simply a falicious leap i am not willing to take. and how is that you do not know the laws HAD to be this way? how do you know it was a conscious force? in this realm of knowledge very little is certain. and i find it contemptous to assume you know the answer.
twistedcard 1 year ago
@twistedcard I think my answer--that stunning, universal intelligibility is grounded in a great Intelligence that thought it into being--is pretty satisfying. And you haven't even begun to offer a coherent answer. Like most atheists, you just give up. Until you can offer a really compelling answer that's better than mine, I'll stick with God.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 2
@wordonfirevideo Stunning, universal intelligibility is the result of Oneness wanting to experience itself in relationship to something, which has given rise to the illusion of duality.
pisumalu 1 year ago
@pisumalu Whatever!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo pisumalu sounds like he or she is approaching it via the Vedic tradition. Oneness would be God the Father, the desire to experience itself in relationship to something would result in the birth of the Son, but I'm not quite sure how the Holy Spirit would fit into this. I suppose that makes it a rather imperfect approach to the Divine life. Maybe that helps a bit?
sterlingrose33 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Perhaps the Holy Spirit part would come in where people realize that the duality is illusory, that at our foundation we really are all brothers and sisters in God, just as you mentioned in this (awesome) video.
Of course, I could be wrong...
sterlingrose33 1 year ago
@sterlingrose33 That seems accurate to me, the Holy Spirit being analogous to the Absolute Oneness experienced in the stillness of the "Kingdom Within". But actually, Robert made the point I was getting at quite eloquently, "Whatever!". Whether it is the God of his story or the Oneness of the story I threw out, they are just stories, a collection of thoughts. As such, they are meaningless. Yet if they lead us to the experience of Divine Truth within, that is priceless. "Whatever", indeed.
pisumalu 1 year ago
@pisumalu No! I will not let you co-opt my "whatever!" The true God has no need of anything outside of himself. That is precisely why we say that the world has been loved into being. The God who needs the world--like the Absolute that you and Hegel and Whitehead defend--will eventually manipulate the world for his own purposes.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo I'm teasing with you, I don't take the story I threw out as capturing the Truth. My point is that both of us are talking about mental stories, collections of thought, which will never capture or define the "true God". What these stories can do is act as a barrier of separation, conflict and pain between those that in Truth are united in Divine Love that may be experienced in the stillness of every heart, but never contained by a story.
pisumalu 1 year ago
@pisumalu No. We're not just all equally right and equally wrong. Some tellings of the story are more adequate than others. A telling of the story that makes the Absolute needful of something outside of itself is ultimately contradictory.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Robert, I have lived and worked in Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu and Christian cultures. In each I have met folks who, like you, insist their religious story reigns supreme, as well as those who see the experience of the Divine as paramount to the story that points to it. I've watched the former argue, insult, discriminate and kill one another in their story's defense. You have convinced me of neither the superiority of your story, nor the wisdom of insisting it is so.
pisumalu 1 year ago
@pisumalu And as I have told you a dozen times, you are defending (quite strongly) your own version of the Great Story. And as I also told you over and again, essential to the Great Story of Christianity is the non-violence of the cross. So I will resist your self-righteousness and keep proclaiming Jesus as the Lord!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 7
@wordonfirevideo I see. So it is self-righteous of me to say that the Divine Love of God can be experienced within the stillness of everyone's heart, but it is beyond human understanding. So. any attempt by me or anyone else to capture it in words is not only futile, but often results in creating barriers, pain and suffering between people. However, it is not self-righteous for you to say Christianity is superior to all other religions? Am I correct?
pisumalu 1 year ago
@pisumalu Friend, what I've been arguing ad nauseam is that both of us hold strongly to our own positions. Good. What I resist is the implication that you're somehow "above the fray" while I am going about my divisive business. What I have always wanted is a return to real argument about our differing positions, but you keep saying, incoherently in my judgment, that religious argument is a bad thing.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 3
@wordonfirevideo Above the fray? Hardly, I'm in the fray as much as anyone.
I enjoy religious/spiritual discussion that nurtures us toward a fuller experience of the love and compassion of Divine Truth, regardless of source. But when one begins to argue a religious point of view, at best it conveys an oxymoronic superiority in knowledge and understanding of Divine Mystery; at worst it can lead to division hatred and violence. I see great value in the discussion, none in the argument.
pisumalu 1 year ago
@pisumalu Let me elaborate. I would not criticize Christianity. I have known Christians whose faith has led them to a selfless love and compassion that is near Christ-like, a wonderful ideal for anyone. However, I would not criticize Buddhism, Hinduism nor Islam. I have seen people motivated by these faiths raise to similar heights of selfless love, often in the midst of unthinkable violence. The Divine is a mystery I feel we can only know from the inside of our own experience.
pisumalu 1 year ago
@pisumalu But, once again, you've just made an argument!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo I said the Truth of the Divine will not be found in argument, not that I am beyond argument. If you find the Peace of God in "proclaiming Jesus as the Lord" and I respond that your path is "inadequate", I am presuming to know the workings of the Divine not only in my own life, but yours as well. The working of the Divine in my life is enough of a mystery, let alone how It might work in yours. It is also a fact that such a stance has often led to tremendous suffering. Con't.
pisumalu 1 year ago
@pisumalu If I claim to embrace love, compassion and non-violence, are these not better served by accepting the mystery of the Divine and celebrating the peace your path brings you, even if our paths differ? Are we not better able to support one another in nurturing our relationships with the Divine in the face of anger, pain and aggression in the world, speaking as a unified voice for peace, if we are not challenging one another to argument and conflict? Would argument change your belief?
pisumalu 1 year ago
@pisumalu If you have ever heard anyone saying that one religion is "better" than another then that's merely a childish/immature way of expressing their faith, so forget about it. What do you want? You have free will, so use it. Do you want to cease to exist after you die? Atheism would be for you. Would you want to be absorbed into the divine without any identity of your own? Be a Bhudhist. ctd...
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 Do you want to have great food, have lots of sex and pleasure with Virgins and NEVER meet God? Check out Islam. Do you want to love and be loved for who you are, and experience eternal life with the Creator and everyone else you've known and loved? Do you wish to love God who loves you so much that he climbed down from heaven just to be with YOU? God has revealed himself to us and and has given you the CHOICE to know and love him. It's on you to believe and accept.
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 The Church has put God's offer of love and eternal life on the table for you. There is no imposition and there is no division. It's your call and if you don't answer then it's on you. That people like to divide themselves and war... well as Fr. Barron has quoted Chesterton..."We are all in the same boat and we're all seasick!!" In this sense, it's silly to fight and divide since when one goes down we all do!!
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 One more thing... and this you will object to. You can go ahead and chose to believe what you like about the other religions, but how can you be sure that they are for real? No other religion is so audatious as to say that they are the ONLY one that comes with a guarantee. Only the Catholic church. If you go ahead and chose anything but Christ, you've got to consider that whatever promises the other religions made may not come to fruition. Because there is only ONE God, ONE creator.
alvc22 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo how come you are so violent then in your arrogant tone comments, catholic priest of jesus christ?
sunbeamcatcher 1 year ago
Non violence is not part of Catholic Church which conquers, murders and rapes as evidenced by Inquisition, crusades, child molestation, mistreatment of women, mistreatment of natives in America, etc. etc.
sunbeamcatcher 1 year ago
@sunbeamcatcher Bad Christians don't equate to bad Christianity.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo - apparently it does
sunbeamcatcher 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Non violence is not part of Catholic Church which conquers, murders and rapes as evidenced by Inquisition, crusades, child molestation, mistreatment of women, mistreatment of natives in America, etc. etc"
----Wow! Who made who the arbiter of Christendom and the history of the New World?
p.s. - at the high point of Catholic Europe (1000-1200AD) women had MORE rights and leadership roles than during the Enlightment.
hodie1211 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo then there is no christianity
sunbeamcatcher 1 year ago
@sunbeamcatcher it is true that some Christians have not practiced the Non-Violence that Jesus taught and has been part of Catholic teaching and Tradition for centuries. The world has always been violent and Jesus came to the world to transfigure it and transfigure hearts. People are stuborn and that's why it's taken over 2000 to get through to our thick skulls!!
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 ah, the fault is always those "stubborn" people, isn't it? That is the definition of dysfunctional communities - the self- appointed authority will always seek religion to justify its perversion
sunbeamcatcher 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey Father, thanks for taking the time. In these days where the Church is taking a beating in the media, your clips are a welcome relief and remedy to the anti Catholic vitriol that is being dished out.
coldforgedcowboy 1 year ago
Hey Father, thanks for taking the time. In these days where the Church is taking a beating in the media, your clips are a welcome relief and remedy to the anti Catholic vitriol that is being dished out.
coldforgedcowboy 1 year ago
it seems to me a large amount of unjustified leaps and impartial conclusions. there is no battle between science and religion, but not for the reason you state, which is absurd. simply because the world can be "known" does not mean it has to be thought into being. through our senses, we understand;albeit on an incomplete level. on what basis do you make the assumption that to understand something it has to be thought into being?
twistedcard 1 year ago
@twistedcard How do you explain the stunningly complex intelligibility that is evident at all levels of reality, microscopically and macrocosmically? Or to state it differently, what accounts for the mathematically precise laws of nature? "Science" can't possibly explain this, since science rests on it.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
Very interesting, thank you., Father Barron!
xtrashed 1 year ago
Thanks for more wonderful inspiration Father. God bless your work.
4theprize 1 year ago
"Always begin with grace"
Some non-Christians I have known have always argued that if your point is true, then why is God violent in the OT.
I have always responded that (in Ancient Israel) the individual was subordinate to society. Also, the part of the job of the Prophets was to give Israel fair warning that something bad was going to happen if they didn't "clean up their act." So all of the violence is a "divine spanking" at the level of society. Am I correct?
sulkow82 1 year ago
@sulkow82 The books in the OT were historical in nature yet not historical in the sense that we know history today where it is about facts and figures and events. Their sense of history back then was more related to the significance of an event as opposed to the facutality of the event. Fr. Barron explains that the warring of Israel was a metaphor for how one is supposed to blast the enemy entirely. Get rid of evil 100%, i.e. put it under a ban.
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 - I don't understand the distinction you're making. I do agree it's wrong to expect the people of the OT to have the same sense of history as we do. In fact, since I don't believe in God, I think the OT can best be seen as an expression of Israelite culture. Like most people of that time and place, they were a primitive and vengeful lot. But they also seem to have gotten bullied and kicked around a lot. The God of the OT, therefore, is an excercise in Israelite wish fulfillment.
jontv 1 year ago
@jontv Excellent! "The God of the OT, therefore, is an excercise in Israelite wish fulfillment." That is certainly one way of looking at God as presented in the OT. It reminds me of a documentary that talked about how the Israelites passed on these stories to teach a moral lesson, i.e. to eradicate evil, evil being anything that was against God. So in the stories, evil was worshiping other Gods, offering children in sacrifice, and the killing of one another.
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 And if you look at it in that sense, for those who DO believe that God exists, then he really isn't violent. Because he didn't actually command them to exterminate anyone nor did they do it.
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 - I think that mythology is always one of the greatest expressions of the particular culture it comes from. It's something that builds up over time, with many, many people involved it its creation. It is tested over that time.
Religions evolve like anything else. They express the fears and ideals of the people who observe them. What seems to work is retained, and what doesn't is left behind. The idea that religions are eternal and absolute is absurd. They all change over time.
jontv 1 year ago
@jontv "Religions evolve like anything else." Speaking for Catholicism only. Our understanding of the revealed truth has certainly evolved and grown as time goes by. Also, the way we pass on that understanding has also evolved as new ways of communicating have become available. For us, the Word of God is living, and as such it is dynamic, intimate, and interactive with those of us who live in community with God. As we change our interaction with God (who is constant and eternal) changes.
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 In other words, I do agree with you in that Religion is not static,. I don't think it is stuck back in time or archaic.
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 - Well, I wouldn't say that. Depends on your approach. I think there are universal aspects to all proper mythologies that speak to the human condition and are relevant across time.
But all mythologies have aspects that are particular to their time and place, and if you try to apply them too literally in a different setting, you get trouble. For example, the homophobia of many churches is an anachronism, based in fear and ignorance from the past -- i.e. neither universal or necessary .
jontv 1 year ago
Most religious doctrines have a basis in common sense, what is best for humanity. The idea of the sabbath, for example. I don't think it's important for everyone to go to a particular kind of church on a particular day, but I think it's important for everyone to have a chance for rest and reflection on a regular basis. That is something most Americans could use more of, whether they are religious or not.
jontv 1 year ago
@jontv I actually agree with you that you can't apply things literal and take them out of their context or their moral meaning. I won't get into the homophobia subject... creation is enough!!
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 Getting back to your original comment about God in the OT being violent. I actually think that this argument is often passed around without enough thought or reflection being given to it. That comment in an of itself IS the taking something out of context and applying it litterally. So it doesn't really wash. ;-)
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 - For me, the violent nature of God in the OT is interesting because it's such a contrast to the philosophy of Jesus in the NT. Those two views are really NOT very compatible. I think we have both come to the natural conclusion: the view of God in the OT tells us more about the Israelites than it does about God. The difference: I find this to be good (but far from the only) evidence that ALL religions are cultural constructs and NONE are reliable accounts of the origins of the universe.
jontv 1 year ago
@alvc22 I agree with you. I don't understand how my post says otherwise.
sulkow82 1 year ago
@sulkow82 Hi! my post was in answer to your question of "am I correct?" and I was offering an additional perspective to the "God is violent" notion, I apologize if I did not make that clear. :-)
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 Oh. O.k. :-)
sulkow82 1 year ago
how beautiful! It is so great to see a talk that has good scholarship and also show a relationship with God- and wonderment! Thank you, Father! Yet another one of your videos is going straight to my facebook page.
Nzie 1 year ago
the fundamental laws of biology are based upon predation. A biological world based upon survival of the fittest, where smallpox, malaria thrive.all life subsists naturally upon death, where starvation, disease, suffering is a knife's edge away. a world where 99.9 % of all species that ever existed on the planet are now extinct. where children and the meek and poor suffer the most. hmmmmmm
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra i must agree, we have strong intuition how world should be, but its much different from what it is.
non violence is the fundamental reality, i somehow think this is true, but this is not how our world works.
niinja2 1 year ago
@niinja2 hey niinja2, Yes i suppose i have a dream about how the universe could be. It would not involve malaria and smallpox and predation ( at least amongst humans). If we are going to realise that reality, it will have to be through our own efforts against nature. In many ways , we are doing it.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra But you haven't seen to the metaphysical level. At the deepest level, all things are here and now coming forth from that which exists through the power of its own essence.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 19
@wordonfirevideo you haven't seen to the metaphysical level either ( if such a thing exists).. The universe exists through the power of it's own essence, and it is one governed by cold impersonal laws of physics. Fr Barron lives in a dream world. This universe is going to end in heat death. Life on this earth is governed by predation, which has produced a nested heirarchial bush of life. Of course , we are going to do better if we cooperate, but this has nothing to do with a supernatural agent
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Contigent realties do not exist through the power of their own essence. Father Barron may be living in a dream world, but from your description of reality, you are living in the midst of a nightmare.
TELEMACUS800 1 year ago 2
@TELEMACUS800 No reason to believe that they can't. This universe , in fact, looks exactly like it should if it was nondeterministic. I am not living in a nightmare. in fact, my world is as good as it has ever been for a life form on this planet. But I am wise enough to know , that my reality is probabilistic in nature. I just won the lottery!
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Yes, a lottery indeed, Shirley Jackson's "Lottery"!
TELEMACUS800 1 year ago
@TELEMACUS800 well yes. In that lottery, there was a 100 % chance that someone was going to lose, but the loser was randomly chosen. The laws of physics are very much like that.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra you keep talking about the laws of physics.... how do you know that God wasn't the author of these "laws"?
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 Einstein famously said that " God does not play with dice". The laws of physics and the events that follow are determined by mindless probabilities. Not the sort of way you would think an intentional being would create, with no garentee that anything will happen. Eg, 98 % of all species that ever existed are failed rolls of the dice. Genesis describes how an intensional being creates, by placing things in their intended position ( " to mark the seasons" etc). Not the pattern we see
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra "with no garentee that anything will happen" This pretty much sounds like how God works. He doesn't guarantee anything in this world. He guarantees it only in Heaven with Him in eternal union. As far as "failed rolls of dice" that is a subjective judgment depending on how you look at it. How do you know that the intention was not for it to subsist for a certain amount of time? i.e. planned obsolescence? Truly only GOD knows why he does things the way he does.
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 And I agree with Einstein. God does not play with dice. There is always a greater reason as far as why he does what he does. It is just that we don't have knowledge of it now because of our limitations and it will all be revealed once we are with HIM in heaven.
alvc22 1 year ago
@alvc22 this is the unknown reasons defence again and the sort of argument can be used to argue for any absurdity ( or any proposition at all). " we are just not capable of understanding".......the fact is, the laws of physics care not about any person and are mindless and probabilistic.......not consistent with intension. no one intended, for eg, the tseunami of 2004 which killed 200,000 people ( some kids playing on the beach).
No one intended you either.
adstanra 1 year ago