Fr. Barron comments on Israel, The Church and The Law pt. 2

[gambleor]

This is the best definition of freedom I've ever heard.

[Mystagogia87]

Fr. Barron, I am a Catholic who struggles with doubts and this video got me thinking. Why was the law such a tendentious issue in the early Christian church? Why wouldn't Jesus have just stated clearly how things would work with the law and with gentiles, either before his death or after his resurrection? That way Paul and Peter wouldn't have had to argue it out. It seems like a basic issue today but apparently he did not make it clear.

[wordonfirevideo]

@3rosesred Yes!

[s216674]

Fantastic. That marks the best description of how ordering one's life to God enhances freedom. Many talk about it but that is the very first time it actually resonated with me.  Please keep it up. Someone make this guy a Bishop!

[GalwayRose1]

Fr. Barron please give a great argument the difference between Lutheran and Catholicism? I know about the buying of Indulgences, that point I addressed, I also stated they only had 2 Sacraments, on & on. God Bless

Pax Christi,Ave Maria +++

[WayOfTheMaster454]

@GalwayRose1 --Can you narrow your question down to a specific topic?

[jontv]

As usual, a very poetic and attractive view of law and freedom. I agree with the ideas about discipline, but I don't think that tells the whole story. For example, the "law" in Deuteronomy suggests that homosexuals should be put to death. In fact, there are a whole host of laws that seem rather extreme -- not very much like practicing your scales on the saxophone.

Obviously, it's your job to make this stuff look wonderful and life-affirming. You may be a little too good at it.

[richgr1123]

@jontv In the Biblical worldview, homosexual acts are sinful. Historically, people were brutal back then. God drew Israel from these brutal, polytheistic civilizations. He was preparing them, through the law (so many things like, no mixing of wool and cotton; no eating this or that; etc. that are silly to us), to separate them from the others, to make them His "chosen" people, set apart (the definition of holy is "set apart"). When Jesus came, the path had been paved for the command of love.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - Ah, so God and Jesus are running a kind of good-cop/bad-cop routine? God lays down the law and Jesus brings the love? This smacks of rationalization, in my opinion--trying to make sense of what doesn't. I think it makes more sense to see the character of various deities as reflections of the cultures that worshiped them.

But I do appreciate your willingness to turn your back on the homophobic bigotry of the Old Testament. I wish more Christians were able to do likewise.

[richgr1123]

@jontv I'm afraid you might have misunderstood me. I am not turning my back on the homophobic bigotry found in the OT, but turning to it head on. In that day and age, husbands were raped by men in front of their families when they were conquered by a neighboring tribe/civilization; this gave way to the severe penalties for homosexual acts. The laws against homosexual acts are a testament to the fact that Israel was, horrifying as it is to us today, way ahead of their contemporaries in civility.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - That's interesting stuff. I've heard other explanations for the homophobia in the OT, but not that one. The prohibitions in the OT seem a little broader than what you suggest, but I don't know all the history.

Still, what matters most to me is how Christians interpret the OT now. And many of them think that it justifies all sorts of injustices against people who are gay or lesbian. If you oppose that kind of thing (i.e. turn your back on it), well then that's great.

[richgr1123]

@jontv You are absolutely right about how many Christians read these passages today. I would just add this: to understand the Catholic Church's take on this and to appreciate it requires at least sympathy to its supernatural background (whether or not we believe in it or not), an ability to look at the issue from its perspective.

So, the Catholic Church makes a distinction between the homosexual desire/tendency (out of one's control, for the most part) and the acts (in one's control).

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - Ah, yes: love the sinner, hate the sin. That is still unnecessarily bigoted, I think. I'm not a believer, but I could more easily believe in a god who values genuine expressions of love between consenting adults, regardless of their respective sexes. To me, there is no important difference between same-sex love and opposite-sex. But then, I'm not obsessed with reproduction, the way the Catholic Church seems to be.

[richgr1123]

@jontv Well, if you don't believe in the reality of sin, there is no way for me to convince you in this issue, I suppose. But I do wonder, how can that be unnecessarily bigoted? For if sin does exist, surely you can see that it's not bigotry but merely the right response to reality; and that's realism. So, again, if you don't believe in sin, I think there's nothing really to discuss here.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - What is the logic to believing that an act of love between same-sex partners is inherently sinful? Is it so, just because the Old Testament says so? If so, do you also find people who eat shellfish sinful?

I couldn't possibly believe in a god who discriminates that way. If love between consenting adults is a good thing, it shouldn't make any difference whether they are same-sex or opposite sex.

[richgr1123]

@jontv I have two questions for you here: 1) if God doesn't exist, what do you mean by "love"? and 2) if God does exist, what do you mean by "love"?

I ask because I don't want to misunderstand what you're saying.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - People love each other. They want to be with each other, do what's best for each other, and try to make a life together. When people are in that kind of positive, life-affirming relationship, many choose to express those mutual feelings through sexual pleasure. That is exactly the same whether couples are same-sex or opposite sex. It doesn't make sense for God to approve of one and condemn the other. If God exists, God makes more sense than that.

[richgr1123]

@jontv You didn't say how love would change if God existed. But we have some common ground here. You said "do what's best for each other."

In an atheistic view, there is no afterlife and no objective morality; in that case, I agree with you--let homosexuals marry. But if God exists, then doing what's best becomes willing the salvation of the other. Salvation is on God's terms, not ours.

What makes more sense: that you've caricatured "God," or God if He exists does make more sense than that?

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - I am just trying to understand your views. Some Christians have no problems with homosexuality, and some believe gays and lesbians should be publicly executed. That's quite a range.

Do you think it makes sense for God to condemn same-sex love but favor opposite-sex love? If so, why and how? To me, there is no difference that a loving, reasonable God would care about.

Or do you just not care whether it makes sense or not, because if the Bible says it's wrong, it's wrong?

[richgr1123]

@jontv Love for Christians isn't mere attraction nor simply mutual support. It's beyond that. Love is "willing the good of the other, as other." Now the greatest good to will is God. But again, salvation (how we reach God finally in Heaven) is on God's terms, not ours. God didn't have to create anything; we have no right to "argue" or barter with God.

Second argument goes from natural law, of which God's existence is irrelevant.

It's not wrong just because the Bible says so.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - Then why is it wrong?

Do you think that same-sex couples are incapable the kind of love you're talking about? Why would that be? Do you know any gay couples? They are no different from straight couples with regard to what you're talking about. Why do you think their relationships are "mere attraction" or just "mutual support".

You seem to be exhibiting ignorance, prejudice, or at least a tragic inability to empathize with someone you see as different from yourself.

[all028]

@jontv: There is an answer to your question about same-sex couples but I'm not sure if I should interject since you are chatting with richgr1123.

[jontv]

@all028 - You are welcome to join in. I am interested to hear what intelligent, compassionate Christians have to say on the subject of why God discriminates against gay and lesbian people. Just don't expect me to be moved by "God says so" arguments, or arguments that make hetero-normative assumptions.

[all028]

@jontv: Before I answer, I want to make sure I got the original question correct. You asked why do Christians oppose same sex marriage, correct?

[jontv]

@all028 - Well, many Christians don't just oppose same-sex marriage. They actually oppose same-sex relationships, saying that if people are attracted only to those of their same sex, they should not pursue that, but rather live a life of celibacy. I find that position rather difficult to respect, even from a Christian perspective (though I'm not religious). It seems to me that if God smiles on opposite-sex couples, there should no inherent problem with same-sex couples, who are no different.

[richgr1123]

@jontv Homosexual union is wrong because it is contrary to the established order of God, hence any love exhibited between homosexuals is a purely natural love, but not the supernatural love that leads to salvation, which is infinitely above the natural plane. Therefore, this natural love cannot save them. But all that is rejected by you as an atheist.

Homosexuals have the beautiful opportunity to live a life of celibacy, which is greater than the married state, from a Christian perspective.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - So you are using your religious views to justify your prejudice and lack of empathy. Millions of Christians have come to understand that there is no significant difference between a good same-sex relationship, and a good opposite-sex relationship. If you and your god are unable to see that, I'm sorry, but I can't respect that view.

[richgr1123]

@jontv As I said before, realism is the right response to reality. If God exists, whether we LIKE it or not, the world and its implications on our lives are radically different. Just because we don't want something to exist (or not exist), doesn't disprove its existence (or lack thereof), I hope you can at least admit that. If, however, one does not believe in God, then the only argument I can offer, that I know about, at least, against homosexual union is one that appeals to natural law.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - There's no such thing as "natural law". It's just a rhetorical construct used to try to convince people that the speaker's view of nature is the correct one.

Let me try another angle: you do seem to take the Bible as the final authority on homosexuality (since I doubt you've spoken directly to God about it). I say the Bible is a shaky source, and that Christians routinely ignore other parts of it that seem obsolete. Why do you think homosexuality is different?

[richgr1123]

@jontv I said before that since you're an atheist (and now that I know you reject natural law), there will be no way for me to justify my beliefs to you.

Friend, we can go on and on about this; I doubt we'll come to an agreement. I appreciate that you're trying to understand my views, but I honestly think it's a waste of energy to explain them to a person who will not simply learn (as you said was your motive earlier), but counter at every point. This suggests hidden motives on your part.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - I don't believe in passivity in learning. I test new ideas to see if they are worth taking seriously. So far, I don't see it in yours.

You haven't explained why you think same-sex love is different from opposite-sex love, other than "God says so". As an atheist, of course I'm not going to accept "God says so" arguments.

But if God makes sense, you should be able to explain why. And if God doesn't make sense, then why believe in God? The same goes for "natural law".

[all028]

@jontv: Ok, I'll explain & I'll leave God out of this. Sex is about pro-creation & starting families...not pleasure. Once you take sex outside the traditional marriage, what do you get? You get adultery, orphans, illegitimate kids, same-sex marriage, etc; thus, a total breakdown of the family unit. I recognize humans treat sex as pleasure and that's why you get pornography, prostitution, etc.

[jontv]

@all028 - So you think if I don't want to procreate, I should never have sex? Who says sex is about procreation? I don't, and I see no reason to agree. That's arbitrary and anti-human, in my view.

There are other good reasons to have sex besides procreation and pleasure--love, bonding, personal expression--but pleasure is a good one, as far as I'm concerned. Seeking sex for pleasure doesn't necessarily lead to pornography and prostitution, and even those things are not inherently wrong.

[all028]

@jontv: The Vatican encourages to keep sex within the traditional marriage. Promote FAMILY values. Look at all the social issues that are out there....adultery, prostitution, pedophilia, orphans, etc...I would consider those more anti-human than anything.

[jontv]

@all028 - I thought you were going to keep God out of it (lthough I guess The Vatican and God are not the same). I've got nothing against family values, but sex for pleasure is not inherently a problem for families. It can be helpful for couple bonding.

Anyway, what about those those of us who don't want families? Is sex just not for us? I'm sorry, but you don't get to dictate that. People can have sex for pleasure without the negatives you mentioned. I've never engaged in any of those.

[pdynamics1]

@jontv: You say "Who says sex is about procreation?" Hmm...let's see. A man and a woman have sex and it's not about making a baby. Haha...what have you have been smoking?

Anyways, what's wrong with incest, prostitution, or having sex with animals? It's just PLEASURE afterall by your logic?

[jontv]

@pdynamics1 - Sex can be about procreation, but doesn't have to be. Your mouth evolved for eating: does that mean people shouldn't whistle? That's bad logic.

I never said everything pleasurable is ethically defensible. That's your unwarranted leap. But if two people with no interest in reproduction want to give each other pleasure in a mutually acceptable way, there's nothing wrong with that. The examples you gave are all exploitation, which is unethical. But good sex is not exploitative.

[pdynamics1]

@jontv: You can make the same arguement for prostitution. They can have good sex and it doesn't have to be exploitation, no? The same goes for pornography....

I think this is where we agree to disagree. Anyways, I agree with all028 and he/she explained the Vatican's position correctly without using biblical terms

[jontv]

@pdynamics1 - There's a difference between prostitution and what I'm advocating. But personally, I don't have a problem with prostitution if it's safe and non-exploitative. People sell all sorts of services that you or I may not want to sell or purchase.

The absence of black-and-white lines doesn't make everything the same shade of gray, my friend. I can understand the appeal of an ultimate authority, to make these things seem simple, but I don't accept your authority, and I don't have to.

[pdynamics1]

@jontv: It doesn't surprise me you don't have a problem with prostitution. I hope one day your sister, mother or daughter participates in it in a "safe and non-exploitative" environment.

[jontv]

@pdynamics1 - If you have a loved one involved in prostitution, I hope that it's safe and non-exploitative. I want everyone to be safe and not exploited. The difference between you and me, perhaps, is that I don't feel a need to try to control other people's behavior.

[pdynamics1]

@jontv: So are you saying you would approve of your mother, daughter, or sister's behavior if they chose to be involved in prostitution????

[jontv]

@pdynamics1 - No, I wouldn't. Are approval and control the only options?

This is really about who gets to define sexual behavior. You seem to be comfortable claiming that you know what it means and what it's for. But you have a pretty narrow view of it. You are ruling out many very common, positive human experiences, simply because you're afraid of other negative ones.

People are free to choose their own paths, whether you like it or not. They should do so wisely, but most people can manage.

[pdynamics1]

@jontv: But why wouldn't you approve? You just contradicted yourself? it's only pleasure...it's no big deal as long as nobody is being exploited. Aren't they "free to choose their own paths?"

As for me, I would try and talk my sister/mother/daughter out of it...absolutely. I make no apologies for that.

[jontv]

@pdynamics1 - That is an asinine assumption. You are trying to make this very simple, very black and white. That makes moral judgments SEEM easier, but ultimately, it's not sufficient for the complexity of moral thought.

Depending on the circumstances, I may also try to talk a would-be prostitute out of making that choice. But I wouldn't insult his/her intelligence by referring to God or making other simple-minded arguments about what's right and wrong.

[pdynamics1]

@jontv: Dude, I've never mentioned God or the bible. anyways, why is it an asinine assumption? You think prostitution is ok as long as it is a "safe and non-exploitave" environment but you wouldn't approve if it's your mother, daughter, or sister? I'm not putting words in your mouth....that's what you said, no???

[jontv]

@pdynamics1 - Sorry if you don't like the word "asinine". I just think you're pushing me into a simplistic stand, and I resist that. I said I "don't have a problem" with non-exploitative prostitution. That's not the same as approval, is it?

Analogy: I don't have a problem with people being stock brokers, but that doesn't mean I'd approve of my daughter becoming one. It depends on who she is, her circumstances, and what she wants out of life. Life is more complicated than your moral categories.

[pdynamics1]

@jontv: Oh, give me a break....I'm not going to argue about semantics. I'll re-phrase the original question then: Since you don't have a problem with prostitution in a safe and non-exploitive environment, would you have a problem with it if it were your mom, daughter, or sister?

[jontv]

@pdynamics1 - Sorry, but words have meaning, and "not a problem" is not the same as "approval". You are trying to paint me into a corner, but I'm not going. Again, you want complicated things to be simple, and that is just not intellectually useful.

My views on prostitution are clearly more complex than yours. Would I be happy to see a loved one become a prostitute? Probably not. Would I think it my duty to impose my views on him or her? Probably not. Would I disown that person? Probably not.

[all028]

@jontv This is what you said "But if two people with no interest in reproduction want to give each other pleasure in a mutually acceptable way, there's nothing wrong with that" Then what's wrong with incest? If a brother & sister want to have sex just for an orgasm, then what's wrong with that? Nobody's being exploited?

[jontv]

@all028 - There are plenty of good reasons for people not to have sex with their siblings that don't apply to all sex-for-pleasure situations. Do you really think that if sex can be for pleasure, people will lose all ability to make ethical judgments?

Furthermore, do you really think that trying to prevent people from having sex for pleasure is going to stop them? Incest still takes place, despite the taboo. If you lump everything you dislike together, it's hard to make meaningful judgments.

[all028]

@jontv: Oh, I agree I cannot stop them. No debate. But all I'm saying is look at ALL the social issues out there and the breakdown of the family unit. This is what the Vatican is talking about....preserving the family unit. Sex is reserved between a man and a woman in a traditional marriage to start a family. That's it.

Our culture is so hedonistic and worships indulgence. Everything is getting blurred including morality.

[jontv]

@all028 - Fine, but you seem to be assuming that everything The Vatican disapproves of is harmful to families. I don't think it's that simple. Religion is not the only path to a healthy, positive family life. And as I said, not everyone is all about family.

I think what I said to pdynamics1 applies to you as well. You are trying to instill a needlessly narrow definition of sexuality. We should teach people to make good choices, not just try to impose ancient religious decrees on them.

[jontv]

@all028 - I honestly have no problem with people saying, "I think this is the best to live, and here's why...". What I object to is the assumption that one person's way is the ONLY way, because of theology or "natural law" or what have you.

There are principles behind religion that make sense to me--e.g. it's good to respect yourself and your sexual partners. But marriage on the Vatican plan is not the only way to do that. And same-sex couples should be included, because they are human, too.

[all028]

@jontv: There are rules in life. We can all agree on that I hope. When I look at the breakdown of the family unit in society, I think this rule applies. Taking sex outside marriage has led to the spread of venereal diseases, adultery, etc. Look at Tiger Woods.

[jontv]

@all028 - If something has the potential to lead to trouble, you think society should categorically oppose it? The same could be said of cars, alcohol, food, The Internet, religion, etc. I get the feeling you see sex as a special category of taboo behavior, and you're looking to justify that without reference to religion.

Sex can be a positive human experience outside of your narrow views. If you disagree, fine: don't have sex outside of marriage. But don't expect the same from everyone else.

[all028]

@jontv:

1. You say " not just try to impose ancient religious decrees on them." I've never quoted the bible. I'm basing it on what I see out in society today.

2. You said "same sex couples should be included because they are human too" I never said they couldn't get together. What I'm saying is it is not the same thing as a hetero marriage since they can't pro create. They have to do it artificially. Thus, since its not the same, don't call it marriage. Call it something else

[jontv]

@all028 - I don't think the state should recognize any marriages. Marriage is a religious construct. Leave it up to the churches. Some will allow same-sex couples in, and the others can exclude people if they wish. But denying state approval to same-sex couples makes no sense. There are plenty of opposite-sex couples who can't have children together, either.

As for #1, none of the problems you've listed are new ones. Neither is sex for pleasure. So I don't know what you hope to accomplish.

[all028]

@jontv: 1. I agree that none are new. Nobody has been following that rule for a long time but I think if they did, we'd have a better society.

2. I agree marriage is a religious concept. A same sex couple can have a civil union with all the same benefits..but don't call it marriage.

3. U mention there are hetero couples who cannot procreate. True. In theory, they can but if it's circumstances that are beyond their control (like infertility or age), that would be an EXCEPTION

[jontv]

@all028 - 1. I totally disagree that sex should only be for procreation. It is such a needless limitation on human experience. Sex for pleasure can be negative, but it's not inherently so. It can be very positive (you should try it sometime).

Your rule, to me, would be like declaring that music should only be used in the context of religious worship. Music, after all, can lead to negative outcomes. But it also has potential to make our lives so much better. Sex for pleasure is the same.

[all028]

@jontv. This isn't MY rule. What I was doing was I was explaining the Vatican's position to you WITHOUT using the bible or God. I just happen to agree with them.

What you call "narrow" I think is a bit of a misnomer. It's probably better to say Catholics are more conservative where as you are more liberal.

[jontv]

@all028 - Well, if you accept that principle, then I'm not sure what distinction you're making.

I can understand and share your concerns with the negative side of sexuality. I just don't think the Vatican's rule (if you prefer) is likely to help, and it stands a good chance of robbing people of a potentially positive aspect of life.

"Narrow" may be pejorative, but it's accurate, I think. If the range of human behavior were a rainbow, you would forbid certain colors, narrowing the spectrum.

[jontv]

@all028 - 2. I'm glad that you, as a Christian, are at least open to civil unions. You are more open-minded than many.

I think the essential part of that, however, is that the government should also stop recognizing opposite-sex marriages. Gay and straight would have the same access to civil unions. Otherwise, you have two classes of citizens: one that can get married, and one that can't. That is inherently unequal, and we have no business dealing in that kind of inequality.

[all028]

@jontv There are some other questions u asked me (and I have some for you) but I'm going to refrain since we'll be getting off the subject. Not to mention we'll be talking about this subject forever.

As for me being a christian open to civil unions, don't confuse Catholics with fundamentalists. Sadly, there are many who hijack the religion & don't have a clue what they are talking about

[jontv]

@all028 - Believe me, I don't assume all Christians are fundamentalists (though some Catholics are pretty close). I was raised in a fairly "liberal" branch of Protestantism myself. I respect that perspective, and I'm glad to ally myself with open-minded Christians against the closed-minded ones, who seem to be growing in number and influence.

Despite my differences with you, I do appreciate your willingness to engage in discourse that is both honest and civil.

[all028]

@jontv: I do humbly suggest u see some of the social ills I was talking about first hand & u MIGHT re-consider your position. I also recognize we live in a plural society but u can't have 10 different opinions and everybody being right. It makes no sense.

[jontv]

@all028 - I don't have much faith in there being just one "right" way to live. I am not "moral relativist", thinking that everything is equally good and we can't make any moral distinctions. But neither am I an absolutist, one-size-fits-all moral thinker. There is a lot of room in the middle, many shades of gray.

Sex is a powerful part of human life. It will resist all attempts to put it in a box. I would rather speak honestly to kids about it and help prepare them make good choices.

[all028]

@jontv: You say "There is a lot of room in the middle, many shades of gray." Correct but not on everything. Also, that's why I said that gays can have a civil union but don't call it marriage.

You also mention you were raised in a liberal branch of Protestantism. Which one if you don't mind me asking?

[jontv]

@all028 - Absolutist thinking just doesn't work. The closest thing to an absolute I can come up with is "Thou shalt not kill", but even that has reasonable "exceptions" (to use your word): self-defense, euthanasia (in some cases), just war doctrine (I'm almost a pacifist, but not quite), etc.

My father is a retired Lutheran minister (ELCA, the biggest American branch). I respect him and the work he did, but even from a young age, Christian doctrine didn't convince me, though I learned it well.

[all028]

@jontv: Huh, interesting. But these views we were talking about are your views not the Lutheran church, correct? If so, what is the Lutheran church's beliefs against abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, and same sex marriage.

Forgive me for being ignorant of the Lutheran church but I'm Catholic

[jontv]

@all028 - The ELCA is not as doctrinaire as the RCC. I don't know what stands they have taken on those subjects, but then I have not been a church-goer for decades.

I know that some Lutheran churches will perform commitment ceremonies for gay and lesbian couples (don't know if they call it "marriage" or not), and others won't. Recently, the ELCA voted to allow gay and lesbian pastors to serve while living in committed relationships (although some churches have left as a result).

[all028]

@jontv: As for your point about "absolutist thinking," I agree it is difficult (I struggle with it myself). But note the Vatican makes exceptions as long as it is reasonable. (There's even an exception to clerical celibacy believe it or not)

I do agree it might not work in a pluralist society based on what I see today.

[jontv]

@all028 - I think all human beings instinctively sense the ever-shifting complexity of existence and find it intimidating. We are attracted to ways of thinking that simply things and allow us to feel more certain. I understand it, and we all do it to some extent.

But ultimately, if you boil things down too far, it's no longer adequate to the task of understanding reality. So it's not just our society that causes the problem (although we have a very complex society, so that makes it worse).

[all028]

@jontv: I do think society & culture (and even religion) deeply influence people & blurs their decision making. At the same time, humans are more capable and should be able to see through that in my opinion. The biggest problem we have today is clear thinking.

[all028]

@jontv: Sorry, omit my last sentence. What I meant to say is "The biggest problem we have today is the LACK OF clear thinking."

[jontv]

@all028 - Well, that may be, but to stick to my point, I'd say there's a difference between thinking clearly about complexity and oversimplifying complexity to make it seem clear. I think your suggestion that we should preach sex as being primarily for procreation would be an oversimplification. There may be some benefits to be gained (assuming people would actually buy into that idea), but there would be unnecessary losses as well. Pleasure is a very good thing, in the right context.

[jontv]

@all028 - I was thinking about our discussion and realized that you have never answered my question about what to do with people who DON'T want to reproduce--tell them to abstain from sex? You seem to be implying as much.

So here's another question: do you really think everyone should be a parent? I'd say maybe the best thing for families is for certain people NOT to start them. And yet it seems pointlessly cruel to try to deny those people the key human experience of healthy sexuality.

[all028]

@jontv: I did mention I was going to REFRAIN from some of your questions as well as my own to you. I didn't want to get off subject & I didn't want to talk about this forever.  I'll answer and I'll send u a note instead...

[all028]

@jontv: Another question u asked me was "Do you really think that if sex can be for pleasure, people will lose all ability to make ethical judgments?" The answer to that would be YES based on what I see in society. Pornography is a huge business. As I said, everything is getting blurred including morality

In my hometown, there is a civil liberties group now advocating polygamy using the same-sex arguement. For me, this is getting ridiculous...

[jontv]

@all028 - You have an all-or-nothing mentality that doesn't fit my understanding of human nature or culture. If something has a potential to do harm, should we try to ban it? Or should we understand that almost everything has benefits and risks? You can't legislate good judgment, but you seem to want to.

The polygamy argument just underlines that different people have different ideas about relationships. Not my cup of tea, but who am I to say it's inherently wrong for consenting adults?

[richgr1123]

@jontv I found a news interview that might interest you. Type in "Why Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality Isn’t Bigoted" at Google and you should be able to find it published from the National Catholic Register.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - I will look it over if I have time.

[richgr1123]

@jontv Secondly, I did not mean good-bad cop. The strict laws of the OT that formed the entire culture of the Hebrews is what clearly distinguished them from others and was united under the figurehead of a single God as opposed to disjointed polytheism. It was necessary to distinguish, to "train" them to be a separate, chosen people, to bring them to a higher plane, that of love. The OT laws were the groundwork for this. We begin in barbarism, in chaos, and move thence to civility, to order.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - That too is interesting, and not a familiar argument to me. I guess my initial reaction is that Judaism was not the first or only religion to restrict itself to one god, although that did seem to make it stand out.

More importantly (perhaps), your view of a God with a shifting strategy toward "his people", one who appears different to different eras, seems a little out of tune with the mainstream Christian view that God is perfect, unchanging, and existent outside of time.

[richgr1123]

@jontv Yes, you are right. The Hebrews weren't the first.

I would say my view of God as described presupposes a God Who exists outside of time, Who can see the exigencies of the future and adapt to those who live in any given era in order to draw them "infallibly" to the desired end. It's precisely God's immutability that allows Him to accurately adapt to each situation because He sees the causes and consequences of each era, outside of time. Otherwise God's actions would be random at best.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - Where does free will fit into your idea of God "infallibly" drawing humanity to some end?

I think the idea of God having means, ends, or actions is incompatible with the idea that God is eternal and unchanging. This is one of the great contradictions that Christians have never really come up with a good answer for. This kind of thing is why -- as long as I've been mature enough to think for myself -- I've never really been a believer.

[richgr1123]

@jontv I'm not sure how God having means, ends, or actions is incompatible with eternity. Could you explain?

As for free will, it's like God is at the top of a mountain, overlooking a path. He sees what we're doing, while we're doing it, and knows where we're going. If I see a car about to hit a glass window, I know the window will break. But my knowledge itself does not cause that window to break.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - What you attribute to God goes well beyond observation. You have said that God has means and ends, and is acting to bring humanity toward those ends.

Means, ends, and actions are time-based activities. You can't have goals and plans, and you can't bring about change, unless you exist on a time line. Being eternal doesn't mean to exist over long periods of time: it means to exist outside of time. I don't see how any being could be in time and outside of time at the same time.

[richgr1123]

@jontv Means and ends are the characteristics of an intelligent, sentient being. Agreed? Well, God has a mind and a will; it follows that He can have means and ends.

But unlike humans, the goals of God have been set from eternity. He doesn't "make" them in time, as if one moment He didn't have a certain goal and the next, He did. God doesn't act but continually acts. Each moment in time is present to Him, and He is acting then and there from all eternity.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - Why start from the assumption that God exists and is intelligent and sentient? I don't. I am just trying to understand what Christian theology makes of two philosophically incompatible qualities. If God is eternal and unchanging, God doesn't get involved in time-bound struggles. That God doesn't do things. That God just is. For me, it's Deism or nothing, I guess.

I suppose some people believe that God is so magic he can defy basic earthly logic, Fine, but don't expect others to.

[richgr1123]

@jontv If God doesn't exist, your own objections collapse as meaningless propositions. There is nothing for me to respond to then. But when I argue on the hypothetical existence of God, we use your own idea of what God SHOULD be and not the God as He has revealed Himself to be. Friend, I admit, I'm cornered and cannot continue arguing here.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - Again, I'm just trying to understand how a seemingly intelligent Christian like yourself reconciles common beliefs about God that I find incompatible. Do you think these 2 views (eternal and active in time) of God make sense? If so, can you explain, without begging the question?

They don't make sense to me. The idea of God doesn't make sense to me in general. That's why I'm not a believer. But I have to live in a world dominated by believers, so I am trying to understand them.

[richgr1123]

@jontv Yes, eternity and activity "in" time make sense. We shouldn't think of God as acting "in" time; He's acting in one perpetual moment in eternity.

We can describe these only with analogies since we can't really describe eternity in a positive sense. It's like a circle and the space in the circle. The space represents eternity, present to the entire line of the circle, which represents time.

The two aspects are reconciled in God being the source of all being. Let me summarize the proof.

[richgr1123]

@jontv (Cont.) The proof is primarily the argument from the contingency of nature. All nature is contingent, coming and passing into being. It therefore seeks the reason for its existence outside of itself, in its cause(s). But those causes themselves are contingent and thus must be explained by previous causes. We get to a point where this is applicable to the entire universe. But even if the universe is eternal, the proof still holds. Think of it like an eternal chain of dominoes. (Cont.)

[richgr1123]

@jontv (Cont. 2) If the dominoes are collapsing, there had to be a cause somewhere, even if the chain is eternal. If there was no first pressed domino, then none of the rest would fall. So even if the universe is eternal, there still requires, because of its contingency, some "prime mover." This we call God. Now, this ISN'T the Christian God, per se.

God is that "reality" which gave existence to all being and is the un-contingent source of everything. This reconciles eternity & time activity.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - I understand the prime mover theory. It's interesting, but it doesn't suggest, to me, the existence of any particular god, like the one you think inspired the Bible and is prejudiced against gay people.

If the prime mover is "proof" of anything, it could just as easily be proof of Hinduism, Islam, or deism. I think the deists are on my wavelength: that's why they didn't believe in an activist god. You are trying to have things both ways.

[richgr1123]

@jontv You really don't understand the proof at all if you can come to both Hinduistic pantheism and transcendent deism from the same proof. Pantheism is the exact opposite of deism.

The proof is precisely one that disproves monistic pantheism (Hinduism). It doesn't prove that God is love, correct, but it certainly disproves atheism and Hinduism (if one is honest and fully comprehends the logical results of the proof). I recommend the book "God: His Existence and His Nature" @ lulu.com.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 -- You are showing that you don't understand pantheism. In most pantheistic systems, the different gods are just manifestations of the same force, i.e. visual aids to help people understand the different aspects of supernatural power (kind of like Catholic iconography teaches different aspects of saintliness).

It's also useful for reminding us that whatever created the universe (if anything did), it's not something we can fully understand or have a "personal relationship" with.

[richgr1123]

@jontv You didn't show how I don't understand pantheism (I do understand it very well, in fact), but that's all right. Again, I highly recommend that book I suggested. It discusses the full logical extent of these proofs for God's existence if you want to be honest and thorough about the issue.

Please provide a proof for your assertion of an impersonal "god" (I hope you see that I'm pointing out that your assertion is on "faith," on a presupposition that you have yet to validly prove).

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - Neither am I convinced that you understand pantheism. People in the West don't, generally speaking. I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I wouldn't say it's "the opposite of deism". Can you explain that assertion?

I'm not saying I believe in an impersonal god. I am not convinced of the existence of any "god". I admit I can't explain all the mysteries of the universe, but I don't think any religious system can, either. The burden of proof is on the believers, in my opinion.

[richgr1123]

@jontv There are several kinds of pantheism, and each is the logical result of how one looks at act and potency--Aristotelian concepts. Fundamentally, pantheism can be evolutionary, static, or emanate, identifying "god" with the universe. Now, if the universe is equated with god, then deism, which says, a separate entity, called god, created the universe, hence the universe did not exist at one point but god already causally existed prior, one can see how one can't have it both ways.

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - Here's my bottom line: I don't know how the universe came about, and neither do you. Different religions have tried to describe it, but those efforts are undermined by the limits of human understanding. If all you need is a prime mover, that prime mover could have any number of unimaginable natures. Pantheism's God-as-universe is no more mysterious or illogical than your God-as-separate-from-the-unive­rse. You probably just happen to have been brought up in the latter tradition.

[richgr1123]

@jontv Pt. 2. Indeed, I agree with where the burden of proof must be. But do you not see that your assertion that IF a god existed, then there would be no way of contact, is a proposition that demands proof? You made an assertion of what the nature of that god must be like even if you don't believe in its existence; now you must defend that assertion. I must prove the Christian God, but you must prove your proposed nature of god. If God doesn't meet your standards, then He can't exist, hm?

[jontv]

@richgr1123 - Well, as I've said before, I don't think that God does exist. So the contradictions are not my problem. I'm just pointing out that two cherished Christian view of God -- God is eternal and unchanging, but active in the real-time of our daily lives -- don't seem to make sense. Doing things in time changes you. And you have to change to do things in time. 30 minutes ago, I was not typing. Now I am. If I were incapable of change, I couldn't be typing now.

[powderdd]

I really liked the golf analogy

[242am]

Father I saw how in your video there is alot of older people, I can't help to think that the new evangelization of vatican 2 will need energy and youth to carry on our faith and tradition. Your homilys are wonderful and how I think that the youth needs to hear this. Have you heard of the Neocatechumenal way?

[FalcaoWesley]

Wow, I really liked his insight on freedom!

[TELEMACUS800]

All you Catholics out there listen and watch this video very carefully, this is what the "new evangelization" looks and sounds like. Evangelization is not a memo sent out from a diocesan subcommitee or an apology to secular culture for not being sufficiently secular- it is what Father Barron is doing.

[havock89]

@TELEMACUS800 Absolutely. Well said!

[nate12387]

@TELEMACUS800 Where in this video do you get anything in your comment. I felt that Fr. Barron does a great job. He is correct when saying that freedom is governed through law.

[TELEMACUS800]

@nate12387 My question was directed towards adstanra, not Father Barron.

[adstanra]

Freedom means freedom from coercion; means autonomy of the will.Individuals will decide for themselves, without coercion by goverments, coorporations or religions.While they do limit freedom in one sense,Laws are designed to protect the freedom of an individual from the recklessness of another. One persons freedom should not impose unpon anothers.We do live in a finite world that doles out consequences for our actions.

[adstanra]

We are not free of the laws of physics and are limited beings ( not deities). Of course we have to have discipline over our carnal impulses; if we don't , we will lose whatever freedom we have. When we talk about freedom in the west, we are talking about equality of individuals so that the weak are not controlled by the powerful.

[TELEMACUS800]

@adstanra Toward what end is this freedom from coercion or autonomy of the will directed?

[adstanra]

@TELEMACUS800 towards the mutual happiness and benefit of all living things.

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra Well then you better have some clear idea of what precisely constitutes that happiness. Otherwise, as Bob Dylan said, "Freedom, just around the corner from you/ But with truth so far off, what good would it do?"

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo Iam trying to propose a framework for moral societies based upon maximising human happiness. We intuitively know what happiness and suffering are. What are you proposing exactly?

[pisumalu]

@wordonfirevideo Interesting Dylan song for you to quote. It goes on to say:

It's a shadowy world, skies are slippery gray,

A woman just gave birth to a prince today and dressed him in scarlet.

He'll put the priest in his pocket, put the blade to the heat,

Take the motherless children off the street

And place them at the feet of a harlot.

Oh, Jokerman, you know what he wants,

Oh, Jokerman, you don't show any response.

One must surely be clear.

[Nzie]

This is so great, father. Thank you! I hope one day I can see you in person!