So Father Barron, when the Bible does talk about God commanding atrocities, events that cause harm to people, is this not straightforward history? Is it just a made up event to express a great truth, which is as you said God wanting sin in us to be completely eliminated?
The problem with Barron's assertion that the "correct" interpretive method is needed to understand scripture is the following: What objective criteria do you use to determine the correct interpretive viewpoint? Answer: There is none, hence, you get the 3,000+ denominations of christianity alone.
Religious pluralism is the lock-down, objective refutation of the thestic interpretation justification of scripture.
All that is left is "My interpretation is the correct one & your's isn't"
Please consider that theistic interpretation of scripture is a backward mode of thinking
It starts with the conclusion and back-fills the supporting premises and support.
Almost all believers start with their own concept of god & ideas of right & wrong, then they go about interpreting scripture to support these already-held beliefs
And the bible is sufficiently ambiguous & contradictory to allow anyone to successfully support any concept of god or any idea of morality
@LetReasonPrevail1 "the bible is sufficiently ambiguous & contradictory to allow anyone to successfully support any concept of god or any idea of morality"
Not totally. Granted, there are some ambiguities. But the main message "love thy neighbor" is quite clear. As for the "ambiguities", thats why we need organized religion (the church) to help us interpret it correctly. After all, the church chose which books should be in the bible so shouldn't the church be a source of authority on it?
Please don't get me wrong. The fact that most believers partake of this backward mode of thinking is a good thing. By doing so, that unwittingly allow their own common sense & humanistic qualities to rule the day.
By contrast, the ones to worry about are the believers who conclude what is true & moral based soley on reading scripture even if those conclusions are contrary to what their humanity would tell them is the case.
Bat-shit crazy is the non-technical term for these type believers.
@sissyfist I just want to say that there are roughly 2 billion Christians in the world. 1.2 billion are Catholic, and 300 million are Eastern Orthodox. Neither of these two denominations interpret the Bible literally...that's 75% of Christians right there. You might be right in saying the majority of churches if you were to include every tiny denomination, but in saying the majority of Christians interpret it literally...well there are obvious issues with that.
@sissyfist Sorry, that's incorrect. The majority of christians around the world interpret Genesis allegorically. It's mainly American baptists that are biblical literalists.
@AfSaco20, why not? Love is not some smoothly, sweetly sensation and other false things.. Love can be "hard" in terms of secural world; sometimes Father have hit his child for his own good, because normall requests doesn't work on him.
@atheistfromaustria Would you criticize Shakespeare, Dante, T.S. Eliot, and Walt Whitman for not speaking more "clearly?!" God speaks poetically, because poetry gets at the deepest truths.
@wordonfirevideo obviously you haven't read the bible! As most of the believers you believe in some sort of idyllic world with a nice, white bearded sky daddy and an invisible guy performing miracles named Jesus, whereas the atheists are missing the mark by attacking the bible, and the fundamentalists. Your poetic god demands human sacrifice f. ex. Dr. Martin Luther (the famous middle ages translator) says "you want he wouldn'd have done it - but he has" concerning Jephtha (Judges 10,1–12,7)
@atheistfromaustria Man, you need an elementary book of Biblical interpretation! Do you really think that serious religious figures such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman, Bonaventure, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Joseph Ratzinger believe that God is "a nice, white bearded sky daddy?" I mean, come on. Have you ever read poetry? The Bible says that God is a rock. Do you think he's a big stone in the sky? You're knocking down pathetic straw men here.
@wordonfirevideo the perfect word of the omniscient omnipotent creator of all things has to be : interpreted - by fallible humans?? LOL Answer me: why are you convinced that Zeus is phantasy but Jahwe does exist. I could name much more atheist Nobel Prize laureates w'ho say the bible is bullshit. Btw is it really poetic to be in favour of slavery, death penalty, human sacrifice or genocide? I don't think so. And it comes worse: Jesus has most certainly never existed. But dream on!
@atheistfromaustria Well, friend, if human poets need to be interpreted, I don't see why the greatest poet of all should not have to be interpreted. Zeus is a fantasy, because there is no evidence for his existence; but the one who defined himself as "I am" is the conclusion of the argument from contingency. There is rational evidence for his existence. And there is more compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus than for practically any other figure in the ancient world.
@atheistfromaustria, Jesus were saying clearly and quite straight and has been killed for that. Even the simplest truth can be unpleasent for some reasons.
@AfSaco20 Again, I would suggest that these passages be read symbolically and allegorically. When God says that Israel should put the ban on the Amalekites, he means that Israel should utterly eliminate sin, hatred, idolatry, etc.
@AfSaco20 Read those stories metaphorically and allegorically as expressions of God's struggle against evil. And always read the whole Bible in light of Christ crucified.
So, Father,in view of the fact that the Catholic Church encourages a balanced use of the historical-critical method in interpreting Scripture (alongside responsible theological interpretations, according to literary genre, etc.) isn't it clear that on one level, the genocides described in Scripture either did take place, or were at least commanded and approved by the God of Israel, who we say is fully revealed in Jesus Christ?
@billybagbom --Stop whining about the bibles recording of war and genocide; If people did not want to be obliterated they should not have waged war on the Jews and stoped their child sacrifice to the false gods. Clean living is the key.
Nobody is saying that there are no moral lections to learn from the bible, but just as was mentioned, you can only read the bible like a fairytale. And concluding a supernatural magician, who loves 'his' people as a naughty father figure to a state of 'truth' is simply ignorance.
If you drop the magical stuff and say that your god is beyond belief, no atheist will argue against it. If you start giving this god characteristics, your belief will be ridiculed and highly deserves it.
The problem with religion is not that people create their own meanings or interpretations of the passages, but that religious people believe the Bible to be infallible word of God. A fundamentalist would interpret the scriptures literally, while a moderate might make a more decent interpretation. The question is what if popular interpretation of it is wrong and maybe harmful how can non-believers ever challenge it if it's infallible?
@dmitriymazur Believers are not infallible. Only the Pope, in a very different sense, or ecumenical councils, also in a very different sense, have the protection of infallibility.
the Bible has quiet a large amount of violence to be interpreted spiritually. You can't read the Old testament through "Christ's light", because the Old Testament was written before Christ by people who didn't know about him and haven't believed in him. The proper way to read the Old testament is through the eyes of its contemporaries. If you don't do it you're writing you're own Bible, and creating any meaning you want.
@dmitriymazur Well, the most important question is what did God want to communicate through the Bible. Christians hold that our great book is read best from the standpoint of the one who is revealed to be the very Word of God. To be sure, you can approach the Bible as a purely secular text, but then you'll misread it.
@dmitriymazur Maybe, but that's the whole Christian argument--that the true/spiritual meanings of the Old Testament were revealed through Christ. This radical change in the interpretation of meaning is what made the schism of the Jesus sect from the Sadducee, Pharisee, or Essene sect.
@HarfangX, Catholics are generally more careful in there statements since they're generally pretty careful about their theology, which speaks as to why the theology of the Church is so deep and complex. Unfortunately many of the lay Catholics lack good catechesis and spiritual formation. In my view of things if you want to knock down an argument you have to disarm the strongest argument, experimenting in whether such strongest argument can be knocked down.
Hey bj219, Hows about the slaughter of 56 million babies in America in the past 38 years?! Our whole country pretends this doesn't exist. Over 4000 a DAY. Did this happen? 56 million!!! thats the population of 20 states. That is a sickening scourge. Is this fact "history"? The Lord of history will set the record straight.
Hey cool modee73, Can man create the universe? If not, how can you be certain? There are things that man was not meant to KNOW in this life. For example, God instructed Adam that he should not eat of the tree of the "knoweledge" of good and evil". The seductive voice behind our first parents rebellion made Adam want to "know" outside of and without God through disobedience and pride. As this example shows, there are things we are not meant to "Know" in this life. All will be revealed. Have faith
Fr Barron, as we are aware, our faith teaches that the OT is to be read literally with regards to history. I think readers would benefit greatly from comments on why God commanded the slaying of so many when entering the Promise Land. A frank and direct answer,too. yes, through Christological eyes today we read those passages as you indicated but it still happened and people want to know God and can not know Him better without that knowledge. Also mentioning the deaths of two Christians in Acts
I agree with everything you say in this video. I do have a question, however. In regards to applying the moral, allegorical, and spiritual interpretations to the OT, is there not still a literal aspect? That is to say, even though we are speaking about the spiritual side of the story of the Israelites taking the Holy Land to themselves, is there not still a historical quality there? I think the Atheists miss the allegorical, but ask "is non of the OT historical then?"
most people don't look at the bible that way...they see it as literal truth; also, I' m curious to know why the bible, written my men, is so special; if it is supposed to be inspired by God, why is it so easily misunderstood?????
@MoDeeSeventyThree Well heck, if plays written by Shakespeare are hard to understand, why should we expect a book inspired by God to be easy to understand?!
@wordonfirevideo i would think it is much more important to have a clear message from God than one wrapped up in cryptic sayings, metaphor and allegory....so we've been debating this for thousands of years and have incurred much bloodshed and still can't agree; what is the endgame?
@MoDeeSeventyThree Would it be even possible to speak of that which is not an object in the world with language other than the metaphorical, poetic, and symbolic? God is not one more item in the universe that our straightforward scientific language can describe.
@MoDeeSeventyThree Well, there are metaphysical forms of reasoning that give us some insight into the way God exists. But as Thomas Aquinas said, we always know much more clearly what God is not!
@wordonfirevideo I'm most frustrated with the fact that there's nothing WITHIN the scripture that explains how the scripture got there, and by whom, exactly. A few of the gospel authors do this and so does Paul, but much of it is up in the air. If this is the "word of God" then shouldn't Moses have started with something like "You're not going to believe this, but my life took a drastic change when I met God." After all, John explains how he saw Revelation- why not Moses with Genesis?
@feee99 That Moses' life took a drastic turn is pretty clearly presented in the text itself, don't you think?! Revelation is a subtle business. Sometimes it's dramatic, other times not so much, at least on the surface level. I might characterize revelation as a breakthrough of the unconditioned reality. This sometimes happens in spectacular ways; other times, it's like "a small, whispering voice."
@wordonfirevideo Yes it's certainly presented in the text :) However, it seems that if this is the inspired word of God, each author should identify himself, when it was written, and what makes it "inspired." Did each author know that his particular scripture would be selected later as part of a Bible? If so, I would have liked to see something like "My name is Joshua, and I'm continuing Deuteronomy because Moses just died." It would have helped people know it is THE one holy book.
@wordonfirevideo In other words, I know how Moses would be inspired to write his own story. However, at what point did he sit down and write about 6 days of creation, Noah's Ark, etc. and how did he come up with that? You could reply that it isn't important, but there are so many specifics, like the size of the window on the Ark, all the numbers of Israelites, etc. the specific lineage, etc. Why would these things matter, and if they do, how did Moses find out?
@feee99 But friend, that's so ham-handed! God's ways are more subtle than that. I would say that the authors of the scriptures did not know that they were writing "for the Bible." These texts were composed under God's influence and then later assembled through the prudential determination of the believing community.
@Father Barron You forgot to mention "and keep the virgins for yourself " so tell us what is the mining of that? Ohhh, let me guess , that means that God want us to, oh nothing comes to my mind, could you please help me out with this one?
@wordonfirevideo Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
@wordonfirevideo Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
@wordonfirevideo Numbers:31 God commended to keep the virgins for themselves, this is very specific, you can't denied the intention that goes beyond a symple metaphor because in order to know if those young girls were virgins you have to them, this book is not that smart as you could spected from a holly book.
He just said it was straightforward, honest, blunt and that the accounts are straightforward (4:29), then said don't read it straight forwardly (4:49). That seems a bit equivocal.
@LovesTrueSoul The texts of the Bible belong to a wide variety of genres. That's why some are to be taken more literally and others more poetically. I'm not equivocating; I'm respecting the difference in genre.
@lewisejackson ...Which is one reason Christ spoke in so many parables. I can't expect to understand God's person merely with my intellect because I am also body, heart, and soul. So we come to a greater understanding of His person with the fulness and totality of our Being, mind and body together,--not with the head alone. If He created us, it is obvious we weren't created to think only like automated computational machines, since we are also flesh, warts and all.
@mypolicy9 Okay...still doesn't explain why god can't communicate his wishes clearly and unambiguously in the bible or why there are so many different interpretations of it. Even the people who spend their lives studying the bible can't come to an agreement on what it says. That does not say much about god's writing ability. Even children can write so their meaning is clear.
@lewisejackson "...still doesn't explain why god can't communicate his wishes clearly and unambiguously in the bible."
--He does.
"why there are so many different interpretations of it."
--Which is a direct result of not heeding the authority of the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit. Catholics do not believe in "Sola Scriptura"--they never have.
"That does not say much about god's writing ability."
--It says everything about human error. (And God didn't "dictate" it.)
@mypolicy9 So the bible is clear and unambiguous but people don't recognize it because they don't belong to the right church. If they did, then they'd realize that its interpretation is correct...but if they don't belong to that church already, how are they to know which interpretation is right? Couldn't god have transmitted his message in a way so that the correct interpretation would be obvious to everyone regardless of the church they belonged to?
@lewisejackson "Couldn't god have transmitted his message in a way so that the correct interpretation would be obvious to everyone regardless of the church they belonged to?"
He DID infallibly transmit it. You're not understanding me. The problem is not God's, but human beings'. God can be explicitly clear and articulate all he wants; it is not going to make a difference. As a result of freely choosing to turn away from God in sin humans are blind and continually lose sight of the Truth.
@mypolicy9 If god didn't write the bible and god didn't dictate the bible then why do people revere it as god's word? It seems as if humans wrote it entirely that would make it their word and not god's. Why should I take the word of some humans who lived thousands of years ago? It seems to me that the only way we'd know it was the word of god and not something that someone just thought up would be if it spoke to everyone everywhere in the same way, which it obviously doesn't.
@mypolicy9 If god is all-powerful and all-knowing then he should be able to write or "inspire" a document that breeds consensus regardless of human sin. Unless, somehow, human sin is more powerful than god. Is that the case? Are sinful humans more powerful than their creator? Is god really not able to write something that appeals to everyone because we're sinful? If god is not all-powerful, then my objections don't hold any merit. Is god not really all-powerful?
@lewisejackson "Are sinful humans more powerful than their creator? Is god really not able to write something that appeals to everyone because we're sinful? "
--God cannot make people NOT sin, just as God cannot force someone to love him. Forcing people to Love you violates free will, and is directly contrary to God's nature. God cannot make 2+2=5, nor can he make any logical contradiction true. But this doesn't make him any less powerful. God IS love; God is Logic; God IS the Good.
And God who controls time and space will resurrect all those who've fallen not knowing him adequately. Just as in Noah's flood God deluged the world to remove sin, he's been warning the world since time immemorial. God's thoughts are not man's thoughts, man sees through a finite prism, but God surpasses those boundaries. Humanity cannot dwell in abject sin and dwell with God, in who's image he was created. Love is the underpinning of the universal creation.
Great point Doctor about God mandating pagan societal extermination. God actually commanded such things out of Love. To excise sin from conjoining with ancient Israel who were kings and priests, the beacon of light and salvation for the world if they obeyed; we know the story. God was trying to save the world through Israel which is why he decreed extermination of sin, because man cannot dwell with his God in sin because God is holy.
"People who read the bible with sophistication"? A book written by the most powerful being in the universe and he can't communicate his message so it can be understood by non-scholars. Sounds to me like god is either a very poor writer or that Father Barron and his ilk are rationalizing so they don't have to admit that the stupid, outdated, and barbaric parts of the bible are actually stupid, outdated and barbaric.
@lewisejackson I'm continually amazed at how many people think that Catholics look at the Bible the same way a Muslim looks at the Koran or a Mormon at the book of Mormon. We don't think that the Bible was "dictated" by God. It is the Word of God in the words of men, as Vatican II puts it. Therefore, of course it has to be interpreted and "what it teaches"is not always simply identical to "what it says."
@wordonfirevideo "The word of God in the words of men?" Why does god need a middleman? Why can't he communicate his ideas directly? Why didn't god give his words to men in ways that would be clear and umambiguous? He is all knowing and all powerful, surely he could have found a way to communicate without any confusion. Your assertion that the Bible is god's word in the words of men avoids rather than answers my question.
@mypolicy9 I thought the point of the Bible was for god to explain himself to his followers. Silly me for thinking that he'd be able to do that directly without needing further explanation. He's like a professor who gives a three hour lecture on a subject and then says, "See me after class so I can tell you what I really meant". If I have to ask him directly to get answers, then what is the point of the bible and the holy men?
yawn...It's no surprise to find another amateur incapable of well-reasoned discourse and substantive thought. Say something above your IQ, and maybe we'll have something to discuss.
@mypolicy9 Maybe we'd have something to discuss if you answered my questions instead of thinking up new insults. If you can't answer them, there is no shame in admitting it.
@lewisejackson "What's the point of the bible if we can know God directly?" is a misguided question. The Bible is a historical, eschatological, & theological record of God's dealings with his chosen people, & to know him on more intimate terms involves our own spiritual participation in the Divine life. Both Scripture & personal Relationship bring us deeper understanding of WHO God IS within the greater historical covenant with his people. The one doesn't render the other superfluous.
@mypolicy9 No my questions was: why does the bible require so much sophisticated interpretation to understand it? If god is all powerful and all knowing and wants to communicate with us, he should be able to do so in a way that is clear and unambigous. The response I got to this question was to pray to god for an answer, which avoids the issue. It also raises another question: if I have to talk to god to understand the bible then what use is the bible?
@lewisejackson " If god is all powerful and all knowing and wants to communicate with us, he should be able to do so in a way that is clear and unambigous."
--And he does. In prayer we encounter God's very person. This doesn't "avoid the issue"; this gets right at the point. For 2000 years christians have been insisting that a deeper understanding of God's Person through the Holy Spirit comes by way of communion & prayer. There is nothing problematic about this from a Christian POV.
@lewisejackson " why does the bible require so much sophisticated interpretation to understand it?"
--The language in the Bible couldn't get more clear than it is, but problems arise because the inner dimensions of morality, the complex inner psychological life of sinful man, and what is needed in the spiritual ascent to God's divine holiness in the Beatific vision is not a subject one can capture with a set of stereo instructions. Personal encounter makes up for what language lacks.
@mypolicy9 So, let me understand this...the language of the bible is perfectly clear but people can't understand it because of their complex psychology. Isn't that the sort of thing that an all-powerful, all-knowing god should be able to compensate for? Even if all of god's divine holiness can't be captured in a book, shouldn't he still be able to make a book that his sinful creations can clearly understand? He is omnipenent and omniscient, after all; can't shouldn't be in his vocabulary.
@lewisejackson "Even if all of god's divine holiness can't be captured in a book, shouldn't he still be able to make a book that his sinful creations can clearly understand? "
--But we CAN properly understand the Bible by the guidance of the Holy Spirit in relationship with His Person. What would be so compeling about human omnisicience without God's assistance that makes you think this is something God would even want to do?
@mypolicy9 If we can't understand the bible without god there to explain it to us, why did he write it, or inspire it, in the first place? It sounds like the bible is utterly superfluous. If it can't be understood without divine revelation, then why not rely on that exclusively? What author writes a book that no one can understand unless they track down the author and make him explain it?
--What do you not understand? The Ultimate Good of humanity is to know, love, and serve God. Without a personal encounter with God, the deeper message of the Bible—which is God’s love for humankind--cannot be fully understood. Though, of course, someone can certainly understand the history and moral teachings without God's assistance....[continued]
@mypolicy9 I don't understand why god sticks to this unnecessarily complex method of communicating with the world. The bible is an invitation? Then why isn't it a clear invitation? Why doesn't everyone who reads it see that it is? Why have so many people read it and remained unconvinced? Can't god get his message across in a persuasive method that everyone can understand? Doesn't he want to do so? If he does, and he's all-powerful and all-knowing, then why hasn't he?
@mypolicy9 I have and its not. The existence of billions of non-christians indicates that I am not the only one who thinks so. Lots of people have read it and thought it to be ancient nonsense. They're not denying it, they just think it has about as much authenticity as the Illiad. If its written by god, shouldn't it be more convincing than Homer's work? If an all-powerful, all-nowing god wrote it, shouldn't it be compelling to everyone? Shouldn't it be convincing to everyone?
@lewisejackson "I have and its not. The existence of billions of non-christians indicates that I am not the only one who thinks so."
--Then you need to read it again because a billion of you are illiterate. John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, and whosoever believes Him shall not perish but have eternal life." And, in Christ's words, "I have come to bring life to the many that they might have it to the fullest." If anything is an invitation, this sure is.
"If its written by god, shouldn't it be more convincing than Homer's work?"
--Apparently, it is. There are over 2 billion Christians, proportionally the largest religion in the world. Obviously, the Bible is much more compelling than Homer.
"If an all-powerful, all-nowing god wrote it, shouldn't it be compelling to everyone?"
--I see no reason for thinking this is true at all. History shows human beings of all ages, cultures, and religions are a sinful mess.
@lewisejackson "Can't god get his message across in a persuasive method that everyone can understand?Doesn't he want to do so? "
--It's not about "persuasion." It's about Love. And God cannot force human creatures to Love him.
"If he does, and he's all-powerful and all-knowing, then why hasn't he?"
--He has! Who do you Christ is? God has revealed himself to people in the person of Christ, and they crucified Him for heaven's sake. It's not God's problem.
@lewisejackson "don't understand why god sticks to this unnecessarily complex method of communicating with the world."
--Like I said, relationships do not come with a set a stereo instructions. They are complicated and messy things. You can read the Bible like a scholar, read it like a philosopher, and read it like a historian. But until enter into dialogue with it like a lover, you will understand very little.
@mypolicy9 That's my point. If I have to talk to the author to understand it, that's the sign of poor writing and not a divine presence. An all-powerful, all-knowing god wants to communicate with us; he should have the power and the ability to do so in a way that is clear and unambiguous. Since the message of the bible is obviously not clear and unambiguous, as exemplified by all the different interpretations of it, then it indicates that one (or all) of the qualities of god is nonexistent.
@lewisejackson ". Since the message of the bible is obviously not clear and unambiguous, as exemplified by all the different interpretations of it, then it indicates that one (or all) of the qualities of god is nonexistent."
--The problem is people, not God. Furthermore, this is logically fallacious. That people have difficulty with God's message does not entail that one (or all) of God's qualities are "non-existent." Try agin.
Consequently, the Bible is an invitation to all those who don’t yet believe in him, since God cannot fully reveal himself in his entirety to all those don’t want to get to know Him. Hence, the “need” for the Bible.
@mypolicy9 If the bible is supposed to help bring people to god, shouldn't it be written in such a way that everyone finds it compelling and understandable? Shouldn't clarity be god's primary aim? If people have different interpretations then it causes confusion which would make it harder to figure out god's real message which would tend to prevent people from coming to god which is the supposed point of the bible! Again, why can't god communicate in a way that is clear and unambiguous?
--God's aim is love. With Love comes understanding and clarity.
"If people have different interpretations then it causes confusion which would make it harder to figure out god's real message which would tend to prevent people from coming to god which is the supposed point of the bible! "
--The problem is not in the Bible. The problem is people adjusting their interpretation of scripture to match their complacency in Sin.
@lewisejackson "Again, why can't god communicate in a way that is clear and unambiguous?"
--He does. People choose to ignore that message. The spiritual blindness evoked here just proves my point. If you truly desire to know, start praying and start searching all the religious traditions out there. You just might fight something. I did.
@mypolicy9 God can't create a message to compelling that people can't ignore it? Not everyone's a fan of Shakespeare but its impossible to ignore his works. Why can't god do the same? Is he not as good?
@lewisejackson "God can't create a message to compelling that people can't ignore it?"
--You can't force or "compel" someone to love you.
"Not everyone's a fan of Shakespeare but its impossible to ignore his works. Why can't god do the same? Is he not as good?"
--Good example, because it undermines your very point. Not everyone's a fan of the Bible, but its impossible to ignore his works. Even are atheists compelled to read it if only to attack it.
@mypolicy9 The presence of billions of non-christians on the planet indicated that it doesn't. The millions of western christians leaving the faith indicated that it doesn't. If you are blind to those obvious facts then I wonder what the point of debating is. You're like a broken record, tossing out the same, unconvincing arguments over and over. If you're so comitted going in circles its not worth the mental effort to try and correct you.
@lewisejackson "The presence of billions of non-christians on the planet indicated that it doesn't. The millions of western christians leaving the faith indicated that it doesn't. If you are blind to those obvious facts then I wonder what the point of debating is."
--Christianity is the largest religion in the world, and the millions of growing numbers of Christians in non-Western countries to this day suggests that it does have an impact. What's the point of debating if you ignore this?
@mypolicy9 I'm sorry, I guess I was distracting by all the polls showing nonrelgious people on the rise and Christians on the decline in all western countries. The most recent was the gallop poll conducted here in America showing that nonreligion has grown faster than any relgion. What's the point of debating you if you ignore this?
@lewisejackson "I was distracting by all the polls showing nonrelgious people on the rise and Christians on the decline in all western countries."
--What sociological conclusion can be derived from this other than that American culture is the more narcissistic and materialistic than other cultures, with the decline of nuclear families, the rise of sexual immorality and abortion, and diminishing consumer expectations? Read "The Culture of Narcissism" by C. Lasch.
@lewisejackson "I'm sorry, I guess I was distracting by all the polls showing nonrelgious people on the rise and Christians on the decline in all western countries."
--And I guess I was distracted at by the fact that America only accounts for 0.05% of the total world population. The decline of those losing faith Christianity is in America alone is insignificant compared to its rise and preponderance elsewhere. I guess Christianity must not have an appeal since only 2 billion are adherents
@lewisejackson "You're like a broken record, tossing out the same, unconvincing arguments over and over."
--Addressing your elementary complaints is rather easy task, and I am still waiting for a reasoned counter argument from you instead of repeated blind assertions ignoring what I just said. That you don't like an argument is not a well-reasoned objection to it. I don't care if you're pleased or not. I am only sharing what Christians have thought for over 2 thousand years.
@mypolicy9 Actually, you haven't addressed my argument at all. If god is all-powerful and all-knowing and wants to communicate his will to his followers then, logially, he should be able to do so. He has the power and knowledge to carry out his own wishes. However, since his followers can't agree on what god's will is it indicates that one of the above axioms is false. Your counter-arguments are simply attempts to work your way around or weaken one of those axioms and they aren't effective.
@lewisejackson "If god is all-powerful and all-knowing and wants to communicate his will to his followers then, logially, he should be able to do so. "
@mypolicy9 The fact that christians can't agree on just what god's will is is pretty self-evident (since there are over 20,000 denominations), so unless you're willing to acknowledge that god is somehow less powerful, less knowledgable or less desiring of communication with his followers than people say I'm pretty sure that your arguments defending the bible are going to continue to fail as they have been.
@lewisejackson ""However, since his followers can't agree on what god's will is it indicates that one of the above axioms is false."
--Which axiom did you have in mind? Inconsistency means there is a contradiction. If one of my statements is inconsistent with God being all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful, then you seriously need to logically deduce that contradiction with a set of premises and conclusion. If you can't, then give it up. You convince no one.
@mypolicy9 And while its been fun watching you try and squirm out from under this logical puzzle I don't don't think I'll have the patience for another round of your illogic. Goodbye.
@lewisejackson "its been fun watching you try and squirm out from under this logical puzzle"
--What "logical puzzle"? You don't even have a case, and your complaints are rather trite & easily addressed.
"your illogic"
--Challenge: Show the logical inconsistency using true premises with which I can agree, and subsequently deducing my contradiction. Hint: It's called "reductio ad absurdum": deducing the falsity of one of my premises by deriving a contradiction from its assumption.
@lewisejackson "If god is all-powerful and all-knowing and wants to communicate his will to his followers then, logially, he should be able to do so. "
@lewisejackson ...after all, brute knowledge without the right relationship to God is nothing of value apart from Him. We love in order to understand, and we don't understand if we don't have love. It is even popularly said that "evil spirits have a clear knowledge of God's existence but still decide to reject him."
@mypolicy9 All of those sentences are grammatically correct, with correctly spelled words, but they don't make any sense. We have to have a relationship with god in order to understand the bible? We have to love to understand and understand to love? Your argument has gone completely around in a circle without ever arriving at a conclusion.
@lewisejackson "All of those sentences are grammatically correct, with correctly spelled words, but they don't make any sense. We have to have a relationship with god in order to understand the bible?"
--whatever. This shouldn't be surprising to you. It is obvious that we will understand the personal letter of someone we know and love well better than someone with whom we are not familiar at all.
@mypolicy9 Not "whatever". If you can't communicate in ways that I can understand how are we supposed to talk? How am I supposed to be won over if I can't follow your logic or if your sentences are gobblty-gook? And while I know that I will understand a friend's letter better than a stranger's letter, strangers can still write to me in ways that I can understand clearly and unambiguously. Surely an all-powerful god can communicate better than the DMV staff telling me I need new car tabs.
@lewisejackson "How am I supposed to be won over if I can't follow your logic or if your sentences are gobblty-gook?"
You understand perfectly well, and choose to be difficult. Do you deny we can understand the "word" of someone whom we know and love very well better than the word of someone we don't know that well? If you don't, then I can't help you because this should be a trivially true point.
@mypolicy9 I can understand the words of people regardless of whether I know them personally or not. People who want to communicate their ideas do so in a manner than can be understood by everyone, regardless of whether they know then personally. If Plato, Hume, and Kant can do it, why can't god?
@lewisejackson "And while I know that I will understand a friend's letter better than a stranger's letter, strangers can still write to me in ways that I can understand clearly and unambiguously."
--Maybe with regard to the plain facts. But surely you can deduce the intent and meaning of a letter much better from a person whom you know well than don't know that well. There are plenty of cases like this in real life.
@mypolicy9 I can still deduce it from a stranger as well. That's the whole point of writing, to communicate effectively without actually having to be in the presence of the letter writer.
@lewisejackson "I can still deduce it from a stranger as well."
--No you can't. What's the issue, here? Every half-ass psychologist will tell that two people in a relationship grow to an ever deepening understanding of eachother as the years progress, assuming they make the effort. If they don't make the effort, they will never uncover the deeper levels of eachother's persons. You can't deduce a full personality profile from a mere letter. You need to get to know the person first.
@lewisejackson You sound like a typical young modern person influenced by western (largely) american attitude: so opinionated yet, so uneducated. But, this one's not meant to be a generalization. They just make a lot of noise. Or, perhaps, it seems to be a trend. Peace bro!
@Mannheim67 Not to generalize, but you sound like a typical religious person who is used to substituting assumptions, conjectures and guesswork for actual evidence. They make a lot of noise to distract from the fact that they can't answer any real questions about their religion.
@lewisejackson my friend, it's not about 'assumptions, conjectures, guesswork & actual evidence'. You just have to KNOW & perhaps, admit, that the bible is THEIR book (the believers, i mean). It is what it is to them. If you don't like the terms they associate it with, well, that's really YOUR OPINION. you don't have to delve into their world if it seems absurd to you. I never thought english speakers were crazy when they said they 'could eat a horse'. I just asked what it meant. tsk, tsk, tsk.
@Mannheim67 The validity of the bible is not a matter of opinion. Either it is the world of god or it is not. What people believe about the bible has real world consequences. If they were debating the finer points of "Batman vs. Superman" then it wouldn't matter. Then what I said would be opinion. As long as religions have real power and influence and claim that their holy books make accurately prescribe human behavior then they have to be challeneged.
Please dont take offence, but I would really like your thoughts on this. Pretend for a minute, we live in 300 BC, how do the things you say apply? again not being rude, but please dont launch into a diatribe of "thats why Jesus came....." what would you say to me about interpruting the old testement if we were living in 300BC?
@ariewillow Well, first of all, it isn't mine. It's Origen's, from the second century. Christians have been reading many of these allegorically for a long time!
@bongolongo No. The way out of your dilemma is to accept the Catholic position that the Bible is best read within an interpretive community called the church. This is not unlike the literary community that "reads" Hamlet or Moby Dick or The Wasteland. You wouldn't just pick up those texts and try to read them on your own. You would consult the great interpretive tradtion that has read them over the years. Think of the Church and the Bible along those lines.
But then the Bible becomes whatever these select clergymen make of it, which sounds very subjective to me. Why should someone take their interpretation for granted? Why not read it and make up your own conclusion?
Aside from that, my dilemma still stands, as there had to be a first catholic priest -- where did he get the correct interpretation from if he couldn't have reached it on his own?
Btw, I did read Hamlet and Moby Dick on my own, and I find my own conclusions from them quite valid.
@bongolongo But are you utterly uninterested in finding out what the community of discourse has said about those texts? Do you think that you, on your own, have come to the definitive interpretation? This is why Catholics have always balked at Luther's insistence on "private interpretation" of the Bible. We feel that it is much better read within a long and complex tradition of interpretation.
@wordonfirevideo No, I'm very interested in hearing what they think. Likewise, after watching a movie I love to discuss with others what they thought of it. Not because it brings us closer to a definitive interpretation -- I think their interpretation is as arbitrary as mine -- but it's interesting because their views give me insight into their character and cultural heritage.
on what basis should one favor this non-literal interpretation of the bible over a young earth creationist's? or a snake-handler's for that matter?
castelgandalf 1 month ago
Father Barron, which books in the Old Testament should be taken as straightforward history?
MrCamus1960 5 months ago
So Father Barron, when the Bible does talk about God commanding atrocities, events that cause harm to people, is this not straightforward history? Is it just a made up event to express a great truth, which is as you said God wanting sin in us to be completely eliminated?
MrCamus1960 6 months ago
@MrCamus1960 Closer to the latter.
wordonfirevideo 6 months ago 2
The problem with Barron's assertion that the "correct" interpretive method is needed to understand scripture is the following: What objective criteria do you use to determine the correct interpretive viewpoint? Answer: There is none, hence, you get the 3,000+ denominations of christianity alone.
Religious pluralism is the lock-down, objective refutation of the thestic interpretation justification of scripture.
All that is left is "My interpretation is the correct one & your's isn't"
LetReasonPrevail1 5 months ago
Please consider that theistic interpretation of scripture is a backward mode of thinking
It starts with the conclusion and back-fills the supporting premises and support.
Almost all believers start with their own concept of god & ideas of right & wrong, then they go about interpreting scripture to support these already-held beliefs
And the bible is sufficiently ambiguous & contradictory to allow anyone to successfully support any concept of god or any idea of morality
LetReasonPrevail1 5 months ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 "the bible is sufficiently ambiguous & contradictory to allow anyone to successfully support any concept of god or any idea of morality"
Not totally. Granted, there are some ambiguities. But the main message "love thy neighbor" is quite clear. As for the "ambiguities", thats why we need organized religion (the church) to help us interpret it correctly. After all, the church chose which books should be in the bible so shouldn't the church be a source of authority on it?
MensaElite333 5 months ago
Please don't get me wrong. The fact that most believers partake of this backward mode of thinking is a good thing. By doing so, that unwittingly allow their own common sense & humanistic qualities to rule the day.
By contrast, the ones to worry about are the believers who conclude what is true & moral based soley on reading scripture even if those conclusions are contrary to what their humanity would tell them is the case.
Bat-shit crazy is the non-technical term for these type believers.
LetReasonPrevail1 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo What say you?
LetReasonPrevail1 5 months ago
Very dishonest response to hitchen's book. The majority of churches and christians interperate the bible literally.
sissyfist 8 months ago
@sissyfist How in the world is it "dishonest" for a Catholic priest to present the Catholic method of interpreting the Bible?!
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago 26
@sissyfist I just want to say that there are roughly 2 billion Christians in the world. 1.2 billion are Catholic, and 300 million are Eastern Orthodox. Neither of these two denominations interpret the Bible literally...that's 75% of Christians right there. You might be right in saying the majority of churches if you were to include every tiny denomination, but in saying the majority of Christians interpret it literally...well there are obvious issues with that.
djspenceital 8 months ago
@sissyfist Sorry, that's incorrect. The majority of christians around the world interpret Genesis allegorically. It's mainly American baptists that are biblical literalists.
BronyEditor 1 month ago
@AfSaco20, why not? Love is not some smoothly, sweetly sensation and other false things.. Love can be "hard" in terms of secural world; sometimes Father have hit his child for his own good, because normall requests doesn't work on him.
metal87power 8 months ago
I often wonder why god can't express himself properly. He can create galaxies but can't speak clearly.... how strange
atheistfromaustria 8 months ago
@atheistfromaustria Would you criticize Shakespeare, Dante, T.S. Eliot, and Walt Whitman for not speaking more "clearly?!" God speaks poetically, because poetry gets at the deepest truths.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
@wordonfirevideo obviously you haven't read the bible! As most of the believers you believe in some sort of idyllic world with a nice, white bearded sky daddy and an invisible guy performing miracles named Jesus, whereas the atheists are missing the mark by attacking the bible, and the fundamentalists. Your poetic god demands human sacrifice f. ex. Dr. Martin Luther (the famous middle ages translator) says "you want he wouldn'd have done it - but he has" concerning Jephtha (Judges 10,1–12,7)
atheistfromaustria 8 months ago
@atheistfromaustria Man, you need an elementary book of Biblical interpretation! Do you really think that serious religious figures such as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman, Bonaventure, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Joseph Ratzinger believe that God is "a nice, white bearded sky daddy?" I mean, come on. Have you ever read poetry? The Bible says that God is a rock. Do you think he's a big stone in the sky? You're knocking down pathetic straw men here.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago 5
@wordonfirevideo the perfect word of the omniscient omnipotent creator of all things has to be : interpreted - by fallible humans?? LOL Answer me: why are you convinced that Zeus is phantasy but Jahwe does exist. I could name much more atheist Nobel Prize laureates w'ho say the bible is bullshit. Btw is it really poetic to be in favour of slavery, death penalty, human sacrifice or genocide? I don't think so. And it comes worse: Jesus has most certainly never existed. But dream on!
atheistfromaustria 8 months ago
@atheistfromaustria Well, friend, if human poets need to be interpreted, I don't see why the greatest poet of all should not have to be interpreted. Zeus is a fantasy, because there is no evidence for his existence; but the one who defined himself as "I am" is the conclusion of the argument from contingency. There is rational evidence for his existence. And there is more compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus than for practically any other figure in the ancient world.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago 15
@atheistfromaustria, first of all, analyse what G o d means in culture (specifically in European, Christian culture), then we can play, boy.
metal87power 8 months ago
@atheistfromaustria, Jesus were saying clearly and quite straight and has been killed for that. Even the simplest truth can be unpleasent for some reasons.
metal87power 8 months ago
@AfSaco20 Again, I would suggest that these passages be read symbolically and allegorically. When God says that Israel should put the ban on the Amalekites, he means that Israel should utterly eliminate sin, hatred, idolatry, etc.
wordonfirevideo 9 months ago
@AfSaco20 Read those stories metaphorically and allegorically as expressions of God's struggle against evil. And always read the whole Bible in light of Christ crucified.
wordonfirevideo 9 months ago
So, Father,in view of the fact that the Catholic Church encourages a balanced use of the historical-critical method in interpreting Scripture (alongside responsible theological interpretations, according to literary genre, etc.) isn't it clear that on one level, the genocides described in Scripture either did take place, or were at least commanded and approved by the God of Israel, who we say is fully revealed in Jesus Christ?
billybagbom 11 months ago
@billybagbom --Stop whining about the bibles recording of war and genocide; If people did not want to be obliterated they should not have waged war on the Jews and stoped their child sacrifice to the false gods. Clean living is the key.
WayOfTheMaster454 10 months ago
@WayOfTheMaster454 Thanks. That clears things up for me.
billybagbom 9 months ago
Nobody is saying that there are no moral lections to learn from the bible, but just as was mentioned, you can only read the bible like a fairytale. And concluding a supernatural magician, who loves 'his' people as a naughty father figure to a state of 'truth' is simply ignorance.
If you drop the magical stuff and say that your god is beyond belief, no atheist will argue against it. If you start giving this god characteristics, your belief will be ridiculed and highly deserves it.
Canafly 1 year ago
great way to end it sir, people who read on a sophistication!
libetta 1 year ago
The problem with religion is not that people create their own meanings or interpretations of the passages, but that religious people believe the Bible to be infallible word of God. A fundamentalist would interpret the scriptures literally, while a moderate might make a more decent interpretation. The question is what if popular interpretation of it is wrong and maybe harmful how can non-believers ever challenge it if it's infallible?
dmitriymazur 1 year ago 3
@dmitriymazur Believers are not infallible. Only the Pope, in a very different sense, or ecumenical councils, also in a very different sense, have the protection of infallibility.
benabaxter 11 months ago 3
the Bible has quiet a large amount of violence to be interpreted spiritually. You can't read the Old testament through "Christ's light", because the Old Testament was written before Christ by people who didn't know about him and haven't believed in him. The proper way to read the Old testament is through the eyes of its contemporaries. If you don't do it you're writing you're own Bible, and creating any meaning you want.
dmitriymazur 1 year ago
@dmitriymazur Well, the most important question is what did God want to communicate through the Bible. Christians hold that our great book is read best from the standpoint of the one who is revealed to be the very Word of God. To be sure, you can approach the Bible as a purely secular text, but then you'll misread it.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 3
@dmitriymazur Maybe, but that's the whole Christian argument--that the true/spiritual meanings of the Old Testament were revealed through Christ. This radical change in the interpretation of meaning is what made the schism of the Jesus sect from the Sadducee, Pharisee, or Essene sect.
copperblade 9 months ago
"New atheists" often address ... lets call em "new christians" & the way those people interpret the bible themselves is pretty different from yours.
Those new Christians.... their voice is way louder than yours. They are political, they don't just live their values but out to impose them on others.
They are irrational yet powerful. Easy but worthy targets.
HarfangX 1 year ago
@HarfangX, Catholics are generally more careful in there statements since they're generally pretty careful about their theology, which speaks as to why the theology of the Church is so deep and complex. Unfortunately many of the lay Catholics lack good catechesis and spiritual formation. In my view of things if you want to knock down an argument you have to disarm the strongest argument, experimenting in whether such strongest argument can be knocked down.
cooliodraw2 1 year ago
Hey bj219, Hows about the slaughter of 56 million babies in America in the past 38 years?! Our whole country pretends this doesn't exist. Over 4000 a DAY. Did this happen? 56 million!!! thats the population of 20 states. That is a sickening scourge. Is this fact "history"? The Lord of history will set the record straight.
bheadh 1 year ago
Hey cool modee73, Can man create the universe? If not, how can you be certain? There are things that man was not meant to KNOW in this life. For example, God instructed Adam that he should not eat of the tree of the "knoweledge" of good and evil". The seductive voice behind our first parents rebellion made Adam want to "know" outside of and without God through disobedience and pride. As this example shows, there are things we are not meant to "Know" in this life. All will be revealed. Have faith
bheadh 1 year ago
Comment removed
BJ219 1 year ago
Father, are you saying Scripture's description of the slaughter of thousands by the Jews is not history? That it did not happen?
BJ219 1 year ago
Comment removed
BJ219 1 year ago
Fr Barron, as we are aware, our faith teaches that the OT is to be read literally with regards to history. I think readers would benefit greatly from comments on why God commanded the slaying of so many when entering the Promise Land. A frank and direct answer,too. yes, through Christological eyes today we read those passages as you indicated but it still happened and people want to know God and can not know Him better without that knowledge. Also mentioning the deaths of two Christians in Acts
kenshin777ut 1 year ago
Dear Father.
I agree with everything you say in this video. I do have a question, however. In regards to applying the moral, allegorical, and spiritual interpretations to the OT, is there not still a literal aspect? That is to say, even though we are speaking about the spiritual side of the story of the Israelites taking the Holy Land to themselves, is there not still a historical quality there? I think the Atheists miss the allegorical, but ask "is non of the OT historical then?"
lindyholic 1 year ago
most people don't look at the bible that way...they see it as literal truth; also, I' m curious to know why the bible, written my men, is so special; if it is supposed to be inspired by God, why is it so easily misunderstood?????
MoDeeSeventyThree 1 year ago
@MoDeeSeventyThree Well heck, if plays written by Shakespeare are hard to understand, why should we expect a book inspired by God to be easy to understand?!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo i would think it is much more important to have a clear message from God than one wrapped up in cryptic sayings, metaphor and allegory....so we've been debating this for thousands of years and have incurred much bloodshed and still can't agree; what is the endgame?
MoDeeSeventyThree 1 year ago
@MoDeeSeventyThree Would it be even possible to speak of that which is not an object in the world with language other than the metaphorical, poetic, and symbolic? God is not one more item in the universe that our straightforward scientific language can describe.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo you make these statements about god, how can you be so certain of anything?
MoDeeSeventyThree 1 year ago
@MoDeeSeventyThree Well, there are metaphysical forms of reasoning that give us some insight into the way God exists. But as Thomas Aquinas said, we always know much more clearly what God is not!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo I'm most frustrated with the fact that there's nothing WITHIN the scripture that explains how the scripture got there, and by whom, exactly. A few of the gospel authors do this and so does Paul, but much of it is up in the air. If this is the "word of God" then shouldn't Moses have started with something like "You're not going to believe this, but my life took a drastic change when I met God." After all, John explains how he saw Revelation- why not Moses with Genesis?
feee99 1 year ago
@feee99 That Moses' life took a drastic turn is pretty clearly presented in the text itself, don't you think?! Revelation is a subtle business. Sometimes it's dramatic, other times not so much, at least on the surface level. I might characterize revelation as a breakthrough of the unconditioned reality. This sometimes happens in spectacular ways; other times, it's like "a small, whispering voice."
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Yes it's certainly presented in the text :) However, it seems that if this is the inspired word of God, each author should identify himself, when it was written, and what makes it "inspired." Did each author know that his particular scripture would be selected later as part of a Bible? If so, I would have liked to see something like "My name is Joshua, and I'm continuing Deuteronomy because Moses just died." It would have helped people know it is THE one holy book.
feee99 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo In other words, I know how Moses would be inspired to write his own story. However, at what point did he sit down and write about 6 days of creation, Noah's Ark, etc. and how did he come up with that? You could reply that it isn't important, but there are so many specifics, like the size of the window on the Ark, all the numbers of Israelites, etc. the specific lineage, etc. Why would these things matter, and if they do, how did Moses find out?
feee99 1 year ago
@feee99 But friend, that's so ham-handed! God's ways are more subtle than that. I would say that the authors of the scriptures did not know that they were writing "for the Bible." These texts were composed under God's influence and then later assembled through the prudential determination of the believing community.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 2
@Father Barron You forgot to mention "and keep the virgins for yourself " so tell us what is the mining of that? Ohhh, let me guess , that means that God want us to, oh nothing comes to my mind, could you please help me out with this one?
jormorcastan 1 year ago
@jormorcastan I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about here, friend.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Numbers 31:17-18.
jormorcastan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Numbers 31:17-18.
jormorcastan 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Numbers:31 God commended to keep the virgins for themselves, this is very specific, you can't denied the intention that goes beyond a symple metaphor because in order to know if those young girls were virgins you have to them, this book is not that smart as you could spected from a holly book.
jormorcastan 1 year ago
He just said it was straightforward, honest, blunt and that the accounts are straightforward (4:29), then said don't read it straight forwardly (4:49). That seems a bit equivocal.
LovesTrueSoul 1 year ago
@LovesTrueSoul The texts of the Bible belong to a wide variety of genres. That's why some are to be taken more literally and others more poetically. I'm not equivocating; I'm respecting the difference in genre.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lewisejackson "Actually you haven't addressed my argument at all."
--What argument are you talking about? Can you please list the premises and conclusion?
"If God is all-powerful and all-knowiing and wants to communicate his will to his followers, then he should be able to do so."
--He can and he does. So what's the problem?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lewisejackson
"Actually, you haven't addressed my argument at all."
--What argument are you even talking about? Can you please list the premises and conclusion?
"If god is all-powerful and all-knowing and wants to communicate his will to his followers then, logially, he should be able to do so. "
--He can and he does. So what's the problem?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Comment removed
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson ...Which is one reason Christ spoke in so many parables. I can't expect to understand God's person merely with my intellect because I am also body, heart, and soul. So we come to a greater understanding of His person with the fulness and totality of our Being, mind and body together,--not with the head alone. If He created us, it is obvious we weren't created to think only like automated computational machines, since we are also flesh, warts and all.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Okay...still doesn't explain why god can't communicate his wishes clearly and unambiguously in the bible or why there are so many different interpretations of it. Even the people who spend their lives studying the bible can't come to an agreement on what it says. That does not say much about god's writing ability. Even children can write so their meaning is clear.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "...still doesn't explain why god can't communicate his wishes clearly and unambiguously in the bible."
--He does.
"why there are so many different interpretations of it."
--Which is a direct result of not heeding the authority of the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit. Catholics do not believe in "Sola Scriptura"--they never have.
"That does not say much about god's writing ability."
--It says everything about human error. (And God didn't "dictate" it.)
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 So the bible is clear and unambiguous but people don't recognize it because they don't belong to the right church. If they did, then they'd realize that its interpretation is correct...but if they don't belong to that church already, how are they to know which interpretation is right? Couldn't god have transmitted his message in a way so that the correct interpretation would be obvious to everyone regardless of the church they belonged to?
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "Couldn't god have transmitted his message in a way so that the correct interpretation would be obvious to everyone regardless of the church they belonged to?"
He DID infallibly transmit it. You're not understanding me. The problem is not God's, but human beings'. God can be explicitly clear and articulate all he wants; it is not going to make a difference. As a result of freely choosing to turn away from God in sin humans are blind and continually lose sight of the Truth.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 If god didn't write the bible and god didn't dictate the bible then why do people revere it as god's word? It seems as if humans wrote it entirely that would make it their word and not god's. Why should I take the word of some humans who lived thousands of years ago? It seems to me that the only way we'd know it was the word of god and not something that someone just thought up would be if it spoke to everyone everywhere in the same way, which it obviously doesn't.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "god didn't write the bible and god didn't dictate the bible then why do people revere it as god's word?"
--Having been dictated is not a necessary condition for the Bible to have been inspired by God, and hence His Word.
"It seems to me that the only way we'd know it was the word of god if it spoke to everyone everywhere in the same way,"
--This begs the question that lack of consensus is "God's fault" and not the result of human sin. This is false.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 If god is all-powerful and all-knowing then he should be able to write or "inspire" a document that breeds consensus regardless of human sin. Unless, somehow, human sin is more powerful than god. Is that the case? Are sinful humans more powerful than their creator? Is god really not able to write something that appeals to everyone because we're sinful? If god is not all-powerful, then my objections don't hold any merit. Is god not really all-powerful?
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "Are sinful humans more powerful than their creator? Is god really not able to write something that appeals to everyone because we're sinful? "
--God cannot make people NOT sin, just as God cannot force someone to love him. Forcing people to Love you violates free will, and is directly contrary to God's nature. God cannot make 2+2=5, nor can he make any logical contradiction true. But this doesn't make him any less powerful. God IS love; God is Logic; God IS the Good.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lewisejackson "Your argument has gone completely around in a circle without ever arriving at a conclusion."
--There is nothing circular, here. We come to know God in Love. Without love God cannot be known because God himself is love.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
Father Barron Rules!!!
vtorrieri 1 year ago
And God who controls time and space will resurrect all those who've fallen not knowing him adequately. Just as in Noah's flood God deluged the world to remove sin, he's been warning the world since time immemorial. God's thoughts are not man's thoughts, man sees through a finite prism, but God surpasses those boundaries. Humanity cannot dwell in abject sin and dwell with God, in who's image he was created. Love is the underpinning of the universal creation.
BadaBingBadaBoom012 1 year ago
Great point Doctor about God mandating pagan societal extermination. God actually commanded such things out of Love. To excise sin from conjoining with ancient Israel who were kings and priests, the beacon of light and salvation for the world if they obeyed; we know the story. God was trying to save the world through Israel which is why he decreed extermination of sin, because man cannot dwell with his God in sin because God is holy.
BadaBingBadaBoom012 1 year ago
"People who read the bible with sophistication"? A book written by the most powerful being in the universe and he can't communicate his message so it can be understood by non-scholars. Sounds to me like god is either a very poor writer or that Father Barron and his ilk are rationalizing so they don't have to admit that the stupid, outdated, and barbaric parts of the bible are actually stupid, outdated and barbaric.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson I'm continually amazed at how many people think that Catholics look at the Bible the same way a Muslim looks at the Koran or a Mormon at the book of Mormon. We don't think that the Bible was "dictated" by God. It is the Word of God in the words of men, as Vatican II puts it. Therefore, of course it has to be interpreted and "what it teaches"is not always simply identical to "what it says."
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 3
@wordonfirevideo "The word of God in the words of men?" Why does god need a middleman? Why can't he communicate his ideas directly? Why didn't god give his words to men in ways that would be clear and umambiguous? He is all knowing and all powerful, surely he could have found a way to communicate without any confusion. Your assertion that the Bible is god's word in the words of men avoids rather than answers my question.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "Why does god need a middleman? Why can't he communicate his ideas directly?"
--You might just try asking Him for yourself, which is exactly the point.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 I thought the point of the Bible was for god to explain himself to his followers. Silly me for thinking that he'd be able to do that directly without needing further explanation. He's like a professor who gives a three hour lecture on a subject and then says, "See me after class so I can tell you what I really meant". If I have to ask him directly to get answers, then what is the point of the bible and the holy men?
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson ...and no professor will even bother with the apathetic and reluctant student who doesn't even make the effort.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 And no student would bother with the professor who speaks nonsense.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson The ignorant accuse what they don't understand.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Fools spout nonsense and call it wisdom.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson
Indeed.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Glad you are big enough to admit that about yourself.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson
yawn...It's no surprise to find another amateur incapable of well-reasoned discourse and substantive thought. Say something above your IQ, and maybe we'll have something to discuss.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Maybe we'd have something to discuss if you answered my questions instead of thinking up new insults. If you can't answer them, there is no shame in admitting it.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "What's the point of the bible if we can know God directly?" is a misguided question. The Bible is a historical, eschatological, & theological record of God's dealings with his chosen people, & to know him on more intimate terms involves our own spiritual participation in the Divine life. Both Scripture & personal Relationship bring us deeper understanding of WHO God IS within the greater historical covenant with his people. The one doesn't render the other superfluous.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "If I have to ask him directly to get answers, then what is the point of the bible and the holy men?"
--We say you can have it BOTH ways. Your complaint is that there are BOTH ways. Hence, you win by default. So what on earth is your objection??
This is just another instance of inconsequential rhetoric that doesn't even have a point.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 No my questions was: why does the bible require so much sophisticated interpretation to understand it? If god is all powerful and all knowing and wants to communicate with us, he should be able to do so in a way that is clear and unambigous. The response I got to this question was to pray to god for an answer, which avoids the issue. It also raises another question: if I have to talk to god to understand the bible then what use is the bible?
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson " If god is all powerful and all knowing and wants to communicate with us, he should be able to do so in a way that is clear and unambigous."
--And he does. In prayer we encounter God's very person. This doesn't "avoid the issue"; this gets right at the point. For 2000 years christians have been insisting that a deeper understanding of God's Person through the Holy Spirit comes by way of communion & prayer. There is nothing problematic about this from a Christian POV.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson " why does the bible require so much sophisticated interpretation to understand it?"
--The language in the Bible couldn't get more clear than it is, but problems arise because the inner dimensions of morality, the complex inner psychological life of sinful man, and what is needed in the spiritual ascent to God's divine holiness in the Beatific vision is not a subject one can capture with a set of stereo instructions. Personal encounter makes up for what language lacks.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 So, let me understand this...the language of the bible is perfectly clear but people can't understand it because of their complex psychology. Isn't that the sort of thing that an all-powerful, all-knowing god should be able to compensate for? Even if all of god's divine holiness can't be captured in a book, shouldn't he still be able to make a book that his sinful creations can clearly understand? He is omnipenent and omniscient, after all; can't shouldn't be in his vocabulary.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "Even if all of god's divine holiness can't be captured in a book, shouldn't he still be able to make a book that his sinful creations can clearly understand? "
--But we CAN properly understand the Bible by the guidance of the Holy Spirit in relationship with His Person. What would be so compeling about human omnisicience without God's assistance that makes you think this is something God would even want to do?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 If we can't understand the bible without god there to explain it to us, why did he write it, or inspire it, in the first place? It sounds like the bible is utterly superfluous. If it can't be understood without divine revelation, then why not rely on that exclusively? What author writes a book that no one can understand unless they track down the author and make him explain it?
lewisejackson 1 year ago
--What do you not understand? The Ultimate Good of humanity is to know, love, and serve God. Without a personal encounter with God, the deeper message of the Bible—which is God’s love for humankind--cannot be fully understood. Though, of course, someone can certainly understand the history and moral teachings without God's assistance....[continued]
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 I don't understand why god sticks to this unnecessarily complex method of communicating with the world. The bible is an invitation? Then why isn't it a clear invitation? Why doesn't everyone who reads it see that it is? Why have so many people read it and remained unconvinced? Can't god get his message across in a persuasive method that everyone can understand? Doesn't he want to do so? If he does, and he's all-powerful and all-knowing, then why hasn't he?
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "The bible is an invitation? Then why isn't it a clear invitation?"
--It is. Haven't you read it?
" Why doesn't everyone who reads it see that it is?"
--They either haven't read it, or they have read it and freely choose deny that invitation.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 I have and its not. The existence of billions of non-christians indicates that I am not the only one who thinks so. Lots of people have read it and thought it to be ancient nonsense. They're not denying it, they just think it has about as much authenticity as the Illiad. If its written by god, shouldn't it be more convincing than Homer's work? If an all-powerful, all-nowing god wrote it, shouldn't it be compelling to everyone? Shouldn't it be convincing to everyone?
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "I have and its not. The existence of billions of non-christians indicates that I am not the only one who thinks so."
--Then you need to read it again because a billion of you are illiterate. John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, and whosoever believes Him shall not perish but have eternal life." And, in Christ's words, "I have come to bring life to the many that they might have it to the fullest." If anything is an invitation, this sure is.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson
"If its written by god, shouldn't it be more convincing than Homer's work?"
--Apparently, it is. There are over 2 billion Christians, proportionally the largest religion in the world. Obviously, the Bible is much more compelling than Homer.
"If an all-powerful, all-nowing god wrote it, shouldn't it be compelling to everyone?"
--I see no reason for thinking this is true at all. History shows human beings of all ages, cultures, and religions are a sinful mess.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "Can't god get his message across in a persuasive method that everyone can understand?Doesn't he want to do so? "
--It's not about "persuasion." It's about Love. And God cannot force human creatures to Love him.
"If he does, and he's all-powerful and all-knowing, then why hasn't he?"
--He has! Who do you Christ is? God has revealed himself to people in the person of Christ, and they crucified Him for heaven's sake. It's not God's problem.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "don't understand why god sticks to this unnecessarily complex method of communicating with the world."
--Like I said, relationships do not come with a set a stereo instructions. They are complicated and messy things. You can read the Bible like a scholar, read it like a philosopher, and read it like a historian. But until enter into dialogue with it like a lover, you will understand very little.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 That's my point. If I have to talk to the author to understand it, that's the sign of poor writing and not a divine presence. An all-powerful, all-knowing god wants to communicate with us; he should have the power and the ability to do so in a way that is clear and unambiguous. Since the message of the bible is obviously not clear and unambiguous, as exemplified by all the different interpretations of it, then it indicates that one (or all) of the qualities of god is nonexistent.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson ". Since the message of the bible is obviously not clear and unambiguous, as exemplified by all the different interpretations of it, then it indicates that one (or all) of the qualities of god is nonexistent."
--The problem is people, not God. Furthermore, this is logically fallacious. That people have difficulty with God's message does not entail that one (or all) of God's qualities are "non-existent." Try agin.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson...[continued]
Consequently, the Bible is an invitation to all those who don’t yet believe in him, since God cannot fully reveal himself in his entirety to all those don’t want to get to know Him. Hence, the “need” for the Bible.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 If the bible is supposed to help bring people to god, shouldn't it be written in such a way that everyone finds it compelling and understandable? Shouldn't clarity be god's primary aim? If people have different interpretations then it causes confusion which would make it harder to figure out god's real message which would tend to prevent people from coming to god which is the supposed point of the bible! Again, why can't god communicate in a way that is clear and unambiguous?
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson
"Shouldn't clarity be god's primary aim?"
--God's aim is love. With Love comes understanding and clarity.
"If people have different interpretations then it causes confusion which would make it harder to figure out god's real message which would tend to prevent people from coming to god which is the supposed point of the bible! "
--The problem is not in the Bible. The problem is people adjusting their interpretation of scripture to match their complacency in Sin.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "Again, why can't god communicate in a way that is clear and unambiguous?"
--He does. People choose to ignore that message. The spiritual blindness evoked here just proves my point. If you truly desire to know, start praying and start searching all the religious traditions out there. You just might fight something. I did.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 God can't create a message to compelling that people can't ignore it? Not everyone's a fan of Shakespeare but its impossible to ignore his works. Why can't god do the same? Is he not as good?
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "God can't create a message to compelling that people can't ignore it?"
--You can't force or "compel" someone to love you.
"Not everyone's a fan of Shakespeare but its impossible to ignore his works. Why can't god do the same? Is he not as good?"
--Good example, because it undermines your very point. Not everyone's a fan of the Bible, but its impossible to ignore his works. Even are atheists compelled to read it if only to attack it.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "If the bible is supposed to help bring people to god."
--And it consistently does. Go figure.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 The presence of billions of non-christians on the planet indicated that it doesn't. The millions of western christians leaving the faith indicated that it doesn't. If you are blind to those obvious facts then I wonder what the point of debating is. You're like a broken record, tossing out the same, unconvincing arguments over and over. If you're so comitted going in circles its not worth the mental effort to try and correct you.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "The presence of billions of non-christians on the planet indicated that it doesn't. The millions of western christians leaving the faith indicated that it doesn't. If you are blind to those obvious facts then I wonder what the point of debating is."
--Christianity is the largest religion in the world, and the millions of growing numbers of Christians in non-Western countries to this day suggests that it does have an impact. What's the point of debating if you ignore this?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 I'm sorry, I guess I was distracting by all the polls showing nonrelgious people on the rise and Christians on the decline in all western countries. The most recent was the gallop poll conducted here in America showing that nonreligion has grown faster than any relgion. What's the point of debating you if you ignore this?
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "I was distracting by all the polls showing nonrelgious people on the rise and Christians on the decline in all western countries."
--What sociological conclusion can be derived from this other than that American culture is the more narcissistic and materialistic than other cultures, with the decline of nuclear families, the rise of sexual immorality and abortion, and diminishing consumer expectations? Read "The Culture of Narcissism" by C. Lasch.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "I'm sorry, I guess I was distracting by all the polls showing nonrelgious people on the rise and Christians on the decline in all western countries."
--And I guess I was distracted at by the fact that America only accounts for 0.05% of the total world population. The decline of those losing faith Christianity is in America alone is insignificant compared to its rise and preponderance elsewhere. I guess Christianity must not have an appeal since only 2 billion are adherents
mypolicy9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lewisejackson @lewisejackson "Actually, you haven't addressed my argument at all."
--What argument? Can you please list the premises and conclusion?
"If god is all-powerful and all-knowing and wants to communicate his will to his followers then, logially, he should be able to do so. "
--He can and he does. So what's the problem?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "You're like a broken record, tossing out the same, unconvincing arguments over and over."
--Addressing your elementary complaints is rather easy task, and I am still waiting for a reasoned counter argument from you instead of repeated blind assertions ignoring what I just said. That you don't like an argument is not a well-reasoned objection to it. I don't care if you're pleased or not. I am only sharing what Christians have thought for over 2 thousand years.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Actually, you haven't addressed my argument at all. If god is all-powerful and all-knowing and wants to communicate his will to his followers then, logially, he should be able to do so. He has the power and knowledge to carry out his own wishes. However, since his followers can't agree on what god's will is it indicates that one of the above axioms is false. Your counter-arguments are simply attempts to work your way around or weaken one of those axioms and they aren't effective.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lewisejackson "If god is all-powerful and all-knowing and wants to communicate his will to his followers then, logially, he should be able to do so. "
--He can and does. So what's the problem?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lewisejackson "Actually, you haven't addressed my argument at all."
--What argument? Can you please list the premises and conclusion?
"If god is all-powerful and all-knowing and wants to communicate his will to his followers then, logially, he should be able to do so. "
--He can and he does. So what's the problem?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lewisejackson "@lewisejackson "Actually, you haven't addressed my argument at all."
--What argument? Can you please list the premises and conclusion?
"If god is all-powerful and all-knowing and wants to communicate his will to his followers then, logially, he should be able to do so. "
--He can and he does. So what's the problem?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 The fact that christians can't agree on just what god's will is is pretty self-evident (since there are over 20,000 denominations), so unless you're willing to acknowledge that god is somehow less powerful, less knowledgable or less desiring of communication with his followers than people say I'm pretty sure that your arguments defending the bible are going to continue to fail as they have been.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Actually, you haven't addressed my argument at all."
--What argument are you even talking about? Can you please list the premises and conclusion?
"If god is all-powerful and all-knowing and wants to communicate his will to his followers then, logially, he should be able to do so. "
--He can and he does. So what's the problem?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson ""However, since his followers can't agree on what god's will is it indicates that one of the above axioms is false."
--Which axiom did you have in mind? Inconsistency means there is a contradiction. If one of my statements is inconsistent with God being all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful, then you seriously need to logically deduce that contradiction with a set of premises and conclusion. If you can't, then give it up. You convince no one.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 And while its been fun watching you try and squirm out from under this logical puzzle I don't don't think I'll have the patience for another round of your illogic. Goodbye.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "its been fun watching you try and squirm out from under this logical puzzle"
--What "logical puzzle"? You don't even have a case, and your complaints are rather trite & easily addressed.
"your illogic"
--Challenge: Show the logical inconsistency using true premises with which I can agree, and subsequently deducing my contradiction. Hint: It's called "reductio ad absurdum": deducing the falsity of one of my premises by deriving a contradiction from its assumption.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lewisejackson "Actually, you haven't addressed my argument at all."
--What argument are you even talking about? Can you please list the premises and conclusion?
"If god is all-powerful and all-knowing and wants to communicate his will to his followers then, logially, he should be able to do so. "
--He can and he does. So what's the problem?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "If god is all-powerful and all-knowing and wants to communicate his will to his followers then, logially, he should be able to do so. "
--He can and he does. So what's the problem?
mypolicy9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lewisejackson "Your argument has gone completely around in a circle without ever arriving at a conclusion."
--There is nothing circular, here. We come to know God in Love. Without love God cannot be known because God himself is love.
mypolicy9 3 minutes ago
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson ...after all, brute knowledge without the right relationship to God is nothing of value apart from Him. We love in order to understand, and we don't understand if we don't have love. It is even popularly said that "evil spirits have a clear knowledge of God's existence but still decide to reject him."
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 All of those sentences are grammatically correct, with correctly spelled words, but they don't make any sense. We have to have a relationship with god in order to understand the bible? We have to love to understand and understand to love? Your argument has gone completely around in a circle without ever arriving at a conclusion.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "All of those sentences are grammatically correct, with correctly spelled words, but they don't make any sense. We have to have a relationship with god in order to understand the bible?"
--whatever. This shouldn't be surprising to you. It is obvious that we will understand the personal letter of someone we know and love well better than someone with whom we are not familiar at all.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 Not "whatever". If you can't communicate in ways that I can understand how are we supposed to talk? How am I supposed to be won over if I can't follow your logic or if your sentences are gobblty-gook? And while I know that I will understand a friend's letter better than a stranger's letter, strangers can still write to me in ways that I can understand clearly and unambiguously. Surely an all-powerful god can communicate better than the DMV staff telling me I need new car tabs.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "How am I supposed to be won over if I can't follow your logic or if your sentences are gobblty-gook?"
You understand perfectly well, and choose to be difficult. Do you deny we can understand the "word" of someone whom we know and love very well better than the word of someone we don't know that well? If you don't, then I can't help you because this should be a trivially true point.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 I can understand the words of people regardless of whether I know them personally or not. People who want to communicate their ideas do so in a manner than can be understood by everyone, regardless of whether they know then personally. If Plato, Hume, and Kant can do it, why can't god?
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "And while I know that I will understand a friend's letter better than a stranger's letter, strangers can still write to me in ways that I can understand clearly and unambiguously."
--Maybe with regard to the plain facts. But surely you can deduce the intent and meaning of a letter much better from a person whom you know well than don't know that well. There are plenty of cases like this in real life.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@mypolicy9 I can still deduce it from a stranger as well. That's the whole point of writing, to communicate effectively without actually having to be in the presence of the letter writer.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson "I can still deduce it from a stranger as well."
--No you can't. What's the issue, here? Every half-ass psychologist will tell that two people in a relationship grow to an ever deepening understanding of eachother as the years progress, assuming they make the effort. If they don't make the effort, they will never uncover the deeper levels of eachother's persons. You can't deduce a full personality profile from a mere letter. You need to get to know the person first.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lewisejackson "Your argument has gone completely around in a circle without ever arriving at a conclusion."
--There is nothing circular, here. We come to know God in Love. Without love God cannot be known because God himself is love.
mypolicy9 1 year ago
@lewisejackson You sound like a typical young modern person influenced by western (largely) american attitude: so opinionated yet, so uneducated. But, this one's not meant to be a generalization. They just make a lot of noise. Or, perhaps, it seems to be a trend. Peace bro!
Mannheim67 1 year ago
@Mannheim67 Not to generalize, but you sound like a typical religious person who is used to substituting assumptions, conjectures and guesswork for actual evidence. They make a lot of noise to distract from the fact that they can't answer any real questions about their religion.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
@lewisejackson my friend, it's not about 'assumptions, conjectures, guesswork & actual evidence'. You just have to KNOW & perhaps, admit, that the bible is THEIR book (the believers, i mean). It is what it is to them. If you don't like the terms they associate it with, well, that's really YOUR OPINION. you don't have to delve into their world if it seems absurd to you. I never thought english speakers were crazy when they said they 'could eat a horse'. I just asked what it meant. tsk, tsk, tsk.
Mannheim67 1 year ago
@Mannheim67 The validity of the bible is not a matter of opinion. Either it is the world of god or it is not. What people believe about the bible has real world consequences. If they were debating the finer points of "Batman vs. Superman" then it wouldn't matter. Then what I said would be opinion. As long as religions have real power and influence and claim that their holy books make accurately prescribe human behavior then they have to be challeneged.
lewisejackson 1 year ago
Please dont take offence, but I would really like your thoughts on this. Pretend for a minute, we live in 300 BC, how do the things you say apply? again not being rude, but please dont launch into a diatribe of "thats why Jesus came....." what would you say to me about interpruting the old testement if we were living in 300BC?
Botie2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone please watch Deliver Us From Evil by Amy Berg for the truth about catholic church and its priests, bishops, and cardinals.
knight91105 2 years ago
@ariewillow Well, first of all, it isn't mine. It's Origen's, from the second century. Christians have been reading many of these allegorically for a long time!
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
If you have to bring your own context when reading the contents of the Bible then what purpose does it serve as a spiritual guide?
If it is not to be taken litarally, then how can you say you know the right way to interprete it?
Where did your concept of Christianity come from if not directly from the contents of the Bible?
What Mr Barron is suggesting is a chicken/egg paradox.
bongolongo 2 years ago
@bongolongo No. The way out of your dilemma is to accept the Catholic position that the Bible is best read within an interpretive community called the church. This is not unlike the literary community that "reads" Hamlet or Moby Dick or The Wasteland. You wouldn't just pick up those texts and try to read them on your own. You would consult the great interpretive tradtion that has read them over the years. Think of the Church and the Bible along those lines.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
But then the Bible becomes whatever these select clergymen make of it, which sounds very subjective to me. Why should someone take their interpretation for granted? Why not read it and make up your own conclusion?
Aside from that, my dilemma still stands, as there had to be a first catholic priest -- where did he get the correct interpretation from if he couldn't have reached it on his own?
Btw, I did read Hamlet and Moby Dick on my own, and I find my own conclusions from them quite valid.
bongolongo 2 years ago
@bongolongo But are you utterly uninterested in finding out what the community of discourse has said about those texts? Do you think that you, on your own, have come to the definitive interpretation? This is why Catholics have always balked at Luther's insistence on "private interpretation" of the Bible. We feel that it is much better read within a long and complex tradition of interpretation.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
Comment removed
jontv 2 years ago
@wordonfirevideo No, I'm very interested in hearing what they think. Likewise, after watching a movie I love to discuss with others what they thought of it. Not because it brings us closer to a definitive interpretation -- I think their interpretation is as arbitrary as mine -- but it's interesting because their views give me insight into their character and cultural heritage.
bongolongo 2 years ago