Father Barron on The God Who Doesn't Need Us

[jayyy689]

When he said that to have or experience the glory of God is not to submit but to share in God's goodness. One must fully submit to the ten commandments correct? Did God not give us these commandments out of his Goodness and so therefore by following them we are sharing in his Goodness and expressing our love? Is this man not a priest who practices abstinence in order to submit to God? Is being fully alive not just showing absolute love and appreciation for God and his guidance?

[Komnenos1234]

@wordonfirevideo

I know I'm replying to this long after the fact. I was just wondering how it is resolved, what St. Paul says that, "no one is desiring God, not one, etc." and Augustine saying "our hearts are restless until they rest in you". It seems like Augustine isn't the only one who discusses the individual as on a quest for God, Anselm does a similar thing in the Monologion, how can th heart searching for God be resolved with what St. Paul said in Romans?

[MrCamus1960]

Father Barron, why should I love God? The only reasons that I can come up with is He gave me everything, which seems like a selfish reason on my part to love Him. But I know that real love is the opposite of selfishness, can you help me with this dilemma?

[wordonfirevideo]

@MrCamus1960 You should love him because he's the ultimate good, that which will satisfy the deepest longings of your heart.

[JeffersonDinedAlone]

@MrCamus1960 When you begin to understand that selfishness is a virtue, not the corruption of original definition which Society has made it to be, then you won't have this particular dilemma.

[MrCamus1960]

Father Barron, isn't it wrong for God to command me to love him, and obey his commandments in order to get a reward that is Heaven? I understand that the glory of God is a human being fully alive, but wouldn't it be wrong on my part to "love" God and do what he says for my own personal gain?

[wordonfirevideo]

@MrCamus1960 Don't think of heaven as "reward" or "personal gain." Heaven simply means love to the highest degree and love is its own reward.

[JeffersonDinedAlone]

@MrCamus1960 True. Which is precisely why the wording of the 1st Commandment should be re-worded. No one can command anyone to love them; the very concept is absurd. Love has no meaning, whatsoever, unless it is given freely.

[fancullo]

Father Robert Barron, what does it mean to say man is fully alive? how can man be fully alive?

[wordonfirevideo]

@fancullo He is fully alive when he has realized his deepest longings through union with God.

[warzoneG5]

@wordonfirevideo Could you make a video talking about your testimony and also a video about the experience of knowing Christ personally showing the viewers its not a delusion but a real relationship? thank you and all your videos are great

[ThomistC]

@wordonfirevideo

Father, I'm Daniel~ St. Augustine said, "You have made us for yourself." Then, how should we interpret your or St. Irenaeus argument that God doesn't need us with st. Augustine's? Don't we always create something for our needs? God could've chosen not to create, but He did. So, I thought that He needed to create us to be called a God and from that moment the creator begins to exist with the creatures. I'm a Catholic, so help me to understand both saints' words. Thanks!!!

[richgr1123]

@ThomistC Hi Daniel (I'm not Fr. Barron, by the way). St. Augustine goes on to say, "And our hearts are restless until they rest in you." I think the thought of Augustine here fully complements Irenaeus's "The glory of God is man fully alive." If you think Augustine means God made us for Himself in the sense that God needs us, that's a misunderstanding; Augustine means, rather, that our happiness and fulfillment is found in freely participating in God's life of infinite love.

[tmyersable]

@wordonfirevideo

You seem to be contradicting yourself in saying that God simultaneously unconditionally loves us and is not significantly effected by us or in need of us. For some reason, I can't imagine having and/or being the kind of love that God has/is, while at the same time being indifferent and lacking in need in regards to the things/beings that are the primary objects of my great love.

Of course God would live on without us, but does that mean that He doesn't need us?

[wordonfirevideo]

@tmyersable There is no contradiction at all! To say that God has no need of us is by no means equivalent to saying that he is "indifferent" to us, just the contrary. His compassion for us can be total, precisely because he has no need of us. To love, as I explained, is to will the good of the other as other. God can do this to an infinite degree.

[tmyersable]

@wordonfirevideo

Thank you for your answer! With this said, thank you for all that you do. I love all your videos; they are amazing!

P.S.; I am in the final stages of applying to be a seminarian for the Diocese of St. Augustine, and I will know whether or not I am accepted by the end of this month. Its priests like you that have influenced me to answer God's call, and I just want to let you know that God is using you in wonderful ways. Thanks, again, for everything, and God Bless!!!

[PrimalRhythm]

1) I agree that God's love for us is unconditional while our love for Him is conditional: He loves us and gets or needs nothing in return, while we love Him and get something in return--life itself--sustenance. But, I am wondering what your view is on God's treatment of the Jewish "Old Testament" Covenant people, e.g., captivity for breaking the Covenant.

[PrimalRhythm]

2) If God does not need us, then can He really be jealous, as the Bible puts it--as a husband--and Israel as a wife that has gone astray. Or is that more of a literary device. And if it is a literary device, then were Old Testament captivities actually a punishment, or was it just a theological way of explaining the bad things that happen in life.

[wordonfirevideo]

@ideasforfeeling No divisions at all? How about the division between right and wrong? The division between Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and decent people? How about the division between a child molester and someone who would never dream of harming a child. Some divisions--those based on violence and hatred--are indeed wrong, but not every division is of that nature.

[chicraig6421]

Father, something happened a long time ago, as you say, but its was after Jesus died. Religion came along and crazies like you perverted the words of Jesus. Using a Book to spin your tales instead of preaching the words and work of Jesus. Father, what you do is preach hate.  You are a bigot and will be going to hell, according to the book, unless you change your ways. I pray that you see the light, and tell the story of Jesus...Love, Peace, Charity, without prejudices or condemnations

[burtontoker]

That's great theology, how god doesn't need us. Can you please prove that your Christian God is real?

[DemeterPictures]

Wow! Hit the nail on the head!

[Jugglable]

5:26 "The glory of God is not a human being in submission."

Well, maybe in submission to God. God wants us to be fully alive more than we want it ourselves, so by submitting to God we become fully alive.

[mjduke27]

Father Barron, the question I have is if God did not need our love, why did he demand it?

[wordonfirevideo]

@mjduke27 Because he wanted us to be fully alive. Loving God is good, not for God, but for us.

[Scorner99]

Its so refreshing to watch Catholic thinkers as opposed to your common evangelist.

[bigguitar22]

If god created us as you imply and yet doesn't need us why did he create us - for the fun of it? Are we merely a whim, a plaything of a deity who doesn't really need us - some father figure heh? I am a father of a wonderful son - I need him and am proud to love and support him. That will never change - but I dont expect him to spend his time on earth worshipping me or indeed trying to emulate me. Your belief system consigns us to the role of dutiful children to a nonchalant father? Nonsense!

[lewisejackson]

Wow. Has father Barron read his bible recently? God does not demand our love? Jesus' first commandment is "to love the lord your god with all your hear and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind' (Luke 20:17). Not sure how you could interpret that as anything other than a direct command from God for his followers to love him.

[lewisejackson]

@JAMD456 Why do christians so frequently claim the bible doesn't mean what it says? Commandment: a command or mandate. Command: to require authoritatively; demand. Unless "commandment" meant something entirely different or unless its English translation is entirely unreliable I think my conclusion is pretty inescapble.

[lewisejackson]

@JAMD456 So you admit that does God requires us to love him, validating my original point.

[lewisejackson]

@JAMD456 You're twisting my words. Father Barron claimed in his video that god doesn't demand our love, but the Bible clearly states that he does. The fact that he can't force us doesn't stop him from demanding it anyway. Father Barron is clearly wrong. All your blathering about love and machines and suffering are completely extraneous to the observation I'm making.

[lewisejackson]

@JAMD456 If god did not need our love, then why would he demand it?

[lewisejackson]

@JAMD456 Who cares why he needs it, by the way? Whether he needs it, that's the issue at hand. Why he needs it, that's another issue.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson could you please cite the following passages in the bible that states that GOD demands our love.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 It is Jesus' first commandment: Love your God with all your heart and soul and mind. Jesus IS god, according to the doctrine of the trinity, so what more evidence do you need? God COMMANDS us to love him, a strange request from such a benevolant being. Only tyrants command people to love them.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson you said yourself its a request and not a demand.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson you said it yourself, its a request and not a demand.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 A request is not a demand, but a commandment is not a request, its an order. Feel free to look up the difference in the dictionary.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson The term i should have used is "command". Sorry I just posted the comment without making the correction. I just like to point out the contradiction in your post that GOD commands people to love him while at the same time its a "request". Second, The Love of GOD and the church is like a marriage. You are under vow to love only your husband which is GOD, for better or worse.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 Did I use the word "request"? I admit that its been a while since my first response to this video, but looking back over my other comments, I can't find a single instance of me using that word. I've referred to god commanding us and demanding our love, but never requesting it. Both "command" and "demand" illustrate the point I was trying to make, that Barron's claim that god does not need us conflicts with god's command to love him.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 Also, the love of god and church is not like a marriage. Marriages are entered into voluntarily, they are not (or should not be) imposed through the command of one party. They don't come with the threat of punishment if you don't love your spouse. They don't involve childhood indoctrination to occur. Since god commands us to love him, and threatens us with torture if we don't love him back, then it not a marriage, or, if it is, its an abusive one.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson you're obviously lacking in Catholic teachings about the faith. See that Jesus describes himself as a bridegroom (Luke 6:34-35) and that John the Baptizer consider himself the best man (John 3:27-30), is that not a hint about wedding? Also please watch Father Barrons "Comment about Hell" to see what Hell is truly is in the Catholic teaching. Its not so much a punishment, rather a necessary consequence of rejecting Gods Love. God does not want to punish sinner......

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 As a former Catholic who was raised in the church and was a member for 20+ years, I seriously doubt that I'm lacking on Catholic teachings. If anything, I have too much of them. I know Jesus makes a lot of analogies to weddings in his teachings, but when put together with his other teachings, the analogy becomes one of an abusive, forced marriage, not the voluntary, happy occasion most modern people associate with the term.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson ....but sinners, rejecting the truth which is God, leads to all kinds of error, injustice, compromises which ultimately leads to death, suffering, injury, albeit like Hell.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 If god does not want to punish people, then why does he send them to hell? He made the rules governing who gets sent to hell. Why doesn't he just make new ones. Also the idea that rejecting god leads to injustice, suffering, and injury is completely untrue. Millions of Europeans have rejected god and their continent is the most prosperous and peaceful on the face of the earth. Likewise, for your claim to be credible, the opposite, that embracing god prevents injustice...

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 ...suffering, and injury would have to be true, but it isn't. The long history of christian persecution, oppression, and imperialism prove that a belief in god is totally unrelated to suffering and injustice. Religious people show no signs of being morally superior to their non-religious counterparts, and in some instances, their religion can actually motivate them to cause injustice, suffering, and injury. It can even, as in Northern Ireland, exacerbate existing tensions...

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 ...and deepen divisions, leading to more suffering and unjury.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson rightfully said.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson rightfully said. But, Religion should not be blamed immorality of its followers. Much like Stalin who is an Atheist oppressed his people, that is not to say that all Atheist are evil. There is no guarantee that all people will follow the moral and norm placed onto them, because God gave them free will. Like I said God does not punish people to Hell, its a natural consequence of rejecting Gods Love which is truth.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 Religion can actually be blamed for the actions of its followers, since its a belief and beliefs influence actions. Atheism is, in and of itself, a rejection of a belief (in gods) so it can't motivate actions in and of itself. That Stalin was an atheist was a coincidence. Atheism is not an organized system of thought, like religion, so it doesn't come with commandments or dogma to follow. Religion does, which is why it takes the blame when its followers take those commandments...

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 ...seriously and commit evil. At bare minimum, religious people are no better than nonreligious people (morally) and at worst they are much worse. Remember also, that you can believe in a god but not have a religion. General theism, the belief that a god of some sort exists, can't motivate either, because its not an organized system of thought either. Religion is and when evil results from people following its commendments, it is justly blamed.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson Take for example, a man who kills innocent people, even though he knows that killing them is a crime, the state ordered him to stop, but he would not. what do you think is the natural consequence of his action? He goes to prison, to stop his wanton destruction to society. The man suffer because his desire to kill is not satisfied, and because he refuses to stop, he stays there indefinitely.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 True, but this is in no way analogous to God/Jesus. God/Jesus send people to hell not based on how good/evil they are, but on whether or not they believe in him. They're actually more like Stalin or Lenin, sending people to the gulag because they didn't believe in the historicity of communism. Of course, you could blame those people because, after all, they didn't have to doubt communism, they chose to, but I don't think you'd get much sympathy for that view.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson I would assume that the Religion in this discussion would be "Catholic", I have no authority speaking for the other Religious Institutions. Secondly, you said that Stalin was coincidentally an Atheist, then what about Karl Marx and Vladimir Lennin, contributor to communism and are both atheist? Thirdly, you said Atheism is not an organized system of thought, then how do they deliberate what is morally wrong and right? Who gets to claim what are morally right and wrong for atheist?

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 Okay, so what if Marx and Lenin were both atheists. Atheism does not imply communism. Bill Gates is an atheist and a capitalist. So what? That's a might interesting historical fact you've pointed out, but its also totally irrelevant to anything. Atheism is not an organized system of thought. Its a rejection of theistic claims that a god exists. It has no dogma or doctrines, just a disbelief in god claims. Atheists debate morals because they get them from other sources...

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson If you read about Karl Marx and Lennin you would see that Atheism has shape their understanding of society. The infamous quote 'Religion is opium of the masses' is an understanding that religion is like a drug that hampers people, so it must be eliminated. Stalin knew this and decided to eliminate religion in his country, and since there is no moral code for Atheism, he determine what is morally good for him to do to all those people-send them to the gulag.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 You're an idiot. Not believing in a god may lend you a different view of the world, but it can't shape people's understanding the way you claim. Simply not believing in a god is not enough to motivate your behavior. Behavior is shaped by positive beliefs (religion, communism), not negative ones (atheism, disbelief in astrolgy). Marx and Lenin's beliefs were shaped by events and conditions in the real world, the effects of capitalism and religion, not by their disbelief in...

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 ...someone's claim about god. You don't belief in Zeus or Odin, but does not believing in them shape your actions and views or does your belief in Catholicism shape them? There is no moral code for atheism, BECAUSE ATHEISM IS NOT A SYTEM OF THOUGHT (MORON) BUT A DISBELIEF IN GODS. Its not a religion or idealology.  Religions and idealogies can be atheistic (bhuddism, communism), but atheism is not itself a religion or idealology. Furthermore, atheists do not determine morality...

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 ...arbitrarily because they don't believe in a god. The proof is literally all around you, given the massive numbers of atheists and non-religious people in America and Europe. Basic human morality comes from us, not the stars. Ordinary conscience will do and needs nothing else.  Stalin committed his horrible crimes because he removed himself from the ordinary workings of his conscience not because he was an atheist.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 ...there is no atheistic moral code like there is a Catholic moral code. Each atheist arrives at their moral conclusions based on their own thinking. To understand the basis for their moral claims, you'd have to talk to them individually to find out their reasoning. There is probably a lot of overlap between atheists when it comes to morals, but since atheism has no dogma or doctrines, it doesn't come merely from the fact of disbelieving.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson Since Atheism is not an organized system, there is no criterion of what is considered a "good atheist". Unlike Religion if you permit me, who makes a standard of what a "Good Person" is, by offering these moral codes which guides a person on how to be a "Good Person". But each Criterion is different from each Religion, problem arises with conflicted views hence, zealotry, persecution, oppression for people of different background.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 Religion does a crap job of telling people how to be good, that's why so much evil is done in the name of religion. Conflicted views, zealotry, persecution, these things should not exist if religion actually did what its defenders claim it does. It is utterly useless at preventing evil, often even encouraging it. Its rules for describing what a good person is are often utterly arbitrary and irrelevant to morality (e.g. keep the sabbath holy)...

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson Yes, Catholicism has done some crappy job protecting human rights during the crusades, and the inquisition. But like a living organism, it learned from its mistakes and provided measures to ensure it never happened again. The Crusades was replaced by ecumenism and dialogue between Muslims and of other faiths, Though I haven't yet know what replaced the inquisition, I'll try to look it up. Also this will be my last comment, I forgot this is a comment, not a forum, Sorry Father.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 "it learned from its mistakes and provided measures to ensure it never happened again" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Is that why its currently engaged in a world-wide child molestation scandal involving the dozens of priets and hundreds of children over several decades? Is that why the Church, including the current Pope conspired to protect pedophiles? Catholicism, it did a crappy job protecting human rights durring the crusades and the inquisition and its still doing a crappy job now.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson Well, considering the insults given, I say this friendly discussion has turned bad. Sorry if I offended you, I just want to learn a little about atheism. Well, I have learned some bit about Atheism, thank you and have a nice day.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 Apology accepted. There are mountains of literature and videos about atheism by atheists. A cursory glance through any of them would have imparted the information that I had to spell out and repeat for you. Any examiniation of countries with atheists or the scientific foundations of morality could have answered your questions. Your questions were designed not to elicit information than to provoke a response so, congratulations, mission accomplished.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 Morality cannot be handed down by fiat, its a matter of discussion and examination. Athiests, not being burdened with an archane system of thought, are better equipped for this discussion. Religious people, weighed down with self-assured doctrines, are not; they think they already have the answers and don't need to enter into it.

[rytsign69]

@lewisejackson Since Atheist has no moral code, does that mean an Atheist Communists moral code is the same as a democratic Atheist? For example, killing a person to protect the state would be morally correct for Communist Atheist, but morally repugnant for democratic Atheist. You yourself would agree that killing an innocent person is morally wrong, making it morally absolute, not open to discussion or examination. it is wrong.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 What in the world are you blathering about? Democratic atheist? Communist atheist? These terms have no meaning. You're trying to apply your religious dogmatic thinking to an intellectually diverse group of people whose moral and philosophical ideas share (at minimum) one commonality: the lack of belief in a god. Furthermore, the notion of moral absolutes is total nonsense. Morals are not handed down from on high, there being no on high to hand things down from.

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 Morality is unique to humans and, at its core, is based on human experience and the real world consequences of our actions. To claim moral absolutes is to claim an independent basis of morality that exists outside human experience and real world consequences, which does not exist. Any attempt to do so, e.g. by claiming that morality is based on the commandments of a god or communist philosophy, divorces people's actions from their consequences in this world and severly injures...

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 ...their moral reasoning. More to your point, all atheists do not agree on what constitues moral actions, even if they base their morality on real world consequences, because our actions can have multiple and complex consequences.  This is why morality requires discussion and examination. The murder of an innocent is a terrible example to incite moral reasoning because it is so simple that it requires no consideration. No one but a psychopath would condone the killing of an...

[lewisejackson]

@rytsign69 ...innocent. Even children understand this. It requires no effort. The only way innocents get killed deliberately is if the killer can't think morally, like a psychopath, or if some imaginary or arbitrary crime is assigned to them, like heresy, blasphemy, or rejection of the communist ideal, which disrupts the killer's normal moral reasoning. Hence the saying: "To make good people do evil you need religion".

[Sarusource]

I actually quite like my pop needing me. The fact that there is pulling and pushing; little power struggles makes the relationship that much richer. Sometimes we even seem to randomly give stuff to each other without any reason. That is a kind of love too. And another thing, the idea that those who need us will eventually abuse us is a little pessimistic. And a little odd projecting it onto a so called 'all powerful' god.

[1966JohnE]

Awesome video Father. I am in the early stages of working on very brief weekly pro-life video announcements for our parish that would track the development of human life for 40 weeks from conception to birth accompanied by a brief inspirational message. One of the messages I thought of for the earliest stages of life was this message from God: "I do not need you...I want you!" Truly, that is love unalloyed by any self-interest.

[Jugglable]

So god just wants us to be fully alive. So why are some things that the church prescribes as "sinful" things that don't seem to make us less alive? Prayer makes me feel alive, and love makes me feel alive, but so does sex! And if the idea isn't that god is "offended" at our sins, why all the language of God's judgment?

[Jugglable]

lol! 4:48 "That's not the game. That's a pagan game."

[Stitchman3875]

Man!!!! I always get new insights when I see new videos from you Father. This is so awesome, and it's a message that everyone needs to hear about God. Keep it up Father.

[manutdfan4321]

This question ive been struggling with father, but if God doesnt need anything then why is the act of confession so necessary in the Catholic Church. Thank you for answering father!

[wordonfirevideo]

God doesn't need our confession; but we need it! Confession, as they say, is good for the soul.

[manutdfan4321]

hmm good point

[leighgridley]

We have an emotional need for confession, just like we have an emotional need for religion. that's why humans are the only species who have it.

[LoungeroomRemedy]

Answer me this simple question:

Why, when Jesus was supposedly on Earth, supposedly for the reason of revealing God's true divinity to the people of Earth, why is not a single word, not even a single LETTER, written by Jesus HIMSELF in the Bible?

Was Jesus illiterate or something? U'd think with such an important message he'd write it himself, but it's always hearsay by authors who have been proved to never have even existed during Jesus time anyway.

Doesn't make sense does it?

[gouttedemer1]

I will not continue this "battle" with words, it is useless. No matter what arguments I would bring you are too stubborn.

"They have eyes but they cannot see, ears but they cannot hear".

May God enlighten and bless you.

[LoungeroomRemedy]

Interesting that your "answer" to my question is to simply run away. You cannot answer it, and that's your only response. When will u religious zealots own up to the fact that when faced with critical analysis, when logic and reason bombard ur self-righteous mythological dogmas, ur reflex response is to RUN, to IGNORE...

Run back to the ignorant comfort of ur ancient, irrational mythologies if u like, but at least recognise & admit ur intellectual cowardice in doing so.

[wordonfirevideo]

So what? Socrates didn't write anything. Neither did the Buddha. The truly great masters taught with their lives rather than with words.

[LoungeroomRemedy]

You're hardly making a case for it by comparing Jesus to another mythological character (i.e. Buddha). And the point about Socrates is, how cares wihether Socrates existed or not? "Someone" wrote those words, and that's all we need to know.

Not so for Jesus. You're entire belief system hinges on the fact that the character of Jesus was more than just a man, i.e. divine and Godly (whatever that means).

So that's why its important he never wrote anything himself.

[wordonfirevideo]

I don't see why. Jesus' divinity was recognized by those around him who witnessed what he said and did, how he died and how he rose from the dead.  I don't see why his writing or not writing has anything to do with it.

[LoungeroomRemedy]

"The truly great masters taught with their lives rather than with words"

So, what, they decided to reveal Gods true splendor to a handful of ignorant, illiterate people in the Palestinian desert 2000 yrs ago, never wrote anything himself, and hoped against hope someone would write about his life and spread the word over the entire world? Well, it's been 2000 yrs and this message STILL has not penetrated parts of this world and is not believed when it does.

Ur beliefs strain credulity.

[wordonfirevideo]

Friend, you're really straining now! Does it not strike you as at least interesting that this uneducated rabbi who, as you put it, spoke to a handful of people in the Palestinian desert, has been proclaimed and believed in all over the world as the most decisive figure in human history? You say that he is not believed in. Well, in excess of two billion people around the globe proclaim him as the Son of God. I'd say that's a pretty good record.

[LoungeroomRemedy]

2 billion out of 6 billion is not "pretty good". That's not even half, and let's remember: it's taken more than 2000 yrs for you to reach that amount, and its diminishing with every passing year. I can't believe someone like u who believes Jesus to be the Son of God, who had a message to save everyone in the world, thinks that 2 billion believers out of a possible 6 billion IN THIS TIMEFRAME ALONE is a good result for a divine being.

[wordonfirevideo]

Okay, I give up. God bless you.

[MegaPadrePio]

Lets see; those who deny Him and this is from Jesus: "They who deny me; I will deny them before my Father at the end of time." Which means your punishment will be coming. The reason why we are loosing the faithful is because they are confused, people are not teaching the actual faith and teaching it watered down and people like you are making it hard to learn the faith; because everytime the Church writes a new document; people like you send out a document also to attack the Church to confuse.

[trajan75]

@LoungeroomRemedy See you probably think that you are intelligent but you're just thickheaded. There are intelligent atheists and agnostics you're just not one of them. Incidently religious belief is growing everywhere in the world except Western Europe, where the population is also declining. Now there are arguments advanced by thoughtful atheists against the concept of God and and thoughtful responses by theists. Your responses are the of the knee jerk variety, Can't wait for the next one.

[archgin742000]

It is simply because we cannot reduce God's identity and His totality into a mere few pages of the book. That is where many fundamentalist christians and even non believers have a problem. God goes beyond the things that we see in this earth so Jesus was right of not had written anything because many would made a mistake of knowing God by just reading the Bible.

[LoungeroomRemedy]

If there is some sort of divine entity watching and supervising this chaos u speak of, and he chooses not to intervene, then he's malevolent and malicious and not deserving of any praise.

And if the divine entity doesn't have the ability to intervene, then its not divine, and there's no reason to call it "God" in the first place.

[gouttedemer1]

"You are in error, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God"

Jesus said in Matthew 22:29

of course it's easy to make theories and philosophies of our own, we are very good at that. you reject and argue against something you don;t seem to know, our soul knows it, but our mind blurs everything. Nothing that our mind created is not coherent from the beginning until the very end. there is always a flaw in our reasoning. the only coherent and perfectly logic "philosophy" is in the Bible.

[LoungeroomRemedy]

"Nothing that our mind created is not coherent from the beginning until the very end."

Nothing that YOUR mind creates seems to make any sense.

"the only coherent and perfectly logic "philosophy" is in the Bible"

Right, so a God who makes faulty humans, then blames and punishes us for his own mistakes, then proceeds to appear in human form and allows himself to be killed so that he can then forgive the sins that he was responsible for in the first place?

Sure, makes a lot of sense.

[LoungeroomRemedy]

By ur fairytales, God created people - humans, the way we are. He created us flawed and then proceeds to blame us for his own incompetence.

If God is all powerful, all knowing and all loving, then there is NOTHING stopping him from intervening at every turn and prevent, oh, say, 1 billion ppl in the world suffering from starvation. Wake up and realise that we, and only we, are responsible for everything that occurs here, good and bad.

[1966JohnE]

@LoungeroomRemedy "By ur fairytales..."

And by your fairytales an explosion that mysteriously occurred on its own billions of years ago eventually created you (not to mention Shakespeare, Mozart, intelligence, love, and even "religious fairytales").

At least my fairytale is more rational and credible.

[gouttedemer1]

and I am not a slave because God gave me eyes and mind to see my condition on this earth, in this mortal body, and to see that we are heading on the wrong path. Just look around you. Are you pleased? moreover, we have free will to choose if we want to believe in God or not and I chose, nobody imposed me that.

May God enlighten you so that you truly understand the Scriptures, reading them as a whole, not decontextualized paragraphs, and then you'll see that everything is coherent.

God bless you

[gouttedemer1]

see the flood. He could have made every trace of human being disappear but still, He saved..one because He saw that that man was trying to do what was right in His eyes and so He saved him and his family, hoping again that this new people will be as they should be...but again..things degenerated because in His love He gave us the power of choosing our own path. If He had wanted to be obedient and all, He would have created us as brainless servants but no.

[LoungeroomRemedy]

"He could have made every trace of human being disappear but still, He saved..one because He saw that that man was trying to do what was right in His eyes..."

Pls read what uve said very carefully. Basically, you're praising someone for having the "compassion" to slaughter EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THIS EARTH (including innocent newborn children and animals), but save one.

You have a propensity to be an ignorant slave and to live under a cruel dictatorship & u don't even see it.

[gouttedemer1]

just a question: don't you, as human being, want to react in some way to this almost chaos in the world?don't all the miseries that you hear and see around you just make you want to go and live rather on a desert island? and you/me are just members of our kind. try to imagine then what does God feel about everything He sees and hears coming from our minds, mouths, hands from thousands of years and still being kind enough to forgive us and what is more, wanting to give us eternal life with Him.

[LoungeroomRemedy]

"don't you, as human being, want to react in some way to this almost chaos in the world?"

Yes, I do. That's why I speak out about it, try to change people's perceptions and make them see their own immoralities. My solution is not to kill everyone who doesn't believe/agree with or in me, nor do I pretend like I have all the answers.

By your beliefs, God is RESPONSIBLE for the evil coming from us, as well as for the good....

[LoungeroomRemedy]

'...the God of the Bible doesn't get angry when we don't worship him'.

Umm....have you actually read the Bible?

[gouttedemer1]

He does get angry but not because we don't worship Him,but because He sees that the work that he had intended as good and with a purpose rebelled against Him and goes deeper and deeper into sin,forgetting who they are and who created them and what He has been doing for us.He could have destroyed Adam and Eve there in Eden but still He knew that there was hope that at least some of their offspring turn their faces to Him.

[LoungeroomRemedy]

"He does get angry but not because we don't worship Him"

What's the very first commandment - his absolute top priority for human beings?

"Thou shalt not worship any other Gods but me"

Of course that's the reason he gets angry; that's the reason he orders all men, women, children and livestock in a village destroyed bcoz they worshipped "false Gods" (Exodus 22:19, Deuteronomy 13:13-19 etc. etc. etc.)

Honestly, it's mind boggling how many religious advocates don;t even read their bible...

[TheEcumenator]

wow thats great!

[haudace]

i'm an atheist who doesn't kill, steal, rape.

am i going to hell?

[SmokiSounds]

You truly are completely blind, aren't you. I've noticed before, in your incapability of understanding omniscience.

Can't you READ a few posts below? They answer your question thoroughly!

[haudace]

i needed a straight answer that i can understand. a simple yes or no, no question dodging, no conjectures etc... i didn't understand the other posts.

[haudace]

thanks for bringing up omniscience again. we didn't finish our very fruitful conversation yesterday.

quote:"it matter nothing (in terms of omniscience) which choice is taken...omniscience doesn't imply god knowing which decision will be taken"

we're in a christian thread, possible rescue for you :D.

omniscience ought to fill any gap in knowledge yet your phrasing suggests otherwise albeit not clearly. this is where we don't reach consensus and i've been begging you to explain that one to me.

[Childinfaith]

Ok good start. Now use normal human reason to understand that those 3 things are not just wrong simply becuase society or the culture says so. Recognize that these evils are in and of themselves diobolical because our benevolent creator has imbedded in our concience the sence to determine what is ultimately right and wrong.

[haudace]

so you do acknowledge that humans have within themselves a moral compass to judge what's right or wrong. on that point, i agree with you.

i'm confused with your other claim. how did god embed us with a conscience to judge evil from good? why are the dark ages characterized with extremely rare periods of social enlightenment considering religion dominated every facet of life? why is the bible so violent towards certain outsiders?

[Childinfaith]

"how did god embed us with a conscience to judge evil from good?"

Well when you come up with another cause for ultimate and objective truth for all humanity to abide by you let me know.

"why are the dark ages/religion dominated every facet of life?"

Perhaps the finger is best pointed at the theocratic governments who hijacked religious dogma as a tool to subdue the masses. Governments ruin everything don't they?

[haudace]

"cause for ultimate and objective truth for all humanity to abide by you let me know"

i have some ideas where morality came from but you won't believe me.

"..theocratic governments who hijacked religious dogma as a tool to subdue the masses."

i'll remember that next time i argue for separation of church and state. but i seriously thought there wasn't any governments back then, only the catholic church of rome with some pope.

[Childinfaith]

"i have some ideas where morality came from but you won't believe me. "

Probably because they don't stand up to scrutiny.

"only the catholic church of rome with some pope. "

Sounds like someone needs a history lesson.

[haudace]

"Probably because they don't stand up to scrutiny."

you mean your scrutiny.

"Sounds like someone needs a history lesson."

oh, you're talking about those monarchs who couldn't even marry without some pope's consent. the ones with inquisitions?

[Childinfaith]

"you mean your scrutiny"

well if you weren't so afraid to reveal them we would know wouldn't we?

"...the ones with inquisitions?"

Basic sentence structure would probably carry whatever point you were attepting to make a little easier. And that's approved divorce you are talking about. Specificly Henry the 8th.

[haudace]

the reality is that i am too afraid. i am afraid to engage in a fruitless battle. we probably won't even enjoy an intellectual discourse if we decided to keep talking to each other. our egos are just too high and mighty... not to forget to biased. i'll gladly debate you when you'll be able to convince me and me you. until then, tada!

unless you are ready and willing... i know i am.

[mannyfit75]

He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

[mannyfit75]

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church.

[mannyfit75]

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

[mannyfit75]

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

[mannyfit75]

Catechism states concerning Non-Christians:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

[sin128]

If this is true, why are all non-Christians condemned to hell?

[Childinfaith]

They're not.

[wordonfirevideo]

They're not!

[sin128]

"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." It seems to be heavily implied that they are, no?

[archgin742000]

Christianity is not a liscence or a ticket to heaven. Well....actually its a ticket to heaven, but just like a ticket, when you loose it or you choose to throw it away, you cannot go to your destination. So Christians must not be boastfull nor be self righteous because being a Christians actually give us more responsibility by being "salts in the earth", by being good examples and be witness to His love.

[HopefulSaint]

What this passage fails to define is the definition of the word "believe." This is incredibly crucial. Seeing as how it is impossible, or atleast very very very difficult to discover, we are not in a position to make any assumption on the eternal destination of others. All we can do is have faith of our own destinations by accord of the Church's teachings

[mannyfit75]

like wordonfirevideo states, "They're not."

[archgin742000]

not all non christians go to hell. only those who don't adhere to His laws and His greatest law is to Love God with all your heart and sould and love one another as He has loved us. With that law, even christians can go to hell because many christians don't practice what they preach. So don't loose hope my friend.

[archgin742000]

sorry for my typo errors.

[mannyfit75]

Unrepentent sinners are condemned to hell. It is possible for a Non-Christian to live a righteous life do good and avoid evil.

[sin128]

Thanks for the replies. So how would a non-Christian get to heaven?  How can they repent for their sins?

[mannyfit75]

That judgement is reserve to God alone. For God is the only one who knows the hearts of men.

[archgin742000]

Wow! Thats powerful. I just hope I can find such great priests and orators here in the Philippines.

[meowfairydust]

i've never thought of it this way before. thank you!

[BaronvonKorf]

I think that is the single best argument against the Tyrannical God world view. If he needs nothing from us, and yet we exist and good exists as well, then all of our lives and all of creation is nothing but a loving gift.

[usanpun]

Great and Thank you Father. Post some more topic on current problems. Thanks.

[wordonfirevideo]

Thanks for your feedback. I've done a number of things on the contemporary culture. I do think it's important from time to time to step back and look at the theological framework for our belief.

[TELEMACUS800]

Thanks for yet another great video. Anyone know if Elaine Pagels watches You Tube? If you do, please forward this video to her!