@jonpaulmayer If we can accept that all time is irrelevant when compared to eternity, and that God does not view time as we do (2 Peter 3:8), then can we not also accept that the "7 days" described in Genesis just might not be literally 7, 24 hr. days? And if we can accept that the 7 days may not be literal, then why can we not accept that the other measures or descriptions are also not literal, but figurative, described so that humans might comprehend the lessons in their own ignorant minds?
@jonpaulmayer Believing that humans evolved from the components of the Earth is a more precise understanding of what it means to be "formed from the dirt" as Genesis put it. And Adam and Eve could have very well represented the first humans of evolution. We get caught up on evolution being compatible with humans being made in the image and likeness of God, but it's possible that at whatever point God was done developing us, he instilled the "human soul" and we were then like him.
Genesis tells us that God created everything while science tells us some of HOW creation happened. If describing the Human Body requires large text books, how could the exact method of creation be described within one book of the Bible? Believing that we can understand, sum up, and dumb down all of God's techniques for creating the universe in one book, is an insult to God's mind and power and it takes away from our reverence for God and knowledge of our own mental limitations.
What's really dangerous is viewing a person's religious freedom as dangerous - that leads to wanting to strip them of their rights and persecute them. As far as us believing in miracles and morality, it can only be understood through the eyes of faith. For an unbeliever it sounds like nonsense, but truth is not dependent on our ability to accept or understand it.
1) While his premise is correct that you cannot approach every book of the Bible with the same lens of interpretation, he doesn't let the context dictate whether it is historical, poetic or theological. He assumes that science contradicts Genesis, therefore he labels it a "theological interpretation." But it is exactly because science and theology are not separate and incompatible entities that one cannot force a scientific explanation onto a Biblical text just to avoid the ridicule of atheists.
2) Science cannot make positive statements about what cannot be observed. Who observed the creation? The Author of Scripture did. Genesis is written as a chronological, historical account, and it must be interpreted as such. Father Barron is looking in exactly the wrong place if he wants answers about the origins of the universe.
3) Father Barron's above implication is that even if the universe and life on earth came about by evolution, that that is still somehow theologically compatible with the book of Genesis. That is completely false. It contradicts the idea that the universe was created in an orderly and perfect state. It also contradicts the essential idea that Original Sin was passed down from the first human couple. If you cast doubt on the existence of the first Adam, what does it do to the Second Adam, Christ?
4) I really lose any respect for this Father when he calls fellow Christians "idiots" because they take literally the accounts of creation or of Jonah. And yet he says that the gospels purport to be historical reportage. If this is true, would he cast out the miracle of the Resurrection just because Bill Maher challenges him to explain it scientifically? And if not, why does he ridicule his brothers and sisters for not knowing how Jonah survived in the belly of a fish?
5) After all that concluding talk about "surrendering" one's rational self to faith, to "falling in love," to the unknowable, Father Barron seems totally unwilling to do so except for a few instances where he is forced to. In light of his conclusion, he should see his own hypocrisy in ridiculing fellow believers because they are willing to surrender more than he is.
Man, many of the responses to this brilliant discourse are pathetic for lack of a better term. Please re-watch the video and consider what he is saying and how he is saying it. Some of these responses are just juvenile. However, that said, it is still good to question but a fault to be dismissive.
When he speaks of the symbolism of a "talking snake," he nonetheless does not address a literal belief in Virgin birth, the driving out of demons, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. By comparing faith to falling in love, he makes faith a matter of subjective experience, not truth - that is, what he loves may not be what others love. And science and religion are only not at odds if the burden of proof (regarding resurrection) is on science to disprove it, rather than on religion to prove it.
@7Portofino It is not about the miracles themselves but about the literary constructions of the books. Genesis wasn't written with a journalistic approach but rather to explain certain truths in the universe. How the world comes into being and the nature of sins and so on. The Gospels (esp. synoptic) was written to record what Jesus has done and His miracles. That's Fr.Baron's point
@ImmaculateCoffee Yes, but the Gospels also were written with the polemical intent of persuading others that Jesus was God. This hardly was mere journalism or history; rather, it was written by fervent believers that had an audience they were trying to persuade of Jesus' divinity. Exaggeration and hyperbole--fabrication, even--are the most likely explanation, given that these texts were written by believers, destined for non-believers, to convince them that Jesus was God.
@7Portofino Then we must say that science and philosophy is also at odds. Or science and mathematics is at odds. Or that science and history are at odd. Why? Because how do you prove the texts were written by Caesar? How do you prove the philosophical points of Aristotle? How do you proof a myriad of mathematical theorems as being scientifically sound? Try asking a mathematician to provide an empirical proof for an abstract mathematical theorem, and watch his reaction, you'll see my point
@7Portofino In regard to the comparison to love I think you miss the point. The point isn't about love itself. Of course love is subjective. The whole point is about the EXPERIENCE of falling in love, which is more objective than love itself
@ImmaculateCoffee My problem with his reasoning is that the experience--faith--can be that of a Catholic; or a Presbyterian; or an orthodox Jew; or a New Ager, even.So what does that objective experience prove? At best, it suggests there may be *something* that can be glimpsed beyond reason, some transcendent mystery. So maybe one is a theist or agnostic, as opposed to an atheist. But the experience of mystery or "being" does not itself privilege Catholic belief over Quaker, for example
A lot of Christians like to say that parts of the bible are metaphorical, but if you actually read the bible there is no way to tell what is literal and what is figurative based on writing techniques. The way these people tell what is figurative and what is literal is its level of insanity. For example: It is not possible for a single boat to hold two of each animal, therefore it must be symbolic. However, if you READ the passage, it is written LITERALLY with no hint that it is symbolic.
@red666111 that's when we begin to dwell into archaeology and history. The book of Genesis was written not as a historical account, but rather as an explanation for things. For why the world comes into being, what is sin. The rabbis who composed those books don't always call for literalism, they also ask for theological knowledge. Books such as the history books or the Gospel is different in regard that they were written for the sole purpose of recording
Lets just all be real here.. Were not changing anyones opinion ! let us have the scientists progress society and the religous go to church and be happy with themselves.
This illustrates my biggest problem with religion. Its the problem of miscommunication, the Bible is interpreted so many different ways, from the simplest literal interpretation to a scholarly view like Ftr Barron's,there is very little consensus. . .Why wouldn't the creator of the universe,who knew in advance the confusion and division scriptural interpretation would cause, have made his message more clear?
You say that the stories in the book of Genesis are not to be taken literally, yet I fail to see how the virgin birth or the resurrection make any more sense.
I like the response by the good Father, but he concedes a little too much. There is no a priori reason to dismiss the traditional view of the historicity of books like Genesis and Jonah.
The point of his movie is to show what the average believer believe, that's why he didn't interview theology scholars. What the average religious person believe and what serious theologians believe are 2 totally different things. It also puts forth the point that these beliefs have real consequences.
@john5899 Not so! He showed, perhaps, what the average fundamentalist holds. Catholics, who number over a billion around the world, certainly don't hold to the kind of literalism that Maher mocks.
@wordonfirevideo "Not so! He showed, perhaps, what the average fundamentalist holds. "
You're being disingenuous. John 5899 made a valid point about how fundamentalist beliefs have poisoned the American political landscape, and you choose, instead of a thoughtful answer, to just prop up your argument, which was, to be blunt, besides the point.
I'm really disappointed that someone as thoughtful as you obviously are, chose to deflect instead of engage. Shame on you.
@wordonfirevideo Just out of curiosity... how do you know that your version of faith is correct...... I mean ... I am a ex-catholic but i dont think that the God, if there is one, would care if you call him "Jesus", "Yaweh", or "Allah"......... SO PLEASE DONT TRY TO DIVDE THE WORLD AND DISRUPT THE PEACE FATHER BY PREACING UNJUSTIFIED claims
@MrPhilosopher108 With a name "philosopher" I'm quite surprise to see you telling people not to preach what they believe is true. Could you imagine if Plato, Aristotle, or Voltaire decided to do the same because they don't want to "divide the world and disrupt the peace"?
@wordonfirevideo i presume that by catholics you mean roman catholics. the only reason why they say that there is 1bn rcs in the world is because the organisation signs up at birth and then offer excommunication as a way out of the organisation. i am considered to be a rc by the organisation but i am an atheist
@losarman Nonsense. It does not offer excommunication as a "way out." Excommunication is a censure, a medicinal penalty that calls upon a person to change their ways, and can be conferred automatically pertaining to the offence you've done as per canon law or as a sentence by an authority (ecclesiastical court). It is totally up to you to be Catholic or not. So if you want out, just say so. Nobody's stopping you.
@MaxxTheMerciless complete trite. They sign up kids at birth and I know that it is up to me whether I believe or not but the hierarchy deem it impossible to leave the thing. I never asked to signed up and I should never have been counted as on of them. I am now saying that I do not want to be considered rc but the rcc will not take me off their figures. There are not 1bn rcs in the world there are maybe 100m
@losarman You didn't ask to be born, either, and if you don't like it you can always kill yourself like Nietzsche wanted to do. And who cares if the Church won't take you off their rolls? Isn't that their business, not yours? Pardon me for saying this, but you sound like a wimp. For some reason, you feel confined and constrained by the Church, right? Well, talk to a former Muslim sometime. He might clue you in on how it feels to have a death warrant out on you.
@wordonfirevideo I used to be Catholic, and they do take parts of it literally. They believe in transubstantiation. They believe in the virgin birth and the ressurection. They also have other crazy beliefs, ie: that condoms are worse than aids. Catholics are as crazy as the rest, and just as dangerous. The pope is a criminal in my view, telling aids riddles africans to not use condoms and hiding child rapists. He should be flogged in public or put in prison. They deserve to be mocked.
@john5899 Gosh, I'm so glad that now that you've left the Catholic Church, you've found such a reasonable, balanced perspective! Let me see if I have your logic right: Catholics are "dangerous" because of their beliefs, and yet you want to see the Pope flogged in public!
@wordonfirevideo The pope is more dangerous then I could ever be. He has almost an entire continent of people in Africa (which is being ravaged by AIDS) who believe he is the infallible mouthpiece of god on earth. Then he tells them not to use condoms and even OUTRIGHT LIED and told them that condoms do not stop the aid virus. His actions will cause the death of millions. So, yeah, a flogging would be going easy on him. I don't think that my perspective is so out of whack when complared to his.
@john5899 Last time I checked, the Pope nor anyone else holds any responsibility for anyone else's sex life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing inaccurate about stating that the most sure fire way to avoid STD's is not to engage in sex out of wedlock.
@JRserver But it IS inaccurate to tell people that condoms have microscopic holes in them that let the aids virus through, so you might as well not use them. He put out this info, in writing. The World health organization and other medical organizations immediately put out responses that this is patently false, but the faithful are going to believe him.
@JRserver Abstinence only works until it doesn't. Sex is a natural urge that people for the most part can't fight. Religion puts restrictions on sex in order to foster guilt to help with controlling people, but of course people are going to have sex. It is pragmatic to say, since they are going to do it anyway, it would at least help to use protection. Because of the vatican's malicious lies, there is a continent of people that now believe that condoms are evil, and they don't stop aids anyway.
@john5899 Are you implying that the AIDS virus should not serve as a sufficient deterrent against sex out of wedlock. Put aside the efficacy of contraceptives for the time being and ask yourself if it's really worth the risk of contracting AIDS by having sex out of wedlock, protected or not, given it's prevalence in Africa. If you choose to listen to Papal doctrine on the use of contraceptives, but ignore the same doctrine on out of wedlock sex, who's responsible for what comes of that?
@JRserver AIDS would serve as a deterrent to you or me, because we live in America and are more educated and have a better quality of life. People we are talking about are poor, uneducated and have poor quality of life. Sex is something that is free and probably one of the few sources of pleasure these people's lives. If you were in their shoes, and you didn't have a basic education and your life was toil, poverty and misery 24/7, you may have a different outlook.
@john5899 Then does the burden of informing the uneducated masses in Africa about the potential risk of AIDS fall on the distributor of contraceptives? And if he or she knowingly withholds that information from them, on the grounds that they are dirt poor and sex is the only thing worth living for in Africa, and they end up contracting AIDS, does the blame fall directly upon them for doing so?
@JRserver That makes no sense, there are organizations that ARE trying to educate them, and are trying to get them to use condoms. Then, the vatican is lying to the people, telling them that condoms don't work. Who is a devout Catholic going to believe, the World health organization, or the pope. If the pope wants to help SAVE LIVES, he should come out and tell the entire catholic population of Africa to use condoms 100% of the time. End of story,
@john5899 My point, once again, is that, since you have conceded that the prevalence of AIDS being what it is in Africa would serve as a deterrent to you or I. So, if you are to be intellectually honest, you'd have to distribute contraceptives in such a way as to communicate the message "This is designed to stop the spread of STD's, but with AID's being so widespread in Africa, you still may want to think twice about sex out of wedlock." Agreed?
@JRserver You wrote: "This is designed to stop the spread of STD's, but with AID's being so widespread in Africa, you still may want to think twice about sex out of wedlock."
Agreed, that is what people in africa need to know, if only the pope would come out and say this. Instead, he says that condoms are evil, you'll go to hell if you use them, and don't have sex out of wedlock. At least if the people that did still have sex out of wedlock would use condoms, it would help stop the spread.
@john5899 BTW, in reading some of your other comments on this thread, specifically those addressed to Father Barron, you make the point that "beliefs have consequences", and Papal doctrine on contraceptives is false. Let me offer you a chance to put your money where your mouth is - look up the video "Bill Maher pseudoscience" and get a glimpse of some of Bill's perspectives on medical issues. If believes have consequences, then Bill is spreading some rather dangerous misinformation of his own.
@JRserver There are not millions of people worldwide that believe with all their heart that Bill Mahr is INFALLIBLE. There are millions of people that believe that the pope is. Trying to equate what Bill Mahr says to what the pope says shows that you are grasping at straws and have no real defense against what I have written. The last time I heard something like that, Bill Donahue defending child rapist by saying that since most of the victims were post puebecent, the priests weren't pedophiles.
@john5899 "There are not millions of people worldwide that believe with all their heart that Bill Mahr is INFALLIBLE."
Then you clearly are not familiar with Maher's fanbase, my friend. In any case, my point is that the misinformation Bill is spreading has medical consequences and if you are to be intellectually honest, you cannot demonize the Pope but not Maher if the argument that "beliefs have consequences". And I'm not the one making that argument, so the burden is not on me to prove it.
@JRserver Well, I'm sure that Bill Mahr would be happy with your view that the pope and bill mahr are on equal footing. I'm not sure the pope would appreciate your comparison. For you to actually make the claim that Bill Mahr has as much clout as the pope really shows how far you are streching to defend/justify your beliefs. And it's sad. You can't argue what I'm saying with logic, so you are nitpicking and making outrageous claims. Do you realise that you are not helping your case here?
@john5899 (long, exasperated sigh) My point is that, speaking as a recovering fan of Maher's, that my experience among his fanbase has shown me that they will swallow whatever he has to say as (no pun intended) gospel. And even looking beyond that, Maher is a nationally known stand up comic with a long running political talk show and who is a frequent guest on other such shows. He has a platform to communicate his views on medicine that are the equal of any head of state or religious leader...
@john5899 and he has not hesitated to spew his misinformation on a regular basis. As such, fan's of his and casual viewers of shows he appears on are being exposed to the misinformation he spreads that is being treated as legitimate. And that brings me to your proclamation that "beliefs have consequences". My point is that that statement is a two-way street - either both the Pope AND Maher are charlatans not to be taken seriously or neither of them are.
@JRserver If it means getting you to finally admit that the Pope is a charlatan, then I choose charlatan for both. I have no special loyalty to bill maher, I just liked his movie. I think this was very productive, we finally established that the pope is a chalatan, and has no more or less insight into the nature of reality than Bill Maher, or any other human being on earth.
@john5899 I'm not accusing Maher of being a charlatan (even if he plays it fast and loose with the facts whenever it suits his narrative, as evidenced by his film) anymore than I agree to the Pope being as such. You're the one arguing that "beliefs have consequences", so the burden is not on me to prove that argument. I'm just arguing for ideological consistency, and if you're lacking in that department, I'm not losing any sleep over it, but you can be damn sure I'm gonna call you out for it ;)
@JRserver The fact that beliefs have consequences is evident, there shouldn't even be argumant over that point. If you believe something, it will affect your behavior and that behavior has consequences for yourself and other people. If you truly believe that elvis is still alive, and you speak about it to others, the consequence is that people are going to think you're nuts. You pay that price for holding such a belief.
@JRserver The point I was making is that the catholic people in Africa realy and truly believe in their religion, and part of that is believing that the pope is infallible. A consequence of that belief is that they will listen to what he says and believe it, even when the information he is giving out is flat out wrong or even outright lies.
@JRserver So, yes, there are consequences to people no matter who it is that puts out bad information and lies, but you must admit that the pope has a larger, more devout audience and also has more power and influence (because I don't see Bill Maher meeting with too many heads of state/and doing world tours where millions of people come out to just glimpse him. Because of that has the potential to do more harm with his misinformation. I can't see how that could be considered inconsistant.
@wordonfirevideo That, coupled with the fact that he actively took part in the protection and relocation of child rapists makes wish there were a hell for him to go to. The only reason the pope and the Catholic church has the power and resources to do this is because the average, everyday members support the church and they continue to believe that any person on earth can be infallible. Beliefs have consequenses, and we can't afford the consequenses of these unfounded bronze age beliefs anymore.
@john5899 And frankly, an interview with one or two historians might have helped Maher's credibility in the film, and allowed him to avoid venturing into the thoroughly debunked mythical ripoff theory of the Jesus story, i.e. Horus, Krishna, Mithras, etc. Maher states in the film that "many of the god were born on Dec. 25", which A.) is not true, and B.) Even if it were, is entirely irrelevant, given that the Bible does not give a date for Christ's birth.
@john5899 I find it hard to take Maher seriously on this subject when he seems perfectly content to make such blatant errors that he would never hesitate to correct were he to see an equivalent in other subjects. You cannot hold me to one standard of "rationality" and yourself to a lower one and expect to be taken seriously.
@JRserver There's some things he didn't get wrong. 1) There is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural diety. 2) The combination of fanatical bronze age myths & the availability of apocalyptic weapons is among the geatest threats to the human race. 3) We, as a species, have to abandon these beliefs if we are going to survive into the future. There is no arguing any of these points.
@john5899 1.) So, I'm supposed to outright ignore Maher's blatant historical and sociological errors in the film which could have been avoided by no more than a Google search and accept his and your thesis? 2.) Explain to me how the world is better off eliminating "fanatical bronze age myths" if apocalyptic weapons remain available?
3.) See question number one.
4.) I'm assuming that you concede my points in my previous comments, given that you've offered no direct response, as such?
I am baptized Roman Catholic, but not confirmed. My views sway more towards Agnostic-Atheist views. But i am not an militant atheist, more like a laid back one. Overall, i see Jesus as a mortal and dismiss the whole Holy Divinity non-sense. I just don't get those who live with blind faith and preach what they don't know at all.
Main thing is, arrogance & blind faith bothers me.
@RandoCDN87 Come on, man! You don't think this response of yours, which dismisses out of hand the beliefs of over a billion people, is just a tad arrogant?
@wordonfirevideo You don't get truth from a plebiscite, and what could be more arrogant than to claim to know the mind of God? You make an implied ad hominem by chastising Rando for being dismissive when all he is doing is expressing his opinion. And just what is wrong with having faith in your fellow man anyway?
@wordonfirevideo I don't think thats a good response to atheists, because we reject the views of Islam as well, which has over a billion followers as well, not to mention Hinduism and Buddhism.
I rather place my faith in humanity and into the integrity and dignity of others who are reasonable & understandable; Not into something that's just a front for that's actually real.
"The ground of all knowledge is the mystical intuition that being is intelligible. The ground of this is the belief that God has made the world intelligible. Belief is super rational, not irrational; it is a surrender that lies beyond reason." The previous is quoted from the video. Can you read this and not go away with the feeling that Fr. Barron is struggling mightily to produce some verbal legerdemain that will square the circle in order to make nonsense sound sensible?
@wordonfirevideo An argument entails reasoning. Since Fr. Barron has stated that belief is a "surrender that lies beyond reason", it must surely follow that it also lies beyond argument. The only thing beyond reason is opinion, and if opinions do not need to be supported by evidence, then we are all free to believe whatever we want. We do, and it continues to be a cause of unending strife and misery. Peace will only come from surrendering faith, not reason.
@fr57ujf No! To say that faith lies beyond reason is precisely to say that it presupposes rational argumentation. Take a look at my videos on arguing for God's existence. There is plenty of rational evidence for accepting the existence of God, and the Catholic tradition happily embraces it.
@wordonfirevideo "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." - Hebrews 11-1. No evidence there. Faith can move mountains. Jesus and Vince Lombardi both knew this, but Lombardi did not confuse determination with truth. The minute you look to evidence to support theism, you are on ever thinner ice. Science keeps debunking the myth and the Church is forced to fight an ever more desperate rear guard action. I would be happy to debate the evidence with you.
@wordonfirevideo In what way does faith presuppose rational argumentation? And if the evidence is so plentiful, why do more than 90% of scientists describe themselves as non-believers? Religion and science cannot be reconciled because religion relies on faith and science relies on evidence. Religion claims to know the truth, science, more modestly, claims only to be trying to discover it. Religion is more like politics - it constantly tries to destroy its opponents.
@wordonfirevideo The problem is not that your ideas do not cohere; in your conceptual framework they may very well do so. However, there is no reason to suppose that we must be inspired to believe that the world can be understood. It is obvious from observation. And while some intuitions are remarkably accurate, they do not require a mystical explanation, nor do they dispense with the need for reason. Feelings don't necessarily lead to truth; but they often lead to conflict.
Thank you. I realize now that the reason I haven't been able to let my guard down with God is because I know I can't control Him. I realize that I don't know how to take that eternal leap of faith and fall in love because I don't know what will happen. Thank you so much for opening my eyes to that.
"All he did was line up stupid people and take their faith apart" You heard it. Father Barron says the Christians who talked to Bill Maher were stupid.
@Bulloxe4 Fr Barron said we must have faith in another person in order to fall in love. Is it possible that atheists spend so much time trying to protect self through rational reason that they forget to "fall?" Psychological studies show that those who are happiest in their marriages are those who believe most strongly in their spouse's goodness, not those with better spouses.
Dear Father Barron; I have spent a year studying the New Atheists and their movement, in order to understand them and why they teach what they do. Thank you for speaking respectfully and intelligently about them, and for your efforts to show where they go wrong, without being afraid to recognize what they get right. We need more men like you in the Church. I pray for you, and pray for me and my studies!
Father Barron, I really enjoy watching your videos. I'm a Catholic who has returned to the Church after a stint with militant atheism. It's your videos that help me discover more and more why I am happy ti believe in an all loving God. Merry Christmas and God bless!
@omnius28 A stint with militant atheism? It sounds like you joined the army. The phrase "militant atheist" is an oxymoron. An atheist is simply a person who believes things based on evidence. We all do this, but some of us suspend our critical faculties when it comes to religion. If you were fired up about being an atheist, you weren't an atheist. You may, however, have been an anti-theist like the late Christopher Hitchens. Thomas Jefferson represents the thoughtful skepticism I mean.
@fr57ujf I disagree. Militant Atheists are people like Dawkins and Hitchens. They're belief is that if you have any faith in any religon, your delusional and need help. They're no different than conservative religous people. You don't know me, or what I experienced nor how I felt. I'm not trying to preach or say that my way is the correct way. I can only say that I'm happy in what I believe and it makes me a better person to everyone each day.
@omnius28 I said that Hitchens was an anti-theist, so we agree on this point; however I don't agree that atheists and fundamentalists are doing the same thing. Atheists do not say there is no God, only that there is no evidence to indicate there is. Fundamentalists declare that they have the eternal truth and that no further inquiry is necessary or even desirable. And although you say you aren't trying to preach, that is exactly what religion does. Atheists do not try to convert anyone.
@fr57ujf And as far as being happy and a better person for your beliefs, I say bravo! The real problems with religion are not so much with individuals, but with the institutions. I am reminded of the ancient Roman proverb: "Senatores boni viri, senatus autem mala bestia" (The senators are all good men but the senate is a beast.)
I would say that the miraculous is when the impossible happens, when the rules of the universe are broken.
A clear example of this quote, in my opinion, is the literal transformation of the host into human flesh, confirmed by medical people and still intact after a thousand years. and this not being the only occasion.
-> Excuse me, are you saying there is a scientific study which proved that the host turns into actuall ... I don't know if human flesh is the right term. Let's say that it goes through a transformation.
Where was this study made, who made it, in what jurnal was it published? What was it's title, I would love to read it.
@Bulloxe4 The Miracle of Lanciano. look it up. I wish I could post the links to the confirmations but youtube is absolutely incredible at being totalitarian about no links, second that some of these links have expired, but reports say that it has been confirmed by the World Health Organization.
most of the full reports have expired over the internet as time has gone by. but here's something. clump them all together.
Regarding the link, enter zenit . org / article - 12933?!=english
@Bulloxe4 here's another print link: Quad Sclavo Diagn. 1971 Sep;7(3):661-74. Links[Histological, immunological and biochemiccal studies on the flesh and blood of the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano (8th century)]
@kubrox91 All of the sources I could find online citing an alleged report by the World Health Organization are Catholic sources. The W.H.O. report allegedly verifying Linoli's and Bertelli's analysis is not available online. If one were to take this claim on face value we would have the DNA of God. We could research whether Jesus was blond and blue eyed or of middle eastern origin. If Jesus only got half his genes from Mary, the normal means by which cells grow and multiply would not work.
@Apacalola Well, there are print sources, as well. but the whole concept of Jesus getting half his genes from Mary has boggled me, too, but I think it's what makes the conception more significant, the Holy Spirit probably found a way to fill the genetic gaps.
Are you aware you're trying to use reason to prove your spiritual teachings? Your faith craves scientific proof because you're aware that reason carries so much more weight then faith. Admit it. You would like nothing more then having real actuall scientific proof published in nature or physics review of the validity of your religious teachings.
You're only broadcasting faith because reason stands against you.
@Bulloxe4 First off, we use reason as human beings to understand ANYTHING. and duh, I wish I could easily prove my beliefs in an empirical method. But my beliefs are not simply me following things blindly as Dawkins says I do. I've made my own conscious investigation to conclude that Christianity is true based on historical evidence that Jesus existed and mathematics to say that God exists.
No religion on this planet comes close to knowing this person, entity, or whatever. My own conscious decision was to not follow any religion. Not to not believe in God.
But back to the point. You said Fides et Ratio. Actually you quoted it, not important.
Like those are two sides of the same coin. I just wanted to calrify that rationality is better. Maybe I missed your point.
@Bulloxe4 Let me see if I can clarify it a little better, I don't know if I'm gonna be spot on with it: I use my reason and rationality to determine if there is a God, which is my faith, which is what I identify as the ultimate source of my reason. Idk if I conveyed it right.
I'd actually say Christianity makes sense, since aristotle said that if there is a deity it should be monotheistic and eternal.
I understand having faith. But I don't understand what do you need faith for when you have proof, empirical or logical. To me faith ( not to be mixed with religion ) is that by which you hold things to be true without proof.
So if you have proof, if you use your reason and rationality to determine if there is a God, then why do you need faith?
When you used the word faith in your last comment it seems to me like you meant your religion. But I don't want to put words in your mouth.
@kubrox91 A conscious investigation? What other kind is there? You may not be blind, but you are misinformed. Leaving aside the references by Josephus, which appear to be fraudulent insertions, the only other extra-biblical reference to Jesus is a single entry in the Annals by Tacitus in the early second century. And I would love to see your mathematical proof of God.
@fr57ujf First off: he's also referenced jn the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Talmud, as well as archeologists uncovering locations and people that he interacted with. My mathematical approach: if you say that the universe is infinite in expansion, you cannot say it is infinite in past. You cannot subtract infinity from infinity. If you were to say, okay, it had a beginning, but it created itself, that is pulling up from your bootstraps. X creates Y, but to say X creates X is a contradiction.
@fr57ujf First off: he's referenced jn the Acts of Phillip, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Talmud. My mathematical approach: if you say that the universe is infinite in expansion, you cannot say it is infinite in past. You cannot subtract infinity from infinity. If you were to say, okay, it had a beginning, but it created itself, that is pulling up from your bootstraps. X creates Y, but to say X creates X is a contradiction.
@fr57ujf I specified extra-biblical references. If the universe is infinite now, it was most definitely infinite in the past, because no sum of finite numbers will equal infinity, and no division of infinity will produce a finite number. Check out set theory. And your inability to imagine a universe that can bootstrap itself into existence is not an argument for the existence of God. We don't know how quantum fluctuations in the vacuum arise, either, but they continuously do so.
@fr57ujf Those ARE extra biblical resources, they are not part of the bible. If he's been referenced inJewish text, I'd say it's reliable. second: the big bang theory proves that our UNIVERSE had a beginning, but there are questions about what happened before that. even if it is "creating itself" it is following a GUIDELINE, right?
@Bulloxe4 I get where you're coming from, but if you rely SOLELY on reason, you can be just as bad as fundies who do not listen to anything other than their spiritual source. Dostoyevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamasov: The genuine realist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find the strength and ability to disbelieve in the miraculous, and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact, would rather disbelieve his own senses than acknowledge it, also.
@Bulloxe4 That wasn't Maher's point at all. He sums up his point in the last scene of the movie, which is basically that all religion should be wiped out. Up until that point it as rather light-hearted, but in the conclusion Maher turned very dark and menacing.
@wordonfirevideo Yes because you believe the same things they do, they just believe it a little more. All religion is intellectually irresponsible. If religion didn't plant the seeds in their heads, they wouldn't be fundamentalist.
@redrum41987 Come back when you know the basics. Fundamentalists don't believe "a little more". They see ALL the text of Scriptures as literal, when in fact, there is a variety of genres in the Bible. They wouldn't be fundamentalists if they used a little bit of their brain, not because religion "planted" some seeds.
"Intellectually irresponsible", lol. Really? How about Jesus' words "check everything for yourself"? No, buddy, YOU are intellectually irresponsible for making stupid claims.
@SmokiSounds Keep telling yourself that lol. I, for one, live in the real world and don't believe in a mythical being who relieves me of my sins if i "accept him as my personal savior." Get outta here with that nonsense. Religion of any kind has never helped the world on any wide scale. Maybe small scale but once you look globally, its all this persons religion versus another's. No religious person has any proof that anything they do changes the world as a whole for the better.
@redrum41987 And that's how you burried yourself in the hole of embarrasment. I educated you on fundamentalism, which was the reason for my post. And what do you do? Jump onto the next claim - now God is a "mythical being", and religion has never helped the world. Oooh, I see, genius. I wonder, why has nobody put the Bible in the "mythology" section in the libraries? Yeah...
As for religion doing good in the world, do you really want to start this? Or maybe you'll grow up a little and research?
@SmokiSounds you didn't educate me on fundamentalism. all religious people are the same. fundamentalist take the religious text literally and non-fundamentalist only take literally what they "want" to believe e.i. there being a god, devils, sins. case and point. I have research the entire subject of religion. Religion/ideology has caused most if not all major wars in the world. sure the may help the homeless and needy but that doesn't make up for the crusades, muslim holy wars, etc.
@redrum41987 "you didn't educate me on fundamentalism. all religious people are the same. fundamentalist take the religious text literally and non-fundamentalist only take literally what they "want" to believe"
If you want to change widely accepted definitions, go ahead. You're like a little stubborn kid. I've told you what fundamentalism is, and you're wrong. You can't even SPELL correctly, you expect us to believe you've researched "entire subject of religion"? lol. Amusing.
@SmokiSounds I have also study on ancient hebrews and most of ancient near east culture to tell that its all a bunch of BS. all it was this tribes better than that tribe, my god is better than your god, which is how most people act anyway. and now here you are 2000+ years later defending a small post-sumerian tribe led by "abraham" which grew, only by misleading and the fear mongering of the masses, into the jewish tribes and then to christianity.
@redrum41987 " I have also study on ancient hebrews and most of ancient near east culture to tell that its all a bunch of BS"
Just stop lying. We both know you haven't studied ANYTHING. What kind of claims are these? You've studied ancient near east culture and your only conclusion is "it's all a bunch of BS"? Any serious scholar would point you at the door and ask you to leave. Embarrassing, just embarrassing. Say something else.
@SmokiSounds What I am saying is that the details written in the bible about god are bunch a BS. Plus, I'm sure I know way more than you could possibly know on the subject of the ancient near east cultures. The ancient hebrews stem from abraham who lived in Ur, a sumerian city, and their culture evolved from the sumerians. the story of adam comes from the sumerian story of adamu. all the bible is is a retelling of old sumerian and egyptian myths, with some facts bout the israelites
@redrum41987 Oh please, get out of here with that zeitgeist nonsense. All these "retelling of ancient myths" claims have been debunked countless times since zeitgeist came out. Get ahold of some serious arguments, not subjective mumbling.
@SmokiSounds The Bible isn't in the mythology section because that would reduce it's credibility and control over the masses; religion keeps humans in line. Unfortunately, without religion there would be chaos.
I'm a young student of philosophy--currently a junior in college, and have become increasingly discontent with modernist, materialistic, atheist belief. Over three years of an existential struggle of sorts for faith, I've come to realize that I have always, in a sense, believed in God. It was the concepts I was fed that I did not believe in, but had faith in that Reality all along.
I have recently come to an in-depth study of Aquinas, and it is lovely to hear someone like you talk.
Look Father Barron no matter how many points or logic that you state , there are still gonna be 'un-open' atheist who encounter this video therefor their gonna dislike it with out recognition of what you said at all..
We need a Pope that can commicate like Father Barron. To hit the world with reason head on to explain what it is in our frame of thought and let the people make their decisions based on correct knowledge.
@2112murphy I don't see much humility or compassion from the hierarchy of the catholic church, always preaching against those who don't think like them and considering the enlightenment as almost a disgrace. Women have a secondary role, condoms are said to promote AIDS, they have been accomplice of dictatorships and all kinds of crimes and keep giving moral lessons. In Maher's documentary there are hard truths they don't want even to hear about.
I applaud rational and objective atheists and religious individuals. Coming from a scholarly Jesuit school I learned to appreciate their tolerance, acceptance, and open mind to all worldly possibilities. Listening to Lamas speak with priests, atheists speak with rabbis, etc I learned that educated people exist on all perspectives. Therefore when you let fundamentalism and cynicism rule your thought, you strengthen human divide. Dispelling fundamentalist extremists does not negate ALL beliefs
I really like your videos and your reasoning, but the only thing I don't like is when you say catholicism ;), well I'm a protestant christian, but again, I still like your videos haha
I can buy what your saying, I am am athiest myself, I probably wouldn't be if more Christians were like this. For evey one like this there are 10,000 fundamentalists out there, I've had the door knockers and people on the street try to convince me why I need to join and why we need to wipe out all other religions. I agree with Bill, its been my thought since I wad 8, what I was being programmed in the southern Baptist regiem was not moral, it was not right, and was evil in every term of the word
@cobra35911 Diddo to wordonfirevideo's response! Keep seeking the truth. You know better than to just go with fundamentalist ideas. Clearly your much smarter than that! I am Catholic and I invite you to check it out if you wish. I won't claim to know as much even as Fr. Barron, but I just would like to be a voice of welcoming support, rather than just throwing ideas and junk at you.
you say that what maher is attacking is a strawman, however, there are those people who DO in fact take the bible literally. That is what atheists are mainly bothered by. We don't want kids to be taught that the world is 6000 years old. If father barron doesn't go against science, then we really don't have much of a problem. Some of the people maher interviewed are pretty famous preachers, and they are very anti-science. For them it's not "both-and, not either or".
truth is there are too many fire and brimstone priests and believers out there who don't know how to interpret the book, and are leading others into this ungodly war over a question that is as old as existance.. is there a god.. these people need there to be a punishing god, a vengeful god, for their own selfish reasons.. it's disgusting.. truth is there are many different paths to the same god.. we are the ones making this life difficult and destructive.. we make theives, murderers, and rapists
@TheSnowMan444 -People who live from religious principles believe in a right and wrong, whereas those who don't claim that they act rightly without the benefit of God rewarding or punishing them. I wish that were true, but we both know that isn't the case. The person who mugs you has no regard for your safety or wellbeing. The person who mugs you doesn't believe he's going to be punished, and if so, minimally at best because he 'has to put food on the table.' What, then, motivates him.
Logic: If Genesis is not supposed to be taken literally then Adam and Eve never lived. If they never lived original sin doesn't exist. Without the original sin, sin itself doesn't exist. Without sin itself Jesus wouldn't have needed to die for us. Without Jesus' sacrifice humanity would have no responsibility to him. Without a responsibility to Jesus, Christianity is useless. Without a divine necessity for Christianity, Christianity itself is exposed as a ploy by humans to control other humans.
@lunarpoetry1015 No, no. Genesis is a symbolic theological exposition of the dense reality of sin. Sin has existed from the beginning, and it exists today--and we very much need to be redeemed from it. Jesus' death on the cross is his entry into the reality of sin and death in order to destroy them from the inside.
This has been flagged as spam show
The Roman Catholic Church teaches unbiblical doctorines like the trinity and celebrates Pagan holidays like Christmas
Catholics pray to Saints and Mary which is completely unbiblical.
Catholics bow down before images and statues !
Catholics have Sunday as the Sabbath.
Catholics think that by confessing sins to a priest they are forgiven, which is wrong.
CATHOLICS CHANGED GOD'S COMMADMENTS !
Mcstroke57 3 hours ago
super rational ;')
manwithouthat44 2 days ago
@jonpaulmayer If we can accept that all time is irrelevant when compared to eternity, and that God does not view time as we do (2 Peter 3:8), then can we not also accept that the "7 days" described in Genesis just might not be literally 7, 24 hr. days? And if we can accept that the 7 days may not be literal, then why can we not accept that the other measures or descriptions are also not literal, but figurative, described so that humans might comprehend the lessons in their own ignorant minds?
UTLBify 2 days ago
@jonpaulmayer Believing that humans evolved from the components of the Earth is a more precise understanding of what it means to be "formed from the dirt" as Genesis put it. And Adam and Eve could have very well represented the first humans of evolution. We get caught up on evolution being compatible with humans being made in the image and likeness of God, but it's possible that at whatever point God was done developing us, he instilled the "human soul" and we were then like him.
UTLBify 2 days ago
Genesis tells us that God created everything while science tells us some of HOW creation happened. If describing the Human Body requires large text books, how could the exact method of creation be described within one book of the Bible? Believing that we can understand, sum up, and dumb down all of God's techniques for creating the universe in one book, is an insult to God's mind and power and it takes away from our reverence for God and knowledge of our own mental limitations.
UTLBify 2 days ago
@john5899
What's really dangerous is viewing a person's religious freedom as dangerous - that leads to wanting to strip them of their rights and persecute them. As far as us believing in miracles and morality, it can only be understood through the eyes of faith. For an unbeliever it sounds like nonsense, but truth is not dependent on our ability to accept or understand it.
UTLBify 2 days ago
1) While his premise is correct that you cannot approach every book of the Bible with the same lens of interpretation, he doesn't let the context dictate whether it is historical, poetic or theological. He assumes that science contradicts Genesis, therefore he labels it a "theological interpretation." But it is exactly because science and theology are not separate and incompatible entities that one cannot force a scientific explanation onto a Biblical text just to avoid the ridicule of atheists.
jonpaulmayer 3 days ago
2) Science cannot make positive statements about what cannot be observed. Who observed the creation? The Author of Scripture did. Genesis is written as a chronological, historical account, and it must be interpreted as such. Father Barron is looking in exactly the wrong place if he wants answers about the origins of the universe.
jonpaulmayer 3 days ago
3) Father Barron's above implication is that even if the universe and life on earth came about by evolution, that that is still somehow theologically compatible with the book of Genesis. That is completely false. It contradicts the idea that the universe was created in an orderly and perfect state. It also contradicts the essential idea that Original Sin was passed down from the first human couple. If you cast doubt on the existence of the first Adam, what does it do to the Second Adam, Christ?
jonpaulmayer 3 days ago
4) I really lose any respect for this Father when he calls fellow Christians "idiots" because they take literally the accounts of creation or of Jonah. And yet he says that the gospels purport to be historical reportage. If this is true, would he cast out the miracle of the Resurrection just because Bill Maher challenges him to explain it scientifically? And if not, why does he ridicule his brothers and sisters for not knowing how Jonah survived in the belly of a fish?
jonpaulmayer 3 days ago
5) After all that concluding talk about "surrendering" one's rational self to faith, to "falling in love," to the unknowable, Father Barron seems totally unwilling to do so except for a few instances where he is forced to. In light of his conclusion, he should see his own hypocrisy in ridiculing fellow believers because they are willing to surrender more than he is.
jonpaulmayer 3 days ago
Oh look. Another religious person picking and choosing what they want in the bible.
LeesaMichelle 1 week ago
Man, many of the responses to this brilliant discourse are pathetic for lack of a better term. Please re-watch the video and consider what he is saying and how he is saying it. Some of these responses are just juvenile. However, that said, it is still good to question but a fault to be dismissive.
Flippers456 1 week ago
Read THE OMEGA CRUSADE at: theomegacrusade.blogspot.com
Carlos101010101 1 week ago
catholic religion = shameful history. It's all man made babble wake up!
Sconezeta 1 week ago
When he speaks of the symbolism of a "talking snake," he nonetheless does not address a literal belief in Virgin birth, the driving out of demons, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. By comparing faith to falling in love, he makes faith a matter of subjective experience, not truth - that is, what he loves may not be what others love. And science and religion are only not at odds if the burden of proof (regarding resurrection) is on science to disprove it, rather than on religion to prove it.
7Portofino 2 weeks ago
@7Portofino It is not about the miracles themselves but about the literary constructions of the books. Genesis wasn't written with a journalistic approach but rather to explain certain truths in the universe. How the world comes into being and the nature of sins and so on. The Gospels (esp. synoptic) was written to record what Jesus has done and His miracles. That's Fr.Baron's point
ImmaculateCoffee 2 weeks ago
@ImmaculateCoffee Yes, but the Gospels also were written with the polemical intent of persuading others that Jesus was God. This hardly was mere journalism or history; rather, it was written by fervent believers that had an audience they were trying to persuade of Jesus' divinity. Exaggeration and hyperbole--fabrication, even--are the most likely explanation, given that these texts were written by believers, destined for non-believers, to convince them that Jesus was God.
7Portofino 1 week ago
@7Portofino Then we must say that science and philosophy is also at odds. Or science and mathematics is at odds. Or that science and history are at odd. Why? Because how do you prove the texts were written by Caesar? How do you prove the philosophical points of Aristotle? How do you proof a myriad of mathematical theorems as being scientifically sound? Try asking a mathematician to provide an empirical proof for an abstract mathematical theorem, and watch his reaction, you'll see my point
ImmaculateCoffee 2 weeks ago
@7Portofino In regard to the comparison to love I think you miss the point. The point isn't about love itself. Of course love is subjective. The whole point is about the EXPERIENCE of falling in love, which is more objective than love itself
ImmaculateCoffee 2 weeks ago
@ImmaculateCoffee My problem with his reasoning is that the experience--faith--can be that of a Catholic; or a Presbyterian; or an orthodox Jew; or a New Ager, even.So what does that objective experience prove? At best, it suggests there may be *something* that can be glimpsed beyond reason, some transcendent mystery. So maybe one is a theist or agnostic, as opposed to an atheist. But the experience of mystery or "being" does not itself privilege Catholic belief over Quaker, for example
7Portofino 1 week ago
A lot of Christians like to say that parts of the bible are metaphorical, but if you actually read the bible there is no way to tell what is literal and what is figurative based on writing techniques. The way these people tell what is figurative and what is literal is its level of insanity. For example: It is not possible for a single boat to hold two of each animal, therefore it must be symbolic. However, if you READ the passage, it is written LITERALLY with no hint that it is symbolic.
red666111 3 weeks ago
@red666111 that's when we begin to dwell into archaeology and history. The book of Genesis was written not as a historical account, but rather as an explanation for things. For why the world comes into being, what is sin. The rabbis who composed those books don't always call for literalism, they also ask for theological knowledge. Books such as the history books or the Gospel is different in regard that they were written for the sole purpose of recording
ImmaculateCoffee 2 weeks ago
@ImmaculateCoffee do you have any evidence for that, or are you just asserting it.
red666111 2 weeks ago
please log on to equip.org please read hank hanegraaff book - the complete bible answer book available on amazon
soulkiss1001 4 weeks ago
Lets just all be real here.. Were not changing anyones opinion ! let us have the scientists progress society and the religous go to church and be happy with themselves.
99zurk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This illustrates my biggest problem with religion. Its the problem of miscommunication, the Bible is interpreted so many different ways, from the simplest literal interpretation to a scholarly view like Ftr Barron's,there is very little consensus. . .Why wouldn't the creator of the universe,who knew in advance the confusion and division scriptural interpretation would cause, have made his message more clear?
indexfossil1967 1 month ago
Comment removed
indexfossil1967 1 month ago
You say that the stories in the book of Genesis are not to be taken literally, yet I fail to see how the virgin birth or the resurrection make any more sense.
ram0000100 1 month ago
I like the response by the good Father, but he concedes a little too much. There is no a priori reason to dismiss the traditional view of the historicity of books like Genesis and Jonah.
mediaevalguitartab 1 month ago
Amen. Father Barron you owned that.
P.S. I'm not religious
Sonny832 1 month ago
The point of his movie is to show what the average believer believe, that's why he didn't interview theology scholars. What the average religious person believe and what serious theologians believe are 2 totally different things. It also puts forth the point that these beliefs have real consequences.
john5899 1 month ago
@john5899 Not so! He showed, perhaps, what the average fundamentalist holds. Catholics, who number over a billion around the world, certainly don't hold to the kind of literalism that Maher mocks.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 11
Comment removed
moopism 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo "Not so! He showed, perhaps, what the average fundamentalist holds. "
You're being disingenuous. John 5899 made a valid point about how fundamentalist beliefs have poisoned the American political landscape, and you choose, instead of a thoughtful answer, to just prop up your argument, which was, to be blunt, besides the point.
I'm really disappointed that someone as thoughtful as you obviously are, chose to deflect instead of engage. Shame on you.
moopism 3 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo Just out of curiosity... how do you know that your version of faith is correct...... I mean ... I am a ex-catholic but i dont think that the God, if there is one, would care if you call him "Jesus", "Yaweh", or "Allah"......... SO PLEASE DONT TRY TO DIVDE THE WORLD AND DISRUPT THE PEACE FATHER BY PREACING UNJUSTIFIED claims
MrPhilosopher108 3 weeks ago
Why was Sola Scriptura, a faith in the Bible alone (Idol Worship of a book), the battle-cry of Martin Luther and Jew John Calvin (nee Cohen)?
For the same reason Luther said,"Take away the Mass, destroy the Church."
Luther and Calvin were among those trying to destroy the Catholic Church, Occultists masquerading as religious leaders.
How many souls did they deceive into Hell for their Worshipful Master,Lucifer?
Fatima Movement dt Org & TRADITIO websites
THE PLOT AGAINST THE CHURCh-Pinay
StSimonMartyr 2 weeks ago
@MrPhilosopher108 With a name "philosopher" I'm quite surprise to see you telling people not to preach what they believe is true. Could you imagine if Plato, Aristotle, or Voltaire decided to do the same because they don't want to "divide the world and disrupt the peace"?
ImmaculateCoffee 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo i presume that by catholics you mean roman catholics. the only reason why they say that there is 1bn rcs in the world is because the organisation signs up at birth and then offer excommunication as a way out of the organisation. i am considered to be a rc by the organisation but i am an atheist
losarman 1 week ago
@losarman Nonsense. It does not offer excommunication as a "way out." Excommunication is a censure, a medicinal penalty that calls upon a person to change their ways, and can be conferred automatically pertaining to the offence you've done as per canon law or as a sentence by an authority (ecclesiastical court). It is totally up to you to be Catholic or not. So if you want out, just say so. Nobody's stopping you.
MaxxTheMerciless 1 week ago
@MaxxTheMerciless complete trite. They sign up kids at birth and I know that it is up to me whether I believe or not but the hierarchy deem it impossible to leave the thing. I never asked to signed up and I should never have been counted as on of them. I am now saying that I do not want to be considered rc but the rcc will not take me off their figures. There are not 1bn rcs in the world there are maybe 100m
losarman 1 week ago
@losarman You didn't ask to be born, either, and if you don't like it you can always kill yourself like Nietzsche wanted to do. And who cares if the Church won't take you off their rolls? Isn't that their business, not yours? Pardon me for saying this, but you sound like a wimp. For some reason, you feel confined and constrained by the Church, right? Well, talk to a former Muslim sometime. He might clue you in on how it feels to have a death warrant out on you.
MaxxTheMerciless 1 week ago 6
@wordonfirevideo I used to be Catholic, and they do take parts of it literally. They believe in transubstantiation. They believe in the virgin birth and the ressurection. They also have other crazy beliefs, ie: that condoms are worse than aids. Catholics are as crazy as the rest, and just as dangerous. The pope is a criminal in my view, telling aids riddles africans to not use condoms and hiding child rapists. He should be flogged in public or put in prison. They deserve to be mocked.
john5899 1 week ago
@john5899 Gosh, I'm so glad that now that you've left the Catholic Church, you've found such a reasonable, balanced perspective! Let me see if I have your logic right: Catholics are "dangerous" because of their beliefs, and yet you want to see the Pope flogged in public!
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago 10
@wordonfirevideo The pope is more dangerous then I could ever be. He has almost an entire continent of people in Africa (which is being ravaged by AIDS) who believe he is the infallible mouthpiece of god on earth. Then he tells them not to use condoms and even OUTRIGHT LIED and told them that condoms do not stop the aid virus. His actions will cause the death of millions. So, yeah, a flogging would be going easy on him. I don't think that my perspective is so out of whack when complared to his.
john5899 1 week ago
@john5899 Last time I checked, the Pope nor anyone else holds any responsibility for anyone else's sex life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing inaccurate about stating that the most sure fire way to avoid STD's is not to engage in sex out of wedlock.
JRserver 1 week ago
@JRserver But it IS inaccurate to tell people that condoms have microscopic holes in them that let the aids virus through, so you might as well not use them. He put out this info, in writing. The World health organization and other medical organizations immediately put out responses that this is patently false, but the faithful are going to believe him.
john5899 1 week ago
@JRserver Abstinence only works until it doesn't. Sex is a natural urge that people for the most part can't fight. Religion puts restrictions on sex in order to foster guilt to help with controlling people, but of course people are going to have sex. It is pragmatic to say, since they are going to do it anyway, it would at least help to use protection. Because of the vatican's malicious lies, there is a continent of people that now believe that condoms are evil, and they don't stop aids anyway.
john5899 1 week ago
@john5899 Are you implying that the AIDS virus should not serve as a sufficient deterrent against sex out of wedlock. Put aside the efficacy of contraceptives for the time being and ask yourself if it's really worth the risk of contracting AIDS by having sex out of wedlock, protected or not, given it's prevalence in Africa. If you choose to listen to Papal doctrine on the use of contraceptives, but ignore the same doctrine on out of wedlock sex, who's responsible for what comes of that?
JRserver 1 week ago
@JRserver AIDS would serve as a deterrent to you or me, because we live in America and are more educated and have a better quality of life. People we are talking about are poor, uneducated and have poor quality of life. Sex is something that is free and probably one of the few sources of pleasure these people's lives. If you were in their shoes, and you didn't have a basic education and your life was toil, poverty and misery 24/7, you may have a different outlook.
john5899 1 week ago
@john5899 Then does the burden of informing the uneducated masses in Africa about the potential risk of AIDS fall on the distributor of contraceptives? And if he or she knowingly withholds that information from them, on the grounds that they are dirt poor and sex is the only thing worth living for in Africa, and they end up contracting AIDS, does the blame fall directly upon them for doing so?
JRserver 1 week ago
@JRserver That makes no sense, there are organizations that ARE trying to educate them, and are trying to get them to use condoms. Then, the vatican is lying to the people, telling them that condoms don't work. Who is a devout Catholic going to believe, the World health organization, or the pope. If the pope wants to help SAVE LIVES, he should come out and tell the entire catholic population of Africa to use condoms 100% of the time. End of story,
john5899 1 week ago
@john5899 Uh-huh, now answer my question.
JRserver 1 week ago
@john5899 My point, once again, is that, since you have conceded that the prevalence of AIDS being what it is in Africa would serve as a deterrent to you or I. So, if you are to be intellectually honest, you'd have to distribute contraceptives in such a way as to communicate the message "This is designed to stop the spread of STD's, but with AID's being so widespread in Africa, you still may want to think twice about sex out of wedlock." Agreed?
JRserver 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JRserver You wrote: "This is designed to stop the spread of STD's, but with AID's being so widespread in Africa, you still may want to think twice about sex out of wedlock."
Agreed, that is what people in africa need to know, if only the pope would come out and say this. Instead, he says that condoms are evil, you'll go to hell if you use them, and don't have sex out of wedlock. At least if the people that did still have sex out of wedlock would use condoms, it would help stop the spread.
john5899 1 week ago
@john5899 BTW, in reading some of your other comments on this thread, specifically those addressed to Father Barron, you make the point that "beliefs have consequences", and Papal doctrine on contraceptives is false. Let me offer you a chance to put your money where your mouth is - look up the video "Bill Maher pseudoscience" and get a glimpse of some of Bill's perspectives on medical issues. If believes have consequences, then Bill is spreading some rather dangerous misinformation of his own.
JRserver 1 week ago
@JRserver There are not millions of people worldwide that believe with all their heart that Bill Mahr is INFALLIBLE. There are millions of people that believe that the pope is. Trying to equate what Bill Mahr says to what the pope says shows that you are grasping at straws and have no real defense against what I have written. The last time I heard something like that, Bill Donahue defending child rapist by saying that since most of the victims were post puebecent, the priests weren't pedophiles.
john5899 1 week ago
@john5899 "There are not millions of people worldwide that believe with all their heart that Bill Mahr is INFALLIBLE."
Then you clearly are not familiar with Maher's fanbase, my friend. In any case, my point is that the misinformation Bill is spreading has medical consequences and if you are to be intellectually honest, you cannot demonize the Pope but not Maher if the argument that "beliefs have consequences". And I'm not the one making that argument, so the burden is not on me to prove it.
JRserver 1 week ago
@JRserver Well, I'm sure that Bill Mahr would be happy with your view that the pope and bill mahr are on equal footing. I'm not sure the pope would appreciate your comparison. For you to actually make the claim that Bill Mahr has as much clout as the pope really shows how far you are streching to defend/justify your beliefs. And it's sad. You can't argue what I'm saying with logic, so you are nitpicking and making outrageous claims. Do you realise that you are not helping your case here?
john5899 1 week ago
@john5899 (long, exasperated sigh) My point is that, speaking as a recovering fan of Maher's, that my experience among his fanbase has shown me that they will swallow whatever he has to say as (no pun intended) gospel. And even looking beyond that, Maher is a nationally known stand up comic with a long running political talk show and who is a frequent guest on other such shows. He has a platform to communicate his views on medicine that are the equal of any head of state or religious leader...
JRserver 1 week ago
@john5899 and he has not hesitated to spew his misinformation on a regular basis. As such, fan's of his and casual viewers of shows he appears on are being exposed to the misinformation he spreads that is being treated as legitimate. And that brings me to your proclamation that "beliefs have consequences". My point is that that statement is a two-way street - either both the Pope AND Maher are charlatans not to be taken seriously or neither of them are.
Choose.
JRserver 1 week ago
@JRserver If it means getting you to finally admit that the Pope is a charlatan, then I choose charlatan for both. I have no special loyalty to bill maher, I just liked his movie. I think this was very productive, we finally established that the pope is a chalatan, and has no more or less insight into the nature of reality than Bill Maher, or any other human being on earth.
john5899 6 days ago
@john5899 I'm not accusing Maher of being a charlatan (even if he plays it fast and loose with the facts whenever it suits his narrative, as evidenced by his film) anymore than I agree to the Pope being as such. You're the one arguing that "beliefs have consequences", so the burden is not on me to prove that argument. I'm just arguing for ideological consistency, and if you're lacking in that department, I'm not losing any sleep over it, but you can be damn sure I'm gonna call you out for it ;)
JRserver 6 days ago
@JRserver The fact that beliefs have consequences is evident, there shouldn't even be argumant over that point. If you believe something, it will affect your behavior and that behavior has consequences for yourself and other people. If you truly believe that elvis is still alive, and you speak about it to others, the consequence is that people are going to think you're nuts. You pay that price for holding such a belief.
john5899 6 days ago
@JRserver The point I was making is that the catholic people in Africa realy and truly believe in their religion, and part of that is believing that the pope is infallible. A consequence of that belief is that they will listen to what he says and believe it, even when the information he is giving out is flat out wrong or even outright lies.
john5899 6 days ago
@JRserver So, yes, there are consequences to people no matter who it is that puts out bad information and lies, but you must admit that the pope has a larger, more devout audience and also has more power and influence (because I don't see Bill Maher meeting with too many heads of state/and doing world tours where millions of people come out to just glimpse him. Because of that has the potential to do more harm with his misinformation. I can't see how that could be considered inconsistant.
john5899 6 days ago
@wordonfirevideo That, coupled with the fact that he actively took part in the protection and relocation of child rapists makes wish there were a hell for him to go to. The only reason the pope and the Catholic church has the power and resources to do this is because the average, everyday members support the church and they continue to believe that any person on earth can be infallible. Beliefs have consequenses, and we can't afford the consequenses of these unfounded bronze age beliefs anymore.
john5899 1 week ago
@john5899 By whose standard is the average interview subject in "Religulous" representative of the typical believer?
JRserver 1 month ago
@john5899 And frankly, an interview with one or two historians might have helped Maher's credibility in the film, and allowed him to avoid venturing into the thoroughly debunked mythical ripoff theory of the Jesus story, i.e. Horus, Krishna, Mithras, etc. Maher states in the film that "many of the god were born on Dec. 25", which A.) is not true, and B.) Even if it were, is entirely irrelevant, given that the Bible does not give a date for Christ's birth.
JRserver 1 month ago
@john5899 I find it hard to take Maher seriously on this subject when he seems perfectly content to make such blatant errors that he would never hesitate to correct were he to see an equivalent in other subjects. You cannot hold me to one standard of "rationality" and yourself to a lower one and expect to be taken seriously.
JRserver 1 month ago
@JRserver There's some things he didn't get wrong. 1) There is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural diety. 2) The combination of fanatical bronze age myths & the availability of apocalyptic weapons is among the geatest threats to the human race. 3) We, as a species, have to abandon these beliefs if we are going to survive into the future. There is no arguing any of these points.
john5899 1 week ago
@john5899 1.) So, I'm supposed to outright ignore Maher's blatant historical and sociological errors in the film which could have been avoided by no more than a Google search and accept his and your thesis? 2.) Explain to me how the world is better off eliminating "fanatical bronze age myths" if apocalyptic weapons remain available?
3.) See question number one.
4.) I'm assuming that you concede my points in my previous comments, given that you've offered no direct response, as such?
JRserver 1 week ago
"All he did was line up stupid people to take their faith apart". That sums up the film quite well.
IgnorantorEvil 1 month ago
He used theology in place of mythology multiple times, just call it what it is and quit lying to yourself.
camshaftgsxr13 1 month ago
I am baptized Roman Catholic, but not confirmed. My views sway more towards Agnostic-Atheist views. But i am not an militant atheist, more like a laid back one. Overall, i see Jesus as a mortal and dismiss the whole Holy Divinity non-sense. I just don't get those who live with blind faith and preach what they don't know at all.
Main thing is, arrogance & blind faith bothers me.
RandoCDN87 1 month ago
@RandoCDN87 Come on, man! You don't think this response of yours, which dismisses out of hand the beliefs of over a billion people, is just a tad arrogant?
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 5
@wordonfirevideo You don't get truth from a plebiscite, and what could be more arrogant than to claim to know the mind of God? You make an implied ad hominem by chastising Rando for being dismissive when all he is doing is expressing his opinion. And just what is wrong with having faith in your fellow man anyway?
fr57ujf 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo I don't think thats a good response to atheists, because we reject the views of Islam as well, which has over a billion followers as well, not to mention Hinduism and Buddhism.
philosophizer149 1 month ago
@RandoCDN87 --You never know; one day you just might come back to faith and the RCC. Many have come home.
Archangel866 1 month ago
@Archangel866
I rather place my faith in humanity and into the integrity and dignity of others who are reasonable & understandable; Not into something that's just a front for that's actually real.
People help people, 'god' doesn't do anything.
RandoCDN87 1 month ago
Ok, you realize that one part of the Bible is fake, now ¿how can you know if the other rest of the bible is true?
PSardHD 1 month ago
"The ground of all knowledge is the mystical intuition that being is intelligible. The ground of this is the belief that God has made the world intelligible. Belief is super rational, not irrational; it is a surrender that lies beyond reason." The previous is quoted from the video. Can you read this and not go away with the feeling that Fr. Barron is struggling mightily to produce some verbal legerdemain that will square the circle in order to make nonsense sound sensible?
fr57ujf 1 month ago
@fr57ujf How about a counter-argument?! Everything you cite here is perfectly coherent.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo An argument entails reasoning. Since Fr. Barron has stated that belief is a "surrender that lies beyond reason", it must surely follow that it also lies beyond argument. The only thing beyond reason is opinion, and if opinions do not need to be supported by evidence, then we are all free to believe whatever we want. We do, and it continues to be a cause of unending strife and misery. Peace will only come from surrendering faith, not reason.
fr57ujf 1 month ago
@fr57ujf No! To say that faith lies beyond reason is precisely to say that it presupposes rational argumentation. Take a look at my videos on arguing for God's existence. There is plenty of rational evidence for accepting the existence of God, and the Catholic tradition happily embraces it.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." - Hebrews 11-1. No evidence there. Faith can move mountains. Jesus and Vince Lombardi both knew this, but Lombardi did not confuse determination with truth. The minute you look to evidence to support theism, you are on ever thinner ice. Science keeps debunking the myth and the Church is forced to fight an ever more desperate rear guard action. I would be happy to debate the evidence with you.
fr57ujf 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo In what way does faith presuppose rational argumentation? And if the evidence is so plentiful, why do more than 90% of scientists describe themselves as non-believers? Religion and science cannot be reconciled because religion relies on faith and science relies on evidence. Religion claims to know the truth, science, more modestly, claims only to be trying to discover it. Religion is more like politics - it constantly tries to destroy its opponents.
fr57ujf 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo The problem is not that your ideas do not cohere; in your conceptual framework they may very well do so. However, there is no reason to suppose that we must be inspired to believe that the world can be understood. It is obvious from observation. And while some intuitions are remarkably accurate, they do not require a mystical explanation, nor do they dispense with the need for reason. Feelings don't necessarily lead to truth; but they often lead to conflict.
fr57ujf 1 month ago
Thank you. I realize now that the reason I haven't been able to let my guard down with God is because I know I can't control Him. I realize that I don't know how to take that eternal leap of faith and fall in love because I don't know what will happen. Thank you so much for opening my eyes to that.
SilencexIsxMyxName 1 month ago
"All he did was line up stupid people and take their faith apart" You heard it. Father Barron says the Christians who talked to Bill Maher were stupid.
BigLundi 1 month ago
@Bulloxe4 Fr Barron said we must have faith in another person in order to fall in love. Is it possible that atheists spend so much time trying to protect self through rational reason that they forget to "fall?" Psychological studies show that those who are happiest in their marriages are those who believe most strongly in their spouse's goodness, not those with better spouses.
runr100 1 month ago
Dear Father Barron; I have spent a year studying the New Atheists and their movement, in order to understand them and why they teach what they do. Thank you for speaking respectfully and intelligently about them, and for your efforts to show where they go wrong, without being afraid to recognize what they get right. We need more men like you in the Church. I pray for you, and pray for me and my studies!
brozzerb 1 month ago
Father Barron, I really enjoy watching your videos. I'm a Catholic who has returned to the Church after a stint with militant atheism. It's your videos that help me discover more and more why I am happy ti believe in an all loving God. Merry Christmas and God bless!
omnius28 1 month ago 17
@omnius28 Well, God bless you for that. It made my day.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@omnius28 A stint with militant atheism? It sounds like you joined the army. The phrase "militant atheist" is an oxymoron. An atheist is simply a person who believes things based on evidence. We all do this, but some of us suspend our critical faculties when it comes to religion. If you were fired up about being an atheist, you weren't an atheist. You may, however, have been an anti-theist like the late Christopher Hitchens. Thomas Jefferson represents the thoughtful skepticism I mean.
fr57ujf 1 month ago
@fr57ujf I disagree. Militant Atheists are people like Dawkins and Hitchens. They're belief is that if you have any faith in any religon, your delusional and need help. They're no different than conservative religous people. You don't know me, or what I experienced nor how I felt. I'm not trying to preach or say that my way is the correct way. I can only say that I'm happy in what I believe and it makes me a better person to everyone each day.
omnius28 1 month ago
@omnius28 I said that Hitchens was an anti-theist, so we agree on this point; however I don't agree that atheists and fundamentalists are doing the same thing. Atheists do not say there is no God, only that there is no evidence to indicate there is. Fundamentalists declare that they have the eternal truth and that no further inquiry is necessary or even desirable. And although you say you aren't trying to preach, that is exactly what religion does. Atheists do not try to convert anyone.
fr57ujf 1 month ago
@fr57ujf And as far as being happy and a better person for your beliefs, I say bravo! The real problems with religion are not so much with individuals, but with the institutions. I am reminded of the ancient Roman proverb: "Senatores boni viri, senatus autem mala bestia" (The senators are all good men but the senate is a beast.)
fr57ujf 1 month ago
@omnius28 welcome home !!
CatholicStories 4 weeks ago
@Bulloxe4 okay, thanks for the clarification.
I would say that the miraculous is when the impossible happens, when the rules of the universe are broken.
A clear example of this quote, in my opinion, is the literal transformation of the host into human flesh, confirmed by medical people and still intact after a thousand years. and this not being the only occasion.
kubrox91 1 month ago
@kubrox91 confirmed by medical people
-> Excuse me, are you saying there is a scientific study which proved that the host turns into actuall ... I don't know if human flesh is the right term. Let's say that it goes through a transformation.
Where was this study made, who made it, in what jurnal was it published? What was it's title, I would love to read it.
Bulloxe4 1 month ago
@Bulloxe4 The Miracle of Lanciano. look it up. I wish I could post the links to the confirmations but youtube is absolutely incredible at being totalitarian about no links, second that some of these links have expired, but reports say that it has been confirmed by the World Health Organization.
most of the full reports have expired over the internet as time has gone by. but here's something. clump them all together.
Regarding the link, enter zenit . org / article - 12933?!=english
kubrox91 1 month ago
@Bulloxe4 here's another print link: Quad Sclavo Diagn. 1971 Sep;7(3):661-74. Links[Histological, immunological and biochemiccal studies on the flesh and blood of the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano (8th century)]
[Article in Italian]
kubrox91 1 month ago
@kubrox91 All of the sources I could find online citing an alleged report by the World Health Organization are Catholic sources. The W.H.O. report allegedly verifying Linoli's and Bertelli's analysis is not available online. If one were to take this claim on face value we would have the DNA of God. We could research whether Jesus was blond and blue eyed or of middle eastern origin. If Jesus only got half his genes from Mary, the normal means by which cells grow and multiply would not work.
Apacalola 1 month ago
@Apacalola Well, there are print sources, as well. but the whole concept of Jesus getting half his genes from Mary has boggled me, too, but I think it's what makes the conception more significant, the Holy Spirit probably found a way to fill the genetic gaps.
kubrox91 1 month ago
@kubrox91
Are you aware you're trying to use reason to prove your spiritual teachings? Your faith craves scientific proof because you're aware that reason carries so much more weight then faith. Admit it. You would like nothing more then having real actuall scientific proof published in nature or physics review of the validity of your religious teachings.
You're only broadcasting faith because reason stands against you.
Bulloxe4 1 month ago
@Bulloxe4 First off, we use reason as human beings to understand ANYTHING. and duh, I wish I could easily prove my beliefs in an empirical method. But my beliefs are not simply me following things blindly as Dawkins says I do. I've made my own conscious investigation to conclude that Christianity is true based on historical evidence that Jesus existed and mathematics to say that God exists.
kubrox91 1 month ago
@kubrox91
I'm in another place.
Maybe there is a God. I don't know.
But here is something I do think is true.
No religion on this planet comes close to knowing this person, entity, or whatever. My own conscious decision was to not follow any religion. Not to not believe in God.
But back to the point. You said Fides et Ratio. Actually you quoted it, not important.
Like those are two sides of the same coin. I just wanted to calrify that rationality is better. Maybe I missed your point.
Bulloxe4 1 month ago
@Bulloxe4 Let me see if I can clarify it a little better, I don't know if I'm gonna be spot on with it: I use my reason and rationality to determine if there is a God, which is my faith, which is what I identify as the ultimate source of my reason. Idk if I conveyed it right.
I'd actually say Christianity makes sense, since aristotle said that if there is a deity it should be monotheistic and eternal.
kubrox91 1 month ago
@kubrox91
I understand having faith. But I don't understand what do you need faith for when you have proof, empirical or logical. To me faith ( not to be mixed with religion ) is that by which you hold things to be true without proof.
So if you have proof, if you use your reason and rationality to determine if there is a God, then why do you need faith?
When you used the word faith in your last comment it seems to me like you meant your religion. But I don't want to put words in your mouth.
Bulloxe4 1 month ago
@Bulloxe4 Faith is a relationship. it's trust based on evidence. Does that clarify it?
btw, I'm happy that this isn't getting heated. i've had too many of those energetic debates lately.
kubrox91 1 month ago 3
@kubrox91 A conscious investigation? What other kind is there? You may not be blind, but you are misinformed. Leaving aside the references by Josephus, which appear to be fraudulent insertions, the only other extra-biblical reference to Jesus is a single entry in the Annals by Tacitus in the early second century. And I would love to see your mathematical proof of God.
fr57ujf 1 month ago
Comment removed
kubrox91 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fr57ujf First off: he's also referenced jn the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Talmud, as well as archeologists uncovering locations and people that he interacted with. My mathematical approach: if you say that the universe is infinite in expansion, you cannot say it is infinite in past. You cannot subtract infinity from infinity. If you were to say, okay, it had a beginning, but it created itself, that is pulling up from your bootstraps. X creates Y, but to say X creates X is a contradiction.
kubrox91 1 month ago
@fr57ujf First off: he's referenced jn the Acts of Phillip, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Talmud. My mathematical approach: if you say that the universe is infinite in expansion, you cannot say it is infinite in past. You cannot subtract infinity from infinity. If you were to say, okay, it had a beginning, but it created itself, that is pulling up from your bootstraps. X creates Y, but to say X creates X is a contradiction.
fr57ujf 1 month ago
@fr57ujf I specified extra-biblical references. If the universe is infinite now, it was most definitely infinite in the past, because no sum of finite numbers will equal infinity, and no division of infinity will produce a finite number. Check out set theory. And your inability to imagine a universe that can bootstrap itself into existence is not an argument for the existence of God. We don't know how quantum fluctuations in the vacuum arise, either, but they continuously do so.
fr57ujf 1 month ago
Comment removed
kubrox91 1 month ago
Comment removed
kubrox91 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fr57ujf Those ARE extra biblical resources, they are not part of the bible. If he's been referenced inJewish text, I'd say it's reliable. second: the big bang theory proves that our UNIVERSE had a beginning, but there are questions about what happened before that. even if it is "creating itself" it is following a GUIDELINE, right?
kubrox91 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
kubrox91 1 month ago
Comment removed
kubrox91 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bulloxe4 I get where you're coming from, but if you rely SOLELY on reason, you can be just as bad as fundies who do not listen to anything other than their spiritual source. Dostoyevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamasov: The genuine realist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find the strength and ability to disbelieve in the miraculous, and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact, would rather disbelieve his own senses than acknowledge it, also.
kubrox91 1 month ago
Comment removed
kubrox91 1 month ago
It doesn't say 'journalist section' 'political opinion'. If it said it explicitly it would be less fuzzy and easier to not kill people with.
CheekyVimto08 1 month ago
Did you ever think that Maher's point was to show stupid people? To show what kind of thinking evolves when a man is thought nothing but religion.
I mean, you called them stupid, you said that all that Maher did was round up stupid people and ask them questions.
So, maybe that was the point. To show how many idiots religion created.
Bulloxe4 1 month ago 3
@Bulloxe4 That wasn't Maher's point at all. He sums up his point in the last scene of the movie, which is basically that all religion should be wiped out. Up until that point it as rather light-hearted, but in the conclusion Maher turned very dark and menacing.
DarthShame 1 month ago
shame father....calling them stupid...shame. I can because I am an atheist but you, shame.
redrum41987 1 month ago
@redrum41987 But that's a total double standard! You can recognize fundamentalism as intellectually irresponsible but I can't?!
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 18
@wordonfirevideo Yes because you believe the same things they do, they just believe it a little more. All religion is intellectually irresponsible. If religion didn't plant the seeds in their heads, they wouldn't be fundamentalist.
redrum41987 1 month ago
@redrum41987 Come back when you know the basics. Fundamentalists don't believe "a little more". They see ALL the text of Scriptures as literal, when in fact, there is a variety of genres in the Bible. They wouldn't be fundamentalists if they used a little bit of their brain, not because religion "planted" some seeds.
"Intellectually irresponsible", lol. Really? How about Jesus' words "check everything for yourself"? No, buddy, YOU are intellectually irresponsible for making stupid claims.
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds Keep telling yourself that lol. I, for one, live in the real world and don't believe in a mythical being who relieves me of my sins if i "accept him as my personal savior." Get outta here with that nonsense. Religion of any kind has never helped the world on any wide scale. Maybe small scale but once you look globally, its all this persons religion versus another's. No religious person has any proof that anything they do changes the world as a whole for the better.
redrum41987 1 month ago
@redrum41987 And that's how you burried yourself in the hole of embarrasment. I educated you on fundamentalism, which was the reason for my post. And what do you do? Jump onto the next claim - now God is a "mythical being", and religion has never helped the world. Oooh, I see, genius. I wonder, why has nobody put the Bible in the "mythology" section in the libraries? Yeah...
As for religion doing good in the world, do you really want to start this? Or maybe you'll grow up a little and research?
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds you didn't educate me on fundamentalism. all religious people are the same. fundamentalist take the religious text literally and non-fundamentalist only take literally what they "want" to believe e.i. there being a god, devils, sins. case and point. I have research the entire subject of religion. Religion/ideology has caused most if not all major wars in the world. sure the may help the homeless and needy but that doesn't make up for the crusades, muslim holy wars, etc.
redrum41987 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@redrum41987 "you didn't educate me on fundamentalism. all religious people are the same. fundamentalist take the religious text literally and non-fundamentalist only take literally what they "want" to believe"
If you want to change widely accepted definitions, go ahead. You're like a little stubborn kid. I've told you what fundamentalism is, and you're wrong. You can't even SPELL correctly, you expect us to believe you've researched "entire subject of religion"? lol. Amusing.
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds I have also study on ancient hebrews and most of ancient near east culture to tell that its all a bunch of BS. all it was this tribes better than that tribe, my god is better than your god, which is how most people act anyway. and now here you are 2000+ years later defending a small post-sumerian tribe led by "abraham" which grew, only by misleading and the fear mongering of the masses, into the jewish tribes and then to christianity.
redrum41987 1 month ago
@redrum41987 " I have also study on ancient hebrews and most of ancient near east culture to tell that its all a bunch of BS"
Just stop lying. We both know you haven't studied ANYTHING. What kind of claims are these? You've studied ancient near east culture and your only conclusion is "it's all a bunch of BS"? Any serious scholar would point you at the door and ask you to leave. Embarrassing, just embarrassing. Say something else.
SmokiSounds 1 month ago 4
@SmokiSounds What I am saying is that the details written in the bible about god are bunch a BS. Plus, I'm sure I know way more than you could possibly know on the subject of the ancient near east cultures. The ancient hebrews stem from abraham who lived in Ur, a sumerian city, and their culture evolved from the sumerians. the story of adam comes from the sumerian story of adamu. all the bible is is a retelling of old sumerian and egyptian myths, with some facts bout the israelites
redrum41987 1 month ago
@redrum41987 Oh please, get out of here with that zeitgeist nonsense. All these "retelling of ancient myths" claims have been debunked countless times since zeitgeist came out. Get ahold of some serious arguments, not subjective mumbling.
SmokiSounds 1 month ago 10
@SmokiSounds can you say what good religion has done in the world. We can easily see the bad but can tell the good. Serious question
WARCHIEF290 1 month ago
@SmokiSounds The Bible isn't in the mythology section because that would reduce it's credibility and control over the masses; religion keeps humans in line. Unfortunately, without religion there would be chaos.
osgangstarrr 3 weeks ago
@osgangstarrr Uhh, ok, kid. Keep telling yourself that.
SmokiSounds 3 weeks ago
@SmokiSounds Excellent response! I'm glad to see that you're in denial.
osgangstarrr 3 weeks ago
I'm a young student of philosophy--currently a junior in college, and have become increasingly discontent with modernist, materialistic, atheist belief. Over three years of an existential struggle of sorts for faith, I've come to realize that I have always, in a sense, believed in God. It was the concepts I was fed that I did not believe in, but had faith in that Reality all along.
I have recently come to an in-depth study of Aquinas, and it is lovely to hear someone like you talk.
God bless.
AZ0960036 1 month ago 7
@AZ0960036 And God bless you! Good luck in your studies.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 2
Look Father Barron no matter how many points or logic that you state , there are still gonna be 'un-open' atheist who encounter this video therefor their gonna dislike it with out recognition of what you said at all..
idance28productions 1 month ago
Father Barron for Pope!
We need a Pope that can commicate like Father Barron. To hit the world with reason head on to explain what it is in our frame of thought and let the people make their decisions based on correct knowledge.
cittiavaticano 1 month ago
@cittiavaticano God thing the Vatican is filled with people like Father Barron :)
LVCIVSTVLLIVSATELLVS 1 month ago
@cittiavaticano --As long as there is an america, there will never be an american Pope.
Archangel866 1 month ago
@Archangel866 you never know? up until 1978 we thought there'd never be a non-Italian pope.
kubrox91 1 month ago
@Archangel866
That would be sad. I think Fr.Barron would be a great Pope! Esb. Cardinal Burke!
cittiavaticano 1 month ago
@2112murphy I don't see much humility or compassion from the hierarchy of the catholic church, always preaching against those who don't think like them and considering the enlightenment as almost a disgrace. Women have a secondary role, condoms are said to promote AIDS, they have been accomplice of dictatorships and all kinds of crimes and keep giving moral lessons. In Maher's documentary there are hard truths they don't want even to hear about.
jaumesisa100 1 month ago
I applaud rational and objective atheists and religious individuals. Coming from a scholarly Jesuit school I learned to appreciate their tolerance, acceptance, and open mind to all worldly possibilities. Listening to Lamas speak with priests, atheists speak with rabbis, etc I learned that educated people exist on all perspectives. Therefore when you let fundamentalism and cynicism rule your thought, you strengthen human divide. Dispelling fundamentalist extremists does not negate ALL beliefs
MrGoodClass 1 month ago
Excellent and informative video. :) ♰
TheAaronMcCormick 1 month ago
wow this was great
williemetoyer1 1 month ago
I really like your videos and your reasoning, but the only thing I don't like is when you say catholicism ;), well I'm a protestant christian, but again, I still like your videos haha
mikeytheaznking 1 month ago
@mikeytheaznking Like the reasoning, love the religion....I started out kinda like you...they sucked me in with logic!
CatholicCreed 1 month ago
I can buy what your saying, I am am athiest myself, I probably wouldn't be if more Christians were like this. For evey one like this there are 10,000 fundamentalists out there, I've had the door knockers and people on the street try to convince me why I need to join and why we need to wipe out all other religions. I agree with Bill, its been my thought since I wad 8, what I was being programmed in the southern Baptist regiem was not moral, it was not right, and was evil in every term of the word
cobra35911 1 month ago
@cobra35911 Good! Let go of fundamentalism and take a serious look at Catholicism.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 29
@cobra35911 Diddo to wordonfirevideo's response! Keep seeking the truth. You know better than to just go with fundamentalist ideas. Clearly your much smarter than that! I am Catholic and I invite you to check it out if you wish. I won't claim to know as much even as Fr. Barron, but I just would like to be a voice of welcoming support, rather than just throwing ideas and junk at you.
Seriously, keep questioning. Seek answers.
patrickbutler87 1 month ago
you say that what maher is attacking is a strawman, however, there are those people who DO in fact take the bible literally. That is what atheists are mainly bothered by. We don't want kids to be taught that the world is 6000 years old. If father barron doesn't go against science, then we really don't have much of a problem. Some of the people maher interviewed are pretty famous preachers, and they are very anti-science. For them it's not "both-and, not either or".
VanessaTexasGal 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE FLIES YOU TO THE MOON. RELIGION FLIES YOU INTO BUILDINGS...
.
.
.
.
.
IncomingMonkeyTurd 2 months ago
Comment removed
Kevkowski5 2 months ago
truth is there are too many fire and brimstone priests and believers out there who don't know how to interpret the book, and are leading others into this ungodly war over a question that is as old as existance.. is there a god.. these people need there to be a punishing god, a vengeful god, for their own selfish reasons.. it's disgusting.. truth is there are many different paths to the same god.. we are the ones making this life difficult and destructive.. we make theives, murderers, and rapists
TheSnowMan444 2 months ago
@TheSnowMan444 -People who live from religious principles believe in a right and wrong, whereas those who don't claim that they act rightly without the benefit of God rewarding or punishing them. I wish that were true, but we both know that isn't the case. The person who mugs you has no regard for your safety or wellbeing. The person who mugs you doesn't believe he's going to be punished, and if so, minimally at best because he 'has to put food on the table.' What, then, motivates him.
TheMenghi1 2 months ago
Logic: If Genesis is not supposed to be taken literally then Adam and Eve never lived. If they never lived original sin doesn't exist. Without the original sin, sin itself doesn't exist. Without sin itself Jesus wouldn't have needed to die for us. Without Jesus' sacrifice humanity would have no responsibility to him. Without a responsibility to Jesus, Christianity is useless. Without a divine necessity for Christianity, Christianity itself is exposed as a ploy by humans to control other humans.
lunarpoetry1015 2 months ago
@lunarpoetry1015 No, no. Genesis is a symbolic theological exposition of the dense reality of sin. Sin has existed from the beginning, and it exists today--and we very much need to be redeemed from it. Jesus' death on the cross is his entry into the reality of sin and death in order to destroy them from the inside.
wordonfirevideo 2 months ago