For believers, science strengthens faith in the ultimate truth (God) which cannot be sensed or proven except by miracle or in eternity. That's why it requires faith. Scientific truths are proven and can be sensed, but to say that the only truths to exist are these forms is close minded. Surely things may exist regardless of our ability to understand or perceive them.
What do you mean Father by "religious truths" as compared to scientific truths. Truth is something which is verifiable - we can repeat and identify truths because they occur in measurable and predictable ways we can observe. Aren't religious truths merely beliefs repeated and given dignity by Theologians and clerics? Catholicism exists I would concede that as a truth because of the above. It worries me given the certainty you have in the existence of something for which there is not evidence.
@Mrmentalmadness123 I mean truths having to do with God and God's dealings with the world. The ground for these claims is metaphysical, psychological, and historical. The problem is that you're using "evidence" in such a narrow, restricted sense, designating basically physical traces and the results of experiments.
@Mrmentalmadness123 You don't know your parents were really your parents. You believe it, with motivation. You don't know that England is an island, you believe it with motivation. You don't know that there is a city in Colorado named Denver. You believe it with motivation. The same is true of religious truths.
@wordonfirevideo But Father science can prove or demonstrate each of the issues you identify. You cannot prove the existence of God. These are not good examples Father. Motivation has nothing to do with demonstrable truth. Science gives us the confidence to believe things because we know science is rigorous and repeatable. However you cut it you are asking us to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Faith is not evidence Father.
@Mrmentalmadness123 No it can't! Not to a degree of certitude. There is always a dimension of belief in anything we claim to know. The same is true in regard to religious claims. We come to know them through a combination of faith and reason.
@wordonfirevideo Father are you saying that science cannot determine to a point of certainty that England is an island or by DNA analysis my parents were my parents. These are facts that are not contingent on my believing them. England is an island irrespective of how you or I might feel about that FACT! I'm simply saying you cannot prove God exists by saying that science is also reliant upon faith. It operates on reason and demonstrable proof. You are wrong Father. Faith is not evidence.
@Mrmentalmadness123 I respects people's right to believe - to have faith I only object when you suggest faith and science are interelated in someway. They are different things. Scientists do hypothesise about creation and lots of things - the difference is they wont accept something as provable or factual without confirmatory evidence. The only reasonable position for me to adopt is therefore I dont know if there is a God but there is no-evidence for his existence. But, people do believe.
Father i know ive been commenting questions everywhere, but this one is super important and the question is. Dose God love us all the same? I was reading the summa theologica on the computer and its hard for me to read, but i got the idea that thomas is saying that God loves some more then others and its realy putting me down and makeing me feel depresed i want God to love us all the same with all his heart.
@Daniel151jesus To love is to will the Good of the beloved. Our most fundamental good is our existence. Indeed, Good and Being are transcendentally related. All being is good simply in virtue of existing. This is the lesson of Genesis 1. God wills our true reality - what is called the Atman in Eastern thought - not a false self-image. He wills it fully, completely, & unreservedly. He loves us for who & what He made us. How much more love could He show us? Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis Thanks Dennis, yes i know wut you mean "God is love" he is "agape" meaning > to want whats best for the beloved. That's all God can do is love, But can God love some one more then some one esle? Can he say this? well look, i desire both Father barron and Dennis to be in my presence for ever, but i rather have Father barron. Do u get what im saying here? can he value someone more then some one esle or is he like a true father who cant split the 2?
@Daniel151jesus Human love is a dim reflection of Divine Love. We love one more or less because our finite resources make us set priorities. God has infinite resources & is fully committed to our whole being & good. Still, some have more being than others. Jesus has more Being than us as He is more than just human. Having more gifts might be seen as having more being & love, but God loves each completely. What else could God loving more even mean? Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis Hi Dennis thanks for the wall post on my channle :) im gonna watch some of your vids soon, and yeah i get wut you mean, God loves everything to its full capacity but some have a bigger capacity then others. For example there is a small cup and big cup both are full of water but the big cup can hold more in it, is that the same with Gods love? but now my question is, is it God who makes our capacity big or small ? or is it us by our freewill? so can we increase or decrease our capacity?
@Daniel151jesus You are welcome. Yes, if we are more real, there is more to love. God gives us our nature - not just our generic human nature, but our individual talents as well. Still, our choices work to actualize (or not) the potential we have been given. There is no doubt that the more actual we become, the more real being we have and the more there is for God to Love. Jesus has a number of parables on using the gifts we have been given. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis Thanks your helping me out alot. :) but now i have another question, since "Love" is to will it good how can we love God? how can be want whats best for God when he is perfect? isent it silly to will the good for God when he needs nothing? bcuz i understand how we can will the good for people in this world bcuz there are dangers and people can get hurt, but in heaven we dont have to worry bout danger so how can we agape God now? and each other in heavan?
Aquinas about women: And this guy is a "doctor" of the cath. church. !! If it were not for some [divine] power that wanted the feminine sex to exist, the birth of a woman would be just another accident, such as that of other monsters [= a dog with two heads, a calf with five legs, etc.]”
“Nisi ergo esset aliqua virtus quae intenderet femineum sexum, generation feminae esset omnino a casu, sicut et aliorum monstrorum”. De Veritate 5, 9, d. 9.
@ndzoko Oy vey... Friend, tell me who your intellectual hero is. I guarantee you I can find some stupid things that he said. I mean, this exercise is like shooting fish in a barrel--and just as pointless. You have to look at the great themes and trajectories and patterns within a great thinker's thought and not pick out anomolous mistakes.
@wordonfirevideo Albert Schweitser. Tell me what he ever said that is stupid. Great thinkers don`t blabber nonsense, reducing women to monsters, advocating murder for heretics. This is not a SIMPLE STUPID THING, is it ?
Father, you talk of the "one God" - what about all the other god's? Do they not exist or is that a mischievous question? You know the common view that not all religions can be right. An answer please that is not simply a request to read more "serious philosophy." Few people, myself included, could match your theological knowledge. You have been trained in this discipline. However, this does not mean you possess the truth or that the rest of us - your detractors are frivolous or indeed wrong.
@Mrmentalmadness123 Honestly, how would you feel if I offered crude caricatures of scientific theories and then, on the basis of those caricatures, rejected all science as silly? Wouldn't you tell me to get a little better education in the sciences? I'm just saying that your question was not a good one, since it was predicated on such an inadequate sense of what religion really is.
@wordonfirevideo You may not respect my views or may regard them as facile but like it or not if Catholicism is to survive it is people like me you are going to have to convince. Rationality does obviate religion to a high degree whether yuo believe it or not precisely because it shapes our lives. There are millions like me who no longer accept the so-called truths of religion - particularly where dogma interferes with progress as in the opposition to stem cell research.
@wordonfirevideo It is the disconnect between religion and the reality of modern life that dooms it in my view. I am a moral person - I dont like the idea of casual abortion but neither do I support the ban on condom use and stem cell research. Rational thinking pushes me in this direction having examined the issues in detail. I look at evidence rather than conviction for the basis on which I make decisions.
@wordonfirevideo Also, Father this is meant in the spirit of amiable discourse but you repeatedly infer that I and other atheists know too little of theology snd religion to question its fundamntal purpose. Somehow my questions are based on ignorance. I find that an old argument often employed when people know they are in a hole and cannot argue their way out. You keep suggesting I am somehow asking the wrong questions rather than trying to address the ones asked of you. This is nothing new.
For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. The words of a "Doctor of the church" What an exemple of "love your ennemies ???????????????????
@ndzoko The Lord says: Love your enemies. However a heretic declares him or herself an enemy of God, just like the devil. Therefore, we should not be bound to love those who are irrevocably bent on our destruction. Now remember, not everything spoken by saints or doctors means they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Lastly if you are trully looking for people with love so great as to love their enemies, read the lives of the saints of the one church you inted to ridicule.
@jumanlo0628 However a heretic declares him or herself an enemy of God,..
So, silly defender of the faith, you maintain that heretics have to be murdered ? He. Aquinus, received the highest honor in the church" doctor". I expose( ridicule if you like)what I know to be untrue, unjust,unloving. Many biographies of the saints are plain BS. There is a commision set up to investigate those biographies.
@ndzoko Are you trully seeking the truth or just fooling around? Even If Mother Theresa would have you living with her day and night, you would still find arguments against what's really clear. I could give you an encyclopedia on how a "certain lemon tree is nothing but a grapevine". All eloquence in the world would not be enough when you see lemons, not grapes, are being bossomed out of this tree. So don't believe a word about them, just see what their fruits are still doing today.
@jumanlo0628 Yes mother Theresa is one beautiful exemple of christian faith, even if she doubted that faith in the end... You do not need faith to do charity. The UN does more for the poor and hungry than any organisation in human history.. What christianity does and teaches about charity is done and taught in other religions too..
@ndzoko Faith & doubt are compatible. Faith is a commitment. We can be committed while still having doubts we are trying to work through. Charity is not something separate. It is the expression of our commitment. That is why the choice between Faith or Works as the key to salvation is nonsense. You cannot be committed to God and not act committed by doing works. Works without commitment are works without love -- self-serving and empty. Peace, Dennis
In my towns' central library they have the 3 volume edition of the Summa Theologica, it's incredible . I like the way Aquinas introduces an article, such as 'God is Perfect' or 'God is not compossed of matter' and then gives the strongest objections agaisnt these points, before refuting them. It's something we could learn a good deal from today, The proper way to conduct dialogue & critiques is to take on your opponents strongest arguments & thinkers not their weakest ones.
May I just repeat parts of a splendid quote from this video:
"There is no 'humanism' higher than Christian humanism...the claim that we are meant for a share in the Divine Life...Each human person is irreducibly dignified. Each human person is the subject of an enormous God-given set of rights. Abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, all those things that would reduce human beings to a 'means to an end', are repugnant to this fundamental Christian claim about the dignity of the human being."
@alifeofreason Evidence? Arguments? Or just more name-calling? I'm no longer surprised that so many of the "new" atheists rely on the crudest and most casual forms of discourse.
@samuelsixvids Yeah, that's it! Just keep on playing that overused, unsubstantiated "homophobic" card because you have nothing better to say. You're so smart!
....In note 25, p. 12 Diggs provides the scientific sources for the list of diseases associated with anal intercourse:
Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America 74(6: 1633-1645 (November 1990); “Anal Health for Men and Women,” LGBTHealthChannel,
See also, “Safer Sex (MSM) for Men Who Have Sex with Men,” LGBTHealthChannel
The science of these stats comes straight from LGBT health websites themselves.
--How so? Do you mean "the norm" as in, "the predominate orientation"? But this is false. As a condition, heterosexuality, not homesexuality, is the norm.
Do you mean the behavior arising from this orientation is "ordered to the ends of nature"? But this is also false because anal sex is contrary to the function of the anus, which is for pooping, and the genitals, which are for bringing forth new life in love. Either way, anal sex is disordered, abnormal sex
Is it not the case Father that science and faith are different - science being based on observable fact and faith on belief without scientifically measurable evidence? Science cannot disprove a creator God because the fundamental existence of God is contingent on belief in God. Shouln't God show us a sign to end this dispute?
If what you say about St Thomas is true it could be argued that he could have been a "new atheist" (as you like to call them) if he were alive today with all the scientific knowledge we have nowadays. Unlike religion, science does not proclaim truth, it looks to explain and understand the universe we live in and endeavour to always question what is known. I think religious truth is faith and there is no truth in faith, as you cannot prove gods existence.
@butternutsquashist Thomas indeed loved science; but he didn't reduce all knowledge to science. He knew that there are other intellectual disciplines, including mathematics, philosophy, and theology, which follow their own methods but which are no less rational than the sciences. And he would not--as you do--drive a wedge between faith and reason; and he did indeed think that God's existence can be proven through arguments from contingency.
@wordonfirevideo I do not think it is me that drives the wedge between reason and religion, I think other religious commentators do. Unlike your good self father not all religious people have thought deeply and rationally about their beliefs and can so eloquently discuss them as you do. I may not always agree with you but your arguments are always thought provoking and intelligible. Religion should embrace science and not see it as an adversary.
@butternutsquashist Thanks! Faith and reason proceed from the same source, which is the intense desire to see the truth. But some truths, the highest truths in fact, are given more than discovered. That's the basic difference, it seems to me.
@wordonfirevideo No they do not! Science is measurable and disciplined and repeatable. Faith is whatever people attach to it. Please let's not try to correlate the two.
@Mrmentalmadness123 Friend, all I can ask you to do is to read some serious theology. Like a lot of those in the grip of scientism, you're operating out of a crude, fundamentalist sense of religion.
contradiction between science and religon = religion says that homosexuals shold remain single and in chasity all their lifes, becuase homosexuality is not natural; psycology and medicine says that homosexuality is normal :) And yes, im gay :)
@samuelsixvids psychology and Medicine do not declare it "normal" . . . reproductively speaking... it would be explained as "abnormal" I think what you are thinking is "acceptable" or "explainable"
@omGOP3 not i not. Reproductively speaking is not normal or abnormal because u dont reproduce anything. By normal i mean that is not unhealthy, that is not cause by something worng in the person, that it just is. Is not explainable because it has explanation, which is given by psycology and genetics, research about it. And is not, not acceptable or acceptable, it just is.
--But John R. Diggs, Jr. M.D., in “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” Corporate Resource Council paper copyright 2002, says sodomy is very unhealthy. The vagina is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. But the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. So....
@omGOP3 Psycology and medicine do not declare it normal reproductively speaking because u dont reproduce anything. It declares it normal because it is normal, like in any other species.
"Psycology and medicine do not declare it normal reproductively speaking because u dont reproduce anything. It declares it normal because it is normal, like in any other species."
--So does cold-blooded murder, cannibalism, and tearing the genitals off another male in reproductive competition occur in other species. Does that mean these things are ok to do? I don't think so. Appealing to what other species do clearly fails to ground any kind of ethic worth following.
...With repeated trauma, friction, and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. So anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that easily becomes chronic. The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue (blood). Therefore, organisms introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina
....Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female….The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections.
....The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, microsp;oridia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis type B & C, syphilis.
@grunderlyme that why there are condoms. Belive me Gay people wont stop having sex, even u use say is wrong, even if it gives desiases. It looks that you have think alot the issue, maybe you feel kinda curous about homosexuality yourself. Usually people fight against thinks that are inside themselfs.
I went to that Church also in Toulouse. Such a stark Church but so thankful I went. Saint Thomas Aquinas was the greatest theologian ever. Theologians today can take a leaf out of Aquinas's book i.e. without Faith, obedience and pray theology just becomes a destructive exercise as can be seen with purely Biblical Criticism which has rocked the church because it's been used to undermine doctrines, even the resurrection!
The unicity of the Universe also necessitates one Redeemer! One Crucifixion! And I believe that a "natural" world's existence alongside a "supernatural" world would contradict Aquinas' idea: Grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it." Hence to opt for an existence without grace is an option to destroy the unity of the universe. Hence a person must hearken to Grace to the extent it is given by Christ. Jn 1:9, "The real light which gives light to every man."
Sweet ! What way could lead off ????? In the end it is all about us believing guys whatever style we believe in in God to grab whatever we can and move over there to the nonbelievers and kick their ass !
If god is the answer to everything then why wonder about anything else. Isn't true that Agustin and Thomas tried to put a religious meaning to ancient Greek philosophers' work? Isn't it true that god is just an easy (lazy) explanation for the unknown?
@wordonfirevideo That statement cannot be proven. It is based on what you believe. Contrary to the scientific method. Therefore it has to be bad science or bad religion. ;)
@symplythebest No. It's based upon a rational argument. Contingent things can be explained only through recourse, finally, to some reality which is not contingent, which exists through the power of its own essence. This is what Catholic theology means by "God."
@wordonfirevideo It is still an argument that cannot be proven. That is what I mean when I say that going directly to God as the explanation of what we do not know what makes religion and science, not only different, but at odds with each other. Which is not bad in my opinion. Each has its own place. For some it will be good to say that is God for some others it will be good to keep wondering.
@symplythebest I think that the argument for a non-contingent ground of contingency is logically valid, and you've given me no reason to think otherwise. Show me precisely why this argument fails.
@wordonfirevideo no particular reasons but if I understand correctly:
1. There might be "many" universes (as negation of non-existence). Therefore is it the same explanation for each? Or does each one of them have its own explanation?
2. How do we make the jump from such universal concept to humanity and in particular to Jesus. That is the materialization of God in a insignificant (statistically speaking) specie? As we know it everything in nature is start dust. Why humans are special?
@symplythebest, with respect to 2) God is love, that is He gives what is best given to the beloved, and hence He loved the universe into existence because He did it for creation's benefit, not His. Thus man as a rational animal who partakes in God's image as having intellect and will, He came down to join Himself to man for man's benefit. The insignificance of man is a philosophical presupposition of yours; man being rational would suggest his excellence above all other creatures.
@cooliodraw2 Man is on earth for less than 200K years. The universe has billions of years. The earth has millions of years. The dinosaurs ruled earth for much longer than man has. So is not philosophical insignificance. It is a quantitative insignificance.
Lets not even talk about the future of man as species. Is not sure we will stay around for long. And that has nothing to do with god's will. Is just another specie that come and go in the long history of earth.
@symplythebest, what makes you so sure that it is not God's will that we die out soon? Just because there are other things in the world does not mean that mankind is not significant? Is terms of size, is the universe more significant in a sense than human beings? There is a certain sense to which it is because the universe entails all creatures and human beings, however if we ask are whales who are bigger than people more important than people? The answer usually is no.
@symplythebest, perhaps to borrow the words from Carl Sagan, "the universe knows itself because of us." which ascribes a fundamentally big reason to see the significance of the only rational creature that is known to us. We are the only beings we know of who can contemplate and know the universe on a practical and theoretical scale.
@symplythebest, in what way is it a myth that the universe knows itself because of us? Does the tabletop I am typing on know anything? What about the chair? The only way in which things can be known as logic, fact, reason is through rational beings. One such rational being is the human being. This is what makes us significant in the universe. If you think this a myth, then I don't even know where we hold common ground.
@cooliodraw2 The universe does not care if you know about it or not. The universe was here long before us and will be "here" long before we are gone. Everything that is out there was once created in a star. EVERY single atom. Then the dice got rolling and we are just one face of it. Picaso said "if you can imagine it then is real". I don't think he meant that literally :)
@symplythebest, beautifully stated. The universe doesn't care if we were here, nor should any thing care if the universe existed. This is one of the great philosophical questions called the problem of contingency. Even if the universe doesn't care if I were here, the universe does not understand nor know itself. It is only man as rational being that understands things and can know the contents of the heavens and universe. The universe (through humans) knows itself because of us.
@cooliodraw2 How does the universe know itself? I agree that we know the universe because we are rational beings, but that doesn't prove the existence of a God.
@cooliodraw2 I think you give too much value to human rationality. And your view of the universe is biased. If you look objectively humans are not much different of other creatures. And the differences come directly from a mechanism of adaptation to our environment. You might think that dogs are the smartest animals after humans but the truth is that they just found a way to survive by being humans best friend.
@symplythebest, Can any animal philosophize or contemplate eternal truths and laws? No. Human beings are not just about survival. We seek truth. Human beings alone out of all the animals we've thus encountered are capable of contemplation. Humans are rational animals, we're not just another animal. I don't know what you mean by looking objectively, clearly we are biased, perhaps you mean if you look from your perspective.
@cooliodraw2 Self awareness is not unique to human specie. Chimps and dolphins are aware of their own self and therefore capable of "thinking" about themselves in relation to the others. What makes us different is just the degree of evolution. Many extinct creatures had brains with physiological characteristics apt for thinking.
Next time you seat in front of a steak think about your rationality, love and all of those things we treasure as human beings. lol
@symplythebest, I wasn't discussing self awareness at all, I was discussing the ability to contemplate and know eternal truths, laws, philosophy, metaphysics, law, physics, biology, to know complex concepts in the abstracts. I know that certain animals are capable of certain levels of thinking, but they are not rational as we are. That is why we are so special, regardless of evolution.
@cooliodraw2 Even among the human population you have the great majority living with a set of believes from the cave ages. Most of their day to day lives are still that of gatherer/hunter. Completely ignorant to facts such as evolution and all the other things you mention. Not much different than a chimp if you really look carefully.
@symplythebest, aside from that being extraordinarily arrogant, I do not believe that the great majority of people are living with a set of beliefs from the cave ages. Perhaps you can state what those beliefs are? Are they incapable of learning mathematics, studying, inquiring into metaphysics, ethics, theology, mechanics, grammar, law, philosophy of any kind? You are beginning to sound like Nietzsche about the ignorant masses. Do you believe yourself so haughtily above them?
@cooliodraw2 I think you are talking about human potential. Yes they can learn all of those things. But as society we still respond to that primal instinct of territoriality. And all the believes that go with it. There is no other explanation for parents allowing their teenager kids going to wars that are not theirs to fight. George Bush?
Yes the masses are ignorant. Even if they are able to use the ipod 1 ,2 ,3. They are not much different than Stick 1.1,.1.2,13 in the cave ages.
@symplythebest, Humans may be rational animals but they are still animals, we do have tendencies to do things for our own self preservation even when it isn't rational or prudent. That doesn't mean we're cave animals though.
@symplythebest, with respect to the possibility of 1) God would be the creator of all of these contingent (dependent) creatures (universes) because He is the necessary Being who creates being itself as a category of metaphysics. His Being is what creates being from nothing, that is from anything aside from His own subsistent Being.
@cooliodraw2 That is what you "believe". Nobody knows. There is no way to know. The more we wonder the more we will know. Once you accept that god is the answer then you no longer learn. If that works for you then is good. I will keep on wondering :)
@symplythebest, not necessarily, if one undertakes the study of metaphysics and the desires of mankind, belief in a supreme God that entails the necessary act of being becomes a lot more credible. I would say that more of a level of credibility comes from the witnessing of miracles and the lives of saintly intelligent persons who accord with the Church. Nobody absolutely knows, but nobody knows if many things will happen, such is the virtue of faith, a virtue critical to all reasoning.
@wordonfirevideo It seems to me that the current generation places a strong faith in "Science!" (ala Thomas Dolby). They would refuse to call this "religion," but it functions as the equivalent of religion in the minds of many people today, I think. Philosophical arguments are useless with such people, because they misunderstand both physical science and theology. To them, there is only one way to "know': the "scientific method. " Unfortunately for them, empiricism is not self- validating.
Ask God for Truth.God must be experienced or one will never find him..A mystery.I was an atheist up untill about a year ago and had never experienced or encountered Jesus.I did not believe.I am here to say..God exist.Jesus is here.Please check out Fatima miracle of the sun.Study.Look at Larsen's star of bethlehem..God exist and you can encountered God..Ask..Seek..I wanted to know and found out.God is the reality.Our choice..Heaven or Hell.Now, my life is worth living.
Ask God for Truth.God must be experienced or one will never find him..A mystery.I was an atheist up untill about a year and 1/2 ago and had never experienced or encountered Jesus.I did not believe.I am here to say..God exist.Jesus is here.Please check out Fatima miracle of the sun.Study.Look at Larsen's star of bethlehem..God exist and you can encounter God..Ask..Seek..I wanted to know and found out.God is the reality.Our choice..Heaven or Hell.Now, my life is worth living.
@MrElyBlack Well, the verb is an important one in connection with doctrine. We must be careful how we use it in connection with the Church. Even the Catechism highlights that it is not unacceptable to have "recourse to the death penalty." But the point I was making earlier is that Fr. Barron is highlighting the intrinsically evil acts of euthanasia, abortion and stem-cell research (when it comes to embryonic stem-cells that is.) The issues you mentioned are non-issues in this regard.
@MrElyBlack If there is a condition where it is acceptable, then it is not condemned. Is it more preferred that it be done away with? Yes. But as Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1976 "if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion," and "there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion...about...applying the death penalty."
@MrElyBlack Just a thought: capital punishment is not condemned by the Church, and there is no moral obligation either way. Aquinas was for it. Torture is condemned at all times, but it is kind of unnecessary to mention it in this context. Fr. Barron is speaking about the sciences and the value of human life. The ones mentioned undermine the human person on a more continual basis, and so he connected them to Christian humanism.
Thomas Aquinas is one of the reasons I first became interested in Catholicism. He was one of the greatest minds in human history and certainly the greatest of the medieval period. Perhaps only al-Ghazali can match him in the medieval period for sheer intellectual elan.
Yeah Aquinas was definitely one of the greatest minds in human history. Although I would have to say that if you include Augustine as part of the middle ages (he was right at the beginning or near it, fifth century) then I would say Augustine is the greatest mind of the medieval period.
We reverence science enough to examine and critique its epistemic particulars and interpretive models. Just as the cosmology of St. Thomas' day is today dated, so we must be prepared to question the present cosmological models and their presuppositions, knowing more than ever that in the light of the immensity of the universe, the more we know, the less we know (God humbles us), even if so much of science doesn't like to admit it. See Wolfgang Smith, Paul Feyerabend, etc.
Immanuel Kant argued that there must be something whose non-existence is impossible; but contra Aquinas, et al, he saw no reason why this should not be the universe. In fact, didn't Aquinas think that reason cannot establish that creation had a beginning? Does that not mean that Aquinas saw no logical incoherence in a beginingless universe? I suppose he would nevertheless say that even if it were beginningless, it would still depend on God as cause. Hmmm.
@bayreuth79@bayreuth79 : St. Thomas of Aquinas and the Scholastics like St. Bonaventure address the idea of the world being in existence from the beginning when they discovered a work of Aristotle. The Scholastic Midieval world was shocked by this, I've forgotten what the work of Aristotle was, but part of St. Thomas of Aquinas' address to the matter are here
DE AETERNITATE MUNDI [On the Eternity of the world]
The "double truth" argument was attributed to Ibn Rushd (Averroes) but this was a mistake. The Latin Averroeists misunderstood Averroes' thought. In fact, Averroes would be in absolute agreement with Thomas Aquinas with regard to the unity of truth. If you look at Averroes' hermeneutics with reference to the Qur'an you will see that this is so. Sadly, Averroes was discarded and forgotten in the Islamic intellectual world with detrimental effects.
if science disproves the bible it's because the reader interprets it literally instead of symbolically. symbolism has billions of meanings. i feel symbolism is an escape mechanism because if you use that logic ANY material would never be wrong simply mis-interpreted.
scientists may look at our existence and say we don't know where we came from, because we don't have proof. religion presumes were we come from without proof, we may come from a being, but how do we know what kind of being?
@lizazoon It's my understanding that St. Thomas of Aquinas only wrote that heretics should be dealt with by secular authorities (separation of Church and State weren't that profound back then). He's the Doctor of the Church for his astounding theological and philosophical clarity and insight. He is probably one of the greatest philosophers that I've ever read, and some rank him and Aristotle as the greatest philosophers of history.
@lizazoon I have reviewed your evidence and not concluded any of your remarks against the Saint as condemning heretics to death. He says it would be better that a heretic be dead than to spread lies about God and His Holy Church. To an extent that is true that to profane God who is Infinite and His Bride is a terrible thing. However we have within the immediate context of your citation that he means for all heretics to be reunited in love to the Church by Penance.
@cooliodraw2 ; His text can hardly be misunderstood and you wilfully(?) omit to mention that the wordly authorities were in many places appointed by the clergy.
@lizazoon I've already privately addressed some of your issues with the Church. I haven't tried to willfully omit anything and if I have not addressed anything that still bothers you, please do bring it up. The corruption of several individuals within the Church over different time periods does not illegitimize St. Thomas of Aquinas or the Church as an institution. All you've pointed out is sometimes people do bad things, which is a human condition not exclusive of Christians.
@Father Barron If "Jesus is the way the truth and the life" does that mean he is the only one that can create life? I'm asking this question because Craig Venter presumes to have created the first syntetic form of life.
@ratherrapid --The Inquisitions were meant to root out jewish or muslim infiltraitors in the spanish Gov. These people faked their conversion to catholicism but had other agendas. catholicleague dott orgg. has a good article on it.
Thank you, Father. I wrote my MA Theology thesis on Aquinas' Aristotelian depiction of the Eucharist. Aquinas rocks! God bless you in your ministry, Fr. Barron.
Thank you so much for your videos. I have learned so much about my faith.
One request: please specify the difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research. One is morally wrong, the other is not, and I think it adds to the confusion surrounding this topic if we continue to refer to them both by the same name.
@Stitchman3875 The classic Latin/English Blackfriars' translation of the Summa Theologiae, first published by the English Dominicans in the 1960s and 1970s, is contained in 61 volumes (60 text volumes plus 1 index volume). Within each volume, the Latin text is on the left-sided pages with the English translation on the right.
Father Barron, how would integrate Aquinas into the opinion article by NY Times columnist (10/6/09) David Brooks contrasting the American political debate between Jeremey Bentham and David Hume? Please comment and speak to that.
If true, then they would support Bentham; but Bentham is an utilitarian who calculates the greatest good for the greatest number by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Aristotle and Aquinas claim goods greater than pleasure. Aristotle, contemplation; Aquinas, Beatific Vision of the Resurrection. Neither Hume nor Bentham can venture beyond natural reason. The political argument is prudential towards natural goods. What would Monarchism achieve?
In the Old testament when Gods chosen people were the Jews, He origianlly did not want them to have a king, hence the judges were the 'aristocracy' and because God alone was to be their king.but the jews complained and He allowed monarchism.Monarchism can only achieve any good toward society in a society that puts thing in the correct hierarchy of order.1.God2.their own soul3.others souls.a king would be a father.theoretically.
middle ages produced the gothic cathedrals a wonder and architectural masterpiece of genius.they were built because the people believed in another good and bad life that had to be earned.If God is number one in priorities than He deserves the number one building in any town.
So, according to the beginning of your enlightening speech on the beliefs of St. Thomas: The mere fact, that we have SEVERAL "world-religions" with billions of believers, is an indication for us having "bad religion" so far ...
Like in science, only ONE can be true and therefore Good. ;-)
The mere fact, that there are several world religions, that claim, that they (and ONLY they) know and preach the "truth" indicates, that possibly NONE OF THEM knows THE truth. -
To personalize this: YOU probably think, that Catholicism advocates THE truth, because you were born in a family "Irish Catholic to the bone", as you so nicely put it elsewhere.
Oh give me a break! I referenced the unity of truth in order to show how Aquinas overcomes any split between faith and reason. Religious truth is one, but it is participated in to varying degrees by the many religions. It's not an either/or proposition. There are many aspects of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. that are true.
Only one religion can be true,not all of them could be true, not all of them could be false.I'm convert to catholic.Christ only person to say "I'm God" and prove it by miracles which thousands saw and heard.Buddists,muslims,mormons founded by a man who did not claim he was god.till 1540's only christian religion was catholic.Luther started his own, so did henry viii, so on, etc ad nauseam
This argumentation is sooo cute! Do you know, how many people claimed (and claim!) to be incarnations of God? And how many of them performed (and perform!) so-called "miracles" for their believers?
Are you watching the international news? Do you see, what is happening right now to countless innocent people? (earthquakes, tsunamies, floods, wars, cruelties against helpless children and women?) God lets this happen to "make the world more beautiful"? - GROTESQUE!
natural disasters are not evil.Death is grotesque but not evil either.Our Free Will brought grotesque into the world.God did not create grotesque but we chose it.Our fallen human nature is inclined to cruelties but originally our first parents were not like that.The fact that people see God as a mean monster makes them not want to serve Him.He is not a monster but He is Love.The Saints were true to what God wanted in the first place.but there are hardly any saints today.
The question is not: Why does EVIL exist? (We shall never be able to answer that.) But rather: Why does God ALLOW it to exist?
Do you realize, that in the time, it took you, to write the comment above, HUNDREDS of innocents were tortured, raped, killed in this horrible (and sometimes beautiful) world?
Why does God allow evil? (We shall never be able to answer that) Why Christ be scourged almost to death? I think God did not want a perfect world, He gave us free will, we chose our selves instead of choosing Him. Hence disorder and chaos.
God allows evil to happen is to get the greater good out of it. Just look at Jesus on the Cross; the True God was killed on the Cross and that was the greatest evil but then He rose and destroyed our death and opened the gates of heaven for us and gave us a way to get to heaven. That is the good from it.
And the verse you are reffering to, John 14:6, in the beginning states that Jesus is the way the truth and the life. Not simply the person who brings you to it, but he is "it" itself. We don't need to believe in Jesus to get to the Father? Sorry, but you ARE either making it up or know nothing about even basic Christian belief.
For believers, science strengthens faith in the ultimate truth (God) which cannot be sensed or proven except by miracle or in eternity. That's why it requires faith. Scientific truths are proven and can be sensed, but to say that the only truths to exist are these forms is close minded. Surely things may exist regardless of our ability to understand or perceive them.
UTLBify 2 days ago
And it's his feast day! St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.
GruntLogic 2 days ago
Comment removed
Daniel151jesus 2 days ago
What do you mean Father by "religious truths" as compared to scientific truths. Truth is something which is verifiable - we can repeat and identify truths because they occur in measurable and predictable ways we can observe. Aren't religious truths merely beliefs repeated and given dignity by Theologians and clerics? Catholicism exists I would concede that as a truth because of the above. It worries me given the certainty you have in the existence of something for which there is not evidence.
Mrmentalmadness123 4 days ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 I mean truths having to do with God and God's dealings with the world. The ground for these claims is metaphysical, psychological, and historical. The problem is that you're using "evidence" in such a narrow, restricted sense, designating basically physical traces and the results of experiments.
wordonfirevideo 4 days ago 2
You talk of Religious Truth? You mean religious belief? Belief is not truth!
Mrmentalmadness123 5 days ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 You don't know your parents were really your parents. You believe it, with motivation. You don't know that England is an island, you believe it with motivation. You don't know that there is a city in Colorado named Denver. You believe it with motivation. The same is true of religious truths.
wordonfirevideo 5 days ago
@wordonfirevideo But Father science can prove or demonstrate each of the issues you identify. You cannot prove the existence of God. These are not good examples Father. Motivation has nothing to do with demonstrable truth. Science gives us the confidence to believe things because we know science is rigorous and repeatable. However you cut it you are asking us to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Faith is not evidence Father.
Mrmentalmadness123 4 days ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 No it can't! Not to a degree of certitude. There is always a dimension of belief in anything we claim to know. The same is true in regard to religious claims. We come to know them through a combination of faith and reason.
wordonfirevideo 4 days ago
@wordonfirevideo Father are you saying that science cannot determine to a point of certainty that England is an island or by DNA analysis my parents were my parents. These are facts that are not contingent on my believing them. England is an island irrespective of how you or I might feel about that FACT! I'm simply saying you cannot prove God exists by saying that science is also reliant upon faith. It operates on reason and demonstrable proof. You are wrong Father. Faith is not evidence.
Mrmentalmadness123 4 days ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 I respects people's right to believe - to have faith I only object when you suggest faith and science are interelated in someway. They are different things. Scientists do hypothesise about creation and lots of things - the difference is they wont accept something as provable or factual without confirmatory evidence. The only reasonable position for me to adopt is therefore I dont know if there is a God but there is no-evidence for his existence. But, people do believe.
Mrmentalmadness123 4 days ago
Father i know ive been commenting questions everywhere, but this one is super important and the question is. Dose God love us all the same? I was reading the summa theologica on the computer and its hard for me to read, but i got the idea that thomas is saying that God loves some more then others and its realy putting me down and makeing me feel depresed i want God to love us all the same with all his heart.
Daniel151jesus 1 week ago
@Daniel151jesus To love is to will the Good of the beloved. Our most fundamental good is our existence. Indeed, Good and Being are transcendentally related. All being is good simply in virtue of existing. This is the lesson of Genesis 1. God wills our true reality - what is called the Atman in Eastern thought - not a false self-image. He wills it fully, completely, & unreservedly. He loves us for who & what He made us. How much more love could He show us? Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 4 days ago
@dfpolis Thanks Dennis, yes i know wut you mean "God is love" he is "agape" meaning > to want whats best for the beloved. That's all God can do is love, But can God love some one more then some one esle? Can he say this? well look, i desire both Father barron and Dennis to be in my presence for ever, but i rather have Father barron. Do u get what im saying here? can he value someone more then some one esle or is he like a true father who cant split the 2?
Daniel151jesus 4 days ago
@Daniel151jesus Human love is a dim reflection of Divine Love. We love one more or less because our finite resources make us set priorities. God has infinite resources & is fully committed to our whole being & good. Still, some have more being than others. Jesus has more Being than us as He is more than just human. Having more gifts might be seen as having more being & love, but God loves each completely. What else could God loving more even mean? Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 4 days ago
@dfpolis Hi Dennis thanks for the wall post on my channle :) im gonna watch some of your vids soon, and yeah i get wut you mean, God loves everything to its full capacity but some have a bigger capacity then others. For example there is a small cup and big cup both are full of water but the big cup can hold more in it, is that the same with Gods love? but now my question is, is it God who makes our capacity big or small ? or is it us by our freewill? so can we increase or decrease our capacity?
Daniel151jesus 4 days ago
@Daniel151jesus You are welcome. Yes, if we are more real, there is more to love. God gives us our nature - not just our generic human nature, but our individual talents as well. Still, our choices work to actualize (or not) the potential we have been given. There is no doubt that the more actual we become, the more real being we have and the more there is for God to Love. Jesus has a number of parables on using the gifts we have been given. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dfpolis Thanks your helping me out alot. :) but now i have another question, since "Love" is to will it good how can we love God? how can be want whats best for God when he is perfect? isent it silly to will the good for God when he needs nothing? bcuz i understand how we can will the good for people in this world bcuz there are dangers and people can get hurt, but in heaven we dont have to worry bout danger so how can we agape God now? and each other in heavan?
Daniel151jesus 2 days ago
Aquinas about women: And this guy is a "doctor" of the cath. church. !! If it were not for some [divine] power that wanted the feminine sex to exist, the birth of a woman would be just another accident, such as that of other monsters [= a dog with two heads, a calf with five legs, etc.]”
“Nisi ergo esset aliqua virtus quae intenderet femineum sexum, generation feminae esset omnino a casu, sicut et aliorum monstrorum”. De Veritate 5, 9, d. 9.
ndzoko 2 weeks ago
@ndzoko Oy vey... Friend, tell me who your intellectual hero is. I guarantee you I can find some stupid things that he said. I mean, this exercise is like shooting fish in a barrel--and just as pointless. You have to look at the great themes and trajectories and patterns within a great thinker's thought and not pick out anomolous mistakes.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo Albert Schweitser. Tell me what he ever said that is stupid. Great thinkers don`t blabber nonsense, reducing women to monsters, advocating murder for heretics. This is not a SIMPLE STUPID THING, is it ?
ndzoko 2 weeks ago
@ndzoko Easy: he said that Jesus was simply a misguided eschatological prophet ground under by the wheel of history.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
ndzoko 2 weeks ago
Father, you talk of the "one God" - what about all the other god's? Do they not exist or is that a mischievous question? You know the common view that not all religions can be right. An answer please that is not simply a request to read more "serious philosophy." Few people, myself included, could match your theological knowledge. You have been trained in this discipline. However, this does not mean you possess the truth or that the rest of us - your detractors are frivolous or indeed wrong.
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Honestly, how would you feel if I offered crude caricatures of scientific theories and then, on the basis of those caricatures, rejected all science as silly? Wouldn't you tell me to get a little better education in the sciences? I'm just saying that your question was not a good one, since it was predicated on such an inadequate sense of what religion really is.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo You may not respect my views or may regard them as facile but like it or not if Catholicism is to survive it is people like me you are going to have to convince. Rationality does obviate religion to a high degree whether yuo believe it or not precisely because it shapes our lives. There are millions like me who no longer accept the so-called truths of religion - particularly where dogma interferes with progress as in the opposition to stem cell research.
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo It is the disconnect between religion and the reality of modern life that dooms it in my view. I am a moral person - I dont like the idea of casual abortion but neither do I support the ban on condom use and stem cell research. Rational thinking pushes me in this direction having examined the issues in detail. I look at evidence rather than conviction for the basis on which I make decisions.
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo Also, Father this is meant in the spirit of amiable discourse but you repeatedly infer that I and other atheists know too little of theology snd religion to question its fundamntal purpose. Somehow my questions are based on ignorance. I find that an old argument often employed when people know they are in a hole and cannot argue their way out. You keep suggesting I am somehow asking the wrong questions rather than trying to address the ones asked of you. This is nothing new.
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death. The words of a "Doctor of the church" What an exemple of "love your ennemies ???????????????????
ndzoko 2 weeks ago
@ndzoko The Lord says: Love your enemies. However a heretic declares him or herself an enemy of God, just like the devil. Therefore, we should not be bound to love those who are irrevocably bent on our destruction. Now remember, not everything spoken by saints or doctors means they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Lastly if you are trully looking for people with love so great as to love their enemies, read the lives of the saints of the one church you inted to ridicule.
jumanlo0628 2 weeks ago
@jumanlo0628 However a heretic declares him or herself an enemy of God,..
So, silly defender of the faith, you maintain that heretics have to be murdered ? He. Aquinus, received the highest honor in the church" doctor". I expose( ridicule if you like)what I know to be untrue, unjust,unloving. Many biographies of the saints are plain BS. There is a commision set up to investigate those biographies.
ndzoko 2 weeks ago
@ndzoko Are you trully seeking the truth or just fooling around? Even If Mother Theresa would have you living with her day and night, you would still find arguments against what's really clear. I could give you an encyclopedia on how a "certain lemon tree is nothing but a grapevine". All eloquence in the world would not be enough when you see lemons, not grapes, are being bossomed out of this tree. So don't believe a word about them, just see what their fruits are still doing today.
jumanlo0628 2 weeks ago
@jumanlo0628 Yes mother Theresa is one beautiful exemple of christian faith, even if she doubted that faith in the end... You do not need faith to do charity. The UN does more for the poor and hungry than any organisation in human history.. What christianity does and teaches about charity is done and taught in other religions too..
ndzoko 2 weeks ago
@ndzoko Faith & doubt are compatible. Faith is a commitment. We can be committed while still having doubts we are trying to work through. Charity is not something separate. It is the expression of our commitment. That is why the choice between Faith or Works as the key to salvation is nonsense. You cannot be committed to God and not act committed by doing works. Works without commitment are works without love -- self-serving and empty. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 4 days ago
In my towns' central library they have the 3 volume edition of the Summa Theologica, it's incredible . I like the way Aquinas introduces an article, such as 'God is Perfect' or 'God is not compossed of matter' and then gives the strongest objections agaisnt these points, before refuting them. It's something we could learn a good deal from today, The proper way to conduct dialogue & critiques is to take on your opponents strongest arguments & thinkers not their weakest ones.
Anglican08 4 weeks ago
Father B. -Did Thomas Aquinas somehow deny the Immaculate Conception? There is an issue here and i dont know what it is.
Archangel866 1 month ago
May I just repeat parts of a splendid quote from this video:
"There is no 'humanism' higher than Christian humanism...the claim that we are meant for a share in the Divine Life...Each human person is irreducibly dignified. Each human person is the subject of an enormous God-given set of rights. Abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research, all those things that would reduce human beings to a 'means to an end', are repugnant to this fundamental Christian claim about the dignity of the human being."
TibbieT 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Very sad. Aquinas is quite an inferior thinker, and has been refuted by Spinoza.
alifeofreason 4 months ago in playlist Philosophy
@alifeofreason Evidence? Arguments? Or just more name-calling? I'm no longer surprised that so many of the "new" atheists rely on the crudest and most casual forms of discourse.
wordonfirevideo 4 months ago 14
Comment removed
roryscanlon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@samuelsixvids Yeah, that's it! Just keep on playing that overused, unsubstantiated "homophobic" card because you have nothing better to say. You're so smart!
grunderlyme 4 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 4 months ago
....In note 25, p. 12 Diggs provides the scientific sources for the list of diseases associated with anal intercourse:
Anne Rompalo, “Sexually Transmitted Causes of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Homosexual Men,” Medical Clinics of North America 74(6: 1633-1645 (November 1990); “Anal Health for Men and Women,” LGBTHealthChannel,
See also, “Safer Sex (MSM) for Men Who Have Sex with Men,” LGBTHealthChannel
The science of these stats comes straight from LGBT health websites themselves.
grunderlyme 4 months ago
"homosexuality is normal"
--How so? Do you mean "the norm" as in, "the predominate orientation"? But this is false. As a condition, heterosexuality, not homesexuality, is the norm.
Do you mean the behavior arising from this orientation is "ordered to the ends of nature"? But this is also false because anal sex is contrary to the function of the anus, which is for pooping, and the genitals, which are for bringing forth new life in love. Either way, anal sex is disordered, abnormal sex
grunderlyme 4 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 4 months ago
Is it not the case Father that science and faith are different - science being based on observable fact and faith on belief without scientifically measurable evidence? Science cannot disprove a creator God because the fundamental existence of God is contingent on belief in God. Shouln't God show us a sign to end this dispute?
Mrmentalmadness123 7 months ago
If what you say about St Thomas is true it could be argued that he could have been a "new atheist" (as you like to call them) if he were alive today with all the scientific knowledge we have nowadays. Unlike religion, science does not proclaim truth, it looks to explain and understand the universe we live in and endeavour to always question what is known. I think religious truth is faith and there is no truth in faith, as you cannot prove gods existence.
butternutsquashist 7 months ago
@butternutsquashist Thomas indeed loved science; but he didn't reduce all knowledge to science. He knew that there are other intellectual disciplines, including mathematics, philosophy, and theology, which follow their own methods but which are no less rational than the sciences. And he would not--as you do--drive a wedge between faith and reason; and he did indeed think that God's existence can be proven through arguments from contingency.
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago 11
@wordonfirevideo I do not think it is me that drives the wedge between reason and religion, I think other religious commentators do. Unlike your good self father not all religious people have thought deeply and rationally about their beliefs and can so eloquently discuss them as you do. I may not always agree with you but your arguments are always thought provoking and intelligible. Religion should embrace science and not see it as an adversary.
butternutsquashist 7 months ago 2
@butternutsquashist Thanks! Faith and reason proceed from the same source, which is the intense desire to see the truth. But some truths, the highest truths in fact, are given more than discovered. That's the basic difference, it seems to me.
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago 4
@wordonfirevideo No they do not! Science is measurable and disciplined and repeatable. Faith is whatever people attach to it. Please let's not try to correlate the two.
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Friend, all I can ask you to do is to read some serious theology. Like a lot of those in the grip of scientism, you're operating out of a crude, fundamentalist sense of religion.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
contradiction between science and religon = religion says that homosexuals shold remain single and in chasity all their lifes, becuase homosexuality is not natural; psycology and medicine says that homosexuality is normal :) And yes, im gay :)
samuelsixvids 9 months ago
@samuelsixvids psychology and Medicine do not declare it "normal" . . . reproductively speaking... it would be explained as "abnormal" I think what you are thinking is "acceptable" or "explainable"
omGOP3 9 months ago
@omGOP3 not i not. Reproductively speaking is not normal or abnormal because u dont reproduce anything. By normal i mean that is not unhealthy, that is not cause by something worng in the person, that it just is. Is not explainable because it has explanation, which is given by psycology and genetics, research about it. And is not, not acceptable or acceptable, it just is.
samuelsixvids 9 months ago
"By normal i mean that is not unhealthy"
--But John R. Diggs, Jr. M.D., in “The Health Risks of Gay Sex,” Corporate Resource Council paper copyright 2002, says sodomy is very unhealthy. The vagina is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. But the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an “exit-only” passage. So....
grunderlyme 4 months ago
@omGOP3 Psycology and medicine do not declare it normal reproductively speaking because u dont reproduce anything. It declares it normal because it is normal, like in any other species.
samuelsixvids 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Psycology and medicine do not declare it normal reproductively speaking because u dont reproduce anything. It declares it normal because it is normal, like in any other species."
--So does cold-blooded murder, cannibalism, and tearing the genitals off another male in reproductive competition occur in other species. Does that mean these things are ok to do? I don't think so. Appealing to what other species do clearly fails to ground any kind of ethic worth following.
grunderlyme 4 months ago
...With repeated trauma, friction, and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. So anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that easily becomes chronic. The potential for injury is exacerbated by the fact that the intestine has only a single layer of cells separating it from highly vascular tissue (blood). Therefore, organisms introduced into the rectum have a much easier time establishing a foothold for infection than they would in a vagina
grunderlyme 4 months ago
....Furthermore, ejaculate has components that are immunosuppressive. In the course of ordinary reproductive physiology, this allows the sperm to evade the immune defenses of the female….The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections.
grunderlyme 4 months ago
....The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, microsp;oridia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis type B & C, syphilis.
grunderlyme 4 months ago
@grunderlyme that why there are condoms. Belive me Gay people wont stop having sex, even u use say is wrong, even if it gives desiases. It looks that you have think alot the issue, maybe you feel kinda curous about homosexuality yourself. Usually people fight against thinks that are inside themselfs.
samuelsixvids 4 months ago
@samuelsixvids "Usually people fight against thinks that are inside themselfs."
--Yeah, just like most judges are criminals and anti-slavery activists are racists. Your scientific genius is too much for me.
grunderlyme 4 months ago
I went to that Church also in Toulouse. Such a stark Church but so thankful I went. Saint Thomas Aquinas was the greatest theologian ever. Theologians today can take a leaf out of Aquinas's book i.e. without Faith, obedience and pray theology just becomes a destructive exercise as can be seen with purely Biblical Criticism which has rocked the church because it's been used to undermine doctrines, even the resurrection!
modomnoc1010 9 months ago
The unicity of the Universe also necessitates one Redeemer! One Crucifixion! And I believe that a "natural" world's existence alongside a "supernatural" world would contradict Aquinas' idea: Grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it." Hence to opt for an existence without grace is an option to destroy the unity of the universe. Hence a person must hearken to Grace to the extent it is given by Christ. Jn 1:9, "The real light which gives light to every man."
watchful38 10 months ago
Sweet ! What way could lead off ????? In the end it is all about us believing guys whatever style we believe in in God to grab whatever we can and move over there to the nonbelievers and kick their ass !
bernhardfranz 10 months ago
Sweet ! What way could lead off ?????
bernhardfranz 10 months ago
Love Fr. Barron's videos!! :-)
AnAngelOfMercy 11 months ago
If god is the answer to everything then why wonder about anything else. Isn't true that Agustin and Thomas tried to put a religious meaning to ancient Greek philosophers' work? Isn't it true that god is just an easy (lazy) explanation for the unknown?
symplythebest 11 months ago
@symplythebest No! God is the only valid answer to the question concerning the actual existence of a contingent universe.
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago 11
@wordonfirevideo That statement cannot be proven. It is based on what you believe. Contrary to the scientific method. Therefore it has to be bad science or bad religion. ;)
symplythebest 11 months ago
@symplythebest No. It's based upon a rational argument. Contingent things can be explained only through recourse, finally, to some reality which is not contingent, which exists through the power of its own essence. This is what Catholic theology means by "God."
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago 3
@wordonfirevideo It is still an argument that cannot be proven. That is what I mean when I say that going directly to God as the explanation of what we do not know what makes religion and science, not only different, but at odds with each other. Which is not bad in my opinion. Each has its own place. For some it will be good to say that is God for some others it will be good to keep wondering.
Thank you for your responses!
symplythebest 11 months ago
@symplythebest I think that the argument for a non-contingent ground of contingency is logically valid, and you've given me no reason to think otherwise. Show me precisely why this argument fails.
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago 2
@wordonfirevideo no particular reasons but if I understand correctly:
1. There might be "many" universes (as negation of non-existence). Therefore is it the same explanation for each? Or does each one of them have its own explanation?
2. How do we make the jump from such universal concept to humanity and in particular to Jesus. That is the materialization of God in a insignificant (statistically speaking) specie? As we know it everything in nature is start dust. Why humans are special?
symplythebest 11 months ago
@symplythebest, with respect to 2) God is love, that is He gives what is best given to the beloved, and hence He loved the universe into existence because He did it for creation's benefit, not His. Thus man as a rational animal who partakes in God's image as having intellect and will, He came down to join Himself to man for man's benefit. The insignificance of man is a philosophical presupposition of yours; man being rational would suggest his excellence above all other creatures.
cooliodraw2 11 months ago
Comment removed
symplythebest 11 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Man is on earth for less than 200K years. The universe has billions of years. The earth has millions of years. The dinosaurs ruled earth for much longer than man has. So is not philosophical insignificance. It is a quantitative insignificance.
Lets not even talk about the future of man as species. Is not sure we will stay around for long. And that has nothing to do with god's will. Is just another specie that come and go in the long history of earth.
symplythebest 1 day ago
symplythebest 11 months ago
@symplythebest, what makes you so sure that it is not God's will that we die out soon? Just because there are other things in the world does not mean that mankind is not significant? Is terms of size, is the universe more significant in a sense than human beings? There is a certain sense to which it is because the universe entails all creatures and human beings, however if we ask are whales who are bigger than people more important than people? The answer usually is no.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@symplythebest, perhaps to borrow the words from Carl Sagan, "the universe knows itself because of us." which ascribes a fundamentally big reason to see the significance of the only rational creature that is known to us. We are the only beings we know of who can contemplate and know the universe on a practical and theoretical scale.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 This conversation is descending into the realm of myths and believes that I am not interested. Sorry.
symplythebest 10 months ago
@symplythebest, in what way is it a myth that the universe knows itself because of us? Does the tabletop I am typing on know anything? What about the chair? The only way in which things can be known as logic, fact, reason is through rational beings. One such rational being is the human being. This is what makes us significant in the universe. If you think this a myth, then I don't even know where we hold common ground.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 The universe does not care if you know about it or not. The universe was here long before us and will be "here" long before we are gone. Everything that is out there was once created in a star. EVERY single atom. Then the dice got rolling and we are just one face of it. Picaso said "if you can imagine it then is real". I don't think he meant that literally :)
symplythebest 10 months ago
@symplythebest, beautifully stated. The universe doesn't care if we were here, nor should any thing care if the universe existed. This is one of the great philosophical questions called the problem of contingency. Even if the universe doesn't care if I were here, the universe does not understand nor know itself. It is only man as rational being that understands things and can know the contents of the heavens and universe. The universe (through humans) knows itself because of us.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 How does the universe know itself? I agree that we know the universe because we are rational beings, but that doesn't prove the existence of a God.
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27, I was never striving to prove the existence of God in my discussion.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 I think you give too much value to human rationality. And your view of the universe is biased. If you look objectively humans are not much different of other creatures. And the differences come directly from a mechanism of adaptation to our environment. You might think that dogs are the smartest animals after humans but the truth is that they just found a way to survive by being humans best friend.
symplythebest 10 months ago
@symplythebest, Can any animal philosophize or contemplate eternal truths and laws? No. Human beings are not just about survival. We seek truth. Human beings alone out of all the animals we've thus encountered are capable of contemplation. Humans are rational animals, we're not just another animal. I don't know what you mean by looking objectively, clearly we are biased, perhaps you mean if you look from your perspective.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Self awareness is not unique to human specie. Chimps and dolphins are aware of their own self and therefore capable of "thinking" about themselves in relation to the others. What makes us different is just the degree of evolution. Many extinct creatures had brains with physiological characteristics apt for thinking.
Next time you seat in front of a steak think about your rationality, love and all of those things we treasure as human beings. lol
symplythebest 10 months ago
@symplythebest, I wasn't discussing self awareness at all, I was discussing the ability to contemplate and know eternal truths, laws, philosophy, metaphysics, law, physics, biology, to know complex concepts in the abstracts. I know that certain animals are capable of certain levels of thinking, but they are not rational as we are. That is why we are so special, regardless of evolution.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Even among the human population you have the great majority living with a set of believes from the cave ages. Most of their day to day lives are still that of gatherer/hunter. Completely ignorant to facts such as evolution and all the other things you mention. Not much different than a chimp if you really look carefully.
symplythebest 10 months ago
@symplythebest, aside from that being extraordinarily arrogant, I do not believe that the great majority of people are living with a set of beliefs from the cave ages. Perhaps you can state what those beliefs are? Are they incapable of learning mathematics, studying, inquiring into metaphysics, ethics, theology, mechanics, grammar, law, philosophy of any kind? You are beginning to sound like Nietzsche about the ignorant masses. Do you believe yourself so haughtily above them?
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 I think you are talking about human potential. Yes they can learn all of those things. But as society we still respond to that primal instinct of territoriality. And all the believes that go with it. There is no other explanation for parents allowing their teenager kids going to wars that are not theirs to fight. George Bush?
Yes the masses are ignorant. Even if they are able to use the ipod 1 ,2 ,3. They are not much different than Stick 1.1,.1.2,13 in the cave ages.
symplythebest 10 months ago
@symplythebest, Humans may be rational animals but they are still animals, we do have tendencies to do things for our own self preservation even when it isn't rational or prudent. That doesn't mean we're cave animals though.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Amen to that.
symplythebest 10 months ago
@symplythebest, with respect to the possibility of 1) God would be the creator of all of these contingent (dependent) creatures (universes) because He is the necessary Being who creates being itself as a category of metaphysics. His Being is what creates being from nothing, that is from anything aside from His own subsistent Being.
cooliodraw2 11 months ago
@cooliodraw2 That is what you "believe". Nobody knows. There is no way to know. The more we wonder the more we will know. Once you accept that god is the answer then you no longer learn. If that works for you then is good. I will keep on wondering :)
symplythebest 11 months ago
@symplythebest, not necessarily, if one undertakes the study of metaphysics and the desires of mankind, belief in a supreme God that entails the necessary act of being becomes a lot more credible. I would say that more of a level of credibility comes from the witnessing of miracles and the lives of saintly intelligent persons who accord with the Church. Nobody absolutely knows, but nobody knows if many things will happen, such is the virtue of faith, a virtue critical to all reasoning.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@wordonfirevideo It seems to me that the current generation places a strong faith in "Science!" (ala Thomas Dolby). They would refuse to call this "religion," but it functions as the equivalent of religion in the minds of many people today, I think. Philosophical arguments are useless with such people, because they misunderstand both physical science and theology. To them, there is only one way to "know': the "scientific method. " Unfortunately for them, empiricism is not self- validating.
billybagbom 9 months ago
@symplythebest - I think you need to understand something called Epistemology. Aquinas showed reason and faith can co-exist.
zztestenglish 11 months ago
@symplythebest
Ask God for Truth.God must be experienced or one will never find him..A mystery.I was an atheist up untill about a year ago and had never experienced or encountered Jesus.I did not believe.I am here to say..God exist.Jesus is here.Please check out Fatima miracle of the sun.Study.Look at Larsen's star of bethlehem..God exist and you can encountered God..Ask..Seek..I wanted to know and found out.God is the reality.Our choice..Heaven or Hell.Now, my life is worth living.
airplanman 9 months ago
@symplythebest
Ask God for Truth.God must be experienced or one will never find him..A mystery.I was an atheist up untill about a year and 1/2 ago and had never experienced or encountered Jesus.I did not believe.I am here to say..God exist.Jesus is here.Please check out Fatima miracle of the sun.Study.Look at Larsen's star of bethlehem..God exist and you can encounter God..Ask..Seek..I wanted to know and found out.God is the reality.Our choice..Heaven or Hell.Now, my life is worth living.
airplanman 9 months ago
@MrElyBlack Well, the verb is an important one in connection with doctrine. We must be careful how we use it in connection with the Church. Even the Catechism highlights that it is not unacceptable to have "recourse to the death penalty." But the point I was making earlier is that Fr. Barron is highlighting the intrinsically evil acts of euthanasia, abortion and stem-cell research (when it comes to embryonic stem-cells that is.) The issues you mentioned are non-issues in this regard.
jantoniello 1 year ago
@MrElyBlack If there is a condition where it is acceptable, then it is not condemned. Is it more preferred that it be done away with? Yes. But as Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1976 "if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion," and "there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion...about...applying the death penalty."
jantoniello 1 year ago
@MrElyBlack Just a thought: capital punishment is not condemned by the Church, and there is no moral obligation either way. Aquinas was for it. Torture is condemned at all times, but it is kind of unnecessary to mention it in this context. Fr. Barron is speaking about the sciences and the value of human life. The ones mentioned undermine the human person on a more continual basis, and so he connected them to Christian humanism.
jantoniello 1 year ago
I love Aquinas. He's my hero too. I hope I can be like him.
blitzel3 1 year ago
Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancti. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum! AMEN!!!!
VirFortunaeLucisque 1 year ago
Hell true! ;)
metal87power 1 year ago
Thomas Aquinas is one of the reasons I first became interested in Catholicism. He was one of the greatest minds in human history and certainly the greatest of the medieval period. Perhaps only al-Ghazali can match him in the medieval period for sheer intellectual elan.
bayreuth79 1 year ago
@bayreuth79
Yeah Aquinas was definitely one of the greatest minds in human history. Although I would have to say that if you include Augustine as part of the middle ages (he was right at the beginning or near it, fifth century) then I would say Augustine is the greatest mind of the medieval period.
Jim1905 1 year ago
@bayreuth79 Right there with you.
VirFortunaeLucisque 1 year ago
We reverence science enough to examine and critique its epistemic particulars and interpretive models. Just as the cosmology of St. Thomas' day is today dated, so we must be prepared to question the present cosmological models and their presuppositions, knowing more than ever that in the light of the immensity of the universe, the more we know, the less we know (God humbles us), even if so much of science doesn't like to admit it. See Wolfgang Smith, Paul Feyerabend, etc.
orbis2009 1 year ago
Immanuel Kant argued that there must be something whose non-existence is impossible; but contra Aquinas, et al, he saw no reason why this should not be the universe. In fact, didn't Aquinas think that reason cannot establish that creation had a beginning? Does that not mean that Aquinas saw no logical incoherence in a beginingless universe? I suppose he would nevertheless say that even if it were beginningless, it would still depend on God as cause. Hmmm.
bayreuth79 1 year ago
@bayreuth79 @bayreuth79 : St. Thomas of Aquinas and the Scholastics like St. Bonaventure address the idea of the world being in existence from the beginning when they discovered a work of Aristotle. The Scholastic Midieval world was shocked by this, I've forgotten what the work of Aristotle was, but part of St. Thomas of Aquinas' address to the matter are here
DE AETERNITATE MUNDI [On the Eternity of the world]
by
St. Thomas of Aquinas
cooliodraw2 1 year ago
The "double truth" argument was attributed to Ibn Rushd (Averroes) but this was a mistake. The Latin Averroeists misunderstood Averroes' thought. In fact, Averroes would be in absolute agreement with Thomas Aquinas with regard to the unity of truth. If you look at Averroes' hermeneutics with reference to the Qur'an you will see that this is so. Sadly, Averroes was discarded and forgotten in the Islamic intellectual world with detrimental effects.
bayreuth79 1 year ago
if science disproves the bible it's because the reader interprets it literally instead of symbolically. symbolism has billions of meanings. i feel symbolism is an escape mechanism because if you use that logic ANY material would never be wrong simply mis-interpreted.
scientists may look at our existence and say we don't know where we came from, because we don't have proof. religion presumes were we come from without proof, we may come from a being, but how do we know what kind of being?
kushp89 1 year ago
Thomas Aquinus, the man who wrote the instructions, how to deal with heretics and was promoted a " doctor of the church" How Ironic.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon It's my understanding that St. Thomas of Aquinas only wrote that heretics should be dealt with by secular authorities (separation of Church and State weren't that profound back then). He's the Doctor of the Church for his astounding theological and philosophical clarity and insight. He is probably one of the greatest philosophers that I've ever read, and some rank him and Aristotle as the greatest philosophers of history.
cooliodraw2 1 year ago
@cooliodraw2 Wrong: I sent you the text from his writings about heretics.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon I have reviewed your evidence and not concluded any of your remarks against the Saint as condemning heretics to death. He says it would be better that a heretic be dead than to spread lies about God and His Holy Church. To an extent that is true that to profane God who is Infinite and His Bride is a terrible thing. However we have within the immediate context of your citation that he means for all heretics to be reunited in love to the Church by Penance.
cooliodraw2 1 year ago
@cooliodraw2 ; His text can hardly be misunderstood and you wilfully(?) omit to mention that the wordly authorities were in many places appointed by the clergy.
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon I've already privately addressed some of your issues with the Church. I haven't tried to willfully omit anything and if I have not addressed anything that still bothers you, please do bring it up. The corruption of several individuals within the Church over different time periods does not illegitimize St. Thomas of Aquinas or the Church as an institution. All you've pointed out is sometimes people do bad things, which is a human condition not exclusive of Christians.
cooliodraw2 1 year ago
I'm truly blessed to have the namesake of such an amazing theologian and saint of the Church! Thomas Aquinas, pray for us :)
tomieh18 1 year ago
@Father Barron If "Jesus is the way the truth and the life" does that mean he is the only one that can create life? I'm asking this question because Craig Venter presumes to have created the first syntetic form of life.
jormorcastan 1 year ago
@Father Barron "truth is one" but, there is no conflict between the truth of science and the truth of God. 1 = 1 + 1 beautifull !!!
jormorcastan 1 year ago
aquina's 5 ways are the most misunderstood arguments my both theists and atheists
manutdfan4321 1 year ago
st. thomas aquinas be smart yo!
defgill 1 year ago
i'd like this priest's explanation of the Inquistions--see U Tube.
ratherrapid 1 year ago
@ratherrapid --The Inquisitions were meant to root out jewish or muslim infiltraitors in the spanish Gov. These people faked their conversion to catholicism but had other agendas. catholicleague dott orgg. has a good article on it.
WayOfTheMaster454 1 year ago
That was an amazing video! I really gained even more respect for St. Thomas.
ubi2002 1 year ago
Thank you, Father. I wrote my MA Theology thesis on Aquinas' Aristotelian depiction of the Eucharist. Aquinas rocks! God bless you in your ministry, Fr. Barron.
psalm118verse24 1 year ago
Aquinas' Aristotelian depiction of the Eucharist? That sounds really interesting, where can I find that?
Stitchman3875 1 year ago
@Stitchman3875 Look in question 75 of the third part of the Summa theologiae.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo Cool, thanks. I'm excited to check it out.
Stitchman3875 1 year ago
Thank you so much for your videos. I have learned so much about my faith.
One request: please specify the difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research. One is morally wrong, the other is not, and I think it adds to the confusion surrounding this topic if we continue to refer to them both by the same name.
thecommentmonster 1 year ago
God bless you Father
fwd56299 2 years ago 18
Fr. Barron! I love your videos! You should most definitely do a video on Richard Dawkins' philosophy.
leviksu 2 years ago
In the recent months I've been abit interested in Thomas Aquinas. Are there any good resources I can find on him?
Stitchman3875 2 years ago
Try my book Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago 2
For sure, one other question, how many volumes are there of the Summa Theologica?
Stitchman3875 2 years ago
@Stitchman3875 The classic Latin/English Blackfriars' translation of the Summa Theologiae, first published by the English Dominicans in the 1960s and 1970s, is contained in 61 volumes (60 text volumes plus 1 index volume). Within each volume, the Latin text is on the left-sided pages with the English translation on the right.
psalm118verse24 1 year ago
That sounds really cool. I picked a version of the 5 Book set of the Summa. Where can I find the one you're talking about?
Stitchman3875 1 year ago
shameless plug! :)
wood9670 2 years ago
Democracy is temporary, I think you know the Alexander Tyler quote on how long a democracy lasts.
wowzers5432109 2 years ago
Father Barron, how would integrate Aquinas into the opinion article by NY Times columnist (10/6/09) David Brooks contrasting the American political debate between Jeremey Bentham and David Hume? Please comment and speak to that.
DeiCiviAgape 2 years ago
Aquinas would probably concur with Aristotle, whom he dubbed "the Philosopher", that Monarchism is the best form of government, not democracy.
wowzers5432109 2 years ago
If true, then they would support Bentham; but Bentham is an utilitarian who calculates the greatest good for the greatest number by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Aristotle and Aquinas claim goods greater than pleasure. Aristotle, contemplation; Aquinas, Beatific Vision of the Resurrection. Neither Hume nor Bentham can venture beyond natural reason. The political argument is prudential towards natural goods. What would Monarchism achieve?
DeiCiviAgape 2 years ago
In the Old testament when Gods chosen people were the Jews, He origianlly did not want them to have a king, hence the judges were the 'aristocracy' and because God alone was to be their king.but the jews complained and He allowed monarchism.Monarchism can only achieve any good toward society in a society that puts thing in the correct hierarchy of order.1.God2.their own soul3.others souls.a king would be a father.theoretically.
wowzers5432109 2 years ago
middle ages produced the gothic cathedrals a wonder and architectural masterpiece of genius.they were built because the people believed in another good and bad life that had to be earned.If God is number one in priorities than He deserves the number one building in any town.
wowzers5432109 2 years ago
So, according to the beginning of your enlightening speech on the beliefs of St. Thomas: The mere fact, that we have SEVERAL "world-religions" with billions of believers, is an indication for us having "bad religion" so far ...
Like in science, only ONE can be true and therefore Good. ;-)
wolf1750 2 years ago
I must confess, friend, I don't know quite what you're driving at here.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
At 1:37 you quote Aquinas: "Truth is ONE."
The mere fact, that there are several world religions, that claim, that they (and ONLY they) know and preach the "truth" indicates, that possibly NONE OF THEM knows THE truth. -
To personalize this: YOU probably think, that Catholicism advocates THE truth, because you were born in a family "Irish Catholic to the bone", as you so nicely put it elsewhere.
wolf1750 2 years ago
Oh give me a break! I referenced the unity of truth in order to show how Aquinas overcomes any split between faith and reason. Religious truth is one, but it is participated in to varying degrees by the many religions. It's not an either/or proposition. There are many aspects of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. that are true.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago 4
So we can - at the end of our conversation - at least agree on SOMETHING (your last sentence).
Sayonara, Wolf
wolf1750 2 years ago
Yes!
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
Only one religion can be true,not all of them could be true, not all of them could be false.I'm convert to catholic.Christ only person to say "I'm God" and prove it by miracles which thousands saw and heard.Buddists,muslims,mormons founded by a man who did not claim he was god.till 1540's only christian religion was catholic.Luther started his own, so did henry viii, so on, etc ad nauseam
wowzers5432109 2 years ago
This argumentation is sooo cute! Do you know, how many people claimed (and claim!) to be incarnations of God? And how many of them performed (and perform!) so-called "miracles" for their believers?
Are you watching the international news? Do you see, what is happening right now to countless innocent people? (earthquakes, tsunamies, floods, wars, cruelties against helpless children and women?) God lets this happen to "make the world more beautiful"? - GROTESQUE!
wolf1750 2 years ago
natural disasters are not evil.Death is grotesque but not evil either.Our Free Will brought grotesque into the world.God did not create grotesque but we chose it.Our fallen human nature is inclined to cruelties but originally our first parents were not like that.The fact that people see God as a mean monster makes them not want to serve Him.He is not a monster but He is Love.The Saints were true to what God wanted in the first place.but there are hardly any saints today.
wowzers5432109 2 years ago
The question is not: Why does EVIL exist? (We shall never be able to answer that.) But rather: Why does God ALLOW it to exist?
Do you realize, that in the time, it took you, to write the comment above, HUNDREDS of innocents were tortured, raped, killed in this horrible (and sometimes beautiful) world?
wolf1750 2 years ago
Why does God allow evil? (We shall never be able to answer that) Why Christ be scourged almost to death? I think God did not want a perfect world, He gave us free will, we chose our selves instead of choosing Him. Hence disorder and chaos.
wowzers5432109 2 years ago
God allows evil to happen is to get the greater good out of it. Just look at Jesus on the Cross; the True God was killed on the Cross and that was the greatest evil but then He rose and destroyed our death and opened the gates of heaven for us and gave us a way to get to heaven. That is the good from it.
MegaPadrePio 2 years ago
What is the best introductory book (Catholic) on St Thomas/Thomism? For a layman.
Great work Father.
GrobariCS 2 years ago
G.K. Chesterton's book on Aquinas. Or for a more technical approach, F.C. Copleston's introduction.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
I used "Summa of the Summa" by Peter Kreeft. Ever hear or read it?
havock89 2 years ago
Do you guys know that the Roman Catholic church teaches that you can get to heaven without believing in Jesus While your here on this earth
BornTwyse 2 years ago
Why is this so shocking. Christ said that the only way to the Father through Him. He DID not say that you needed believe in Him.
I'm not making this up. This idea was advocated by the Protestant author C.S. Lewis.
HopefulSaint 2 years ago
Lol? What?
John 3:16?
And the verse you are reffering to, John 14:6, in the beginning states that Jesus is the way the truth and the life. Not simply the person who brings you to it, but he is "it" itself. We don't need to believe in Jesus to get to the Father? Sorry, but you ARE either making it up or know nothing about even basic Christian belief.
Childinfaith 2 years ago
But what about the church's teaching on invincible ignorance, which can be applied to salvation?
TheAmazingImbecile 2 years ago
Did you know BornTwyse traffics in sladerous lies about the Catholic Church and misconstrews its words to fit his own ends?