@havock89 Yes you did, you just said what god expects from humans in the comments below. And how do you know that there is a god who's mind is infinite? How do you know it has a mind? How do you know that it's mind is infinite?
@doro69 Knowing God's nature, and knowing what he said regarding certain things, does not equate to knowing their Mind.
You either believe in a creator god or you dont. Its a self-evident reality for me. The atheisitic and pagan mentality fails logically. the catholic christian mentality doesnt fail logically. If you want to know for your self, go learn about it yourself. I am not being paid to teach cynics and skeptics.
@havock89 Believing in a higher power is reasonable, but conforming to a book written by man that is claimed to be the word of "God" is not. What makes Jesus more credible than the other messiahs? Please, do tell.
@havock89. That's a great question. The way I come to believe in Jesus is quite simple. I believe that Jesus is more credible than other messiahs is because the Catholic Church tells me so. Why do we buy a certain car, go to a certain school/university, see a certain doctor, live in a certain town, buy certain tv or computer? I would say that most of the things we do in life is because we trust the credibility of the person or institution selling us that product, etc.
The Catholic church has the best credibility out of all organizations in the world. She is the world longest lasting institution (2000yrs), world largest religion, world largest charity, has the highest moral standards (no divorce, contraception, abortion), foundation of Western Civilization (universities, arts, music), etc., I could go on and on but I think you get my point. I don't believe in the Buddah or Mohammad because I don't trust the credibility of their organization...
Father I saw how in your video there is alot of older people, I can't help to think that the new evangelization of vatican 2 will need energy and youth to carry on our faith and tradition. Your homilys are wonderful and how I think that the youth needs to hear this. Have you heard of the NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY?
I thought I'd try out the cc on this video, and wow - it needs some serious ironing out. It can't handle Hebrew or Greek words. Or some English ones, for that matter. hahaha
geez I'm glad I wasn't in that hall; it would have been all I could do not to jump out of my seat and yell WOOOO when Fr. Barron talked about the angels and fighting with the helm of righteousness and the breastplate of justice, etc.
There has been no unity, no lion lying with the goat, no peace, no end of the age. Jesus called sinners because he believed the end of days was imminent and the "son of man" was coming to judge the world. There would be the judgement and sinners would get their deserts in everlasting hell where there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Jesus was an apocalypticist!
@adstanra But "the world" did end with his resurrection from the dead. That event turned everything upside down and revealed the deepest intentions of God. It "unveiled" (apo-kalypsis) the truth of things.
@wordonfirevideo Fr. Barron talks about the prophecies. None of that happened, there is no peace, no new Isreal, the lion is not lying with the sheep, the son of man did not return for the general resurrection and judgement, not to mention smallpox...lol.Where do the prophets mention a second coming? No wonder the jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah
@adstanra Its the lion lying with the lamb. Not the goat lol.
Jesus said explicity that many ages of nations rising up against nations would pass before the end. So he was not an apocalypticst. His mission however was escatological, which means that this period after he came (however long it was) is the final "age".
@havock89 hey havock89. In the Gospels, Jesus refers to the imminent end of the age with an apocalyptic intervention by God , through the son of man that ends in a judgement. Many to whom Jesus was speaking were supposed to be still alive when it happened. This is consistent with lots of other literature of the age, and is consistent with Paul's view.Read the gospels and Paul with this is mind and you will see it.
@adstanra The apostles HOPED in christs imminent return. Who wouldnt? Christ did not say when. Christ DID say that nations will rise up against nations and that great calamities and earthquakes would shake the world, and that these things must come and go before the end comes.
I read the New Testament with the interpretation the authors of the bible intended, sadly not how you would prefer.
@havock89 Jesus did not say the exact day, but he does say that many people to whom he was speaking would not yet be dead before it happens. Paul says the same thing. I predict that there will be nations rising against nations and earthquakes in the future..Big deal.This is how you can tell a false prophesy.The stuff Jesus talks about did not happen , so people are awaiting his 2nd coming. Where does the bible talk about the messiah coming twice?
@adstanra Nooooo. You got that completely wrong! He was talking about the holy spirit coming to them will happen before one of them will pass. You misunderstood the context of the whole conversation!
Also the bible is not the source of christianity, it is the product of it. The apostolic teachings of the church are the source. If you rely soley on the bible there is a lot that is not found therein. The bible is the "core teaching aid" of the church, used primarily in public liturgy.
@havock89 Jesus and John were not talking about Pentacoast havock89.They are constantly talking about the Kingdom of God and were urging those around them to urgently repent because they believed they were living in the end of days. The notion was that the son of man was coming on the clouds imminently to judge the world...as John says in Luke 3: 7-9, the axe is already at the root of the tree.
the entire new testament is apocalyptic, which appears to have been rather normative in those days. The injunctions to not care not for the morrow, to not resist government, to turn the other cheek, to remain in ones social condition, to not marry,to repent, all make sense from an apocalyptic perspective.this is the main theme for Jesus, John and Paul!
@adstanra And those who wrote those books did not have the apostolic teachings of those who wrote the bible, and learned from those who actually lived it. There are a 101 lousy scholars nowadays who will write any fiction they want into their work. make wild accusations and create tenuous links that are not based on anything by either their bias or desire for sensationalism.
@havock89 The apocalypticists believed that the world was in the control of evil forces that were soon to be overturned by an intervention by God involving the messiah and the " son of man' as referred to in Daniel. Jesus , John and Paul believe that this will be imminent, see Mark 9:1, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:25-33, Luke 9:27, Luke 3: 7-9 to name just a few. These are in reference to the upcoming judgement and end of days. The main theme is the upcoming kingdom that begins at the end of days.
@adstanra The scholarship on this is not sensationalism and is obvious to anyone who reads the bible objectively and historically. We also have alot of other matareial from apocalypic sources like the Essenes and the early christians who wrote about this. I bet even the majority of catholic scholars agree.Why don't you ask Father Barron about that.
@adstanra The apostles (please call them by their right term) were right. the world is in the grip of great evil, and God did interveine. The sending of The Holy Spirit brought Gods grace and the Kingdom of God to Earth. The body, blood, life and presence of God are now with us every hour of every day.
Once again, you are trying to tell the authors what their book means. The canon of scripture was carefully chosen over hundreds of years in every detail to what Christ taught His apostles.
@havock89 first of all, we don't even know who wrote any of the gospels and most of the epistles. we don't have any of the originals, but we do know that there were later interpolations added later by scribes including the ending of Mark and the parable where Jesus is faced witha prostitute while writing in the sand.
Most scholars are trying to figure out what the original authors meant. What makes you think you know what they meant?where is Jesus' body and blood?
@adstanra Yo have been listening to too much propoganda.
We have good reason to believe that St. John was the apostle. We know who Luke was, we have good reason to believe that St. Mark was the son of St. Peter. And Matthew, the son of Alpheus was a Galilean, although Eusebius informs us that he was originally from Syria.
@adstanra We do have much of the originals. And the church fathers had much documentation that was extant at their time that no longer is today, and they wrote about it extensively.
Again you forget that the bible is not the source of Christianity. It is the product. That is how the early church was able to identify what writings were forgeries and what were real. the subtle depths of christian teaching are easy to spot by learned-eyes from the fiction they tried to insinuate into the gospel.
@havock89 The oldests peice of scripture we have is a peice the size of a deck of cards called P41 9 a segment of John where Pilot asks, " what is truth'. This dates to approx ad 125. We have some things that date to the late 2nd and 3rd centuries, then we have alot of stuff from the middle ages when mocks got busy.we have none of the originals! Most scholars believe that at least a few of the epistles are forgeries written in Paul's name.
@adstanra And yet they coincide with what paul taught the churches in those areas. Those churchs passed on the teaching tradition and it has been authenticated by the true experts (the Church Episcopos) and does not doubt the authenticity of the epistles in the canon. THEY WROTE THE CANON of scripture when the original students of the apostels were still alive. By any comparative historical standard the bible passes with flying colours.
@havock89 part of the reason scholars think that some of the epistles were not written by Paul is because in some instances the theme is contradictory to what paul teaches in his known letters. If you want to discuss that I would be happt to, but you don't really give primal authority to scripure anyway ( a wise move IMO).
I would be interested in your thoughts on birth control and whether you think catholics who use it are "lukewarm" or practical atheists. This is a practical matter for me
@havock89 have you actually read the bible ( at least the "new testament")? i understand that catholics have not been terrible encouraged ( at least in the past ) to read the bible on their own. It is a tool for public liturgy( as you say ). If you haven't, i would encourage you to read it with apocalypical eschalological eyes. Then it will be unveiled ( lol) to you.
@adstanra Catholics dont read the bible in the same way protestants do, but more and more catholics are getting involved in group bible study. This is a good thing. The whole bible is read in our liturgy, back to front every three years, irregardless of private study. Thats why I am secure that what you have proposed is wrong. The bible is the product of christianity, not its source.
@havock89 Do you read the whole bible in litergy? wonder about the congregation hearing Numbers 31 read aloud. Must upset some people. I have found most catholics not very knowledgable about what is in the bible.
@adstanra There is a lot in the bible that upsets faithful catholics. It shows in painful detail the constant failure of humanity, and Gods constant faithfulness and forgiveness calling us back from our spiritual torpor, our exile.
I have found that most catholics have had a lacking education in their faith. I am not one of them. Some people have a simple but strong faith. That is not a problem unless it is a simple and weak faith. Then comes the tendency to fall into practical atheism.
@havock89 Most of Jesus' thought concern the end of days and the imminent judgement where the forces of evil which govern the current age will be defeated and a new age of reversals will begin. This is imminent.Whe he talks about hell he speaks with particular vitriol and this garnered 1700 yrs of Hell (last judgement hell-(see the Cistine chapel).This is not Gehenna or Sheol, but a new concept.
@adstanra we are not talking about "the wicked going to their graves smiling" like it says in Job ( or is it Eccessiastes?). We are talking about a punishment where their is weeping and gnashing of teeth and worse that Sodom and Gomorrah. See the "Rich man " parable in Luke ( Lazarus). Jesus' agriculture parables have a particulaily vengeful tone.This is not a sweet and loving Messiah, but a messiah who agrees with John the Baptist.
@adstanra This is because Gods mercy is applied to us for as long as it CAN BE. ie while we can change, he can forgive. When we die, we are locked outside of God and in the eternal present of being. Time (a sequence of momentary being) no longer exists and so we cannot transition form one way to another. Thos in hell are locked outside of Gods presence and so cannot have life (to change and grow and recieve grace) That is not God being hateful, just the realisation of the situation.
funny how modern liberal Xians soften up hell. It is no longer a place of punishment and torture, simply "locked outside of God's presence".If God is the source of all goodness, then hell is the worst place conscievable, however way you look at it. And what is the one crime that gets you there? Disbelief ! there are so many problems with the concept of hell..How do babies, fetuses, people from the past, retarded people avoid hell? Do they get a free pass ?
@adstanra You are once again, missing the point. Hell is both. The punishment and torment is part of the nature of hell. Where there is no grace there is irrationality, hatred, hopelessness, vileness, betrayal, hunger, sorrow, a suffering unending. Imagine the pain a drug addict in withdrawl goes through, except with no limit. that is a good description of hell. They might as well be in fire.
Disbelief simply means you fail at the first hurdle. Belief does not mean you get a free pass.
@havock89 Sounds alot like Dante! You miss the first hurdle and end up there for an eternity ! What do you mean by " disbelief" havock89? are you refering to disbelief in any deity, or disbelief in the catholic deity? According to your understanding, what happens to the billions of muslems, Hindus, jews , pagans? What happens to atheists who don't believe catholic dogma, but who lived good loving lives?
@adstanra Obviously you are not aware of the concept of an interior reality. It is the interior reality of your soul that determines your compatibility with God. To choose rejection of God or Christ is what makes you incompatible. To be a practical atheist is likewise the rejection of God and Christ, even if you are hindu, muslim or christian. Practical atheism is the anti-thesis of integration with God.
@havock89 So, are you saying the hindu, muslem , jew, pagan is willfully rejecting Christ, so choosing an eternity in the worst place imaginable without any recourse?Do you think they are fully informed of christ, but have freely chosen hell ? I see humans for what we are, not Gods, not people trying to be Gods, but sentient primates trying to make sense of reality. We are influenced by genetics, culture, hormones, conditioning, accidents etc
@adstanra we have come along way in our understanding of the factors involved in human perception and beliefs. It is not an accident that the world's religions are divided up through geography and time.Billions of humans die before ever forming religious beliefs, and many more are simply incapable of it through genetic or developmental problems which result from probabilistic laws of physics
@adstanra I dont know about whether they are informed on christ or not. Thats why the church does not specify it either. We are no obligued to think any particular person is or is not in hell. We can however determine who is in heaven. We are infulenced by everything yes. Thats why being a christian is a rational response to genuine inquiry. You see humans only being like you.
@adstanra Yes there are two judgements. Our private judgement, which is imminent when we die, and the public judgement at the end of the world. Best not confuse the two. The forces of evil of each generation are ultimately defeated by death. Again you are applying YOUR teachings to the interpretation of christian literature.
@havock89 the ancient jews argued about whether there was life after death and those who thought there was , argued about a bodily resurrection or a spiritual one. The concept of a soul was a pagan one and the jews tended to avoid that concept. Most apocalyptic jews ( like Paul) believed ina bodily resurrection at the end of days.But this didn't happen. Today, most christians think of "heaven" as a spacetimeless place where souls go after death .
@adstanra This idea one out for most ( the Jws still hold to the biblical view), because the end never came.What is the point of both ? Are we going to go from spacetimeless soul existence and be forced back into a spacetime body? This is not what the authors originally intended by " the Kingdom of Heaven ". All of this was a great departure from classical Judaism, which has always been primarily concerned with this world, not the otherworld
@adstanra No, wrong again. Most christians dont know what to think about heaven except that Heaven is where God is. You cant be in heaven without being compatible with God's nature. We can only have life after death through Him, with Him and in Him. If you want life, love, hope, joy, creativity, fecundity, rationality, beauty and goodness. That comes from God and can only be found through God. Hell is the absence God and of these things.
@havock89 well, I have life, love, hope, creativity, fecundity?,rationality and appreciate beauty and goodness, and I am an atheist! These things are evidently not exclusive to those who believe in various dogmas.
@adstanra But you haven't allowed yourself to be embraced by the source of life, hope, creativity, and rationality. All forms of those goods here below are passing, fragile, evanescent. They are signs of God, but they are not God. Only in God will your soul be at rest.
@wordonfirevideo long before apocalyptic literature came about, ecclesiastes talked about the transient nature of life. Life is short, so why not make friends, learn and live it to the fullest.
The universe is the source of life, hope, creativity and rationality. It has produced us ! It is also the source of suffering and death and smallpox ( thought i would throw that in) :). there is no soul.
@wordonfirevideo - I'm sorry, but that is just a statement of faith, with no logical referent outside the context of faith. It sounds as though you believe you see the world in color and the nonbelievers are colorblind. You are a smart dude, and very expressive in your poetry of faith, but you never provide any grounds for belief that are accessible to thoughtful nonbelievers. And at the same time, you refuse to take seriously any personal testimony by nonbelievers that differ from your views.
@adstanra Of course you do, you twit. While alive in this creation you have access to common grace. Once you are dead and your soul is separated from your body, you loose all that and are eternally bound to your end. If you die, dead in your sins, then hell is your choice.
I never claimed they were exclusive and neither has the church. It actually preaches the opposite.
@havock89 You need to think a bit more about these things. Tell me, don't you think unreasonable to believe that a diety would place imperfect souls in a very harsh world, then expect us to believe a number of unseen propositions such that if we do not believe or through culture and conditioning believe in other deities, we "Choose" an eternity of suffering in the worst place imaginable? Your God is the twit !
@adstanra Dude you need to actually learn about real christianity and what it teaches, dont start asking the questions of a six-year old on YouTube and expect to get anywhere. Christianity is HUGE and VAST in its philosophy and theology.
Interior reality dude. Its your interior reality that makes you incompatible for an existence with God.
@havock89 "real christianity" ...as opposed to false Christianity. everyone thinks they are the real christians.' interior reality" ...you can't even explain that. Why don't you put it into words for me.
@adstanra Break it down and work it out for yourself. Are you paying me to teach you? No. I am here just to point out that you are commenting on that which you dont understand.
If you were genuinely interested, I would spend time explaining philosophy and theology. But as you are not, I am not here to hand-hold a mocking fool like yourself.
@havock89 I am not trying to mock you havock89, just challange your assertions so you realise that the rest of the world is not willfully evil and that there are other world views out there. I have had many excellent discussions with wordonfire. We have never shown disrespect to each other and he has challenged me to think harded about alot of things. If I am upsetting you, i will stop replying.I don't think you are a fool just because I diagree with you.
@adstanra Then why call my god a twit? Why are you so quick to take onboard everyone elses view of christian teaching instead of what the church ACTUALLY TEACHES?
We probably dont have the same understanding of what evil is, but I look at the world and see evil all over the place, even in my own heart.
You are not upsetting me, but you are not endearing me to spend so much time explaining myself to a cynic.
@havock89 I was calling a deity who expects humans to be perfect a twit, in response to you calling me a twit ( which i really didn't appreciate BTW.Wordonfire publishes these messages on Youtube, a forum on the internet! He knows there will be " Youtube Heresies", and I assume he feels his ideas can withstand rational criticism.i a not some troll, but I am starting to wonder about you
@adstanra God is a parent, and as a parent he is happy with any little progress we make, but hard to satisfy. It is the state where we are yearning to be better and become more like Christ that is what makes us become compatible with god. Christ, The Son endlessly adores the Father and the Father is endlessly pleased with the Sone. Adoration comes from the word Adoratsio - an intimate union with God. Thats as simple as i can make it.
@havock89 Well, i am glad that the deity is pleased with himself.This post of yours is unintelligable. i am no more inclined to believe this than when I hear Muslems tell me similar things, or eastern mystics., or Protestants. They all tell me that I have a resistent heart , a stubborn cynical heart.this is the difference bt science,reason and logic vs religion and mysticism.All mystics think others are blinded by ego.
@adstanra My post is perfectly intelligable. We are not talking about science. There is not about god that falls into the scope of science.
God is the source of all being. And outside of this creation, the only being that can ben enjoined is by joining in full communion with God. You cant force yourself into union with God anymore than you can force yourself to love someone you actively hate. That is what christianity teaches.
An alien reading your post would say WTF! ( lol). The father adores the son , the son adores the father ( who are part of the same). How is there any more grounding in what you say that any religious statement from any relgion.
@adstanra Firstly there is no religion that teaches what christianity teaches. Secondly, as this is divine revelation it is something we could never gain knowledge of ourselves.
If you said you want to understand christianity, you have to start with this premise about the nature of God. The whole of christianity is based on the concept that Gods nature determines divine law, Divine law is the basis for natural law, and natural law is what informs us on the creation of civil law.
@havock89 I would say that civil laws should be based upon natural laws. We know the natural laws because they are empirically verifiable, but religions fight all the time about "Devine" law and God's nature. We live in a society of multiple opinions and if you have no empirical verifiability, then your opinion has no more grounds than anyone elses.
@adstanra Well I dont need to prove divine law to an non-believer. The bible is written by believers for believers. not as a document of proof.
As I have said, natural law is an expression of divine law and that in turn comes from Gods nature. He could no more chage natural law than he could his own nature. This makes christian truth objective and not subject to the whims of a capricious God, as is often claimed by non-believers.
@adstanra Dont you realise that judeo-chrisitanity is the ONLY religion wherein the universe operates under laws? That every other religion and culture without exception including islam, falls into an irrational whim-oriented animism?
Christianity created modern science, and could because it is true & truth = reality.
@havock89 bold statement. What is your rational? Islam literally means " submission to God's law' . They think it is based upon God's revelation which comes from God's nature. How are you different.? The surge in science occurred for several reasons including the enlightenment, industrialisation,and the great schism. "Science" can be traced to the ancient greeks.
@adstanra Actually islam believes that the whims of Allah control the nature of existence from moment to moment. Two people fight, Allah will make the one he likes win. "That is a pagan premise that the spirits that govern nature capriciously give what they want to who they favour. Not a rational ordered universe of intelligable laws. Modern science began in the 9th century. The precursors of science came from ancient greece and the church perfect what the natrual philosophers started.
@havock89 I don't know if you have ever read the "old testament" , but God acts quite capriciously and whimsical there. Certainly, Muslems do not believe their God is whimsical, but the creator of all moral and physical laws.
The church has not been a beacon for independant scientific exploration , my friend. They have often resisted scientific discoveries and this is well documented, ask Galilleo, Copernicus, and Darwin.You can give the enlightenment credit for the surge in science
@adstanra That would be the interpretation of someone who is unschooled in judaism. Islam does not believe God created an ordered universe, but one that is subject to any whim of its creatior. Hence the barbaric trial-by-combat.
The church has been the sole institution for the development of science, and its propogation and education to commoners like us. Your pop-history is showing. I given the enlightenment credit for taking credit where credit is not due.
@havock89 Don't think you know Islam very well, my friend. It is fundamentally law based and a muslem tries to order his interior being ( lol) to God's law which is called Sharia. As i said before, we can trace science to the ancient Greeks and for much of the middle ages, the muslems were far ahead of christians wrt science. Modern science coensided with political, economic and social changes we call the enlightenment.Your biased po history is showing.
@adstanra I know islam very well. I have family that are muslim, and I know islam better than they do. That is not what the Quran teaches, Islam does not have a philosophy, its has practice. Only practice. It is the only thing that matters in islam, and love or compassion towards non-mulsims has no value.
@havock89 I am not a defender of Islam..lol. they consider their God to be the God of the Bible ( the God of abraham and Jesus). i do believe the God of the bible is vindictive,whimsical and capricious, but they disagree and try to base their religion on God's law ( as they see it). Don't think they believe God is whimsical like some Roman deity. Anyway, that is about all the defending of Islam I care to do !.
@adstanra Actually they give passing respect to the bible but they believe the bible is a corrupted thing, and is not worthy of respect, only the segments that agree with Mohammeds fiction.
You think he is vindictive and capricious because you have not been schooled in christiantiy. The bible is the product of christianity, not the source document. It is not sufficient for understanding christian teaching.
@havock89 Dude, I was an evangelical christian for 25 yrs. I was a protestant though...lol. If you say I was schooled wrongly...I would agree..lol. I bet I am more familiar with the bible than you.. I read parts of it everyday for decades and have taken university level courses in biblical scholarship. Can hold my own with William Lane Craig and Father Barron ( at least I seem to ).How would you describe the deity of Noah or Numbers 31?
@adstanra Your argument is a logical fallacy. The bible is written by believers for believers. It is inspired writings, not flat history. the stories in the bible were theological texts where real events were often magnified to exemplify certain metaphorical, mystical or allegorical elements. Without the teaching authority of the church, you dont have ANY basis of accepting anyhting in the bible at all. Even that it is the inspired word of God.
@havock89 the bible was written by an apocalyptic cult over many decades following Jesus's death. Like all holt books, it lends itself to interpretive bias and this has changed over time, as society has changed over time. If science was suddenly lost we would return to living in caves, if religion was lost, would we change at all?
@adstanra Your statement is not authoritative teaching on christianity. There is no valid interpretation for the bible beyond that of the orthodox catholic church. The bible is the product of christianity, not the other way around.
Your ignorance is obviously a product of luxury. Science comes from christianity. If we lost science (how can one loose rational ordered thought?) but had christianity, science would be reborn.
@havock89 Sorry , I don't take knowledge from authority alone. Let alone clergy lol.this is the difference bt dogma( authority based ) and science and history which grounds knowlege in evidence. science is simply the notion of grounding knowledge in evidence and building theories to fit the facts, and the courage to follow the facts. The laws of physics are not capricious ( as early humans found out- see Pythagorus). They mean that humans can understand them. Science has always existed
@adstanra Yet you posit YOUR teaching about christianity. Catholic clergy are ordained to teach the dogma of the church, when they stray from this dogma, which comes directly from christ, they loose their authority. Your position is intellectually dishonest, but a common one.
All the ancient world had an anamistic cosmolgoical view, as such the behaviour was attributed to the spiritual nature of matter wherein combustion was not a chemical reation but the persuasion of fire.
@havock89 to me, your assertion about the church is arbitrary. I am being intellectualy honest by trying to base mt thinking on evidence, not authority. We humans are easily suseptable to the power of Dogma. It was a desire to be honest that took me away from christianity. 3000 yrs before christianty man was building cities, had domesticated many species of plant and animal, had aquired knowledge about agriculture, law, governance,military..con't
450 yrs b.c, Pythagorus showed the orderliness of the universe, Socrates argued that reason must be based upon valid premises and aristotle proposed that theories must be based on empirical observation.the romans expanded man's knowledge in civil engineering, governance, military, and law. The Pagans understood the universe was rational! The fall of the empire put us into a period of relative stagnation until the renaicance and even then muslem culture was equal to Christiandom.
@adstanra Wrong it was understood that the universe had a "nature" and that nature was anamistic. What you consider stagnation is simply a lack of knowledge on your part. Muslim culture is truely stagnant. Sharia law ensures this. Even in the 21st century islam still has enforced second class citizenry, embraces slavery and is brutal and mercenary in its justice. It has produced virtually nothing significant. I love muslim people, they are in my family, but not islam it is a plague.
@havock89 respectfully, it is you who need to read a bit more history wrt Islamic society during the middle ages. don't confuse that with what it is today...And I agree it is a plague. Far worse than most modern christianities. followng the fall of the Roman empire, germanic tribes divided it up. they were far less advanced than the romans, but tried to model themselves on the Romans. There was a net loss of progress in the West as Christendom became more powerful.
@adstanra History is being rewritten in our own universities and we have been betrayed by them. Seek your information from other sources and you will find that what you have been led to believe about islam is a lie. Billions funnelled into the education system by arabs have make the unversities sell out humanity.
@havock89 this is the problem. Everyone making claims about science, history, medicine, law etc. The only way to know , is through evidence! most historians today will site a Golden age of Islam which began 7th century and ended in 14th or 15th i believe. There were Islamic scientists and scholars who were noted for empiricism. I am not going to give them credit for modern science, but they did influence many Christians to take note. Besides, as i have said, humans are natural empiricists
@adstanra Samuel Clements wrote "the easiest thing a man can do, is lie to himself. The second easiest thing a man can do, is lie to himself, about lying to himself." I know islam. It is in my family. I see the underbelly of the beast (as it were) and it is clearly not capable of anything but submission to the fiction mohammed wrote. Humans start as a bloodclot, the universe response to allah will from moment to moment and does not follow rational laws.
@havock89 I think you submit yourself to the catholic church and its heirarchy. which you believe is guided by a supernatural agent. i see no evidence that it is guided by a supernatural force. Seems an all too human dogma. Love Mark Twain BTw- a good atheist.How do you know you are not lying to yourself?
@adstanra I would put it in another way. I have tested the veracity of christian dogma's and have found them to be true. The beauty, intelligence and goodness of them give me the confidence to submit myself to Gods authority.
There are marked differences between christianity and every other religion. There are certain theological and philosophical mistakes made by every other reliigon that are not made in christian teaching.
@havock89 Nothing here, my friend, that isn't said by everyone in any religion, only they say there are certain theological and philosophical mistakes with your religion.Protestants believe catholics have made many errors theologically so they rely on the scriptures as guidance and that you are closet polytheists,praying to saints and Mary etc. i am not saying they are right, i have heard arguments both ways..but we all feel our dogma is the right one.that is dogma
@adstanra Firstly when you say dogma, you are saying something that was explicity dictated by christ. Dogma is an Orthodox Roman Catholic term. You dont get to apply it to other religions.
Scripture is not sufficient for proper understanding of orthodox christianity. Prayer is not worship (easily proven) and I cannot base my decisions anyone elses conscience.
@havock89 I apply terms the way I see fit .lol. Dogma , as the world is commonly used , can apply to religious or nonreligious activities. I consider it a group activity where beliefs apparently come from superhuman source, through a clergy ( or charasmatic leader) to the masses. The masses participate in rituals that re-enforce the memes ultimately producing conformity of thought. Faith, submission are virtues and doubt and free-thinking are discouraged, Dessenters are rejected.
@adstanra I continue to test christianity in my life and i continue to study it. Which is why your schoolboy mistakes about christian dogma are not fooling me. But they will mislead others which is the only problem I have with your opinions.
Lastly I do not KNOW I am not lying to myself (who can?). I am simply doing my best to be honest with myself, and in doing so, I have a more tested faith in orthodox christianity than I do in anything or anyone else.
@adstanra Pre-islamic societies did much, and even preserved much, but they did not do it for the betterment of all mankind as the chruch did with the creation of universities, but for the empowerment of islam to subdue others.
You are a victime of the lies propogated by the modern education system, and they have betrayed us all. Scholasticism is a joke.
@havock89 i think ultimately most muslems think they are doing things for the betterment of mankind. Hitler thought he was doing some sort of devine will for the betterment of mankind. Stalin hoped to better mankind etc etc etc. I think democracy has bettered mankind. Science has improved mankind. Separation of church and state has improved mankind. Freedom has improved mankind.
@adstanra Then your thinking is not thinking but a blind faith. Those muslims who are devout in their faith, even moderately so, believe that the betterment of mankind is to lie and maniulate and support those who enforce sharia law (even if only in part) and that destroys free speech, obliterates individualism, stifles beautiy and creativity. Enlightenment much?
Separation of church and state has improved the church, and freed it from the tyranny of goverment.
@havock89 Yes, i am sure Muslems feel that sharia law is a lie that will not benefit mankind.....not ! I do agree that there is not enlightenment values in Islam..which is partly why i oppose it. Do you honestly think billions of Muslems believe they are lying and manipulating? IMO, you are just as manipulated by dogma as they are, only christianity has been affected by enlightenment values.
@adstanra No you misread my statement. Lying and manipulation is part of islam, under sharia law it is call Taqiyya and is actually a good act, for the purpose of intalling sharia law. There are lots of instances where this is shown in both the Quran and the ahadith.
Seeing as you have constantly misrepresented apostolic tradition, your opinion does not carry much weight.
The enlightement was born out of christian morality and ethics, not the other way around.
@havock89 In the 13-15th centuries, muslem scholars re-discovered Aristotelian rationalism and published a number of scholarly works. Jewish scholars like Maimonides participated with these scholars, and eventually these works were translated from arabic to latin and infused into christendom.Many historians give these scholars credit for sparking changes in Europe that ultinately lead to the Renaissance. In the Iberian peninsula muslem culture was more advanced in architecture and engineering.
@adstanra MANY SCHOLARS DO NOT. All the way back to the 9th century there is history that says otherwise. The church always set up science to use knolwedge from the ancient world and bring it to its fullfillment through christian doctrine.
The muslims were not more advanced in archetecture, that is not to say they did not have any technological advances at all. Just that they did not come from islam, but muslim innovation. BTW technology at that level was not based on modern science.
@havock89 I even think Thomas Aquinas himself my have used some of this work, through muslem scholars.what are we arguing about anyway. My point has been that empirical rationalism, the framework of modern science can be traced most importantly to ancient Greeks. i don't think islam or christianity should get great credit for it, although christian and muslem scholars alike have tried , at various times,to apply this greek thinking to their own religion, including Augustine.
@adstanra Science uses dialectic (precursor to logic) and arithmatic and such. But as they stood would never have led to what we know and understand as science. Its an important distinction that those who support humanism and islam refuse to accept because of their innate bias and agenda's. The only cosmological view that EVER existed wherein nature was not controlled by the desire of spirits was judeo-christianity. Its written history. that background is the bedrock of everything of import.
@havock89 Look Dude. Humans have been practising empirical rationalism since we first evolved as a species. It is what was selected for, and distinquishes us from other apes. He even know the genes involved ( human accelerated regions) that drove larger brains, more cortex and language. We quickly understood that we can predictably manipulate the laws of physics to our advantage and that they were stable and not whimsical. Our brains function this way.
@adstanra Yes I agree. Actually its our ability to use high degrees of abstraction that is our distinguishing ability.
Your other assertions however are false. The ancient world had only one view, that of animism. All people, even atheists had this cosmological view that the world was eternally constant, and that spirits gave the material world is behavioural qualities and nature.
The tools for scientific empiricism reside in our brains and we have much to thank the ancient greeks. A powerful economy based upon freemarkets and industrialisation and a rediscovery of Greek rationalism ( and a whole lot of war and political adjustment) has funded our surge in scientific knowledge. The RCC has at times been antagonistic, but for the most part has adjusted to the new knowledge.the bible is more metaphorical and hell is no longer a place etc
@adstanra Wrong. We have much to thank the catholic church for. They took the knowledge of the ancient world and reworked it into the scientific model. They developed universities and ensured that even commoners like you and me could have access to that learning and ensured that the secular humanist elite did not prevent us from getting access to that knowledge.
@havock89 well, yes. I never said the catholic church has always antagonistic...but lets not give them credit for empirical rationalism and universities and democracy and everything good in the world ! i appreciate that Augustine blended religion with Greek rationalism. Perhaps christianity has found in the modern church the best of both worlds...once you allow us to use condoms...lol.. I am fine with " God is Love". Not fine if you vilify " scientists" or doubt global warming for religious
@adstanra Lets not "give?" This is the atheistic mind. Choosing who is good and who is evil for themselves.
It is a matter of history (FACT) that the church did create western civilisation out of the ruins of the roman empire. You dont get to rewrite history to your liking without people like myself calling foul on it.
I doubt gobal warning because there is reason to doubt it. Villify scientists who wiled their trade like it is a religion, which it is NOT. They are a disgrace.
@havock89 You are recreating history. Western civilisation was created out of many different events, including multiple wars, industrialisation,social and political upheaval, the discovery of the new world,the great schism,an intermingling of religious mythos and greek Logos and the ideals that emerged. The catholic and protestant churches were a part of that. Those are the complicated FACTS ( back at you)
@adstanra The protestant churchs didnt exist until the 16th century. The church recreated western civilisation in the following 6 century period following the fall in 4th century AD.
@havock89 the fall of Rome was in late 5th century. Justinian tried to reunite the empire , but ultimately failed . Charlemaine tried to build an empire and did alot of good things. Otherwise it was state against state with some peace and alot of wars, battles with muslems, plagues, some advancement , but it really took of with the discovery of the new world, inductrialisation etc. Lots of factors over 1500 yrs. western civilisation continues to evolve, and I think for the better.
@adstanra It was the benedictine monks given the mission by the church to help restabilise people into communities. Tens of thousands of monastaries, in every country of the empire. Protecting people from marauders and knaves, teaching them agricutlure, religion, technologies and medicine.
You should read "how the catholic chruch built western civilisation" by Thomas E Woods.
@havock89 sometimes things occur and we don't understand, or things go not as expected.we can't always predict whether we will win at war, or have a normal child, or a good crop. Sometimes reality seems whimsical and people naturally assigned deities. even christians understand that sometimes God answers prayer to our understanding and satisfaction and sometimes he chooses not to. It is not that other religions believe that deity is completely whimsical. Certainly the ancient greeks did not.
@adstanra Utter nonesense. Socrates placed his critique of the ancient Gods on their small human-like foibles and foolish nature, and he was killed by the democratic government for it.
You just make one unfounded statement after another.
@havock89 this from a guy who didn't know it was Socrates in the first place. Have you heard of Socratic method? He , through Plato, was trying to affirm the power of reason and the importance of grounding argument in valid premises. He was talking about reason as a great tool, not necessarily to usurp the Gods, but to refine human thought. Perhaps you recognise the influence he , through Aristotle had on augustine.
@adstanra I forgot one simple thing, which I honestly mentioned and you use that against me?
Yes, not just on augustine, but on lots of thinkers, such as Aquinas. The church recognised the virtue in the pagan philosophers reasoning and brought it to its fruition. Once again only thanks to the catholic church. The greatest patron of knolwedge and education ever.
@havock89 Well, I must say I did take a cheap shot there. I would argue that the capitalist economy has been the greatest patron of knowledge and education because it has provided us with the necessary wealth. Democacy has helped to stem institutional infringement upon knowledge...and historically whenever people like Augustine and Muslem scholars and Aquinas and enlightemnet philosophers,rediscovered the legacy of the ancient Greeks, we benefitted.
@havock89 Perhaps the most significant events that lead to the enlightenment was the american and French REVOLUTIONS and advances that lead to industrialisation and a surge in economic production. Freedom of speech, liberty,pursuit of ones own happiness and individualism are not particularily "Christian"...It is also called the age of reason and rationalisation. these have greek origins.
@adstanra Utter rubbish. The french revolution was one of the darkest and ignoble periods in human history.
I never said persuit of ones own happiness and individualism was christian, and I would not agree that they are things to be reverred.
Freedom of speech and free debate was a matter of fact in christendom before anywhere else in the world. Especially in muslim countries and pagan countries.
Wasnt either aristole or plato killed because he didnt have freedom of speech?
@havock89 You may be referring to Socrates who was killed for sedition. The enlightenment gave us ideals like liberty, freedom of dissent, freedom of ideas and equality. most of these ideas can also be traced to the Greeks.
Would anyone liketo go back to the life of even a rich person 500 yrs ago, even 100 yrs ago? i am not going to say that christianity had nothing to do with social and political advancements enjoyed today in the West.Don't want to give it too much credit..lol
@adstanra Ahh yes. Sorry I write these responses on the fly and could not remember. The charge was sedition but the truth was he wanted to debate the existence of the Greek Gods.
What you are saying is only true in the grossest sense. For example, Democracy: In ancient greece. Only male citizens were allowed to have a vote, women and chidren were possessions, slavery was in full swing. Oration was the only thing required to change law, proof was not a component. A barbaric and flawed precusor
@havock89 Socrates wanted to base all truth on valid premises, even challanging the existence of the Gods ( at least the assumptions we make about them ). I think you might recognise this influence in Augustine and Aquinas.
Yes, Greek democracy was not like it is today, but it was not until late 19th-early 20th century that women were considered persons under the law, and it took a bloody civil war to end slavery in USA in 1863. Democracy is a work in progress, like your church it seems
@adstanra Because the church consists of humans, it is absolutely a work in progress. However the perfect aspect of the church. Christ, the Holy Spirit and the sacraments are perfect and thus infallable.
@adstanra So bearing this in mind. It was christian morality applied to sanctify the concept of morality that delivered us to where the founding fathers were. It was orthodox catholic teaching of christian morality that made Alfred the Great write English common law, that later became the expressed in the magna carta.
The social advancements that the west made came completely out of vocations to serve from the religious orders of christianity. Agricultre, rule of law, fair trade, hospitals...
@havock89 liberty, freedom of dissent, freedom of opinion,equality, healthy skepticism are pillars of the enlightenment that are still not fully realised.These are not particularly christian ( although equality is a strong christian notion).Agriculture, free trade, rule of law , care for the sick are also not necessarily christian. willing to admit Christian ethic helped wrt some of these things ( partic. care for sick and value of every human being).
@adstanra You know why they are not fully realised? Because they are not born FROM the enlightenment but simply declared as being of the enlightenment by those egomanics who wanted to usurp all the glory of the scientific process and these principles for themselves.
They are like thieves who steal technology and claim it as their own, but cannot continue the development of the technology because they dont have a full understanding of what they have claimed as their own! lol
@havock89 Do you think Western universities are being bought by Islamic money ? you are starting to sound a bit paranoid. This whole thread began because someone wanted to give Christianity credit for modern science. there is nothing in the bible encouraging empirical rationalism beyong what the greeks had already formulated. Industrialisation lead to the rest. You are a proponent of submission to authority. This is not scientific.
@adstanra its not about paranoia its about following the money trail, one which i am investigating right now as a matter of fact.
In my reliious life (my own internal reality) I am submissive to the authority of God. yes. When it comes to science I am methodical. Religion deals with teleological causality, science with proximal causality. Its a category fallacy to confuse them (as fundamentalists do)
@havock89 you are submissive to the authority of the church...which you think is from God...as every other person who follows a Dogma thinks they are doing.
@adstanra Not the church no. That would make me a humanist. The church are the people. You are saying, I am submissive to the authority of the people.
I am indeed submissive to the authority of the pope, who is the head of the church. And who's authority rests in the dogmatic teachings of the apostles. If anyone diverts from those teachings, they are placing their faith in their own limited intellect and not that of God, which is not limited or flawed.
@havock89 this is how the church subverts individuality. Notice the word submissive. Also how clergy are given title " Father" and the masses are often referred to as " the Flock" ( of sheep). You are called to submission to church authority..period. You are fond of calling anyone who diverts from their teaching a "practical atheist" ( another word for heretic). I suspect you don't like universities because they teach free-thinking and reliance on intellect.
@adstanra The church is the people. How many times are you going to make this mistake? The apostolic teachings of the church are from christ himself. So your only valid sentence should state with "Notice how Christ subverts" but seeing as christianity is one whereby you opt continually to stay in, by voluntary conformity to a HIGHER STANDARD. You dont have a leg to stand on. There is no subversion, you cynic! If a person chooses to serve another, it is a noble thing, if it is forced, its not.
@havock89 The world can be divided geographically into religions. There are huge restraints keeping anyone from leaving a particular dogma. Most have been powerfully conditioned by it since they were children, taught the same memes, reinforced through ritual over and over. There are family, cultural and social implications that control the mind. Faith and submission are virtuous and doubt can lead to exile , banishment and excommunication..sometimes death.
@adstanra There is only one dogma. Its the orthodox catholic dogma.
This powereful conditioning you are talking about does not exist. The decay of this modern society is proof of that. Memes are a peurille attempt to give the transmission of ideas a sinister aspect.
Death was never used, by the episcopos even for heretics. More misinformation.
@havock89 Death was never used by the inquisitors? If not death , threats of excommunication , hell and bannishment .I bet you would agree that Mormons, JWs, muslems , hindus are conditioned! they claim to have knowledge from superhuman source and participate in the activities i described. you are not arguing with me on this , are you? "Take the beam out of your own eye...lol
Those who were tried as heretics repeatedly and purposefully refused to recant wrong teachings that would lead others into moving away from life with God. Excommunication is not performed by the church, only acknowledged that it has been done by the person themselves. By your logic a murderer, even if caught in the act, is not a murderer until the law court passes the verdict of guilty. Reality by consensus is a pathetic argument.
@havock89 WTF. Thank goodness people today are not tried for " repeatedly and purposefully refus(ing) to recant wrong teachings ( according to your church
) that would lead others into moving away from life with God".
i think you have just demonstrated my point about the difference bt christianity ( religion in general) and enlightenment principles and democracy.
I think you must check you own idiocy, I have no idea what you mean by the murder sentence or reality by concensus.
@adstanra I never said their religion didnt influence them or that they had faith in it. You warp and twist everything. I said it was not powerful conditioning ie to the point that no one could think for themselves.
Once again Hell is an interior reality, not a place you are "sent to". Likewise exommuniction is not "done to you" it is the realisation of what you have chosen for yourself. You are also making truth-claims, yet you are dishonest about this, using obfuscation to misdirect.
@havock89 consider a Mormon coming to your door. Alas he is from Utah. you ask him why he believes and he replys about all the great things his faith has done for him, how he prayed to God to reveal to him the truth and how he found it. How everything he experiences makes sense in light of his religion. Do you think he came to this through " thinking for themselves" or is there some sort of conditioning going on?
@adstanra I dont doubt that God works in his life.
There are two types of Grace, Actual and sanctifying. Actual grace comes to everyone on the earth. That is Gods nature, sanctifying grace only comes to those who cooperate with God through the sacraments licitly performed by the ordained priesthood of the orthodox catholic church.
@havock89 well sure, that is what you believe. My point was to demonstate that all religious people believe the same thing about their church and their beliefs. i was pointing out the internal and external factors involved with relious holds on our minds and perceptions. the Mormon truely believes that his religion is profoundly true, but you and the Mormon cannot both be true. Our minds see what we want them to see sometimes. you think I am being intentionally idiotic
@adstanra There is nothin in what you say that points to your position being true. There is nothing in what you say that points to my position being false. All you do is use methods of deconstruction to create doubt.
The fact remains that what the church teaches is a complete and flawless system of morality and world view. It is not intolerant of other religions, as it acknowledges God working in the minds of all men to inspire them and nourish them spiritually.
@havock89 I suspect that there is not great difference in morality bt you and me. I am taking some steps to limit my energy consumption on the chance that some scientists are right about global warming. I would like to protect my kids future. I am using contraception ( had a vesectomy) and am not going to get it reversed..lol and still i have as great a relationship with my wife as I have ever known. I know many catholics and protestants, and I think I am as compassionate, loving as any of them
@adstanra The mistakes atheists always fall back on is that they think christianity is about saying "we are better than you." It is not. Its teachings are about the truth of human nature given to us by our creator himself. You can have a hole in a blacket and it still do a decent job keeping you warm at night. You can still use contraception and be lucky enough to have enough grace to survive it. The point is, that there is a better way, and we subscribe to it.
@havock89 well, I would expect those who have access to "the perfect moraliy" to demontrate that over and above others. I do think most christians ( i will even say particularly catholics) are a relatively moral lot. so are most western people. no reason for me to believe someone is immoral for using contraception per se
@adstanra Nope i suppose not. Not from your perspective. Most catholics are not good catholics IMHO. But then, by Gods standards neither am I. We have a long road ahead of us.
One foot at a time, on the greatest adventure of my life.
You are being rather disingeneous my friend. Are you saying Hell and excomunication are not motivating determinants of a person's religion. imagine a Mormon or a muslem or a Jew or a catholic leaving the church. What would they lose? the pressure to conform is great. i understand that some catholics view hell not as a place ( but what does it really matter anyway?), but historically it has been seen as a place of torture and the image of this is graphically displayed in the Cistine chapel.
@doro69 I dont. Never said I did. God's Mind is infinite.
havock89 7 months ago
@havock89 Yes you did, you just said what god expects from humans in the comments below. And how do you know that there is a god who's mind is infinite? How do you know it has a mind? How do you know that it's mind is infinite?
doro69 7 months ago
@doro69 Knowing God's nature, and knowing what he said regarding certain things, does not equate to knowing their Mind.
You either believe in a creator god or you dont. Its a self-evident reality for me. The atheisitic and pagan mentality fails logically. the catholic christian mentality doesnt fail logically. If you want to know for your self, go learn about it yourself. I am not being paid to teach cynics and skeptics.
havock89 7 months ago
@havock89 Believing in a higher power is reasonable, but conforming to a book written by man that is claimed to be the word of "God" is not. What makes Jesus more credible than the other messiahs? Please, do tell.
osgangstarrr 1 month ago
@havock89. That's a great question. The way I come to believe in Jesus is quite simple. I believe that Jesus is more credible than other messiahs is because the Catholic Church tells me so. Why do we buy a certain car, go to a certain school/university, see a certain doctor, live in a certain town, buy certain tv or computer? I would say that most of the things we do in life is because we trust the credibility of the person or institution selling us that product, etc.
romgtr 5 days ago
The Catholic church has the best credibility out of all organizations in the world. She is the world longest lasting institution (2000yrs), world largest religion, world largest charity, has the highest moral standards (no divorce, contraception, abortion), foundation of Western Civilization (universities, arts, music), etc., I could go on and on but I think you get my point. I don't believe in the Buddah or Mohammad because I don't trust the credibility of their organization...
romgtr 5 days ago
Ever hear of Hells best kept secret?
sluggo06 1 year ago
Father I saw how in your video there is alot of older people, I can't help to think that the new evangelization of vatican 2 will need energy and youth to carry on our faith and tradition. Your homilys are wonderful and how I think that the youth needs to hear this. Have you heard of the NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY?
242am 1 year ago
I thought I'd try out the cc on this video, and wow - it needs some serious ironing out. It can't handle Hebrew or Greek words. Or some English ones, for that matter. hahaha
sterlingrose33 1 year ago
Laudate Dominum omnes gentes - Alleluia!
sterlingrose33 1 year ago
geez I'm glad I wasn't in that hall; it would have been all I could do not to jump out of my seat and yell WOOOO when Fr. Barron talked about the angels and fighting with the helm of righteousness and the breastplate of justice, etc.
sterlingrose33 1 year ago
RE: the host of angels
WOOOOHOOOO preach it Father! Rock that hall! Preach the whole house down! YEAH!
sterlingrose33 1 year ago
There has been no unity, no lion lying with the goat, no peace, no end of the age. Jesus called sinners because he believed the end of days was imminent and the "son of man" was coming to judge the world. There would be the judgement and sinners would get their deserts in everlasting hell where there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Jesus was an apocalypticist!
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra But "the world" did end with his resurrection from the dead. That event turned everything upside down and revealed the deepest intentions of God. It "unveiled" (apo-kalypsis) the truth of things.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 2
@wordonfirevideo Fr. Barron talks about the prophecies. None of that happened, there is no peace, no new Isreal, the lion is not lying with the sheep, the son of man did not return for the general resurrection and judgement, not to mention smallpox...lol.Where do the prophets mention a second coming? No wonder the jews don't believe Jesus was the messiah
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Its the lion lying with the lamb. Not the goat lol.
Jesus said explicity that many ages of nations rising up against nations would pass before the end. So he was not an apocalypticst. His mission however was escatological, which means that this period after he came (however long it was) is the final "age".
Your understanding of hell is grossly inaccurate.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 hey havock89. In the Gospels, Jesus refers to the imminent end of the age with an apocalyptic intervention by God , through the son of man that ends in a judgement. Many to whom Jesus was speaking were supposed to be still alive when it happened. This is consistent with lots of other literature of the age, and is consistent with Paul's view.Read the gospels and Paul with this is mind and you will see it.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra The apostles HOPED in christs imminent return. Who wouldnt? Christ did not say when. Christ DID say that nations will rise up against nations and that great calamities and earthquakes would shake the world, and that these things must come and go before the end comes.
I read the New Testament with the interpretation the authors of the bible intended, sadly not how you would prefer.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Jesus did not say the exact day, but he does say that many people to whom he was speaking would not yet be dead before it happens. Paul says the same thing. I predict that there will be nations rising against nations and earthquakes in the future..Big deal.This is how you can tell a false prophesy.The stuff Jesus talks about did not happen , so people are awaiting his 2nd coming. Where does the bible talk about the messiah coming twice?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Nooooo. You got that completely wrong! He was talking about the holy spirit coming to them will happen before one of them will pass. You misunderstood the context of the whole conversation!
Also the bible is not the source of christianity, it is the product of it. The apostolic teachings of the church are the source. If you rely soley on the bible there is a lot that is not found therein. The bible is the "core teaching aid" of the church, used primarily in public liturgy.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Jesus and John were not talking about Pentacoast havock89.They are constantly talking about the Kingdom of God and were urging those around them to urgently repent because they believed they were living in the end of days. The notion was that the son of man was coming on the clouds imminently to judge the world...as John says in Luke 3: 7-9, the axe is already at the root of the tree.
adstanra 1 year ago
the entire new testament is apocalyptic, which appears to have been rather normative in those days. The injunctions to not care not for the morrow, to not resist government, to turn the other cheek, to remain in ones social condition, to not marry,to repent, all make sense from an apocalyptic perspective.this is the main theme for Jesus, John and Paul!
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Those who wrote and propogated the bible disagree with you.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 afraid not man. There are a huge number of books that have been written on this subject.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra And those who wrote those books did not have the apostolic teachings of those who wrote the bible, and learned from those who actually lived it. There are a 101 lousy scholars nowadays who will write any fiction they want into their work. make wild accusations and create tenuous links that are not based on anything by either their bias or desire for sensationalism.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 The apocalypticists believed that the world was in the control of evil forces that were soon to be overturned by an intervention by God involving the messiah and the " son of man' as referred to in Daniel. Jesus , John and Paul believe that this will be imminent, see Mark 9:1, Mark 13:30, Luke 21:25-33, Luke 9:27, Luke 3: 7-9 to name just a few. These are in reference to the upcoming judgement and end of days. The main theme is the upcoming kingdom that begins at the end of days.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra The scholarship on this is not sensationalism and is obvious to anyone who reads the bible objectively and historically. We also have alot of other matareial from apocalypic sources like the Essenes and the early christians who wrote about this. I bet even the majority of catholic scholars agree.Why don't you ask Father Barron about that.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra The apostles (please call them by their right term) were right. the world is in the grip of great evil, and God did interveine. The sending of The Holy Spirit brought Gods grace and the Kingdom of God to Earth. The body, blood, life and presence of God are now with us every hour of every day.
Once again, you are trying to tell the authors what their book means. The canon of scripture was carefully chosen over hundreds of years in every detail to what Christ taught His apostles.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 first of all, we don't even know who wrote any of the gospels and most of the epistles. we don't have any of the originals, but we do know that there were later interpolations added later by scribes including the ending of Mark and the parable where Jesus is faced witha prostitute while writing in the sand.
Most scholars are trying to figure out what the original authors meant. What makes you think you know what they meant?where is Jesus' body and blood?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Yo have been listening to too much propoganda.
We have good reason to believe that St. John was the apostle. We know who Luke was, we have good reason to believe that St. Mark was the son of St. Peter. And Matthew, the son of Alpheus was a Galilean, although Eusebius informs us that he was originally from Syria.
havock89 1 year ago
@adstanra We do have much of the originals. And the church fathers had much documentation that was extant at their time that no longer is today, and they wrote about it extensively.
Again you forget that the bible is not the source of Christianity. It is the product. That is how the early church was able to identify what writings were forgeries and what were real. the subtle depths of christian teaching are easy to spot by learned-eyes from the fiction they tried to insinuate into the gospel.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 The oldests peice of scripture we have is a peice the size of a deck of cards called P41 9 a segment of John where Pilot asks, " what is truth'. This dates to approx ad 125. We have some things that date to the late 2nd and 3rd centuries, then we have alot of stuff from the middle ages when mocks got busy.we have none of the originals! Most scholars believe that at least a few of the epistles are forgeries written in Paul's name.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra And yet they coincide with what paul taught the churches in those areas. Those churchs passed on the teaching tradition and it has been authenticated by the true experts (the Church Episcopos) and does not doubt the authenticity of the epistles in the canon. THEY WROTE THE CANON of scripture when the original students of the apostels were still alive. By any comparative historical standard the bible passes with flying colours.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 part of the reason scholars think that some of the epistles were not written by Paul is because in some instances the theme is contradictory to what paul teaches in his known letters. If you want to discuss that I would be happt to, but you don't really give primal authority to scripure anyway ( a wise move IMO).
I would be interested in your thoughts on birth control and whether you think catholics who use it are "lukewarm" or practical atheists. This is a practical matter for me
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Ok fair enough. What say we take this to PMs so I am not limited to 500.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 have you actually read the bible ( at least the "new testament")? i understand that catholics have not been terrible encouraged ( at least in the past ) to read the bible on their own. It is a tool for public liturgy( as you say ). If you haven't, i would encourage you to read it with apocalypical eschalological eyes. Then it will be unveiled ( lol) to you.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Catholics dont read the bible in the same way protestants do, but more and more catholics are getting involved in group bible study. This is a good thing. The whole bible is read in our liturgy, back to front every three years, irregardless of private study. Thats why I am secure that what you have proposed is wrong. The bible is the product of christianity, not its source.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Do you read the whole bible in litergy? wonder about the congregation hearing Numbers 31 read aloud. Must upset some people. I have found most catholics not very knowledgable about what is in the bible.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra There is a lot in the bible that upsets faithful catholics. It shows in painful detail the constant failure of humanity, and Gods constant faithfulness and forgiveness calling us back from our spiritual torpor, our exile.
I have found that most catholics have had a lacking education in their faith. I am not one of them. Some people have a simple but strong faith. That is not a problem unless it is a simple and weak faith. Then comes the tendency to fall into practical atheism.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Most of Jesus' thought concern the end of days and the imminent judgement where the forces of evil which govern the current age will be defeated and a new age of reversals will begin. This is imminent.Whe he talks about hell he speaks with particular vitriol and this garnered 1700 yrs of Hell (last judgement hell-(see the Cistine chapel).This is not Gehenna or Sheol, but a new concept.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra we are not talking about "the wicked going to their graves smiling" like it says in Job ( or is it Eccessiastes?). We are talking about a punishment where their is weeping and gnashing of teeth and worse that Sodom and Gomorrah. See the "Rich man " parable in Luke ( Lazarus). Jesus' agriculture parables have a particulaily vengeful tone.This is not a sweet and loving Messiah, but a messiah who agrees with John the Baptist.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra This is because Gods mercy is applied to us for as long as it CAN BE. ie while we can change, he can forgive. When we die, we are locked outside of God and in the eternal present of being. Time (a sequence of momentary being) no longer exists and so we cannot transition form one way to another. Thos in hell are locked outside of Gods presence and so cannot have life (to change and grow and recieve grace) That is not God being hateful, just the realisation of the situation.
havock89 1 year ago
funny how modern liberal Xians soften up hell. It is no longer a place of punishment and torture, simply "locked outside of God's presence".If God is the source of all goodness, then hell is the worst place conscievable, however way you look at it. And what is the one crime that gets you there? Disbelief ! there are so many problems with the concept of hell..How do babies, fetuses, people from the past, retarded people avoid hell? Do they get a free pass ?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra You are once again, missing the point. Hell is both. The punishment and torment is part of the nature of hell. Where there is no grace there is irrationality, hatred, hopelessness, vileness, betrayal, hunger, sorrow, a suffering unending. Imagine the pain a drug addict in withdrawl goes through, except with no limit. that is a good description of hell. They might as well be in fire.
Disbelief simply means you fail at the first hurdle. Belief does not mean you get a free pass.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Sounds alot like Dante! You miss the first hurdle and end up there for an eternity ! What do you mean by " disbelief" havock89? are you refering to disbelief in any deity, or disbelief in the catholic deity? According to your understanding, what happens to the billions of muslems, Hindus, jews , pagans? What happens to atheists who don't believe catholic dogma, but who lived good loving lives?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Obviously you are not aware of the concept of an interior reality. It is the interior reality of your soul that determines your compatibility with God. To choose rejection of God or Christ is what makes you incompatible. To be a practical atheist is likewise the rejection of God and Christ, even if you are hindu, muslim or christian. Practical atheism is the anti-thesis of integration with God.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 So, are you saying the hindu, muslem , jew, pagan is willfully rejecting Christ, so choosing an eternity in the worst place imaginable without any recourse?Do you think they are fully informed of christ, but have freely chosen hell ? I see humans for what we are, not Gods, not people trying to be Gods, but sentient primates trying to make sense of reality. We are influenced by genetics, culture, hormones, conditioning, accidents etc
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra we have come along way in our understanding of the factors involved in human perception and beliefs. It is not an accident that the world's religions are divided up through geography and time.Billions of humans die before ever forming religious beliefs, and many more are simply incapable of it through genetic or developmental problems which result from probabilistic laws of physics
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra I dont know about whether they are informed on christ or not. Thats why the church does not specify it either. We are no obligued to think any particular person is or is not in hell. We can however determine who is in heaven. We are infulenced by everything yes. Thats why being a christian is a rational response to genuine inquiry. You see humans only being like you.
havock89 1 year ago
@adstanra Yes there are two judgements. Our private judgement, which is imminent when we die, and the public judgement at the end of the world. Best not confuse the two. The forces of evil of each generation are ultimately defeated by death. Again you are applying YOUR teachings to the interpretation of christian literature.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 the ancient jews argued about whether there was life after death and those who thought there was , argued about a bodily resurrection or a spiritual one. The concept of a soul was a pagan one and the jews tended to avoid that concept. Most apocalyptic jews ( like Paul) believed ina bodily resurrection at the end of days.But this didn't happen. Today, most christians think of "heaven" as a spacetimeless place where souls go after death .
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra This idea one out for most ( the Jws still hold to the biblical view), because the end never came.What is the point of both ? Are we going to go from spacetimeless soul existence and be forced back into a spacetime body? This is not what the authors originally intended by " the Kingdom of Heaven ". All of this was a great departure from classical Judaism, which has always been primarily concerned with this world, not the otherworld
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra No, wrong again. Most christians dont know what to think about heaven except that Heaven is where God is. You cant be in heaven without being compatible with God's nature. We can only have life after death through Him, with Him and in Him. If you want life, love, hope, joy, creativity, fecundity, rationality, beauty and goodness. That comes from God and can only be found through God. Hell is the absence God and of these things.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 well, I have life, love, hope, creativity, fecundity?,rationality and appreciate beauty and goodness, and I am an atheist! These things are evidently not exclusive to those who believe in various dogmas.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra But you haven't allowed yourself to be embraced by the source of life, hope, creativity, and rationality. All forms of those goods here below are passing, fragile, evanescent. They are signs of God, but they are not God. Only in God will your soul be at rest.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo long before apocalyptic literature came about, ecclesiastes talked about the transient nature of life. Life is short, so why not make friends, learn and live it to the fullest.
The universe is the source of life, hope, creativity and rationality. It has produced us ! It is also the source of suffering and death and smallpox ( thought i would throw that in) :). there is no soul.
adstanra 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo - I'm sorry, but that is just a statement of faith, with no logical referent outside the context of faith. It sounds as though you believe you see the world in color and the nonbelievers are colorblind. You are a smart dude, and very expressive in your poetry of faith, but you never provide any grounds for belief that are accessible to thoughtful nonbelievers. And at the same time, you refuse to take seriously any personal testimony by nonbelievers that differ from your views.
jontv 1 year ago
@adstanra Of course you do, you twit. While alive in this creation you have access to common grace. Once you are dead and your soul is separated from your body, you loose all that and are eternally bound to your end. If you die, dead in your sins, then hell is your choice.
I never claimed they were exclusive and neither has the church. It actually preaches the opposite.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 You need to think a bit more about these things. Tell me, don't you think unreasonable to believe that a diety would place imperfect souls in a very harsh world, then expect us to believe a number of unseen propositions such that if we do not believe or through culture and conditioning believe in other deities, we "Choose" an eternity of suffering in the worst place imaginable? Your God is the twit !
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Dude you need to actually learn about real christianity and what it teaches, dont start asking the questions of a six-year old on YouTube and expect to get anywhere. Christianity is HUGE and VAST in its philosophy and theology.
Interior reality dude. Its your interior reality that makes you incompatible for an existence with God.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 "real christianity" ...as opposed to false Christianity. everyone thinks they are the real christians.' interior reality" ...you can't even explain that. Why don't you put it into words for me.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Break it down and work it out for yourself. Are you paying me to teach you? No. I am here just to point out that you are commenting on that which you dont understand.
If you were genuinely interested, I would spend time explaining philosophy and theology. But as you are not, I am not here to hand-hold a mocking fool like yourself.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 I am not trying to mock you havock89, just challange your assertions so you realise that the rest of the world is not willfully evil and that there are other world views out there. I have had many excellent discussions with wordonfire. We have never shown disrespect to each other and he has challenged me to think harded about alot of things. If I am upsetting you, i will stop replying.I don't think you are a fool just because I diagree with you.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Then why call my god a twit? Why are you so quick to take onboard everyone elses view of christian teaching instead of what the church ACTUALLY TEACHES?
We probably dont have the same understanding of what evil is, but I look at the world and see evil all over the place, even in my own heart.
You are not upsetting me, but you are not endearing me to spend so much time explaining myself to a cynic.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 I was calling a deity who expects humans to be perfect a twit, in response to you calling me a twit ( which i really didn't appreciate BTW.Wordonfire publishes these messages on Youtube, a forum on the internet! He knows there will be " Youtube Heresies", and I assume he feels his ideas can withstand rational criticism.i a not some troll, but I am starting to wonder about you
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra God is a parent, and as a parent he is happy with any little progress we make, but hard to satisfy. It is the state where we are yearning to be better and become more like Christ that is what makes us become compatible with god. Christ, The Son endlessly adores the Father and the Father is endlessly pleased with the Sone. Adoration comes from the word Adoratsio - an intimate union with God. Thats as simple as i can make it.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Well, i am glad that the deity is pleased with himself.This post of yours is unintelligable. i am no more inclined to believe this than when I hear Muslems tell me similar things, or eastern mystics., or Protestants. They all tell me that I have a resistent heart , a stubborn cynical heart.this is the difference bt science,reason and logic vs religion and mysticism.All mystics think others are blinded by ego.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra My post is perfectly intelligable. We are not talking about science. There is not about god that falls into the scope of science.
God is the source of all being. And outside of this creation, the only being that can ben enjoined is by joining in full communion with God. You cant force yourself into union with God anymore than you can force yourself to love someone you actively hate. That is what christianity teaches.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 I PMed you.was having browser problems.
An alien reading your post would say WTF! ( lol). The father adores the son , the son adores the father ( who are part of the same). How is there any more grounding in what you say that any religious statement from any relgion.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Firstly there is no religion that teaches what christianity teaches. Secondly, as this is divine revelation it is something we could never gain knowledge of ourselves.
If you said you want to understand christianity, you have to start with this premise about the nature of God. The whole of christianity is based on the concept that Gods nature determines divine law, Divine law is the basis for natural law, and natural law is what informs us on the creation of civil law.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 I would say that civil laws should be based upon natural laws. We know the natural laws because they are empirically verifiable, but religions fight all the time about "Devine" law and God's nature. We live in a society of multiple opinions and if you have no empirical verifiability, then your opinion has no more grounds than anyone elses.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Well I dont need to prove divine law to an non-believer. The bible is written by believers for believers. not as a document of proof.
As I have said, natural law is an expression of divine law and that in turn comes from Gods nature. He could no more chage natural law than he could his own nature. This makes christian truth objective and not subject to the whims of a capricious God, as is often claimed by non-believers.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Because the laws of physics have created order, that makes natural law objective and not subject to individual whims...or religions ...lol
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Dont you realise that judeo-chrisitanity is the ONLY religion wherein the universe operates under laws? That every other religion and culture without exception including islam, falls into an irrational whim-oriented animism?
Christianity created modern science, and could because it is true & truth = reality.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 bold statement. What is your rational? Islam literally means " submission to God's law' . They think it is based upon God's revelation which comes from God's nature. How are you different.? The surge in science occurred for several reasons including the enlightenment, industrialisation,and the great schism. "Science" can be traced to the ancient greeks.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Actually islam believes that the whims of Allah control the nature of existence from moment to moment. Two people fight, Allah will make the one he likes win. "That is a pagan premise that the spirits that govern nature capriciously give what they want to who they favour. Not a rational ordered universe of intelligable laws. Modern science began in the 9th century. The precursors of science came from ancient greece and the church perfect what the natrual philosophers started.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 I don't know if you have ever read the "old testament" , but God acts quite capriciously and whimsical there. Certainly, Muslems do not believe their God is whimsical, but the creator of all moral and physical laws.
The church has not been a beacon for independant scientific exploration , my friend. They have often resisted scientific discoveries and this is well documented, ask Galilleo, Copernicus, and Darwin.You can give the enlightenment credit for the surge in science
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra That would be the interpretation of someone who is unschooled in judaism. Islam does not believe God created an ordered universe, but one that is subject to any whim of its creatior. Hence the barbaric trial-by-combat.
The church has been the sole institution for the development of science, and its propogation and education to commoners like us. Your pop-history is showing. I given the enlightenment credit for taking credit where credit is not due.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Don't think you know Islam very well, my friend. It is fundamentally law based and a muslem tries to order his interior being ( lol) to God's law which is called Sharia. As i said before, we can trace science to the ancient Greeks and for much of the middle ages, the muslems were far ahead of christians wrt science. Modern science coensided with political, economic and social changes we call the enlightenment.Your biased po history is showing.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra I know islam very well. I have family that are muslim, and I know islam better than they do. That is not what the Quran teaches, Islam does not have a philosophy, its has practice. Only practice. It is the only thing that matters in islam, and love or compassion towards non-mulsims has no value.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 I am not a defender of Islam..lol. they consider their God to be the God of the Bible ( the God of abraham and Jesus). i do believe the God of the bible is vindictive,whimsical and capricious, but they disagree and try to base their religion on God's law ( as they see it). Don't think they believe God is whimsical like some Roman deity. Anyway, that is about all the defending of Islam I care to do !.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Actually they give passing respect to the bible but they believe the bible is a corrupted thing, and is not worthy of respect, only the segments that agree with Mohammeds fiction.
You think he is vindictive and capricious because you have not been schooled in christiantiy. The bible is the product of christianity, not the source document. It is not sufficient for understanding christian teaching.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Dude, I was an evangelical christian for 25 yrs. I was a protestant though...lol. If you say I was schooled wrongly...I would agree..lol. I bet I am more familiar with the bible than you.. I read parts of it everyday for decades and have taken university level courses in biblical scholarship. Can hold my own with William Lane Craig and Father Barron ( at least I seem to ).How would you describe the deity of Noah or Numbers 31?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Your argument is a logical fallacy. The bible is written by believers for believers. It is inspired writings, not flat history. the stories in the bible were theological texts where real events were often magnified to exemplify certain metaphorical, mystical or allegorical elements. Without the teaching authority of the church, you dont have ANY basis of accepting anyhting in the bible at all. Even that it is the inspired word of God.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 the bible was written by an apocalyptic cult over many decades following Jesus's death. Like all holt books, it lends itself to interpretive bias and this has changed over time, as society has changed over time. If science was suddenly lost we would return to living in caves, if religion was lost, would we change at all?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Your statement is not authoritative teaching on christianity. There is no valid interpretation for the bible beyond that of the orthodox catholic church. The bible is the product of christianity, not the other way around.
Your ignorance is obviously a product of luxury. Science comes from christianity. If we lost science (how can one loose rational ordered thought?) but had christianity, science would be reborn.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Sorry , I don't take knowledge from authority alone. Let alone clergy lol.this is the difference bt dogma( authority based ) and science and history which grounds knowlege in evidence. science is simply the notion of grounding knowledge in evidence and building theories to fit the facts, and the courage to follow the facts. The laws of physics are not capricious ( as early humans found out- see Pythagorus). They mean that humans can understand them. Science has always existed
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Yet you posit YOUR teaching about christianity. Catholic clergy are ordained to teach the dogma of the church, when they stray from this dogma, which comes directly from christ, they loose their authority. Your position is intellectually dishonest, but a common one.
All the ancient world had an anamistic cosmolgoical view, as such the behaviour was attributed to the spiritual nature of matter wherein combustion was not a chemical reation but the persuasion of fire.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 to me, your assertion about the church is arbitrary. I am being intellectualy honest by trying to base mt thinking on evidence, not authority. We humans are easily suseptable to the power of Dogma. It was a desire to be honest that took me away from christianity. 3000 yrs before christianty man was building cities, had domesticated many species of plant and animal, had aquired knowledge about agriculture, law, governance,military..con't
adstanra 1 year ago
450 yrs b.c, Pythagorus showed the orderliness of the universe, Socrates argued that reason must be based upon valid premises and aristotle proposed that theories must be based on empirical observation.the romans expanded man's knowledge in civil engineering, governance, military, and law. The Pagans understood the universe was rational! The fall of the empire put us into a period of relative stagnation until the renaicance and even then muslem culture was equal to Christiandom.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Wrong it was understood that the universe had a "nature" and that nature was anamistic. What you consider stagnation is simply a lack of knowledge on your part. Muslim culture is truely stagnant. Sharia law ensures this. Even in the 21st century islam still has enforced second class citizenry, embraces slavery and is brutal and mercenary in its justice. It has produced virtually nothing significant. I love muslim people, they are in my family, but not islam it is a plague.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 respectfully, it is you who need to read a bit more history wrt Islamic society during the middle ages. don't confuse that with what it is today...And I agree it is a plague. Far worse than most modern christianities. followng the fall of the Roman empire, germanic tribes divided it up. they were far less advanced than the romans, but tried to model themselves on the Romans. There was a net loss of progress in the West as Christendom became more powerful.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra History is being rewritten in our own universities and we have been betrayed by them. Seek your information from other sources and you will find that what you have been led to believe about islam is a lie. Billions funnelled into the education system by arabs have make the unversities sell out humanity.
/watch?v=1BTu5DhLAcA&feature=PlayList&p=F9B7A29CEF2F3647&playnext_from=PL&index=0
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 this is the problem. Everyone making claims about science, history, medicine, law etc. The only way to know , is through evidence! most historians today will site a Golden age of Islam which began 7th century and ended in 14th or 15th i believe. There were Islamic scientists and scholars who were noted for empiricism. I am not going to give them credit for modern science, but they did influence many Christians to take note. Besides, as i have said, humans are natural empiricists
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Samuel Clements wrote "the easiest thing a man can do, is lie to himself. The second easiest thing a man can do, is lie to himself, about lying to himself." I know islam. It is in my family. I see the underbelly of the beast (as it were) and it is clearly not capable of anything but submission to the fiction mohammed wrote. Humans start as a bloodclot, the universe response to allah will from moment to moment and does not follow rational laws.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 I think you submit yourself to the catholic church and its heirarchy. which you believe is guided by a supernatural agent. i see no evidence that it is guided by a supernatural force. Seems an all too human dogma. Love Mark Twain BTw- a good atheist.How do you know you are not lying to yourself?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra I would put it in another way. I have tested the veracity of christian dogma's and have found them to be true. The beauty, intelligence and goodness of them give me the confidence to submit myself to Gods authority.
There are marked differences between christianity and every other religion. There are certain theological and philosophical mistakes made by every other reliigon that are not made in christian teaching.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Nothing here, my friend, that isn't said by everyone in any religion, only they say there are certain theological and philosophical mistakes with your religion.Protestants believe catholics have made many errors theologically so they rely on the scriptures as guidance and that you are closet polytheists,praying to saints and Mary etc. i am not saying they are right, i have heard arguments both ways..but we all feel our dogma is the right one.that is dogma
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Firstly when you say dogma, you are saying something that was explicity dictated by christ. Dogma is an Orthodox Roman Catholic term. You dont get to apply it to other religions.
Scripture is not sufficient for proper understanding of orthodox christianity. Prayer is not worship (easily proven) and I cannot base my decisions anyone elses conscience.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 I apply terms the way I see fit .lol. Dogma , as the world is commonly used , can apply to religious or nonreligious activities. I consider it a group activity where beliefs apparently come from superhuman source, through a clergy ( or charasmatic leader) to the masses. The masses participate in rituals that re-enforce the memes ultimately producing conformity of thought. Faith, submission are virtues and doubt and free-thinking are discouraged, Dessenters are rejected.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra I continue to test christianity in my life and i continue to study it. Which is why your schoolboy mistakes about christian dogma are not fooling me. But they will mislead others which is the only problem I have with your opinions.
Lastly I do not KNOW I am not lying to myself (who can?). I am simply doing my best to be honest with myself, and in doing so, I have a more tested faith in orthodox christianity than I do in anything or anyone else.
havock89 1 year ago
@adstanra Pre-islamic societies did much, and even preserved much, but they did not do it for the betterment of all mankind as the chruch did with the creation of universities, but for the empowerment of islam to subdue others.
You are a victime of the lies propogated by the modern education system, and they have betrayed us all. Scholasticism is a joke.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 i think ultimately most muslems think they are doing things for the betterment of mankind. Hitler thought he was doing some sort of devine will for the betterment of mankind. Stalin hoped to better mankind etc etc etc. I think democracy has bettered mankind. Science has improved mankind. Separation of church and state has improved mankind. Freedom has improved mankind.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Then your thinking is not thinking but a blind faith. Those muslims who are devout in their faith, even moderately so, believe that the betterment of mankind is to lie and maniulate and support those who enforce sharia law (even if only in part) and that destroys free speech, obliterates individualism, stifles beautiy and creativity. Enlightenment much?
Separation of church and state has improved the church, and freed it from the tyranny of goverment.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Yes, i am sure Muslems feel that sharia law is a lie that will not benefit mankind.....not ! I do agree that there is not enlightenment values in Islam..which is partly why i oppose it. Do you honestly think billions of Muslems believe they are lying and manipulating? IMO, you are just as manipulated by dogma as they are, only christianity has been affected by enlightenment values.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra No you misread my statement. Lying and manipulation is part of islam, under sharia law it is call Taqiyya and is actually a good act, for the purpose of intalling sharia law. There are lots of instances where this is shown in both the Quran and the ahadith.
Seeing as you have constantly misrepresented apostolic tradition, your opinion does not carry much weight.
The enlightement was born out of christian morality and ethics, not the other way around.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 In the 13-15th centuries, muslem scholars re-discovered Aristotelian rationalism and published a number of scholarly works. Jewish scholars like Maimonides participated with these scholars, and eventually these works were translated from arabic to latin and infused into christendom.Many historians give these scholars credit for sparking changes in Europe that ultinately lead to the Renaissance. In the Iberian peninsula muslem culture was more advanced in architecture and engineering.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra MANY SCHOLARS DO NOT. All the way back to the 9th century there is history that says otherwise. The church always set up science to use knolwedge from the ancient world and bring it to its fullfillment through christian doctrine.
The muslims were not more advanced in archetecture, that is not to say they did not have any technological advances at all. Just that they did not come from islam, but muslim innovation. BTW technology at that level was not based on modern science.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 I even think Thomas Aquinas himself my have used some of this work, through muslem scholars.what are we arguing about anyway. My point has been that empirical rationalism, the framework of modern science can be traced most importantly to ancient Greeks. i don't think islam or christianity should get great credit for it, although christian and muslem scholars alike have tried , at various times,to apply this greek thinking to their own religion, including Augustine.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Science uses dialectic (precursor to logic) and arithmatic and such. But as they stood would never have led to what we know and understand as science. Its an important distinction that those who support humanism and islam refuse to accept because of their innate bias and agenda's. The only cosmological view that EVER existed wherein nature was not controlled by the desire of spirits was judeo-christianity. Its written history. that background is the bedrock of everything of import.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Look Dude. Humans have been practising empirical rationalism since we first evolved as a species. It is what was selected for, and distinquishes us from other apes. He even know the genes involved ( human accelerated regions) that drove larger brains, more cortex and language. We quickly understood that we can predictably manipulate the laws of physics to our advantage and that they were stable and not whimsical. Our brains function this way.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Yes I agree. Actually its our ability to use high degrees of abstraction that is our distinguishing ability.
Your other assertions however are false. The ancient world had only one view, that of animism. All people, even atheists had this cosmological view that the world was eternally constant, and that spirits gave the material world is behavioural qualities and nature.
Only judeo-christianity said otherwise. FACT.
havock89 1 year ago
The tools for scientific empiricism reside in our brains and we have much to thank the ancient greeks. A powerful economy based upon freemarkets and industrialisation and a rediscovery of Greek rationalism ( and a whole lot of war and political adjustment) has funded our surge in scientific knowledge. The RCC has at times been antagonistic, but for the most part has adjusted to the new knowledge.the bible is more metaphorical and hell is no longer a place etc
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Wrong. We have much to thank the catholic church for. They took the knowledge of the ancient world and reworked it into the scientific model. They developed universities and ensured that even commoners like you and me could have access to that learning and ensured that the secular humanist elite did not prevent us from getting access to that knowledge.
We have much to thank the catholic church for.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 well, yes. I never said the catholic church has always antagonistic...but lets not give them credit for empirical rationalism and universities and democracy and everything good in the world ! i appreciate that Augustine blended religion with Greek rationalism. Perhaps christianity has found in the modern church the best of both worlds...once you allow us to use condoms...lol.. I am fine with " God is Love". Not fine if you vilify " scientists" or doubt global warming for religious
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Lets not "give?" This is the atheistic mind. Choosing who is good and who is evil for themselves.
It is a matter of history (FACT) that the church did create western civilisation out of the ruins of the roman empire. You dont get to rewrite history to your liking without people like myself calling foul on it.
I doubt gobal warning because there is reason to doubt it. Villify scientists who wiled their trade like it is a religion, which it is NOT. They are a disgrace.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 You are recreating history. Western civilisation was created out of many different events, including multiple wars, industrialisation,social and political upheaval, the discovery of the new world,the great schism,an intermingling of religious mythos and greek Logos and the ideals that emerged. The catholic and protestant churches were a part of that. Those are the complicated FACTS ( back at you)
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra The protestant churchs didnt exist until the 16th century. The church recreated western civilisation in the following 6 century period following the fall in 4th century AD.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 the fall of Rome was in late 5th century. Justinian tried to reunite the empire , but ultimately failed . Charlemaine tried to build an empire and did alot of good things. Otherwise it was state against state with some peace and alot of wars, battles with muslems, plagues, some advancement , but it really took of with the discovery of the new world, inductrialisation etc. Lots of factors over 1500 yrs. western civilisation continues to evolve, and I think for the better.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra It was the benedictine monks given the mission by the church to help restabilise people into communities. Tens of thousands of monastaries, in every country of the empire. Protecting people from marauders and knaves, teaching them agricutlure, religion, technologies and medicine.
You should read "how the catholic chruch built western civilisation" by Thomas E Woods.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 sometimes things occur and we don't understand, or things go not as expected.we can't always predict whether we will win at war, or have a normal child, or a good crop. Sometimes reality seems whimsical and people naturally assigned deities. even christians understand that sometimes God answers prayer to our understanding and satisfaction and sometimes he chooses not to. It is not that other religions believe that deity is completely whimsical. Certainly the ancient greeks did not.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Utter nonesense. Socrates placed his critique of the ancient Gods on their small human-like foibles and foolish nature, and he was killed by the democratic government for it.
You just make one unfounded statement after another.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 this from a guy who didn't know it was Socrates in the first place. Have you heard of Socratic method? He , through Plato, was trying to affirm the power of reason and the importance of grounding argument in valid premises. He was talking about reason as a great tool, not necessarily to usurp the Gods, but to refine human thought. Perhaps you recognise the influence he , through Aristotle had on augustine.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra I forgot one simple thing, which I honestly mentioned and you use that against me?
Yes, not just on augustine, but on lots of thinkers, such as Aquinas. The church recognised the virtue in the pagan philosophers reasoning and brought it to its fruition. Once again only thanks to the catholic church. The greatest patron of knolwedge and education ever.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Well, I must say I did take a cheap shot there. I would argue that the capitalist economy has been the greatest patron of knowledge and education because it has provided us with the necessary wealth. Democacy has helped to stem institutional infringement upon knowledge...and historically whenever people like Augustine and Muslem scholars and Aquinas and enlightemnet philosophers,rediscovered the legacy of the ancient Greeks, we benefitted.
adstanra 1 year ago
@havock89 Perhaps the most significant events that lead to the enlightenment was the american and French REVOLUTIONS and advances that lead to industrialisation and a surge in economic production. Freedom of speech, liberty,pursuit of ones own happiness and individualism are not particularily "Christian"...It is also called the age of reason and rationalisation. these have greek origins.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Utter rubbish. The french revolution was one of the darkest and ignoble periods in human history.
I never said persuit of ones own happiness and individualism was christian, and I would not agree that they are things to be reverred.
Freedom of speech and free debate was a matter of fact in christendom before anywhere else in the world. Especially in muslim countries and pagan countries.
Wasnt either aristole or plato killed because he didnt have freedom of speech?
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 You may be referring to Socrates who was killed for sedition. The enlightenment gave us ideals like liberty, freedom of dissent, freedom of ideas and equality. most of these ideas can also be traced to the Greeks.
Would anyone liketo go back to the life of even a rich person 500 yrs ago, even 100 yrs ago? i am not going to say that christianity had nothing to do with social and political advancements enjoyed today in the West.Don't want to give it too much credit..lol
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Ahh yes. Sorry I write these responses on the fly and could not remember. The charge was sedition but the truth was he wanted to debate the existence of the Greek Gods.
What you are saying is only true in the grossest sense. For example, Democracy: In ancient greece. Only male citizens were allowed to have a vote, women and chidren were possessions, slavery was in full swing. Oration was the only thing required to change law, proof was not a component. A barbaric and flawed precusor
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Socrates wanted to base all truth on valid premises, even challanging the existence of the Gods ( at least the assumptions we make about them ). I think you might recognise this influence in Augustine and Aquinas.
Yes, Greek democracy was not like it is today, but it was not until late 19th-early 20th century that women were considered persons under the law, and it took a bloody civil war to end slavery in USA in 1863. Democracy is a work in progress, like your church it seems
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Because the church consists of humans, it is absolutely a work in progress. However the perfect aspect of the church. Christ, the Holy Spirit and the sacraments are perfect and thus infallable.
havock89 1 year ago
@adstanra So bearing this in mind. It was christian morality applied to sanctify the concept of morality that delivered us to where the founding fathers were. It was orthodox catholic teaching of christian morality that made Alfred the Great write English common law, that later became the expressed in the magna carta.
The social advancements that the west made came completely out of vocations to serve from the religious orders of christianity. Agricultre, rule of law, fair trade, hospitals...
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 liberty, freedom of dissent, freedom of opinion,equality, healthy skepticism are pillars of the enlightenment that are still not fully realised.These are not particularly christian ( although equality is a strong christian notion).Agriculture, free trade, rule of law , care for the sick are also not necessarily christian. willing to admit Christian ethic helped wrt some of these things ( partic. care for sick and value of every human being).
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra You know why they are not fully realised? Because they are not born FROM the enlightenment but simply declared as being of the enlightenment by those egomanics who wanted to usurp all the glory of the scientific process and these principles for themselves.
They are like thieves who steal technology and claim it as their own, but cannot continue the development of the technology because they dont have a full understanding of what they have claimed as their own! lol
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Do you think Western universities are being bought by Islamic money ? you are starting to sound a bit paranoid. This whole thread began because someone wanted to give Christianity credit for modern science. there is nothing in the bible encouraging empirical rationalism beyong what the greeks had already formulated. Industrialisation lead to the rest. You are a proponent of submission to authority. This is not scientific.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra its not about paranoia its about following the money trail, one which i am investigating right now as a matter of fact.
In my reliious life (my own internal reality) I am submissive to the authority of God. yes. When it comes to science I am methodical. Religion deals with teleological causality, science with proximal causality. Its a category fallacy to confuse them (as fundamentalists do)
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 you are submissive to the authority of the church...which you think is from God...as every other person who follows a Dogma thinks they are doing.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Not the church no. That would make me a humanist. The church are the people. You are saying, I am submissive to the authority of the people.
I am indeed submissive to the authority of the pope, who is the head of the church. And who's authority rests in the dogmatic teachings of the apostles. If anyone diverts from those teachings, they are placing their faith in their own limited intellect and not that of God, which is not limited or flawed.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 this is how the church subverts individuality. Notice the word submissive. Also how clergy are given title " Father" and the masses are often referred to as " the Flock" ( of sheep). You are called to submission to church authority..period. You are fond of calling anyone who diverts from their teaching a "practical atheist" ( another word for heretic). I suspect you don't like universities because they teach free-thinking and reliance on intellect.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra The church is the people. How many times are you going to make this mistake? The apostolic teachings of the church are from christ himself. So your only valid sentence should state with "Notice how Christ subverts" but seeing as christianity is one whereby you opt continually to stay in, by voluntary conformity to a HIGHER STANDARD. You dont have a leg to stand on. There is no subversion, you cynic! If a person chooses to serve another, it is a noble thing, if it is forced, its not.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 The world can be divided geographically into religions. There are huge restraints keeping anyone from leaving a particular dogma. Most have been powerfully conditioned by it since they were children, taught the same memes, reinforced through ritual over and over. There are family, cultural and social implications that control the mind. Faith and submission are virtuous and doubt can lead to exile , banishment and excommunication..sometimes death.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra There is only one dogma. Its the orthodox catholic dogma.
This powereful conditioning you are talking about does not exist. The decay of this modern society is proof of that. Memes are a peurille attempt to give the transmission of ideas a sinister aspect.
Death was never used, by the episcopos even for heretics. More misinformation.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 Death was never used by the inquisitors? If not death , threats of excommunication , hell and bannishment .I bet you would agree that Mormons, JWs, muslems , hindus are conditioned! they claim to have knowledge from superhuman source and participate in the activities i described. you are not arguing with me on this , are you? "Take the beam out of your own eye...lol
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Are you being purposefully idiotic?
Those who were tried as heretics repeatedly and purposefully refused to recant wrong teachings that would lead others into moving away from life with God. Excommunication is not performed by the church, only acknowledged that it has been done by the person themselves. By your logic a murderer, even if caught in the act, is not a murderer until the law court passes the verdict of guilty. Reality by consensus is a pathetic argument.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 WTF. Thank goodness people today are not tried for " repeatedly and purposefully refus(ing) to recant wrong teachings ( according to your church
) that would lead others into moving away from life with God".
i think you have just demonstrated my point about the difference bt christianity ( religion in general) and enlightenment principles and democracy.
I think you must check you own idiocy, I have no idea what you mean by the murder sentence or reality by concensus.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Yes I am fully aware that you are not keeping up with the conversation.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 lol.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra I never said their religion didnt influence them or that they had faith in it. You warp and twist everything. I said it was not powerful conditioning ie to the point that no one could think for themselves.
Once again Hell is an interior reality, not a place you are "sent to". Likewise exommuniction is not "done to you" it is the realisation of what you have chosen for yourself. You are also making truth-claims, yet you are dishonest about this, using obfuscation to misdirect.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 consider a Mormon coming to your door. Alas he is from Utah. you ask him why he believes and he replys about all the great things his faith has done for him, how he prayed to God to reveal to him the truth and how he found it. How everything he experiences makes sense in light of his religion. Do you think he came to this through " thinking for themselves" or is there some sort of conditioning going on?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra I dont doubt that God works in his life.
There are two types of Grace, Actual and sanctifying. Actual grace comes to everyone on the earth. That is Gods nature, sanctifying grace only comes to those who cooperate with God through the sacraments licitly performed by the ordained priesthood of the orthodox catholic church.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 well sure, that is what you believe. My point was to demonstate that all religious people believe the same thing about their church and their beliefs. i was pointing out the internal and external factors involved with relious holds on our minds and perceptions. the Mormon truely believes that his religion is profoundly true, but you and the Mormon cannot both be true. Our minds see what we want them to see sometimes. you think I am being intentionally idiotic
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra There is nothin in what you say that points to your position being true. There is nothing in what you say that points to my position being false. All you do is use methods of deconstruction to create doubt.
The fact remains that what the church teaches is a complete and flawless system of morality and world view. It is not intolerant of other religions, as it acknowledges God working in the minds of all men to inspire them and nourish them spiritually.
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 I suspect that there is not great difference in morality bt you and me. I am taking some steps to limit my energy consumption on the chance that some scientists are right about global warming. I would like to protect my kids future. I am using contraception ( had a vesectomy) and am not going to get it reversed..lol and still i have as great a relationship with my wife as I have ever known. I know many catholics and protestants, and I think I am as compassionate, loving as any of them
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra The mistakes atheists always fall back on is that they think christianity is about saying "we are better than you." It is not. Its teachings are about the truth of human nature given to us by our creator himself. You can have a hole in a blacket and it still do a decent job keeping you warm at night. You can still use contraception and be lucky enough to have enough grace to survive it. The point is, that there is a better way, and we subscribe to it.
You are a lucky man yes?
havock89 1 year ago
@havock89 well, I would expect those who have access to "the perfect moraliy" to demontrate that over and above others. I do think most christians ( i will even say particularly catholics) are a relatively moral lot. so are most western people. no reason for me to believe someone is immoral for using contraception per se
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra Nope i suppose not. Not from your perspective. Most catholics are not good catholics IMHO. But then, by Gods standards neither am I. We have a long road ahead of us.
One foot at a time, on the greatest adventure of my life.
havock89 1 year ago
You are being rather disingeneous my friend. Are you saying Hell and excomunication are not motivating determinants of a person's religion. imagine a Mormon or a muslem or a Jew or a catholic leaving the church. What would they lose? the pressure to conform is great. i understand that some catholics view hell not as a place ( but what does it really matter anyway?), but historically it has been seen as a place of torture and the image of this is graphically displayed in the Cistine chapel.
adstanra 1 year ago