Watch the movie Possesed,Its the true story that the movie the Exorcist comes from,which is a true story that took place in St Louis in 1949,It was a Scary movie Father.it will get you saying your Rosary on a daily basis,
It occurred to me that Jesus thought enough of the devil that he included him in Lord's Prayer / Our Father (... but deliver us form the evil one.), but my Christian tradition almost completely ignores him. I'm wondering if anyone can suggest serious, non-sensational, reading material on the devil and demons.
Although I have read just a few pages of it, I highly suggest Summa Daemoniaca; however, it is in Spanish but I understand that there’ll be an English edition soon. You might find Interview with an Exorcist equally helpful and it’s by the same author, Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea. DollyHot has videos here in case you want to check it out.
"An Exorcist Tells his Story" is an extremely insightful book by Fr. Gabriele Amorth. He highlights the mindset of the devil, which is to prevent us from having faith in our Lord, and combats threats with true faith in our Father in Heaven.
hypothetically speaking. and i don't mean to make light of the subject matter but what would happen to a victim of demonic possession if the person were given a powerful hallucinogenic (like LSD)
I like your analysis of the themes of the film but I feel like it has effectively parodied priests as witchdoctors. I think a work like The Power & The Glory gives us a much more authentic account of the heroism of the priesthood. The Exorcist-led genre, by contrast, encourages superstition and deflects popular attention away from the true evils against which the Church strives. Worse, it confuses the issue of what we mean by supernatural, scandalizing believers and nonbelievers alike.
@boltorange (cont'd) I think it's a good bit of horror-movie fun (like you said, it can even seem kind of goofy) and its themes of sacrifice, sympathy, and courage do a lot to counterbalance what is crude or even merely lazy about the film. But if this is how people think we actually understand evil, pee soup and dog-growls, then it's no wonder that they presume what we mean by good -- especially in the person of Jesus -- must also be ridiculous.
Only 2 things sacred me in the Exorcist- the sudden appearance of the demonic face and that scraping sound in the attic. The opening sequence in Iraq, however, is sublime.
Does anybody know why Hitler was never ex-communicated? Wasn't he a Catholc all his life? There are pictures of him getting along with cardinals in the book "SMOKESCREENS." (can be googled and read on-line. Or, just look at the pictures)
PETER
I was never a blasphemous pope and I was never even in ROME! They found my grave in Jerusalem a long time ago.
PAUL
Look for BEREANbeacon and EXCATHOLICS on-line or on youtube
The beauty of the priests in The Exorcist is that they act with courage for the greater purposes of God, but they are also utterly fallible. One couldn't help but love them.
@wordonfirevideo Catholics Call Priests father because they are their spiritual father.
Why we call priests our Spiritual "Father" :Paul was a spiritual father. "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15). God Bless :)
@MrYamaha125 that is a great verse, the king james version is a bit different and that is the one I mostly go by:
1 Corinthians 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel......in fact i think it more so solidifies the point that there are many teachers but only one father...what is the church's interpretation on matt 23:9?
@tario26 Thanks for the response ☺. From that quote a person couldn't say that there is only one person by the name of 'father.' ("yet have ye not MANY fathers")You could say that there are very few though. If you read from v14-17 you will notice that Paul refers to others as his sons twice: “I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you” v14. And again in v17,”for this cause have I sent unto you Temotheus, who is my beloved son.” (KJV)
If you want a further explanation as to why Catholics Call priests father go to Catholic.com and type in the question “why do we call priests father.” Click on the first link and read on. It will give you a much more thorough answer than I can in a limited blog entry. If you have any other questions about the Catholic Faith search that site, its full of good answers ☺ God Bless.
where does that dispicable tyrant you call pope get the steam to announce with his muslim ,brahman ,wicca ,hinu and many other brothers that ,and i quote
"we are all praying to the same god" small g intended ,as the only way they could all be praying to the same god is if they are all praying to the devil AND THEY ARE
Father Barron, Great Videos... Over the past 6 months, I've been watching different ones that spark my interest, but only recently have I found the true fruit of your work and that would be your active participation in discussions with people who disagree with Catholic Doctrine. Now I revisit the videos and make sure to read your comments defending your position.
I am a Pentecostal Minister and I have been to 4 exorcisms I also have cast 2 devils out in church services one of which it came out of a woman and went into a man. The supernatural is real, and demonic forces are nothing to play around with. But thankfully we have power over the devil because the Blood is against him.
7:45 The reality of the supernatural? Common Mr. Barron, this is not biblical at all.When Jesus cast out demons in the bible was there a batlle or struggle that pursued?These movies are meant to put your fear on the devil when you should be fearing God himself.Do your job as a priest and clear up the misconceptions of these movies rather then relishing in their entertainment.Matt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body...but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell
@tario26 Not sure what you think you're accomplishing by calling me "Mr." but if it makes you happy... Last time I checked, friend, priests aren't Jesus, though they are acting in his name and person. I'm not too surprised, therefore, that they might not be quite as powerful as the Lord himself in battling the dark powers.
@wordonfirevideo No disrespect intended...I only call one being father as commanded to me in the word of God if you know what I mean matt 23:9...I would just appreciate a bit more boldness from your end considering your a leader in faith...The devil works in many entertainment videos which is clear to me such as harry potter and the like which dumbs down witchcraft and the sort...If you would like to add me as a friend I would enjoy having a lengthened converstation...
@tario26 Just curious: what do you call your biological father, especially when referring to him in the third person? I'm kind of amazed how many people seem to take the Lord's words in this regard literally. What he meant was that we should acknowledge that we have one heavenly father. In regard to the films, I don't see how you think a movie like The Exorcist is glorifying the devil. It is in fact showing his wickedness and the necessity of fighting him.
@wordonfirevideo Dad for the most part....but its more important what i refer someone when im speaking to him...now unfortunately you have been taught many things from your church that are completely contrary to the word of God and i feel sorry for your position because you have no choice but to defend it even though it doesn't make sense..Would you agree that more people fear the devil then they do God? Why do you think they do? Do you think it has anything to do with what we've been fed??
@tario26 Just to press it: you never say, when referring to the man who generated you, "my father said," or "my father is over there"? I frankly don't believe you. My point is that you're pressing the words of Jesus in a silly literalistic direction. And friend, you have to drop the condescension. It doesn't get us anywhere. If you want to return to argument, I'd be happy to engage you.
@wordonfirevide Yes i have "refferred" to him as that in the past so people undertand who i am speaking about, that doesn't mean i wasn't wrong in doing so..When i speak to him face to face i do not talk to him and say "father" can i have this or "father" will you help me with this..We are obliged to "call" one person our father when we speak to them directly.. Re read scripture starting at matt 23:7-8..Why is it only catholics choose to call priests father?
@tario26 Oh friend, come on! You weren't wrong to call your father "father!" What's wrong is your literalistic reading of Jesus' prohibition. And Catholics aren't the only ones to call priests father; the Greek and Russian Orthodox do as well. The tradition for this is very ancient. Look at the desert fathers--Antony, Poemen, Dorotheus, etc.-- who were routinely referred to as "Abba" or Father. You certainly couldn't accuse those figures of not taking the Scripture seriously!
@wordonfirevideo Yes, it could be ancient but it doesn't mean its the correct interpretation, my interpretation is that he meant it literally and i think there are many passages where people don't take the word of God literally.Was Jesus being literal when he says if someone sues you at the courts give him your cloak also? Matt 39-40 and if one smites thee on one cheek give him your other? I believe he was...If you would add me as a friend we could have a better conversation...
@tario26 Perhaps a better example: In the same passage, Jesus says not to call anyone else teacher. Right up until, and probably beyond, college, surely you've used "teacher" to describe a person, in no way confusing them with God. Anyone who has known a teacher or two could not possibly make the mistake of confusing them with God --- even the best of them make mistakes or exercise poor judgment. Even they can be quick to anger. Same goes for priests.
@benabaxter Read the passage again you will see his examples were directed towards "people who were leaders of the faith" and how we shouldn't refer to anyone of them with that term, a perfect example is calling the pope "holy father" .You will never read of anyone calling Peter,Paul, James or John "Father" in the new testament . This was implemented by the catholic church including many other doctrines that are contrary to scripture
@tario26 I am a Pentecostal Minister and I have been to 4 exorcisms I also have cast 2 devils out in church services one of which it came out of a woman and went into a man. The supernatural is real, and demonic forces are nothing to play around with. But thankfully we have power over the devil because the Blood is against him.
@tario26 Fair enough, but you're just shifting it back another level. Nobody teaching faith is allowed to be called a teacher?
Even if we accept the premise that the Catholic Church holds doctrines consciously contrary to scripture, then we have even more problems: To what end? By whose authority do you even interpret scripture?
I remain Catholic in part because we have fewer popes than anyone else.
@benabaxter by the authority of Jesus Christ, thats who i ask for direction everyday to help me understand the word. Because there is a man such as the pope that states he has authority to interpret scripture does not make him right on how he interprets it, anyone can make that claim...catholics teach that the pope is infallable yet scripture proves very clearly that "the first pope" peter was infallable teaching doctrines of circumcision in which paul had to correct ...Galatians 2:11-14
@tario26 If your catholic I would also suggest reading two teachings of the catholic church in the catechism which are line 841 "the church's relation with muslims" which claim that catholics adore the same God that muslims worship (even though muslims deny Jesus Christ as their saviour) and line 460 which states that one of the reasons that Jesus became man is so that we might become God." Then read the following: John 3:16-181 John 2:23 John 14:6 1 John 5:12-13 about those that deny Jesus
@tario26 Catholics believe in Jesus Christ, that he died for our sins, correct? muslims reject Jesus as saviour and accept him as a prophet only, If we reject Jesus as our saviour we have no hope and we cannot worship the same God that they do, without Jesus accepted in your heart and my heart as saviour we both die in our sins.it is a sad but harsh reality John 8:24 I pray for you to search your church's official teachings and match them to scripture and you will see alot of contradictions...
@wordonfirevideo the Jesus give us the gift of a holly spirit when he rise to heaven.
He commanded his disciples to baptize in his father, himself and spirit's name. The power comes from God itself! We proclaim his name and his power to heal us! A priest act on his name, they are chosen and know how to do so.
@adstanra - Ooops. when I said "I don't think anyone should be married either" I meant to say "I don't think every person should be allowed to marry either. There are many people who are clearly not qualified to be married"
@zztestenglish ..... well you seem to really want to give the state a lot of power and control over something that is very personal. What do you mean by probation period? will any prenuptial agreement do, or do you think the state should decide that as well? what if you're 20 years old and very mature and responsible, you think this couple should be denied marriage by the government?
@adstanra - "state a lot of power and control over something that is very personal" There's a famous quote from Pierre Trudeau who said "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The reason why it was shot down is cus if a marriage ends in divorce, it typically goes to court (gov't involvement). Or, if a couple abandons their kids, the state takes care of them (gov't involvement). So, sadly, the government is involved *shrug*
@zztestenglish I think the state does have an interest in promoting stable long-term relationships. I don't think it is their business though to tell people they can't get married. I wouldn't like to see the state deny 2 loving people from getting married because they're only 20 years old ( the example you gave limited it tp 25 yrs , i believe). I would not object to government promotion of stable marriages in any way they can. I agree with you there.
@adstanra - "not object to government promotion of stable marriages." Correct and that's why I'm making these suggestions. The reason why I advocate for raising the age limit is cus MOST (not all) are not mature enough and many are still in college. Of course, I'm generalizing here. I would prefer a couple to be at least in the workforce and a bit more mature. remember, unstable marriages are costly to society in divorce, unwanted kids, etc.
@adstanra -"What do you mean by probation period?" Well, in order to be married in the Catholic Church, a couple must partake in some counselling classes BEFORE marriage if I'm not mistaken. The class teaches a couple the ups and downs of marriage, etc. but I forgot the name of the class. Or, maybe they just work with a priest...but I'm not sure. This is sort of a 'quasi-probation' period in that the couple is required to partake in. This is what I mean by probation period
@zztestenglish do you want to legislate an engagement period where a couple must attend marriage classes? It's an interesting idea if it really is effective. It would cost an enormous amount of money to regulate. I don't think it would be very effective either...IMO. What I think the state should not be doing, is denying committed homosexual couples from declaring their love for one another. State recognition of this is important.
@adstanra - Attending marriage classes is just a suggestion. I'm open to more ideas. All I'm trying to say is there are too many broken marriages in society especially in spousal/child abuse. Marriage classes may or may not help. I once knew a lady with kids who married this drunk. Guess what? They predictably got divorced 9 months later and the divorce went to court. what a waste of the court's time had there been a mandatory pre-nuptial agreement as I suggested earlier.
@adstanra - BTW, there's a reason why I ask 'What about a male who is genetically a female?' I'm trying to get to another point but I need to hear your answer first...
@zztestenglish oh sorry. as far as I know, this can happen through a rare translocation mutation where the sex determining regions (normally located on the Y ) are translocated during meiosis to the X chromosome. These regions code for proteins that stimulate, in the primordial germ cells, the development of a testis, which then produces androgens, which, in the absence of AIS..lol, produce a phenotypic male.People with this translocation are XX, but do contain the sex determining genes cont
@adstanra i suspect they are sexually attracted to females ( if all goes well during embryological development and whatever other environmental factors are involved with sexual orientation). i don't think Homosexuality is completely hormonal, in that there are genetic and environmental factors at play as well. Orientation might not be completed until many years after birth and may be subject to environmental effects. the human brain continues to develop until about age 20, i believe.
@adstanra I also think that homosexuality is different than gender identification problems.Gay people are comfortable being the sex they are and do not wish to change. There are also true hermaphrodites. Sexual orientation, gender identification...are all complex and we are just starting to understand the factors involved. Got to love those humans, though....we have even figured out the exact location of some of the mutations involved with AIS and Sex determining genes. It is not a free-choice!
@adstanra - the reason why I ask is because homosexuality is more common in males than females if I'm not mistaken. (I read that somewhere). With all things being equal, why is that the case?
@zztestenglish I am not sure..even if it is true. We don't know the cause of Homosexuality. I think we can confidently say that the cause is multi- factorial and involves genetics, hormones and environmental factors. We have come a long way from the OT
There are a great number of bisexual people. It appears that brain development of orientation is complex and continues well into the teens. I see no reason to discriminate against them . They can form loving relationships and can be good parents.
@adstanra - "discriminate against them" Well it's like I said before in that we do not condemn them because they are born that way. It's like you said earlier in that nature sometimes messes up *shrug*. But just because one is born that way doesn't mean they can cross dress in public (or whatever). Many of the things we talk about like gay families defy traditional family units or even Confucius ideals.
@zztestenglish well, I think that the vast majority of Gay people do not cross-dress. Might do it rarely is part of a parade once a year, but they have no compulsion to cross-dress and are comfortable with the sex that they are. They don't want gender transformation. There are some people, often heterosexual, who cross-dress because of a sexual compulsion and there are some homosexual people who also have gender identity problems would feel more comfortable in the opposite gender clothing cont
@adstanra not sure what you are advocating zz. Do you think that the state should be dictating what people can and cannot wear? Should we put these people in jail? Fine them? Personally, I find Burkas more upsetting.
I'm wondering what reasons you might have for denying loving gay people to marry?
I suppose there have been all sorts of things that we have in the past thought traditional. Maybe we are just now a little bit more enlightened. Tradition may be a good thing, or a bad thing.
@adstanra - "denying gay people to marry?" I never said gays cannot get together. I believe they can have 100% equal right with civil unions. For me, I just find it morally reprehensible that gay families bring in fatherless (or motherless) kids into the world. Yes, not all gay couples will have kids and some will choose to adopt. I'm just refering to one particular piece to it...
@zztestenglish well, it may be true, I don't know, that the best, ideal situation is for children to be raised in a loving, nurturing environment by heterosexual parents. Don't know if that's true, and maybe we will never know, because that ideal situation doesn't always exist. I feel pretty confident though, that those homosexuals who do adopt or have children through reproductive technologies are usually couples very committed to raising their kids in loving, nurturing environments cont
@adstanra - "raised in a loving, nuturing environment by heterosexual parents" a long time ago, I use to work at a foster kids agency. Trust me, kids do suffer not knowing who their parents are. Maybe not all but SOME do.
@zztestenglish well, there is a lot of suffering in the world...maybe the biological parents don't want the offspring to know them. what does this have to do with homosexuality anyway?
@adstanra -"what does this have to do with homosexuality anyway?" As stated, it's immoral to bring in a fatherless (or motherless) child into the world using artificial procreation for a gay family. Some kids do suffer not knowing who their mom/dad is like in the example I gave with Miss Pratten who is suing the gov't.
@zztestenglish well, I might sympathize with this lady who feels she is suffering because she doesn't know who her biological mom or dad is, but I hardly think it is immoral. There are a huge number of other people who live perfectly good lives and are comfortable not knowing who their biological parents are. Would you object to them having kids if the child knew who the other biological parent is? A lesbian might just get a friend to donate sperm.
@adstanra - "I hardly think it is immoral" Well, this is where you and I part because I've seen how parentless kids in a foster kids agency (where I worked a long time ago) needlessly suffer. Yes, I agree not all will care about their biological parents but maybe some will. What I would like to see is a study done on artificially conceived kids to see if they suffer or not. From my experience, I think they do imo
@zztestenglish I don't think that kids in foster care is the same as homosexuals who are loving stable parents. With technology, at least the child will know who one of the biological parents is. what if the homosexual parent got a sperm or an egg donor who is a friend, who has no objection if the child wants to know who he/she is..... would you agree to that? it has been my limited personal experience that children raised by stable homosexual couples do very well. I'm for the study though.
@adstanra - "I'm for the study though" good, we agree...but I'm pretty sure parentless kids do suffer. i've seen it myself from my personal experience. Even when I was a kid, one of my classmates' dad died when he was 2 years old. Every father's day, he felt left out and it bothered him
@zztestenglish I would suggest that you and I agree that not every couple or person should be allowed to adopt or should have children. But what children really need in order to thrive is love, food, water, shelter, medical care and opportunity. If this is provided by homosexual people, I'm confident they will do well.I'm not at all confident that homosexuals cannot be just as good parents as heterosexuals and, as said before, most gay couples who adopt are very committed parents...
@adstanra - "I would suggest that you and I agree that not every couple or person should be allowed to adopt or should have children" I agree and in fact, I would take it further in that I don't think anyone should be married either. there's abudant evidence that there are too many broken marriages in society especially with spousal/child abuse. That's why I don't perceive marriage as a civil right. The marriage system is broken and needs restrictions installed
1. "vast majority of Gay people do not cross-dress" True...I just raised an example.
2. True some who cross dress are hetero & some have gender id problems. But there's also others who find it a fetish
3. "state should be dictating what people can and cannot wear" France has outlawed Burkas in public so it's already happenin. I understand yer point but c'mon don't cross dress in public where kids can see it. I ask adults to be REASONABLE & don't do that in public.
@zztestenglish what do you think is going to happen to kids who see a person who is cross-dressing. If they're very young, a parent can simply say "oh isn't that funny"...or make it a little joke. For older kids, perhaps they can explain that there are people who feel they should have been a different sex. As we learn more about these syndromes perhaps we can offer better explanations. Walking away in disgust is not what we need in our society IMO.
@adstanra - "kids who see a person who is cross-dressing" Oh, c'mon....be reasonable. Don't expose kids to adult-related things...so this is not a question of disgust but common sense.
@adstanra - "do you want to fine them" We have laws already that prevent people from running around naked in public. Something similar to that. I know what you are saying in that the state shouldn't be dictating what we should and should not wear but that's already being done in France. Or, for example, a sikh cannot carry a religious kirpan onto a plane or in a court of law. Some there are some laws that already exist to a certain extent
@zztestenglish I'm not sure I agree with France. I think their methods are in response to an influx of Muslim people into their country. France is asserting its secular nature. I am all for secular countries and do not wish religion to be promoted by the government, but I don't think that they should be prohibiting religious expression either. There might be a fine line. In Canada, we allow Sikhs who are part of the police force to wear turbans. Don't allow anyone to carry knives on airplanes!
@adstanra - "There might be a fine line." There is a fine line. I agree. My point is that there are some LAWS ALREADY that are dictating what we can and cannot wear. Hence, my claims about cross dressing in public is not as farfetched as it may seem
@zztestenglish because there are some laws does not give carte blanche to just any law. There are laws against public nudity for obvious reasons. I don't think the state should be supplying dress police, like in Saudi Arabia, arresting people for what they wear.
@adstanra - "comfortable with the sex that they are." As you said, this type of thing is complex. I remember I saw this tv show once where they interviewed this guy who had a sex change to become a woman. After a few years, he was not 'satisfied' and he switched back. What does this show kids? What kind of normal person thinks they can freely choose to switch genders?
@zztestenglish people with gender identification problems are fairly rare. I would suggest that most people who truly have this problem would say that a sex change operation was the best thing they ever did. Imagine feeling that you were wrong sex, perhaps that you were really a girl in a boy's body.imagine the implications of such an operation. I don't think these people take a sex change lightly, and I would hope that any surgeon would do this operation only on selected desperate cases
@adstanra - I understand people don't have sex changes for fun (not to mention it costs them money). I also understand they feel they are of the wrong gender and I can sympathize. In fact, I'd suggest they go seek some counselling. But you CANNOT freely switch genders...just like a man who had a sex change CANNOT have a baby. This is reality. People suffer disabilities in this world (and yes, it sucks) but there are certain realities each of us must live with.
@adstanra - Androgens are also responsible for a male's voice deepening I believe (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, then does this not explain why a homosexual male sometimes has that high squeaky voice (if you know what I mean)? This is just an observation
This is such an unfortunate video. The continued endorsement of demon possession by the Church is doing great harm. Just today another child was killed in an exorcism. See the story:
'Massachusetts Mom Accused of Killing Daughter in Exorcism"
@BeingItself - was the Exorcism sanctioned by the RCC? From what I read, there is no mention of it and the lady acted on her own. Exorcisms are very RARE and have STRICT guidelines from my understanding
No, that particular exorcism had nothing to do with the RCC. That was not my point. The point is that Fr Barron and the RCC endorse and promote the superstitious primitive belief in demons. If the RCC is to be a force for good in the world, it ought to combat idiotic non-sense, not promote it.
why did you deleted my comment father? I gotta say I'm disappointed... if I'm eager to disagree is only because, despite our differences, I do respect your rhetorical skills and more so the fact that you've chosen an open forum such as this to voice your views.
If its a mystery and its beyond your comprehension, how can you say anything about it? You cant claim that you have a personal relationship with God, then say it's beyond your comprehension. How are you justified in making all these claims about God and the Holy Spirit, but then say we cant possibly understand it? Your basically saying you have no clue whats going on, but your not willing to admit why you feel justified in asserting there is a God.
@PhoenixLament87 Then why did you even say the part about a father preventing his son from the dangers of car accidents?
You have to be careful when you start labeling things good and evil. If there is a God I would ask him why is there seemingly unnecessary extensive suffering that seems to serve no purpose(hurricanes, tsunamis etc)? Why do Christians always try to find meaning in suffering in order to glorify God?
@AcidWacker Everyone tries to find meaning in suffering. Everyone hopes in something. As Christians, we believe that we have the best, most satisfying answer to the question of evil in the person of Jesus Christ, who suffers with us, in us and for us.
@PhoenixLament87 Christians look for a supernatural meaning of suffering because they think that their God is behind it. But rational people look for the natural cause of that suffering and look to find a cure for that suffering. Scientists and doctors are the ones who help people who are suffering, by finding cures to diseases. They aren't worried about the meaning of some eternal life, they want to make the only life these people have better while they are still alive on earth.
@AcidWacker Hold the phone. First, Xians have consistently maintained that God is NOT the cause of evil. Second, your implicit distinction between Xians and "rational people" cannot stand because the natural sciences first flourished under the auspices of the Church. Third, there are plenty of priests, religious and lay people involved in the relief in suffering all over the world. E.g. the Church is the largest provider of AIDS relief in the world.
@PhoenixLament87 Hold the phone. First, why would an all-loving and all-powerful God allow the Devil to have free range over the earth? To test us? That seems unfair. Second, the reason why natural sciences first flourished under the Church is because the Church is who had all the power. Third, I'm not doubting that there are plenty of priests and religious people, just like there are many atheists involved in relief. Funny how you mention the AIDS, b/c the pope just changed his view on condoms.
@AcidWacker The devil does not have free range. He is a dog on a leash. As for the pope and condoms, he did not change his position (I've read the book). He said that it would be better for prostitutes to wear them and prevent the spread of AIDS than to not wear them. To make an analogy, it would be better for bank robbers to use guns without bullets than to use guns with bullets. It is not the Church's business to condone/distribute condoms any more than to condone/distribute bullet-less guns.
@PhoenixLament87 What kind of God would put the devil on a "leash"? I mean, what kind of game is he playing? Why is this all powerful God allowing us to be pitted against this being(the devil) who has lots of power, and how could He possibly hold people responsible for failing to do battle with a being that can trick and deceive us from what is real and what is not real?
If I was an all-knowing and all-loving God, I'm pretty sure I could come up with a better system than that.
@AcidWacker Don't walk within the circle of the leash, and the devil can't harm you. As for those under the direct influence of the devil (i.e. the possessed), God does not hold them accountable for this. Only those who freely and knowingly choose to disobey God are held accountable for their choice. The rest are simply victims, but victims who will be rescued.
@AcidWacker The bottom line is this: I believe that God exists, and that His essence is Love. I believe that He has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who is fully human and fully divine. I believe that this God-man suffered and died and after three days rose again, as a proof of His divinity and a promise of eternal life for those who believe. I believe that we have very good evidence to support this claim. Everything else is a function of this basic belief.
@AcidWacker Well, the biggest one is the Resurrection, based on the witness of the Gospels. Now, we cannot write off the credibility of the Gospels merely because they are religious texts. They were written by or with the collaboration of eyewitnesses to the events. There is also corroboration across the four canonical Gospels. Further, many of these same eye-witnesses (hundreds in all), chose to die rather than deny what they has seen (i.e. dead Jesus followed by living Jesus).
@PhoenixLament87 I understand how the basis of the Gospels were formed. My question is what makes you accept them as truth? The question is whether or not the claims of Christians were true. A testimony, no matter how strongly it's believed, is not evidence of veracity. The truth of a matter is not determined by how many ppl believe it or the strength of their belief. Including if they are willing to die for their belief. If it was, then people dying for other religions must make the belief tru
@PhoenixLament87 The question is whether or not the claims of Christians were true. A testimony, no matter how strongly it's believed, is not evidence of veracity. The truth of a matter is not determined by how many people believe it or the strength of their belief. Including if they are willing to die for their belief. If it was, then people dying as martyrs in the name of other religions must make their belief true
<< "answer to the question of evil in the person of Jesus Christ, who suffers with us, in us and for us."<<<
I am not sure this is an answer for suffering. It might make you feel comfortable knowing that "God" knows what it is like to suffer and believing in eternal life, but this is not an explanation for suffering. Mindless laws of physics cause suffering. They have produced tsunamis,epidemics and animals struggling to survive in a harsh world.
@adstanra - the RCC often talks about the MYSTERY of suffering. Why God allows it is a mystery but perhaps it is under the umbrella of freewill. For me, it comes into perspective in the book of Ecclesiastes (my favorite book in the Bible). If you haven't read it, then I suggest you do (with a pessimistic frame of mind).
@zztestenglish Yes, I agree that Ecclesiastes is an interesting read. For me, it argues that bad stuff happens and there is no apparent reason for it, so we should live our lives the best we can. Laugh, develop relationships, enjoy it while it lasts. Sounds great to me.
Jesus had a different view IMO. He thought the world was governed by Satan and his dominion. He thought God was going to imminently change that. The world though, is governed by natural forces.
@adstanra - so I'm puzzled because I don't know your background. Are you catholic or not? If not, then you've read the Bible for leisure? Sorry, I'm just trying to get to know you better so I understand who I'm talkin to.
I think Ecclesiastes works for me because I'm a pessimist by nature
@zztestenglish I considered myself an evangelical protestant for 30 yrs, but now call myself an atheist. I am very interested in philosophy, religion, pathology, science...all the great questions...lol. By hanging around FB sites I have enjoyed lots of great discussions.I have alot more respect for the catholic faith than any protestant ones, although a few yrs ago I didn't really consider catholics true Christians...lol..
@adstanra "but now call myself an atheist" What made you switch if you don't mind me askin? I'm the opposite...I ignored religion for many years and did not understand it. After doing alot of reading/research, they won my respect....
@zztestenglish I came to believe that it wasn't true. The problem of suffering,hell, The fall, the bible. I could find metaphorical explanations but trying to maintain it was too difficult. The universe is governed by impersonal laws of physics and any meaning to existence is from us.
Last wk an 18 Y/O was killed when his car hit a train. He was texting at the time. 4 hrs we worked to make him an organ donor,but we couldn't. The screams from the family gave me a chill..True story-physics!
@adstanra - "universe is governed by impersonal laws of physics" Agreed. And that's why when I discovered it was a catholic priest named Georges Lemaître (who discovered the big bang theory) I started to realize that Catholicism views the bible differently from what I thought. It's a misapplication to use the bible as scientific truth. It's truth is seen in its wisdom. Science and religion are two different epistemological tools that can co-exist
@zztestenglish Lemaitre was a catholic , but this is besides the point. Newton was a protestant with other wacky beliefs.
The bible contains far too many abhorrent passages that cannot be imagined into some sort of wisdom..IMO.I have found that most catholics are not even aware of the bible and their knowledge of it is very poor. The great thing about it though, is that it lends itself to the interpretive mind.
"Catholics are not even aware of the Bible and their knowledge of it is very poor" True. There is alot of ignorance.
"abhorrent passages" Christianity is based on Christ's teachings. The OT is mostly there for historic reasons & basic wisdom. Mosaic law doesn't apply anymore. That's why you don't see catholics sacrificing cows to atone for sins. It's like a 'reformed Judaism'
@zztestenglish you disagree? You think Lamaitre being Catholic had something to do with it? Some of the greatest wisdom came from pagan Greeks and Romans. these passages like Num 31 are descriptions of the commands and activities of the person you call God.
Jesus's morality was not much better IMO. His dogma assumed that the world was governed by evil forces and that God was imminently going to reverse that situation. He spoke about hell almost as often as he spoke about the kingdom.
@adstanra the Jews, at least, were concerned about the building of a just society on earth. Many of the prophets were concerned that the marginal were being excluded. There was extremely little said about the after-life.
they often wondered why they were suffering...sometimes they thought they were being punished, or tested etc. It was the apocalyptic Christians who dreamed of a kingdom and retribution in hell.BTW, the Mosaic law was promised to be eternal.
@adstanra -"being Catholic had something to do with it?" No, misunderstanding. What it showed me was that they didn't take the Bible literally and viewed science and religion as complementary rather than in competition.
"greatest wisdom came from pagan Greeks" Well I think some of the greatest wisdom came from Confucius (an ideology not a religion). Some of his concepts are similar to Catholicism
@zztestenglish Most protestants also think science and religion are complementary as well. I do understand that catholics have a great philosophical history and they have an advantage in that they do not take the bible as literally.true....
@adstanra - Frankly, I'm not too sure about protestants. I've heard them condemn evolution when the Vatican never did. The most notable protestant to condemn evolution was George Mcready price.
As stated, science and religion are two different epistemological tools.
@zztestenglish Well, i do not want to defend protestants..lol. I am not sure what sort of epistemological tool religion is. Consider all the religions in the world,telling people different things, including that evolution is not true.Even the catholic faith ( which I agree is the best wrt science) tells people that they are fallen and need to be saved, that they should not use contraception and that there are demons etc.
@adstanra - 'epistemological tool religion is' It shows truth in wisdom such as don't steal, don't murder, etc. Yes, all religions differ but they also have some commonality. I cannot speak on behalf of Islam, Buddhism, etc. but catholics recognize freedom of religion and sometimes come together with other faiths. Even christian/protestant ones. It's called Ecunemical.
@adstanra - Oh yeah...one more thing I forgot to mention. Goto wikipedia and lookup "Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope" The RCC has had a partnership with the University of Phoenix since 1993. So, it is quite clear they do not reject science but see it as complementary to their faith
But if God is omniscient and omnipotent, the He already knew that the person was going to be possessed anyways, so it seems as if He is just playing games or He is a complete dick. Would you do that to someone if you were God?
@AcidWacker I think you deal with a very important and complicated philosophical question quite carelessly here. Perhaps THE philosophical question: If God were omniscient, He would know about it; if He were omnipotent, He could do something about it; and if He were all-loving, He would do something about it. I think the first two premises hold up quite well; it is the third that I would challenge. Would a good father prevent his son from the dangers of auto accidents by never letting him drive?
@PhoenixLament87 What kind of morals do you have? How can you possibly compare letting your son become possessed by a demon to the dangers of him driving a car? If you were God would you ever test your son that way? And if you were God would you set up a place like Hell for your kids and send them there for a finite crime including not loving you? (and don't give me the "atheists send themselves to hell"). If God would really test someone by letting them become posessed then I can't worship him
@AcidWacker Demonic possession is not a test of the victim, any more than hurricanes or genocides are tests. God does not cause these things, but He does allow these things. It is our firm hope, based on the witness of the Gospel and our own experience, that God will and does draw a greater good out of these great evils. This is the message of Jesus' death (the greatest evil, the death of God) and resurrection (the defeat of death by death).
@PhoenixLament87 You do have a lot of faith if you think a greater good comes out of "these great evils"...like smallpox for eg, that makes demons look like nothing. This virus killed 100s of millions of people, and tortured many times more. There is very little good that comes out of the situation in Haiti.
the greatest evil is "the death of God"? Greater than smallpox torturing millions of kids? What did God suffer that millions of others have suffered?
@adstanra The point is that God enters into the fullness of human experience in the person of Jesus Christ; He knows, experientially, what it is to suffer and to die. In His omnipotence and love, He turns these very things toward our salvation (even though we don't fully understand the "mechanics" of it), and will eventually put evil and death to a definitive end.
@PhoenixLament87 Well, i would argue that the mechanics of it makes no sense at all. If God does exist and is omniscient, he would already know what we suffer. How do you explain how he turns the brutal torture of a child from smallpox into Good. What do I need salvation from anyway. The mechanics of my situation is that I never ever could be "perfect" and if God created me, he created me this way.
@adstanra We don't attempt to explain it; we trust that He has the answer. Whence the need for salvation? Well, if you're a child with smallpox, you need salvation from that, at least. We are all are subject to sickness and death, so we need salvation from these. We are also subject to self-destructive choices (i.e. sin), so we need salvation from this. If we are subject to these things, it is because we are broken. God intends to restore us to wholeness. The Resurrection is a promise of this.
@PhoenixLament87 A child needs to be cured from smallpox?400 million people were not saved by God.God, if he exists, has forsaken us. Humans saved us from smallpox, measles,plague, although it was too late for billions of people who suffered from these big 3.
Malaria tortures 750 million people and kills 1 million EVERY YEAR ( mostly kids). Ascaris lumbricoides infects 1 billion people,mostly the poor and robs them of calories ...Haiti etc. The explanation comes from an impersonal universe.
The bible is a comic book god needs the devil like a hero needs a villian so he can offer salvation to mankind if god killed the devil there wouldn't be any reason for salvation so of course the authors of the bible needed the devil to stay active for the purpose of evil. Christians need the excuse that god is just and loving by not killing the devil but really god lets people die all the time so there is a contradiction right there he must like the devil more than mankind.
The mind is very powerful. All minds are connected to the collective unconsciousness. Thus, everyone is fully capable of knowing everything. So, when we trick ourselves into thinking we are possessed, the mind goes crazy. It is like when you are so convinced you are sick that you actually become ill. The mind taps into the collective unconsciousness and can know both languages and things it should not.
When someone thinks that they are possessed, the brain releases chemicals in the body. Adrenaline also flows through the body, which can explain the super-human strength for a short period of time.
"There's a dimension of reality that goes beyond what the sciences can measure"...states the scientifically illiterate religious zealot. And which dimension might that be pray-tell? Why, it's the "Make-believe-religious-dimension" of course! Any well trained zealot from the 'Fundamentalist Moron University' could tell you that.
The concepts espoused in this video could do great harm to people with illnesses who are living in uneducated backwaters - like wherever this idiot priest is from ;-D.
Fr. Barron, over 2 years ago in the area where I live, there was a story of a young girl in her 20s having to undergo an exorcism because she started communicating often with a ouija board. She called herself, "I am Six." Apparently true story and was documented on an episode of the A&E cable tv show, Paranormal State. Frightening stuff and very real. Thank you for addressing this subject.
[corrected] I suspect that very few in the packed Manhattan theater that viewed "The Rite" with me believe in the supernatural, much less the power of a cleric to banish its malevolent presence. The exorcism genre attracts some people the same way film noir or westerns or sci-fi flicks do: they take unreality and make it entertaining.
I do think the projection of both the young deacon and the aged exorcist cum M.D. in the latest film is very positive for the Catholic Church.
I suspect that very few in the packed Manhattan theater that viewed "The Rite" with me belief in the supernatural, much less the power of a cleric to banish its malevolent presence. The exorcism genre attracts some people the same way film noir or westerns or sci-fi flicks do: they take unreality and make it entertaining.
I do think the projection of both the young deacon and the aged exorcist cum M.D. in the latest film is very positive for the Catholic Church.
I just laughed all through "the exorcist" as I saw it after it was lampooned by French & Saunders as ridiculous Hollywood nonesense. But I understand what you say about being scared. I saw Night of the Demon when I was 6 and it scared me for years! hated 10pm!!! Then I saw it at 14 and its awe had gone. I just sniggered at the trashy effects. Does this say something about our growing up? Or as we understand our faith more & mature fear departs or is overtaken by wonderment & love? Maybe.
@PanDa46fluffpot I think you're onto something here, though I might cast it in different terms. I would say that inordinate or excessive fear of the devil, as indicated by the exorcism genre, is a sign of an immature and shallow spirituality, whereas fear of the Lord, properly considered, is a sign of a mature and deep spirituality.
@BreakingButterflies No need to be sarcastic; if you read my reply you'd notice I said I was a doubter, and still am in many ways. Whether a fictional work or a work based on truth, the story resonated with me because both men gave their lives to save a child who was repulsive, "the least of these", to put it kindly, and in doing so, one fulfilled his priesthood and the other found his lost faith. The headspinning etc was the construct of the story, not the story itself.
Why did the young priest regain his faith? Because he witnessed something supernatural: spinning heads and whatnot.
But nothing like that happens. EVER.
So your point about "from doubt to heroic belief" fails, because the story is fiction. Now, if you want to maintain that Christianity is based on made up stories, then I would tend to agree.
The Exorcisim played on AMC the same night I watched this video. I never watched it before because the spinning heads and pea soup looked so stupid. Boy was I wrong. What a great movie.
The Exorcist is one of my favorite films because of the deep spiritual nature that lies at it's heart. I found the spiritual journey of the younger priest from doubt to heroic belief to be particularly moving being a doubter myself, while Father Damien's steadfast love for the unlovable to be one of the finest positive portrayals of the ideal of Catholic priesthood. Actually, make that a portrayal of the standard by which every Christian would treat others.
What changed your doubts? Did you see a girl levitate or see her head spin 360 degrees? It would seem that seeing things like that would make many doubters believers.
Unfortunately for the folks who promote this silly movie, nothing like that ever happens, except on fiction.
Joe Nickell is an investigator that has been hired in the past by the Catholic church to investigate alleged miracle claims. Crying statues and whatnot. Here is a nice summary article from him about exorcisms and in particular the source case for The Exorcism:
its pure fiction father!!
halflifeproductionz 1 week ago
@halflifeproductionz Not exactly. Take a look at some of the authentically chilling accounts of real exorcisms.
wordonfirevideo 1 week ago
@wordonfirevideo I was about to reply in a similar manner "pure fiction? do your homework!"
Serge165 2 days ago
Watch the movie Possesed,Its the true story that the movie the Exorcist comes from,which is a true story that took place in St Louis in 1949,It was a Scary movie Father.it will get you saying your Rosary on a daily basis,
DrewAnti1960 2 weeks ago
One interesting thing is that Max von Sydow was 44 in 1973, yet he seemed elderly in the movie.
samspinchat 2 weeks ago
It occurred to me that Jesus thought enough of the devil that he included him in Lord's Prayer / Our Father (... but deliver us form the evil one.), but my Christian tradition almost completely ignores him. I'm wondering if anyone can suggest serious, non-sensational, reading material on the devil and demons.
Joxxol 1 month ago
@Joxxol
Although I have read just a few pages of it, I highly suggest Summa Daemoniaca; however, it is in Spanish but I understand that there’ll be an English edition soon. You might find Interview with an Exorcist equally helpful and it’s by the same author, Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea. DollyHot has videos here in case you want to check it out.
832existentialiste 3 weeks ago
"An Exorcist Tells his Story" is an extremely insightful book by Fr. Gabriele Amorth. He highlights the mindset of the devil, which is to prevent us from having faith in our Lord, and combats threats with true faith in our Father in Heaven.
JadeJayk 1 month ago
my dad's english teacher at mcquaid jesuit high school was father bill o'malley, who played father dyer, karras' best friend in the movie.
kubrox91 1 month ago
Father, are you familiar with the writings of the late Fr. Malachi Martin?
SunsetSix 2 months ago
hypothetically speaking. and i don't mean to make light of the subject matter but what would happen to a victim of demonic possession if the person were given a powerful hallucinogenic (like LSD)
failblorg 4 months ago
I like your analysis of the themes of the film but I feel like it has effectively parodied priests as witchdoctors. I think a work like The Power & The Glory gives us a much more authentic account of the heroism of the priesthood. The Exorcist-led genre, by contrast, encourages superstition and deflects popular attention away from the true evils against which the Church strives. Worse, it confuses the issue of what we mean by supernatural, scandalizing believers and nonbelievers alike.
boltorange 4 months ago
@boltorange (cont'd) I think it's a good bit of horror-movie fun (like you said, it can even seem kind of goofy) and its themes of sacrifice, sympathy, and courage do a lot to counterbalance what is crude or even merely lazy about the film. But if this is how people think we actually understand evil, pee soup and dog-growls, then it's no wonder that they presume what we mean by good -- especially in the person of Jesus -- must also be ridiculous.
boltorange 4 months ago
Only 2 things sacred me in the Exorcist- the sudden appearance of the demonic face and that scraping sound in the attic. The opening sequence in Iraq, however, is sublime.
RomneyGack 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do 1000 Hail Marys twice a day
Pope Rats
Does anybody know why Hitler was never ex-communicated? Wasn't he a Catholc all his life? There are pictures of him getting along with cardinals in the book "SMOKESCREENS." (can be googled and read on-line. Or, just look at the pictures)
PETER
I was never a blasphemous pope and I was never even in ROME! They found my grave in Jerusalem a long time ago.
PAUL
Look for BEREANbeacon and EXCATHOLICS on-line or on youtube
Exheretics1 5 months ago
The beauty of the priests in The Exorcist is that they act with courage for the greater purposes of God, but they are also utterly fallible. One couldn't help but love them.
voyagersystem 5 months ago 2
Comment removed
MrYamaha125 7 months ago
Comment removed
MrYamaha125 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Catholics Call Priests father because they are their spiritual father.
Why we call priests our Spiritual "Father" :Paul was a spiritual father. "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15). God Bless :)
MrYamaha125 7 months ago
@MrYamaha125 that is a great verse, the king james version is a bit different and that is the one I mostly go by:
1 Corinthians 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel......in fact i think it more so solidifies the point that there are many teachers but only one father...what is the church's interpretation on matt 23:9?
tario26 7 months ago
@tario26 Thanks for the response ☺. From that quote a person couldn't say that there is only one person by the name of 'father.' ("yet have ye not MANY fathers")You could say that there are very few though. If you read from v14-17 you will notice that Paul refers to others as his sons twice: “I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you” v14. And again in v17,”for this cause have I sent unto you Temotheus, who is my beloved son.” (KJV)
MrYamaha125 6 months ago
If you want a further explanation as to why Catholics Call priests father go to Catholic.com and type in the question “why do we call priests father.” Click on the first link and read on. It will give you a much more thorough answer than I can in a limited blog entry. If you have any other questions about the Catholic Faith search that site, its full of good answers ☺ God Bless.
MrYamaha125 6 months ago 8
@MrYamaha125 i got a question
where does that dispicable tyrant you call pope get the steam to announce with his muslim ,brahman ,wicca ,hinu and many other brothers that ,and i quote
"we are all praying to the same god" small g intended ,as the only way they could all be praying to the same god is if they are all praying to the devil AND THEY ARE
roxfoot 1 month ago
I truly admire your work Father
MrYamaha125 7 months ago
Father Barron, Great Videos... Over the past 6 months, I've been watching different ones that spark my interest, but only recently have I found the true fruit of your work and that would be your active participation in discussions with people who disagree with Catholic Doctrine. Now I revisit the videos and make sure to read your comments defending your position.
pjohnson20 7 months ago
I am a Pentecostal Minister and I have been to 4 exorcisms I also have cast 2 devils out in church services one of which it came out of a woman and went into a man. The supernatural is real, and demonic forces are nothing to play around with. But thankfully we have power over the devil because the Blood is against him.
southernpreacher 8 months ago
7:45 The reality of the supernatural? Common Mr. Barron, this is not biblical at all.When Jesus cast out demons in the bible was there a batlle or struggle that pursued?These movies are meant to put your fear on the devil when you should be fearing God himself.Do your job as a priest and clear up the misconceptions of these movies rather then relishing in their entertainment.Matt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body...but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell
tario26 8 months ago
@tario26 Not sure what you think you're accomplishing by calling me "Mr." but if it makes you happy... Last time I checked, friend, priests aren't Jesus, though they are acting in his name and person. I'm not too surprised, therefore, that they might not be quite as powerful as the Lord himself in battling the dark powers.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago 12
@wordonfirevideo No disrespect intended...I only call one being father as commanded to me in the word of God if you know what I mean matt 23:9...I would just appreciate a bit more boldness from your end considering your a leader in faith...The devil works in many entertainment videos which is clear to me such as harry potter and the like which dumbs down witchcraft and the sort...If you would like to add me as a friend I would enjoy having a lengthened converstation...
tario26 8 months ago
@tario26 Just curious: what do you call your biological father, especially when referring to him in the third person? I'm kind of amazed how many people seem to take the Lord's words in this regard literally. What he meant was that we should acknowledge that we have one heavenly father. In regard to the films, I don't see how you think a movie like The Exorcist is glorifying the devil. It is in fact showing his wickedness and the necessity of fighting him.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Dad for the most part....but its more important what i refer someone when im speaking to him...now unfortunately you have been taught many things from your church that are completely contrary to the word of God and i feel sorry for your position because you have no choice but to defend it even though it doesn't make sense..Would you agree that more people fear the devil then they do God? Why do you think they do? Do you think it has anything to do with what we've been fed??
tario26 8 months ago
@tario26 Just to press it: you never say, when referring to the man who generated you, "my father said," or "my father is over there"? I frankly don't believe you. My point is that you're pressing the words of Jesus in a silly literalistic direction. And friend, you have to drop the condescension. It doesn't get us anywhere. If you want to return to argument, I'd be happy to engage you.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
@wordonfirevide Yes i have "refferred" to him as that in the past so people undertand who i am speaking about, that doesn't mean i wasn't wrong in doing so..When i speak to him face to face i do not talk to him and say "father" can i have this or "father" will you help me with this..We are obliged to "call" one person our father when we speak to them directly.. Re read scripture starting at matt 23:7-8..Why is it only catholics choose to call priests father?
tario26 8 months ago
@tario26 Oh friend, come on! You weren't wrong to call your father "father!" What's wrong is your literalistic reading of Jesus' prohibition. And Catholics aren't the only ones to call priests father; the Greek and Russian Orthodox do as well. The tradition for this is very ancient. Look at the desert fathers--Antony, Poemen, Dorotheus, etc.-- who were routinely referred to as "Abba" or Father. You certainly couldn't accuse those figures of not taking the Scripture seriously!
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Yes, it could be ancient but it doesn't mean its the correct interpretation, my interpretation is that he meant it literally and i think there are many passages where people don't take the word of God literally.Was Jesus being literal when he says if someone sues you at the courts give him your cloak also? Matt 39-40 and if one smites thee on one cheek give him your other? I believe he was...If you would add me as a friend we could have a better conversation...
tario26 8 months ago
@tario26 Perhaps a better example: In the same passage, Jesus says not to call anyone else teacher. Right up until, and probably beyond, college, surely you've used "teacher" to describe a person, in no way confusing them with God. Anyone who has known a teacher or two could not possibly make the mistake of confusing them with God --- even the best of them make mistakes or exercise poor judgment. Even they can be quick to anger. Same goes for priests.
benabaxter 8 months ago
@benabaxter Read the passage again you will see his examples were directed towards "people who were leaders of the faith" and how we shouldn't refer to anyone of them with that term, a perfect example is calling the pope "holy father" .You will never read of anyone calling Peter,Paul, James or John "Father" in the new testament . This was implemented by the catholic church including many other doctrines that are contrary to scripture
tario26 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tario26 I am a Pentecostal Minister and I have been to 4 exorcisms I also have cast 2 devils out in church services one of which it came out of a woman and went into a man. The supernatural is real, and demonic forces are nothing to play around with. But thankfully we have power over the devil because the Blood is against him.
southernpreacher 8 months ago
@tario26 Fair enough, but you're just shifting it back another level. Nobody teaching faith is allowed to be called a teacher?
Even if we accept the premise that the Catholic Church holds doctrines consciously contrary to scripture, then we have even more problems: To what end? By whose authority do you even interpret scripture?
I remain Catholic in part because we have fewer popes than anyone else.
benabaxter 7 months ago
@benabaxter by the authority of Jesus Christ, thats who i ask for direction everyday to help me understand the word. Because there is a man such as the pope that states he has authority to interpret scripture does not make him right on how he interprets it, anyone can make that claim...catholics teach that the pope is infallable yet scripture proves very clearly that "the first pope" peter was infallable teaching doctrines of circumcision in which paul had to correct ...Galatians 2:11-14
tario26 7 months ago
@tario26 If your catholic I would also suggest reading two teachings of the catholic church in the catechism which are line 841 "the church's relation with muslims" which claim that catholics adore the same God that muslims worship (even though muslims deny Jesus Christ as their saviour) and line 460 which states that one of the reasons that Jesus became man is so that we might become God." Then read the following: John 3:16-181 John 2:23 John 14:6 1 John 5:12-13 about those that deny Jesus
tario26 7 months ago
@tario26 Catholics believe in Jesus Christ, that he died for our sins, correct? muslims reject Jesus as saviour and accept him as a prophet only, If we reject Jesus as our saviour we have no hope and we cannot worship the same God that they do, without Jesus accepted in your heart and my heart as saviour we both die in our sins.it is a sad but harsh reality John 8:24 I pray for you to search your church's official teachings and match them to scripture and you will see alot of contradictions...
tario26 7 months ago
Comment removed
MrYamaha125 7 months ago
@wordonfirevideo the Jesus give us the gift of a holly spirit when he rise to heaven.
He commanded his disciples to baptize in his father, himself and spirit's name. The power comes from God itself! We proclaim his name and his power to heal us! A priest act on his name, they are chosen and know how to do so.
yospring 2 weeks ago
@adstanra - Ooops. when I said "I don't think anyone should be married either" I meant to say "I don't think every person should be allowed to marry either. There are many people who are clearly not qualified to be married"
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish do you think the state should determine who can/can't get married or have kids?
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "do you think the state should determine"
what I'm saying is to install more restrictions into marriage since the present system is in need of repair. Some suggested solutions include:
1. Mandatory pre-nuptial agreements
2. Raising the age limit to 25-30
3. Three month Probation period
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish ..... well you seem to really want to give the state a lot of power and control over something that is very personal. What do you mean by probation period? will any prenuptial agreement do, or do you think the state should decide that as well? what if you're 20 years old and very mature and responsible, you think this couple should be denied marriage by the government?
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "state a lot of power and control over something that is very personal" There's a famous quote from Pierre Trudeau who said "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." The reason why it was shot down is cus if a marriage ends in divorce, it typically goes to court (gov't involvement). Or, if a couple abandons their kids, the state takes care of them (gov't involvement). So, sadly, the government is involved *shrug*
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish I think the state does have an interest in promoting stable long-term relationships. I don't think it is their business though to tell people they can't get married. I wouldn't like to see the state deny 2 loving people from getting married because they're only 20 years old ( the example you gave limited it tp 25 yrs , i believe). I would not object to government promotion of stable marriages in any way they can. I agree with you there.
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "not object to government promotion of stable marriages." Correct and that's why I'm making these suggestions. The reason why I advocate for raising the age limit is cus MOST (not all) are not mature enough and many are still in college. Of course, I'm generalizing here. I would prefer a couple to be at least in the workforce and a bit more mature. remember, unstable marriages are costly to society in divorce, unwanted kids, etc.
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@adstanra -"What do you mean by probation period?" Well, in order to be married in the Catholic Church, a couple must partake in some counselling classes BEFORE marriage if I'm not mistaken. The class teaches a couple the ups and downs of marriage, etc. but I forgot the name of the class. Or, maybe they just work with a priest...but I'm not sure. This is sort of a 'quasi-probation' period in that the couple is required to partake in. This is what I mean by probation period
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish do you want to legislate an engagement period where a couple must attend marriage classes? It's an interesting idea if it really is effective. It would cost an enormous amount of money to regulate. I don't think it would be very effective either...IMO. What I think the state should not be doing, is denying committed homosexual couples from declaring their love for one another. State recognition of this is important.
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - Attending marriage classes is just a suggestion. I'm open to more ideas. All I'm trying to say is there are too many broken marriages in society especially in spousal/child abuse. Marriage classes may or may not help. I once knew a lady with kids who married this drunk. Guess what? They predictably got divorced 9 months later and the divorce went to court. what a waste of the court's time had there been a mandatory pre-nuptial agreement as I suggested earlier.
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@adstanra - "do youthink the state should determine who can/can't get married"
I'd also like to point out that the state does so already in that they outlaw incest and polygamy
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@adstanra - BTW, there's a reason why I ask 'What about a male who is genetically a female?' I'm trying to get to another point but I need to hear your answer first...
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish oh sorry. as far as I know, this can happen through a rare translocation mutation where the sex determining regions (normally located on the Y ) are translocated during meiosis to the X chromosome. These regions code for proteins that stimulate, in the primordial germ cells, the development of a testis, which then produces androgens, which, in the absence of AIS..lol, produce a phenotypic male.People with this translocation are XX, but do contain the sex determining genes cont
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra i suspect they are sexually attracted to females ( if all goes well during embryological development and whatever other environmental factors are involved with sexual orientation). i don't think Homosexuality is completely hormonal, in that there are genetic and environmental factors at play as well. Orientation might not be completed until many years after birth and may be subject to environmental effects. the human brain continues to develop until about age 20, i believe.
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra I also think that homosexuality is different than gender identification problems.Gay people are comfortable being the sex they are and do not wish to change. There are also true hermaphrodites. Sexual orientation, gender identification...are all complex and we are just starting to understand the factors involved. Got to love those humans, though....we have even figured out the exact location of some of the mutations involved with AIS and Sex determining genes. It is not a free-choice!
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - the reason why I ask is because homosexuality is more common in males than females if I'm not mistaken. (I read that somewhere). With all things being equal, why is that the case?
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish I am not sure..even if it is true. We don't know the cause of Homosexuality. I think we can confidently say that the cause is multi- factorial and involves genetics, hormones and environmental factors. We have come a long way from the OT
There are a great number of bisexual people. It appears that brain development of orientation is complex and continues well into the teens. I see no reason to discriminate against them . They can form loving relationships and can be good parents.
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "discriminate against them" Well it's like I said before in that we do not condemn them because they are born that way. It's like you said earlier in that nature sometimes messes up *shrug*. But just because one is born that way doesn't mean they can cross dress in public (or whatever). Many of the things we talk about like gay families defy traditional family units or even Confucius ideals.
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish well, I think that the vast majority of Gay people do not cross-dress. Might do it rarely is part of a parade once a year, but they have no compulsion to cross-dress and are comfortable with the sex that they are. They don't want gender transformation. There are some people, often heterosexual, who cross-dress because of a sexual compulsion and there are some homosexual people who also have gender identity problems would feel more comfortable in the opposite gender clothing cont
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra not sure what you are advocating zz. Do you think that the state should be dictating what people can and cannot wear? Should we put these people in jail? Fine them? Personally, I find Burkas more upsetting.
I'm wondering what reasons you might have for denying loving gay people to marry?
I suppose there have been all sorts of things that we have in the past thought traditional. Maybe we are just now a little bit more enlightened. Tradition may be a good thing, or a bad thing.
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "denying gay people to marry?" I never said gays cannot get together. I believe they can have 100% equal right with civil unions. For me, I just find it morally reprehensible that gay families bring in fatherless (or motherless) kids into the world. Yes, not all gay couples will have kids and some will choose to adopt. I'm just refering to one particular piece to it...
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish well, it may be true, I don't know, that the best, ideal situation is for children to be raised in a loving, nurturing environment by heterosexual parents. Don't know if that's true, and maybe we will never know, because that ideal situation doesn't always exist. I feel pretty confident though, that those homosexuals who do adopt or have children through reproductive technologies are usually couples very committed to raising their kids in loving, nurturing environments cont
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "raised in a loving, nuturing environment by heterosexual parents" a long time ago, I use to work at a foster kids agency. Trust me, kids do suffer not knowing who their parents are. Maybe not all but SOME do.
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish well, there is a lot of suffering in the world...maybe the biological parents don't want the offspring to know them. what does this have to do with homosexuality anyway?
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra -"what does this have to do with homosexuality anyway?" As stated, it's immoral to bring in a fatherless (or motherless) child into the world using artificial procreation for a gay family. Some kids do suffer not knowing who their mom/dad is like in the example I gave with Miss Pratten who is suing the gov't.
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish well, I might sympathize with this lady who feels she is suffering because she doesn't know who her biological mom or dad is, but I hardly think it is immoral. There are a huge number of other people who live perfectly good lives and are comfortable not knowing who their biological parents are. Would you object to them having kids if the child knew who the other biological parent is? A lesbian might just get a friend to donate sperm.
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "I hardly think it is immoral" Well, this is where you and I part because I've seen how parentless kids in a foster kids agency (where I worked a long time ago) needlessly suffer. Yes, I agree not all will care about their biological parents but maybe some will. What I would like to see is a study done on artificially conceived kids to see if they suffer or not. From my experience, I think they do imo
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish I don't think that kids in foster care is the same as homosexuals who are loving stable parents. With technology, at least the child will know who one of the biological parents is. what if the homosexual parent got a sperm or an egg donor who is a friend, who has no objection if the child wants to know who he/she is..... would you agree to that? it has been my limited personal experience that children raised by stable homosexual couples do very well. I'm for the study though.
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "I'm for the study though" good, we agree...but I'm pretty sure parentless kids do suffer. i've seen it myself from my personal experience. Even when I was a kid, one of my classmates' dad died when he was 2 years old. Every father's day, he felt left out and it bothered him
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish I would suggest that you and I agree that not every couple or person should be allowed to adopt or should have children. But what children really need in order to thrive is love, food, water, shelter, medical care and opportunity. If this is provided by homosexual people, I'm confident they will do well.I'm not at all confident that homosexuals cannot be just as good parents as heterosexuals and, as said before, most gay couples who adopt are very committed parents...
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "I would suggest that you and I agree that not every couple or person should be allowed to adopt or should have children" I agree and in fact, I would take it further in that I don't think anyone should be married either. there's abudant evidence that there are too many broken marriages in society especially with spousal/child abuse. That's why I don't perceive marriage as a civil right. The marriage system is broken and needs restrictions installed
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@adstanra
1. "vast majority of Gay people do not cross-dress" True...I just raised an example.
2. True some who cross dress are hetero & some have gender id problems. But there's also others who find it a fetish
3. "state should be dictating what people can and cannot wear" France has outlawed Burkas in public so it's already happenin. I understand yer point but c'mon don't cross dress in public where kids can see it. I ask adults to be REASONABLE & don't do that in public.
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish what do you think is going to happen to kids who see a person who is cross-dressing. If they're very young, a parent can simply say "oh isn't that funny"...or make it a little joke. For older kids, perhaps they can explain that there are people who feel they should have been a different sex. As we learn more about these syndromes perhaps we can offer better explanations. Walking away in disgust is not what we need in our society IMO.
I'm not sure about the Burka thing-different
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "kids who see a person who is cross-dressing" Oh, c'mon....be reasonable. Don't expose kids to adult-related things...so this is not a question of disgust but common sense.
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish do you want to fine them...put them in jail...who decides appropriate gender clothing?
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "do you want to fine them" We have laws already that prevent people from running around naked in public. Something similar to that. I know what you are saying in that the state shouldn't be dictating what we should and should not wear but that's already being done in France. Or, for example, a sikh cannot carry a religious kirpan onto a plane or in a court of law. Some there are some laws that already exist to a certain extent
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish I'm not sure I agree with France. I think their methods are in response to an influx of Muslim people into their country. France is asserting its secular nature. I am all for secular countries and do not wish religion to be promoted by the government, but I don't think that they should be prohibiting religious expression either. There might be a fine line. In Canada, we allow Sikhs who are part of the police force to wear turbans. Don't allow anyone to carry knives on airplanes!
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "There might be a fine line." There is a fine line. I agree. My point is that there are some LAWS ALREADY that are dictating what we can and cannot wear. Hence, my claims about cross dressing in public is not as farfetched as it may seem
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish because there are some laws does not give carte blanche to just any law. There are laws against public nudity for obvious reasons. I don't think the state should be supplying dress police, like in Saudi Arabia, arresting people for what they wear.
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - "comfortable with the sex that they are." As you said, this type of thing is complex. I remember I saw this tv show once where they interviewed this guy who had a sex change to become a woman. After a few years, he was not 'satisfied' and he switched back. What does this show kids? What kind of normal person thinks they can freely choose to switch genders?
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@zztestenglish people with gender identification problems are fairly rare. I would suggest that most people who truly have this problem would say that a sex change operation was the best thing they ever did. Imagine feeling that you were wrong sex, perhaps that you were really a girl in a boy's body.imagine the implications of such an operation. I don't think these people take a sex change lightly, and I would hope that any surgeon would do this operation only on selected desperate cases
adstanra 10 months ago
@adstanra - I understand people don't have sex changes for fun (not to mention it costs them money). I also understand they feel they are of the wrong gender and I can sympathize. In fact, I'd suggest they go seek some counselling. But you CANNOT freely switch genders...just like a man who had a sex change CANNOT have a baby. This is reality. People suffer disabilities in this world (and yes, it sucks) but there are certain realities each of us must live with.
zztestenglish 10 months ago
@adstanra - Androgens are also responsible for a male's voice deepening I believe (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, then does this not explain why a homosexual male sometimes has that high squeaky voice (if you know what I mean)? This is just an observation
all028 10 months ago
This is such an unfortunate video. The continued endorsement of demon possession by the Church is doing great harm. Just today another child was killed in an exorcism. See the story:
'Massachusetts Mom Accused of Killing Daughter in Exorcism"
BeingItself 11 months ago
@BeingItself - was the Exorcism sanctioned by the RCC? From what I read, there is no mention of it and the lady acted on her own. Exorcisms are very RARE and have STRICT guidelines from my understanding
zztestenglish 11 months ago
@zztestenglish
No, that particular exorcism had nothing to do with the RCC. That was not my point. The point is that Fr Barron and the RCC endorse and promote the superstitious primitive belief in demons. If the RCC is to be a force for good in the world, it ought to combat idiotic non-sense, not promote it.
BeingItself 11 months ago
why did you deleted my comment father? I gotta say I'm disappointed... if I'm eager to disagree is only because, despite our differences, I do respect your rhetorical skills and more so the fact that you've chosen an open forum such as this to voice your views.
00zzzyy 11 months ago
@00zzzyy Friend, I have no memory of deleting your comment. There might have been a glitch.
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago
A very interesting and romantic notion. I like that. I don't know that I would completely agree... but I like it anyways.
MobiusCoin 1 year ago
@zztestenglish "Why God allows it is a mystery"
If its a mystery and its beyond your comprehension, how can you say anything about it? You cant claim that you have a personal relationship with God, then say it's beyond your comprehension. How are you justified in making all these claims about God and the Holy Spirit, but then say we cant possibly understand it? Your basically saying you have no clue whats going on, but your not willing to admit why you feel justified in asserting there is a God.
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87 Then why did you even say the part about a father preventing his son from the dangers of car accidents?
You have to be careful when you start labeling things good and evil. If there is a God I would ask him why is there seemingly unnecessary extensive suffering that seems to serve no purpose(hurricanes, tsunamis etc)? Why do Christians always try to find meaning in suffering in order to glorify God?
"It is our firm hope."
Is that a good reason to believe in something?
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@AcidWacker Everyone tries to find meaning in suffering. Everyone hopes in something. As Christians, we believe that we have the best, most satisfying answer to the question of evil in the person of Jesus Christ, who suffers with us, in us and for us.
PhoenixLament87 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87 Christians look for a supernatural meaning of suffering because they think that their God is behind it. But rational people look for the natural cause of that suffering and look to find a cure for that suffering. Scientists and doctors are the ones who help people who are suffering, by finding cures to diseases. They aren't worried about the meaning of some eternal life, they want to make the only life these people have better while they are still alive on earth.
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@AcidWacker Hold the phone. First, Xians have consistently maintained that God is NOT the cause of evil. Second, your implicit distinction between Xians and "rational people" cannot stand because the natural sciences first flourished under the auspices of the Church. Third, there are plenty of priests, religious and lay people involved in the relief in suffering all over the world. E.g. the Church is the largest provider of AIDS relief in the world.
PhoenixLament87 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87 Hold the phone. First, why would an all-loving and all-powerful God allow the Devil to have free range over the earth? To test us? That seems unfair. Second, the reason why natural sciences first flourished under the Church is because the Church is who had all the power. Third, I'm not doubting that there are plenty of priests and religious people, just like there are many atheists involved in relief. Funny how you mention the AIDS, b/c the pope just changed his view on condoms.
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@AcidWacker The devil does not have free range. He is a dog on a leash. As for the pope and condoms, he did not change his position (I've read the book). He said that it would be better for prostitutes to wear them and prevent the spread of AIDS than to not wear them. To make an analogy, it would be better for bank robbers to use guns without bullets than to use guns with bullets. It is not the Church's business to condone/distribute condoms any more than to condone/distribute bullet-less guns.
PhoenixLament87 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87 What kind of God would put the devil on a "leash"? I mean, what kind of game is he playing? Why is this all powerful God allowing us to be pitted against this being(the devil) who has lots of power, and how could He possibly hold people responsible for failing to do battle with a being that can trick and deceive us from what is real and what is not real?
If I was an all-knowing and all-loving God, I'm pretty sure I could come up with a better system than that.
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@AcidWacker Don't walk within the circle of the leash, and the devil can't harm you. As for those under the direct influence of the devil (i.e. the possessed), God does not hold them accountable for this. Only those who freely and knowingly choose to disobey God are held accountable for their choice. The rest are simply victims, but victims who will be rescued.
PhoenixLament87 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87 I guess you must be an expert on the way that God works.
Please just tell me what you believe and why. And what your reasons are for believing this.
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@AcidWacker The bottom line is this: I believe that God exists, and that His essence is Love. I believe that He has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ, who is fully human and fully divine. I believe that this God-man suffered and died and after three days rose again, as a proof of His divinity and a promise of eternal life for those who believe. I believe that we have very good evidence to support this claim. Everything else is a function of this basic belief.
PhoenixLament87 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87 Alright well I guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one and just enjoy our lives.
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87 Alright sorry but I just have to ask you one last thing...
What evidence do we have to support these claims about Jesus' divinity?
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@AcidWacker Well, the biggest one is the Resurrection, based on the witness of the Gospels. Now, we cannot write off the credibility of the Gospels merely because they are religious texts. They were written by or with the collaboration of eyewitnesses to the events. There is also corroboration across the four canonical Gospels. Further, many of these same eye-witnesses (hundreds in all), chose to die rather than deny what they has seen (i.e. dead Jesus followed by living Jesus).
PhoenixLament87 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhoenixLament87 I understand how the basis of the Gospels were formed. My question is what makes you accept them as truth? The question is whether or not the claims of Christians were true. A testimony, no matter how strongly it's believed, is not evidence of veracity. The truth of a matter is not determined by how many ppl believe it or the strength of their belief. Including if they are willing to die for their belief. If it was, then people dying for other religions must make the belief tru
AcidWacker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhoenixLament87 The question is whether or not the claims of Christians were true. A testimony, no matter how strongly it's believed, is not evidence of veracity. The truth of a matter is not determined by how many people believe it or the strength of their belief. Including if they are willing to die for their belief. If it was, then people dying as martyrs in the name of other religions must make their belief true
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87
<< "answer to the question of evil in the person of Jesus Christ, who suffers with us, in us and for us."<<<
I am not sure this is an answer for suffering. It might make you feel comfortable knowing that "God" knows what it is like to suffer and believing in eternal life, but this is not an explanation for suffering. Mindless laws of physics cause suffering. They have produced tsunamis,epidemics and animals struggling to survive in a harsh world.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra - the RCC often talks about the MYSTERY of suffering. Why God allows it is a mystery but perhaps it is under the umbrella of freewill. For me, it comes into perspective in the book of Ecclesiastes (my favorite book in the Bible). If you haven't read it, then I suggest you do (with a pessimistic frame of mind).
zztestenglish 1 year ago
@zztestenglish Yes, I agree that Ecclesiastes is an interesting read. For me, it argues that bad stuff happens and there is no apparent reason for it, so we should live our lives the best we can. Laugh, develop relationships, enjoy it while it lasts. Sounds great to me.
Jesus had a different view IMO. He thought the world was governed by Satan and his dominion. He thought God was going to imminently change that. The world though, is governed by natural forces.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra - so I'm puzzled because I don't know your background. Are you catholic or not? If not, then you've read the Bible for leisure? Sorry, I'm just trying to get to know you better so I understand who I'm talkin to.
I think Ecclesiastes works for me because I'm a pessimist by nature
zztestenglish 1 year ago
@zztestenglish I considered myself an evangelical protestant for 30 yrs, but now call myself an atheist. I am very interested in philosophy, religion, pathology, science...all the great questions...lol. By hanging around FB sites I have enjoyed lots of great discussions.I have alot more respect for the catholic faith than any protestant ones, although a few yrs ago I didn't really consider catholics true Christians...lol..
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra "but now call myself an atheist" What made you switch if you don't mind me askin? I'm the opposite...I ignored religion for many years and did not understand it. After doing alot of reading/research, they won my respect....
zztestenglish 1 year ago
@zztestenglish I came to believe that it wasn't true. The problem of suffering,hell, The fall, the bible. I could find metaphorical explanations but trying to maintain it was too difficult. The universe is governed by impersonal laws of physics and any meaning to existence is from us.
Last wk an 18 Y/O was killed when his car hit a train. He was texting at the time. 4 hrs we worked to make him an organ donor,but we couldn't. The screams from the family gave me a chill..True story-physics!
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra - "universe is governed by impersonal laws of physics" Agreed. And that's why when I discovered it was a catholic priest named Georges Lemaître (who discovered the big bang theory) I started to realize that Catholicism views the bible differently from what I thought. It's a misapplication to use the bible as scientific truth. It's truth is seen in its wisdom. Science and religion are two different epistemological tools that can co-exist
zztestenglish 1 year ago
@zztestenglish Lemaitre was a catholic , but this is besides the point. Newton was a protestant with other wacky beliefs.
The bible contains far too many abhorrent passages that cannot be imagined into some sort of wisdom..IMO.I have found that most catholics are not even aware of the bible and their knowledge of it is very poor. The great thing about it though, is that it lends itself to the interpretive mind.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra - "besides the point" No, I disagree.
"Catholics are not even aware of the Bible and their knowledge of it is very poor" True. There is alot of ignorance.
"abhorrent passages" Christianity is based on Christ's teachings. The OT is mostly there for historic reasons & basic wisdom. Mosaic law doesn't apply anymore. That's why you don't see catholics sacrificing cows to atone for sins. It's like a 'reformed Judaism'
zztestenglish 1 year ago
@zztestenglish you disagree? You think Lamaitre being Catholic had something to do with it? Some of the greatest wisdom came from pagan Greeks and Romans. these passages like Num 31 are descriptions of the commands and activities of the person you call God.
Jesus's morality was not much better IMO. His dogma assumed that the world was governed by evil forces and that God was imminently going to reverse that situation. He spoke about hell almost as often as he spoke about the kingdom.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra the Jews, at least, were concerned about the building of a just society on earth. Many of the prophets were concerned that the marginal were being excluded. There was extremely little said about the after-life.
they often wondered why they were suffering...sometimes they thought they were being punished, or tested etc. It was the apocalyptic Christians who dreamed of a kingdom and retribution in hell.BTW, the Mosaic law was promised to be eternal.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra -"being Catholic had something to do with it?" No, misunderstanding. What it showed me was that they didn't take the Bible literally and viewed science and religion as complementary rather than in competition.
"greatest wisdom came from pagan Greeks" Well I think some of the greatest wisdom came from Confucius (an ideology not a religion). Some of his concepts are similar to Catholicism
zztestenglish 1 year ago
@zztestenglish Most protestants also think science and religion are complementary as well. I do understand that catholics have a great philosophical history and they have an advantage in that they do not take the bible as literally.true....
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra - Frankly, I'm not too sure about protestants. I've heard them condemn evolution when the Vatican never did. The most notable protestant to condemn evolution was George Mcready price.
As stated, science and religion are two different epistemological tools.
zztestenglish 1 year ago
@zztestenglish Well, i do not want to defend protestants..lol. I am not sure what sort of epistemological tool religion is. Consider all the religions in the world,telling people different things, including that evolution is not true.Even the catholic faith ( which I agree is the best wrt science) tells people that they are fallen and need to be saved, that they should not use contraception and that there are demons etc.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra - 'epistemological tool religion is' It shows truth in wisdom such as don't steal, don't murder, etc. Yes, all religions differ but they also have some commonality. I cannot speak on behalf of Islam, Buddhism, etc. but catholics recognize freedom of religion and sometimes come together with other faiths. Even christian/protestant ones. It's called Ecunemical.
zztestenglish 1 year ago
@adstanra - Oh yeah...one more thing I forgot to mention. Goto wikipedia and lookup "Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope" The RCC has had a partnership with the University of Phoenix since 1993. So, it is quite clear they do not reject science but see it as complementary to their faith
zztestenglish 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87
But if God is omniscient and omnipotent, the He already knew that the person was going to be possessed anyways, so it seems as if He is just playing games or He is a complete dick. Would you do that to someone if you were God?
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@AcidWacker I think you deal with a very important and complicated philosophical question quite carelessly here. Perhaps THE philosophical question: If God were omniscient, He would know about it; if He were omnipotent, He could do something about it; and if He were all-loving, He would do something about it. I think the first two premises hold up quite well; it is the third that I would challenge. Would a good father prevent his son from the dangers of auto accidents by never letting him drive?
PhoenixLament87 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87 What kind of morals do you have? How can you possibly compare letting your son become possessed by a demon to the dangers of him driving a car? If you were God would you ever test your son that way? And if you were God would you set up a place like Hell for your kids and send them there for a finite crime including not loving you? (and don't give me the "atheists send themselves to hell"). If God would really test someone by letting them become posessed then I can't worship him
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@AcidWacker Demonic possession is not a test of the victim, any more than hurricanes or genocides are tests. God does not cause these things, but He does allow these things. It is our firm hope, based on the witness of the Gospel and our own experience, that God will and does draw a greater good out of these great evils. This is the message of Jesus' death (the greatest evil, the death of God) and resurrection (the defeat of death by death).
PhoenixLament87 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87 You do have a lot of faith if you think a greater good comes out of "these great evils"...like smallpox for eg, that makes demons look like nothing. This virus killed 100s of millions of people, and tortured many times more. There is very little good that comes out of the situation in Haiti.
the greatest evil is "the death of God"? Greater than smallpox torturing millions of kids? What did God suffer that millions of others have suffered?
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra The point is that God enters into the fullness of human experience in the person of Jesus Christ; He knows, experientially, what it is to suffer and to die. In His omnipotence and love, He turns these very things toward our salvation (even though we don't fully understand the "mechanics" of it), and will eventually put evil and death to a definitive end.
PhoenixLament87 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87 Well, i would argue that the mechanics of it makes no sense at all. If God does exist and is omniscient, he would already know what we suffer. How do you explain how he turns the brutal torture of a child from smallpox into Good. What do I need salvation from anyway. The mechanics of my situation is that I never ever could be "perfect" and if God created me, he created me this way.
adstanra 1 year ago
@adstanra We don't attempt to explain it; we trust that He has the answer. Whence the need for salvation? Well, if you're a child with smallpox, you need salvation from that, at least. We are all are subject to sickness and death, so we need salvation from these. We are also subject to self-destructive choices (i.e. sin), so we need salvation from this. If we are subject to these things, it is because we are broken. God intends to restore us to wholeness. The Resurrection is a promise of this.
PhoenixLament87 1 year ago
@PhoenixLament87 A child needs to be cured from smallpox?400 million people were not saved by God.God, if he exists, has forsaken us. Humans saved us from smallpox, measles,plague, although it was too late for billions of people who suffered from these big 3.
Malaria tortures 750 million people and kills 1 million EVERY YEAR ( mostly kids). Ascaris lumbricoides infects 1 billion people,mostly the poor and robs them of calories ...Haiti etc. The explanation comes from an impersonal universe.
adstanra 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PhoenixLament87
The bible is a comic book god needs the devil like a hero needs a villian so he can offer salvation to mankind if god killed the devil there wouldn't be any reason for salvation so of course the authors of the bible needed the devil to stay active for the purpose of evil. Christians need the excuse that god is just and loving by not killing the devil but really god lets people die all the time so there is a contradiction right there he must like the devil more than mankind.
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@wordonfirevideo
The mind is very powerful. All minds are connected to the collective unconsciousness. Thus, everyone is fully capable of knowing everything. So, when we trick ourselves into thinking we are possessed, the mind goes crazy. It is like when you are so convinced you are sick that you actually become ill. The mind taps into the collective unconsciousness and can know both languages and things it should not.
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@phoenixLament87
When someone thinks that they are possessed, the brain releases chemicals in the body. Adrenaline also flows through the body, which can explain the super-human strength for a short period of time.
AcidWacker 1 year ago
@AcidWacker Sure. But how does adrenaline explain hidden knowledge and the use of foreign languages the person has no business knowing?
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago
"The reality of the supernatural" That made me lol.
Seriously, do you actually believe in demon possession?
wimsweden 1 year ago
Maybe I'm a boring person, but my interest in theatrical exorcism vanished with about 11 years of age :ß
sooperfukker 1 year ago
Very insightful, Father. Thank you.
JediPug1 1 year ago
Very good Father, the overly rational side of the West ( to me ) always troubled me, I really appreciate your exegis concerning this...
clarkbailey1973 1 year ago
"There's a dimension of reality that goes beyond what the sciences can measure"...states the scientifically illiterate religious zealot. And which dimension might that be pray-tell? Why, it's the "Make-believe-religious-dimension" of course! Any well trained zealot from the 'Fundamentalist Moron University' could tell you that.
The concepts espoused in this video could do great harm to people with illnesses who are living in uneducated backwaters - like wherever this idiot priest is from ;-D.
wasdom01 1 year ago
Fr. Barron, over 2 years ago in the area where I live, there was a story of a young girl in her 20s having to undergo an exorcism because she started communicating often with a ouija board. She called herself, "I am Six." Apparently true story and was documented on an episode of the A&E cable tv show, Paranormal State. Frightening stuff and very real. Thank you for addressing this subject.
angelofpeace46 1 year ago
The exorcism film has definitely found its own genre in hollywood. Thank you for addressing this subject, Fr. Barron.
angelofpeace46 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
[corrected] I suspect that very few in the packed Manhattan theater that viewed "The Rite" with me believe in the supernatural, much less the power of a cleric to banish its malevolent presence. The exorcism genre attracts some people the same way film noir or westerns or sci-fi flicks do: they take unreality and make it entertaining.
I do think the projection of both the young deacon and the aged exorcist cum M.D. in the latest film is very positive for the Catholic Church.
lawprof3 1 year ago
I suspect that very few in the packed Manhattan theater that viewed "The Rite" with me belief in the supernatural, much less the power of a cleric to banish its malevolent presence. The exorcism genre attracts some people the same way film noir or westerns or sci-fi flicks do: they take unreality and make it entertaining.
I do think the projection of both the young deacon and the aged exorcist cum M.D. in the latest film is very positive for the Catholic Church.
lawprof3 1 year ago
I just laughed all through "the exorcist" as I saw it after it was lampooned by French & Saunders as ridiculous Hollywood nonesense. But I understand what you say about being scared. I saw Night of the Demon when I was 6 and it scared me for years! hated 10pm!!! Then I saw it at 14 and its awe had gone. I just sniggered at the trashy effects. Does this say something about our growing up? Or as we understand our faith more & mature fear departs or is overtaken by wonderment & love? Maybe.
PanDa46fluffpot 1 year ago
@PanDa46fluffpot I think you're onto something here, though I might cast it in different terms. I would say that inordinate or excessive fear of the devil, as indicated by the exorcism genre, is a sign of an immature and shallow spirituality, whereas fear of the Lord, properly considered, is a sign of a mature and deep spirituality.
PhoenixLament87 1 year ago
The exorcist is the scariest movie ever made, also at the end of the exorcist movie, that was Father O'malley.
TheBradTobin 1 year ago
@BreakingButterflies No need to be sarcastic; if you read my reply you'd notice I said I was a doubter, and still am in many ways. Whether a fictional work or a work based on truth, the story resonated with me because both men gave their lives to save a child who was repulsive, "the least of these", to put it kindly, and in doing so, one fulfilled his priesthood and the other found his lost faith. The headspinning etc was the construct of the story, not the story itself.
merlinstwin 1 year ago
@merlinstwin
There was nothing sarcastic about my comment.
Why did the young priest regain his faith? Because he witnessed something supernatural: spinning heads and whatnot.
But nothing like that happens. EVER.
So your point about "from doubt to heroic belief" fails, because the story is fiction. Now, if you want to maintain that Christianity is based on made up stories, then I would tend to agree.
BreakingButterfIies 1 year ago
The Exorcisim played on AMC the same night I watched this video. I never watched it before because the spinning heads and pea soup looked so stupid. Boy was I wrong. What a great movie.
Thanks Father Barron.
JDZwiers19 1 year ago
The Exorcist is one of my favorite films because of the deep spiritual nature that lies at it's heart. I found the spiritual journey of the younger priest from doubt to heroic belief to be particularly moving being a doubter myself, while Father Damien's steadfast love for the unlovable to be one of the finest positive portrayals of the ideal of Catholic priesthood. Actually, make that a portrayal of the standard by which every Christian would treat others.
merlinstwin 1 year ago
@merlinstwin
What changed your doubts? Did you see a girl levitate or see her head spin 360 degrees? It would seem that seeing things like that would make many doubters believers.
Unfortunately for the folks who promote this silly movie, nothing like that ever happens, except on fiction.
BreakingButterfIies 1 year ago
Joe Nickell is an investigator that has been hired in the past by the Catholic church to investigate alleged miracle claims. Crying statues and whatnot. Here is a nice summary article from him about exorcisms and in particular the source case for The Exorcism:
bit (dot) ly (slash) frsoIS
BeingItself 1 year ago