These screen-names are sockpuppets of the same uneducated troll talking w/ himself as if he were different people. He refers to himself as a "PhD Scientist," or any variation thereof, delivering the same empty filler & unsubstantiated "scientism" on Barron's videos, who name-drops intelligentsia, while attacking your credentials in place of reasoned engagement:
God wanted people to take him seriously, that's why in the OT there is violence. It's like God is saying: I can give you terrible punishment, I have proven it (OT), but I love you and I want to save you (NT). We should stop thinking we're equal to God. We are only flowers in a field, blown away by the wind. What gives us the audacity to comment about what He does? It is like saying to a man with a gun robbing you: I don't like what you are doing. It's wrong. God is good, because you still live.
But Father who is the arbiter of who is right? This is simply a series or arbitary and subjective judgements. Marcian does it for me. The descriptions in the old testament dont seem allegorical to anyone reading them openly. Aren't you simply trying to soften and revise it to make it more politically acceptable? I have thundered" at my child sadly on occasions but draw short of dashing his brains against a tree! Father, we have a saying in the UK - pull the other one!! (You have to be joking.)
@Mrmentalmadness123 The arbiter is the long interpretive conversation that we call the Tradition, a conversation guided, we believe, by the Holy Spirit. It's not so dissimilar to the long tradition of Hamlet scholarship that yields up some key findings in regard to Hamlet interpretation. And friend, if you think everything in the Old Testament is straight-forward reportage and descriptive history, you just haven't read it closely.
@wordonfirevideo Which bits of the old testament suggest they are not literarly true? This is my problem Father - you really can impute anything you want to into the Bible because of its chaotic and conflicting authorship and contradictory content. Wouldn't a God have a better way of informing his children about his existence - something which transcends the crusty old written word obviously thrown together by a committee of men? Why not an e-mail? If God is eternal wouldn't he use all media?
"The Bible is a library," This is all very subjective! To the point that it is simply human generated literature? We need priests to help us understand the Bible. That is why people can't take religion seriously anymore. Technology has superceded the miracles and the power of God. We have no need of a God to be moral anymore. He is irrelevant and absent.
@Mrmentalmadness123 So it's "subjective" to observe that the Bible is a collection of texts from different periods and different genres? And of course you need experts to help you understand this library of texts. We need specialists in Shakespeare and Chaucer, don't we? Why not the Bible? Why in the world would this lead people not to take religion seriously?! As for God's absence, answer the argument from contingency.
IF the book is just a collection of books that are merely legends and poems then why cant people say " Jesus resurrcution and his mircales are just a legend -- like hecurus and Zesus
@wordonfirevideo The problem is that it's not just atheist who take the bible literially but many chirstains and catholics as well.
And the funny thing is that catholic belive that the Eucharist is literially the blood and body of chirst.... why have catholics decided that is literial -- were as the book of genius is not ( ie they dont belive God literially created the world in 7 days)
@badpanda84 One observation that never ceases to humor me is that supernaturalists are easily able to see the error or absurdity of the assertions / beliefs of OTHER supernaturalists but are blind to their own. For example, Catholics will easily argue that "The Book of Mormon" is the nonsensical work of a charlatan. Protestants will consider the flying horse of Mohammed to be absurd. But when considering their own supernaturalist "miracles," they find no objection. Quite amazing.
@wordonfirevideo By subjective, I mean open to one person's interpretation at any point in time. When we read Shakespeare we have a specific author in mind - the same for Chaucer - men of their specific millieu - men of their time. We dont know who wrote the Bible and in what context. It also presents conflicting moral lessons suggesting a confused and chaotic authorship, It has no real voice Father. It's so open as to be anything you want it to be. That is the difference!
In order to present a cogent criticism of you position I have to attend a Seminary or become a theologian. Simple evidence would win me over - and millions like me.
There is a great difference between modern readers of the Bible who are able to apply critical analysis to the texts, based on the understanding of the natural order of things which centuries of discovery have gifted us with, and the gnostic beliefs of Marcion, Cerdon, Valentinus etc.
The Gnostics were as flawed as everyone else when it came to understanding how false all creation stories where. The succession of bishops lends no further credibility if the original understanding was wrong.
You seem to be suggesting tha the BIble is not at fault we are simply not reading it correctly. If it is not the word of God it should be treated like any other work of literature? Is this not the case? Implicit in what you are saying is that the Bible was written by men. Why the special case for this cumulative work as opposed to others. Also, who decides which bits of it we take as literal truth and which bits we interpret? Can you not see the tension here Father - it is all very subjective?
@Mrmentalmadness123 Well of course it was written by men! Like so many other critics of Christianity, you're operating out of a crudely fundamentalist sense of Scripture. The Catholic formula is that the Bible is the Word of God in the words of men. Hence, of course it must be interpreted. That's why we need the discipline of the church in order to read it right.
@wordonfirevideo So it is the reader's interpretation of the Bible that is at fault. How fortuitous? Father, can you not appreciate how condescending this is to ordinary people like myself. Not only must we accept God at face value but we are ill-equipped to think for ourselves and interpret what is clearly a fragmented and discontinuous set of books without the help of Catholicism. How wrong you are Father.
@Mrmentalmadness123 Would you honestly expect any individual simply to pick up Hamlet, or The Wasteland, or Moby Dick and just read them effortlessly? Why does it strike you as odd that an interpretive tradition would be required in order to read the Bible correctly?
@wordonfirevideo You make my point very well. the Bible is interpretive and is therefore whatever you want it to be - indeed different religions have different versions of it. Hamlet, The Wasteland and Moby Dick were vaguely historical but we also know a lifttle about the authors. Neither were they ever posited as truth but all are clearly unashamedly fictional. I have read the Bible and clearly it was written and mauled by many contributors. You are comparing apples and oranges.
@Mrmentalmadness123 Friend, it's an analogy... My point was that complex texts--fictional or non-fictional--require interpretation, not because they have no meaning, but because their meaning is so rich and multi-valent. And of course the Bible was written by many contributors; it's more like a library than a book. Your point is...?
@wordonfirevideo My point is Father that open to interpretation often means conflicting and massively varied responses - hence both liberal and fundamentalist interpretations. If the Bible is really the inspired word of God isn't its ambiguity dangerousin that people can weave whatever they want into it and justify their actions with the elements of it which seem to support their view. Surely Father you are not denying that this takes place? The Phelps family would disagree with you?
@Mrmentalmadness123 Well sure... That's why we should never go down the Protestant path of "private interpretation." Far safer is the Catholic approach, whereby we read the Bible within a long and disciplined tradition of interpretation. This prevents people from "making up whatever they want," and it would certainly exclude the lunacy of the Phelps reading, for example.
@wordonfirevideo I am agreeing with you Father but isn't that difference in interpretation one of the causes of the schism and creation of the Protestant Church? What you are saying in your inimitable and eloquent style is that the Catholic interpretation is the right one? Shouldn't the word of God be clear and unambiguous so we dont spend our lives arguing about the rival interpretations? Why would God want us mystified by his teachings? Is it not simply a book like any other written by men?
@Mrmentalmadness123 The God of the Bible is not magical or interventionist. Rather, he delights in working through secondary causes, like us fallible human beings and our literary products. Therefore, his word requires interpretation. And yes, that can lead to misunderstanding (just as the very genetic mutations that allow for evolution also allow for cancer). But the alternative is a God who negates our freedom and disrespects our integrity.
@wordonfirevideo But Father, isn't that simply avoiding the question? Why would a God - our Father enjoy watching us struggle with the argument for his existence or otherwise. Isn't that cruel and unnecessary? You raised the analogy of genetic mutation giving rise to life and cancer - didn't God create evolution as the mechanism of creation? If he didn't then what power does he have over creation? If we accept his dominion then we accept the atrocity along with the good. You are cherry picking!
@Mrmentalmadness123 I can't tell you how much I hate the term "cherry-picking"! It's used as such an easy way out. I'm arguing that if God wants his creation--both personal and impersonal--to have its own integrity, he has to allow for both free will and free process. And both of these carry with them, necessarily, a dark side, namely, the abuse of freedom and the falling away from perfect order. He could be a pupeteer and utterly manage the universe, but then he wouldn't be a God of love.
@wordonfirevideo But if he created the world then the hardships and atrocities like canecr and other flawed designs were created by him. Childhood bone cancer is not related to the choices of its victims but by your analysis is part of God's creation. You are cherry picking the warm cuddly bits of nature and attributing them to God. If we accept a creater God then we accept the horrors of our existence are his also. I accept that it is simply nature - indifferent nature. God is not there!
@Mrmentalmadness123 Not at all! I'm arguing that if God truly loves the world he has made, he won't act as a pupeteer. Rather, he will permit it its own integrity, freedom, and independence. But this means that he has to accept the negative side of letting his creation be. I'm saying: no cancer, no evolution; no Hitler, no real free will.
@wordonfirevideo "no Hitler, no real free will." I have 2 problems with this argument: 1 Why should Hitler's (or the Nazis') free will matter more than that of their victims? 2 Presumably there's no Hitler in Heaven, does this mean there's no real free will?
@felixthehuman It's not that Hitler's free will matters more than any other's. The point is that free will in this world, if it really is to be free, shall go astray. To your second point, the wills of those in heaven remain free, but since they are so massively in the presence of God, who is the ultimate and totally satisfying good, they will not turn away.
@wordonfirevideo so it is possible for us to live in a perfect world in the full presence of God and to have free will, but God seems absent and there is suffering in this world because that is necessary for us to have free will? How is that not contradictory?
@wordonfirevideo "No Hitler, no free will." "The wills of those in heaven are free." Your words. The first (in context) seems to say that genocide is a necessary consequence of a world with free will. The second seems (again in context) to say there is a world where free will exists without genocide, where it is NOT necessary. To say that something is both necessary and not necessary is to contradict oneself.
@Mrmentalmadness123 You are wrestling with several key questions. If this god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, there arises an immediate contradiction.
Clearly, enormous evil exists, much of it unrelated to human agency. If this god can prevent the evil, yet it does not, this god is monstrous. If this god desires not the evil, but cannot prevent it, this god is impotent. This god is therefore either a monster or impotent.
@sciencelives2000 Not so! God can permit evil (never causing it) in order to bring about some greater good. We see this phenomenon all the time in our ordinary experience of governance and leadership. Why shouldn't it be true of God?
@wordonfirevideo One can rationalize evil however one wants to do so, of course, to claim that it is for "good." The greatest evil figures of human history were most skilled at such rationalization. For us to rationalize evil (e.g. the Japanese Tsunami) as permitted for "good" by a supposedly omnipotent / omnibenevolent / omniscient deity so that we ourselves can maintain OUR comfortable definition of such a deity seems to me the height of obscurantism. Such a god is quite simply monstrous.
@sciencelives2000 Evil exists in humans irrespective of religion - whether they have it or not. It is just that religious belief can be used as a lever and justification for evil. ie 9/11 etc. It is far less feasible that atheists who have no collective identity or shared dogma would carry out such acts in the name of a non belief in god. Religion retards us in my view in giving rise to atrocities justified by religious beliefs.
@wordonfirevideo I just realized that I was a bit obscure myself. Let's put this simple argument in completely human terms. If I had the ability to prevent a huge evil in the world (e.g. a major accident killing thousands) but chose not to do so because I thought that some "good" would come from it (e.g. a bad politician would die--or whatever), I have declared that my end justifies the means. I would be a monster.
A deity with infinite knowledge and power would be infinitely monstrous.
@wordonfirevideo So God allows a Tsunami or child abuse, or cancer et al to make us a better species? This should not be true of a god simply because you see that capacity in men. Is't God better than men? I do not accept that he allows things to happen - I believe he has no power to intervene in what are natural events because he's not there - he doesn't exist. If you have real evidence to counter this I would be interested in you sharing this.
@sciencelives2000 I agree. But the religious arguments have wriggle room. It is suggested that God acts to an agenda we cannot understand - is in the world but not of it etc etc. I do not feel God is monstrous or any of the things you suggest - simply that evil within creation and inaction on God's part simply point to his non-existence. I do accept the logic of your argument but dont expect people of faith to do so for one second.
@Mrmentalmadness123 It seems to me that at least two approaches would solve this conundrum. 1) This particular all-perfect deity does not exist, and could be replaced by a "deistic" or "pantheistic" non-interventionist deity. There would be no "problem of evil" with the Einstein / Spinoza deity. 2) No deity whatever exists. The "problem of evil" is the single most powerful argument against the Christian deity, besides, of course, that there is not a scintilla of verifiable evidence for it.
@sciencelives2000 Evidence or lack of it is simply not a problem for Fr Barron and many religious people. They suggest the canon of literature devoted to God is itself evidence of a creator and something cannot come from nothing etc. etc. Faith simply does not require evidence. It scares the life out of me when people start talking of "Biblical interpretation" and how atheists are dreadful at it. Because we read it for what it is - a fictional work of literature.
@Mrmentalmadness123 Agreed. Still, supernaturalists who think of themselves as sophisticated try desperately to find some justification for the existence of spirits that is different from "faith." They know that "faith" is not compelling to those who haven't "faith." Philosophical speculation, always controversial, is one route. Contemporary "miracles" are another. None of it works.
@YDOAPS someone needs more biblical theology and once again READD ALLL THE BIBLE TEXTS TOGETHER AND INTERPRET TOGETHER not just by one verse to describe God O_o ..... and God doesnt Torture us ..we choose to put ouselves there ?? Justice is Justice
Fr. Barron, if there's a psalm about bashing babies' heads against stones, do I as a Catholic have to discern divine authorship in that? Why would God say such a thing? Seems like a human part of the Bible to me!
@VibrantNTingling Well no... crystal clear precision belongs to a calculator more than a book. God should and does address us on all levels: emotional, historical, philosophical, poetic etc. etc. and that involves profundity of meaning as well as clarity.
What could be more clear than Jesus' parables; yet there's always more to understand there.
@Roper122 ))) I meant precise in the terms of simplistic superficial meaning (like mere facts). Of course god is more precise, intellectually.
I think you confuse nonsense with interpretation, and I wonder how you would deal with metaphor, with any poetry--and in fact with language in general which is suffused with metaphor. The etymological origins of most words are metaphorical: like "pre-cise" to " cut - before" to cut short.
@roryscanlon and that involves profundity of meaning as well as clarity.>> What a joke.. You made my day. You can`t cite one sentence in the bible which has the meaning of the words, so much so, that interpreation of the bible in a thousand different ways, has lead to 35,000 christian denominations. That you call CLARITY ?? Even after 2,000 years of studying, there is no agreement on the meaning of bible verses.
@ndzoko 1) Well, life is wacky. Good, evil and freedom are real. This allows for some wackiness, for things being wacked as it were. :)
2) Jesus did not write a book; He is not an author. He did, however, found a church through his disciples, and this church's teaching has grown in a remarkably consistent way. The openness of interpretation is met by the authority of the institution.
Shouldn't we add to the last section that anger, and even divine wrath can be a characteristic of love. God hates the sins we commit and his wrath is directed against evil. Anything less would not be loving.
This wrath is also present in the new testament: Jesus' zeal overturning the temple-market. Jesus' intense anger, wrath, at the death of Lazarus. We should argue for this aspect of God too... eventhough its really really uncomfortable.
@roryscanlon Shouldn't we add to the last section that anger, and even divine wrath can be a characteristic of love>> Only in christianity is "wrath" a sign of divine love. just like the "suffering of the INNOCENT" is a sign of love. Your religion is, to say it mildly.'' wacky".!!
@VibrantNTingling Jesus said to Peter "On this rock I will build My Church, what you bind on earth is bound in Heaven what you loose on earth is loose in Heaven." The Church is God's teaching and interpretive power on earth. Jesus gave the Church the power to declare teachings and interpret the word of God. We are imperfect beings, do you think you would be able to understand a perfect being if you talked with one? God must speak through us on our terms, its the only way to understand Him
Whatever faith one is, there comes a time that within it, if you truly have that faith, you want to share it, you are happy in it, i.e. inspired. I am Catholic and I do love Father Barron's homilies. When people come to this page with angry critiques, I have to ask, why are you here looking at all? If you were at peace with your faith , or absence of, you would not need to be here spreading your angst. In a free world, find your own truth...
@wordonfirevideo (cont.) then we will have to believe the others also. However, they don't preach the same doctrines as you, so it is impossible to believe in all of these conflicting doctrines at one time. (Jew, Protestant, Mormon, Jehova's Witness, Muslim, Hindu, Zoarastrian, Wiccan, etc.)
@Xenophile665 It was not name-calling: Christians are referred to as sheep by Jesus and other biblical figures. The church was also called a sect in the bible.
As for a counter-argument, there is no such. If you are convinced by faith, then there is no "unconvincing" you.
Many honest, sincere, faithful persons have claimed that their faith is true, and that they have evidence of it. If we believe all of them (as you wish us to believe you), (cont.)
@Xenophile665 With all due respect, I think that whether you intended it or not, your comment came off as condoscending, implying that Catholics/ people that listen to wordonfirevideo are stupid, like sheep, and cannot think for themselves. Yes that image is used in the Bible, however when used in such ways people are often shown as sheep that are rescued and kept and protected by their master, The Lord. However the way you comment reads is that we are stupid/ non-free thinking, like sheep.
@Xenophile665 It does not matter the beliefs of anyone I'd like to think that I would treat them the same. The only thing that I think would alter the way I deal with someone is there actions. To say I have an opinion about any people is not correct. Ideally I'd like to think that I treat everyone the same until their actions dictate that I shouldn't. I do fail at this sometimes.
@Xenophile665 Oh, I am sorry I didn't realize that that was what you were asking. Jesus is very specific, Matthew 25:31-46. Those who work for the least of all people will receive eternal life. It does not mention that the sheep on his right couldn't be of another faith.
@Xenophile665 I think 9/10 priests would agree with that, in the US. I cannot attest to priests overseas. Faith is a gift I cannot convince you that the sky is florecent green, For the believer no evidence is necessary and for the non-believer no evidence is enough. God takes those who want to be in his company into his company, and he sees this through their actions.
@Xenophile665 With all due respect I would rather not comb through the Catechism to find the part on non-believers and those implications for salvation. I honestly can say that I'm not 100% sure, however I'm pretty sure that Pope B-16 has come out saying that non-believers can be saved, you will have to check with that. If I get around to finding it in the Catechism I will message you, but I can't guarentee that that will happen.
@TheRekcabOfTheD I'll wait, it isn't urgent. I'm just confused: if non-believers can be saved, why did it take the RCC hundreds (thousands?) of years to change that policy?
@Xenophile665 I'll get on searching, but I found a video on youtube that might hold you over until I find the Vatical II document or Catechism passage. "Answering the Skeptics - Part 5: Mike Leonard - questions about the Church" just type it into the Youtube Search Bar.
@TheRekcabOfTheD Thanks for the video suggestion, but it didn't say when/why the RCC changed that policy. Also, if you know, is the Athanasian Creed considered official doctrine? Thanks again.
@TheRekcabOfTheD May I jump in ? Your point of view is only shared by 0,000000001 % of christians. If that were true, if your point of view was the leading view in christianity, what`s the point of proselytising ? If only all religions could share this ideal, tollerant teaching, the world would be a little paradise.
What I have said for years on Youtube . Humans write their manuals to operate machinery with the utmost care and language as precise as possible to avoid misunderstandings and accidents. But this omniscient god writes his manual for salvation( supposely immensily more important as any machinery) in murky language, full of metaphors, parables etc. Which needs constant interpretation. Moreover he forgot to appoint those qualified to interpret his word.
@VibrantNTingling What I have said for years on Youtube . Humans write their manuals to operate machinery with the utmost care and language as precise as possible to avoid misunderstandings and accidents. But this omniscient god writes his manual for salvation( supposely immensily more important as any machinery) in murky language, full of metaphors, parables etc. Which needs constant interpretation. Moreover he forgot to appoint those qualified to interpret his word.
@ndzoko Jesus said to Peter "On this rock I will build My Church, what you bind on earth is bound in Heaven what you loose on earth is loose in Heaven." The Church is God's teaching power on earth. Jesus gave the Church the power to declare teachings and interpret the word of God. We are imperfect beings do you think you would be able to understand a perfect being if you talked with one? God must speak through us on our terms its the only way to understand Him. Think before you speak.
@GeneralGaius You must have deleted my comment. typical !!
>>>God must speak through us on our terms its the only way to understand Him<<< Then why is his instruction manual, to reach eternal salvation,( the bible) so murky, so metaphorical, that every sentence needs interpretation ? That`s one of the reasons, the bible cannot be from an omniscient god.
@ndzoko Don't parables and metaphors often illustrate concepts so concisely and beautifully? Are there not people who have a harder time with reading older, denser, or more figurative language? Doesn't any text require interpretation when translated into diverse languages? And doesn't every form of communication require an individual's interpretation?
@CriaSunshine And this ALMIGHTY god, who wants us with him in heaven, has no way to express his morality, his instructions to reach eternal life, in simple wording even understandable by children ? What does the word " almighty" mean to you ?
@ndzoko He wouldn't be very omniscient if His Word could be so easily understood by his creations. He is transcendent, and His greatness is so vast and rich that we will never understand it completely. Also, throughout our lives we are learning. Children have only begun exploring emotions, experiences, etc. and simply haven't developed enough to understand God's entirety (and adults have developed far more but still understand a tiny fraction of Him). So, it's not God's inability, it's ours.
@CriaSunshine This is complete nonsense. What writer who has to convey a message( the Message of salvation, extremely important to reach erternal life,) will write it in murky language, when he can do it in precise, not to-be-misunderstood language ? A writer is supposed to use the most simple wording which convey the message correctly. Maybe god`s logic is not from this earth !!
@ndzoko You make two errors in your crticism. The first is the belief that God wrote the Bible. This is manifestly and obviously not true. The Bible did not beam down from Heaven, nor is it even the product of a single author like a Muhammad. The Bible is a collection of works by 40-some separate authors expressing their own experience of God. God's Word is a creative, redemptive power at work in its proclamation, not a book. The Bible is a record of this Word at work in the world...
@CoryTheRaven I do not explicitly state that god wrote the bible. He inspired the authors, SAME THING. The bble is one of the greatest collections of nonsense ever produced. Again, give me ONE piece of irrefutable evidence for the whole bible, new-testament included.
@ndzoko "But this omniscient god writes his manual for salvation"
You did explicitly say it. And according to you, deferring to inspired human authors is the same thing anyways. What I'm saying is that you're dead wrong to be looking at it that way AT ALL. The BIble does not occupy the same sort of position in Christianity as, say, the Quran does in Islam or the Book of Mormon does in Mormonism...
@ndzoko ...As for that one piece of irrefutable evidence (which is actually a higher standard of evidence than asked for ANYTHING in science)... Like what? What would you want to see?
@CoryTheRaven Just give me one piece of ...common sense " evidence, Evidence that normal people will accept as proof for the truth. And please don`t throw in the bible or bible verses as evidence, unless you proof, first, the credibility, the historicity of the bible. I am waiting.
@ndzoko Okay, common sense, no actual historical evidence... Our ONLY way of interacting with the world around us is through our senses as interpreted by our brains. And for the most part, we consider this to be a reliable system. We believe that the world outside our heads has objective reality and is intelligible to our intellects. Science depends on this very intellect to make observations and interpretations about that external reality...
@ndzoko ...We are even willing to accept more complex and subjective interpretations of that external reality, like the meaning of a work of art or the beauty of a stretch of scenery. We recognize that they might not be bound by the same rigours of empirical evidence (which is still just our brains processing presumed data), but we accept that the idea of aesthetic pleasure or the idea of artistic intention has validity...
@ndzoko ...Furthermore we are even willing to accept claims that have no objective substance or evidence AT ALL. When a lover says that they love you, you have absolutely NO way of knowing if that is actually true. You have to take what they say on trust, which is an emotional leap built up through the shared experience of your relationship. And when you say you love them, you expect them to believe your emotional confession as being as "real" and significant as any objective fact...
@ndzoko ...All of this we accept. EXCEPT for religion. Once we get to just this ONE subject, suddenly atheists turn all hyper-empricist, expect us to throw out everything else and treat our mind and senses as foolish and misleading. And its not like it's a small minority claiming to have some kind of religious experience either. The vast majority of people, through the vast majority of history, have been spiritual in some way or other...
@CoryTheRaven My dear you are mixing up two things, which might be cousins but are two different things. Spirituality and religion. What non-believer with an ounce of gray matter will deny spirituality ? Buddhists have more spirituality than believers of other religions. I might even accept the existence of a deity, but not A LOVING, CARING, COMPASSIONATE, FORGIVING, JUST god, The facts on earth, even the bible contradicts such a notion.
@ndzoko Religious Studies 101: spirituality is the interior experience of religion, religion is the exterior expression of spirituality. Maybe you didn't have to sit through a religious studies class where the prof harrangued us for an hour over thinking they were different things, but I sure did.
As for Buddhism, that's silly. Have you ever been to any Buddhist temples? Or a Buddhist country? I have. Man, that was full-bore RELIGION...
@CoryTheRaven Man, that was full-bore RELIGION.>>> You criticize what you don`t understand. So, according to your thinking only religious people can have spirituality ? There are many in this world without religion. To claim they have no spirituality is plain absurdity . Nature e.g.can inspire spirituality, just like any deity can.
@ndzoko Your assumptions are showing. What makes you think that I was CRITICIZING Buddhism when I said that their proliferation of temples, statuary, donation boxes, monks, ritual washing stations, and gift shops were "religion"?
I'm going to bet that it is because you treat "religion" like a slur. I don't. But either way, to suggest that Buddhism is not "religious" in spite of all plain observation to the contrary is an absurdity...
@CoryTheRaven .: Who cares if it is a religion or not. The fact is you don`t need religion to have spirituality. You don`t need a god to have spirituality.
@ndzoko If you have a spirituality then you have a religion, whatever that religion may be. You're confusing one or another particular form of religiousity with religion as a whole phenomenon. Sorry dude, going into a temple to commune with Buddha or into a forest to commune with Nature is just as religious as going into a church to commune with God.
@ndzoko Like I said, having an actual education in religious studies kinda' informs your definition of terms. Far too many uneducated people just go with unchalleneged assumptions about philosophical concepts because it makes them feel good about themselves (ie: "Oh look at me, I'm spiritual but not religious.")
@CoryTheRaven By the way: here is the definition of religion.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. May I point out that your definition is way off.
@ndzoko "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Uh, dude, that was just a different wording of what I said.
@ndzoko ...because you treat religion like a slur, you miss what I actually said. I said that religion is the exterior expression of an interior spirituality, and spirituality is the interior experience of an exterior religion. For someone to actually be "spiritual but not religious" they would have to show absolutely NO evidence of their spirituality. If they are spiritual, then presumably they have some kind of exterior expression of it, whether that's actual church or nature mysticism or what
@ndzoko ...As for the existence of a loving, caring, compassionate, forgiving, just God, lets assume for a moment that we don't exist (since your objection requires that we don't exist as fact-positive that God is pro-existence). What do you think disproves a benevolent deity?
@CoryTheRaven : Just tell me how you reconcile the suffering of the innocent with a JUST, COMPASSIONATE,LOVING god. Where was this loving god when 100,000 INNOCENT children suffocated under the rubble in Haiti. Where was he when 6,000,000 of his chosen people were burning in the ovens in WW2. Where is he when he allows 4,500,000 stillbirths a year worldwide. Is it loving to allow 5,000,000 dead in the first year of life ?
@ndzoko Ah, the theodical problem: how can an omnipotent, omniscience, omnibenevolent God allow suffering.
I'll let you in on a little secret. Ever since science discovered evolution, that problem has had no meaning. The question is nonsensical.
The reason is that it assumes that the universe exists in some kind of discrete, finished condition into which God is or is not involved. But that's not true. The universe is STILL IN THE PROCESS OF CREATION...
@ndzoko ...Therefore it makes no sense to ask "why isn't God doing anything?" when the whole process ISN'T DONE YET. You're only entitled to ask that at the end of time. In the mean time, the only sensical question we can ask is what God is or is not doing about evil and suffering. What He does not appear to be doing is acting as a Cosmic Nanny picking up after us and solving all our problems by direct intervention. That does not, however, mean He is not doing ANYTHING.
@CoryTheRaven Moreover the bible, the O,T depicts a revengeful, murderous god:Witches, kill them. Homosexuals, kill them.fortunetellers, kill them. those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. those hitting their dad, kill them. those who curse their parents, kill them, adulterers, kill them. fornicators, kill them. people who believe in other religions, kill them. non-believers,kill them. false prohets ,blasphemers, those who work on the Sabbath, kill them. This is the word of Jesus( god) !
@ndzoko And incidentally, I don't know about your relationship with your parents, but contrary to the crack about hanging a father who acted like God, I would submit that God's paternal behaviour is pretty normative. The kids grow up, get kicked out of the house, and have to suffer through their own mistakes and work to make their own living. I've had a wonderful, fantastic, beautifully compassionate father, but he doesn't pay my rent or decide who I ought to date.
@CoryTheRaven So you call a person, who has the oportunity to save the life of a child,without detriment to himself, but does nothing, you call such an individual LOVING ?
@ndzoko To save a child by direct intervention but in doing so consign the rest of us to a futile existence under the thumb of an omnipotent tyrannt? Yeah, I guess so.
You don't think in nearly broad enough strokes. I would bet cash money that you never once considered the connection between earthquakes and the geological processes of the earth that make life on it possible.
@CoryTheRaven Yeah, I guess so. The bible is screwing your sense of justice. trash it. How can you call an individual who refuses to save a child, loving, caring, compassionate ? How would saving innocent children reduce us to futile existence. Besides, couldn`t this OMNIPOTENT god make sure, that saving innocent children, does not hurt others in any way. What does OMNIPOTENCE mean ?
That God can do anything that is logically possible.
That means no square circles, no married bachelors, and no creating life without creating the conditions necessary to sustain life. That said, you're STILL looking at the universe like it as a fixed, complete thing, which is a false worldview. We are still in the process of Creation. Perhaps God is, y'know, working up to a perfect, finished universe in which there will be no suffering.
@CoryTheRaven That God can do anything that is logically possible...
I am really glad to hear that.So, He couldn`t create the universe from NOTHING. he couldn`t be born from a virgin ? He couldn`t perform miracles. He couldn`t rise from the dead !! That is all logically impossible. Great . Thank you. I hope we continue our discusion on this basis. I am talking about the suffering of the INNOCENT!!!!!!!!!!!.
@CoryTheRaven " God can do anything that is logically possible. "
- Cool, well it's " logically possible " that god could create a world where earthquakes do not kill innocent children, and yet still involve your supposed " free will ".
See? Two can play that game.
Lots of things are logically possible.. doesn't make them likely.
" Perhaps God is, y'know, working up to a perfect, finished universe "
@Roper122 Oh, certainly. For example He could invest us with the rational brains that might make us think twice about building in earthquake zones, or develop technologically to minimize the infrastructure damage caused by earthquakes, or develop a moderately adequate social relief system. But I know no atheist ever intends a solution to evil that actually INVOLVES humanity. It's always about how a meanie pants God is for not being a Cosmic Nanny.
@Roper122 Well, earthquakes are caused by the movement of the crustal plates, which is caused by convection currents in the mantle, which is caused by the radioactive heat of the earth's core, which along with being in the temperate zone makes earth habitable to life as we know it. So I suppose your solution solves the problem two ways over: 1) no earthquakes, and 2) no life to kill off...
@Roper122 ...I find two things most interesting about your objection. The first is that same dilemma that it relies on Creationist thinking and I would have thought that atheists, of all people, would have been least susceptible to that kind of thinking. The second is that you show no apparent consideration that an inherent logical property of life is its ceasing to be alive. If you prefer, I can get Buddhist on you: what made you silly enough to expect that suffering should avoid anyone?
@CoryTheRaven connection between earthquakes and the geological processes of the earth that make life on it possible; This is just not answering the problem. Couldn`t this OMNIPOTENT god make sure that earthquakes and geological processes are not necessary for life on earth ?
@ndzoko ...So my proposal is that our minds are just as reliable in processing spiritual experience as they are in processing anything else, from rational and empirical objective facts to subjective and creative matters like art to emotional matters like love. I see absolutely NO reason to treat this faculty as unreliable because, well, some paternalistic old British men say so. I think our mind and senses is repsonding so a very real, external, Divine presence, whatever it may be.
@ndzoko ...The second error is that the Bible is some kind of technical manual. "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth" or whatever. As I said, the Bible is a collection of documenta of people's experience with God's Word as it moved in history and their lives, and they express this in many different ways: from histories and mythology to poetry and pastoral letters. It is not an instruction manual on how to get saved. It is a testimony to how God has already moved to save us.
@CoryTheRaven It is a testimony to how God has already moved to save us. Hahaha>>Witches, kill them. Homosexuals, kill them.fortunetellers, kill them. those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. those hitting their dad, kill them. those who curse their parents, kill them, adulterers, kill them. fornicators, people who believe in other religions, non-believers, fals prohets ,kill them. blasphemers, kill them. those who work on the Sabbath, kill them. This is the word of Jesus( god) !
When newly Christian, a ministering angel told me that God reached down as if through dark clouds to people in the old testament. Sometimes they got it right and othertimes they didn't. So, yes, it appears to be a perception thing. Also, that everything to do with God must be seen through the context of Jesus. The words were 'cling to Jesus' or to 'hold tight' to Jesus. The angel was also firm in that I must see The Holy Bible as a complete text and not just as The New Testament.
@VibrantNTingling That should give you a background as to why the Church forbid ordinary, uneducated people from reading and interpreting the Bible on their own. That's also why God didn't intend the Bible to be a manual, but He actually left not a library but a people behind to help you come to Him. You can check out what parts are historical, and all that. But the main thing is what you get through the Church and that's the only way all of this works and makes sense.
You say that God sometimes "thunders" to get His point across because we are essentially, to Him, children. So why at the end of the bible when Jesus says "I am coming soon", is He not that straight forward with us? After all, we are only human, and to us "soon" means next month or next year and in extreme cases, especially in those times, in the next 100 years. So why in one case does He take into account that we are only human, but in another case He's blatantly fooling us?
Father Barron, regarding the texts in the Bible dealing with putting people under the ban (example 1 Samuel 15:3), I understand what you mean that we are supposed to interpret that passage allegorically. However, the problem remains that the slaughter really did occur. It wasn't an allegory for the Amalekites. And according to Samuel, it was God who commanded the killings. Did Samuel not hear God correctly? I'd really like to know how to respond to this when talking with my non-Catholic friends.
Protestant thought and evangelizing commences with that the "bible is true" followed by a series of verses, out of context, and finally "confess with your lips..and be saved". Poof you are a christian. At inception the message is that everyone is wrong particularly Catholics. Bible study, Bible Church, and every function is a theology lesson in Protestant thought until you think it's true, and everyone is a theologian. Protestants evangelize and in reality are prepped for evangelization.
Its been a great week here in Ireland. Our new priminister finally gave the pope a proper going over re: the lies, cover ups, and ongoing abuses of the catholic church in relation to innocent children. Telling him that the rule of law supercedes canon law. Not being from Ireland, you would never appreciate the control the church had on all levels of government, the police, and everyday people. The church was never questioned and we have a history of destroyed lives because of blind faith!
@WorldBibleUnion454 I thought that we interpret the Bible in light of what intrinsic tradition was handed down to us from Christ through the Apostles. However, some Catholics now say that we can interpret apart from that and come to a consensus as the Church! Proof of Hahn's heresy? Go to 2nd & 3rd tapes of his The Bodily Resurrection of Christ vs. Pascendi Dominici Gregis & Lamentabili Sane (#'s 12, 6, 2, 1, 8, just for starters). Read the condemnations cited above from Lamanetabili Sane!
@WorldBibleUnion454 Uhh, I wouldn't use Stupidville as the eptiome of a sacred place. They shouldn't be so keen to put down the Doctors of the Church with devices such as "systemic" theology vs. biblical. The whole "Scott Hahn knows better than the doctors" is not impressive to those who see through it. Some of his books (a few) were good, though, but the idea that our understanding of doctrine can evolve to be something other than how the Church has understood it is condemned modernism.
I love the way you say, that we should interpret the Bible through a lens. It allows priests to explain away every single strangeness, inconsistency, etc. But I would say, why not to take a lens of a historian? Why don't we look at this one as a chronicle of one nation? (at least in the case of the Old Testament) Suddenly everything starts to make sense and surprisingly nothing supernatural is necessary!
@amanofthisworld But why in the world are you setting up these dichotomies? Of course the Bible contains history, and of course much of it is a chronicle of one people's history. So what? God can't speak through historical events and through the saga of a given people? Take a look at the David cycle of stories in one and two Samuel and see how a Biblical author understands the supernatural working precisely through the natural.
@amanofthisworld The way of interpreting the BIble is this. You should seek out the truth that the author, as in the evangelist inspired by God, sought to put into the text. This was popularized by Vatican II with a document called Die Verbum (of the Word). You should look at Genesis the way the Eholist and Yahwist writers intended that you should look at it, a myth of two children and a dispute with their Father. It has been said that Scripture interprets Scripture.
Right on, Father. Some truths can only be apprehended and expressed obliquely or elliptically through allegory and poetic metaphor. The light of spirtitual truth is always necessarily refracted through the prism of human perception and understanding. Jesus understood this allegorical imperative, which was why he spoke in parables. St Paul also understood it, as exemplified by his "through a glass darkly" passage.
Add another alias, "InquiringSkeptic," to the list.
grunderlyme 1 week ago
Add the alias "BrenttheSkeptic" to the list
grunderlyme 1 week ago
These screen-names are sockpuppets of the same uneducated troll talking w/ himself as if he were different people. He refers to himself as a "PhD Scientist," or any variation thereof, delivering the same empty filler & unsubstantiated "scientism" on Barron's videos, who name-drops intelligentsia, while attacking your credentials in place of reasoned engagement:
Sciencelives2000,
Nodelusionnow,
Biologist1947,
ContrabassClar,
theclarinet1234,
bassclarinet2000,
Mike96727
Nemesis000000
grunderlyme 1 week ago
God wanted people to take him seriously, that's why in the OT there is violence. It's like God is saying: I can give you terrible punishment, I have proven it (OT), but I love you and I want to save you (NT). We should stop thinking we're equal to God. We are only flowers in a field, blown away by the wind. What gives us the audacity to comment about what He does? It is like saying to a man with a gun robbing you: I don't like what you are doing. It's wrong. God is good, because you still live.
blablabla1864 3 weeks ago
But Father who is the arbiter of who is right? This is simply a series or arbitary and subjective judgements. Marcian does it for me. The descriptions in the old testament dont seem allegorical to anyone reading them openly. Aren't you simply trying to soften and revise it to make it more politically acceptable? I have thundered" at my child sadly on occasions but draw short of dashing his brains against a tree! Father, we have a saying in the UK - pull the other one!! (You have to be joking.)
Mrmentalmadness123 3 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 The arbiter is the long interpretive conversation that we call the Tradition, a conversation guided, we believe, by the Holy Spirit. It's not so dissimilar to the long tradition of Hamlet scholarship that yields up some key findings in regard to Hamlet interpretation. And friend, if you think everything in the Old Testament is straight-forward reportage and descriptive history, you just haven't read it closely.
wordonfirevideo 3 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo Which bits of the old testament suggest they are not literarly true? This is my problem Father - you really can impute anything you want to into the Bible because of its chaotic and conflicting authorship and contradictory content. Wouldn't a God have a better way of informing his children about his existence - something which transcends the crusty old written word obviously thrown together by a committee of men? Why not an e-mail? If God is eternal wouldn't he use all media?
Mrmentalmadness123 3 weeks ago
"The Bible is a library," This is all very subjective! To the point that it is simply human generated literature? We need priests to help us understand the Bible. That is why people can't take religion seriously anymore. Technology has superceded the miracles and the power of God. We have no need of a God to be moral anymore. He is irrelevant and absent.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 So it's "subjective" to observe that the Bible is a collection of texts from different periods and different genres? And of course you need experts to help you understand this library of texts. We need specialists in Shakespeare and Chaucer, don't we? Why not the Bible? Why in the world would this lead people not to take religion seriously?! As for God's absence, answer the argument from contingency.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo
IF the book is just a collection of books that are merely legends and poems then why cant people say " Jesus resurrcution and his mircales are just a legend -- like hecurus and Zesus
badpanda84 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo The problem is that it's not just atheist who take the bible literially but many chirstains and catholics as well.
And the funny thing is that catholic belive that the Eucharist is literially the blood and body of chirst.... why have catholics decided that is literial -- were as the book of genius is not ( ie they dont belive God literially created the world in 7 days)
badpanda84 1 month ago
@badpanda84 One observation that never ceases to humor me is that supernaturalists are easily able to see the error or absurdity of the assertions / beliefs of OTHER supernaturalists but are blind to their own. For example, Catholics will easily argue that "The Book of Mormon" is the nonsensical work of a charlatan. Protestants will consider the flying horse of Mohammed to be absurd. But when considering their own supernaturalist "miracles," they find no objection. Quite amazing.
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 I agree. Because they believe their supernatural explanation to be somehow the real and verifiable one!
Mrmentalmadness123 3 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo By subjective, I mean open to one person's interpretation at any point in time. When we read Shakespeare we have a specific author in mind - the same for Chaucer - men of their specific millieu - men of their time. We dont know who wrote the Bible and in what context. It also presents conflicting moral lessons suggesting a confused and chaotic authorship, It has no real voice Father. It's so open as to be anything you want it to be. That is the difference!
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
In order to present a cogent criticism of you position I have to attend a Seminary or become a theologian. Simple evidence would win me over - and millions like me.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
There is a great difference between modern readers of the Bible who are able to apply critical analysis to the texts, based on the understanding of the natural order of things which centuries of discovery have gifted us with, and the gnostic beliefs of Marcion, Cerdon, Valentinus etc.
The Gnostics were as flawed as everyone else when it came to understanding how false all creation stories where. The succession of bishops lends no further credibility if the original understanding was wrong.
DaithiDublin 1 month ago
You seem to be suggesting tha the BIble is not at fault we are simply not reading it correctly. If it is not the word of God it should be treated like any other work of literature? Is this not the case? Implicit in what you are saying is that the Bible was written by men. Why the special case for this cumulative work as opposed to others. Also, who decides which bits of it we take as literal truth and which bits we interpret? Can you not see the tension here Father - it is all very subjective?
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Well of course it was written by men! Like so many other critics of Christianity, you're operating out of a crudely fundamentalist sense of Scripture. The Catholic formula is that the Bible is the Word of God in the words of men. Hence, of course it must be interpreted. That's why we need the discipline of the church in order to read it right.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo So it is the reader's interpretation of the Bible that is at fault. How fortuitous? Father, can you not appreciate how condescending this is to ordinary people like myself. Not only must we accept God at face value but we are ill-equipped to think for ourselves and interpret what is clearly a fragmented and discontinuous set of books without the help of Catholicism. How wrong you are Father.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Would you honestly expect any individual simply to pick up Hamlet, or The Wasteland, or Moby Dick and just read them effortlessly? Why does it strike you as odd that an interpretive tradition would be required in order to read the Bible correctly?
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo You make my point very well. the Bible is interpretive and is therefore whatever you want it to be - indeed different religions have different versions of it. Hamlet, The Wasteland and Moby Dick were vaguely historical but we also know a lifttle about the authors. Neither were they ever posited as truth but all are clearly unashamedly fictional. I have read the Bible and clearly it was written and mauled by many contributors. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Friend, it's an analogy... My point was that complex texts--fictional or non-fictional--require interpretation, not because they have no meaning, but because their meaning is so rich and multi-valent. And of course the Bible was written by many contributors; it's more like a library than a book. Your point is...?
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo My point is Father that open to interpretation often means conflicting and massively varied responses - hence both liberal and fundamentalist interpretations. If the Bible is really the inspired word of God isn't its ambiguity dangerousin that people can weave whatever they want into it and justify their actions with the elements of it which seem to support their view. Surely Father you are not denying that this takes place? The Phelps family would disagree with you?
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Well sure... That's why we should never go down the Protestant path of "private interpretation." Far safer is the Catholic approach, whereby we read the Bible within a long and disciplined tradition of interpretation. This prevents people from "making up whatever they want," and it would certainly exclude the lunacy of the Phelps reading, for example.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo I am agreeing with you Father but isn't that difference in interpretation one of the causes of the schism and creation of the Protestant Church? What you are saying in your inimitable and eloquent style is that the Catholic interpretation is the right one? Shouldn't the word of God be clear and unambiguous so we dont spend our lives arguing about the rival interpretations? Why would God want us mystified by his teachings? Is it not simply a book like any other written by men?
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 The God of the Bible is not magical or interventionist. Rather, he delights in working through secondary causes, like us fallible human beings and our literary products. Therefore, his word requires interpretation. And yes, that can lead to misunderstanding (just as the very genetic mutations that allow for evolution also allow for cancer). But the alternative is a God who negates our freedom and disrespects our integrity.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo But Father, isn't that simply avoiding the question? Why would a God - our Father enjoy watching us struggle with the argument for his existence or otherwise. Isn't that cruel and unnecessary? You raised the analogy of genetic mutation giving rise to life and cancer - didn't God create evolution as the mechanism of creation? If he didn't then what power does he have over creation? If we accept his dominion then we accept the atrocity along with the good. You are cherry picking!
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 I can't tell you how much I hate the term "cherry-picking"! It's used as such an easy way out. I'm arguing that if God wants his creation--both personal and impersonal--to have its own integrity, he has to allow for both free will and free process. And both of these carry with them, necessarily, a dark side, namely, the abuse of freedom and the falling away from perfect order. He could be a pupeteer and utterly manage the universe, but then he wouldn't be a God of love.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo But if he created the world then the hardships and atrocities like canecr and other flawed designs were created by him. Childhood bone cancer is not related to the choices of its victims but by your analysis is part of God's creation. You are cherry picking the warm cuddly bits of nature and attributing them to God. If we accept a creater God then we accept the horrors of our existence are his also. I accept that it is simply nature - indifferent nature. God is not there!
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Not at all! I'm arguing that if God truly loves the world he has made, he won't act as a pupeteer. Rather, he will permit it its own integrity, freedom, and independence. But this means that he has to accept the negative side of letting his creation be. I'm saying: no cancer, no evolution; no Hitler, no real free will.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo "no Hitler, no real free will." I have 2 problems with this argument: 1 Why should Hitler's (or the Nazis') free will matter more than that of their victims? 2 Presumably there's no Hitler in Heaven, does this mean there's no real free will?
felixthehuman 1 month ago
@felixthehuman It's not that Hitler's free will matters more than any other's. The point is that free will in this world, if it really is to be free, shall go astray. To your second point, the wills of those in heaven remain free, but since they are so massively in the presence of God, who is the ultimate and totally satisfying good, they will not turn away.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo so it is possible for us to live in a perfect world in the full presence of God and to have free will, but God seems absent and there is suffering in this world because that is necessary for us to have free will? How is that not contradictory?
felixthehuman 1 month ago
@felixthehuman Where is the contradiction? We're not in heaven yet!
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo "No Hitler, no free will." "The wills of those in heaven are free." Your words. The first (in context) seems to say that genocide is a necessary consequence of a world with free will. The second seems (again in context) to say there is a world where free will exists without genocide, where it is NOT necessary. To say that something is both necessary and not necessary is to contradict oneself.
felixthehuman 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 You are wrestling with several key questions. If this god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, there arises an immediate contradiction.
Clearly, enormous evil exists, much of it unrelated to human agency. If this god can prevent the evil, yet it does not, this god is monstrous. If this god desires not the evil, but cannot prevent it, this god is impotent. This god is therefore either a monster or impotent.
One can make excuses but none are compelling.
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 Not so! God can permit evil (never causing it) in order to bring about some greater good. We see this phenomenon all the time in our ordinary experience of governance and leadership. Why shouldn't it be true of God?
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo One can rationalize evil however one wants to do so, of course, to claim that it is for "good." The greatest evil figures of human history were most skilled at such rationalization. For us to rationalize evil (e.g. the Japanese Tsunami) as permitted for "good" by a supposedly omnipotent / omnibenevolent / omniscient deity so that we ourselves can maintain OUR comfortable definition of such a deity seems to me the height of obscurantism. Such a god is quite simply monstrous.
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 Evil exists in humans irrespective of religion - whether they have it or not. It is just that religious belief can be used as a lever and justification for evil. ie 9/11 etc. It is far less feasible that atheists who have no collective identity or shared dogma would carry out such acts in the name of a non belief in god. Religion retards us in my view in giving rise to atrocities justified by religious beliefs.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo I just realized that I was a bit obscure myself. Let's put this simple argument in completely human terms. If I had the ability to prevent a huge evil in the world (e.g. a major accident killing thousands) but chose not to do so because I thought that some "good" would come from it (e.g. a bad politician would die--or whatever), I have declared that my end justifies the means. I would be a monster.
A deity with infinite knowledge and power would be infinitely monstrous.
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo So God allows a Tsunami or child abuse, or cancer et al to make us a better species? This should not be true of a god simply because you see that capacity in men. Is't God better than men? I do not accept that he allows things to happen - I believe he has no power to intervene in what are natural events because he's not there - he doesn't exist. If you have real evidence to counter this I would be interested in you sharing this.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 I agree. But the religious arguments have wriggle room. It is suggested that God acts to an agenda we cannot understand - is in the world but not of it etc etc. I do not feel God is monstrous or any of the things you suggest - simply that evil within creation and inaction on God's part simply point to his non-existence. I do accept the logic of your argument but dont expect people of faith to do so for one second.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 It seems to me that at least two approaches would solve this conundrum. 1) This particular all-perfect deity does not exist, and could be replaced by a "deistic" or "pantheistic" non-interventionist deity. There would be no "problem of evil" with the Einstein / Spinoza deity. 2) No deity whatever exists. The "problem of evil" is the single most powerful argument against the Christian deity, besides, of course, that there is not a scintilla of verifiable evidence for it.
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 Evidence or lack of it is simply not a problem for Fr Barron and many religious people. They suggest the canon of literature devoted to God is itself evidence of a creator and something cannot come from nothing etc. etc. Faith simply does not require evidence. It scares the life out of me when people start talking of "Biblical interpretation" and how atheists are dreadful at it. Because we read it for what it is - a fictional work of literature.
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Agreed. Still, supernaturalists who think of themselves as sophisticated try desperately to find some justification for the existence of spirits that is different from "faith." They know that "faith" is not compelling to those who haven't "faith." Philosophical speculation, always controversial, is one route. Contemporary "miracles" are another. None of it works.
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
Dear Father: Is there some books on St. Irenaeus ? Is there books on the heresies ?
vkorchnoifan 1 month ago
"Love me or I'll torture you forever" makes the OT god a nice guy? o.O
YDOAPS 1 month ago
@YDOAPS someone needs more biblical theology and once again READD ALLL THE BIBLE TEXTS TOGETHER AND INTERPRET TOGETHER not just by one verse to describe God O_o ..... and God doesnt Torture us ..we choose to put ouselves there ?? Justice is Justice
RomanCatholicsUnited 1 month ago
Fr. Barron, if there's a psalm about bashing babies' heads against stones, do I as a Catholic have to discern divine authorship in that? Why would God say such a thing? Seems like a human part of the Bible to me!
Mystagogia87 1 month ago
"The Bible is The Word of God through the words of man." I like that!
MsJuliet1991 2 months ago
@MsJuliet1991 Make it even more simple : The word of (ignorant) man.!!
ndzoko 2 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Well no... crystal clear precision belongs to a calculator more than a book. God should and does address us on all levels: emotional, historical, philosophical, poetic etc. etc. and that involves profundity of meaning as well as clarity.
What could be more clear than Jesus' parables; yet there's always more to understand there.
roryscanlon 2 months ago
@roryscanlon " crystal clear precision belongs to a calculator more than a book "
- Ahhh yes.. calculators are more precise than the creator of the entire universe....
of course..
" What could be more clear than Jesus' parables "
- Oh I dunno.. maybe something that doesn't cause multiple different christian cults to spring up around the world.
Funny how " god addressing us on different levels "... and stuff looking like made up nonsense.. appear very similar.
Roper122 2 months ago
@Roper122 ))) I meant precise in the terms of simplistic superficial meaning (like mere facts). Of course god is more precise, intellectually.
I think you confuse nonsense with interpretation, and I wonder how you would deal with metaphor, with any poetry--and in fact with language in general which is suffused with metaphor. The etymological origins of most words are metaphorical: like "pre-cise" to " cut - before" to cut short.
roryscanlon 2 months ago
@roryscanlon and that involves profundity of meaning as well as clarity.>> What a joke.. You made my day. You can`t cite one sentence in the bible which has the meaning of the words, so much so, that interpreation of the bible in a thousand different ways, has lead to 35,000 christian denominations. That you call CLARITY ?? Even after 2,000 years of studying, there is no agreement on the meaning of bible verses.
ndzoko 2 months ago
@ndzoko 1) Well, life is wacky. Good, evil and freedom are real. This allows for some wackiness, for things being wacked as it were. :)
2) Jesus did not write a book; He is not an author. He did, however, found a church through his disciples, and this church's teaching has grown in a remarkably consistent way. The openness of interpretation is met by the authority of the institution.
roryscanlon 2 months ago
Shouldn't we add to the last section that anger, and even divine wrath can be a characteristic of love. God hates the sins we commit and his wrath is directed against evil. Anything less would not be loving.
This wrath is also present in the new testament: Jesus' zeal overturning the temple-market. Jesus' intense anger, wrath, at the death of Lazarus. We should argue for this aspect of God too... eventhough its really really uncomfortable.
roryscanlon 2 months ago
@roryscanlon Shouldn't we add to the last section that anger, and even divine wrath can be a characteristic of love>> Only in christianity is "wrath" a sign of divine love. just like the "suffering of the INNOCENT" is a sign of love. Your religion is, to say it mildly.'' wacky".!!
ndzoko 2 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Jesus said to Peter "On this rock I will build My Church, what you bind on earth is bound in Heaven what you loose on earth is loose in Heaven." The Church is God's teaching and interpretive power on earth. Jesus gave the Church the power to declare teachings and interpret the word of God. We are imperfect beings, do you think you would be able to understand a perfect being if you talked with one? God must speak through us on our terms, its the only way to understand Him
GeneralGaius 2 months ago
Comment removed
GeneralGaius 2 months ago
Whatever faith one is, there comes a time that within it, if you truly have that faith, you want to share it, you are happy in it, i.e. inspired. I am Catholic and I do love Father Barron's homilies. When people come to this page with angry critiques, I have to ask, why are you here looking at all? If you were at peace with your faith , or absence of, you would not need to be here spreading your angst. In a free world, find your own truth...
Keep up the good work, Father Barron!
SilverArtemis 3 months ago
@SilverArtemis " When people come to this page with angry critiques, I have to ask, why are you here looking at all? "
- The video itself is a critique. I'm sorry but your comment makes no sense at all.
" If you were at peace with your faith , or absence of, you would not need to be here spreading your angst. "
- Again, why is it ok for you to share and critique... but not OK for others?
It's not the anger of the critiques that bother you, it's the difficulty you have responding to them.
Roper122 3 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Not worship, but I admire and enjoy Winnie the Pooh. Does that count?
Xenophile665 3 months ago
Comment removed
Xenophile665 3 months ago
@Xenophile665 How about a counter-argument and not just name-calling.
wordonfirevideo 3 months ago
@wordonfirevideo (cont.) then we will have to believe the others also. However, they don't preach the same doctrines as you, so it is impossible to believe in all of these conflicting doctrines at one time. (Jew, Protestant, Mormon, Jehova's Witness, Muslim, Hindu, Zoarastrian, Wiccan, etc.)
Xenophile665 3 months ago
@Xenophile665 It was not name-calling: Christians are referred to as sheep by Jesus and other biblical figures. The church was also called a sect in the bible.
As for a counter-argument, there is no such. If you are convinced by faith, then there is no "unconvincing" you.
Many honest, sincere, faithful persons have claimed that their faith is true, and that they have evidence of it. If we believe all of them (as you wish us to believe you), (cont.)
Xenophile665 3 months ago
@Xenophile665 Oh right. You meant "sheep" and "sect" in an utterly neutral, non-judgmental way!
wordonfirevideo 3 months ago
Comment removed
Xenophile665 3 months ago
@Xenophile665 With all due respect, I think that whether you intended it or not, your comment came off as condoscending, implying that Catholics/ people that listen to wordonfirevideo are stupid, like sheep, and cannot think for themselves. Yes that image is used in the Bible, however when used in such ways people are often shown as sheep that are rescued and kept and protected by their master, The Lord. However the way you comment reads is that we are stupid/ non-free thinking, like sheep.
TheRekcabOfTheD 3 months ago
@TheRekcabOfTheD It was not intended to be condescending.
May I ask, what is your opinion of people who believe in, for example, Islam?
Xenophile665 3 months ago
@Xenophile665 It does not matter the beliefs of anyone I'd like to think that I would treat them the same. The only thing that I think would alter the way I deal with someone is there actions. To say I have an opinion about any people is not correct. Ideally I'd like to think that I treat everyone the same until their actions dictate that I shouldn't. I do fail at this sometimes.
TheRekcabOfTheD 3 months ago
@TheRekcabOfTheD Then I'll be more specific: according to your faith, what is the fate of people who lived their lives as Muslims after death?
Xenophile665 3 months ago
@Xenophile665 Oh, I am sorry I didn't realize that that was what you were asking. Jesus is very specific, Matthew 25:31-46. Those who work for the least of all people will receive eternal life. It does not mention that the sheep on his right couldn't be of another faith.
TheRekcabOfTheD 3 months ago
@TheRekcabOfTheD So the RCC says that people who do not profess Jesus as their savior can still go to heaven?
Xenophile665 2 months ago
@Xenophile665 I think 9/10 priests would agree with that, in the US. I cannot attest to priests overseas. Faith is a gift I cannot convince you that the sky is florecent green, For the believer no evidence is necessary and for the non-believer no evidence is enough. God takes those who want to be in his company into his company, and he sees this through their actions.
TheRekcabOfTheD 2 months ago
@TheRekcabOfTheD That's your opinion, and perhaps the opinion of 9/10 of US priests. What is the official doctrine of the RCC?
Xenophile665 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheRekcabOfTheD 2 months ago
@Xenophile665 With all due respect I would rather not comb through the Catechism to find the part on non-believers and those implications for salvation. I honestly can say that I'm not 100% sure, however I'm pretty sure that Pope B-16 has come out saying that non-believers can be saved, you will have to check with that. If I get around to finding it in the Catechism I will message you, but I can't guarentee that that will happen.
TheRekcabOfTheD 2 months ago
@TheRekcabOfTheD I'll wait, it isn't urgent. I'm just confused: if non-believers can be saved, why did it take the RCC hundreds (thousands?) of years to change that policy?
Xenophile665 2 months ago
@Xenophile665 I'll get on searching, but I found a video on youtube that might hold you over until I find the Vatical II document or Catechism passage. "Answering the Skeptics - Part 5: Mike Leonard - questions about the Church" just type it into the Youtube Search Bar.
TheRekcabOfTheD 2 months ago
@TheRekcabOfTheD Thanks for the video suggestion, but it didn't say when/why the RCC changed that policy. Also, if you know, is the Athanasian Creed considered official doctrine? Thanks again.
Xenophile665 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRekcabOfTheD and for the non-believer no evidence is enough. ... And for the non-believer " evidence" is the only norm for truth.
ndzoko 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRekcabOfTheD May I jump in ? Your point of view is only shared by 0,000000001 % of christians. If that were true, if your point of view was the leading view in christianity, what`s the point of proselytising ? If only all religions could share this ideal, tollerant teaching, the world would be a little paradise.
ndzoko 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What I have said for years on Youtube . Humans write their manuals to operate machinery with the utmost care and language as precise as possible to avoid misunderstandings and accidents. But this omniscient god writes his manual for salvation( supposely immensily more important as any machinery) in murky language, full of metaphors, parables etc. Which needs constant interpretation. Moreover he forgot to appoint those qualified to interpret his word.
ndzoko 4 months ago 2
@VibrantNTingling What I have said for years on Youtube . Humans write their manuals to operate machinery with the utmost care and language as precise as possible to avoid misunderstandings and accidents. But this omniscient god writes his manual for salvation( supposely immensily more important as any machinery) in murky language, full of metaphors, parables etc. Which needs constant interpretation. Moreover he forgot to appoint those qualified to interpret his word.
ndzoko 4 months ago 3
@ndzoko Jesus said to Peter "On this rock I will build My Church, what you bind on earth is bound in Heaven what you loose on earth is loose in Heaven." The Church is God's teaching power on earth. Jesus gave the Church the power to declare teachings and interpret the word of God. We are imperfect beings do you think you would be able to understand a perfect being if you talked with one? God must speak through us on our terms its the only way to understand Him. Think before you speak.
GeneralGaius 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GeneralGaius You must have deleted my comment. typical !!
>>>God must speak through us on our terms its the only way to understand Him<<< Then why is his instruction manual, to reach eternal salvation,( the bible) so murky, so metaphorical, that every sentence needs interpretation ? That`s one of the reasons, the bible cannot be from an omniscient god.
ndzoko 2 months ago
@ndzoko Don't parables and metaphors often illustrate concepts so concisely and beautifully? Are there not people who have a harder time with reading older, denser, or more figurative language? Doesn't any text require interpretation when translated into diverse languages? And doesn't every form of communication require an individual's interpretation?
CriaSunshine 2 months ago
@CriaSunshine And this ALMIGHTY god, who wants us with him in heaven, has no way to express his morality, his instructions to reach eternal life, in simple wording even understandable by children ? What does the word " almighty" mean to you ?
ndzoko 2 months ago
@ndzoko He wouldn't be very omniscient if His Word could be so easily understood by his creations. He is transcendent, and His greatness is so vast and rich that we will never understand it completely. Also, throughout our lives we are learning. Children have only begun exploring emotions, experiences, etc. and simply haven't developed enough to understand God's entirety (and adults have developed far more but still understand a tiny fraction of Him). So, it's not God's inability, it's ours.
CriaSunshine 2 months ago
@CriaSunshine This is complete nonsense. What writer who has to convey a message( the Message of salvation, extremely important to reach erternal life,) will write it in murky language, when he can do it in precise, not to-be-misunderstood language ? A writer is supposed to use the most simple wording which convey the message correctly. Maybe god`s logic is not from this earth !!
ndzoko 2 months ago
@ndzoko You make two errors in your crticism. The first is the belief that God wrote the Bible. This is manifestly and obviously not true. The Bible did not beam down from Heaven, nor is it even the product of a single author like a Muhammad. The Bible is a collection of works by 40-some separate authors expressing their own experience of God. God's Word is a creative, redemptive power at work in its proclamation, not a book. The Bible is a record of this Word at work in the world...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven I do not explicitly state that god wrote the bible. He inspired the authors, SAME THING. The bble is one of the greatest collections of nonsense ever produced. Again, give me ONE piece of irrefutable evidence for the whole bible, new-testament included.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko "But this omniscient god writes his manual for salvation"
You did explicitly say it. And according to you, deferring to inspired human authors is the same thing anyways. What I'm saying is that you're dead wrong to be looking at it that way AT ALL. The BIble does not occupy the same sort of position in Christianity as, say, the Quran does in Islam or the Book of Mormon does in Mormonism...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@ndzoko ...As for that one piece of irrefutable evidence (which is actually a higher standard of evidence than asked for ANYTHING in science)... Like what? What would you want to see?
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Just give me one piece of ...common sense " evidence, Evidence that normal people will accept as proof for the truth. And please don`t throw in the bible or bible verses as evidence, unless you proof, first, the credibility, the historicity of the bible. I am waiting.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Okay, common sense, no actual historical evidence... Our ONLY way of interacting with the world around us is through our senses as interpreted by our brains. And for the most part, we consider this to be a reliable system. We believe that the world outside our heads has objective reality and is intelligible to our intellects. Science depends on this very intellect to make observations and interpretations about that external reality...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@ndzoko ...We are even willing to accept more complex and subjective interpretations of that external reality, like the meaning of a work of art or the beauty of a stretch of scenery. We recognize that they might not be bound by the same rigours of empirical evidence (which is still just our brains processing presumed data), but we accept that the idea of aesthetic pleasure or the idea of artistic intention has validity...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@ndzoko ...Furthermore we are even willing to accept claims that have no objective substance or evidence AT ALL. When a lover says that they love you, you have absolutely NO way of knowing if that is actually true. You have to take what they say on trust, which is an emotional leap built up through the shared experience of your relationship. And when you say you love them, you expect them to believe your emotional confession as being as "real" and significant as any objective fact...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@ndzoko ...All of this we accept. EXCEPT for religion. Once we get to just this ONE subject, suddenly atheists turn all hyper-empricist, expect us to throw out everything else and treat our mind and senses as foolish and misleading. And its not like it's a small minority claiming to have some kind of religious experience either. The vast majority of people, through the vast majority of history, have been spiritual in some way or other...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven My dear you are mixing up two things, which might be cousins but are two different things. Spirituality and religion. What non-believer with an ounce of gray matter will deny spirituality ? Buddhists have more spirituality than believers of other religions. I might even accept the existence of a deity, but not A LOVING, CARING, COMPASSIONATE, FORGIVING, JUST god, The facts on earth, even the bible contradicts such a notion.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Religious Studies 101: spirituality is the interior experience of religion, religion is the exterior expression of spirituality. Maybe you didn't have to sit through a religious studies class where the prof harrangued us for an hour over thinking they were different things, but I sure did.
As for Buddhism, that's silly. Have you ever been to any Buddhist temples? Or a Buddhist country? I have. Man, that was full-bore RELIGION...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Man, that was full-bore RELIGION.>>> You criticize what you don`t understand. So, according to your thinking only religious people can have spirituality ? There are many in this world without religion. To claim they have no spirituality is plain absurdity . Nature e.g.can inspire spirituality, just like any deity can.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Your assumptions are showing. What makes you think that I was CRITICIZING Buddhism when I said that their proliferation of temples, statuary, donation boxes, monks, ritual washing stations, and gift shops were "religion"?
I'm going to bet that it is because you treat "religion" like a slur. I don't. But either way, to suggest that Buddhism is not "religious" in spite of all plain observation to the contrary is an absurdity...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven .: Who cares if it is a religion or not. The fact is you don`t need religion to have spirituality. You don`t need a god to have spirituality.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko If you have a spirituality then you have a religion, whatever that religion may be. You're confusing one or another particular form of religiousity with religion as a whole phenomenon. Sorry dude, going into a temple to commune with Buddha or into a forest to commune with Nature is just as religious as going into a church to commune with God.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Of course if that is your definition of religion. OK.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Like I said, having an actual education in religious studies kinda' informs your definition of terms. Far too many uneducated people just go with unchalleneged assumptions about philosophical concepts because it makes them feel good about themselves (ie: "Oh look at me, I'm spiritual but not religious.")
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven By the way: here is the definition of religion.
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. May I point out that your definition is way off.
ndzoko 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndzoko "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Uh, dude, that was just a different wording of what I said.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven You better shut up about your religious education, because i can easily outdo yours. No kidding.
ndzoko 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ndzoko "You better shut up about your religious education, because i can easily outdo yours. No kidding."
Unless you have a Doctorate up your sleeve that trumps my Masters in Theological Studies, I highly doubt it.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@ndzoko ...because you treat religion like a slur, you miss what I actually said. I said that religion is the exterior expression of an interior spirituality, and spirituality is the interior experience of an exterior religion. For someone to actually be "spiritual but not religious" they would have to show absolutely NO evidence of their spirituality. If they are spiritual, then presumably they have some kind of exterior expression of it, whether that's actual church or nature mysticism or what
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@ndzoko ...As for the existence of a loving, caring, compassionate, forgiving, just God, lets assume for a moment that we don't exist (since your objection requires that we don't exist as fact-positive that God is pro-existence). What do you think disproves a benevolent deity?
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven : Just tell me how you reconcile the suffering of the innocent with a JUST, COMPASSIONATE,LOVING god. Where was this loving god when 100,000 INNOCENT children suffocated under the rubble in Haiti. Where was he when 6,000,000 of his chosen people were burning in the ovens in WW2. Where is he when he allows 4,500,000 stillbirths a year worldwide. Is it loving to allow 5,000,000 dead in the first year of life ?
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko Ah, the theodical problem: how can an omnipotent, omniscience, omnibenevolent God allow suffering.
I'll let you in on a little secret. Ever since science discovered evolution, that problem has had no meaning. The question is nonsensical.
The reason is that it assumes that the universe exists in some kind of discrete, finished condition into which God is or is not involved. But that's not true. The universe is STILL IN THE PROCESS OF CREATION...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@ndzoko ...Therefore it makes no sense to ask "why isn't God doing anything?" when the whole process ISN'T DONE YET. You're only entitled to ask that at the end of time. In the mean time, the only sensical question we can ask is what God is or is not doing about evil and suffering. What He does not appear to be doing is acting as a Cosmic Nanny picking up after us and solving all our problems by direct intervention. That does not, however, mean He is not doing ANYTHING.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven Moreover the bible, the O,T depicts a revengeful, murderous god:Witches, kill them. Homosexuals, kill them.fortunetellers, kill them. those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. those hitting their dad, kill them. those who curse their parents, kill them, adulterers, kill them. fornicators, kill them. people who believe in other religions, kill them. non-believers,kill them. false prohets ,blasphemers, those who work on the Sabbath, kill them. This is the word of Jesus( god) !
ndzoko 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven If your earthly father acted like god, people would hang him on the spot
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko And incidentally, I don't know about your relationship with your parents, but contrary to the crack about hanging a father who acted like God, I would submit that God's paternal behaviour is pretty normative. The kids grow up, get kicked out of the house, and have to suffer through their own mistakes and work to make their own living. I've had a wonderful, fantastic, beautifully compassionate father, but he doesn't pay my rent or decide who I ought to date.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven So you call a person, who has the oportunity to save the life of a child,without detriment to himself, but does nothing, you call such an individual LOVING ?
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko To save a child by direct intervention but in doing so consign the rest of us to a futile existence under the thumb of an omnipotent tyrannt? Yeah, I guess so.
You don't think in nearly broad enough strokes. I would bet cash money that you never once considered the connection between earthquakes and the geological processes of the earth that make life on it possible.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Yeah, I guess so. The bible is screwing your sense of justice. trash it. How can you call an individual who refuses to save a child, loving, caring, compassionate ? How would saving innocent children reduce us to futile existence. Besides, couldn`t this OMNIPOTENT god make sure, that saving innocent children, does not hurt others in any way. What does OMNIPOTENCE mean ?
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko "What does OMNIPOTENCE mean ?"
That God can do anything that is logically possible.
That means no square circles, no married bachelors, and no creating life without creating the conditions necessary to sustain life. That said, you're STILL looking at the universe like it as a fixed, complete thing, which is a false worldview. We are still in the process of Creation. Perhaps God is, y'know, working up to a perfect, finished universe in which there will be no suffering.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven That God can do anything that is logically possible...
I am really glad to hear that.So, He couldn`t create the universe from NOTHING. he couldn`t be born from a virgin ? He couldn`t perform miracles. He couldn`t rise from the dead !! That is all logically impossible. Great . Thank you. I hope we continue our discusion on this basis. I am talking about the suffering of the INNOCENT!!!!!!!!!!!.
.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven " God can do anything that is logically possible. "
- Cool, well it's " logically possible " that god could create a world where earthquakes do not kill innocent children, and yet still involve your supposed " free will ".
See? Two can play that game.
Lots of things are logically possible.. doesn't make them likely.
" Perhaps God is, y'know, working up to a perfect, finished universe "
- Perhaps god, y'know.. doesn't exist.
Roper122 1 month ago
@Roper122 Oh, certainly. For example He could invest us with the rational brains that might make us think twice about building in earthquake zones, or develop technologically to minimize the infrastructure damage caused by earthquakes, or develop a moderately adequate social relief system. But I know no atheist ever intends a solution to evil that actually INVOLVES humanity. It's always about how a meanie pants God is for not being a Cosmic Nanny.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven " He could invest us with the rational brains that might make us think twice about building in earthquake zones "
- Or not have earthquakes in the first place? And what about the people who live i a time before this technology? Screw them... they had to die huh?
" meanie pants God is for not being a Cosmic Nanny "
- Why stop at just earthquakes?... god could have made up millions of ways to kill innocent people.. you know... so as not to be a nanny : )
Roper122 1 month ago
@Roper122 Well, earthquakes are caused by the movement of the crustal plates, which is caused by convection currents in the mantle, which is caused by the radioactive heat of the earth's core, which along with being in the temperate zone makes earth habitable to life as we know it. So I suppose your solution solves the problem two ways over: 1) no earthquakes, and 2) no life to kill off...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven " which along with being in the temperate zone makes earth habitable to life as we know it. "
- Hmmmm, is it " logically possible " that earth would be habitable without these geological disasters?
... you go and look up " logically possible " and get back to me on that one : )
( hint... you're not going to like the answer )
Roper122 1 month ago
@Roper122 Um, I would have thought that the implication of my chain of contingency would have been clear. Oh well...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven " Um, I would have thought that the implication of my chain of contingency would have been clear. "
- I think you misunderstood me..
when I said " wake me when you have a point "...
I didn't mean, " feign intelligence, be condescending and run away "
Easy mistake to make obviously.
Roper122 1 month ago
@Roper122 ...I find two things most interesting about your objection. The first is that same dilemma that it relies on Creationist thinking and I would have thought that atheists, of all people, would have been least susceptible to that kind of thinking. The second is that you show no apparent consideration that an inherent logical property of life is its ceasing to be alive. If you prefer, I can get Buddhist on you: what made you silly enough to expect that suffering should avoid anyone?
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven " I find two things most interesting about your objection "
- Really? Because I haven't found much interesting in your responses yet.
" The first is that same dilemma that it relies on Creationist thinking "
- Zzzz wake me when you have a point.
" I can get Buddhist on you "
- Go for it.. I don't believe all life is suffering... just the parts where I have to read nonsense on youtube, that's pretty much suffering.
Roper122 1 month ago
@Roper122 "Perhaps god, y'know.. doesn't exist."
Oh snap! Whoa, you totally blew my mind with that original witticism!
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven " Oh snap! Whoa, you totally blew my mind with that original witticism! "
- Cool.. well seeing as it was a direct reflection of what you said, I guess you just made my point for me. Thanks.
Roper122 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven connection between earthquakes and the geological processes of the earth that make life on it possible; This is just not answering the problem. Couldn`t this OMNIPOTENT god make sure that earthquakes and geological processes are not necessary for life on earth ?
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko ...So my proposal is that our minds are just as reliable in processing spiritual experience as they are in processing anything else, from rational and empirical objective facts to subjective and creative matters like art to emotional matters like love. I see absolutely NO reason to treat this faculty as unreliable because, well, some paternalistic old British men say so. I think our mind and senses is repsonding so a very real, external, Divine presence, whatever it may be.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@ndzoko ...The second error is that the Bible is some kind of technical manual. "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth" or whatever. As I said, the Bible is a collection of documenta of people's experience with God's Word as it moved in history and their lives, and they express this in many different ways: from histories and mythology to poetry and pastoral letters. It is not an instruction manual on how to get saved. It is a testimony to how God has already moved to save us.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven It is a testimony to how God has already moved to save us. Hahaha>>Witches, kill them. Homosexuals, kill them.fortunetellers, kill them. those who don`t listen to priests, kill them. those hitting their dad, kill them. those who curse their parents, kill them, adulterers, kill them. fornicators, people who believe in other religions, non-believers, fals prohets ,kill them. blasphemers, kill them. those who work on the Sabbath, kill them. This is the word of Jesus( god) !
ndzoko 1 month ago
When newly Christian, a ministering angel told me that God reached down as if through dark clouds to people in the old testament. Sometimes they got it right and othertimes they didn't. So, yes, it appears to be a perception thing. Also, that everything to do with God must be seen through the context of Jesus. The words were 'cling to Jesus' or to 'hold tight' to Jesus. The angel was also firm in that I must see The Holy Bible as a complete text and not just as The New Testament.
voyagersystem 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why dont you get a job?
MrNewkingjames 5 months ago
@VibrantNTingling That should give you a background as to why the Church forbid ordinary, uneducated people from reading and interpreting the Bible on their own. That's also why God didn't intend the Bible to be a manual, but He actually left not a library but a people behind to help you come to Him. You can check out what parts are historical, and all that. But the main thing is what you get through the Church and that's the only way all of this works and makes sense.
Portubed 5 months ago
@Portubed The salvation story doesn`t make sense at all. Even scripture say so... For the cross is nonsense to those who perish, but to us.......
ndzoko 4 months ago
You say that God sometimes "thunders" to get His point across because we are essentially, to Him, children. So why at the end of the bible when Jesus says "I am coming soon", is He not that straight forward with us? After all, we are only human, and to us "soon" means next month or next year and in extreme cases, especially in those times, in the next 100 years. So why in one case does He take into account that we are only human, but in another case He's blatantly fooling us?
filthyswit 6 months ago 3
Father Barron, regarding the texts in the Bible dealing with putting people under the ban (example 1 Samuel 15:3), I understand what you mean that we are supposed to interpret that passage allegorically. However, the problem remains that the slaughter really did occur. It wasn't an allegory for the Amalekites. And according to Samuel, it was God who commanded the killings. Did Samuel not hear God correctly? I'd really like to know how to respond to this when talking with my non-Catholic friends.
BPessaro 7 months ago
Protestant thought and evangelizing commences with that the "bible is true" followed by a series of verses, out of context, and finally "confess with your lips..and be saved". Poof you are a christian. At inception the message is that everyone is wrong particularly Catholics. Bible study, Bible Church, and every function is a theology lesson in Protestant thought until you think it's true, and everyone is a theologian. Protestants evangelize and in reality are prepped for evangelization.
mindlessnirvanaa 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its been a great week here in Ireland. Our new priminister finally gave the pope a proper going over re: the lies, cover ups, and ongoing abuses of the catholic church in relation to innocent children. Telling him that the rule of law supercedes canon law. Not being from Ireland, you would never appreciate the control the church had on all levels of government, the police, and everyday people. The church was never questioned and we have a history of destroyed lives because of blind faith!
newfrontier01 7 months ago 2
Lamanetabili Sane, Father.
TheCatholicFaithfu 7 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 I thought that we interpret the Bible in light of what intrinsic tradition was handed down to us from Christ through the Apostles. However, some Catholics now say that we can interpret apart from that and come to a consensus as the Church! Proof of Hahn's heresy? Go to 2nd & 3rd tapes of his The Bodily Resurrection of Christ vs. Pascendi Dominici Gregis & Lamentabili Sane (#'s 12, 6, 2, 1, 8, just for starters). Read the condemnations cited above from Lamanetabili Sane!
TheCatholicFaithfu 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheCatholicFaithfu 7 months ago
Comment removed
TheCatholicFaithfu 7 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 Uhh, I wouldn't use Stupidville as the eptiome of a sacred place. They shouldn't be so keen to put down the Doctors of the Church with devices such as "systemic" theology vs. biblical. The whole "Scott Hahn knows better than the doctors" is not impressive to those who see through it. Some of his books (a few) were good, though, but the idea that our understanding of doctrine can evolve to be something other than how the Church has understood it is condemned modernism.
TheCatholicFaithfu 7 months ago
I love the way you say, that we should interpret the Bible through a lens. It allows priests to explain away every single strangeness, inconsistency, etc. But I would say, why not to take a lens of a historian? Why don't we look at this one as a chronicle of one nation? (at least in the case of the Old Testament) Suddenly everything starts to make sense and surprisingly nothing supernatural is necessary!
amanofthisworld 7 months ago
@amanofthisworld But why in the world are you setting up these dichotomies? Of course the Bible contains history, and of course much of it is a chronicle of one people's history. So what? God can't speak through historical events and through the saga of a given people? Take a look at the David cycle of stories in one and two Samuel and see how a Biblical author understands the supernatural working precisely through the natural.
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago 3
@amanofthisworld The way of interpreting the BIble is this. You should seek out the truth that the author, as in the evangelist inspired by God, sought to put into the text. This was popularized by Vatican II with a document called Die Verbum (of the Word). You should look at Genesis the way the Eholist and Yahwist writers intended that you should look at it, a myth of two children and a dispute with their Father. It has been said that Scripture interprets Scripture.
TheRekcabOfTheD 3 months ago
Right on, Father. Some truths can only be apprehended and expressed obliquely or elliptically through allegory and poetic metaphor. The light of spirtitual truth is always necessarily refracted through the prism of human perception and understanding. Jesus understood this allegorical imperative, which was why he spoke in parables. St Paul also understood it, as exemplified by his "through a glass darkly" passage.
MrTobytwirl 8 months ago