Thank you for this very insightful and helpful video. I haven't seen 2012, so I was unaware of the anti-religious themes contained in the narrative. I just wanted to add my own theory in regards to Roland Emmerich's decision to have the human population migrate to Africa. Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that where "pre-historic" man allegedly came from? So in other words, "we need to start over and evolve." Clearly Roland has an anti-evangelical agenda with this picture too lol.
Thank you Fr. Barron for these videos!!! My children, ages 19 and 23 years old are watching them and they are so impressed by your comments and short explanations on Catholicsm,I will pray for your good health and long and blessed life! More POWER TO YOU!
I read an interview with Emmerich in which he said explicitly that he included scenes like the Jesus statue crumbling to show his disapproval of religion. The thought I was struck with was that, this being the case, he must not be much of a fan of the Earth or anybody on it.
And why is Catholicism flourishing in Africa? Because the people are poor and ignorant. Same goes for the Philippines and Mexico etc. That was the grand plan for colonialism; seek and destroy other cultures and religions and try to make the world "as it should be".
It's no wonder Europe is falling out of love with religion; they're too educated! And look how religious the middle east is. Why? They're severely undereducated. Let's not forget South America and the Caribbean.
@filthyswit Well, I'll overlook the incredible cultural arrogance and condescension in your remarks and simply draw your attention to the United States of America, which is the most developed nation in the world and which has one of the best educational systems in the world and which also remains predominantly religious, in terms of both belief and practice. There goes your theory, I'm afraid.
@wordonfirevideo But we know most of the people in the US who claim to be religious are mostly just spectators. I'm talking about truly devout people who put their religion before all else. Especially education outside of their beliefs.
I might have sounded condescending but when has it become a sin to be offended? It doesn't mean I don't respect them or you; I do. That's why I pay so much attention to your vids!
To those born into religion I will compare it to the story about the baby elephant that had his foot tied to a chain and couldn't go anywhere. When the elephant was fully grown he had given up trying to break free from the chain because he didn't think he was strong enough. Though fully grown he certainly could break the chain, but just didn't try any longer because he believed it was impossible. Not his fault; that's just how he grew up.
And I'm not saying it takes ignorance to be religious.
@filthyswit Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolgang Amadeus Mozart, Dante, Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, Georges LeMaitre, Descartes, and Gregor Mendel were all devout Christians. On your reading, they were just poor baby elephants chained to their superstition! I mean, friend, can't you see that it is you who is chained by your blind secularist prejudice?
@wordonfirevideo I don't think it works that way. Secularism has always been; religion was created. So there are no chains of secularism to break free from. There are no secularist beliefs drilled into children as they grow up. But children are indoctrinated into whatever religion their parents belong to.
@filthyswit Secularism has not always been! Not by a long shot. As an ideology, it's of very recent vintage. Belief in God or the gods has characterized every society we know of--until some societies in the present day. And if you don't think secularist beliefs are indoctrinated...well, you're just being naive.
@filthyswit If our beliefs are phenomena of the mind or the society, that is equally true of secularism. Atheists are rarely atheist about atheism. It's just another social and mental phenomena with no inherent truth value. It's just a belief that can be studied like any other belief.
Besides, you are mistaken about the order. Religion is a sui generis phenomenon: it just happens, and new religions happen all the time. Atheism is a learned behaviour.
@filthyswit You also fail to understand with this argument that there have been secular governments who were guilty of atrocities in our history, especially in the 20th century. And many values are taught to people based on secular ideas to children as we grow up. Most do not notice because for one, we are lead to believe it's a normality, and it presents an immediate gratification. Ergo, this presentation is fallacious at best.
@filthyswit That is a very poor presentation of Plato's Cave. However, considering that most of the forerunners of science and other forms of knowledge where adherents to a religion of some kind (and this includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), you simply set of the false dichotomy between education and religion. Even today there are many people who are highly educated and are religious.
@wordonfirevideo "United States of America, which is the most developed nation in the world and which has one of the best educational systems in the world"
No it does not. I live in the USA and nothing about the educational systems is exceptional. Mundane at best. Especially in the south where religion is the most condensed.
@filthyswit Education does not always = superiority. Considering that African American communities have lesser education attainment than Caucasian communities, would you like to tell us how you feel White people are superior to African Americans? Your argument simply presents a two-edged sword that is nothing more than an end run around prejudice. Be careful where you tread.
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!
You know it's funny that I didn't notice this before but Fr. Barron makes a good point there. In most other disaster movies you see them destroying the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben and many other icon world monuments. However in 2012 it looks like they went out of their way show the destruction of religious areas of interest especially the ones that involve Christianity.
I did however like the CGI special effects in the movie. They were pretty cool looking.
Fr. Barron, you have great insight! I did feel that 2012 was anti-catholic, but I don't think I put quite enough thought into the matter when seeing it.. I thought it was a terrible movie altogether regardless of that fact - and the parts that took place at the Vatican seemed totally out of place and superficial. Thumbs up for Fr. Barron... Thumbs down for "2012"!
Two crtiques: You say that religious people want to "cleanse the world of sin." While I don't disagree, have you thought about what the Muslim version of that looks like? Of course you'll say that their religion is wrong. But it's RIGHT to THEM. That's one reason why religion in general is dangerous. A group willing to die/kill because of their belief that their way is RIGHT - all others wrong. Second, why is the idea of "good" necessarily linked to God? Many before me have shown that it isn't.
Don't you do any research? End-of-the-world myths were NOT first conceived in the bible (see Zoroastrianism - circa 6th c. BCE). Second, the 2012 prophecy of which this movie about is also NOT biblical, it's Mayan. It's not at all surprising that because of the anti-Catholic themes, your reponse is: "Boycott this movie". That seems to be the church's stance on anything against it's teaching. "If something doesn't support God, it's worthless". That's just good biz, eh?
Wow, did not get any of that at all from the movie. I thought it was sensitive and respectful to the religious. I did not notice a hint of anti-Catholicism at all either. Everything got destroyed, and the fact that they put in St. Peters, etc, getting destroyed I thought was to evoke emotion of loss of culture. I also thought it had an objective moral message that transcends science.
I think possibly you're looking for devils that just weren't there. But I'm not a priest, I may be naive.
haha I watched the movie and got a weird feeling like the movie was really anti-catholic but I couldn't really put my finger on why.... this clears that up, Thanks!
I watched half of the movie and asked myself "why am i watching a modern retelling of noah's ark?" and thats because the makers realize theres a deep yearning in most people who want to believe the biblical stories as long they can be scientifically proven. then both desires have been sucessfully merged.
@RESIDENTRYAN This is NOT, repeat NOT, the re-telling of the Noah's Ark story.But I agree that religious people might endorse this movie to bolster their argument about biblical end of times by putting a scientific face on a far-fetched, and indeed impossible, fable.
@NullIsNotAnObject well considering how it ended. and the fact the 2012 itself is a supernatural event people put their faith into (for no really good reason) id say a big portion of its plot was borrowed.
@RESIDENTRYAN I'm not sure I understand your point. The disaster in the 2012 movie was not a supernatural event - it was caused by very real, measurable reasons that were discovered by scientists. But even if it was a supernatural event, how does that relate to it being a borrowed plot? I can only assume that you mean that the entire Mayan 2012 prophecy was borrowed. But borrowed from what? Certainly not from Christianity, as Barron suggests, simply because it wasn't even original at that time.
As a Catholic watching this film when it came out in the cinema Father, what i got from it was that those who believed in theRoman Catholic Church stayed with their people until the very end and didnt save their own skin when they could have. The Pope, the President were depicted as noble to me. I also got from it that the Queen of the U.K. ( head of the protestant church in the U.K.) along with the other rich and privileged did however.
Thank you, Father. Thank you for making me want to watch this movie again! I did'nt like it at first, but now that you've pointed out the anti-religious theme...WOW. It is really a great piece of work
The story of the arch is older than the bible: Gilgamesjepic, look it up. I thought the movie was not considering atheists. The president said in the movie that there are many religions but the words: the lord is my shepard would apeal to all of us.. Well, it woudn't do much for me..
If the book of genesis was indeed written by Moses, and describe stories passed down from the time of Abraham (c.2000BC), then that would make them pretty much as old as the creation myths from Sumeria.
perhaps the idea is that the skeptics will be the "new missionaries" to convince the Africans to give up their belief in God? I dunno. I didn't see this because of bad word of mouth
Good points. They need to be brought up often to make people aware of these subliminal messages. I notice anti-theism in almost every movie, show, or any other form of entertainment nowadays. It got to a point where it is actually considered "cool" not to be religious and regard everyone who is as a moron.
Some muslims believe that anti-christ is already alive. These new trends really make you wonder, if they're on to something.
I sooo noticed the same thing. I thought it was Buddhist propaganda for sure. Makes sense now that I know the background of the film maker. I'd love to see a great Catholic movie maker arise ( must pray for Mel Gibson; what a disappointment) and give a real story of the Apocalypse as from it's origin, Our Holy Bible. The closest I have seen depicting the Biblical scourges was 'The Seventh Sign' and that was tainted by a theme of reincarnation and blasphemy.
I think I DO need to beg forgiveness from you, Father, because I had a very uncharitable thought this morning about an atheist coworker I have to put up with every day who says religion serves no good purpose in this world. I didn't SAY this to him, but I thought: "It serves a very good purpose indeed, mister. It prevents believers from rolling up a newspaper and rapping you on the nose like an errant puppy who missed the social newspaper again and wet all over the parquet floor!" heeheehee
Father Barron, I think you should someday make a video about the importance of religion in a society and how it can provide tremendous beauty and inspiration to soften the sometimes harshness of a religionless and therefore mechanistic culture like the USSR or much of Eastern Europe was etc etc. Would you consider addressing that topic?
I think if you were to take that topic on, Father, you could do it in a way that makes religion's importance to society a lot more relevant for modern people. I think it'd be a great video.
I've enjoyed every single one of his videos up til now. The reason why Africa is elevated in the movie( I haven't seen the movie but he said its elevated) and the surviors and moving there is the symbol of the continuum of humans. If youve taken evolution or archaeology or human history, you'll know that Africa was the origin of homo sapiens/erectus and our ancestors.
i noticed the destruction of the catholics in Rome during that movie also. i still thought it was a good movie as far as 'end of the world' movies go, especially near the end where the compassion and self-sacrifice is featured.
often times people in dire poverty will turn to a religion (in the case of many parts of Africa, its Catholicism) for some comfort in a life filled with misery, suffering and sadness.
generally speaking, as the quality of life increases, the importance of religion will be diminished.
Although there are other factors at play such as increased education, access to health care, the free flow of information and opinion in the form of media/press etc.
is increasing in poverty stricken third world countries and dwindling in first world nations of Europe, Australia, U.S. and Canada.
of course that does not mean religion becomes entirely irrelevant in first world nations but the sort of blind faith and sheep like obedience to obscure doctrines, clergy and bronze age practices is overtly absent amongst the people in those nations (the ones still holding any religious belief, Catholic or otherwise)
Friend, you've committed what in logic is known as the genetic fallacy: the origin of an idea doesn't tell a thing in regard to its truth or falsity. And just to mention a few counter-examples: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Jerome, Anselm, Bonaventure, Johann Sebastian Bach, Descartes, Newton, Kepler, John Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Evelyn Waugh, John Paul II, Dorothy Day. Just a few of the poor, simple folks who have embraced religion over the centuries.
@FreedomLiberty21 Strange that after more than a century of broken secularist promises and the cruel imposition of secularist ideology that the peoples of the so called third world would turn to an alternative social theory ("religion") to order society. That doesn't sound to me like "blind faith" but a practical strategy of self-determination. "Blind faith" is what the secularists demanded to advance their tyrranical ideologies.
If your secular hypothesis is the case, then why is America the exception? America is wealthy; it has good education. Its laws respect freedom of speech, etc. Then why is religion not dying in America?
America is a unique case among most other countries in the world. While a simplistic answer to the reason for religion's hold on American society cannot suffice, there are, however a few points to make.
America has a long standing history of religious freedom incorporated into the very fabric of its social organization.
Now its important to note that such "religious freedom" often amounted to nothing more than a chosen variety of Christian affiliation.
were tolerated. Some even flourished, but Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians usually were not well accepted and integrated into the social structure of an overarching protestant society (doesn't sound too much like religious freedom, does it?)
Thats were you get the infamous "Catholic ghettos" that would appear. There were Jewish and Orthodox verities as well.
In any case, in the last 60-80 years those kind of enclaves have all but evaporated but it could be argued that such
still exist for Muslim communities in the U.S. and, of course, less so, for Hindu, Jains, Shiks, etc...
on another note, I think you'd be interested to notice that religion in America has been on a steady decline for at least the last 30 years.
Moreover there appears to be no sign of that "trend" stopping. Thus the U.S. is moving in the way of Europe, Japan and other developed nations in this regard. Meanwhile Atheism, Secularism and Humanism are making tremendous gains.
There is not a rise of atheism in America. There is a rise of people affiliating themselves in the NONES category. Father Barron made a video about this. It was found in that recent survey that the majority of people in that category believe in a personal God but are not religiously affiliated. That category is also made up of deists, atheists etc.
Your claim is totally false. Many years ago everybody thought that Modern societies, technological advanced societies would become less and less Religious at time went on. The idea was that robust Orthodox Religious belief was going to thin out the more developed countries got, economically developed, the more technologically developed they got. Miracles and believes in Absolute Truth and Scriptures that are Authoritative.
The more people got educated and came to know something about what the whole world was like. It was understood that when human beings came more mature that Religion would slow die out. It would thin out at first, you know there is robust Religion that believes in Miracles and believes in Absolute Truth and Scriptures that are Authoritative.
It was expected that the Robust Religion would start to die out and then things would start to die out and things would become secular. None of that has happened! If you go to Latin America, Asia and Africa, Religion, Islam and Christianity are growing! And there are even signs of it happening in Europe!
And it is refuting the idea that the more modern a society gets the more secular it gets. For example, Korea went from 1% to 40% Christian in less than a hundred years as it was getting more modern. The same thing is happening in China, and today there is probably more Christians in China than there is in America. Orthodox Religion is not going away! Robust, I believe in miracles, I believe in the truth, I believe in the scriptures, that Religion is here to stay indefinitely!
Search for, 'Will South Korea become Christian,' - a leading Pastor there says Christianity will become the majority religion there soon. This country used to be locked in the grip of communist atheism, well not for much longer. Roman Catholicism is the fastest growing denomination in South Korea. Search for the article, 'Christianity, Shamanism, and Modernization in South Korea.'
In France, there has also been a rise of Evangelicals, from the post-war population.
Thanks Fr. Barron, this made my view of the movie a lot more positive, here i was thinking of a mindless rollarcoaster ride. And i didnt enjoy it as a movie. But the depth as told here makes it truly something special. I got to explore the other work of this director in detail, and see if i can find some more of this wonderful hidden depth.
Even not withstanding the secular humanistic overtones of Emmerich, good or bad, is movies are just complete CHEESE anyway. How bad was Independence Day, 10,000 B.C., Day After Tommorrow, etc.? They're usually pretty cheesey in many ways and disappointing.
to make my point clearer, i think that if we transfer the movie into the real world and all those things actually happen in 2012, i have no doubt that st.petter's plaza would be packed with catholics praying.. and depicting a scenario where those people are somehow saved while the rest of the world goes to sh*t would be nothing but laughable. Even if my point of view strikes you as anti-catholic you just have to admit it's realistic.. and that's what this type of films aim for.
How realistic are the things that happened in the movie is anybody's guess. Will the world end in 2012? Will Mt. Everest get drowned out like that? Will John Cusack's character actually escape the ripples like that? As to whether some of the details were anti-Catholic, it is interesting how the movie does show religious folk get wiped out and Christian symbols get torn apart. It seems more than just random and coincidental.
all i'm saying is that i think that emmerich wasn't being picky against any religion in particular, but when you make a movie about the end of the world that includes everyone and everything.
take the statue of jesus scene for example, if instead of that it wouldve been a random building in brazil. Would you have known it was brazil falling apart? NO.
the fact that most of this monuments are religious just probes that religion (christianity mainly) its deep into our culture.
i watched your review and i must say i just don't see how a movie that ultimately leaves a message of compassion and solidarity can be deemed anti-catholic, i mean, i guess you could say it's anti-religious because the people who choose to pray are destroyed by numerous natural disasters, since some religious persons may think that prayer could save them from an earthquake, but to me that is just being realistic...
I don't think people were praying to be saved from earthquake. More likely, they were praying for strength to face the disaster and to pray for the afterlife.
The Catholic church does not believe in a "magic man". Secondly why were the people praying to be saved if they were facing their way to what was to come. If they were doing that they would have no need to pray. If you do not like religious people so much why did you even bother to watch this video. Clearly this shows that you too are religious and thus you make a fool of yourself as you claim religious people do.
It sounds like you are jealous that another religion was on the ark that wasn't Christianity. See you only see Christianity, anything else would be blasphemy.
Where is the acceptance and love. Seems like religion only separates instead of uniting.
No. As a matter of fact, I think that all religions contain rays of truth. I happen to reverence many elements within Buddhism. What I don't like is the secularist ideology that becomes aggressive toward traditional Christianity. I think any objective observer would be hard pressed to deny that such aggressiveness is on full display in 2012.
As a "Ghandi Catholic", as I call myself, I have a greed with many of your posts on such topics as the Church's misconceived relationship with the scientific community. On this topic, however, I find areas in your analysis that I feel could be disputed. For example, I think it's a bit of an misreading that Buddhism is the only religion that is unscathed, considering that the film features the death of the Dalai Lama as he prays and beats a gong while the giant tsunami flood the Himalayas.
Also, I personally wasn't offended by the film's depiction of the Vatican's destruction, since I think the intent of this particular scene is to show the horror of the ongoing apocalypse, and the fact that in the the end of the world, the Vatican going to be destroyed just like every other historical and religious landmark.
I did read of that, that he "did not want a fatwa issued against him", and that's the one argument that I think has weight when one says that "2012" has anti-Catholic symbolism. And, truth be told, I would make the same argument to Emmerich: that in a movie depicting a deluge high enough to flood the Himalayas, it goes without saying that no one should be offended by seeing their holy monument destroyed, since both the Vatican and Mecca would clearly be toast in such a scenario.
Because the Earth's crust had become destablized do to the high levels of solar radiation melting the Earth's core, which causes the tectonic plates to shift and crumble. Africa isn't flooded in the movie because the shifting of the other plates pushed the whole continent higher than it had been previously.
Also, on the note of alleged anti-Catholic symbolism in the film and keep in mind some of Roland Emmerich's past work, such as "The Day after Tomorrow". In that particular film, several characters take refuge in the New York public library from the coming ice age. They burn books in the library to keep warm, however the one book that they refuse to burn is a copy of the Guttenberg Bible (and this refusal is made by an atheist no less, albeit for non-religious reasons.)
I went to see "2012" because Emmerich's apocalyptic films tend be very action packed and have far more uplifting endings than your standard end of the world movie. Another film you should review from earlier this year is "Knowing", which I liked but not as much as "2012", primarily because it's much more depressing, doom and gloom oriented. I think that a much better case can be made for a contempt of religion in the film, the depiction of the central character's father, but I still liked it.
I like the majority of what you post on Youtube, Father. I think there's a general unwillingness by many non-Catholics to possess an understanding about the history of Catholicism that contributes to many of the less than flattering aspects of the Church's reputation among outsiders. I just feel that I have to express my disagreement with you regarding "2012", both in terms of it's religious symbolism, as well as it's entertainment value, which was very high, I thought.
Christianity is all about uniting people in love (e.g. Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, Jesus' profound non-violence on the cross), but not in a superficial love. Love is only true when it is informed by the Truth. It is not a blind acceptance of the other. It is willing the good of the other as other. That is true love, which Christianity claims God is! It doesn't come naturally, but as a supernatural gift from the One who is Love itself. However, not all Christians do this
The purpose of prayer is to unite you to the flow of the divine life. Once you allow yourself to be in sync with this you'll be fully alive because the divine life is the fullness of being acting through you. Christians identify the fullness of being with Love. Since love is wiling the good of the other as other, there will be a self-emptying on your part because you are always concerned about the good of the other. So, prayer turns the focus away from yourself to the otherly Other, God.
Christians have a right to be upset when 2012 displays St. Peter's Basilica crushing thousand praying, the Sistine Chapel ceiling falling upon the Cardinals, and the statue of Christ Redeemer crumbling to pieces. Why not show the icons of other religions crash to the ground? Why not? Because Christianity is a threat, a nonviolent threat that we want to believe is illusory, cultural construct of the past.
to clear up to seeming contrast between the violent OT God and the loving NT God google "My Ways are Not Your Ways + Eleonore Stump". Her talk was given at a conference that addressed the passages in the Bible in which horrible things are done by God or in the name of God.
This is the point of this review was to promote Catholicism.
So in your views should have the mass prayers generated an invisible shield produced from God.... Jeez get real and open your eyes. I am glad teh director did what he did.
@reduvio You do realize that you're watching a video of a Catholic priest on a Catholic show on a Catholic Youtube channel, right? Saying the point of the review is so Father Barron can try and promote Catholicism as if it's some big secret is like going to a mosque and being surprised to learn about Islam.
I find it interesting that Fr. Barron notes that the end of the world is a religious or more particularly a Christian concept. Knowing that Fr. Barron is more versed than me in comparative religion he most certainly understands that end of the world fantasies predate the Christian religion. In fact the very film he reviews illustrates the Olmec view. What needs to be dealt with is why most religions feel the need to use catastrophe to bolster their claims about the way the universe operates.
That doesnt prove christianity is not bullshit. It is only trying to differentiate the bullshit stories from the romans and greeks from christianity.
Its saying "nope, our bullshit story was not copied and pasted, it is an original bullshit story".
Aside from that and a handful of preaching, the article doesnt really defend the gospels, it just tries to make a distinction between christianity and other religions.
No, why are you so certain that the rationalism that you are coming from is not itself a myth that has been constructed? Why are you so certain that there is a fundamental reason and logic that can be arrived at once all the bullshit is swept away? You want evidence, but show me evidence that such "Reason" and "Logic" exist and is not itself a construct. The claim that reality is only accessible by empirical evidence provided by science seems to me to be a myth as well.
I am not certain of it, but the track record of reason is demonstrably better than that of faith. Show me a single explanation that we have today that was previously answered by science that is now better answered by faith. Those dont exist, because science, standards of evidence and skepticism work and faith doesnt.
I can give you a ton of examples where science replaced shitty answers that were not the result of reason, but rather blind faith.
It seems that you are conflating logic/mathematics with science. I do not dispute the scientific method being the best method within the empirical realm. But wouldn't you say that logic and mathematics is verifiable outside of the empirical realm? Wouldn't you say that logic and mathematics is a priori knowledge instead of a posteriori. Logic and mathematics can be applied to the empirical realm. A good case can be made that verifiability of logic/mathematics is not empirical verifiability.
I never did such thing. I understand that logic and mathematics are different from science. What on earth makes you think that logic and mathematics are a priory? You can believe in that if you want but again... until you actually present some proof you wont be taken seriously.
Once again, I think this is yet another attempt by you to distract the issue.
No, I am trying to get you to acknowledge that there are some truths that are not empirically verifiable; things that science does not prove. That seems to be rather important if we are going to discuss whether religion has any validity at all.
There may b a real that cannot b verifiable by science, but the scientific method is the best method we have 2 determine whether or not this has any validity.
There may b some other kind of truth out there, but until you actually find a way 2 DEMONSTRATE IT you are fucked, and you wont be able to get anywhere with this nonsense. Possibilities mean nothing, what matters is probability.
As far as our understanding is concerned, religion has no validity.
And the only way of demonstrating anything is by empirically demonstrating it? How did you empirically demonstrate that that the scientific method is the best method besides just saying that it "works"? Also, aren't there questions that all humans have (e.g. moral questions) that cannot be answered empirically? Or are all of those questions that have no possibility of being answered empirically just nonsense and something that we should ignore?
The scientific method gives reliable results. The computer you are using is a testament to the reliability and accuracy of the scientific method. I didnt just say it works, look around you, our societies are built of the back of science. Technology, medicine, the overall improvement of human life and its quality are tangible proof.
Moral questions have answers, but they are not absolute answers, they are subjective. Once again, instead of defending your myth you are just poisoning the well.
Yes, and when morality is merely subjective we have the battle of wills to determine the right course of action of a society. Morality then is what the most powerful members of that society say it is. In a democracy this means that morality is in the hands of whoever has mob control. So morality changes according to who is the sovereign subject. But most people balk at the actions of Stalin, Hitler, and even religious figures. However, perhaps there is objectivity to morality
What the heck are you talking about? Of perhaps more importantly- WHO are you talking about? Stop being dishonest and address the issues that are being raised and stop jumping from subject to subject when you cant respond.
Morality is NOT reducible to "might makes right", thats part of christian theology, YOU are the one who doesnt believe in morality, you believe in authority, which is exactly what christianity is.
Morality CAN be a little more objective than "I am god and this is good and this is bad".
BUT AGAIN.... I am honestly getting tired of telling you the same damn thing over and over again. I have granted that perhaps there is objective morality or something besides the natural realm, YOU STILL WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE IT somehow and I am sorry but faith doesnt work, and making lists of perhaps, maybes and its possible.
Please dont make me reply with the same thing again....
Alright, I'm sorry to bother you so much, but I'm just confused by you saying that morality is both subjective and "a little more objective" than solipsism. It seems self-contradictory. If you grant that morality is perhaps objective and that it can be demonstrated, which principle can you start your deduction with that is self-evident to reason. I won't bother you anymore. And by the way, why are you claiming that christian morality is reducible to "might makes right"?
Morality is entirely subjective. Of course it is, every society has a different standard, it depends on many factors, it is not absolute. In the netherlands and places in europe prostitution is not viewed in the same way it is viewed over here.
We CAN make an objective assessment of the CONSEQUENCES of behaviors. I didnt say morality was objective, it clealy isnt.
In christianity whatever god says is good is good. Thats not morality thats authority. Why is it good? Because god said so.
But aren't there behaviors that are not conducive to human flourishing regardless of the consequences (e.g. adultery, lying, fraud, murder, etc.)?! Hitler certainly thought that killing the Jews would bring about good consequences. So, I take it that you think that any action is okay so long as its consequences are positive at least subjectively or intersubjectively. However, do humans really act like this? I just think that consquentialism is rather simplistic.
In the bible god does many many many despicable things. Mass genocide, infanticide, and the list goes on and on and on. The reason stupid christians give to justify this is that since he is god, whatever he does is moral, and thus it was morally correct for him to do that.
He created everything, he could destroy us all, yet he doesnt because he loves us. Might makes right bullshit.
Also, why can't there be a level of reality that is inaccessible to reason and logic? The claim that reality is only accessible by the sciences is not an empirical claim, so its self-contradictory to hold that claim. Back to myth though, myth seems to be the story we tell ourselves to make sense of who we are. If there is no truth then I can pick and choose any myth. If there is truth, I am seemingly limited to what reason upholds. However, if reason is shaky then something outside of it (cont.)
Perhaps there IS a level of reality outside of the realm of reason. That is a possibility. However, even if it exists, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF DEMONSTRATING THAT IT EXISTS and therefore, any assertion that you make about this realm is comparable to a drug induced rant about alice in wonderland.
PS: I NEVER made the claim that reality is only accessible by science. Try responding to what I have said.
...needs to inform it. This is what I call faith. But before I go any further I think I need to be clearer on how to define reason before I claim that it needs to be informed by faith
Reason is an approach to reality, its nothing tangible. How I define reason is not relevant since the burden of proof is YOURS. If there is anyone who needs to clearly define and back up anything is you, and your kind who believe in these things.
In the end, there is no other method out there that is better than the scientific method when it comes to reliable and consistent results. If you want to use faith thats fine, but do not be surprised if you are laughed out of court.
Religion has absolutely nothing of value to offer, to anyone anywhere, that cannot be achieved through secular means, or by means that do not require the suspension of his or her rational faculties and the acceptance of nonsense without a shred of evidence.
I dont believe based on trust, I have reasons to believe in the things I believe in, and trust is rarely an aid to these beliefs, it is more often than not an obstacle.
I think the difference is our starting grounds. Rationalism holds the cogito as its basis, but Descartes couldn't have arrived at that if he didn't have language which was given to him exterior to the cogito. If that is true, then the whole rationalist project seems to be undermined. We believe something or someone because we trust it or them. I know you trust science, but reconsider trusting religion. Maybe you'll be surprised how it can access a reality that secular reason cannot.
Show me an example of what you are talking about. Show me a single example where religion reached a conclusion or answered a question conclusively in a manner which was DEMONSTRABLY better than science and the scientific method.
A lot fo what you seem to be trying to do I think is a little pathetic. Instead of defending your position honestly, by providing evidence and rational arguments IN FAVOR of it...
You just try to poison the well by trying to bring other approaches down to your level?
You make such a convincing argument. Oh, wait, this isn't an argument. This is just you congratulating yourself because you happen to be a "rational" person. Define for me what it means to be "rational"?
A person who is rational uses reason and logic to interpret the world around him/reality. An irrational person uses faith, emotion, and things that defy and or contradict reason.
Believing in things that are unlikely, unsupported by evidence and with evidence to the contrary is irrational.
religion aside this movie was a boring, mind numbing piece of garbage and shockingly anti-christian, I guess if I was catholic I'd be more outraged at the abominable scene of the sistine chapel rolling over thousands of praying catholics but still offended by the constant bashing of religion except for buddhism which got a free pass, this guy didn't mention the russian pilot who died a fiery death as soon as he crossed himself but in any other film the plane would have not gone over the cliff
Thay guy has found a way to go throug life without breaking a sweat, just like any other religious figures....
Go ahead and believe in that shit you naive sheep. The talking snake with the apple and the idea that all animals on the planet were situated at a walking distance from Noah's house are my favourites.
All fo you are pathetic and I am ashamed to call mysle human, because of you...
Note the response, it truly believes that leaveing a response like that, makes him look highly superiour intellectually, thus making every piece of garbage that it spits out true and we all should follow. Nietzsche had it right. People should not follow anybody, word of the day is individualism. Too bad it's impossible to send bombs to a website. Take a guess where my first one would go.
Father Barron should have ended this video at 8:11 -- I was with him all the way until that point. I was about to subscribe until those last 25 seconds. Too bad. Otherwise it was a well done analysis.
When it comes to myths, revelation wins but not because of its creativeness but rather how fucked up it is. Good fantasy, awesome science fiction but waaaaaay better if you are high.
Have you ever read anything by Augustine, Aquinas, Rahner, Ratzinger, Balthasar, Newman, and many other brilliant men and women who regard revelation not as silly science fiction, but as that which has revealed the nature of reality but at a level beyond natural reason? Read some of their writings about revelation without the presupposition that it is just nonsense. Read them.....and then THINK about it.
How about we save some time and instead of me reading all the literature you simply point me to a single piece of evidence that any of those people you mentioned presented to back up their claims?
Sounds fair? The evidence must be there since you already acknowledge that they must are pretty smart. And surely, no smart person would believe in something as stupid and unlikely as divine revelation without proper evidence correct?
So unless you can show me that evidence, I stand by what I said.
LOL the irony is the Book of Revelation was written by a guy who had a series of "visions" well after Jesus' lifetime. I'm going to go ahead and assume he was on drugs.
Hold on Robert Barron don't you suppose that what he is saying that on Judgment day God takes his divine hand away from humanity and this is why the movie leads to a cutting off of God from his children.
Well I can show you 1 Billion Christians at least who can share with you answered prayers by God including myself. However, we must understand that an answer of God as NO to your prayer to be not an answer at all. One of the prayers of Christ was for all the Christians to be one, in action, mind, and spirit doing the good work of the Lord and the church. This prayer is unanswered not because God can not answer it but because we are not answering it's call.
Okay so you think I'm a liar well forget about that let us use a documented miracle that there is no way you can get around. From your understanding what is the origins of the universe I will give you three options. 1. God 2. Nothing 3. It is eternal (thereby going against all modern science, but even still with an eternal universe I can prove God exists) so go ahead give us your answer.
I didn't just arbitrary say that God exists I said I can give proof from miracles you seem to reject personal testimony so therefore I went to the creation of the universe itself. Now are you going to answer me or run around in games. 1 2 or 3 I'm waiting.
Also, I would add even if someone didn't have good arguments for God's existence there is still the inner witness of the holy spirit for those who accept Christ as their Lord and savior so apart from good arguments you can know God. The Bible makes the promise "if you draw near to God he will draw near to you".
No there is no proof. If there was proof it wouldnt be called faith but fact. The very fat that you've got to try and convince me is proof enough that there isnt proof. I believe in my television, I believe it exists because its in my room and when I leave it and come back its still there. Everything that you talk about, prayers and miracles are not proof. They are just things that you believe in. If prayer was real there would be a ministry of prayers and probably taxes on it.
First off you've misunderstood faith, when we say faith it means we trust in God it does not mean we believe in something we have no good reasons or grounds to believe in. Yes you believe in your T.V. but you also have faith that when you turn it on it will work and show a picture. No we don't put taxes on prayer because salvation is a free gift of God, we give tithes to the church because we love to because it is a way to give thanks to God for what he does for us.
Im a coward ? You're the one hiding behind your petty and unfounded beliefs. As for prayers I dont have to prove to you it doesnt work, you're the on claiming it works, show me PROOF that it works.
That is an interesting definition of faith. Basically you have spun it to mean trust in god, and NOT belief in something without good reason.
My response would be, where are your good reasons to believe in god?
Also, there is no faith involved in turning a TV on. This new attempt by theists to make everyone a man of faith is a little pathetic. It requires no faith because unlike ur god, we can actually test the TV, observe the image, quantify all sorts of things and even make predictions.
You can test God if with like testing anything if you have a genuine and sincere mind and heart you can draw near to God the Bible makes the promise "if you draw near to God he will draw near to you".
You dont understand science. If you need to have an emotional preset or EXPECT a result then its not science. I believe that is called wishful thinking, or pseudo science.
And there is no reason for me to believe that a written word is true just because it is written down. You cannot use the bible to prove the bible right dude... THINK about it.
Miracles wouldnt be proof of god, but I am eager to see your so called evidence. Also, your creation myth, along with all the other myths form different religions and cultures are not backed by evidence.
We have a pretty solid understanding of why there is diversity in life... and none of that understanding points to a divine magic man creating everything out of nothing my friend.
Thank you for this very insightful and helpful video. I haven't seen 2012, so I was unaware of the anti-religious themes contained in the narrative. I just wanted to add my own theory in regards to Roland Emmerich's decision to have the human population migrate to Africa. Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that where "pre-historic" man allegedly came from? So in other words, "we need to start over and evolve." Clearly Roland has an anti-evangelical agenda with this picture too lol.
elitegumby 2 weeks ago
Thank you Fr. Barron for these videos!!! My children, ages 19 and 23 years old are watching them and they are so impressed by your comments and short explanations on Catholicsm,I will pray for your good health and long and blessed life! More POWER TO YOU!
gayamaruyama7129 2 weeks ago
I read an interview with Emmerich in which he said explicitly that he included scenes like the Jesus statue crumbling to show his disapproval of religion. The thought I was struck with was that, this being the case, he must not be much of a fan of the Earth or anybody on it.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
Wow. I didn't want to see this movie because I knew it sucked, let alone the anti-religious themes.
AnthonyCapoFilm 1 month ago
I really like this Fr. Barron guy!
adonelahi 3 months ago
And why is Catholicism flourishing in Africa? Because the people are poor and ignorant. Same goes for the Philippines and Mexico etc. That was the grand plan for colonialism; seek and destroy other cultures and religions and try to make the world "as it should be".
It's no wonder Europe is falling out of love with religion; they're too educated! And look how religious the middle east is. Why? They're severely undereducated. Let's not forget South America and the Caribbean.
filthyswit 5 months ago
@filthyswit Well, I'll overlook the incredible cultural arrogance and condescension in your remarks and simply draw your attention to the United States of America, which is the most developed nation in the world and which has one of the best educational systems in the world and which also remains predominantly religious, in terms of both belief and practice. There goes your theory, I'm afraid.
wordonfirevideo 5 months ago 7
@wordonfirevideo But we know most of the people in the US who claim to be religious are mostly just spectators. I'm talking about truly devout people who put their religion before all else. Especially education outside of their beliefs.
I might have sounded condescending but when has it become a sin to be offended? It doesn't mean I don't respect them or you; I do. That's why I pay so much attention to your vids!
filthyswit 5 months ago
To those born into religion I will compare it to the story about the baby elephant that had his foot tied to a chain and couldn't go anywhere. When the elephant was fully grown he had given up trying to break free from the chain because he didn't think he was strong enough. Though fully grown he certainly could break the chain, but just didn't try any longer because he believed it was impossible. Not his fault; that's just how he grew up.
And I'm not saying it takes ignorance to be religious.
filthyswit 5 months ago
@filthyswit Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Johann Sebastian Bach, Wolgang Amadeus Mozart, Dante, Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, Georges LeMaitre, Descartes, and Gregor Mendel were all devout Christians. On your reading, they were just poor baby elephants chained to their superstition! I mean, friend, can't you see that it is you who is chained by your blind secularist prejudice?
wordonfirevideo 5 months ago 9
@wordonfirevideo I don't think it works that way. Secularism has always been; religion was created. So there are no chains of secularism to break free from. There are no secularist beliefs drilled into children as they grow up. But children are indoctrinated into whatever religion their parents belong to.
filthyswit 4 months ago
@filthyswit Secularism has not always been! Not by a long shot. As an ideology, it's of very recent vintage. Belief in God or the gods has characterized every society we know of--until some societies in the present day. And if you don't think secularist beliefs are indoctrinated...well, you're just being naive.
wordonfirevideo 4 months ago 7
@filthyswit If our beliefs are phenomena of the mind or the society, that is equally true of secularism. Atheists are rarely atheist about atheism. It's just another social and mental phenomena with no inherent truth value. It's just a belief that can be studied like any other belief.
Besides, you are mistaken about the order. Religion is a sui generis phenomenon: it just happens, and new religions happen all the time. Atheism is a learned behaviour.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@filthyswit You also fail to understand with this argument that there have been secular governments who were guilty of atrocities in our history, especially in the 20th century. And many values are taught to people based on secular ideas to children as we grow up. Most do not notice because for one, we are lead to believe it's a normality, and it presents an immediate gratification. Ergo, this presentation is fallacious at best.
Stitchman3875 4 weeks ago
@filthyswit That is a very poor presentation of Plato's Cave. However, considering that most of the forerunners of science and other forms of knowledge where adherents to a religion of some kind (and this includes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), you simply set of the false dichotomy between education and religion. Even today there are many people who are highly educated and are religious.
Stitchman3875 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo "United States of America, which is the most developed nation in the world and which has one of the best educational systems in the world"
No it does not. I live in the USA and nothing about the educational systems is exceptional. Mundane at best. Especially in the south where religion is the most condensed.
redrum41987 1 month ago
@filthyswit
And what of the religious explosion in China, Japan and South Korea? All wealthy countries.
xtrashed 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
Stitchman3875 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@filthyswit Education does not always = superiority. Considering that African American communities have lesser education attainment than Caucasian communities, would you like to tell us how you feel White people are superior to African Americans? Your argument simply presents a two-edged sword that is nothing more than an end run around prejudice. Be careful where you tread.
Stitchman3875 4 weeks 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 6 months ago
You know it's funny that I didn't notice this before but Fr. Barron makes a good point there. In most other disaster movies you see them destroying the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben and many other icon world monuments. However in 2012 it looks like they went out of their way show the destruction of religious areas of interest especially the ones that involve Christianity.
I did however like the CGI special effects in the movie. They were pretty cool looking.
XeroBlue 8 months ago
Fr. Barron, you have great insight! I did feel that 2012 was anti-catholic, but I don't think I put quite enough thought into the matter when seeing it.. I thought it was a terrible movie altogether regardless of that fact - and the parts that took place at the Vatican seemed totally out of place and superficial. Thumbs up for Fr. Barron... Thumbs down for "2012"!
djarankin 9 months ago 2
@djarankin
It had good effects, that's about it
lol
AaronH9111 4 months ago
Two crtiques: You say that religious people want to "cleanse the world of sin." While I don't disagree, have you thought about what the Muslim version of that looks like? Of course you'll say that their religion is wrong. But it's RIGHT to THEM. That's one reason why religion in general is dangerous. A group willing to die/kill because of their belief that their way is RIGHT - all others wrong. Second, why is the idea of "good" necessarily linked to God? Many before me have shown that it isn't.
NullIsNotAnObject 11 months ago
Don't you do any research? End-of-the-world myths were NOT first conceived in the bible (see Zoroastrianism - circa 6th c. BCE). Second, the 2012 prophecy of which this movie about is also NOT biblical, it's Mayan. It's not at all surprising that because of the anti-Catholic themes, your reponse is: "Boycott this movie". That seems to be the church's stance on anything against it's teaching. "If something doesn't support God, it's worthless". That's just good biz, eh?
NullIsNotAnObject 11 months ago
I'm still gonna pray
MrBushiman 1 year ago
Wow, did not get any of that at all from the movie. I thought it was sensitive and respectful to the religious. I did not notice a hint of anti-Catholicism at all either. Everything got destroyed, and the fact that they put in St. Peters, etc, getting destroyed I thought was to evoke emotion of loss of culture. I also thought it had an objective moral message that transcends science.
I think possibly you're looking for devils that just weren't there. But I'm not a priest, I may be naive.
nymphrenic 1 year ago
haha I watched the movie and got a weird feeling like the movie was really anti-catholic but I couldn't really put my finger on why.... this clears that up, Thanks!
blarmour47 1 year ago
I watched half of the movie and asked myself "why am i watching a modern retelling of noah's ark?" and thats because the makers realize theres a deep yearning in most people who want to believe the biblical stories as long they can be scientifically proven. then both desires have been sucessfully merged.
RESIDENTRYAN 1 year ago
@RESIDENTRYAN This is NOT, repeat NOT, the re-telling of the Noah's Ark story.But I agree that religious people might endorse this movie to bolster their argument about biblical end of times by putting a scientific face on a far-fetched, and indeed impossible, fable.
NullIsNotAnObject 11 months ago
@NullIsNotAnObject well considering how it ended. and the fact the 2012 itself is a supernatural event people put their faith into (for no really good reason) id say a big portion of its plot was borrowed.
RESIDENTRYAN 11 months ago
@RESIDENTRYAN I'm not sure I understand your point. The disaster in the 2012 movie was not a supernatural event - it was caused by very real, measurable reasons that were discovered by scientists. But even if it was a supernatural event, how does that relate to it being a borrowed plot? I can only assume that you mean that the entire Mayan 2012 prophecy was borrowed. But borrowed from what? Certainly not from Christianity, as Barron suggests, simply because it wasn't even original at that time.
NullIsNotAnObject 11 months ago
As a Catholic watching this film when it came out in the cinema Father, what i got from it was that those who believed in theRoman Catholic Church stayed with their people until the very end and didnt save their own skin when they could have. The Pope, the President were depicted as noble to me. I also got from it that the Queen of the U.K. ( head of the protestant church in the U.K.) along with the other rich and privileged did however.
quickfire3OOO 1 year ago 3
Thank you, Father. Thank you for making me want to watch this movie again! I did'nt like it at first, but now that you've pointed out the anti-religious theme...WOW. It is really a great piece of work
Svulla 1 year ago
2012 doesn't have anything to do with the bible.
Spottedfeather 1 year ago
Oh wow i never even noticed that!
synaps13 1 year ago
Great commentary Father!
amdgmcman 1 year ago 5
how is it that the mother of the family saids please to GOd over and over and the husband survives? I thought that was pretty funny and ironic.
ericrules95 1 year ago
The story of the arch is older than the bible: Gilgamesjepic, look it up. I thought the movie was not considering atheists. The president said in the movie that there are many religions but the words: the lord is my shepard would apeal to all of us.. Well, it woudn't do much for me..
Rikdewinter 1 year ago
He noted that World ending catastrophies are from the Bible...even though stories like that have been around far longer than the Bible.
Also, people need to stop being so sensitive, it was a damn movie, people.
Sadslab 1 year ago
@Sadslab Look up Roland Emmerich's biography and honestly tell me that he wasn't using this movie to bash Catholicism.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 13
@wordonfirevideo I don't think that's what the person said. They said doomsday scenarios are older than the Bible. Which they are. Sensitive.
Noxshus 10 months ago
@Sadslab
If the book of genesis was indeed written by Moses, and describe stories passed down from the time of Abraham (c.2000BC), then that would make them pretty much as old as the creation myths from Sumeria.
xglewiss 1 year ago
perhaps the idea is that the skeptics will be the "new missionaries" to convince the Africans to give up their belief in God? I dunno. I didn't see this because of bad word of mouth
XSC3 1 year ago
The message is quite realistic. In the presence of danger, planning, acting, running for you life - helps. Praying gets you killed.
Was a terrible movie though.
HiAdrian 1 year ago
Good points. They need to be brought up often to make people aware of these subliminal messages. I notice anti-theism in almost every movie, show, or any other form of entertainment nowadays. It got to a point where it is actually considered "cool" not to be religious and regard everyone who is as a moron.
Some muslims believe that anti-christ is already alive. These new trends really make you wonder, if they're on to something.
boysangur 1 year ago
I sooo noticed the same thing. I thought it was Buddhist propaganda for sure. Makes sense now that I know the background of the film maker. I'd love to see a great Catholic movie maker arise ( must pray for Mel Gibson; what a disappointment) and give a real story of the Apocalypse as from it's origin, Our Holy Bible. The closest I have seen depicting the Biblical scourges was 'The Seventh Sign' and that was tainted by a theme of reincarnation and blasphemy.
paraisoat 1 year ago
Father, I noted the same thing in that movie. It's clearly anti-theistic.
moveaxebx 2 years ago
Before anyone gets all het up about that....it is a joke, folks.
sterlingrose33 2 years ago
I think I DO need to beg forgiveness from you, Father, because I had a very uncharitable thought this morning about an atheist coworker I have to put up with every day who says religion serves no good purpose in this world. I didn't SAY this to him, but I thought: "It serves a very good purpose indeed, mister. It prevents believers from rolling up a newspaper and rapping you on the nose like an errant puppy who missed the social newspaper again and wet all over the parquet floor!" heeheehee
sterlingrose33 2 years ago
Father Barron, I think you should someday make a video about the importance of religion in a society and how it can provide tremendous beauty and inspiration to soften the sometimes harshness of a religionless and therefore mechanistic culture like the USSR or much of Eastern Europe was etc etc. Would you consider addressing that topic?
sterlingrose33 2 years ago
I think if you were to take that topic on, Father, you could do it in a way that makes religion's importance to society a lot more relevant for modern people. I think it'd be a great video.
sterlingrose33 2 years ago
I've enjoyed every single one of his videos up til now. The reason why Africa is elevated in the movie( I haven't seen the movie but he said its elevated) and the surviors and moving there is the symbol of the continuum of humans. If youve taken evolution or archaeology or human history, you'll know that Africa was the origin of homo sapiens/erectus and our ancestors.
donaldheng 2 years ago
@donaldheng I'd thought of that myself, actually
sterlingrose33 2 years ago
As an aside, Father, is it even remotely possible to get idolatrous about the Eucharist? I sure hope not. Just curious.
sterlingrose33 2 years ago
@sterlingrose33 Of course it is: if you misunderstand it by collapsing the substance of the eucharist into its accidents.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
RE: "...all false forms of human culture and political organization are under judgment..."
I'm going to take this comment to our Bible study this week; we are in Revelation 7 right now
sterlingrose33 2 years ago
i noticed the destruction of the catholics in Rome during that movie also. i still thought it was a good movie as far as 'end of the world' movies go, especially near the end where the compassion and self-sacrifice is featured.
charcoaldragon 2 years ago
nobody knows 100% what will happen in 2012.
TributeToTesla 2 years ago
often times people in dire poverty will turn to a religion (in the case of many parts of Africa, its Catholicism) for some comfort in a life filled with misery, suffering and sadness.
generally speaking, as the quality of life increases, the importance of religion will be diminished.
Although there are other factors at play such as increased education, access to health care, the free flow of information and opinion in the form of media/press etc.
Its not surprising that Catholicism's reach
FreedomLiberty21 2 years ago
is increasing in poverty stricken third world countries and dwindling in first world nations of Europe, Australia, U.S. and Canada.
of course that does not mean religion becomes entirely irrelevant in first world nations but the sort of blind faith and sheep like obedience to obscure doctrines, clergy and bronze age practices is overtly absent amongst the people in those nations (the ones still holding any religious belief, Catholic or otherwise)
FreedomLiberty21 2 years ago
Friend, you've committed what in logic is known as the genetic fallacy: the origin of an idea doesn't tell a thing in regard to its truth or falsity. And just to mention a few counter-examples: Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Jerome, Anselm, Bonaventure, Johann Sebastian Bach, Descartes, Newton, Kepler, John Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Evelyn Waugh, John Paul II, Dorothy Day. Just a few of the poor, simple folks who have embraced religion over the centuries.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
@FreedomLiberty21 Strange that after more than a century of broken secularist promises and the cruel imposition of secularist ideology that the peoples of the so called third world would turn to an alternative social theory ("religion") to order society. That doesn't sound to me like "blind faith" but a practical strategy of self-determination. "Blind faith" is what the secularists demanded to advance their tyrranical ideologies.
TELEMACUS800 2 years ago
@FreedomLiberty21
If your secular hypothesis is the case, then why is America the exception? America is wealthy; it has good education. Its laws respect freedom of speech, etc. Then why is religion not dying in America?
mixarm 2 years ago
@mixarm
America is a unique case among most other countries in the world. While a simplistic answer to the reason for religion's hold on American society cannot suffice, there are, however a few points to make.
America has a long standing history of religious freedom incorporated into the very fabric of its social organization.
Now its important to note that such "religious freedom" often amounted to nothing more than a chosen variety of Christian affiliation.
Protestant sects/denominations
FreedomLiberty21 2 years ago
@mixarm
were tolerated. Some even flourished, but Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians usually were not well accepted and integrated into the social structure of an overarching protestant society (doesn't sound too much like religious freedom, does it?)
Thats were you get the infamous "Catholic ghettos" that would appear. There were Jewish and Orthodox verities as well.
In any case, in the last 60-80 years those kind of enclaves have all but evaporated but it could be argued that such
FreedomLiberty21 2 years ago
@mixarm
still exist for Muslim communities in the U.S. and, of course, less so, for Hindu, Jains, Shiks, etc...
on another note, I think you'd be interested to notice that religion in America has been on a steady decline for at least the last 30 years.
Moreover there appears to be no sign of that "trend" stopping. Thus the U.S. is moving in the way of Europe, Japan and other developed nations in this regard. Meanwhile Atheism, Secularism and Humanism are making tremendous gains.
FreedomLiberty21 2 years ago
@mixarm
I'd like to refer you to a graph by 2009 Religious Identification Survey
(published by Ringling College)
simply go to Google and in the search bar type in
Rise of Atheism
the second search result should say Rise of Atheism in America (INFOGRAPHIC)
the date reads October 7, 2009
it'll take you to the digg site where you just click the link with the same name
(sorry, I wish YouTube would allow websites to be posted directly in responses.)
FreedomLiberty21 2 years ago
There is not a rise of atheism in America. There is a rise of people affiliating themselves in the NONES category. Father Barron made a video about this. It was found in that recent survey that the majority of people in that category believe in a personal God but are not religiously affiliated. That category is also made up of deists, atheists etc.
xtrashed 2 years ago
Your claim is totally false. Many years ago everybody thought that Modern societies, technological advanced societies would become less and less Religious at time went on. The idea was that robust Orthodox Religious belief was going to thin out the more developed countries got, economically developed, the more technologically developed they got. Miracles and believes in Absolute Truth and Scriptures that are Authoritative.
xtrashed 2 years ago
The more people got educated and came to know something about what the whole world was like. It was understood that when human beings came more mature that Religion would slow die out. It would thin out at first, you know there is robust Religion that believes in Miracles and believes in Absolute Truth and Scriptures that are Authoritative.
xtrashed 2 years ago
It was expected that the Robust Religion would start to die out and then things would start to die out and things would become secular. None of that has happened! If you go to Latin America, Asia and Africa, Religion, Islam and Christianity are growing! And there are even signs of it happening in Europe!
xtrashed 2 years ago
And it is refuting the idea that the more modern a society gets the more secular it gets. For example, Korea went from 1% to 40% Christian in less than a hundred years as it was getting more modern. The same thing is happening in China, and today there is probably more Christians in China than there is in America. Orthodox Religion is not going away! Robust, I believe in miracles, I believe in the truth, I believe in the scriptures, that Religion is here to stay indefinitely!
xtrashed 2 years ago
Search for, 'Will South Korea become Christian,' - a leading Pastor there says Christianity will become the majority religion there soon. This country used to be locked in the grip of communist atheism, well not for much longer. Roman Catholicism is the fastest growing denomination in South Korea. Search for the article, 'Christianity, Shamanism, and Modernization in South Korea.'
In France, there has also been a rise of Evangelicals, from the post-war population.
xtrashed 2 years ago
Another shallow, nihilistic movie with nothing to offer the observer. People will be depressed by it. Nothing more. Yawn.
tjttzcspplt 2 years ago
Thanks Fr. Barron, this made my view of the movie a lot more positive, here i was thinking of a mindless rollarcoaster ride. And i didnt enjoy it as a movie. But the depth as told here makes it truly something special. I got to explore the other work of this director in detail, and see if i can find some more of this wonderful hidden depth.
TheSokwe 2 years ago
Even not withstanding the secular humanistic overtones of Emmerich, good or bad, is movies are just complete CHEESE anyway. How bad was Independence Day, 10,000 B.C., Day After Tommorrow, etc.? They're usually pretty cheesey in many ways and disappointing.
thegorn68 2 years ago
@thegorn68: yes...Independence Day = bug hunt. Ooooh. :twirls finger in the air: Yay. Wow.
yawn
sterlingrose33 2 years ago
to make my point clearer, i think that if we transfer the movie into the real world and all those things actually happen in 2012, i have no doubt that st.petter's plaza would be packed with catholics praying.. and depicting a scenario where those people are somehow saved while the rest of the world goes to sh*t would be nothing but laughable. Even if my point of view strikes you as anti-catholic you just have to admit it's realistic.. and that's what this type of films aim for.
Ozzy3600 2 years ago
How realistic are the things that happened in the movie is anybody's guess. Will the world end in 2012? Will Mt. Everest get drowned out like that? Will John Cusack's character actually escape the ripples like that? As to whether some of the details were anti-Catholic, it is interesting how the movie does show religious folk get wiped out and Christian symbols get torn apart. It seems more than just random and coincidental.
youngforest 2 years ago
all i'm saying is that i think that emmerich wasn't being picky against any religion in particular, but when you make a movie about the end of the world that includes everyone and everything.
take the statue of jesus scene for example, if instead of that it wouldve been a random building in brazil. Would you have known it was brazil falling apart? NO.
the fact that most of this monuments are religious just probes that religion (christianity mainly) its deep into our culture.
sry for the poor eng
Ozzy3600 2 years ago
i watched your review and i must say i just don't see how a movie that ultimately leaves a message of compassion and solidarity can be deemed anti-catholic, i mean, i guess you could say it's anti-religious because the people who choose to pray are destroyed by numerous natural disasters, since some religious persons may think that prayer could save them from an earthquake, but to me that is just being realistic...
Ozzy3600 2 years ago
I don't think people were praying to be saved from earthquake. More likely, they were praying for strength to face the disaster and to pray for the afterlife.
youngforest 2 years ago
@alatarielnerwen
The Catholic church does not believe in a "magic man". Secondly why were the people praying to be saved if they were facing their way to what was to come. If they were doing that they would have no need to pray. If you do not like religious people so much why did you even bother to watch this video. Clearly this shows that you too are religious and thus you make a fool of yourself as you claim religious people do.
1gamester 2 years ago
God bless you Father Barron. Keep up the good work.
cgm920 2 years ago
I love your zeal. It shows Father is getting to you. We'll keep praying for you, friend.
PamRieth 2 years ago
Far more analysis than this film merits.
mason1889 2 years ago
prayer is useless.
It sounds like you are jealous that another religion was on the ark that wasn't Christianity. See you only see Christianity, anything else would be blasphemy.
Where is the acceptance and love. Seems like religion only separates instead of uniting.
reduvio 2 years ago
No. As a matter of fact, I think that all religions contain rays of truth. I happen to reverence many elements within Buddhism. What I don't like is the secularist ideology that becomes aggressive toward traditional Christianity. I think any objective observer would be hard pressed to deny that such aggressiveness is on full display in 2012.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
As a "Ghandi Catholic", as I call myself, I have a greed with many of your posts on such topics as the Church's misconceived relationship with the scientific community. On this topic, however, I find areas in your analysis that I feel could be disputed. For example, I think it's a bit of an misreading that Buddhism is the only religion that is unscathed, considering that the film features the death of the Dalai Lama as he prays and beats a gong while the giant tsunami flood the Himalayas.
JRserver 2 years ago
Also, I personally wasn't offended by the film's depiction of the Vatican's destruction, since I think the intent of this particular scene is to show the horror of the ongoing apocalypse, and the fact that in the the end of the world, the Vatican going to be destroyed just like every other historical and religious landmark.
JRserver 2 years ago
JRserver: Then Emmerich should have had the balls to depict the destruction of Mecca.
TELEMACUS800 2 years ago 13
I did read of that, that he "did not want a fatwa issued against him", and that's the one argument that I think has weight when one says that "2012" has anti-Catholic symbolism. And, truth be told, I would make the same argument to Emmerich: that in a movie depicting a deluge high enough to flood the Himalayas, it goes without saying that no one should be offended by seeing their holy monument destroyed, since both the Vatican and Mecca would clearly be toast in such a scenario.
JRserver 2 years ago
I know it seems like this over-analysis. However, if the deluge was high enough to submerge the Himalayas, why wasn't Africa fully submerged?
mixarm 2 years ago
Because the Earth's crust had become destablized do to the high levels of solar radiation melting the Earth's core, which causes the tectonic plates to shift and crumble. Africa isn't flooded in the movie because the shifting of the other plates pushed the whole continent higher than it had been previously.
JRserver 2 years ago
@TELEMACUS800 he really wanted to, but didn't
XSC3 1 year ago
@TELEMACUS800 That's what I thought!
jshjamaarify 10 months ago
Also, on the note of alleged anti-Catholic symbolism in the film and keep in mind some of Roland Emmerich's past work, such as "The Day after Tomorrow". In that particular film, several characters take refuge in the New York public library from the coming ice age. They burn books in the library to keep warm, however the one book that they refuse to burn is a copy of the Guttenberg Bible (and this refusal is made by an atheist no less, albeit for non-religious reasons.)
JRserver 2 years ago
I went to see "2012" because Emmerich's apocalyptic films tend be very action packed and have far more uplifting endings than your standard end of the world movie. Another film you should review from earlier this year is "Knowing", which I liked but not as much as "2012", primarily because it's much more depressing, doom and gloom oriented. I think that a much better case can be made for a contempt of religion in the film, the depiction of the central character's father, but I still liked it.
JRserver 2 years ago
I like the majority of what you post on Youtube, Father. I think there's a general unwillingness by many non-Catholics to possess an understanding about the history of Catholicism that contributes to many of the less than flattering aspects of the Church's reputation among outsiders. I just feel that I have to express my disagreement with you regarding "2012", both in terms of it's religious symbolism, as well as it's entertainment value, which was very high, I thought.
God bless, Father.
JRserver 2 years ago
RE: "As a matter of fact, I think that all religions contain rays of truth. I happen to reverence many elements within Buddhism."
Oh good. So I'm not quite the heretic I thought I was. I also see a great deal of beauty in other religions. But my heart belongs to the Eucharist.
sterlingrose33 2 years ago
Christianity is all about uniting people in love (e.g. Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, Jesus' profound non-violence on the cross), but not in a superficial love. Love is only true when it is informed by the Truth. It is not a blind acceptance of the other. It is willing the good of the other as other. That is true love, which Christianity claims God is! It doesn't come naturally, but as a supernatural gift from the One who is Love itself. However, not all Christians do this
mixarm 2 years ago
The purpose of prayer is to unite you to the flow of the divine life. Once you allow yourself to be in sync with this you'll be fully alive because the divine life is the fullness of being acting through you. Christians identify the fullness of being with Love. Since love is wiling the good of the other as other, there will be a self-emptying on your part because you are always concerned about the good of the other. So, prayer turns the focus away from yourself to the otherly Other, God.
mixarm 2 years ago
Comment removed
mixarm 2 years ago
Christians have a right to be upset when 2012 displays St. Peter's Basilica crushing thousand praying, the Sistine Chapel ceiling falling upon the Cardinals, and the statue of Christ Redeemer crumbling to pieces. Why not show the icons of other religions crash to the ground? Why not? Because Christianity is a threat, a nonviolent threat that we want to believe is illusory, cultural construct of the past.
mixarm 2 years ago
Peace
mixarm 2 years ago
to clear up to seeming contrast between the violent OT God and the loving NT God google "My Ways are Not Your Ways + Eleonore Stump". Her talk was given at a conference that addressed the passages in the Bible in which horrible things are done by God or in the name of God.
mixarm 2 years ago
Read the bible instead lol.
This is the point of this review was to promote Catholicism.
So in your views should have the mass prayers generated an invisible shield produced from God.... Jeez get real and open your eyes. I am glad teh director did what he did.
reduvio 2 years ago
@reduvio You do realize that you're watching a video of a Catholic priest on a Catholic show on a Catholic Youtube channel, right? Saying the point of the review is so Father Barron can try and promote Catholicism as if it's some big secret is like going to a mosque and being surprised to learn about Islam.
mrsticky005 4 months ago
I find it interesting that Fr. Barron notes that the end of the world is a religious or more particularly a Christian concept. Knowing that Fr. Barron is more versed than me in comparative religion he most certainly understands that end of the world fantasies predate the Christian religion. In fact the very film he reviews illustrates the Olmec view. What needs to be dealt with is why most religions feel the need to use catastrophe to bolster their claims about the way the universe operates.
mespo727272 2 years ago 2
It's a movie.
I'll let anyone who wants to see it see it.
But I'll explain that it's fake.
NakedCreep 2 years ago
Also, if you think the Gospels are mythical, read Rene Girard's article "Are the Gospels Mythical?". You can find this article online.
mixarm 2 years ago
That doesnt prove christianity is not bullshit. It is only trying to differentiate the bullshit stories from the romans and greeks from christianity.
Its saying "nope, our bullshit story was not copied and pasted, it is an original bullshit story".
Aside from that and a handful of preaching, the article doesnt really defend the gospels, it just tries to make a distinction between christianity and other religions.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago 2
No, why are you so certain that the rationalism that you are coming from is not itself a myth that has been constructed? Why are you so certain that there is a fundamental reason and logic that can be arrived at once all the bullshit is swept away? You want evidence, but show me evidence that such "Reason" and "Logic" exist and is not itself a construct. The claim that reality is only accessible by empirical evidence provided by science seems to me to be a myth as well.
mixarm 2 years ago
I am not certain of it, but the track record of reason is demonstrably better than that of faith. Show me a single explanation that we have today that was previously answered by science that is now better answered by faith. Those dont exist, because science, standards of evidence and skepticism work and faith doesnt.
I can give you a ton of examples where science replaced shitty answers that were not the result of reason, but rather blind faith.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago 2
It seems that you are conflating logic/mathematics with science. I do not dispute the scientific method being the best method within the empirical realm. But wouldn't you say that logic and mathematics is verifiable outside of the empirical realm? Wouldn't you say that logic and mathematics is a priori knowledge instead of a posteriori. Logic and mathematics can be applied to the empirical realm. A good case can be made that verifiability of logic/mathematics is not empirical verifiability.
mixarm 2 years ago
I never did such thing. I understand that logic and mathematics are different from science. What on earth makes you think that logic and mathematics are a priory? You can believe in that if you want but again... until you actually present some proof you wont be taken seriously.
Once again, I think this is yet another attempt by you to distract the issue.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago 2
No, I am trying to get you to acknowledge that there are some truths that are not empirically verifiable; things that science does not prove. That seems to be rather important if we are going to discuss whether religion has any validity at all.
mixarm 2 years ago
I have granted that already. Twice.
There may b a real that cannot b verifiable by science, but the scientific method is the best method we have 2 determine whether or not this has any validity.
There may b some other kind of truth out there, but until you actually find a way 2 DEMONSTRATE IT you are fucked, and you wont be able to get anywhere with this nonsense. Possibilities mean nothing, what matters is probability.
As far as our understanding is concerned, religion has no validity.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
And the only way of demonstrating anything is by empirically demonstrating it? How did you empirically demonstrate that that the scientific method is the best method besides just saying that it "works"? Also, aren't there questions that all humans have (e.g. moral questions) that cannot be answered empirically? Or are all of those questions that have no possibility of being answered empirically just nonsense and something that we should ignore?
mixarm 2 years ago
The scientific method gives reliable results. The computer you are using is a testament to the reliability and accuracy of the scientific method. I didnt just say it works, look around you, our societies are built of the back of science. Technology, medicine, the overall improvement of human life and its quality are tangible proof.
Moral questions have answers, but they are not absolute answers, they are subjective. Once again, instead of defending your myth you are just poisoning the well.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
Yes, and when morality is merely subjective we have the battle of wills to determine the right course of action of a society. Morality then is what the most powerful members of that society say it is. In a democracy this means that morality is in the hands of whoever has mob control. So morality changes according to who is the sovereign subject. But most people balk at the actions of Stalin, Hitler, and even religious figures. However, perhaps there is objectivity to morality
mixarm 2 years ago
What the heck are you talking about? Of perhaps more importantly- WHO are you talking about? Stop being dishonest and address the issues that are being raised and stop jumping from subject to subject when you cant respond.
Morality is NOT reducible to "might makes right", thats part of christian theology, YOU are the one who doesnt believe in morality, you believe in authority, which is exactly what christianity is.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
...a realm that science and logic does not have access to.
mixarm 2 years ago
Morality CAN be a little more objective than "I am god and this is good and this is bad".
BUT AGAIN.... I am honestly getting tired of telling you the same damn thing over and over again. I have granted that perhaps there is objective morality or something besides the natural realm, YOU STILL WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE IT somehow and I am sorry but faith doesnt work, and making lists of perhaps, maybes and its possible.
Please dont make me reply with the same thing again....
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
Alright, I'm sorry to bother you so much, but I'm just confused by you saying that morality is both subjective and "a little more objective" than solipsism. It seems self-contradictory. If you grant that morality is perhaps objective and that it can be demonstrated, which principle can you start your deduction with that is self-evident to reason. I won't bother you anymore. And by the way, why are you claiming that christian morality is reducible to "might makes right"?
mixarm 2 years ago
Morality is entirely subjective. Of course it is, every society has a different standard, it depends on many factors, it is not absolute. In the netherlands and places in europe prostitution is not viewed in the same way it is viewed over here.
We CAN make an objective assessment of the CONSEQUENCES of behaviors. I didnt say morality was objective, it clealy isnt.
In christianity whatever god says is good is good. Thats not morality thats authority. Why is it good? Because god said so.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
But aren't there behaviors that are not conducive to human flourishing regardless of the consequences (e.g. adultery, lying, fraud, murder, etc.)?! Hitler certainly thought that killing the Jews would bring about good consequences. So, I take it that you think that any action is okay so long as its consequences are positive at least subjectively or intersubjectively. However, do humans really act like this? I just think that consquentialism is rather simplistic.
mixarm 2 years ago
In the bible god does many many many despicable things. Mass genocide, infanticide, and the list goes on and on and on. The reason stupid christians give to justify this is that since he is god, whatever he does is moral, and thus it was morally correct for him to do that.
He created everything, he could destroy us all, yet he doesnt because he loves us. Might makes right bullshit.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
Also, why can't there be a level of reality that is inaccessible to reason and logic? The claim that reality is only accessible by the sciences is not an empirical claim, so its self-contradictory to hold that claim. Back to myth though, myth seems to be the story we tell ourselves to make sense of who we are. If there is no truth then I can pick and choose any myth. If there is truth, I am seemingly limited to what reason upholds. However, if reason is shaky then something outside of it (cont.)
mixarm 2 years ago
Perhaps there IS a level of reality outside of the realm of reason. That is a possibility. However, even if it exists, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF DEMONSTRATING THAT IT EXISTS and therefore, any assertion that you make about this realm is comparable to a drug induced rant about alice in wonderland.
PS: I NEVER made the claim that reality is only accessible by science. Try responding to what I have said.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
...needs to inform it. This is what I call faith. But before I go any further I think I need to be clearer on how to define reason before I claim that it needs to be informed by faith
mixarm 2 years ago
Reason is an approach to reality, its nothing tangible. How I define reason is not relevant since the burden of proof is YOURS. If there is anyone who needs to clearly define and back up anything is you, and your kind who believe in these things.
In the end, there is no other method out there that is better than the scientific method when it comes to reliable and consistent results. If you want to use faith thats fine, but do not be surprised if you are laughed out of court.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
No, I won't be suprised. Actually, biblical faith expects this.
mixarm 2 years ago
Religion has absolutely nothing of value to offer, to anyone anywhere, that cannot be achieved through secular means, or by means that do not require the suspension of his or her rational faculties and the acceptance of nonsense without a shred of evidence.
I dont believe based on trust, I have reasons to believe in the things I believe in, and trust is rarely an aid to these beliefs, it is more often than not an obstacle.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
I think the difference is our starting grounds. Rationalism holds the cogito as its basis, but Descartes couldn't have arrived at that if he didn't have language which was given to him exterior to the cogito. If that is true, then the whole rationalist project seems to be undermined. We believe something or someone because we trust it or them. I know you trust science, but reconsider trusting religion. Maybe you'll be surprised how it can access a reality that secular reason cannot.
mixarm 2 years ago
Show me an example of what you are talking about. Show me a single example where religion reached a conclusion or answered a question conclusively in a manner which was DEMONSTRABLY better than science and the scientific method.
A lot fo what you seem to be trying to do I think is a little pathetic. Instead of defending your position honestly, by providing evidence and rational arguments IN FAVOR of it...
You just try to poison the well by trying to bring other approaches down to your level?
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
You make such a convincing argument. Oh, wait, this isn't an argument. This is just you congratulating yourself because you happen to be a "rational" person. Define for me what it means to be "rational"?
mixarm 2 years ago
A person who is rational uses reason and logic to interpret the world around him/reality. An irrational person uses faith, emotion, and things that defy and or contradict reason.
Believing in things that are unlikely, unsupported by evidence and with evidence to the contrary is irrational.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
What is reason?
mixarm 2 years ago
religion aside this movie was a boring, mind numbing piece of garbage and shockingly anti-christian, I guess if I was catholic I'd be more outraged at the abominable scene of the sistine chapel rolling over thousands of praying catholics but still offended by the constant bashing of religion except for buddhism which got a free pass, this guy didn't mention the russian pilot who died a fiery death as soon as he crossed himself but in any other film the plane would have not gone over the cliff
nothingface2112 2 years ago
Thay guy has found a way to go throug life without breaking a sweat, just like any other religious figures....
Go ahead and believe in that shit you naive sheep. The talking snake with the apple and the idea that all animals on the planet were situated at a walking distance from Noah's house are my favourites.
All fo you are pathetic and I am ashamed to call mysle human, because of you...
orelsi1000 2 years ago
Ah still another cogent counter-argument from an avatar of modern rationalism.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
@orelsi1000
Note the response, it truly believes that leaveing a response like that, makes him look highly superiour intellectually, thus making every piece of garbage that it spits out true and we all should follow. Nietzsche had it right. People should not follow anybody, word of the day is individualism. Too bad it's impossible to send bombs to a website. Take a guess where my first one would go.
CountHuginn 2 years ago
now they should make a movie based on the Book of Revelation!
saaya2 2 years ago
Father Barron should have ended this video at 8:11 -- I was with him all the way until that point. I was about to subscribe until those last 25 seconds. Too bad. Otherwise it was a well done analysis.
blackfractal 2 years ago
Why? What's the problem? The book of Revelation is a lot less boring than 2012!
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
When it comes to myths, revelation wins but not because of its creativeness but rather how fucked up it is. Good fantasy, awesome science fiction but waaaaaay better if you are high.
Revelation is trippy...
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
Have you ever read anything by Augustine, Aquinas, Rahner, Ratzinger, Balthasar, Newman, and many other brilliant men and women who regard revelation not as silly science fiction, but as that which has revealed the nature of reality but at a level beyond natural reason? Read some of their writings about revelation without the presupposition that it is just nonsense. Read them.....and then THINK about it.
mixarm 2 years ago
How about we save some time and instead of me reading all the literature you simply point me to a single piece of evidence that any of those people you mentioned presented to back up their claims?
Sounds fair? The evidence must be there since you already acknowledge that they must are pretty smart. And surely, no smart person would believe in something as stupid and unlikely as divine revelation without proper evidence correct?
So unless you can show me that evidence, I stand by what I said.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
LOL the irony is the Book of Revelation was written by a guy who had a series of "visions" well after Jesus' lifetime. I'm going to go ahead and assume he was on drugs.
Xonedos 2 years ago
Hold on Robert Barron don't you suppose that what he is saying that on Judgment day God takes his divine hand away from humanity and this is why the movie leads to a cutting off of God from his children.
james48890743 2 years ago
Prayer useless ? NO WEAH !!!1!1
Churchx77 2 years ago
Well I can show you 1 Billion Christians at least who can share with you answered prayers by God including myself. However, we must understand that an answer of God as NO to your prayer to be not an answer at all. One of the prayers of Christ was for all the Christians to be one, in action, mind, and spirit doing the good work of the Lord and the church. This prayer is unanswered not because God can not answer it but because we are not answering it's call.
james48890743 2 years ago
No, you cant.
Churchx77 2 years ago 2
Okay so you think I'm a liar well forget about that let us use a documented miracle that there is no way you can get around. From your understanding what is the origins of the universe I will give you three options. 1. God 2. Nothing 3. It is eternal (thereby going against all modern science, but even still with an eternal universe I can prove God exists) so go ahead give us your answer.
james48890743 2 years ago
No you cant. You dont seem to understand what proof means. Its not by saying that god exists that you prove his existence.
Churchx77 2 years ago 2
I didn't just arbitrary say that God exists I said I can give proof from miracles you seem to reject personal testimony so therefore I went to the creation of the universe itself. Now are you going to answer me or run around in games. 1 2 or 3 I'm waiting.
james48890743 2 years ago
Also, I would add even if someone didn't have good arguments for God's existence there is still the inner witness of the holy spirit for those who accept Christ as their Lord and savior so apart from good arguments you can know God. The Bible makes the promise "if you draw near to God he will draw near to you".
james48890743 2 years ago
No there is no proof. If there was proof it wouldnt be called faith but fact. The very fat that you've got to try and convince me is proof enough that there isnt proof. I believe in my television, I believe it exists because its in my room and when I leave it and come back its still there. Everything that you talk about, prayers and miracles are not proof. They are just things that you believe in. If prayer was real there would be a ministry of prayers and probably taxes on it.
Churchx77 2 years ago 2
First off you've misunderstood faith, when we say faith it means we trust in God it does not mean we believe in something we have no good reasons or grounds to believe in. Yes you believe in your T.V. but you also have faith that when you turn it on it will work and show a picture. No we don't put taxes on prayer because salvation is a free gift of God, we give tithes to the church because we love to because it is a way to give thanks to God for what he does for us.
james48890743 2 years ago
Well prayer better be free since whenever you use it it dont work.
Churchx77 2 years ago 2
well you are a coward and will never answer me, nor do you have any good reason to say it doesn't work!
james48890743 2 years ago
Im a coward ? You're the one hiding behind your petty and unfounded beliefs. As for prayers I dont have to prove to you it doesnt work, you're the on claiming it works, show me PROOF that it works.
Churchx77 2 years ago 2
That is an interesting definition of faith. Basically you have spun it to mean trust in god, and NOT belief in something without good reason.
My response would be, where are your good reasons to believe in god?
Also, there is no faith involved in turning a TV on. This new attempt by theists to make everyone a man of faith is a little pathetic. It requires no faith because unlike ur god, we can actually test the TV, observe the image, quantify all sorts of things and even make predictions.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
You can test God if with like testing anything if you have a genuine and sincere mind and heart you can draw near to God the Bible makes the promise "if you draw near to God he will draw near to you".
james48890743 2 years ago
You dont understand science. If you need to have an emotional preset or EXPECT a result then its not science. I believe that is called wishful thinking, or pseudo science.
And there is no reason for me to believe that a written word is true just because it is written down. You cannot use the bible to prove the bible right dude... THINK about it.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
Miracles wouldnt be proof of god, but I am eager to see your so called evidence. Also, your creation myth, along with all the other myths form different religions and cultures are not backed by evidence.
We have a pretty solid understanding of why there is diversity in life... and none of that understanding points to a divine magic man creating everything out of nothing my friend.
guitarmaestro078 2 years ago
So from where did the universe come from churchx77 was too scared to answer so I'll ask you.
james48890743 2 years ago