Sounds wonderful, tantalising and I want to know more. I'm so glad we have Christian intellectuals. I too became a Christian through intellectual arguments as a teenager; once I was convinced that a creator God exists, everything else followed.
This for me represented one of the single greatest highlights of my entire viewing of UA-cam ever. Such an exciting event, I only wish we could have also heard that more “academic” segment as well as the later one. Thank you Bishop Barron for inspiring us to seek an ever greater understanding of our beautiful faith. Always looking forward for your next commentaries and hope to see you dialogue with WLC again.
William lane craig had defeated every single person in debates on the existence of God. Even audience polls with athiests show this. these are facts. go on youtube and check it out. Hitchens a great atheist and very sharp said anyone who says Craig is an idiot or some other nonsense putting him down is the real Idiot. He comes prepared in his debates like no other. That's why BARRON invited him on. Great apologist and one of the Best Philosophers out there. He also knows his cosmology!!
If there are traditions of understanding, apparently there also are traditions of mis-understanding... The truth is that which has the most explanatory power. On the issue of the simplicity of God, WL Craig's position is unattainable, and really not biblical in core - at the least, not biblical in accordance to 'pre-modern' biblical interpretative traditions ... His position envisaged a qualified / conditioned god, granted a supreme being; supreme but still a being among beings. If God is a (qualified) being among beings, not the transcendent Being (the source of all beings), then the Neo-atheists' position will be attainable! Ironically, a supreme being, still a being among beings, being in 'competition' to other beings, cannot be fully personal to any being. But almighty God is absolutely without limit ... Being without qualification; simply Being divine. Seems the correct understanding: Only God who is absolutely "I am who Am" - ipsum esse subsistens God, can be God who is absolutely personal, to every beings - according to their respective manner of being... The simplicity of God, as in great art, is not simplistic, not one-dimensional, but in God is infinitude...
I've watched every single debate on UA-cam involving WLC, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc etc. I would have to concede that nobody could come close to undermining Hitchens, including WLC. Hitchens objections to religion are irrefutable.. I won't go into them here but it's all available on yt.
Per your comment about You Tube comments during the Dr Craig conversation, I just wanted to say - "Gosh I love you Bishop Barron and what a wonderful argument." Seriously, I so enjoy your vids! Thanks for taking the time to do them.
Having you two speak was great. My emotional resistance to Catholicism (God in general, and so on) was obliterated by the intellectual side of the arguments. The ontological and so forth.
Congrats! I was an anglican, but five years ago I become a Catholic: that was the best decision in my whole life! Regards from Brazil. Arthur Olinto (olintoarthur@gmail.com)
Welcome home; Amazing on UA-cam all the converts.Many new converts experienced their first Ash Wednesday as a catholic yesterday.Maybe we can call all the catholic teachers out there the Bar Stool prophets lol.Yes many catholic converts will experience their first communion this Easter after finishing the RCIA program.
Cheers to you all. Check out Dr Peter Kreeft as well. He has some great talks on youtube on evil and suffering . JPII "Theology of the Body" was another eyeopener for me. How God has written divine truths even into the compatibility of the male and female body.
I'm a big William Lane Craig fan but has no idea he wasn't a Catholic! I really liked the evening, two of my favorite men in faith. It's interesting. God bless you both
No one needs to have telepathic powers to be heard by God, as God is omniscient. Try sincerely asking Him to lead you to the truth, and see what happens. I am a former atheist who used to scorn Christians. God bless you.
God is the very foundation of all existence. Your existence is sustained by God's will. So yes, He knows what you do, what you think and all your secrets, whether you want it or not.
Hi standev1: Kindly supply the verifiable evidence for your many assertions about your god. I'm certain that you have abundant, powerful, highly explanatory, well documented, compelling, incontrovertible verifiable evidence for everything that you write. I'd appreciate your articulation and wait with bated breath for your response. Thank you!
Yes, please we are woefully underrepresented interdenominational talks. I am sure a bishop or priest would sit down with you. Fr Josiah Trenham perhaps.
I was there that night. I enjoyed the discussion tremendously. As a Lutheran I found myself stuck in the middle, as usual. I agree and disagree with you both equally, LOL. But my respect for you both grew even more. When you returned to the stage to bless / dismiss us, well, the crowd loved it, especially me. God bless you Bishop!
Naturalism, obviously, has no explanation for, nor need of such things as common courtesy, self control, or the ability to mind one’s own business. Such uncivilized ... people are greatly affected by prayer though.
I appreciate this conversation so much! I often see ecumenical efforts dismissing the differences between denominations rather than highlighting them and speaking about them openly while searching for common ground. Bishop Barron, I'd love to see you have a conversation like this with a Jewish or Muslim scholar. An interfaith conversation that delves into the significant differences between the religions while also searching for points of commonality and cooperation. Interfaith conversations are far too often watered down to "well, we all really believe the same thing."
Will you guys meet up again? Perhaps a meeting with John Lennox as well. The three of you together would be a real trear... I stumbled on the both of you guys around the same time, and I've loved both of your approaches to apologetics.
If Dr. Craig keeps reading the Church Fathers, he may well become Catholic. Reading them played a part in my conversion. I am in RCIA now, watching your video series, and will come into the Church this Easter.
Thank you for the nutrients of the mind and soul. Fr. Barron On the question of evangelizing through beauty. One thing came to mind for me. The tilma de Guadalupe. My mother told me a similar experience to yours when she saw the tilma. Expecting to see a glorious masterpiece, only to find a torn burnt piece of cloak with the pure essence of christ within it. well that woud humble any person. it changed a nation. to give the truth. I have heard that even atheist in Mexico give respect to la virgin de Guadalupe. because they know there is something more then what they see. changes your perspective of beauty. The beautiful for me, is the torn, the burnt, the rust.
I don't know Dr William Lane Craig, but he must've a very brave man, I mean, discuss about Catholisism, with such an intelligent, pure and cultured Priest that is so iluminated by the Holy Spirit, like Bishop Barron, wow.
the effectiveness of intellectual arguments in turning non-believers into believers is an interesting topic. My hunch is that if I had read Aquinas as an unbeliever, I would have completely misunderstood him, based on my own misconceptions about what God is and what Aquinas was arguing for (IMO, that's exactly the mistake Bertrand Russell made in his criticisms of Aquinas). I will say, however, that reading Aquinas as a believer has definitely been efficacious in turning me into a "closet Catholic".
Bishop Barron I herd you say something really good about a holy hour of prayer could you do a video on how that prayer hour should look like and how we should pray?
please Bishop pray for my Son he has Brain Cancer he is getting worse. they found the Cancer all most 3 years the first time Rd. toll him he has tree months to live after the operation but we toll my Son only God knows wean but know we see he is getting tier Please Pray for my Son
Fantastic, I wish I could have been there. It's going to be necessary that Christians come together and put our differences aside in the face of postmodernism/atheism.
Elspeth Silverstar; It's all going to come down to believing Jesus Christ is in the eucharist.Until then Protestants will always despise the catholic priesthood to their downfall.
Catholicism is not 100% about believing in the real presence. Mainline Protestants and Orthodox have that, too. The issue is the connection with the Papacy and genuinely refusing to reinterpret Scripture for modern tastes. We're the only ones who shrug our shoulders and say "no divorce" and "no contraception".
We can put aside our difference to the extent that others put aside their differences. I can overlook all sorts of Protestant issues. However, when a evangelical insists on essentially a de-converting people specifically from Catholicism, they will never be allies. It's ego and feel good to pretend we can create a non-toxic atmosphere by being nice to the point of doormat.
A M Some Protestants (like Anglican or Traditional Lutherans ) may believe in the Real Presence but they certainly don't possess it since their orders are not valid. Also, Catholicism IS about the Real Presence as the Eucharist is the "source and summit of the Christian life" as stated in the Catechism.
Bishop Barron I’m a Mormon, not a Catholic but I wanted to encourage you to do a video on what you think the Good and the Troubles that you feel about Latter-Day Saint theology
Bishop Barron, a great video. Have you ever met with / been to / studied Russian or Greek Orthodox churches or parishes, spoke to priests? What's your perception of Orthodox Christianity?
Boston Black it’s easier to talk with and delineate the clear differences with Protestants. Orthodox, as I noticed in Bishop Barron’s videos, are a bit more complicated, as he tends to be more agreeable with Orthodox than disagree.
Jordan Peterson is a gnostic.Nothing new under the sun. Meaning a man does not believe or understand the divinity of Christ. His ideas reflect Christian values and from watching a few videos of his I think he is understanding that his conservatism obviously fit in with Christianity. Catholic means universal 'according to the whole' meaning Peterson is getting there but he's not there fully in the gospel. When the king comes back Christ and sees a few people with the wrong wedding garment you have the potential of the king kicking you out of the wedding.Why play russian roulette with your salvation. A good video link is from Patrick Coffin a Catholic who interviewed him recently. ua-cam.com/video/W5iaERTETvE/v-deo.html
Thank you for posting this Bishop Robert! Regarding beauty, I got the impession that WLC was pressing you because he was actually looking for an example of an 'argument from beauty' that one might use. By the way, is there one?!
YES there is. 1. BEAUTY is defined as "something that is satisfying and pleasing". Einstein and Dirac both claimed (broadly) that "we should prefer theories that exhibit beauty" 2. SIMPLICITY: according to the Occam's Razor principle, "simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones" 3. So, let's apply these 2 selection criteria, beauty & simplicity, into choosing between two alternative "theories" about "how the universe was created, and what our role in it is": a. Atheistic theory: the universe was created by a random fluctuation of quantum void, as part of myriads of other universes within a multi-verse. We are a cosmic accident, life was created accidentally in a primordial soup, and there is no "grand purpose" to the Universe or Man, since everything is heading towards entropic death, and Man is heading to non-existence b. Theistic theory: God created both the Universe and Man, out of pure love, and he invited Man into an "intimate loving relationship" with God, leading to eternal life Now, you have to make a personal choice, based on the criteria of Beauty and Simplicity: - which of these two theories do you find more Pleasing for you (ie Beautiful): the atheistic (there is no purpose in creation or in life, no "creator" loves us, we are heading into non-existence and entropic death) OR the theistic (God loves you, he created everything out of love, you can live with him for ever)? - which of these two theories do you find Simpler: the atheistic ultra-complicated and mathematically obscure quantum mechanics description of random fluctuations of void within a multi-verse, OR the straightforward theistic account of "God's creative acts of love"? On both criteria, I would choose the "theistic theory": it's more BEAUTIFUL (ie personally pleasing) and SIMPLER
I have to say that I really enjoyed watching your evening conversation with Mr. Craig. Do you know if a recording of the afternoon meeting is available anywhere? (Also copies of the papers that you and Mr. Craig presented if they were not read aloud in said recording).
Yes, please do, Bishop Barron! I have been watching the videos of Dr. William Lane Craig on penal substitution, and as a Catholic, I would like to understand the Holy Mother Church's position.
it would be an awesome video. "Penal Substitution" is the idea that God knew exactly who would be saved, and exactly what sins they would commit throughout their lifetimes (either by "foreknowledge" or by "sovereign control of the universe"), and inflicted exact judicial punishment on Jesus on the cross for each of those sins, so that all of the saved people could be "justified" (ie, "right with God"), and not have to endure that punishment/condemnation themselves. IMO, this is a very crisp, clear, and coherent view of the cross (even largely Biblical & valid, I believe), but, like all crisp, clear, and coherent explanations of very deep and profound mysteries, it is probably a bit of an "oversimplification". "Christus Victor" is a much more "general" view of the cross. A good demonstration of a "Victor"-type of atonement is seen in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (C.S. Lewis, Chronicles of Narnia). While Christus Victor is fully consistent with Penal Substitution, it has more emphasis on conquering sin and death than on taking someone else's punishment.
Wayne and Donita thank you for that explanation bible itself and Jesus Himself saying take heart I have overcome the world Matthew 12:18“Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased. I will place my Spirit over him, and he shall announce judgment to the nations. 19He shall not contend, nor cry out, neither shall anyone hear his voice in the streets. 20He shall not crush the bruised reed, and he shall not extinguish the smoking wick, until he sends forth judgment unto victory. 1John 5:4For all that is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that overcomes the world: our faith. 5Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God! 6This is the One who came by water and blood: Jesus Christ. Not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies that the Christ is the Truth. And in 1corinthians 15:54And when this mortality has been clothed with immortality, then the word that was written shall occur: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55“O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” 56Now the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God, who has given us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 7 Im no theologan but thats my faith im no one at all and not that smart at all but thank you for reading i appreciate your time may God bless you....either way the mercy of God is unfathomed by intellect or angel it says in the diary of saint faustina the greater the sinner the greatest right he has to Gods mercy. 😁✌
those are great verses for illustrating Christus Victor. I'd be interested to see if Bishop Barron has the same reservations about Penal Substitution that I do. I'm obviously no theologian myself, but I'd say the biggest problem with Penal Substitution is that it's a very "limited atonement theory" (bad pun intended). Christus Victor seems like a much "fuller" theory that expresses the deeper, more mysterious aspects of the cross. Blessings, and may God's grace be with you!
Thoroughly enjoyed the discussion between you and WLC! But once we are past the broader elements of belief in Christ, and on to the points that would divide you two if the conversation were permitted to ensue...Where can we find the truth on these finer points and practices? I'm certainly not a scholar in this area, but don't they have a profound impact on who will and won't be saved? Appreciate any comment you can provide. God Bless!
I know this is a youtube comments section but here goes. I was raised Anglican, became something of an atheist in my teens and refound my faith a short while ago but very much lean towards Baptist and Evangelical ideas. I find Anglicanism a sort of wishy-washy middle-ground that doesn't really answer the questions of either side. I'm attracted by the same things as Dr. Craig to Catholicism but can't wrap my head around what seem to be man-made additions to the church's doctrine (Pope, Saints, additions/changes to scripture) and I've never really gotten real answers from proper Catholics on those topics. There are much smarter people than me who subscribe to Catholic ideas so maybe one of them could elaborate on those issues for me?
Bishop Robert Barron, I know God loves every single creature, I also know that we become children of God through the sacrament of baptism, Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, other Protestant Churches were "founded" by men. I am absolutely convinced that all humankind is called to be saved; but salvation comes only through Jesus Christ, who died in the cross and with His dead and Resurrection He redeemed us. So my question is, How Jewish, Muslims, Protestants and non believers will be saved? Quoting St Augustine: "God who created without you, won't save you without you". I am not being saved by myself, its a fact, but God requires my human cooperation for saving me.
I saw that conversation in London. Great but its in comfort zone for both with Christianity in the background. I like to see conversations with Islamic scholar and Imam like Dr Shabir Ali of Canada. Shabir is liberal Muslim and a Revisionist. He respects the Bible and prefers the Quran. It would be great conversation to break new grounds from the comfort zone of Catholicism.
Why? I'm at point where I genuinely don't understand the ecumenical discussions other than allowing the Christian listener access to different pro/con arguments (apologetics lessons). In a group of people who all disagree, at most 1 has the truth or is closest to it. Zero people being correct is a distinct possibility, but at some point the concept of truth must matter. We're not going to somehow come to an "understanding" with people choose to believe in fantasies or outright lies. The truth is anethma to them, which is why Christ is very open about not bringing peace to the planet and separating families. If you want Christian apologetics aimed squarely at Islam, David Wood (a non-Catholic) runs an outstanding UA-cam channel. Of what I've heard of Bishop Barron to date, I'm afraid he'd be run over in an Islamic discussion because the arguments I've encountered to date are out of a narcissistic framework. Unless you know how to shut off your empathy and emotions and pound on the truth, narcissist discussions end with you looking bad, if you go assuming you can have a "reasonable" discussion. You have to channel your inner Trump and not care and not pull punches with the truth and that only gets you to the audience at least questioning the other guy. The choices are only unproductive stalemate or lose because the other guy cares nothing for the truth, only "winning"
" They reject Jesus as the son of God. Enough with this heretical ecumenism. " They believe His physical miracles and the virgin birth, but somehow he's not the Son of God, mostly because the Son of God would not be so passive as to allow Himself to be killed. Mohammed was who God really liked apparently, because he was born the normal way but managed to conquer his way across the Middle East?? Agreed, it's ridiculous. I think it's highly egoistical to assume that we talk through everything and come to an "understanding". The best we can hope for is a semi-permanent truce (as with Protestantism) and we know Islam is unlikely to honor it.
You'd be surprised as to the widespread views on Jesus Christ, and St Mary, from within the Islamic tradition. Here's a playlist on the discussion of Jesus in the thought of (perhaps) Islam's greatest mystic, ibn al-'Arabi. The talks by Maria Dakake and Rustom are particularly useful, here. David Wood I find to be nothing short of a blowhard and an unsophisticated thinker. I'd much prefer a Bishop Barron or, Dr David Bentley Hart or a Dr James Cutsinger. The latter two, particularly, really know a thing or two about the Islamic tradition and can have a sophisticated philosophical discussion about it. Dr Hart will actually give you a distinction between 'persons' and hypostases, and takes Christianity as it is received as a tradition. You could ask a philosopher, a theologian and a mystic the same question about God, and they might each give you a different answer or a profoundly different stress. Same goes for both Islam and Christianity. From what I've seen of Wood, I'm not sure he's capable - and I mean this with respect - of giving any such answer. He may be able to cite Scripture, or the hadith corpus, but I'm not sure that makes him qualified to talk on the authority of any particular tradition. Ibn 'Arabi and Jesus: ua-cam.com/play/PLTIG0sBOBDFwkalIcveuGPjZbZgyoMw0o.html
John Johnson Surely Jews reject Jesus as the Son, too. I imagine it's - whatever's the equivalent of- heresy to them. But I've yet to meet an Evangelical who condemns them for that.
"You'd be surprised as to the widespread views on Jesus Christ, and St Mary, from within the Islamic tradition" - Islam's inability to agree with itself is not my problem. They all agree that Christ is not the Son of God and such a concept is blasphemy. "David Wood I find to be nothing short of a blowhard and an unsophisticated thinker. " Yeah, this is one of the narcissistic type of arguments I was talking about. "I'd much prefer a Bishop Barron or, Dr David Bentley Hart or a Dr James Cutsinger." Of course, because they expect to deal with a Christian acting in good faith and will allow themselves to be run over by Islamic arguments (ie half truths). David Wood knows what's in the Quran and doesn't pull any punches. I'd prefer to argue with them, too.
5:10, yes people really do come to God through arguments. After listening to Ex. 3:14 read aloud by Dr. Ralph McInerny's metaphysics lecture tapes, I converted to Catholicism in 2 days. It's been 5 years since that moment.
Dear Bishop, could you address the problems with the Vegan position against eating animals? I have trouble being kind when vegans outspokenly condemn all "murderous carnivores" and would like some steps towards reasoning with them. Also, what is your take on the limits and merits of "Just War" theory in catholic ethics.
I hope this isn't taken the wrong way: I've been reading Dr. Peter Kreeft's book "Catholics and Protestants: What can we learn from each other?" and Dr. Kreeft makes the claim that Catholics and Protestants have more in common then we realize.
Hello, as a Phd student in theology, and as a curate, I'd love to hear this discussion on divine simplicity and atonment theory. Is the video available? Sadly the link doesn't seem to work.
We are crazy about new technologies, innovations and gadgets. We admire them and feel aweful about it and because of it we love them. But we fail to appreciate the most beautiful and amazing technological creation, its our own human body, the whole system, its design complexity and perfection.The greatest of all creations is man himself. We neither think about it nor we appreciate the creator. If we could keep this in our mind we would love the person next to us whoever it is all the time and also we would love ourselves. Above all we would love the creator of us. This is what Jesus commands us to do. Love your lord with your whole heart and love your neighbours as you love yourself.
Universal love is a noble aspiration but does it make sense to command love? Is it even humanly possible to love on command? Seems to me that when you turn love into a compulsory obligation the best one can do is go thru the motions - which of course isn't genuine love.
I’d really like to see a conversation with Feser and Craig. Craig helped Feser leave atheism. But they disagree some some matters so it would be interesting.
1 Timothy 3, 15 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Check out Jordan Peterson's biblical lectures. He tells how the stories of Genesis are true at least in a psychological way. He just had a talk with Craig recently as well.
Bishop in some of your videos you mention how a lot of what's turning young people away from the Church are intellectual issues. Certainly, you've done a lot for me in coming to understand the faith intellectually but I would say your moderator Edward Feser was the biggest influence on my coming back to the Church. Final causes, hylomorphic dualism, teleological morality I think those things made even more approachable than Feser has would see a huge response if it was made known. Dr. Jordan Peterson has shown that young people want to engage in a heavy subject matter if it's presented in a compelling way. I think you could do it.
I have concerns with questioning the validity of who authored the Bible. For Centuries, we have attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the Evangelist and now I have read that since the Second Vatican Counsel, Catholics now question who authored these books. Does that not weaken the argument of who was inspired to write the Bible. The Critics of the Bible, love to cherry pick at things that are doubted. Should not Catholics be strong and definitely affirmed that the authors are the authors of the Bible?
To me and others like me it does reduce the significance of the doctrine of inspiration. I say it is heresy to say that traditional authorship may not be the case. It deafens the beautiful voice of those who heard the Spirit's sweet voice of inspiration to recount what they have seen, heard, and felt.
Even though I'm an "Atheist" (for lack of a better word), Christianity has a lot of good philosophical arguments, and they should not dumb down their arguments and religion.
Very respectful congenial conversation but it was nice anyway. I must confess that there's a part of me that misses the good old days when all Protestants went to hell regardless.
In true the small errors that Will Craig make is because that he is not Catholic, if he imagine for example that his teological arguments exist since 1200 with Aquinas... But is a great man
Perhaps I'm biased, but from the discussions I've heard, Mr. Craig is not really in the same league with Barron intellectually. A better pairing would be Barron and Tim Keller, or Barron and the popular Jewish scholar David Wolpe.
The "God is beautiful" argument: 1. BEAUTY is defined as "something that is satisfying and pleasing". Einstein and Dirac both claimed (broadly) that "we should prefer theories that exhibit beauty" 2. SIMPLICITY: according to the Occam's Razor principle, "simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones" 3. So, let's apply these 2 selection criteria, beauty & simplicity, into choosing between two alternative "theories" about "how the universe was created, and what our role in it is": a. Atheistic theory: the universe was created by a random fluctuation of quantum void, as part of myriads of other universes within a multi-verse. We are a cosmic accident, life was created accidentally in a primordial soup, and there is no "grand purpose" to the Universe or Man, since everything is heading towards entropic death, and Man is heading to non-existence b. Theistic theory: God created both the Universe and Man, out of pure love, and he invited Man into an "intimate loving relationship" with God, leading to eternal life Now, you have to make a personal choice, based on the criteria of Beauty and Simplicity: - which of these two theories do you find more Pleasing for you (ie Beautiful): the atheistic (there is no purpose in creation or in life, no "creator" loves us, we are heading into non-existence and entropic death) OR the theistic (God loves you, he created everything out of love, you can live with him for ever)? - which of these two theories do you find Simpler: the atheistic ultra-complicated and mathematically obscure quantum mechanics description of random fluctuations of void within a multi-verse, OR the straightforward theistic account of "God's creative acts of love"? On both criteria, I would choose the "theistic theory": it's more BEAUTIFUL (ie personally pleasing) and SIMPLER
Absolutely stop dumbing down Catholicism, stop teaching it as a threat, and a guilt filled tyranny . The Catholic religion is stunning and beautiful. I grew up in the sixties and seventies. What I was taught about my religion is shameful. I’m very happy to see the true beauty of it now. Peace and light to all.
I think Dinesh Dsouza deals with New Atheists too. Not as intellectual as Craig, however he does have the attitude of new atheists. The spunk. Especially Christopher Hitchens.
Interesting how this report on a peaceful ecumenical encounter managed to drive daggers into some of my last vestiges of non-Catholicism. I remember watching WLC in my atheistic days, and being thoroughly unimpressed. I believe the Bishop alluded to the fundamental weakness in WLC's apologetic; viz, that the "god" for which he's apologizing is just that--a "god", a "being among beings". This is subtly manifest in Penal Substitution, wherein Protestants tend to take the motif of "one 'divine' being exacting judicial punishment on *another* (and, yes, another unfortunate consequence of a "being among beings" god is that the Holy Trinity essentially becomes tri-theism) 'divine' being, based on a meticulous tabulation of the sins of the predestined elect" literally, which actually "chains" "god" to logic (rather than vice versa, as it should be). And the whole thing snowballs from there: WLC doesn't "like" the idea of venerating St. Mary as the Mother of God, and I sense this is because WLC's "theistic personalism" bounds God to time, and, following that logic, how could the eternal God the Son have a temporal human mother? And the real irony here is, Protestants accuse Catholics of idolatry...when it was the Protestants who fashioned God into a god! Most importantly, though, is that these "differences" aren't just high-end theological hairsplitting. They have *huge* implications for how one worships, prays, etc (notice that WLC's prayers--directed from one being among beings to another--naturally mostly involved petition). SIGH...How could I have been so wrong? When I first adopted Calvinism, I was just 100% absolutely certain that it *must* be immune to idolatry, because, after all, complete Sovereign control of absolutely every detail in the universe just *had* to be the "greatest imaginABLE" being; but I believe therein lies the problem...that such a God *can* be grasped. If becoming Catholic isn't an option at the moment, I suppose I could go the old-school route of installing an altar and priest-hole in the basement...
IMO, both E.O.'s & Catholics serve as "standard bearers" pointing the way to Truth, Beauty, & Goodness. I'm definitely fond of E.O.'s "mystic approach" to religion, and I'm a fan of David Hart Bentley (though he's probably not the most "orthodox" Orthodox). Also, Evangelicals tend to have a "friendlier attitude" towards conversion to E.O (eg Hank Haanegraff). Nonetheless, though, I don't think there's a single E.O. parish within 50 miles of me.
William Lane Craig is comedy gold I honestly thought he was satire. When I found out people genuinely listen to what he said I couldn't believe it ,it's just it's nonsense.
The only problem with this conversation is the underlying assumption that Dr. Craig and Bishop Barron share the same Faith. Now, officially, that is NOT the case - indeed, if Protestants and Catholics believe the same things, why are Protestants not back in the fold? But perhaps, at a deeper level, Dr. Craig's and Bishop Barron's 'faiths' ARE the same - and if that is the case, that should be cause for concern. I'm sorry, I will not sit through this and ignore the elephant in the room. There is no sense in 'building relationships' if you forego preaching the Gospel - whole and entire - in the process...
Four Horsemen of what? Nothing? Something maybe? FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE I'MNOTREALLYSUREBUTIKNOWIT'SNOTGOD. Really rolls off the tongue. Get Bishop Barron, Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Craig and Trent Horn that showdown and pass the popcorn.
Scott That was cute. I like the way you took your time to really cram every sentence with as much verbal fluff as you could muster. Really over-played your pseudo-intellectual hand, but I commend you on the effort. I used to be just like you, and like you, I'd seek out articles and videos unrelated to my interests wherein I could slander and ridicule the crazy believers too. It always made me feel good, like I was ruining a Christians day. Well, for someone who doesn't give a damn what I think, you sure went out of your way to find a video like this to let everyone know how much you don't care. Which took a lot of care to do. Anyway, obviously I don't know you personally nor you me, but I'd like to think of you are anything like I used to be, I was still a good person with a good heart. I do care what you think though, and if you wanted to have a civil chat, I'm all for it. For now, gotta get back in. My baby was born Wednesday and she'll be back from her checkup. If you wouldn't mind not praying to the non-existent God, I'd appreciate it. Take care.
I too was a catholic up to 20 years old,an though I believe like craig that the catholic church in Essentials are on par but some of there beliefs are just not biblical an you would have to stretch the truths like a rubber band to meet their criteria like purgatory,immacualte conception, mary assumed into heaven, marriage between mary and joseph not being able to have relations YET God says married people are ONE so therefore this makes no sense.and why would I Need to pray to Mary.she is a creature. read revelations all creatures only pray to God the Father and Jesus who are GOD.
Bob Free; You were Catholic; well contemplate what Matthew wrote; Matthew 13; 3-9 Your seed or faith has dried up.Sample verse 5. 5; And other some fell upon stony ground, where they had not much earth: and they sprung up immediately, because they had no deepness of earth. In other words your faith/seeds were not in rich soil. Now you are raise your heel against Christ and his church. Purgatory; Daniel 12;10 10 Many shall be chosen, and made white, and shall be tried as fire: and the wicked shall deal wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand.
JOHN john, listen up- the church established by Christ back in the ist century at that time was 7 churches and I point you too Revelations where you can read for yourself in the BIBLE the various problems with the churches.Now go read in acts written by luke an it was there the original followers were called Nazarenes an many outsiders called them The Way!! These were ALL jewish people,an as it progressed Peter and other apostles founded the various churches which then was called UNIVERSAL. the ist mention of Catholic was in that sense penned by Iraeneous in 1.21 AD . universal and catholic are titles. I believe that the CC is fine when it comes to Essentials, nature of GOD, virgin birth.salvation but in secondary Issues baptism,praying to the saints and Mary these can be debated BUT john we should NEVER divide. your making mistakes by name calling and saying bad things to other Christians. just because I don't pray to Mary or believe baptism washes away sin does not mean that I don't Trust in Jesus my Savior and Lord. Belief ALWAYS comes first in the Bible. nowhere is anyone baptized before Belief in Christ. Purgatory I cannot say is tottaly untrure but I doubt it very much. When the great catholic writer and priest Jerome wrote his excellent translation of the bible He made no mention of Purgatory and said the book of macabbes had many errors. in fact if your carefully read macabbes even thher is says nothing about a purgatory.Also the bible says ALL fall short of Gods Glory and ALL have sinned ,so if purgatory exists then 100% of the people are in purgatory.Jesus died for all our sins an tooK ALL the penalties on the CROSS. He said it is FINISHED. greek Tetelistoi. Jesus who is GOD is all we need. Purgatory is fabricated an much money was past around buying peoples way out just like the abuses of indulgences JOHN. but im not judging all catholics cause of these.GOD will judge each man,Jesus opens the way for ALL sinners including you and I. God Bless
From cover to cover in the bible GOD is the only person people pray too. You Cannot show me one verse or scripture that people pray to anyone BUT GOD. ok another reason that in not a catholic. but like I said in Essentials the CC is fine.
Bob Free; Catholics teach an interior life.Paul says pray without ceasing.The catholic church gives you a solid foundation in the faith; Baptism; First Communion and Confirmation then it's up to us to search for salvation with trembling and fear of God.Yes prayers are crucial.The more you chase God meaning by prayer the more you catch him. With your mentality it would mean Jesus did not need anyone and he doesn't but he shares his glory.He does not think like us. Meaning there is an economy of salvation. Not everyone is given the same amount of grace. If that's the case would it not be wise to listen and ask for prayers from others.Catholic priests and bishops are annointed by God. Would it not be wise to ask for their blessings. In Luke we have the Hail Mary rosary and salutation. Luke 1; 28-29 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
Robert; You are making all kinds of points.Catholic means universal 'according to the whole' as in full gospel.Only the catholic church teaches the full gospel.Only the catholic church can proclaim with confidence a direct line or Succession of Bishops directly from the apostles.Be careful of a different gospel being preached. Do you know why the body of Christ are not on American protestant church crosses because they are displaying an enemy of the cross.Catholics like Paul said we preach a crucified Christ.Christ said you are not worthy of me unless you pick up your cross and follow me. You assertion that the bible comes first. Really.First did Jesus ever pick up pen no of course not. The church was established before the bible was completed and completed by the catholic church because it had the authority to put together the inspired books or canon. When Jesus taught he said It is written but I say meaning he was above all authority. Catholics believe in a Sacred/Oral Tradition meaning what was passed down.Not the bible the faithful learned the faith by a mixture of oral and written down scripture. Catholics did not put the bible together until the 4th century. Yes we all fall short of God's glory. John says in scripture if we say we do not sin we deceive ourselves and truth is not in us. Jesus says MY church meaning one church catholic church not plural. One baptism; one Lord and one faith.Not 40,000 denominations. No one is calling anyone names. In conversions Protestants get weak catholics; Catholics get strong protestants.
LOL - No, they don't. Lowbrow atheist attacks happen regardless of if you approach someone with "You're going to Hell!" or "Let's talk about God.". Now you may catch those on the fence with politeness and it's where to start. *But* ...militant atheism is about an active rejection of the concept of God. You will get narcissists and people of low intellectual capacity, who repeat talking points as surely as any cult member. It is _highly_ egoistical to assume that we can control any conversation by being polite or rationally talk all people into our position. Yes, of course start with polite, stay there if you find someone returning it, but don't worry about being being jerk if someone has shown they're happy to heap abuse on you. Christ certainly wouldn't have won Miss Manners awards.
You and WLC paint with a very broad brush. Prove that you can obtain any knowledge that is not filtered through human senses. You both claim to receive special knowledge. Well, prove it. It’s ironic because even if you could prove that you receive signals from Jesus, you’d have to use science to do it!
Bishop Robert Barron, God bless you sir! But is it wise to throw stones at your own walls, you've got to have a better profile picture than that you look too something, especially to a non-catholic, you look too much like an organization, instead of a teacher of our Lord Jesus Christ:)
The mutual disdain that you and Craig, Robert, hold for scientific naturalism is most revealing. Indubitably, it is a common point of concern for ALL supernaturalists, who otherwise hold no common standard for the plausibility of any of their assertions, speculations, opinions, or conjectures. That you both hate scientific naturalism shows me clearly that scientific naturalism constitutes an enormous threat to the supernaturalist worldview. And why might that be? Perhaps because: 1) Scientific naturalism has a worldwide, common, cross-cultural, universal standard for judging an assertion to be "plausible?" Whereas supernaturalism, as judged by your video, has no such standard at all because all forms of supernaturalism are based upon the same amount of verifiable evidence: viz. NONE? 2) The Universe (Multiverse) exists and behaves PRECISELY, PREDICTABLY, AND EXACTLY as we would expect absent any of the tens of thousands of gods ever defined, invented or worshipped throughout human history, including the 3-part god? 3) Scientific naturalism shows clearly, with breathtaking amounts of verifiable evidence, that none of the tens of thousands of gods ever worshipped or invented or defined by supernaturalists is therefore consequential or relevant, whether or not any of them exists? Such universally supported bases for scientific naturalism are undoubtedly enormously threatening to a worldview that cares not a whit whether it is supported by verifiable evidence of any kind, and which, unlike scientific naturalism has never and will never provide humankind with powerful, broad, robust, coherent, compelling, falsifiable, predictive explanations about anything at all. No wonder that you and Craig have a common enemy: scientific naturalism.
Naturalism Forever Is this sarcasm? It’s almost like you haven’t heard of the Catholic scientific tradition, like Copernicus, Mendel, or Le Maitre? Also, you don’t actually believe that all knowledge is reducible to simply the scientific, do you? Because that stance would be self-defeating
As a Catholic, I am also a huge William Lane Craig fan and have been for years. Not sure where my faith would be today if it was not for this man.
"Stop dumbing down Christianity!"
Amen and Amen!!
Justin McNeely tattoo ideas for 2020
Amen, Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have Mercy upon us, sinners.
If I got to see you and Jordan Peterson talk together, I'd be ecstatic.
Johnny McLaughlin So John now that has happened what are going to do next
Happy to watch your video as always. Thank you Bishop Robert Barron. God bless you!
Sounds wonderful, tantalising and I want to know more. I'm so glad we have Christian intellectuals. I too became a Christian through intellectual arguments as a teenager; once I was convinced that a creator God exists, everything else followed.
Thank you so much, Bishop! Your videos inspire me greatly...
This for me represented one of the single greatest highlights of my entire viewing of UA-cam ever.
Such an exciting event, I only wish we could have also heard that more “academic” segment as well as the later one.
Thank you Bishop Barron for inspiring us to seek an ever greater understanding of our beautiful faith. Always looking forward for your next commentaries and hope to see you dialogue with WLC again.
Two towering intellectual men of God. How we need more people like this in the church!
Your discussions are so enlightening. Thank you.
You are a breath of fresh air! Thank You!
William lane craig had defeated every single person in debates on the existence of God. Even audience polls with athiests show this. these are facts. go on youtube and check it out. Hitchens a great atheist and very sharp said anyone who says Craig is an idiot or some other nonsense putting him down is the real Idiot. He comes prepared in his debates like no other. That's why BARRON invited him on. Great apologist and one of the Best Philosophers out there. He also knows his cosmology!!
If there are traditions of understanding, apparently there also are traditions of mis-understanding...
The truth is that which has the most explanatory power.
On the issue of the simplicity of God, WL Craig's position is unattainable, and really not biblical in core - at the least, not biblical in accordance to 'pre-modern' biblical interpretative traditions ... His position envisaged a qualified / conditioned god, granted a supreme being; supreme but still a being among beings.
If God is a (qualified) being among beings, not the transcendent Being (the source of all beings), then the Neo-atheists' position will be attainable!
Ironically, a supreme being, still a being among beings, being in 'competition' to other beings, cannot be fully personal to any being.
But almighty God is absolutely without limit ... Being without qualification; simply Being divine. Seems the correct understanding: Only God who is absolutely "I am who Am" - ipsum esse subsistens God, can be God who is absolutely personal, to every beings - according to their respective manner of being...
The simplicity of God, as in great art, is not simplistic, not one-dimensional, but in God is infinitude...
I've watched every single debate on UA-cam involving WLC, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc etc.
I would have to concede that nobody could come close to undermining Hitchens, including WLC.
Hitchens objections to religion are irrefutable.. I won't go into them here but it's all available on yt.
Per your comment about You Tube comments during the Dr Craig conversation, I just wanted to say - "Gosh I love you Bishop Barron and what a wonderful argument." Seriously, I so enjoy your vids! Thanks for taking the time to do them.
Having you two speak was great. My emotional resistance to Catholicism (God in general, and so on) was obliterated by the intellectual side of the arguments. The ontological and so forth.
Truly it was the The Logos turning the chaos of my life into order through The Word.
Derelict Signal Peterson brings another one into the fold. He brought me to the path which led to Catholicism as well. I'll be baptised this Easter.
Congrats! I was an anglican, but five years ago I become a Catholic: that was the best decision in my whole life!
Regards from Brazil.
Arthur Olinto (olintoarthur@gmail.com)
Welcome home;
Amazing on UA-cam all the converts.Many new converts experienced their first Ash Wednesday as a catholic yesterday.Maybe we can call all the catholic teachers out there the Bar Stool prophets lol.Yes many catholic converts will experience their first communion this Easter after finishing the RCIA program.
Cheers to you all. Check out Dr Peter Kreeft as well. He has some great talks on youtube on evil and suffering . JPII "Theology of the Body" was another eyeopener for me. How God has written divine truths even into the compatibility of the male and female body.
I'm a big William Lane Craig fan but has no idea he wasn't a Catholic! I really liked the evening, two of my favorite men in faith. It's interesting. God bless you both
Let's pray for William Lane Craig's conversion to Catholicism, so that his soul could be saved.
No one needs to have telepathic powers to be heard by God, as God is omniscient. Try sincerely asking Him to lead you to the truth, and see what happens. I am a former atheist who used to scorn Christians. God bless you.
God is the very foundation of all existence. Your existence is sustained by God's will. So yes, He knows what you do, what you think and all your secrets, whether you want it or not.
Hi standev1: Kindly supply the verifiable evidence for your many assertions about your god. I'm certain that you have abundant, powerful, highly explanatory, well documented, compelling, incontrovertible verifiable evidence for everything that you write. I'd appreciate your articulation and wait with bated breath for your response. Thank you!
NF, I would recommend you the Cosmological Argument and the Moral Argument to begin with. Incidentally, Dr. Craig explains those quite well.
Fr bishop barron pray for us as we pray for you much love and god bless
This was great Bishop Barron!
I wish you would meet with an Orthodox like this, or at least make a video on Eastern Orthodoxy.
Yes, please we are woefully underrepresented interdenominational talks. I am sure a bishop or priest would sit down with you. Fr Josiah Trenham perhaps.
I was there and it was a wonderful time and was a great dialogue.
I was there that night. I enjoyed the discussion tremendously. As a Lutheran I found myself stuck in the middle, as usual. I agree and disagree with you both equally, LOL. But my respect for you both grew even more. When you returned to the stage to bless / dismiss us, well, the crowd loved it, especially me. God bless you Bishop!
How delightful is supernaturalism! All of you agree and disagree absent any verifiable evidence! So much fun!
Naturalism, obviously, has no explanation for, nor need of such things as common courtesy, self control, or the ability to mind one’s own business. Such uncivilized ... people are greatly affected by prayer though.
I enjoyed listening to this
I appreciate this conversation so much! I often see ecumenical efforts dismissing the differences between denominations rather than highlighting them and speaking about them openly while searching for common ground. Bishop Barron, I'd love to see you have a conversation like this with a Jewish or Muslim scholar. An interfaith conversation that delves into the significant differences between the religions while also searching for points of commonality and cooperation. Interfaith conversations are far too often watered down to "well, we all really believe the same thing."
Will you guys meet up again? Perhaps a meeting with John Lennox as well. The three of you together would be a real trear... I stumbled on the both of you guys around the same time, and I've loved both of your approaches to apologetics.
Yes, with professor John Lennox!!!
If Dr. Craig keeps reading the Church Fathers, he may well become Catholic. Reading them played a part in my conversion. I am in RCIA now, watching your video series, and will come into the Church this Easter.
Thank you for the nutrients of the mind and soul. Fr. Barron On the question of evangelizing through beauty. One thing came to mind for me. The tilma de Guadalupe. My mother told me a similar experience to yours when she saw the tilma. Expecting to see a glorious masterpiece, only to find a torn burnt piece of cloak with the pure essence of christ within it. well that woud humble any person. it changed a nation. to give the truth. I have heard that even atheist in Mexico give respect to la virgin de Guadalupe. because they know there is something more then what they see. changes your perspective of beauty. The beautiful for me, is the torn, the burnt, the rust.
I don't know Dr William Lane Craig, but he must've a very brave man, I mean, discuss about Catholisism, with such an intelligent, pure and cultured Priest that is so iluminated by the Holy Spirit, like Bishop Barron, wow.
the effectiveness of intellectual arguments in turning non-believers into believers is an interesting topic. My hunch is that if I had read Aquinas as an unbeliever, I would have completely misunderstood him, based on my own misconceptions about what God is and what Aquinas was arguing for (IMO, that's exactly the mistake Bertrand Russell made in his criticisms of Aquinas). I will say, however, that reading Aquinas as a believer has definitely been efficacious in turning me into a "closet Catholic".
Bishop Barron I herd you say something really good about a holy hour of prayer could you do a video on how that prayer hour should look like and how we should pray?
Rogelio Vasquez
ua-cam.com/video/S8h3UNCOef8/v-deo.html
Hope that helps.
I absolutely love William Lane Craig
please Bishop pray for my Son he has Brain Cancer he is getting worse. they found the Cancer all most 3 years the first time Rd. toll him he has tree months to live after the operation but we toll my Son only God knows wean but know we see he is getting tier Please Pray for my Son
Luna Sol praying 🙏 for your son. This post is a year ago. So I don’t know if i am too late. Praying 🙏 for you too! ❤️
God be with you.
Fantastic, I wish I could have been there. It's going to be necessary that Christians come together and put our differences aside in the face of postmodernism/atheism.
Elspeth Silverstar;
It's all going to come down to believing Jesus Christ is in the eucharist.Until then Protestants will always despise the catholic priesthood to their downfall.
Elspeth Silverstar - I'm pretty sure you'd find most atheists your allies if you're fighting postmodernist philosophy.
Catholicism is not 100% about believing in the real presence. Mainline Protestants and Orthodox have that, too. The issue is the connection with the Papacy and genuinely refusing to reinterpret Scripture for modern tastes. We're the only ones who shrug our shoulders and say "no divorce" and "no contraception".
We can put aside our difference to the extent that others put aside their differences. I can overlook all sorts of Protestant issues. However, when a evangelical insists on essentially a de-converting people specifically from Catholicism, they will never be allies. It's ego and feel good to pretend we can create a non-toxic atmosphere by being nice to the point of doormat.
A M
Some Protestants (like Anglican or Traditional Lutherans ) may believe in the Real Presence but they certainly don't possess it since their orders are not valid.
Also, Catholicism IS about the Real Presence as the Eucharist is the "source and summit of the Christian life" as stated in the Catechism.
Bishop Barron I’m a Mormon, not a Catholic but I wanted to encourage you to do a video on what you think the Good and the Troubles that you feel about Latter-Day Saint theology
So, John, you accept the rantings and ravings of the lunatic and proved charlatan, Joseph Smith? Really?
Naturalism Forever
You ok? You seem upset
@@incorr1gible perhaps a tad emotional, but hes correct. Smith was a Charlatan.
The world needs more respectful dialogue.
Bishop Barron, a great video. Have you ever met with / been to / studied Russian or Greek Orthodox churches or parishes, spoke to priests? What's your perception of Orthodox Christianity?
Boston Black it’s easier to talk with and delineate the clear differences with Protestants. Orthodox, as I noticed in Bishop Barron’s videos, are a bit more complicated, as he tends to be more agreeable with Orthodox than disagree.
Yes, a video on Orthodoxy would be excellent!
So glad to hear that @ 4:13 !
the respect these two men displayed is being Christian in such a fine way
Now do a meeting with Jordan Peterson :)
These two men ( bishop barron and jbp )have me cleaning my room and saying the roseary
hey two....can I suggest that you study some science instead???
Naturalism Forever I don't understand how that's a question? you're not one of those wingnuts that thinks the opposite of religion is science right?
Jordan Peterson is a gnostic.Nothing new under the sun.
Meaning a man does not believe or understand the divinity of Christ.
His ideas reflect Christian values and from watching a few videos of his I think he is understanding that his conservatism obviously fit in with Christianity.
Catholic means universal 'according to the whole' meaning Peterson is getting there but he's not there fully in the gospel.
When the king comes back Christ and sees a few people with the wrong wedding garment you have the potential of the king kicking you out of the wedding.Why play russian roulette with your salvation.
A good video link is from Patrick Coffin a Catholic who interviewed him recently.
ua-cam.com/video/W5iaERTETvE/v-deo.html
Just saw your comment.Good hour long interview.
Thank you for posting this Bishop Robert! Regarding beauty, I got the impession that WLC was pressing you because he was actually looking for an example of an 'argument from beauty' that one might use. By the way, is there one?!
YES there is.
1. BEAUTY is defined as "something that is satisfying and pleasing". Einstein and Dirac both claimed (broadly) that "we should prefer theories that exhibit beauty"
2. SIMPLICITY: according to the Occam's Razor principle, "simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones"
3. So, let's apply these 2 selection criteria, beauty & simplicity, into choosing between two alternative "theories" about "how the universe was created, and what our role in it is":
a. Atheistic theory: the universe was created by a random fluctuation of quantum void, as part of myriads of other universes within a multi-verse. We are a cosmic accident, life was created accidentally in a primordial soup, and there is no "grand purpose" to the Universe or Man, since everything is heading towards entropic death, and Man is heading to non-existence
b. Theistic theory: God created both the Universe and Man, out of pure love, and he invited Man into an "intimate loving relationship" with God, leading to eternal life
Now, you have to make a personal choice, based on the criteria of Beauty and Simplicity:
- which of these two theories do you find more Pleasing for you (ie Beautiful): the atheistic (there is no purpose in creation or in life, no "creator" loves us, we are heading into non-existence and entropic death) OR the theistic (God loves you, he created everything out of love, you can live with him for ever)?
- which of these two theories do you find Simpler: the atheistic ultra-complicated and mathematically obscure quantum mechanics description of random fluctuations of void within a multi-verse, OR the straightforward theistic account of "God's creative acts of love"?
On both criteria, I would choose the "theistic theory": it's more BEAUTIFUL (ie personally pleasing) and SIMPLER
I have to say that I really enjoyed watching your evening conversation with Mr. Craig. Do you know if a recording of the afternoon meeting is available anywhere? (Also copies of the papers that you and Mr. Craig presented if they were not read aloud in said recording).
Seosaidh wordonfire.org/wlc
Awesome. Thanks!
Can u do a segment father on christus victor thing? Verses the penal substitution.
Yes, please do, Bishop Barron! I have been watching the videos of Dr. William Lane Craig on penal substitution, and as a Catholic, I would like to understand the Holy Mother Church's position.
it would be an awesome video. "Penal Substitution" is the idea that God knew exactly who would be saved, and exactly what sins they would commit throughout their lifetimes (either by "foreknowledge" or by "sovereign control of the universe"), and inflicted exact judicial punishment on Jesus on the cross for each of those sins, so that all of the saved people could be "justified" (ie, "right with God"), and not have to endure that punishment/condemnation themselves. IMO, this is a very crisp, clear, and coherent view of the cross (even largely Biblical & valid, I believe), but, like all crisp, clear, and coherent explanations of very deep and profound mysteries, it is probably a bit of an "oversimplification". "Christus Victor" is a much more "general" view of the cross. A good demonstration of a "Victor"-type of atonement is seen in the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (C.S. Lewis, Chronicles of Narnia). While Christus Victor is fully consistent with Penal Substitution, it has more emphasis on conquering sin and death than on taking someone else's punishment.
Wayne and Donita thank you for that explanation bible itself and Jesus Himself saying take heart I have overcome the world Matthew 12:18“Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased. I will place my Spirit over him, and he shall announce judgment to the nations. 19He shall not contend, nor cry out, neither shall anyone hear his voice in the streets. 20He shall not crush the bruised reed, and he shall not extinguish the smoking wick, until he sends forth judgment unto victory.
1John 5:4For all that is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that overcomes the world: our faith. 5Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God! 6This is the One who came by water and blood: Jesus Christ. Not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit is the One who testifies that the Christ is the Truth.
And in 1corinthians 15:54And when this mortality has been clothed with immortality, then the word that was written shall occur: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” 55“O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” 56Now the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God, who has given us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 7
Im no theologan but thats my faith im no one at all and not that smart at all but thank you for reading i appreciate your time may God bless you....either way the mercy of God is unfathomed by intellect or angel it says in the diary of saint faustina the greater the sinner the greatest right he has to Gods mercy. 😁✌
those are great verses for illustrating Christus Victor. I'd be interested to see if Bishop Barron has the same reservations about Penal Substitution that I do. I'm obviously no theologian myself, but I'd say the biggest problem with Penal Substitution is that it's a very "limited atonement theory" (bad pun intended). Christus Victor seems like a much "fuller" theory that expresses the deeper, more mysterious aspects of the cross. Blessings, and may God's grace be with you!
Thoroughly enjoyed the discussion between you and WLC!
But once we are past the broader elements of belief in Christ, and on to the points that would divide you two if the conversation were permitted to ensue...Where can we find the truth on these finer points and practices?
I'm certainly not a scholar in this area, but don't they have a profound impact on who will and won't be saved?
Appreciate any comment you can provide.
God Bless!
Father Barron, can you please tackle the Book of the Annunaki by Zechariah Stichen?
Bishop Barron, could you do a review of CNN’s docuseries on the papacy?
I know this is a youtube comments section but here goes.
I was raised Anglican, became something of an atheist in my teens and refound my faith a short while ago but very much lean towards Baptist and Evangelical ideas. I find Anglicanism a sort of wishy-washy middle-ground that doesn't really answer the questions of either side. I'm attracted by the same things as Dr. Craig to Catholicism but can't wrap my head around what seem to be man-made additions to the church's doctrine (Pope, Saints, additions/changes to scripture) and I've never really gotten real answers from proper Catholics on those topics. There are much smarter people than me who subscribe to Catholic ideas so maybe one of them could elaborate on those issues for me?
Bishop Robert Barron, I know God loves every single creature, I also know that we become children of God through the sacrament of baptism, Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, other Protestant Churches were "founded" by men. I am absolutely convinced that all humankind is called to be saved; but salvation comes only through Jesus Christ, who died in the cross and with His dead and Resurrection He redeemed us. So my question is, How Jewish, Muslims, Protestants and non believers will be saved? Quoting St Augustine: "God who created without you, won't save you without you". I am not being saved by myself, its a fact, but God requires my human cooperation for saving me.
Will you comment on the passing of pastor Billy Graham?
I saw that conversation in London. Great but its in comfort zone for both with Christianity in the background. I like to see conversations with Islamic scholar and Imam like Dr Shabir Ali of Canada. Shabir is liberal Muslim and a Revisionist. He respects the Bible and prefers the Quran. It would be great conversation to break new grounds from the comfort zone of Catholicism.
Why? I'm at point where I genuinely don't understand the ecumenical discussions other than allowing the Christian listener access to different pro/con arguments (apologetics lessons).
In a group of people who all disagree, at most 1 has the truth or is closest to it. Zero people being correct is a distinct possibility, but at some point the concept of truth must matter. We're not going to somehow come to an "understanding" with people choose to believe in fantasies or outright lies. The truth is anethma to them, which is why Christ is very open about not bringing peace to the planet and separating families.
If you want Christian apologetics aimed squarely at Islam, David Wood (a non-Catholic) runs an outstanding UA-cam channel. Of what I've heard of Bishop Barron to date, I'm afraid he'd be run over in an Islamic discussion because the arguments I've encountered to date are out of a narcissistic framework. Unless you know how to shut off your empathy and emotions and pound on the truth, narcissist discussions end with you looking bad, if you go assuming you can have a "reasonable" discussion. You have to channel your inner Trump and not care and not pull punches with the truth and that only gets you to the audience at least questioning the other guy. The choices are only unproductive stalemate or lose because the other guy cares nothing for the truth, only "winning"
" They reject Jesus as the son of God. Enough with this heretical ecumenism. " They believe His physical miracles and the virgin birth, but somehow he's not the Son of God, mostly because the Son of God would not be so passive as to allow Himself to be killed. Mohammed was who God really liked apparently, because he was born the normal way but managed to conquer his way across the Middle East?? Agreed, it's ridiculous. I think it's highly egoistical to assume that we talk through everything and come to an "understanding". The best we can hope for is a semi-permanent truce (as with Protestantism) and we know Islam is unlikely to honor it.
You'd be surprised as to the widespread views on Jesus Christ, and St Mary, from within the Islamic tradition. Here's a playlist on the discussion of Jesus in the thought of (perhaps) Islam's greatest mystic, ibn al-'Arabi. The talks by Maria Dakake and Rustom are particularly useful, here.
David Wood I find to be nothing short of a blowhard and an unsophisticated thinker. I'd much prefer a Bishop Barron or, Dr David Bentley Hart or a Dr James Cutsinger. The latter two, particularly, really know a thing or two about the Islamic tradition and can have a sophisticated philosophical discussion about it. Dr Hart will actually give you a distinction between 'persons' and hypostases, and takes Christianity as it is received as a tradition. You could ask a philosopher, a theologian and a mystic the same question about God, and they might each give you a different answer or a profoundly different stress. Same goes for both Islam and Christianity. From what I've seen of Wood, I'm not sure he's capable - and I mean this with respect - of giving any such answer. He may be able to cite Scripture, or the hadith corpus, but I'm not sure that makes him qualified to talk on the authority of any particular tradition.
Ibn 'Arabi and Jesus: ua-cam.com/play/PLTIG0sBOBDFwkalIcveuGPjZbZgyoMw0o.html
John Johnson Surely Jews reject Jesus as the Son, too. I imagine it's - whatever's the equivalent of- heresy to them. But I've yet to meet an Evangelical who condemns them for that.
"You'd be surprised as to the widespread views on Jesus Christ, and St Mary, from within the Islamic tradition" - Islam's inability to agree with itself is not my problem. They all agree that Christ is not the Son of God and such a concept is blasphemy.
"David Wood I find to be nothing short of a blowhard and an unsophisticated thinker. " Yeah, this is one of the narcissistic type of arguments I was talking about.
"I'd much prefer a Bishop Barron or, Dr David Bentley Hart or a Dr James Cutsinger." Of course, because they expect to deal with a Christian acting in good faith and will allow themselves to be run over by Islamic arguments (ie half truths). David Wood knows what's in the Quran and doesn't pull any punches. I'd prefer to argue with them, too.
5:10, yes people really do come to God through arguments. After listening to Ex. 3:14 read aloud by Dr. Ralph McInerny's metaphysics lecture tapes, I converted to Catholicism in 2 days. It's been 5 years since that moment.
Dear Bishop, could you address the problems with the Vegan position against eating animals? I have trouble being kind when vegans outspokenly condemn all "murderous carnivores" and would like some steps towards reasoning with them.
Also, what is your take on the limits and merits of "Just War" theory in catholic ethics.
My Dad was a Methodist Minister, But I like you.
I hope this isn't taken the wrong way: I've been reading Dr. Peter Kreeft's book "Catholics and Protestants: What can we learn from each other?" and Dr. Kreeft makes the claim that Catholics and Protestants have more in common then we realize.
You should check out David Bentley Hart's work, I'd be curious to see what the two of you could have a discussion about!
He's mentioned DBH in quite a few videos, particularly in his video on "Agora" and "Who God is & Who God isn't".
Hello, as a Phd student in theology, and as a curate, I'd love to hear this discussion on divine simplicity and atonment theory. Is the video available? Sadly the link doesn't seem to work.
LIVE Aaj Tak
We are crazy about new technologies, innovations and gadgets. We admire them and feel aweful about it and because of it we love them. But we fail to appreciate the most beautiful and amazing technological creation, its our own human body, the whole system, its design complexity and perfection.The greatest of all creations is man himself. We neither think about it nor we appreciate the creator. If we could keep this in our mind we would love the person next to us whoever it is all the time and also we would love ourselves. Above all we would love the creator of us. This is what Jesus commands us to do. Love your lord with your whole heart and love your neighbours as you love yourself.
Universal love is a noble aspiration but does it make sense to command love? Is it even humanly possible to love on command? Seems to me that when you turn love into a compulsory obligation the best one can do is go thru the motions - which of course isn't genuine love.
Omg it happened!!
Jordan Peterson please
Hello Bishop, would you mind talk about evolutionist theory and Christianity? Can we believe in n both?
Yes, of course, as long as you avoid a biological reductionism.
Thanks!
Scott
Bad day, huh?
I’d really like to see a conversation with Feser and Craig. Craig helped Feser leave atheism. But they disagree some some matters so it would be interesting.
Anyone else googling “Christus victor theory” right now?
I didn't truly understand the narrow-mindedness of scientism, physicalism, materialism, until I started studying the philosophy of mind.
the next big thing: Bishop Barron and Jordan Peterson
Hazza Tube but only if it was a long uninterrupted discussion, like 2 hours
And it was
Let's try not to focus on Catholic and Protestant divisions and instead focus more on loving God and our neighbor.
1 Timothy 3, 15
15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Check out Jordan Peterson's biblical lectures. He tells how the stories of Genesis are true at least in a psychological way. He just had a talk with Craig recently as well.
That's nothing new to Catholics.
Bishop in some of your videos you mention how a lot of what's turning young people away from the Church are intellectual issues. Certainly, you've done a lot for me in coming to understand the faith intellectually but I would say your moderator Edward Feser was the biggest influence on my coming back to the Church. Final causes, hylomorphic dualism, teleological morality I think those things made even more approachable than Feser has would see a huge response if it was made known. Dr. Jordan Peterson has shown that young people want to engage in a heavy subject matter if it's presented in a compelling way. I think you could do it.
Michael McCarthy Well friend, I have actually talked about all those things in my videos. Keep going through the archive.
I have concerns with questioning the validity of who authored the Bible. For Centuries, we have attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the Evangelist and now I have read that since the Second Vatican Counsel, Catholics now question who authored these books. Does that not weaken the argument of who was inspired to write the Bible. The Critics of the Bible, love to cherry pick at things that are doubted. Should not Catholics be strong and definitely affirmed that the authors are the authors of the Bible?
Robert Wood Second Vatican Council made no changes to official teachings on Bible authorship
Thank you because I have been hearing from my Deacon and a few others that the Second Vatican Council did now say the authors may not be the authors.
To me and others like me it does reduce the significance of the doctrine of inspiration. I say it is heresy to say that traditional authorship may not be the case. It deafens the beautiful voice of those who heard the Spirit's sweet voice of inspiration to recount what they have seen, heard, and felt.
Had no idea Christians came together for a discussion
Even though I'm an "Atheist" (for lack of a better word), Christianity has a lot of good philosophical arguments, and they should not dumb down their arguments and religion.
how can 2 of the smartest theologians who clearly love the Lord disagree after 500 years.
Very respectful congenial conversation but it was nice anyway. I must confess that there's a part of me that misses the good old days when all Protestants went to hell regardless.
In true the small errors that Will Craig make is because that he is not Catholic, if he imagine for example that his teological arguments exist since 1200 with Aquinas...
But is a great man
Perhaps I'm biased, but from the discussions I've heard, Mr. Craig is not really in the same league with Barron intellectually. A better pairing would be Barron and Tim Keller, or Barron and the popular Jewish scholar David Wolpe.
Bishop, the culture has shifted from Scientism, to a total replacement of religion with new structuralist ideology.
BunnyMan456 Structuralist ideology? Pardon my ignorance, but what's that?
BunnyMan456 I can't tell which is the more horrifying prospect...
1:50 - Ed Feser in the foreground!
5:07 needs to be a gif
The "God is beautiful" argument:
1. BEAUTY is defined as "something that is satisfying and pleasing". Einstein and Dirac both claimed (broadly) that "we should prefer theories that exhibit beauty"
2. SIMPLICITY: according to the Occam's Razor principle, "simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones"
3. So, let's apply these 2 selection criteria, beauty & simplicity, into choosing between two alternative "theories" about "how the universe was created, and what our role in it is":
a. Atheistic theory: the universe was created by a random fluctuation of quantum void, as part of myriads of other universes within a multi-verse. We are a cosmic accident, life was created accidentally in a primordial soup, and there is no "grand purpose" to the Universe or Man, since everything is heading towards entropic death, and Man is heading to non-existence
b. Theistic theory: God created both the Universe and Man, out of pure love, and he invited Man into an "intimate loving relationship" with God, leading to eternal life
Now, you have to make a personal choice, based on the criteria of Beauty and Simplicity:
- which of these two theories do you find more Pleasing for you (ie Beautiful): the atheistic (there is no purpose in creation or in life, no "creator" loves us, we are heading into non-existence and entropic death) OR the theistic (God loves you, he created everything out of love, you can live with him for ever)?
- which of these two theories do you find Simpler: the atheistic ultra-complicated and mathematically obscure quantum mechanics description of random fluctuations of void within a multi-verse, OR the straightforward theistic account of "God's creative acts of love"?
On both criteria, I would choose the "theistic theory": it's more BEAUTIFUL (ie personally pleasing) and SIMPLER
Echumenism is the catholic version of cold fusion
Absolutely stop dumbing down Catholicism, stop teaching it as a threat, and a guilt filled tyranny . The Catholic religion is stunning and beautiful. I grew up in the sixties and seventies. What I was taught about my religion is shameful. I’m very happy to see the true beauty of it now. Peace and light to all.
I think Dinesh Dsouza deals with New Atheists too. Not as intellectual as Craig, however he does have the attitude of new atheists. The spunk. Especially Christopher Hitchens.
Ben Lorenowicz
D’Souza is a hack
John Lennox is so much more sophisticated.
Interesting how this report on a peaceful ecumenical encounter managed to drive daggers into some of my last vestiges of non-Catholicism. I remember watching WLC in my atheistic days, and being thoroughly unimpressed. I believe the Bishop alluded to the fundamental weakness in WLC's apologetic; viz, that the "god" for which he's apologizing is just that--a "god", a "being among beings". This is subtly manifest in Penal Substitution, wherein Protestants tend to take the motif of "one 'divine' being exacting judicial punishment on *another* (and, yes, another unfortunate consequence of a "being among beings" god is that the Holy Trinity essentially becomes tri-theism) 'divine' being, based on a meticulous tabulation of the sins of the predestined elect" literally, which actually "chains" "god" to logic (rather than vice versa, as it should be). And the whole thing snowballs from there: WLC doesn't "like" the idea of venerating St. Mary as the Mother of God, and I sense this is because WLC's "theistic personalism" bounds God to time, and, following that logic, how could the eternal God the Son have a temporal human mother? And the real irony here is, Protestants accuse Catholics of idolatry...when it was the Protestants who fashioned God into a god! Most importantly, though, is that these "differences" aren't just high-end theological hairsplitting. They have *huge* implications for how one worships, prays, etc (notice that WLC's prayers--directed from one being among beings to another--naturally mostly involved petition). SIGH...How could I have been so wrong? When I first adopted Calvinism, I was just 100% absolutely certain that it *must* be immune to idolatry, because, after all, complete Sovereign control of absolutely every detail in the universe just *had* to be the "greatest imaginABLE" being; but I believe therein lies the problem...that such a God *can* be grasped. If becoming Catholic isn't an option at the moment, I suppose I could go the old-school route of installing an altar and priest-hole in the basement...
Wonderful comments. Continue to study, soak in the writings of the Church Fathers. All will be well.
Wayne and Donita Another option might be Eastern Orthodoxy?
Yes. I explored both during me time of discernment.
*my
IMO, both E.O.'s & Catholics serve as "standard bearers" pointing the way to Truth, Beauty, & Goodness. I'm definitely fond of E.O.'s "mystic approach" to religion, and I'm a fan of David Hart Bentley (though he's probably not the most "orthodox" Orthodox). Also, Evangelicals tend to have a "friendlier attitude" towards conversion to E.O (eg Hank Haanegraff). Nonetheless, though, I don't think there's a single E.O. parish within 50 miles of me.
William Lane Craig is comedy gold I honestly thought he was satire. When I found out people genuinely listen to what he said I couldn't believe it ,it's just it's nonsense.
Big words...Is there a coherent counter-argument in our future?
The only problem with this conversation is the underlying assumption that Dr. Craig and Bishop Barron share the same Faith.
Now, officially, that is NOT the case - indeed, if Protestants and Catholics believe the same things, why are Protestants not back in the fold?
But perhaps, at a deeper level, Dr. Craig's and Bishop Barron's 'faiths' ARE the same - and if that is the case, that should be cause for concern.
I'm sorry, I will not sit through this and ignore the elephant in the room.
There is no sense in 'building relationships' if you forego preaching the Gospel - whole and entire - in the process...
Stop saying "I'm Catholic","I'm Presbyterian". Instead says "I'm Christian"
What’s your IQ?
Four Horsemen of what? Nothing? Something maybe? FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE I'MNOTREALLYSUREBUTIKNOWIT'SNOTGOD.
Really rolls off the tongue.
Get Bishop Barron, Ravi Zacharias, Dr. Craig and Trent Horn that showdown and pass the popcorn.
Let's add Prof John Lennox and Alvin Plantina; now that wd be an all-star outing!
Scott That was cute.
I like the way you took your time to really cram every sentence with as much verbal fluff as you could muster.
Really over-played your pseudo-intellectual hand, but I commend you on the effort.
I used to be just like you, and like you, I'd seek out articles and videos unrelated to my interests wherein I could slander and ridicule the crazy believers too. It always made me feel good, like I was ruining a Christians day.
Well, for someone who doesn't give a damn what I think, you sure went out of your way to find a video like this to let everyone know how much you don't care.
Which took a lot of care to do.
Anyway, obviously I don't know you personally nor you me, but I'd like to think of you are anything like I used to be, I was still a good person with a good heart.
I do care what you think though, and if you wanted to have a civil chat, I'm all for it.
For now, gotta get back in. My baby was born Wednesday and she'll be back from her checkup. If you wouldn't mind not praying to the non-existent God, I'd appreciate it.
Take care.
Well said Kyle.
@@scott8713 yes indeed!!
+ + +
I too was a catholic up to 20 years old,an though I believe like craig that the catholic church in Essentials are on par but some of there beliefs are just not biblical an you would have to stretch the truths like a rubber band to meet their criteria like purgatory,immacualte conception, mary assumed into heaven, marriage between mary and joseph not being able to have relations YET God says married people are ONE so therefore this makes no sense.and why would I Need to pray to Mary.she is a creature. read revelations all creatures only pray to God the Father and Jesus who are GOD.
Bob Free;
You were Catholic; well contemplate what Matthew wrote;
Matthew 13; 3-9 Your seed or faith has dried up.Sample verse 5.
5; And other some fell upon stony ground, where they had not much earth: and they sprung up immediately, because they had no deepness of earth.
In other words your faith/seeds were not in rich soil.
Now you are raise your heel against Christ and his church.
Purgatory;
Daniel 12;10
10 Many shall be chosen, and made white, and shall be tried as fire: and the wicked shall deal wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand.
JOHN john, listen up- the church established by Christ back in the ist century at that time was 7 churches and I point you too Revelations where you can read for yourself in the BIBLE the various problems with the churches.Now go read in acts written by luke an it was there the original followers were called Nazarenes an many outsiders called them The Way!! These were ALL jewish people,an as it progressed Peter and other apostles founded the various churches which then was called UNIVERSAL. the ist mention of Catholic was in that sense penned by Iraeneous in 1.21 AD . universal and catholic are titles. I believe that the CC is fine when it comes to Essentials, nature of GOD, virgin birth.salvation but in secondary Issues baptism,praying to the saints and Mary these can be debated BUT john we should NEVER divide. your making mistakes by name calling and saying bad things to other Christians. just because I don't pray to Mary or believe baptism washes away sin does not mean that I don't Trust in Jesus my Savior and Lord. Belief ALWAYS comes first in the Bible. nowhere is anyone baptized before Belief in Christ. Purgatory I cannot say is tottaly untrure but I doubt it very much. When the great catholic writer and priest Jerome wrote his excellent translation of the bible He made no mention of Purgatory and said the book of macabbes had many errors. in fact if your carefully read macabbes even thher is says nothing about a purgatory.Also the bible says ALL fall short of Gods Glory and ALL have sinned ,so if purgatory exists then 100% of the people are in purgatory.Jesus died for all our sins an tooK ALL the penalties on the CROSS. He said it is FINISHED. greek Tetelistoi. Jesus who is GOD is all we need. Purgatory is fabricated an much money was past around buying peoples way out just like the abuses of indulgences JOHN. but im not judging all catholics cause of these.GOD will judge each man,Jesus opens the way for ALL sinners including you and I. God Bless
From cover to cover in the bible GOD is the only person people pray too. You Cannot show me one verse or scripture that people pray to anyone BUT GOD. ok another reason that in not a catholic. but like I said in Essentials the CC is fine.
Bob Free;
Catholics teach an interior life.Paul says pray without ceasing.The catholic church gives you a solid foundation in the faith; Baptism; First Communion and Confirmation then it's up to us to search for salvation with trembling and fear of God.Yes prayers are crucial.The more you chase God meaning by prayer the more you catch him.
With your mentality it would mean Jesus did not need anyone and he doesn't but he shares his glory.He does not think like us.
Meaning there is an economy of salvation.
Not everyone is given the same amount of grace.
If that's the case would it not be wise to listen and ask for prayers from others.Catholic priests and bishops are annointed by God.
Would it not be wise to ask for their blessings.
In Luke we have the Hail Mary rosary and salutation.
Luke 1; 28-29
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
Robert; You are making all kinds of points.Catholic means universal 'according to the whole' as in full gospel.Only the catholic church teaches the full gospel.Only the catholic church can proclaim with confidence a direct line or Succession of Bishops directly from the apostles.Be careful of a different gospel being preached.
Do you know why the body of Christ are not on American protestant church crosses because they are displaying an enemy of the cross.Catholics like Paul said we preach a crucified Christ.Christ said you are not worthy of me unless you pick up your cross and follow me.
You assertion that the bible comes first.
Really.First did Jesus ever pick up pen no of course not.
The church was established before the bible was completed and completed by the catholic church because it had the authority to put together the inspired books or canon.
When Jesus taught he said It is written but I say meaning he was above all authority.
Catholics believe in a Sacred/Oral Tradition meaning what was passed down.Not the bible the faithful learned the faith by a mixture of oral and written down scripture.
Catholics did not put the bible together until the 4th century.
Yes we all fall short of God's glory.
John says in scripture if we say we do not sin we deceive ourselves and truth is not in us.
Jesus says MY church meaning one church catholic church not plural.
One baptism; one Lord and one faith.Not 40,000 denominations.
No one is calling anyone names.
In conversions Protestants get weak catholics; Catholics get strong protestants.
Lowbrow apologetics lead to lowbrow atheist attacks
Brian Ortiz Correct, I don't mean these two guys at all
LOL - No, they don't. Lowbrow atheist attacks happen regardless of if you approach someone with "You're going to Hell!" or "Let's talk about God.". Now you may catch those on the fence with politeness and it's where to start. *But* ...militant atheism is about an active rejection of the concept of God. You will get narcissists and people of low intellectual capacity, who repeat talking points as surely as any cult member. It is _highly_ egoistical to assume that we can control any conversation by being polite or rationally talk all people into our position. Yes, of course start with polite, stay there if you find someone returning it, but don't worry about being being jerk if someone has shown they're happy to heap abuse on you. Christ certainly wouldn't have won Miss Manners awards.
A M Agreed
You and WLC paint with a very broad brush. Prove that you can obtain any knowledge that is not filtered through human senses. You both claim to receive special knowledge. Well, prove it. It’s ironic because even if you could prove that you receive signals from Jesus, you’d have to use science to do it!
Nobody is fighting against science here.They're simply fighting against the narrative that knowledge only existed in material world.
Bishop Robert Barron, God bless you sir! But is it wise to throw stones at your own walls, you've got to have a better profile picture than that you look too something, especially to a non-catholic, you look too much like an organization, instead of a teacher of our Lord Jesus Christ:)
The mutual disdain that you and Craig, Robert, hold for scientific naturalism is most revealing. Indubitably, it is a common point of concern for ALL supernaturalists, who otherwise hold no common standard for the plausibility of any of their assertions, speculations, opinions, or conjectures.
That you both hate scientific naturalism shows me clearly that scientific naturalism constitutes an enormous threat to the supernaturalist worldview. And why might that be? Perhaps because:
1) Scientific naturalism has a worldwide, common, cross-cultural, universal standard for judging an assertion to be "plausible?" Whereas supernaturalism, as judged by your video, has no such standard at all because all forms of supernaturalism are based upon the same amount of verifiable evidence: viz. NONE?
2) The Universe (Multiverse) exists and behaves PRECISELY, PREDICTABLY, AND EXACTLY as we would expect absent any of the tens of thousands of gods ever defined, invented or worshipped throughout human history, including the 3-part god?
3) Scientific naturalism shows clearly, with breathtaking amounts of verifiable evidence, that none of the tens of thousands of gods ever worshipped or invented or defined by supernaturalists is therefore consequential or relevant, whether or not any of them exists?
Such universally supported bases for scientific naturalism are undoubtedly enormously threatening to a worldview that cares not a whit whether it is supported by verifiable evidence of any kind, and which, unlike scientific naturalism has never and will never provide humankind with powerful, broad, robust, coherent, compelling, falsifiable, predictive explanations about anything at all.
No wonder that you and Craig have a common enemy: scientific naturalism.
Naturalism Forever
Is this sarcasm? It’s almost like you haven’t heard of the Catholic scientific tradition, like Copernicus, Mendel, or Le Maitre?
Also, you don’t actually believe that all knowledge is reducible to simply the scientific, do you? Because that stance would be self-defeating
Christians still put forth pathetic performances towards criticizing atheism.
I Don’t have have enough faith to believe in atheism
That’s not a flippant comment I’m serious