"Every argument closed eventually, and closed in love is a *small anticipation* of that ultimate *EASTER GLORY."* - Leah Libresco☆ *Leah,* the attention of a PACKED audience is truly deserved☆ *Huge Thanks!* ☆☆☆☆
"The Truth is true enough to stand, to put it out there, to cast the seed on whatever ground it may find and to let the shoots grow." *- Leah Libresco Sargeant*
*George Bernard Shaw,* though he believed that people had the right to believe in whatever they chose, was *scornful* at the idea of *'arguments'* due to his dislike and probably misconception that when centred around religion it could cause conflicts.
@Ahimsa42 Avoid negativity at all costs. Look to being *inspired* and *INSPIRE* in turn. Life is too precious to let it be snatched away by evil and its masters or to let it reel under negativity of any sort.
@Ahimsa42 While UA-cam is a public platform, *Bishop Robert Barron Channel is NOT.* This is *Bishop's own personal space* where he ministers to others in his generosity for the good of the Catholic Church and all Christians as well as the world. This Channel falls within Bishop's broader *'Word On Fire Catholic Ministries.'* The Comments section is just what it denotes, *comments related to the content* of the videos. If you have no interest whatsoever in the subject that is treated/discussed and *no intention* to participate in conversations, submissive also to UA-cam's *Community Guidelines,* it's an *INTRUSION* on your part being here.
‘Thank you Leah and Bishop Barron’ You opened my eyes to where I was going wrong in my discussions with my children - 9:55 was the fulcrum ‘ no one does evil but for the sake of a perceived good ‘
Father please like my comment so I know you saw it I believe this is unbelievable and very interesting especially when I’m working don’t need to always watch but listening is just as great your new fan from New York bless you father and if your not busy send my family blessings
Jonah Kane Then try it see if it works.... Either you came up with that tactic yourself, or your omniscient “god” came up with it... So try it and see what happens... If it works then fine... And if it fails, then it’s time for you to have a serious think 🤔😂
If you see that arguments won't work then just pray for them! You've tried your best and you didn't succeed but that's ok!Most people usually don't care about arguments and God created us to do whatever we want so it's their choice!
Hey father I’m a new subscriber and I’ve watched a few videos I gotta say father I can’t wait to catch up I’m the type that’s gotta binge watch and who better then father Barron love yourself others and god my lord
Merry Christmas Day7: 🙏 Parents and Godparents O Lord, Word of God, You, whose glory is complete, came to us in perfect humility as a child in the womb. Your love for us and Your humility is unsurpassed and brings us to our knees in prayer and worship. Your incarnation forever changed the world.
God bless bishop Barron for his work is amazing If you want to know if god is real it’s quite easy Look in a mirror and see what he has made you You are proof god is real
@Nigel Butt I don't think that belief in evolution negates a belief in God. Nor do I believe that defects in human beings- physical, pyschological,mental, intellectual or even spiritual also negates the existence of God. For those of us who hold to the Christian faith the answer lies with Man's freedom to choose. Thank God for Darwin but I also thank God for biblical Revelation that points to the origin of creation, whether creation evolved or is evolving.
Nigel Butt I will speak to you from my heart a child who is lame will be healed the blind will see the dumb will talk in heaven we will all be perfect even the ones you know who has the problems you speak of I was born crippled and will be till I die but also I know after being godless for so many years of my life being in the dark of this world is so much more pain and hurt worries and problems then being in the light I don’t know what the priests where thinking sexually abusing those children but the Bible preaches it is wrong and they will be judged on the day they leave this world as will the children me and you what you suffer on earth you earn in reward ten times fold in heaven the priests had a choice witch was give to us from god the father to choose right and wrong they chose wrong because it was the devil doing work and telling them as he told Jesus that he would make him ruler of all the lands in the world if he would just bow they bowed to the dark one Nick god bless you brother note I will pray for you and always think of you in my prayers god bless
@@CatholicBeardReviews You are blessed. Very often we judge one another with no or very little knowledge of their life story and their personal journey in life. This why I value the conversation and dialogue we share through social media. We are no longer strangers even if we never become"friends". I gain tremendous insights about others, their views and their perspectives on various issues. We learn, we grow and sometimes we grow up because we discover that part about being " human" is being open, sensitive, kind, honest and compassionate. Thank you for your personal sharing and may God continue to bless you a undantly as you journey on through your life
I disagree with what you said at 7:50. Those who do not believe in Christ are not children of God. John 1: "to those who believed in Him, He gave them the power to become children of God".
@Dave McPike yeah i really like listening to Robert Barron but there are 3 things that really bother me about catholicism. 1) the over-emphasis on mary veneration 2) the "hope that all will be saved" garbage, and 3) calling everyone children of God. Anyways God bless man.
@@jonathon_durno so by reading this, one would assume that you may consider yourself Christian based off your God Bless which otherwise would hold no merit but think that the hope of all to be saved is garbage? I'm lost as to how that is solely Catholic and not centered around the Good News of Christs word and mission? To me, it doesn't matter whether a Non Denom, Baptist or what have you has that hope...just wondering why it would see you obviously disagree but follow with God Bless? Hope to hear from you.
@@countryboygsp1222 ahh yes maybe the word garbage is too strong. However "all" being saved insinuates no judgement. In revelation, it is clear that there will be those who are thrown into the lake of fire. It might be more practical to say: "dare we hope that most will be saved?".
The New Testament says that the Lord wishes for no one to perish, but to come to repentance. That is why we hope for all to be saved, though we know not all will be. God himself wishes everyone would come to him and join the family, but knows they won’t.
What is peculiar in the Thomas/Aristotle account shared is that the known tendency toward evil - or, say, witting lying and/or clamoring for the [convenient] lie - seems poorly registered. Their main point is well taken, of course, but it may seem a reduction of motive to an unrealistically 'pure' motive [toward the Good]. Can we say that our first parents' fellowship-neglecting negotiations with the serpent were motivated only or mainly by a genuine desire for the Good? An admixture of opposites at the level of motive seems more realistic and that which authentically makes us culpable for the neglect of Good which pretends the Good.
Its so weird how we're all "led to the truth" on religious questions and yet never agree. Mormons, muslims, catholics, athiests, we're all led to the truth about what happens when we die, why we exist, etc. Maybe these kinds of questions are unfalsifiable and we just pretend to know because its easier than being uncertain? Whether we agree or not or simply have no opinion, we all have to live here together so lets be nice and deal with we can agree on😊
Hi Ellie, I see the virtue in what you are proposing but the two problems that will always need to be resolved are "what does it mean to be nice" and "are the claims of a religion true." Christianity at least does have falsifiable claims-- the pinnacle of which is this: did Jesus Christ rise from the dead? He either did or he didn't. Division happens, as I see it, when people miss the mark on what is true and good. If we all knew the truth about religion and accepted it there would be no division. Just like a detective, mathematician or scientist-- and armed with questions more important than all those things-- we can try to find what is in fact true. That's what argument helps us to do.
**** "nice," I want to escape this h*ll not go to a worse one. mormons and atheists are freemasons (therefore gnostics and devil worshipers), mohammedans also worship the devil through their ancient pagan religion of mecca. Here is Venerable Fulton Sheen: "A dogma, then, is the necessary consequence of the intolerance of first principles, and that science or that church which has the greatest amount of dogmas is the science or the church that has been doing the most thinking. The Catholic Church, the schoolmaster for twenty centuries, has been doing a tremendous amount of solid, hard thinking and hence has built up dogmas as a man might build a house of brick but grounded on a rock. She has seen the centuries with their passing enthusiasms and momentary loyalties pass before her, making the same mistakes, cultivating the same poses, falling into the same mental snares, so that she has become very patient and kind to the erring pupils, but very intolerant and severe concerning the false. She has been and she will always be intolerant so far as the rights of God are concerned, for heresy, error, untruth, affect not personal matters on which she may yield, but a Divine Right in which there is no yielding. Meek she is to the erring, but violent to the error. The truth is divine; the heretic is human. Due reparation made, she will admit the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never the heresy into the treasury of her wisdom. Right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. And in this day and age we need, as Mr. Chesterton tells us, "not a Church that is right when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong.""
same goes with Atheism...you have communism, liberals....Not to mention the vast differences of Morality, each Atheism promotes...Some say well being, others deny the existence of good and bad...others say Evolution theory??🙄🙄 I rather be a Catholic where there is Unity...I can be Everywhere, yet One Church.... Where there is Unity ,there is Authority...
It comes from a place of humility where you recognize you can't be right about everything. It's not docility to the opponent, it's docility to the Truth, whether you have it or your opponent. If you do have it then you charitably make it be seen to your opponent, but if your opponent has it then you have to give up your intellectual pride and accept it.
@@Mikelo7420 Truth has to be earned and fought for. If you just submit to it, how do you know it is the truth? I would not call your notion of giving up pride and yielding a docile act. It is quite possibly the single hardest thing to do. And it should be backed up by rigorous investigation and thought to ensure it is the right thing to do. I'm not sure the goal should be a matter of yielding at all. It should be pride in the opportunity to be more correct than you were previously.
@@gfxpimp Friend, you're not really disagreeing with me here. Sure Truth has to be fought for (not sure what you mean by earned), but that is not in conflict with docility, you can submit yourself to the Truth and defend it, yet it's important to always have that clear notion that you're not the ultimate paragon of Truth and you could have a misconception of it, in which case you have to be *docile* to it and correct yourself, again, if that is the case. The second half of your comment is really the definition of docility to the Truth, docility is not equivalent to easily yielding to your opponent with no opposition, docility is arguing with someone else with the clear mindset that what you're trying to do is reach the Truth, not win. That is hard to do as you adequately pointed. That's because we're prideful creatures that think are always right, but if you fight against it a bit and think, as you put it, that after rigorous investigation you can ensure you reached the Truth then you can correct yourself accordingly. I don't think you should feel "pride" in being more correct than you were previously but that's just my personal take on it. In my opinion we should always try to be humble and objective so our pride doesn't cloud our ability to debate and reach the Truth. Intellectual pride is what gets you to the "I have to win this argument and the other guy is wrong" mentality.
@@Mikelo7420 My goal is to have joy in finding out I'm wrong and to not have opponents, but to have opportunities to change myself. To me, being docile is a passive activity. Perhaps not for you, but I believe it is for many people, and that is the only point of subtle disagreement, I think. Thank you for your polite and thoughtful response.
@@gfxpimp Ah I see now where we didn't understand each other. But hey, we left our intellectual differences aside and reached an amicable conclusion, that's pretty amazing as it is on this forum. Thank you too man, for your polite attitude and your time. Have a good day.
10 minutes into the 19 minute video and she doesn't get to the point. Instead, she keeps repeating herself. I can imagine how she wins debates by driving her opponents crazy...
What if I don’t want to win but to find the truth? I mean what is the point of winning if you were wrong all along and have just convinced another person in the same wrong thing you believe yourself? Before arguing with anyone about anything please consider the possibility of you being not in the right and actually try viewing your opponent’s arguments from a neutral ground and gradually move to one side or another depending on facts an evidence not your wishful thinking! That’s my advice for you.
that is always the correct attitude for the one who loves truth - but when you engage in a discussion, one presents his convictions and his reasons - there is really no other way
@@silveriorebelo8045 Convictions are faulty they may be wrong. So the only things you should present in a discussion are statements supported by actual facts and reasoning. Like: “Eath is a sphere (statement) because earth’s shade on the surface of the moon is always circular (fact) and if the earth was flat there would be times where it’s shade’s shape wouldn’t be circular (reasoning).” No need to state your convictions or beliefs or dogmas, just stick to things that comport reality!
I am so surprised that you missed that she was making the exact point you are making. The 'twist' in her talk is that she's actually NOT advocating for simply winning and argument but how to 'lose one with grace' so you are more primed to accept the truth even if you are wrong. That was the best part! Please watch the video again but it seems like you didn't watch it all in the first place, it's good, as she says, it's not even just for religious arguments but for any kind of argument
AI T, You are mourning for the wrong person. Did you really hear Leah? From being an Atheist, she *discovered* God who *always existed.* How does that mark her as IGNORANT? If anything, she did put some *tools* to work and succeeded. *She didn't have the knowledge earlier but now has.*
@@marypinakat8594 Mary, speaking from experience as a former quite militant atheist, who was even on the executive board of an atheist club at my University, I don't think that approach is the best path to dialogue. This video impressed me, I had been aware of Ms. Libresco for several years in online communities I frequented, and her approach is more likely to bear fruit in my mind.
@@alt8791 Well what's silly about it? Are you familiar with the simulation hypothesis? Do you think it's possible that the universe in which we live has a creator?
1. There is no point in arguing if you can't be proven wrong, then its just an unfalsifiable position. Most religious people won't accept that the god they believe in doesn't exist. And most atheists can't accept that god exists. 2. Just understand the 'fallacy fallacy' to understand that people can argue badly for a position yet the position still being true. Any truth can be made laughable with a bad argument. So who ever your arguing with, they still can be technically right. 3. Why don't people change their views when they don't know how to anwser the basic arguments *against* their position? Loyality, and they start identifying themselves with whatever position they hold on any given topic. 4. Logical necessety only works in theory, if something doesn't work in practice its pretty much useless as anything less then a placebo effect. "Something i believe in thats wrong can still be good for me personally" sure, most deluded people can live a nice life believing any type of crazy shit. Integrity is hard to come by
I get your points, friend, but I don't accept your scientistic assumptions, typical of the logical positivists. Verifiability and falsifiability cannot be simply tied to the empirical. There are indeed ways of verifying and falsifying positions metaphysically. For instance, the claim that God exists could indeed be falsified if it could be shown that the universe is radically non-contingent. But since the opposite is in fact the case, God's existence is a logical necessity. Or one might falsify the theistic claim by arguing that the very existence of evil rules out an infinite good. But Augustine's treatment of evil as a type of non-being undermines that attempt at falsification. I'm just giving these as two examples of non-empirical falsifiability.
@@BishopBarron Well we might disagree on presuppositions, but i don't actually think they are relevant to the topic at hand. Il explain.To start off, il just have to point out that my position is far from typical logical positivists. Im a form of pragmatist myself. To me it seems fair to say that the world is real, and even if it where mere illusion, it would still be pragmatic. But thats a topic for another day, and im sure you can read up on it on wikipedia if need be. But the entire point of falsifiability was not about the world, or claims being falsifiable. But rather on the person making the arguments themselves keeping an open mind. Its a question about the point of arguing with people at all. Like i said: There is no point in arguing if you can't be proven wrong, then its just an unfalsifiable position. *Most religious people won't accept that the god they believe in doesn't exist. And most atheists can't accept that god exists. * The second part was added to emphesise the fact that its about the worldview of the person arguing. *Not* about the falsifiability of the claims themselves. If they can't be shaken from their position they are merely a preacher for their cause, nothing more nothing less. They are not having an honest argument. They can be atheist and religious preachers. Religious people who believe in god do have more to lose thought, as their entire worldview is buildt upon him existing, and even admitting that one can disprove gods existence by logic seems for many religious people to be blasphemus. With my limited understanding of catholicism i do belive that they hold god up as logos itself? Or am i wrong here? Or is it simply that what Thomas Aquinas meant, that logic is a way to know god? Either way, it must be hard for people like that to honestly and openly start an argument where one keeps an "open mind", and admits to *the possibility* of being swayed by argument.
@@DeadEndFrog But friend, you're hoisted on your own petard! How willing are you to be argued out of the position you're currently maintaining? How open are you to being shown that pragmatism (as I indeed hold) is an incoherent point of view? Everyone, without exception, comes at philosophical questions from particular angles and with certain prejudices in place. This shouldn't rule out the possibility of real rational discourse.
@@BishopBarron I think you would be suprised padre, i doubt you will believe me, but im probably more willing then anyone you will meet, no thoughts are sacred im afraid, so i think you have met your master. Its not like it matters, because by attempting to trap me, you fell into the actual trap. Was this not an admission of your very own unwillingess to let go of your presuppositions? I would love an response. You couldn't have known that you have met 'the unique'.
@@DeadEndFrog You're being far too either/or about this. First of all, it's quite impossible ever fully to let go of our presuppositions as we enter into any conversation. Gadamer makes this clear in Truth and Method: there is always some prejudice involved in a rational conversation. Even Descartes, as he pretends to doubt everything, can only do so in terms of the French or Latin language! So I don't think it's at all a desideratum to eliminate presupposition completely. Secondly, we shouldn't be obligated to let go of settled points of view, which is to say, truths that we have thought through, tested, turned over, etc. We don't have to enter into every conversation with a blank slate or utterly uncommitted to any truth. To be sure, any good conversation involves the crossing of worlds and hence the possibility of real novelty, insight, development, etc.--all those good things that you legitimately want. But I don't think you have to sacrifice presupposition or settled truth to get them.
Thing is, there is no argument. Christianity/Catholicism is not true. You have to step outside your belief system just for a moment and you will see this. You have to compare the New Testament to the Hebrew Bible from the Classical Jewish perspective to see this. It's clear Leah never did this. If only religious people would consider this, we would have a much better, more peaceful world, and can spend time exploring other topics that are actually real.
the infallible church came first before the bible...the fact that the church survived oppression, plagues, dictators, the roman empire and spread all over the world yet United under the Pope is a miracle even after 2000 years...That itself proves her authority... While atheists can't even agree on their morality.... Some are communists others, don't believe in good and bad others follow Evolution theory as source of morality.. Others claim well being as standard of morality.. others utilitarianism.... Is this the Truth in Atheism you talking about??🙄
Yep. The Catholic church can't enforce their views with the rack and the stake anymore. They need to use different persuasive techniques and Leah is here to give a primer on such advanced apologetics. Unfortunately, it's all hooey. She blah blahs about being "open to the truth" but she really means truths that do not conflict with her religious notions. When her beliefs are clearly contradicted does she change them? Nope. She will 'take it under consideration' then forget about it. If she were objective, she wouldn't be catholic.
Max Doubt - you should engage her. This religion business is not brainwashing. I don't have the wherewithal to say more. I don't even know why I'm engaging you, as I expect only a derisive retort. I only posit the suggestion that it's not brainwashing. "Science is cool, God is real, and philosophy makes me sleepy." from a 30-year atheist.
Everything that exists now at one time, didn't exist. Does this idea of contingency apply to the existence of the universe? I'm just brainstorming... And I wanted to share this thought in peace.✌
Hi. God is not a thing in the world just like Shakespeare is not a thing in the play Hamlet. So you need philosophical arguments not scientific evidence. Dr Feser outlines one such argument here: m.ua-cam.com/video/Sl3uoCi9VjI/v-deo.html
@@oroyplataman _'why is scientific evidence necessary to believe in something?'_ We are not talking about believing something. People believe in any old noncence, we are talking about evidence to back up ones beliefs.
"Every argument closed eventually, and closed in love is a *small anticipation* of that ultimate *EASTER GLORY."* - Leah Libresco☆
*Leah,* the attention of a PACKED audience is truly deserved☆ *Huge Thanks!* ☆☆☆☆
We need more people like Leah Libresco Sargeant
"The Truth is true enough to stand, to put it out there, to cast the seed on whatever ground it may find and to let the shoots grow." *- Leah Libresco Sargeant*
*George Bernard Shaw,* though he believed that people had the right to believe in whatever they chose, was *scornful* at the idea of *'arguments'* due to his dislike and probably misconception that when centred around religion it could cause conflicts.
@Ahimsa42
Avoid negativity at all costs.
Look to being *inspired* and *INSPIRE* in turn. Life is too precious to let it be snatched away by evil and its masters or to let it reel under negativity of any sort.
@Ahimsa42
I guess you might have an *ideology.*
@Ahimsa42
Could I know what exactly maybe your COMMENT on Leah's talk?
No obligation though.
@Ahimsa42
While UA-cam is a public platform, *Bishop Robert Barron Channel is NOT.* This is *Bishop's own personal space* where he ministers to others in his generosity for the good of the Catholic Church and all Christians as well as the world. This Channel falls within Bishop's broader *'Word On Fire Catholic Ministries.'*
The Comments section is just what it denotes, *comments related to the content* of the videos. If you have no interest whatsoever in the subject that is treated/discussed and *no intention* to participate in conversations, submissive also to UA-cam's *Community Guidelines,* it's an *INTRUSION* on your part being here.
‘Thank you Leah and Bishop Barron’ You opened my eyes to where I was going wrong in my discussions with my children - 9:55 was the fulcrum ‘ no one does evil but for the sake of a perceived good ‘
Father please like my comment so I know you saw it I believe this is unbelievable and very interesting especially when I’m working don’t need to always watch but listening is just as great your new fan from New York bless you father and if your not busy send my family blessings
Maybe this video should be titled: How to loose an argument and win your opponent.
Most of my friends are atheist and just don't care about arguments. I am trying to convert them to God please pray for me
Jonah Kane Why bother?
Jonah Kane
Well, we know prayer doesn’t work...
You need a new tactic
Baz Strutt what if prayer leads me to that new tactic?
Jonah Kane Then try it see if it works....
Either you came up with that tactic yourself, or your omniscient “god” came up with it...
So try it and see what happens...
If it works then fine...
And if it fails, then it’s time for you to have a serious think 🤔😂
If you see that arguments won't work then just pray for them! You've tried your best and you didn't succeed but that's ok!Most people usually don't care about arguments and God created us to do whatever we want so it's their choice!
God this was so brilliant
Absolutely☆
Hey father I’m a new subscriber and I’ve watched a few videos I gotta say father I can’t wait to catch up I’m the type that’s gotta binge watch and who better then father Barron love yourself others and god my lord
So good!
Great talk! Many thanks.
Merry Christmas Day7: 🙏 Parents and Godparents
O Lord, Word of God, You, whose glory is complete, came to us in perfect humility as a child in the womb. Your love for us and Your humility is unsurpassed and brings us to our knees in prayer and worship.
Your incarnation forever changed the world.
InstaBlaster.
Leah is Awesome
God bless bishop Barron for his work is amazing
If you want to know if god is real it’s quite easy
Look in a mirror and see what he has made you
You are proof god is real
_[citation needed]_
Indeed.... We are proof that God is real. Amen to that.
@Nigel Butt I don't think that belief in evolution negates a belief in God. Nor do I believe that defects in human beings- physical, pyschological,mental, intellectual or even spiritual also negates the existence of God. For those of us who hold to the Christian faith the answer lies with Man's freedom to choose. Thank God for Darwin but I also thank God for biblical Revelation that points to the origin of creation, whether creation evolved or is evolving.
Nigel Butt I will speak to you from my heart a child who is lame will be healed the blind will see the dumb will talk in heaven we will all be perfect even the ones you know who has the problems you speak of I was born crippled and will be till I die but also I know after being godless for so many years of my life being in the dark of this world is so much more pain and hurt worries and problems then being in the light I don’t know what the priests where thinking sexually abusing those children but the Bible preaches it is wrong and they will be judged on the day they leave this world as will the children me and you what you suffer on earth you earn in reward ten times fold in heaven the priests had a choice witch was give to us from god the father to choose right and wrong they chose wrong because it was the devil doing work and telling them as he told Jesus that he would make him ruler of all the lands in the world if he would just bow they bowed to the dark one Nick god bless you brother note I will pray for you and always think of you in my prayers god bless
@@CatholicBeardReviews You are blessed. Very often we judge one another with no or very little knowledge of their life story and their personal journey in life. This why I value the conversation and dialogue we share through social media. We are no longer strangers even if we never become"friends". I gain tremendous insights about others, their views and their perspectives on various issues. We learn, we grow and sometimes we grow up because we discover that part about being " human" is being open, sensitive, kind, honest and compassionate. Thank you for your personal sharing and may God continue to bless you a undantly as you journey on through your life
I disagree with what you said at 7:50. Those who do not believe in Christ are not children of God. John 1: "to those who believed in Him, He gave them the power to become children of God".
@Dave McPike yeah i really like listening to Robert Barron but there are 3 things that really bother me about catholicism. 1) the over-emphasis on mary veneration 2) the "hope that all will be saved" garbage, and 3) calling everyone children of God. Anyways God bless man.
@@jonathon_durno so by reading this, one would assume that you may consider yourself Christian based off your God Bless which otherwise would hold no merit but think that the hope of all to be saved is garbage?
I'm lost as to how that is solely Catholic and not centered around the Good News of Christs word and mission? To me, it doesn't matter whether a Non Denom, Baptist or what have you has that hope...just wondering why it would see you obviously disagree but follow with God Bless? Hope to hear from you.
@@countryboygsp1222 ahh yes maybe the word garbage is too strong. However "all" being saved insinuates no judgement. In revelation, it is clear that there will be those who are thrown into the lake of fire. It might be more practical to say: "dare we hope that most will be saved?".
The New Testament says that the Lord wishes for no one to perish, but to come to repentance.
That is why we hope for all to be saved, though we know not all will be. God himself wishes everyone would come to him and join the family, but knows they won’t.
@@juice2307 amen and amen. I agree with that.
Some of my best friends are atheists...enjoy their company a lot!
The CAUSE of Christ is dead in the water without the wind of WIDESPREAD PENTECOST!
What is peculiar in the Thomas/Aristotle account shared is that the known tendency toward evil - or, say, witting lying and/or clamoring for the [convenient] lie - seems poorly registered. Their main point is well taken, of course, but it may seem a reduction of motive to an unrealistically 'pure' motive [toward the Good]. Can we say that our first parents' fellowship-neglecting negotiations with the serpent were motivated only or mainly by a genuine desire for the Good? An admixture of opposites at the level of motive seems more realistic and that which authentically makes us culpable for the neglect of Good which pretends the Good.
Dave McPike ..I’d imagine; and I’d imagine such wouldn’t have sat well w/ the Bishop. (...but what do I know, right?)
@Dave McPike ...jeEperz; that's a drag.
Its so weird how we're all "led to the truth" on religious questions and yet never agree. Mormons, muslims, catholics, athiests, we're all led to the truth about what happens when we die, why we exist, etc. Maybe these kinds of questions are unfalsifiable and we just pretend to know because its easier than being uncertain?
Whether we agree or not or simply have no opinion, we all have to live here together so lets be nice and deal with we can agree on😊
Hi Ellie,
I see the virtue in what you are proposing but the two problems that will always need to be resolved are "what does it mean to be nice" and "are the claims of a religion true." Christianity at least does have falsifiable claims-- the pinnacle of which is this: did Jesus Christ rise from the dead? He either did or he didn't. Division happens, as I see it, when people miss the mark on what is true and good. If we all knew the truth about religion and accepted it there would be no division. Just like a detective, mathematician or scientist-- and armed with questions more important than all those things-- we can try to find what is in fact true. That's what argument helps us to do.
**** "nice," I want to escape this h*ll not go to a worse one. mormons and atheists are freemasons (therefore gnostics and devil worshipers), mohammedans also worship the devil through their ancient pagan religion of mecca. Here is Venerable Fulton Sheen: "A dogma, then, is the necessary consequence of the intolerance of first principles, and that science or that church which has the greatest amount of dogmas is the science or the church that has been doing the most thinking. The Catholic Church, the schoolmaster for twenty centuries, has been doing a tremendous amount of solid, hard thinking and hence has built up dogmas as a man might build a house of brick but grounded on a rock. She has seen the centuries with their passing enthusiasms and momentary loyalties pass before her, making the same mistakes, cultivating the same poses, falling into the same mental snares, so that she has become very patient and kind to the erring pupils, but very intolerant and severe concerning the false. She has been and she will always be intolerant so far as the rights of God are concerned, for heresy, error, untruth, affect not personal matters on which she may yield, but a Divine Right in which there is no yielding. Meek she is to the erring, but violent to the error. The truth is divine; the heretic is human. Due reparation made, she will admit the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never the heresy into the treasury of her wisdom. Right is right if nobody is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong. And in this day and age we need, as Mr. Chesterton tells us, "not a Church that is right when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong.""
same goes with Atheism...you have communism, liberals....Not to mention the vast differences of Morality, each Atheism promotes...Some say well being, others deny the existence of good and bad...others say Evolution theory??🙄🙄
I rather be a Catholic where there is Unity...I can be Everywhere, yet One Church.... Where there is Unity ,there is Authority...
🙏🏻🎶😎👊🏻🙌🏻✌🏻
What kind of genuine intellectual insight can come from docility? We have to work hard to root out those ideas we hold that are incorrect.
It comes from a place of humility where you recognize you can't be right about everything. It's not docility to the opponent, it's docility to the Truth, whether you have it or your opponent.
If you do have it then you charitably make it be seen to your opponent, but if your opponent has it then you have to give up your intellectual pride and accept it.
@@Mikelo7420 Truth has to be earned and fought for. If you just submit to it, how do you know it is the truth? I would not call your notion of giving up pride and yielding a docile act. It is quite possibly the single hardest thing to do. And it should be backed up by rigorous investigation and thought to ensure it is the right thing to do. I'm not sure the goal should be a matter of yielding at all. It should be pride in the opportunity to be more correct than you were previously.
@@gfxpimp Friend, you're not really disagreeing with me here.
Sure Truth has to be fought for (not sure what you mean by earned), but that is not in conflict with docility, you can submit yourself to the Truth and defend it, yet it's important to always have that clear notion that you're not the ultimate paragon of Truth and you could have a misconception of it, in which case you have to be *docile* to it and correct yourself, again, if that is the case.
The second half of your comment is really the definition of docility to the Truth, docility is not equivalent to easily yielding to your opponent with no opposition, docility is arguing with someone else with the clear mindset that what you're trying to do is reach the Truth, not win. That is hard to do as you adequately pointed. That's because we're prideful creatures that think are always right, but if you fight against it a bit and think, as you put it, that after rigorous investigation you can ensure you reached the Truth then you can correct yourself accordingly.
I don't think you should feel "pride" in being more correct than you were previously but that's just my personal take on it. In my opinion we should always try to be humble and objective so our pride doesn't cloud our ability to debate and reach the Truth. Intellectual pride is what gets you to the "I have to win this argument and the other guy is wrong" mentality.
@@Mikelo7420 My goal is to have joy in finding out I'm wrong and to not have opponents, but to have opportunities to change myself. To me, being docile is a passive activity. Perhaps not for you, but I believe it is for many people, and that is the only point of subtle disagreement, I think. Thank you for your polite and thoughtful response.
@@gfxpimp Ah I see now where we didn't understand each other. But hey, we left our intellectual differences aside and reached an amicable conclusion, that's pretty amazing as it is on this forum. Thank you too man, for your polite attitude and your time. Have a good day.
wow.
I’d make an amazing Atheist around all of these idolatrous Catholics, Bishop Barron. So upset that’s not how I’m designed.
10 minutes into the 19 minute video and she doesn't get to the point. Instead, she keeps repeating herself. I can imagine how she wins debates by driving her opponents crazy...
c sm,
There's NO TRUTH in your comment. How come others have different stories to say?
c sm
Agreed....
I’m suffering with listening to the rest of it....
It’s dreadful
@@bazstrutt8247
It won't be a bad idea to look around.
You should get Harris or Dawkins on. Dig their graves a little deeper
Is that all the inspiration we can draw and is that the lesson that's been taught?
@@marypinakat8594 wut?
@@zayan6284
Did I get you wrong, 'why dig graves deeper'?
What if I don’t want to win but to find the truth? I mean what is the point of winning if you were wrong all along and have just convinced another person in the same wrong thing you believe yourself?
Before arguing with anyone about anything please consider the possibility of you being not in the right and actually try viewing your opponent’s arguments from a neutral ground and gradually move to one side or another depending on facts an evidence not your wishful thinking! That’s my advice for you.
that is always the correct attitude for the one who loves truth - but when you engage in a discussion, one presents his convictions and his reasons - there is really no other way
@@silveriorebelo8045
Convictions are faulty they may be wrong. So the only things you should present in a discussion are statements supported by actual facts and reasoning.
Like: “Eath is a sphere (statement) because earth’s shade on the surface of the moon is always circular (fact) and if the earth was flat there would be times where it’s shade’s shape wouldn’t be circular (reasoning).”
No need to state your convictions or beliefs or dogmas, just stick to things that comport reality!
I am so surprised that you missed that she was making the exact point you are making. The 'twist' in her talk is that she's actually NOT advocating for simply winning and argument but how to 'lose one with grace' so you are more primed to accept the truth even if you are wrong. That was the best part! Please watch the video again but it seems like you didn't watch it all in the first place, it's good, as she says, it's not even just for religious arguments but for any kind of argument
It always saddens me to hear about atheists who converted to ignorance. You had the tools. You had the knowledge, and you gave it up.
Why saddened? How do you know she's ignorant?
AI T,
You are mourning for the wrong person. Did you really hear Leah? From being an Atheist, she *discovered* God who *always existed.* How does that mark her as IGNORANT? If anything, she did put some *tools* to work and succeeded. *She didn't have the knowledge earlier but now has.*
@@marypinakat8594 Mary, speaking from experience as a former quite militant atheist, who was even on the executive board of an atheist club at my University, I don't think that approach is the best path to dialogue. This video impressed me, I had been aware of Ms. Libresco for several years in online communities I frequented, and her approach is more likely to bear fruit in my mind.
William Carter because she is regressing to using a silly explanation to justify existence! But thank you for your response to Ms. Pinakat.
@@alt8791 Well what's silly about it? Are you familiar with the simulation hypothesis? Do you think it's possible that the universe in which we live has a creator?
👏👏👏👏👏😃😃😃
1. There is no point in arguing if you can't be proven wrong, then its just an unfalsifiable position. Most religious people won't accept that the god they believe in doesn't exist. And most atheists can't accept that god exists.
2. Just understand the 'fallacy fallacy' to understand that people can argue badly for a position yet the position still being true. Any truth can be made laughable with a bad argument. So who ever your arguing with, they still can be technically right.
3. Why don't people change their views when they don't know how to anwser the basic arguments *against* their position? Loyality, and they start identifying themselves with whatever position they hold on any given topic.
4. Logical necessety only works in theory, if something doesn't work in practice its pretty much useless as anything less then a placebo effect. "Something i believe in thats wrong can still be good for me personally" sure, most deluded people can live a nice life believing any type of crazy shit.
Integrity is hard to come by
I get your points, friend, but I don't accept your scientistic assumptions, typical of the logical positivists. Verifiability and falsifiability cannot be simply tied to the empirical. There are indeed ways of verifying and falsifying positions metaphysically. For instance, the claim that God exists could indeed be falsified if it could be shown that the universe is radically non-contingent. But since the opposite is in fact the case, God's existence is a logical necessity. Or one might falsify the theistic claim by arguing that the very existence of evil rules out an infinite good. But Augustine's treatment of evil as a type of non-being undermines that attempt at falsification. I'm just giving these as two examples of non-empirical falsifiability.
@@BishopBarron Well we might disagree on presuppositions, but i don't actually think they are relevant to the topic at hand. Il explain.To start off, il just have to point out that my position is far from typical logical positivists. Im a form of pragmatist myself. To me it seems fair to say that the world is real, and even if it where mere illusion, it would still be pragmatic. But thats a topic for another day, and im sure you can read up on it on wikipedia if need be.
But the entire point of falsifiability was not about the world, or claims being falsifiable. But rather on the person making the arguments themselves keeping an open mind. Its a question about the point of arguing with people at all. Like i said: There is no point in arguing if you can't be proven wrong, then its just an unfalsifiable position. *Most religious people won't accept that the god they believe in doesn't exist. And most atheists can't accept that god exists. *
The second part was added to emphesise the fact that its about the worldview of the person arguing. *Not* about the falsifiability of the claims themselves. If they can't be shaken from their position they are merely a preacher for their cause, nothing more nothing less. They are not having an honest argument. They can be atheist and religious preachers. Religious people who believe in god do have more to lose thought, as their entire worldview is buildt upon him existing, and even admitting that one can disprove gods existence by logic seems for many religious people to be blasphemus. With my limited understanding of catholicism i do belive that they hold god up as logos itself? Or am i wrong here? Or is it simply that what Thomas Aquinas meant, that logic is a way to know god? Either way, it must be hard for people like that to honestly and openly start an argument where one keeps an "open mind", and admits to *the possibility* of being swayed by argument.
@@DeadEndFrog But friend, you're hoisted on your own petard! How willing are you to be argued out of the position you're currently maintaining? How open are you to being shown that pragmatism (as I indeed hold) is an incoherent point of view? Everyone, without exception, comes at philosophical questions from particular angles and with certain prejudices in place. This shouldn't rule out the possibility of real rational discourse.
@@BishopBarron I think you would be suprised padre, i doubt you will believe me, but im probably more willing then anyone you will meet, no thoughts are sacred im afraid, so i think you have met your master. Its not like it matters, because by attempting to trap me, you fell into the actual trap. Was this not an admission of your very own unwillingess to let go of your presuppositions? I would love an response. You couldn't have known that you have met 'the unique'.
@@DeadEndFrog You're being far too either/or about this. First of all, it's quite impossible ever fully to let go of our presuppositions as we enter into any conversation. Gadamer makes this clear in Truth and Method: there is always some prejudice involved in a rational conversation. Even Descartes, as he pretends to doubt everything, can only do so in terms of the French or Latin language! So I don't think it's at all a desideratum to eliminate presupposition completely. Secondly, we shouldn't be obligated to let go of settled points of view, which is to say, truths that we have thought through, tested, turned over, etc. We don't have to enter into every conversation with a blank slate or utterly uncommitted to any truth. To be sure, any good conversation involves the crossing of worlds and hence the possibility of real novelty, insight, development, etc.--all those good things that you legitimately want. But I don't think you have to sacrifice presupposition or settled truth to get them.
Thing is, there is no argument. Christianity/Catholicism is not true. You have to step outside your belief system just for a moment and you will see this. You have to compare the New Testament to the Hebrew Bible from the Classical Jewish perspective to see this. It's clear Leah never did this. If only religious people would consider this, we would have a much better, more peaceful world, and can spend time exploring other topics that are actually real.
the infallible church came first before the bible...the fact that the church survived oppression, plagues, dictators, the roman empire and spread all over the world yet United under the Pope is a miracle even after 2000 years...That itself proves her authority...
While atheists can't even agree on their morality....
Some are communists
others, don't believe in good and bad
others follow Evolution theory as source of morality..
Others claim well being as standard of morality..
others utilitarianism....
Is this the Truth in Atheism you talking about??🙄
Sorry bishop
Yep. The Catholic church can't enforce their views with the rack and the stake anymore. They need to use different persuasive techniques and Leah is here to give a primer on such advanced apologetics. Unfortunately, it's all hooey. She blah blahs about being "open to the truth" but she really means truths that do not conflict with her religious notions. When her beliefs are clearly contradicted does she change them? Nope. She will 'take it under consideration' then forget about it. If she were objective, she wouldn't be catholic.
Max Doubt - you should engage her. This religion business is not brainwashing. I don't have the wherewithal to say more. I don't even know why I'm engaging you, as I expect only a derisive retort.
I only posit the suggestion that it's not brainwashing.
"Science is cool, God is real, and philosophy makes me sleepy."
from a 30-year atheist.
Pachamama
We atheists don't want good 'faith' we want good scientific testable evidence....got any?
Everything that exists now at one time, didn't exist. Does this idea of contingency apply to the existence of the universe? I'm just brainstorming... And I wanted to share this thought in peace.✌
Hi. God is not a thing in the world just like Shakespeare is not a thing in the play Hamlet. So you need philosophical arguments not scientific evidence. Dr Feser outlines one such argument here: m.ua-cam.com/video/Sl3uoCi9VjI/v-deo.html
@@oroyplataman
_' What testable scientific evidence would be enough to convince you?'_
Any. There is none.
@@johncollins8097
_'philosophical arguments'_
philosophical arguments prove nothing.
@@oroyplataman
_'why is scientific evidence necessary to believe in something?'_
We are not talking about believing something. People believe in any old noncence, we are talking about evidence to back up ones beliefs.