I burst out laughing when he said, "Is this what the Church teaches, Trent? Are you really sure?" and then Trent pops in, "Yes." It was a very Pope Francis saying "No" to female Priests moment.
Nihilists are the only consistent atheists. These modern atheists trying to proclaim two contradicting beliefs at once, because they're clearly just afraid of living in a world without morality are ridiculous.
Thank you for this. I've always thought of it. They claim there's no absolute moral law but would turn around to call those who do not affirm homosexual behaviour "evil" like it's a moral truth they've discovered.
We endured the berbers,we endured the french revolution ,we endured marxism,we endured the tokugawa,we endured isis,we endured the turk,and we still won.
Ummm as a former atheist female, my view of myself and the treatment of the men around me became wayyyyy better after becoming catholic. So the atheist:s pejorative view of the treatment of women by the Church is entirely unwarranted. I'm a mere sex object under atheism. It always comes down to that. As an atheist, it always seemed like I was fighting a losing battle to show the world I had dignity. The Church already assumes and knows that I have dignity. It's not even a question.
Sirach 42:14 "A man's wickedness is better than a woman's goodness; women bring shame and disgrace." Saint Epiphanius “Women are unstable, prone to error, and mean-spirited.” Panarion (also known as, Against Heresies) 79.1.6 Saint John Chrystosom “The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he says, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively.” Homily 9 on First Timothy “Man was first formed, and elsewhere he shows their superiority.” Homily 9 on First Timothy “God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matter to the woman.” The Kind of Women who ought to be taken as Wives “Hearken about the women of old; they were great characters, great women and admirable; such were Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Deborah, and Hannah; and such there were also in the days of Christ. Yet did they in no case outstrip the men, but occupied the second rank.” Homily 13 on Ephesians (Ephesians 4:24) Saint Augustine “I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?” De Genesi ad literam (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) 9.5.9 “… woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by superior reason. Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?” De Genesi ad literam Book 11.42 “… the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.” Letter to Laetus (Letter 243.10) Saint Thomas Aquinas “But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man …” Summa Theologica, Volume 1, Question 92, Article 1, Objection 2. (Read it here.) “As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. Such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes” (On the Generation of Animals 4.2). ”
@@tomasrocha6139 One Bible quote, which is out of context, from a book that's infamous for [REDACTED] (look it up). There's a billion others talking about women by the respect and dignity they're owed. The Church Fathers you quote are either horribly out of context, or just mistaken. Which is fine, they can be wrong. The infallibility of the Church, which is an angle you may fairly try to attack, is in Her Magisterium. Dig through the Catechism and look for anything that degrades women. The Catholic Church has her beliefs shown organized and publicly, and these can never be changed. Show us the Catechism. An Encyclical. Something that isn't a Father, who while venerable, can be wrong, quite unlike the Church.
RR doesn’t understand the nuances in Catholic doctrine between Just Title sl-v3ry, and ch-ttel. The former has many restrictions, and can be justified by certain circumstances, whereas the latter cannot be justified ever. Today, both would be immoral, bc the circumstances for justifying it are no longer applicable. As for the Old Testament, whereas it included some elements of the chatt3l version, we know that God permitted some evil actions like div0rc3, in the OT, to avoid greater evils. The reason why the Apostles didn’t mention it in the New Testament (but it is mentioned in the Tradition of the Church), is bc they were not primarily concerned with it. It would have put a bigger target on the early Christians’ backs. It was common in the Roman system, so instead of saying to stage some type of rev0lt, they said to act good, do witness to the Gospel, and in Christ there is no sl-v3 or free. It was eventually fizzled out of Rome after Christianity became legal, and in the Middle Ages ot was replaced mostly by serfdom, until the Age of Exploration, where the Popes concurrently condemned it.
The problem with Stephen seems to be the same problem as with 13 year olds who discover atheism for the first time, they take the position of atheism to be the same as being rational. When you think this way, it doesn't matter whether or not you actually use rationality and reasoning in forming your worldview, because so long as you deny the existence of God, you are defacto rational. Hence the ridiculous arguments such as the Church not actually teaching that homosexual acts are immoral.
It's sad really. You see grown men with the mentality you'd find in an angsty teen, and because of it they reduce "reason" and "rationality" to mere slogans.
Exactly, I just had a similar discussion with some poster that was claiming that atheism was a position that didn't need to be defended since it was not making any claims it was only refuting others' claims. When I said "even the claim that you are not making a claim is in fact a claim" they didn't seem to grasp it. I tried to explain that EVERY position has to be able to offer a reasonable defense or it is not reasonable. But of course they doubled down. I am not sure what exactly I believe about God, but I am certain that the typical online atheist position (such as Stephen takes) is both intellectually bankrupt and more akin to cult devotion then true skepticism.
Dear@@patrickthomas2119, you may not know what you think of God, but I can tell you with great confidence what He thinks of you: He is madly in love with you. He thinks you are worth the infinite energy of creating your soul out of nothing. And, as the pope's latest Magisterial document "Dignitatis Infinita" states, He has given you His utmost respect. He will not ravage you into accepting His love. He is wooing you. (I don't know how. But I know my atheist husband, once he accepted that I loved him, began to see God's surprising gifts coming to him everyday. Life itself is a gift. And for me, today, I have the gift of reading your thoughtful response. Thank you.)
Very good insight into the mentality of many of these new atheists. I’ve found many of them to be quite juvenile and decidedly non-intellectual in engagements. They think lambasting a “bearded fairy god in the sky” is a slam dunk debate winning line. It’s sophomoric. They only refute a cartoonish caricature of religion that they have created in their minds.
Atheism has a single, negative proposition. All you can really do with a negative proposition is attack people who support the positive. And that can be a perfectly fine thing to do, there are plenty of bad cults out there that deserve to be attack. (Though I suspect someone like Mike Winger is more inclined to risk their ire than most atheist commentators, who prefer less litigious targets.) The structure of a belief system tends to shape the emotional drive behind it. Atheists can be just as positive about the world as anyone else, but they can never tie it back to "god doesn't exist." Maybe an atheist wants to promote science, but no science or math communicator would find it helpful to periodically remind their audience that god doesn't exist. It doesn't help you promote reason or rationality; your single axiom is only relevant in debates on whether God exists and doesn't even help settle those. It doesn't help you promote any secular moral values because the lack of a singular moral canon is a problem. You can't so much as do an atheist food channel because your burger doesn't taste any better when god doesn't exist. And then Stephen has to support #currentThing politics in his atheism, because while atheism has no positive claims to advocate, political movements always do. The ideologues bring a positive emotional message, thus dominating the discussion, and politics ruins everything.
I'm an atheist and completely on your side on this one Trent. It makes me sad that so many of my fellow skeptics have been entirely captured ideologically by extreme leftism/wokeism, which is a secular religion. I may not agree with your beliefs, but I enjoy your videos and debates because of your high intelligence and kind demeanor, thanks for always challenging my worldview in thoughtful ways and keep up the great work!
What do you mean they have been captured by leftism and wokeism. It's that way because those ideologies go hand in hand with atheism. Atheism does not go hand in hand with conservatism. If we agree that there is no ultimate authority like God you don't get to tell me what to do. Plus what does woke even mean ?!? Pretty sure that like the conservatives you side with you can't even define that word.
You are correct: wokeism is indeed a quasi-religious cult, and ultimately from my point of view, it is downright satanic. The religion of the anti-Christ indeed.
You clearly aren't a very smart atheist if you're calling extreme leftist/wokeism (whatever that means) a "secular religion", especially considering this so-called religion among your fellow skeptics has no deity.
Something about men being passive was considered so feminine to Romans and Greeks, that they considered it a terrible crime. Notice how this stuff tends to “demascluinize” men, or make women more “masculine”? Yeah, this can’t be good. Going against their own natures. This kind of stuff makes it so much harder for said person to prosper in the world , imo.
The other side defending morality derived from fairy tales written by desert sheep herders isn't any better. They're both with their heads in the sand.
@@KarateCowboy05do you also believe oil is literally fearful of water when we give it the trait if 'hydroPHOBIA'? You're a bigot, accept that or accept homosexuality is entirely normal. Grow up in fact. You and you're imaginary being are the ones causing real damage to real people for no reason.
He didn't 'create' homosexuals, just as he didn't 'create' the desire for Polygamy among many men. We must first establish that Evil isn't substantial, it's unsubstantial. Just as Darkness is not itself a substance, but instead the absence of light, evil is not something diametrically opposed to Good, but merely its absence. This is why we call it 'sin', denoting from a Archery term which means missing the mark. God made man perfectly in the image of God with no fault, with no potential for evil. Our nature was perfect, whereby Adam and Eve in the garden knew no shame for their nakedness and dwelt with God. But Goodness is only Good with the possibility of choice. This God gave Adam and Eve the choice of the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. To choose this fruit, to choose evil, is to choose the absence of Good, in all senses. This is what Christians call the fall. The fall ontological stripped us of the full goodness of our nature, disposing us to debilitate towards the virtuous choice, which opens us to the error of evil. As a result of this corruption of nature, our faculties are disordered, each way unique to us. One struggles with Gluttony. One struggles with Pride. And one struggles in Lust towards the opposite sex. This imperfection of human nature, caused by our forefathers giving up of the blessed goodness of God, causes homosexuality. But God, knowing evil is evil, came to us in the Incarnation of Christ. He took upon flesh to raise it back up to what it once was: fellowship with God. Not only this, he raises it higher in utterly likeness to him, not merely in our nature but supernaturally. This is the Christian mystery. Christ came to solve to right the wrong of our First Father Adam, himself being the New Adam. He tramples down the wage of sin, that is death, with the Cross and Resurrection. He frees us by paying our debt and binding the debt keeper, Satan.
@@joshuataylor3550 Peace good sir. The better questions to ask are why we have concupiscence and why we have free will. We have the tendency to sin because of the chronicle in Genesis 3. But that's not the be all end all. Adam and Eve freely chose to grab the fruit, prior to its ripe, appropriate time. They grasped at something that was going to be theirs, but it was not given just yet. After their banishment from Paradise, they freely chose God and continued to work out their eventual salvation, awaiting the day of Christ. We even recite on Pascha the Happy Falls of our Patriarch and Matriarch. It was from evil, imperfect goods and despicable things, by definition, that the Greater and Greatest good took place. Paradise was lost with a tree, gained with a Tree (the Cross). Now, similarly to Adam and Eve, one who sins, chooses something out of the right time and the right way. Yet, we can then freely repent and start fresh anew. We can await the Blessed Hope, and work with God to allow Salvation to redeem us fully. God, Love Himself, Goodness Himself, permits us free will that we may not be simply forced against our will to be with Him. It's for that very reason we can, though Lord forbid it, we choose our own damnation, eternal separation from God in Hell. Whether or not same sex attraction is from birth or by choice, we have the ability to access God's Grace, to make that free will choice to not simply seize on an imperfect fruit, out of season, to use an imperfect, inappropriate method and confiscate a treasure that pales in comparison to Treasure greater than we are focused on.
We've endured far worse than athiests, especially severely under educated and severly over inflated ones like stephen, it will continue and survive far beyond him too.
True, but the problem is the uncritical multitudes, especially kids on social media who too readily equate views with validation, who upon encountering such ideas are enraptured with the propaganda. For any given topic you can have an infinite amount of incorrect positions, and unscrambling the mess after the fact isn't nearly as preferable as preventing a mess in the first place
@@ironymattThat’s true. I’m not worried about the Faith as a whole, it will prevail, but I am worried for the many people that will fall away because of this stuff.
Right! It's like saying there are no such things as morality, beauty, etc... But when it's feelings... 😂😂 They deny any kind of intuitive feelings for morality and then get all new age if it's the soul! It's like wanting to have fast transportation, but hate cars...
If you are born male, you have a male psyche, and vice versa. Hence, it’s literally impossible. And these aren’t just “small differences” either. These also aren’t all, “societal constructs”. Bc men and women act the same throughout all cultures. There are social constructs built atop these differences, but there are real differences. Also, just bc something is a social construct, like dres-ing a certain way, that does not make it not harmful to not go along with it.
@@WaterCat5 What is this figure of speech describing though? What is the actual structure of gender and sex that does not rely on the existence of a "soul" of sorts? It's religious in nature.
@@VicecrackVoldermort That's because it's not referring to an actual soul but referring to the idea of a soul as a locus of a person. Whether anyone likes it or not, the concept of a soul being the seat of someone's being is a pervasive element of western society. Just because imagery uses an idea does not mean the user of said imagery believes in the idea. We do this all the time when we say feelings come from the heart. This is obviously not the case in reality, but we do it because of cultural context and shared history.
Stephen needs to step up to the plate and debate Trent already. We’d love to see it, and I trust Trent to put forward strong of the Catholic position, as he always does. Hopefully we get to see that happen sometime soon.
@christusenciaga don't think of the entertainment value, think of the souls deceived by Stephen, and Stephen himself. If it takes Trent Horn demolishing him in a debate, deconstructing him publicly, then may it be so. May his shame lead him, or at the very least his followers, lead them to true rationality.
RR should explain why having “s” with an an-m3l is wrong. It’s not c0ns3-t, we hunt and eat anim-s all the time. It’s not ab-s3, bc there are forms of it which aren’t h-rmful. It’s wr-ng bc humans should have s with humans. The n-t-r-l partn-r of m3n is w0m-n. Therefore, m3n should have s with w0m-n.
7:24. whoever said that this quote "is not catholic, it is hate" either does not know what catholicism is or is purposefully lying about catholic moral and ethical sexual behavior. either way, they are sorely mistaken.
The word "homophobia" was problematic from the very beginning. First, it uses the suffix "phobia" which means "fear of", so that anyone hearing the word for the first time would naturally assume that it means the fear of something. But most people who use the word "homophobia" aren't referring to fear, but rather to hatred (or at least distaste or prejudice) -- even though in many cases, there is no hatred on display at all. I've always considered it to be a propagandistic word that's so problematic as to be basically meaningless.
Of course its propanda, the phobia suffix is used to imply that whoever you are applying it to is not against somehing for any rational reason, but because they are irrationally afraid of it. It is a way to shut down debate before it can start, sort of a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. BTW, the word irritates me grammactically, as well. Homo is from the greek work for "same" - "homossexual" means "same sex". So "homophobia" would mean "fear of the same", or fear of people like oneself. It makes no sense.
It is a textbook example of weaponized language. By adding "phobia", which is mostly used in psychology, is an attempt to pathologize worldviews which oppose homosexuality.
@@tomasrocha6139 In most "-phobia" words, the "-phobia" suffix means "fear of." I looked up your example of "hydrophobia" in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. The first definition is simply "rabies," while the second definition is "a morbid dread of water." The same dictionary defines "dread" as "great fear especially in the face of impending evil." So Merriam-Webster defines hydrophobia as either another name for rabies, or a fear of water.
Fan here. I know you're working on a new studio. Your new lights are too high in contrast. You look like an elderly villain. Disperse the light source and work on angle of light to separate you from the background rather than definition in you face. Great content as always.
Our culture is at the point where use of any "phobic" term is said in hatred towards another or their belief system. Great video Trent, your patience and charity towards Stephen's smug arrogance is a loving skill I struggle with.
I have never called a LGBT person a bigot for not believing what I believe but I’m called one all the time and when they yell and scream at me for saying they are in Christ’s image and Christian I don’t disagree with them it’s when they say they can be Christian and still keep their sin is what I have a problem with. We must ALL REPENT. ALL OF US. Including them and me. So tired of them not only forcing their beliefs onto us but trying to change our beliefs to fit their lifestyle preferences. So utterly insane. 🙏🏼🕊️✝️
I'm a queer person here. What do you do when talking to LGBTQ people? Do you actually say to them that it is wrong? Because there's a difference between not believing what other people do, and actively discriminating against others based on things like sexuality or religion. So, for the record, I would say that it is wrong to discriminate against you based on your religious beliefs. You don't have to like people being gay, but you can just treat them like anyone else
@@hydraph4843 oh I do treat them like everyone else. They come on Catholic videos saying things like you guys are bigots for not accepting me (but we still want to act on SSA and go to church and revive the Eucharist) but no one is excluding them. You can have SSA as long as you repent and not act on it same as me I have to not act on my urges to shop till I drop and stare at attractive men that are not my husband with lust in my heart. And believe me the devil tempts me often among other things. All I am saying is we can’t change the church and Jesus to fit us we must change for Jesus. Only then we have truly repent in our lives. I hope I’m making sense. Peace be with you 🫶🏼🕊️✝️
10:52 correction: The first country to outlaw slavery was Poland. It did so some time in 11th century, after its crown prince, Mieszko I, accepted Catholicisim and the religion spread throughout the country. Poland was also the first nation in the world to allow women to vote.
No, on both counts. France actually instituted freedom of the land. A black slave in the 18th Century could, and did, get his freedom despite Colonial laws to the contrary. Courts refused laws curtailing this even to blacks. The first country to give women the vote was Corsica actually. Did not last long though.
Did Stephen not understand how his arguments were backfiring when making his video? I see atheist call Christians irrational constantly, but I don't think I've ever seen a Christian respond with saying that's bigoted. Also I almost never hear the term "Christophobe". Seems like he should've realized what he was saying didn't cohere to how people talk
Atheist here. Moral laws do exist, but they are mutable and subjective. They change and mature as we evolve our societies. Maybe condemning homosexuality was not seen as immoral a couple of hundred years ago but it is today. We learnt to respect certain life choices and actions other people make, and condemned others that we didn't before. There is no such thing as an unmutable and objective moral system, there are only people who fool themselves believing they have one, when it is in reality neither of those things. Just as no christians advocate for slavery anymore (when they used to), even when it is so prevalent and widely accepted in the Bible. Christians in 200 years will accept homosexuality (if they do not extinguish before that is). Hell, many of them already do it now, there are even gay churches. Christianty's "unmutable and objective" morality is slowly changing and adapting, as it did many times before. Some of you are just slower than others and take a bit longer to evolve, but you all do in the end. I have faith in you.
That’s because they’re wrong. Christianity should never evolve. Slavery was not endorsed in the Bible, only shown. What is endorsed or condemned by Christianity should not soon become the opposite.
On January 13 1435 his holiness Eugene IV published the papal encyclical Sicut Dudum (translates to “just as formally”) condemning the Spanish colonizers for enslaving the locals of the Canary Islands he told them that if they didn’t release their slaves and give them some money upon release within 15 days the salve owners would be given a irrevocable excommunication. So the Church since the beginning has been against forced unpaid labor
Agreed for the most part, but you want to be careful saying plainly "Women do not have penises". They can and will bring up so-called "intersex" conditions in which some biological females are in fact born with partially or non-functioning penises, to rebut that. Naturally, that wouldn't justify their own worldview (that someone can be a woman just by *identifying* as one), but it would effectively refute this particular claim of yours. I usually define "woman" as an "adult human female" when they challenge me in turn, with "female" being someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of bearing children. This would include those who due to aging, defects, etc. cannot fulfill that role entirely but who nevertheless developed largely toward the function.
Yes. Intersex is an interesting case, because unlike the trans identity/gender stuff, this actually deals in biology. And then the question becomes are there really two sexes or not? Richard Dawkins who of course is an atheist that believes there are only 2 sexes, as I think he would call the other variations abnormalities, but not seperate sexes. The atheists that are woke would claim they are seperate sexes however. I think 2 sexes only makes more sense. The abnormalities you could say sort of combine them in various ways into one, but the male and female binary still exists. That is how I see it anyhow.
Trent typically says that there are two sexes. One ordered towards fertilization (i.e., male) and one ordered towards gestation (i.e., female). These two descriptions include all people, even those with genetic abnormalities like you mentioned.
I would say they aren’t different sexes, just deformities present, but they ultimately are one or the other. Also, an exception wouldn’t disprove the rule for those that don’t have it,
@@Steve-cd9ulyes, but when more than 41% hurt themselves with a final, deathly hurt because they can’t change back, maybe it should be seen as a problem…
"All of the Church Fathers, from Augustine to Aquinas..." Aquinas was a Scholastic (not technically a Church Father) and something tells me those are the only two theologians Stephen knows
Liked watching Stephen thru the years. He's intelligent, sincere & dedicated, albeit wrong. He, Alex O'Connor & Drew (GMS) are my favorite yt atheist apologists because they're sincerely examining truth using reason & logic. Sometimes their presuppositions trip up their logic as does their passion in defense of their core values, but they're using the same tools from the same toolkit as we all do. It's just that they're using a hammer to remove a screw. Catholics use a screwdriver. Welcome back, Trent. Missed you. You're always in my morning prayers. 🌹🙏
"If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair." - CS Lewis
Good work Trent. The dichotomy between you two is striking and you did a very good job at showing all of the venom and bias oozing through his facade. Also, the camera and set look amazing!
The amount of things that we still agree with from St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine is massive compared to the amount of things he would still agree with from scientists of the same era. Great rebuttal Trent!
I have used the term Christophobic, but not in the context of smug Atheists. Usually its more like the context of actual bigoted hateful sometimes even violent behavior against Christians
It’s amazing how many of these atheist “thinkers” put on an air of contempt for Christian beliefs, describe them in the most condescending terms, refuse to actually engage, and then miss the mark completely
I really enjoy the channel glow-up, and I think it was the right move. Saying that, I am going to miss the simplicity of the previous images and photos, some had a level of authenticity and humility that felt like fresh air. I'm sure this next stage will also be spectacular! And more so because the content never fails to deliver :) 🎉
Jimmy almost got James White to admit to purgatory then we watched Jimmy try to wiggle out of that realization. Trent got James White to say Catholics are not Christians
Well-done vid! I'm reminded also of David Wood's review of Stephen's attempt to 'take down' David by attacking David's recent vid on the Resurrection. How did Stephen do this? Well, he only reviewed the opening statements of David's video and pretended that David's introduction is actually several arguments, then - and I'm not joking - he ignored the entire rest of David's video where actual arguments are presented (arguments which Stephen claims *were NOT presented*). In response, David, on livestream with then-atheist Ridvan Aydemir (the Apostate Prophet: he recently came out as agnostic, hence why I said 'then-atheist'), showed Stephen's video in entirety, then showed his own video in entirety, then used polls to ask the livestream viewers several questions. The polls afterwards showed that the vast majority of people who watched both videos in full viewed Stephen as incredibly untrustworthy, or (at the very least) that his attempt to attack David's video on the resurrection was a massive fluke. Stephen - wittingly or unwittingly - deceives in his poor attempts to discredit Christianity. Keep him in prayer.
People who feel the need to advertise that they are rational are like people who feel the need to advertise that they are honest. I would no more expect reason from someone calling themselves Rationality Rules than I would expect a fair deal on a car from someone calling themselves Honest John.
Always pathetic to hear someone you are arguing with claim you don't even know your own position correctly, for example when they claim to know what Christ taught us better than we do, or here were he claims to know Catholic teaching better than you...
I'm seeing a tendency when a debater is running out of good arguments, he'll start begging his opponent to be humble, to be open of being wrong, and to be merciful to those who hold opposing ideas. "You said Christ taught us to be meek, so be meek, please."
Steven has gotten more smug over the years. He has said he is not just an atheist but an anti-theist. His audience growth will suffer for this reason in a way Alex O’Connor’s has not
I will pay $12,500 to Stephen Woodford to debate Trent horn on whether or not a man can actually be a woman. Of course, stephen is scared of the truth so he'll run.
Homophobe and transphobic are just ad hominems. Funny how those claiming to be "rational" use emotionally driven personal attacks on those they disagree with.
I'm confused, wasn't the whole new athiest movement based on mocking religious beliefs? Where did this "it's not nice to mock other's beliefs" suddenly come from?
The New Atheist movement was for the most part an explicitly anti Christian one, and they still have their own moral sacraments that they will defend, such as homosexuality even if science itself, the very thing they appeal to on the regular, says it is a malignant desire that should be heavily discouraged. They're moreso a new religious cult with no god and is hostile to their moral competition.
As an atheist myself, I miss the 2010’s Stephen Woodford too. It seems the days of thoughtful discourse with believers is gone in a favor of a new era of lazy, superficial mockery.
@@angelahull9064 It could be. It could also be that his transition from long form content to more bite-size content can account for some of this as well. He wants to make this his living, and shorter content is definitely more profitable in terms of UA-cam’s algorithm. I’d hate to say he’s doing this to get more views, but it’s a reasonable conclusion. Whatever the case, it’s a shame. He has proven to me that he’s capable of being very thoughtful, careful and charitable. But of late, he’s mostly shown arrogance and hostility. Not sure what happened.
I know it’s ad hominem but I can’t take anyone with that preposterous haircut seriously. Also, I think Woodford needs to change the name of his channel to “Arrogant Priggery Rules”.
I am an atheist. Generally, I can agree that many of the attacks here are suspicious at best, especially the one on homosexuality not being condemned by the Catholic church. This is obvious to anyone who is actually catholic and also socially active. However, at 11:15, it seems very clear to me than Rationality Rules was simply offering complement to some of Hume's work. This is in no way an endorsement of all of his views on morality. It is certainly possible that someone can have severely flawed views on morality, often stemming from ignorance, which are at odds with the otherwise highly inciteful thinking. It feels very unfair to critique Rationality Rules in this way. To give another example, many people complemented Hitler's extraordinary oratory skills, and speechmaking. Indeed, anyone interested in such skills would doubtless have seen recordings of his speeches. However, to complement his oratory skills is certainly not an inducement of the contents of his speech. In this same way, complementing the insights of Hume into one area, does in no way endorse his work or personal views in another. To give an immature interpretation of what you are doing RR: "Hume said apples are green" Trent: "Aha, but Hume also said to kill all the Africans!" Very immature
Its so funny that men of God are less scared to speak their truth than men who self admittedly believe theres no one outside the material world that holds them accountable lol. He constantly appeals to not hurting peoples feelings yet provides zero reasons to do so, and zero scientific basis to back any of it up. The fact that they always, always, always, always reference science but cant even make a simple proposition shows theyre either too scared to or too ignorant to.
Your personal choice of how to use language is not "the truth". There are biological differences and there are sociocultural oppressive gender norms imposed on people based on those differences. Call the two things however you want but they are very different and you know damn well which one are we referring to when we say trans X is X.
Hello Trent. I really commend and appreciate your work for our Church. But recently I was disappointed by your performance talking with Allie on the topic about Mary. You have not presented it well like you cannot give and expound a verse that supports the importance of Mary. Despite the multitude of verses and the constant repetition of Allie asking you where is it found, you where just beating around the bush and have not cited the multitude verses. Please rehearse that topic again. There are many verses that support the importance of Mary. You make it seem that Allie is correct that our love for Mary is not biblically founded. Please do it better. I am saying this as your avid fan and now very disappointed. You miss that great opportunity to explain a clear truth to a thirsty seeker of truth. God bless you!
I am one of those atheist who disagrees with the likes of Stephen Woodford and Matt Dillahunty on their views about gender and abortion. I honestly find it very odd that all the mainstream atheist seem to hold the same beliefs. Anyways, good video response, I like your style even though I fundamentally disagree with you about the existence of god.
Part of me would like to see Trent rebut Dan McClellan at some point. But another part of me thinks that "data over dogma" Dan doesn't deserve the attention.
I burst out laughing when he said, "Is this what the Church teaches, Trent? Are you really sure?" and then Trent pops in, "Yes." It was a very Pope Francis saying "No" to female Priests moment.
Update: I just saw that this clip of Pope Francis was actually in this video. 🤣🤣🤣
I also said yes right when Trent did haha. The timing in the video was impeccable
😂
I burst out laughing when he said evidence is all that matters and then quoted a Jewish mythology book.
yes yes, no no.. the rest comes from the devil
"Moral laws don't really exist but you are evil for not affirming homosexual behaviour."
"We will not tolerate the intolerant."
Hahahaha. Good one
Nihilists are the only consistent atheists. These modern atheists trying to proclaim two contradicting beliefs at once, because they're clearly just afraid of living in a world without morality are ridiculous.
Lol, yeah. "Morality isn't real except for you; you're evil, you dirty papist."
Thank you for this. I've always thought of it. They claim there's no absolute moral law but would turn around to call those who do not affirm homosexual behaviour "evil" like it's a moral truth they've discovered.
We endured the berbers,we endured the french revolution ,we endured marxism,we endured the tokugawa,we endured isis,we endured the turk,and we still won.
Really you have won? The western world is mostly secular governments, I don't know what you mean by "won"
@@lucacuradossi1040 the catholic church continue totally living
@@davijimi with basically no influence in any kind of policy. They are like today's day monarchs, a mere symbol.
@@lucacuradossi1040No influence? Sure you must be right, that's why we just watched a clip of the Pope being interviewed by 60 minutes.
@@lucacuradossi1040 You seem very uneducated.
Ummm as a former atheist female, my view of myself and the treatment of the men around me became wayyyyy better after becoming catholic. So the atheist:s pejorative view of the treatment of women by the Church is entirely unwarranted. I'm a mere sex object under atheism. It always comes down to that. As an atheist, it always seemed like I was fighting a losing battle to show the world I had dignity. The Church already assumes and knows that I have dignity. It's not even a question.
Based
May God continue to bless you on your journey. Prayers for the conversion of all souls.
Sirach 42:14 "A man's wickedness is better than a woman's goodness; women bring shame and disgrace."
Saint Epiphanius
“Women are unstable, prone to error, and mean-spirited.”
Panarion (also known as, Against Heresies) 79.1.6
Saint John Chrystosom
“The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he says, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively.”
Homily 9 on First Timothy
“Man was first formed, and elsewhere he shows their superiority.”
Homily 9 on First Timothy
“God maintained the order of each sex by dividing the business of life into two parts, and assigned the more necessary and beneficial aspects to the man and the less important, inferior matter to the woman.”
The Kind of Women who ought to be taken as Wives
“Hearken about the women of old; they were great characters, great women and admirable; such were Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Deborah, and Hannah; and such there were also in the days of Christ. Yet did they in no case outstrip the men, but occupied the second rank.”
Homily 13 on Ephesians (Ephesians 4:24)
Saint Augustine
“I don’t see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?”
De Genesi ad literam (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) 9.5.9
“… woman was given to man, woman who was of small intelligence and who perhaps still lives more in accordance with the promptings of the inferior flesh than by superior reason. Is this why the apostle Paul does not attribute the image of God to her?”
De Genesi ad literam Book 11.42
“… the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one.”
Letter to Laetus (Letter 243.10)
Saint Thomas Aquinas
“But woman is naturally of less strength and dignity than man …”
Summa Theologica, Volume 1, Question 92, Article 1, Objection 2. (Read it here.)
“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. Such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes” (On the Generation of Animals 4.2). ”
@@tomasrocha6139 One Bible quote, which is out of context, from a book that's infamous for [REDACTED] (look it up). There's a billion others talking about women by the respect and dignity they're owed.
The Church Fathers you quote are either horribly out of context, or just mistaken. Which is fine, they can be wrong. The infallibility of the Church, which is an angle you may fairly try to attack, is in Her Magisterium. Dig through the Catechism and look for anything that degrades women.
The Catholic Church has her beliefs shown organized and publicly, and these can never be changed. Show us the Catechism. An Encyclical. Something that isn't a Father, who while venerable, can be wrong, quite unlike the Church.
RR doesn’t understand the nuances in Catholic doctrine between Just Title sl-v3ry, and ch-ttel. The former has many restrictions, and can be justified by certain circumstances, whereas the latter cannot be justified ever. Today, both would be immoral, bc the circumstances for justifying it are no longer applicable. As for the Old Testament, whereas it included some elements of the chatt3l version, we know that God permitted some evil actions like div0rc3, in the OT, to avoid greater evils. The reason why the Apostles didn’t mention it in the New Testament (but it is mentioned in the Tradition of the Church), is bc they were not primarily concerned with it. It would have put a bigger target on the early Christians’ backs. It was common in the Roman system, so instead of saying to stage some type of rev0lt, they said to act good, do witness to the Gospel, and in Christ there is no sl-v3 or free. It was eventually fizzled out of Rome after Christianity became legal, and in the Middle Ages ot was replaced mostly by serfdom, until the Age of Exploration, where the Popes concurrently condemned it.
The problem with Stephen seems to be the same problem as with 13 year olds who discover atheism for the first time, they take the position of atheism to be the same as being rational. When you think this way, it doesn't matter whether or not you actually use rationality and reasoning in forming your worldview, because so long as you deny the existence of God, you are defacto rational. Hence the ridiculous arguments such as the Church not actually teaching that homosexual acts are immoral.
It's sad really. You see grown men with the mentality you'd find in an angsty teen, and because of it they reduce "reason" and "rationality" to mere slogans.
Exactly, I just had a similar discussion with some poster that was claiming that atheism was a position that didn't need to be defended since it was not making any claims it was only refuting others' claims. When I said "even the claim that you are not making a claim is in fact a claim" they didn't seem to grasp it. I tried to explain that EVERY position has to be able to offer a reasonable defense or it is not reasonable. But of course they doubled down.
I am not sure what exactly I believe about God, but I am certain that the typical online atheist position (such as Stephen takes) is both intellectually bankrupt and more akin to cult devotion then true skepticism.
Dear@@patrickthomas2119, you may not know what you think of God, but I can tell you with great confidence what He thinks of you: He is madly in love with you. He thinks you are worth the infinite energy of creating your soul out of nothing.
And, as the pope's latest Magisterial document "Dignitatis Infinita" states, He has given you His utmost respect. He will not ravage you into accepting His love. He is wooing you. (I don't know how. But I know my atheist husband, once he accepted that I loved him, began to see God's surprising gifts coming to him everyday. Life itself is a gift. And for me, today, I have the gift of reading your thoughtful response. Thank you.)
Very good insight into the mentality of many of these new atheists. I’ve found many of them to be quite juvenile and decidedly non-intellectual in engagements. They think lambasting a “bearded fairy god in the sky” is a slam dunk debate winning line. It’s sophomoric. They only refute a cartoonish caricature of religion that they have created in their minds.
Atheism has a single, negative proposition. All you can really do with a negative proposition is attack people who support the positive. And that can be a perfectly fine thing to do, there are plenty of bad cults out there that deserve to be attack. (Though I suspect someone like Mike Winger is more inclined to risk their ire than most atheist commentators, who prefer less litigious targets.)
The structure of a belief system tends to shape the emotional drive behind it. Atheists can be just as positive about the world as anyone else, but they can never tie it back to "god doesn't exist." Maybe an atheist wants to promote science, but no science or math communicator would find it helpful to periodically remind their audience that god doesn't exist. It doesn't help you promote reason or rationality; your single axiom is only relevant in debates on whether God exists and doesn't even help settle those. It doesn't help you promote any secular moral values because the lack of a singular moral canon is a problem. You can't so much as do an atheist food channel because your burger doesn't taste any better when god doesn't exist.
And then Stephen has to support #currentThing politics in his atheism, because while atheism has no positive claims to advocate, political movements always do. The ideologues bring a positive emotional message, thus dominating the discussion, and politics ruins everything.
"Christphobic?" I assure you no catholic has ever uttered that word. 😂😂😂
He is just having a knee-jerk reaction at this point tbh.
I have used it ironically.
I have used Catholic Derangement Syndrome. 😊
This was my reaction. I was so taken back by the phrase. It’s sounds weird and wrong 😂
that's my new word I will use now very often.. thank you for upgrading my repertoire
I'm an atheist and completely on your side on this one Trent. It makes me sad that so many of my fellow skeptics have been entirely captured ideologically by extreme leftism/wokeism, which is a secular religion. I may not agree with your beliefs, but I enjoy your videos and debates because of your high intelligence and kind demeanor, thanks for always challenging my worldview in thoughtful ways and keep up the great work!
What do you mean they have been captured by leftism and wokeism. It's that way because those ideologies go hand in hand with atheism. Atheism does not go hand in hand with conservatism. If we agree that there is no ultimate authority like God you don't get to tell me what to do. Plus what does woke even mean ?!? Pretty sure that like the conservatives you side with you can't even define that word.
Welcome!
You are correct: wokeism is indeed a quasi-religious cult, and ultimately from my point of view, it is downright satanic. The religion of the anti-Christ indeed.
You clearly aren't a very smart atheist if you're calling extreme leftist/wokeism (whatever that means) a "secular religion", especially considering this so-called religion among your fellow skeptics has no deity.
Yeah, Wokeness is a fledging state-backed cult. I'm so sick of this mental contagion taking over the world, especially the West.
rationalityrules is the embodiment of the smug, reddit atheist.
Yeah, as I listen to him I don't know whether I should laugh or be insulted for acting like he knows Catholic theology and philosophy.
"Counsel of Trent" is the embodiment of the average incompetent theist.
@@anteodedi8937 Who would you consider a competent theist?
@@TheDragonageorigins he did though
@@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal This is my brain without coffee. Haha self-fail
It’s always rough to watch a guy be so smug while not getting anything right.
Thanks for the comment! -Vanessa
Something about men being passive was considered so feminine to Romans and Greeks, that they considered it a terrible crime. Notice how this stuff tends to “demascluinize” men, or make women more “masculine”? Yeah, this can’t be good. Going against their own natures. This kind of stuff makes it so much harder for said person to prosper in the world , imo.
Ooooh ... good line.
The other side defending morality derived from fairy tales written by desert sheep herders isn't any better. They're both with their heads in the sand.
My theism is rational. Disordered sex acts are not.
Also, "homophobia" does not exist. It's "homonausea" and "homonausic", because it is based in disgust, not fear.
Why did god create homosexuals?
@@KarateCowboy05do you also believe oil is literally fearful of water when we give it the trait if 'hydroPHOBIA'?
You're a bigot, accept that or accept homosexuality is entirely normal. Grow up in fact. You and you're imaginary being are the ones causing real damage to real people for no reason.
He didn't 'create' homosexuals, just as he didn't 'create' the desire for Polygamy among many men. We must first establish that Evil isn't substantial, it's unsubstantial. Just as Darkness is not itself a substance, but instead the absence of light, evil is not something diametrically opposed to Good, but merely its absence. This is why we call it 'sin', denoting from a Archery term which means missing the mark.
God made man perfectly in the image of God with no fault, with no potential for evil. Our nature was perfect, whereby Adam and Eve in the garden knew no shame for their nakedness and dwelt with God. But Goodness is only Good with the possibility of choice. This God gave Adam and Eve the choice of the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. To choose this fruit, to choose evil, is to choose the absence of Good, in all senses. This is what Christians call the fall. The fall ontological stripped us of the full goodness of our nature, disposing us to debilitate towards the virtuous choice, which opens us to the error of evil.
As a result of this corruption of nature, our faculties are disordered, each way unique to us. One struggles with Gluttony. One struggles with Pride. And one struggles in Lust towards the opposite sex. This imperfection of human nature, caused by our forefathers giving up of the blessed goodness of God, causes homosexuality.
But God, knowing evil is evil, came to us in the Incarnation of Christ. He took upon flesh to raise it back up to what it once was: fellowship with God. Not only this, he raises it higher in utterly likeness to him, not merely in our nature but supernaturally.
This is the Christian mystery. Christ came to solve to right the wrong of our First Father Adam, himself being the New Adam. He tramples down the wage of sin, that is death, with the Cross and Resurrection. He frees us by paying our debt and binding the debt keeper, Satan.
@@joshuataylor3550
Peace good sir.
The better questions to ask are why we have concupiscence and why we have free will.
We have the tendency to sin because of the chronicle in Genesis 3. But that's not the be all end all.
Adam and Eve freely chose to grab the fruit, prior to its ripe, appropriate time. They grasped at something that was going to be theirs, but it was not given just yet.
After their banishment from Paradise, they freely chose God and continued to work out their eventual salvation, awaiting the day of Christ. We even recite on Pascha the Happy Falls of our Patriarch and Matriarch.
It was from evil, imperfect goods and despicable things, by definition, that the Greater and Greatest good took place. Paradise was lost with a tree, gained with a Tree (the Cross).
Now, similarly to Adam and Eve, one who sins, chooses something out of the right time and the right way. Yet, we can then freely repent and start fresh anew. We can await the Blessed Hope, and work with God to allow Salvation to redeem us fully.
God, Love Himself, Goodness Himself, permits us free will that we may not be simply forced against our will to be with Him. It's for that very reason we can, though Lord forbid it, we choose our own damnation, eternal separation from God in Hell.
Whether or not same sex attraction is from birth or by choice, we have the ability to access God's Grace, to make that free will choice to not simply seize on an imperfect fruit, out of season, to use an imperfect, inappropriate method and confiscate a treasure that pales in comparison to Treasure greater than we are focused on.
Shiny new studio! Love it Trent
We've endured far worse than athiests, especially severely under educated and severly over inflated ones like stephen, it will continue and survive far beyond him too.
True, but the problem is the uncritical multitudes, especially kids on social media who too readily equate views with validation, who upon encountering such ideas are enraptured with the propaganda. For any given topic you can have an infinite amount of incorrect positions, and unscrambling the mess after the fact isn't nearly as preferable as preventing a mess in the first place
@@ironymattThat’s true. I’m not worried about the Faith as a whole, it will prevail, but I am worried for the many people that will fall away because of this stuff.
Just look at their rates of ab-s- and p3d---
@@kyrptonite1825remember the soviet atrocities
I’m talking about skittles, but atheists cause their own problems
I don’t understand how atheist believes people can “be born in the wrong body”. That’s a very religious concept.
Right!
It's like saying there are no such things as morality, beauty, etc...
But when it's feelings... 😂😂
They deny any kind of intuitive feelings for morality and then get all new age if it's the soul!
It's like wanting to have fast transportation, but hate cars...
That's because it's a figure of speech, and few people actually think that. It's meant to illustrate the feeling, not describe actual reality.
If you are born male, you have a male psyche, and vice versa. Hence, it’s literally impossible. And these aren’t just “small differences” either. These also aren’t all, “societal constructs”. Bc men and women act the same throughout all cultures. There are social constructs built atop these differences, but there are real differences. Also, just bc something is a social construct, like dres-ing a certain way, that does not make it not harmful to not go along with it.
@@WaterCat5 What is this figure of speech describing though? What is the actual structure of gender and sex that does not rely on the existence of a "soul" of sorts? It's religious in nature.
@@VicecrackVoldermort That's because it's not referring to an actual soul but referring to the idea of a soul as a locus of a person. Whether anyone likes it or not, the concept of a soul being the seat of someone's being is a pervasive element of western society. Just because imagery uses an idea does not mean the user of said imagery believes in the idea. We do this all the time when we say feelings come from the heart. This is obviously not the case in reality, but we do it because of cultural context and shared history.
Stephen needs to step up to the plate and debate Trent already. We’d love to see it, and I trust Trent to put forward strong of the Catholic position, as he always does. Hopefully we get to see that happen sometime soon.
He’s scared lol
I don’t wanna see that. Stephen would be demolished by Trent. It’s only entertaining if they have close to the same amount of skill as debaters
@christusenciaga don't think of the entertainment value, think of the souls deceived by Stephen, and Stephen himself. If it takes Trent Horn demolishing him in a debate, deconstructing him publicly, then may it be so. May his shame lead him, or at the very least his followers, lead them to true rationality.
@@rcbmmines4579 that’s very true. Good point!
RR should explain why having “s” with an an-m3l is wrong.
It’s not c0ns3-t, we hunt and eat anim-s all the time.
It’s not ab-s3, bc there are forms of it which aren’t h-rmful.
It’s wr-ng bc humans should have s with humans. The n-t-r-l partn-r of m3n is w0m-n. Therefore, m3n should have s with w0m-n.
7:24. whoever said that this quote "is not catholic, it is hate" either does not know what catholicism is or is purposefully lying about catholic moral and ethical sexual behavior. either way, they are sorely mistaken.
We are literally seeing a guy having tantrums then call his channel “Rationality Rules.”
😂
The word "homophobia" was problematic from the very beginning. First, it uses the suffix "phobia" which means "fear of", so that anyone hearing the word for the first time would naturally assume that it means the fear of something. But most people who use the word "homophobia" aren't referring to fear, but rather to hatred (or at least distaste or prejudice) -- even though in many cases, there is no hatred on display at all. I've always considered it to be a propagandistic word that's so problematic as to be basically meaningless.
Of course its propanda, the phobia suffix is used to imply that whoever you are applying it to is not against somehing for any rational reason, but because they are irrationally afraid of it. It is a way to shut down debate before it can start, sort of a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question.
BTW, the word irritates me grammactically, as well. Homo is from the greek work for "same" - "homossexual" means "same sex". So "homophobia" would mean "fear of the same", or fear of people like oneself. It makes no sense.
Phobic can just mean averse rather than afraid e.g. hydrophobic
Phobia - an extreme or irrational fear of or AVERSION to something
It is a textbook example of weaponized language. By adding "phobia", which is mostly used in psychology, is an attempt to pathologize worldviews which oppose homosexuality.
@@tomasrocha6139 In most "-phobia" words, the "-phobia" suffix means "fear of." I looked up your example of "hydrophobia" in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary. The first definition is simply "rabies," while the second definition is "a morbid dread of water." The same dictionary defines "dread" as "great fear especially in the face of impending evil." So Merriam-Webster defines hydrophobia as either another name for rabies, or a fear of water.
Rationality Rules has a similar energy to the channel 4 Cathy Newman Jordan Peterson interview
Smug, sneering condescension compensating for ignorance? Yeah, same odor
Fan here. I know you're working on a new studio. Your new lights are too high in contrast. You look like an elderly villain. Disperse the light source and work on angle of light to separate you from the background rather than definition in you face.
Great content as always.
Brutal.
I was thinking Trent was looking ill, but you're right, it's the lighting.
Studio looking good
Our culture is at the point where use of any "phobic" term is said in hatred towards another or their belief system. Great video Trent, your patience and charity towards Stephen's smug arrogance is a loving skill I struggle with.
I have never called a LGBT person a bigot for not believing what I believe but I’m called one all the time and when they yell and scream at me for saying they are in Christ’s image and Christian I don’t disagree with them it’s when they say they can be Christian and still keep their sin is what I have a problem with. We must ALL REPENT. ALL OF US. Including them and me. So tired of them not only forcing their beliefs onto us but trying to change our beliefs to fit their lifestyle preferences. So utterly insane. 🙏🏼🕊️✝️
I'm a queer person here. What do you do when talking to LGBTQ people? Do you actually say to them that it is wrong?
Because there's a difference between not believing what other people do, and actively discriminating against others based on things like sexuality or religion.
So, for the record, I would say that it is wrong to discriminate against you based on your religious beliefs. You don't have to like people being gay, but you can just treat them like anyone else
@@hydraph4843 oh I do treat them like everyone else. They come on Catholic videos saying things like you guys are bigots for not accepting me (but we still want to act on SSA and go to church and revive the Eucharist) but no one is excluding them. You can have SSA as long as you repent and not act on it same as me I have to not act on my urges to shop till I drop and stare at attractive men that are not my husband with lust in my heart. And believe me the devil tempts me often among other things. All I am saying is we can’t change the church and Jesus to fit us we must change for Jesus. Only then we have truly repent in our lives. I hope I’m making sense. Peace be with you 🫶🏼🕊️✝️
@@hydraph4843 I am taking about SSA people who want to change the church not the average LGBT person just for added clarification 😅🙏🏼
@@roseg1333 Ah the clarification helped out, that makes sense
10:52 correction: The first country to outlaw slavery was Poland. It did so some time in 11th century, after its crown prince, Mieszko I, accepted Catholicisim and the religion spread throughout the country. Poland was also the first nation in the world to allow women to vote.
No, on both counts. France actually instituted freedom of the land. A black slave in the 18th Century could, and did, get his freedom despite Colonial laws to the contrary. Courts refused laws curtailing this even to blacks. The first country to give women the vote was Corsica actually. Did not last long though.
@johnnotrealname8168 it's like you didn't even read my comment.
@@maciejpieczula631 I did. You are wrong on both counts.
Did Stephen not understand how his arguments were backfiring when making his video? I see atheist call Christians irrational constantly, but I don't think I've ever seen a Christian respond with saying that's bigoted. Also I almost never hear the term "Christophobe". Seems like he should've realized what he was saying didn't cohere to how people talk
Give massive congratulations to whoever worked on the studio-- looks great and fits the tone of the show so well!
Thank you sir!
“Is this really what the church teaches?”
*cut to Trent staring at the camera*
“Yes.”
Anyways, being gay is not a moral evil or good but a completely neutral and natural behaviour observed in multiple species.
Production and camera quality are on point, Trent. ❤🔥
Atheist here. Moral laws do exist, but they are mutable and subjective. They change and mature as we evolve our societies. Maybe condemning homosexuality was not seen as immoral a couple of hundred years ago but it is today. We learnt to respect certain life choices and actions other people make, and condemned others that we didn't before. There is no such thing as an unmutable and objective moral system, there are only people who fool themselves believing they have one, when it is in reality neither of those things. Just as no christians advocate for slavery anymore (when they used to), even when it is so prevalent and widely accepted in the Bible. Christians in 200 years will accept homosexuality (if they do not extinguish before that is). Hell, many of them already do it now, there are even gay churches. Christianty's "unmutable and objective" morality is slowly changing and adapting, as it did many times before. Some of you are just slower than others and take a bit longer to evolve, but you all do in the end. I have faith in you.
That’s because they’re wrong. Christianity should never evolve. Slavery was not endorsed in the Bible, only shown. What is endorsed or condemned by Christianity should not soon become the opposite.
On January 13 1435 his holiness Eugene IV published the papal encyclical Sicut Dudum (translates to “just as formally”) condemning the Spanish colonizers for enslaving the locals of the Canary Islands he told them that if they didn’t release their slaves and give them some money upon release within 15 days the salve owners would be given a irrevocable excommunication.
So the Church since the beginning has been against forced unpaid labor
🙌🏻
I've never seen someone as arrogant as they are ignorant. I hope the lord opens his eyes one day.
Absolutely incredible new setup Trent! Looks amazing!
Thank you!
Agreed for the most part, but you want to be careful saying plainly "Women do not have penises". They can and will bring up so-called "intersex" conditions in which some biological females are in fact born with partially or non-functioning penises, to rebut that. Naturally, that wouldn't justify their own worldview (that someone can be a woman just by *identifying* as one), but it would effectively refute this particular claim of yours.
I usually define "woman" as an "adult human female" when they challenge me in turn, with "female" being someone whose body naturally developed largely toward the function of bearing children. This would include those who due to aging, defects, etc. cannot fulfill that role entirely but who nevertheless developed largely toward the function.
Yes. Intersex is an interesting case, because unlike the trans identity/gender stuff, this actually deals in biology. And then the question becomes are there really two sexes or not? Richard Dawkins who of course is an atheist that believes there are only 2 sexes, as I think he would call the other variations abnormalities, but not seperate sexes. The atheists that are woke would claim they are seperate sexes however. I think 2 sexes only makes more sense. The abnormalities you could say sort of combine them in various ways into one, but the male and female binary still exists. That is how I see it anyhow.
Trent typically says that there are two sexes. One ordered towards fertilization (i.e., male) and one ordered towards gestation (i.e., female). These two descriptions include all people, even those with genetic abnormalities like you mentioned.
I would say they aren’t different sexes, just deformities present, but they ultimately are one or the other. Also, an exception wouldn’t disprove the rule for those that don’t have it,
@@kyrptonite1825 True.
That thumbnail! 😅 'I still don't care' - epic!! 😂
Them: RATIONALITY RULES!!!!
Also them: MEN CAN BECOME WOMEN JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY SO!!!
Not even close: Men should be able to become what they want if it helps rather than hurts. If God doesn't want that, not our issue.
@@Steve-cd9ulyes, but when more than 41% hurt themselves with a final, deathly hurt because they can’t change back, maybe it should be seen as a problem…
He has no time for "propagandistic labels" yet is perfectly fine with propagandistic terms such as "trans-woman" and "trans-man."
What else are you supposed to call trans people?
Love the background!
"All of the Church Fathers, from Augustine to Aquinas..."
Aquinas was a Scholastic (not technically a Church Father) and something tells me those are the only two theologians Stephen knows
WE ARE SO BACK
Video looks fantastic
Dude, the new studio looks great! And you made a great video!
I love the studio! The production quality is amazing too!
We appreciate the positive feedback! -Vanessa
Liked watching Stephen thru the years. He's intelligent, sincere & dedicated, albeit wrong. He, Alex O'Connor & Drew (GMS) are my favorite yt atheist apologists because they're sincerely examining truth using reason & logic. Sometimes their presuppositions trip up their logic as does their passion in defense of their core values, but they're using the same tools from the same toolkit as we all do. It's just that they're using a hammer to remove a screw. Catholics use a screwdriver.
Welcome back, Trent. Missed you. You're always in my morning prayers. 🌹🙏
Problem with him using a hammer is the screw is already driven into the wood, dude couldn't even keep up with the Pope's releases on blessings.
He's not sincere.... watch his discussion with Carl Benjamin about British politics.
I cannot imagine thinking that RR is sincere. Maybe you mean sincerely biased.
"If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair." - CS Lewis
A lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of a donkey.
It's important to be charitable i reccomend you watching Jordan B Cooper video on name calling and the culture war.
@@EnglishLock My remark is not uncharitable. Its an old fable, look it up. The lion, tiger and donkey.
Good work Trent. The dichotomy between you two is striking and you did a very good job at showing all of the venom and bias oozing through his facade. Also, the camera and set look amazing!
The new set. The editing , gangster Pope.... chefs kiss
You see me.
it's really cringy to see people who try to look smart
The amount of things that we still agree with from St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine is massive compared to the amount of things he would still agree with from scientists of the same era. Great rebuttal Trent!
I have used the term Christophobic, but not in the context of smug Atheists.
Usually its more like the context of actual bigoted hateful sometimes even violent behavior against Christians
It’s amazing how many of these atheist “thinkers” put on an air of contempt for Christian beliefs, describe them in the most condescending terms, refuse to actually engage, and then miss the mark completely
I really enjoy the channel glow-up, and I think it was the right move. Saying that, I am going to miss the simplicity of the previous images and photos, some had a level of authenticity and humility that felt like fresh air. I'm sure this next stage will also be spectacular! And more so because the content never fails to deliver :) 🎉
Thank you so much! -Vanessa
Production quality is amazing.
Thank you so much! -Vanessa
I could feel the meme edit of Pope Francis’s “No” coming and bursting out laughing when it did.
haha, we are glad you liked it!-Vanessa
Watching Trent Horn rebut Stephen Woodford is like watching Mike Tyson fight a preschooler. Poor guy brought a spoon to a gun fight
Trent Horn is the most effective living Christian apologist on earth. Change my mind.
Jimmy Akin?
Correction: *One* of the most effective living Christian apologists, there are many on youtube and some even outside of youtube, the more the merrier.
Jimmy almost got James White to admit to purgatory then we watched Jimmy try to wiggle out of that realization.
Trent got James White to say Catholics are not Christians
Also, Sam Shamoun is very good!!!
@@DaVinci3333 OM. Sam vs James White could be a pay per view event 😂
"Rationality" Rules has no justification or epistemological grounding for rationality itself, ironically enough.
Nothing like calling yourself rational in order to be recognised as rational. Yup, works every time...
Well-done vid! I'm reminded also of David Wood's review of Stephen's attempt to 'take down' David by attacking David's recent vid on the Resurrection.
How did Stephen do this? Well, he only reviewed the opening statements of David's video and pretended that David's introduction is actually several arguments, then - and I'm not joking - he ignored the entire rest of David's video where actual arguments are presented (arguments which Stephen claims *were NOT presented*).
In response, David, on livestream with then-atheist Ridvan Aydemir (the Apostate Prophet: he recently came out as agnostic, hence why I said 'then-atheist'), showed Stephen's video in entirety, then showed his own video in entirety, then used polls to ask the livestream viewers several questions.
The polls afterwards showed that the vast majority of people who watched both videos in full viewed Stephen as incredibly untrustworthy, or (at the very least) that his attempt to attack David's video on the resurrection was a massive fluke.
Stephen - wittingly or unwittingly - deceives in his poor attempts to discredit Christianity. Keep him in prayer.
Stephen's made a five hour video following it up going into more detail
For a guy whose channel is called “Rationality Rules,” his arguments are a bit embarrassing
People who feel the need to advertise that they are rational are like people who feel the need to advertise that they are honest. I would no more expect reason from someone calling themselves Rationality Rules than I would expect a fair deal on a car from someone calling themselves Honest John.
That's great, Trent.
But also you should NOT care about being labeled anti-semitic when you criticize Jewish power over our govt and culture.
You’d think after he got hounded for his take on transgender athletes, RR would be more tempered in calling anyone a bigot.
Always pathetic to hear someone you are arguing with claim you don't even know your own position correctly, for example when they claim to know what Christ taught us better than we do, or here were he claims to know Catholic teaching better than you...
I'm seeing a tendency when a debater is running out of good arguments, he'll start begging his opponent to be humble, to be open of being wrong, and to be merciful to those who hold opposing ideas.
"You said Christ taught us to be meek, so be meek, please."
On a side note, really love the new setup!
Thank you so much! -Vanessa
Steven has gotten more smug over the years. He has said he is not just an atheist but an anti-theist. His audience growth will suffer for this reason in a way Alex O’Connor’s has not
I will pay $12,500 to Stephen Woodford to debate Trent horn on whether or not a man can actually be a woman. Of course, stephen is scared of the truth so he'll run.
Can a brotha get a dolla? 😏
Oooh
Homophobe and transphobic are just ad hominems. Funny how those claiming to be "rational" use emotionally driven personal attacks on those they disagree with.
Wonderful Job Trent! And thank you for the courage to share our Faith.
I'm confused, wasn't the whole new athiest movement based on mocking religious beliefs? Where did this "it's not nice to mock other's beliefs" suddenly come from?
The New Atheist movement was for the most part an explicitly anti Christian one, and they still have their own moral sacraments that they will defend, such as homosexuality even if science itself, the very thing they appeal to on the regular, says it is a malignant desire that should be heavily discouraged.
They're moreso a new religious cult with no god and is hostile to their moral competition.
As an atheist myself, I miss the 2010’s Stephen Woodford too. It seems the days of thoughtful discourse with believers is gone in a favor of a new era of lazy, superficial mockery.
I think he's been overcompensating since being cancelled for allegedly transphobic videos.
@@angelahull9064 It could be. It could also be that his transition from long form content to more bite-size content can account for some of this as well. He wants to make this his living, and shorter content is definitely more profitable in terms of UA-cam’s algorithm. I’d hate to say he’s doing this to get more views, but it’s a reasonable conclusion.
Whatever the case, it’s a shame. He has proven to me that he’s capable of being very thoughtful, careful and charitable. But of late, he’s mostly shown arrogance and hostility. Not sure what happened.
Keep up the good work Trent. God bless.
Christ is King.
Let’s all pray for Stephen Woodford. He’s soul is still worth praying to be freed from lies and deceptions🙏✝️😞
It’s June. Happy National Portuguese Heritage Month to everyone! Spread the word!
Well done Trent. My family and I are grateful for what you do. God bless you and your family brother.
Thank you so much for your support of the channel! -Vanessa
I know it’s ad hominem but I can’t take anyone with that preposterous haircut seriously.
Also, I think Woodford needs to change the name of his channel to “Arrogant Priggery Rules”.
i'm tired of watching long debates, but i would love to see Trent vs Stephen. it would be the Ultimate Beatdown (by Trent).
This Stephen guy is a joke, it's interesting how bad his arguments are and the many strawmen he uses.
I am an atheist. Generally, I can agree that many of the attacks here are suspicious at best, especially the one on homosexuality not being condemned by the Catholic church. This is obvious to anyone who is actually catholic and also socially active. However, at 11:15, it seems very clear to me than Rationality Rules was simply offering complement to some of Hume's work. This is in no way an endorsement of all of his views on morality. It is certainly possible that someone can have severely flawed views on morality, often stemming from ignorance, which are at odds with the otherwise highly inciteful thinking. It feels very unfair to critique Rationality Rules in this way.
To give another example, many people complemented Hitler's extraordinary oratory skills, and speechmaking. Indeed, anyone interested in such skills would doubtless have seen recordings of his speeches. However, to complement his oratory skills is certainly not an inducement of the contents of his speech. In this same way, complementing the insights of Hume into one area, does in no way endorse his work or personal views in another.
To give an immature interpretation of what you are doing
RR: "Hume said apples are green"
Trent: "Aha, but Hume also said to kill all the Africans!"
Very immature
Rationality Rules making the video equivalent of the “oh yeah? Well I’m you! Doo doo duh duhhh” argument
Thanks for watching! -Vanessa
the new design is crazy😍
Its so funny that men of God are less scared to speak their truth than men who self admittedly believe theres no one outside the material world that holds them accountable lol. He constantly appeals to not hurting peoples feelings yet provides zero reasons to do so, and zero scientific basis to back any of it up. The fact that they always, always, always, always reference science but cant even make a simple proposition shows theyre either too scared to or too ignorant to.
Holy cow, great lighting and set!!
Why is Stephen trying to tell Trent what the Catholic Church believes in?
Trent, have you live-debated Stephen Woodford? Is he willing? Gos bless you in your work!
phobia is an irrational fear of something. disagreeing with something is not a phobic statement or state of mind.
I couldn’t even tell RR was trying to portray Trent. Just seemed like normal RR arguments to me.
Interesting analysis, thank you! -Vanessa
Videos like this from Steven prove there are video quotas for UA-camrs
There's nothing rational about about a guy who attacks people for declairing the truth, a man in a dress is not a woman.
Your personal choice of how to use language is not "the truth". There are biological differences and there are sociocultural oppressive gender norms imposed on people based on those differences. Call the two things however you want but they are very different and you know damn well which one are we referring to when we say trans X is X.
Hey Trent! Have a blessed day!
Hello Trent. I really commend and appreciate your work for our Church. But recently I was disappointed by your performance talking with Allie on the topic about Mary. You have not presented it well like you cannot give and expound a verse that supports the importance of Mary. Despite the multitude of verses and the constant repetition of Allie asking you where is it found, you where just beating around the bush and have not cited the multitude verses. Please rehearse that topic again. There are many verses that support the importance of Mary. You make it seem that Allie is correct that our love for Mary is not biblically founded. Please do it better. I am saying this as your avid fan and now very disappointed. You miss that great opportunity to explain a clear truth to a thirsty seeker of truth.
God bless you!
Can we please get Counsel of Trent shirts that say “I don’t care.” 😂?
Excellent video, Trent!
These people who don't understand Catholicism yet try to rebut it are easily ignored by informed Catholics.
"What if I said something wrong. That illustrates why you ought to say something else wrong"
Ah brilliant logic, "Rationality Rules". 😂
I am one of those atheist who disagrees with the likes of Stephen Woodford and Matt Dillahunty on their views about gender and abortion. I honestly find it very odd that all the mainstream atheist seem to hold the same beliefs. Anyways, good video response, I like your style even though I fundamentally disagree with you about the existence of god.
its because theyre pluralist.
5:16 Meanwhile, st. Louis IX cutting off tongues of blasphemers 👀
There is no support for that claim
Based.
Christ taught against that.
Trent, the quality of this video is amazing! Keep up the good work!
Part of me would like to see Trent rebut Dan McClellan at some point. But another part of me thinks that "data over dogma" Dan doesn't deserve the attention.
he kinda lost his mind when he started mitigating for trans rights...
Who would have thought :/