My Steubenville “Socratic experiment”
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this episode Trent puts what he taught in yesterday’s episode into practice and models how you can defend the faith even if you’re only allowed to ask questions.
Previous episode: • The easiest way to def...
Info for next year's conference: steubenvilleconferences.com/e...
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
![[HIGHLIGHT] หมีLIVEปะ? | EP.171 เห็นแต่ในจอ วันนี้มาต้องขอคารวะ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gPWLxa0e_Z8/mqdefault.jpg)
"What is the difference between a woman being pregnant and not pregnant?" Thats gotta be the best question to ask pro choice people i've ever heard
Will only work with honest people. Dishonest debaters will rationalize it by saying "the pregnant lady is more vulnerable, therefore it is worse"
One has a fertilized ovum with the potential for development within her and one does not. Want to try my question, which I posted above?
Trent talking about how "If the Church changed X would you join the Church?" most people say no reminds me of what Fulton Sheen said. Fulton Sheen said that people never leave the Church because of a doctrine, it is always because of a commandment.
"They're just loving each other" had me dead
I was in that mentality in college and many people are innocently ignorant of the reason for our sexuality. We have to be truthful, clear, and not condescending to how much the other person knows or doesn't. God bless!
I was at this conference with my family, and we all thought the role-play exercise was a great demonstration of what we all think is a very useful technique. So many of us deal with all of these questions that the volunteers raised. That was a great talk overall as well, Trent. I’ve attended Defending the Faith just about every year since 2014, and gain quite a number of insights each year I attend. Looking forward to 2022!
thank you Trent I bought your book "Why we're Catholic" it's a treasure!
I've been thinking over the "love is love" argument lately and this talk has helped me make my mind clearer about it.
I would like this topic to be addressed more fully on the channel.
He's got a great book about this issue called "Made this Way"
He's got a great book about this issue called "Made this Way"
That China part😂😂
Hello, Mr. Horn! I am a Filipino fan, and I recently purchased your book "Made this Way", which is a really good one. By the way, can you make a video about secular and non-scriptural arguments against homosexuality and same sex relationships? Thank you in advance.
@@Xymage “it’s just nasty” is plain bigotry and not charitable
I’ve been looking forward to this segment. Thanks for the great content, Trent.
Really inspiring videos..! Thanks so much Trent for these two episodes and showing a better way to do apologetics.
I would love to just have a long conversation with Trent. Such a great guy.
As an Ortho I agree. Would be nice to talk to someone with the knowledge of the Catholic faith Trent has.
@@indianumberonecountry it's great that you are eastern orthodox but also watch and listen to Catholic content and apologists. God bless you.
The Tsar 😎
Trent Thank you so much for an example
Of how to defend the faith
You are very respectful
Loved this! More of this, please! 😊
God bless you Trent.
Thanks for sharing these two videos.
Great job Trent!!! 👍
This exercise Trent is doing is very tough because it is totally "impromptu." At time 15:25, Trent does a fantastic job answering the claim "Sex is for pleasure so it's not wrong for LGBT." Trent is one of the best modern apologists.
I am a son and my mother is the most important person in my life. If you want to be my friend you should respect my mother and love her as you love me otherwise we are not compatible as friends.
This series has been very helpful. Thank you, trent. 💯👍
Very instructive, thank you.
19:02 - “…they don’t have to answer to two masters…” anyone else see the humor in this?….
The whole room my brother, in case you didn’t hear lol
😂👍
Immediately started laughing when that response came up
@@carloselhakim Yeah, that's the problem...
@@youtubecharlie1 I see. Have a laugh my brother, I can assure you none of them truly believe that a man is subservient to his wife. Just a lil joke, the ladies got their fair share of em too. Praise God!
@@carloselhakim I disagree. I think the contrary is true with many families nowadays; some spouses have the roles flipped. It’s only funny because there’s truth to it, as with many similar jokes.
Question-asker/Devil's Advocate at 6:00 here! Thanks so much for doing this exercise, Trent-this was so fun to engage with, and a really helpful series of Apologetic examples.
Very interesting method! It seemed like you stumped their objections.
This is great! I enjoyed these methods of argument, because i myself enjoy clarifying discussions, and the questions posed were really good.
Have y'all read the book of Judith it's literally is a prophecy of the Virgin Mary I think I'm going to do a video About it today bc I don't think most people realize it
Oh really? I better read it again then.
Which part of it?
Am I first? Also I love this method of defense!
Great job Trent 👍🏼
I'm an agnostic-atheist if anyone wants to try their hand at convincing me there is an invisible, magic man who lives in the sky and needs to be appeased with proper behavior that matches the opinion of certain, but not all theists. I'm open to a discussion. I noted that because most theists tend to want to deliver a sermon in which I'm expected to sit quietly, listen, and nod my head saying while quietly saying, 'Amen." I have questions and will exchange answers and questions. I'm not interested in having someone just preach to me.
I think your problem may be actually finding anyone that believes there is an invisible, magic man who lives in the sky and needs to be appeased with proper behavior.
Let alone someone who want to convince you of that premise 😅
Most theists don’t believe in a “sky daddy” including me
I know this thread is old, but I would love to have a conversation, first question, do you think humans can know anything? second question, how did the universe come into being, without a conscious source?
Lol this is like the Akinator game. Love it!
As someone who has engaged in street evangelization for many years, I can say from experience that the one word you don't want to use is "Why?" or the statement "Why do you think..."
Asking "Why?" in a dialogue or a debate with someone comes off as "judgmental" of the person's position or action.
For example, if you called me over your house to see your new white car and I said one of these two statements, which do you think comes off judgmental toward you?
1) "Why did you buy a white car?" or 2) "What made you prefer to buy a white car?" Clearly, the second is more of a "softer" approach.
The word "why" obviously is part of the english vocabulary and should be used but in my opinion not in a dialogue or debate where you are trying to win someone over.
🙏
I feel like I could have been a great roleplayer. As committed to Christ as I am (these days), I still have sympathy for those outside.
❤️🔥
I didn’t know there was an emoji like that-
@@vulcancent774 Got this on a recent update, brother.
@@CanisDei ohhh
Can you debate morgue official.
I don't get the "if yoo look at whats happening in china comment" can someone explain that to me?
Two hypothesis:
1) Either that man believes weird things are happening there, hence he wouldn't be surprised if something even stramger (like a man giving birth to a dog) happens.
2) He was probably referring to clonation experiments or attempts to give birth to some animal species artificially or in unusual and unnatural ways, which is something we often hear in the news.
Thank you Captain!
Didn't Priestley Celebacy become required in The Roman Rite, during the Crusades, for a Specific Purpose?
Wasn't St. Peter, our first Pope Married?
Isn't Priestley Celebacy only a Discipline, and not a Doctrine?
Was the Discipline intended to be permanent?
At what point do you think it would be appropriate to return to the not requiring the Discipline of Priestley Celebacy?
Iirc, priestly celibacy was inacted during the dark ages as a response to priests and bishops using them as a form of inheritance
14:48, 15:32, 15:48
How far would you go to enforce a law against abortion? I mean like actual "murder", hunting down the murderer, search warrants, interstate extradition, full prosecution under State laws (even if not capital punishment)....or would it be more like jaywalking?
9:22 That's absolutely the case, I've heard knowledgeable Catholics invite people to pray Mary because 'there is nothing she can't do'. She is almost a goddess to them.
Emphasis on "almost"
It isn't the case that Catholics worship Mary. Catholics do pray to Mary, but worship isn't inherent in prayer. Honor is inherent in prayer, however. We venerate the saints when we pray to them, but we worship God when we pray to him. Veneration is defined as "The admiration of, the imitation of, and prayer to the saints which is given to them by men because of their great of their great sanctity, their supernatural excellence as the friends and familiars of God"(Concise Catholic Dictionary p. 343). We honor the saints, but it is a lower honor than worship because they are not God, and not perfect like God. God alone deserves our worship, though, which is the highest honor we can give. Worship is defined as "the adoration of and prayer to God whereby we Honor Him because of His infinite excellence"(Concise Catholic Dictionary pg. 352). By definition worship belongs to God alone. We venerate the saints because they have attained the honor of attaining salvation and getting into heaven. The saints are closer to God than we are, so when we pray to the saints we are asking/begging the saints, who are close to God, to pray for us, as you might ask a friend to pray for you. The saints are closer to God than your friends so their intercession for you will be more likely to be granted by God. So by praying to God we (consciously choose to) worship Him because He is perfect, but by praying to the saints we (consciously choose to) only venerate them because they are not perfect, it is not inherently worship just because we pray. Mary can intercede for us and can give us anything, through God. Her role is to point us to God, and God chose her to dole out graces for Him and intercede for us to Him, He doesn't need her to do this, but He chose her for this role, so whatever He permits her to do she can do. But she can't create reality or cause things to cease existing and the such because there are things that clearly are inherent and exclusive to God. Mary is the closest to God out of us all so she recieves the highest veneration of all creation, but not worship. I think there is a lot of context lost in your understanding of "there is nothing she can't do", they were likely referring to her role in intercession and helping people. Hopefully that helps a little.
None of the Epistle writers could be accused of Mariolatry...They didnt even MENTION Mary!
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't talk about Mary in the Gospels at all?
it's highly unlikely that the Son of God begrudges His own mother (of God) because Catholics revere her.
Its seems this exercise is great to get people to ask questions they don't dare to ask otherwise :P
I said this on your first video, but are you going to rebut Mike Winger?
Good things come to those who wait :-)
@@TheCounselofTrent my parents would say this in the hopes that I would forget…
My wife calls this tactic backing her into a corner
Armed with scripture is a better answer for these discussions.
God’s word is a light to my path and a lamp to my feet.
I like the line of questions, but I am almost certain protestants are ready to resist the line of logic
Maybe a child? Name one person who came into being who wasn't conceived.
is a robot an animatronic
While this was enjoyable, it did give me law school flashbacks.
1) Is God eternal or was he born/created at some point? If the answer is he's eternal, how can Mary be the mother of God?
2) If the true essence of the second person of th Holy Trinity is either eternal and human, does that mean the Logos was incomplete before Jesus' birth?
The answer to 1 is that he is eternal, but that God the son was also born.
So Jesus always existed, and he existed before he was born.
I think this video is a great example of why you shouldn't use people who agree with you as devil's advocates to demonstrate how powerful your technique is.
Seriously, if anyone thinks that's how a conversation with a Protestant would go, you should go talk to an actual Protestant.
Love is love
Jesuschrist : That have sense to me
Jesus literally came to show that love is sacrifice.
They sounded like they really held those beliefs.
I like this, but the phrase "so what you're saying is" has been ruined for me since Cathy Newman.
Imagination is the only God in you, oldest Devine Truth that does it all.
We're just chemicals and a brain. Nothing more; our personalities result from the environment, chemicals, stimuli, and the like. No one is special.
@@abramwarpness6053 Yeah, we are just chemicals and a brain. This is true. However, not only. For God who in the beginning choose to redeem us before he made anything visible or invisible. This means that to God you are MUCH more than just chemicals and a brain. To God you are likened to God the Fathers Son. As it is written: "He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God".
I was doing devil advocate to keep you on your toes to see the responses. The idea of someone saying, "we're just chemicals and nothing more." is truly ridiculous because it's nihilistic and leads to a meaning crisis since a person won't be able to find meaning in themselves. Mainly, atheists claim this because they believe everything is determined.
@@danielhaas9469 I was doing devil advocate to keep you on your toes to see the responses. The idea of someone saying, "we're just chemicals and nothing more." is truly ridiculous because it's nihilistic and leads to a meaning crisis since a person won't be able to find meaning in themselves. Mainly, atheists claim this because they believe everything is determined.
@@abramwarpness6053 Gotcha, Berglen1000 comment didn't make sense to me but when I looked at yours it seemed to imply that you agreed with him in some way.
His other post earlier was also very hard to understand and I ignored that one!
The guy at the beginning was a weirdo
15:15 what's the big deal? The wrongness of that is similar if 2 homosexuals in a committed relationship were to cheat. It's the betrayal of trust.
Yeah, as much as ilike Trent i think he failed at that one, the woman could simply say "It is wrong only because he made a promise with his wife not to cheat, if the wife consented to it it would not be wrong"
I think an far better question to ask would be "Why do you think love evolves having sex just for pleasure?" She would probably say "Because me and most people think this." Then i would say "Well, and me and most Catholic disagree with this. Why do you have the power to permit it but we shouldn't have the power to forbid it?" Then she would probably went on about the separation of Church and State, and how secularism is an "default" world view, and i could tell about how this is wrong, and secularism is essentialy an world view that opposes religion.
The purpose was to clarify what they mean as “sex is for pleasure,” which would lead to what you said “sex is for those in a committed relationship and to do so outside of it would be a betrayal of trust” so Sex is not as simple as “pleasure” because you can experience pleasure laughing at a joke or going out to eat with friends and that wouldn’t be “cheating.” Does this make sense?
I've never seen someone evade so many questions in such rapid succession. His answer to literally everything Trent asked him was completely nonsensical.
"What is an abortion?"
"A woman's right to choose."
Wait a minute, "abortion" refers to "a woman's right to choose"? What?
"A right to choose what exactly?"
"Well, this... if the Church looks at its conception... but this, early beginning of maybe a child... uh, I don't think they have the right to tell me what to do with it."
It really shows just how little thought goes into this. People feel really strongly about things they haven't given a moment's thought to. We think we have mature, reasoned opinions, but for the most part, we just subsume the opinions of the culture around us. For the first ~20 years of my life, I was "pro-choice" simply because that's what I was expected to be. Didn't even consider it worthy of my brainpower, apparently. After I started actually thinking about it, it was just so obvious that I was wrong. I still sneered at religion, but even as a secular humanist it was just obvious that abortion is a form of homicide. Took me several more years to realize I hadn't given a moment's thought to Christianity either.
For the dialog between priestly Celibacy, The interesting part of this is many like in this case are told only Paul's opinion on this issue: Wherefore, he says if single remain single if married remain married. if Single, you are free to serve the Lord for you are not bound by the needs of your spouse. For you are not you only when married but you also belong to your spouse. Similarly, the wife is not just her only but she belongs to her husband. Now, this is what the LORD God says: it is not good for man to be alone and thus established the martial union between Man and Woman;
But again notice, here Paul is giving an opinion on servitude under God for being single (benefit, you are not bound by your spouse when serving God) vs. Gods command: it is NOT good for a man to be alone. As a result, it does seem to me that we are usurping Gods word (command in light of even Paul's opinion on this issue.
What are the fruits of this issue? Sexual immorality within leadership of the body of Christ not only for this generation but how many prior generations did this sin spread within its members? and which leads to even more sin when other leaders try to cover it up. So, therefore, it is NOT my opinion here but Gods very word that is at stake with this issue. We should NEVER usurp Gods very word when trying to justify a teaching on priestly celibacy. We should always first and foremost obey Gods command and word over this: which is, not allowing Priest to marry is a sin because the church is allowing sexual immorality ( sin) to spread within its members and not conforming to what God actually says regarding this issue.
God makes this very plain that God formed Man and then found it not good that Man is alone and created a suitable partner for him wife. Paul is expanding this concept when he says:
get married if you can not handle being married but if you can remain single this too is good for you are not bound by other needs but rather the needs of God. As a result, it does seem to me that we are usurping Gods word (command in light of even Paul's opinion in this issue.
Therefore, if a person whether in leadership or not should marry if they can no longer handle celibacy.
Jesus also said that there are those who make themselves eunuchs for sake of the Kingdom of God. Hence the vow of celibacy for the religious, both priests and monks/nuns.
@@zenuno6936 hmm that's a hard sell...Christ was referring to a choice due to sexual immorality that only a few could handle..
The problem, is when it is forced upon those who want to serve God's field. Paul clearly taught it should be a choice as both paths are not sinful.
Therefore, the Church should not ban any religious person from marrying.
@@danielhaas9469 Disciples were complaining because they wanted many wives and Jesus goes even further and details that some people wont even get a wife, He mentions different kinds of celibacies, including the one for the sake of the Kingdom, which is the path the incarnated God Himself took. Since the purpose of a priest is to be 'in persona Christi' why wouldnt they imitate Christ in this regard? Paul also says its the most perfect path.
As the Church matured it was logical that they would demand that the priests followed the most perfect path.
If one is called for the priesthood God gives them the grace to be celibate.
@@zenuno6936 I'm sorry but this is just incorrect. Let's walk through Mathew 19; Jesus is teaching about divorce that in the beginning God created Man and woman and that they become one flesh. Then he shifts into divorce that unless sexual immorality arises then noone should get divorced. Then thr disciples state that it seems to be better to remain single.
Then Jesus says not all can handle this unless it has be given to them. Then he discusses eunuchs born this way or were made eunuchs by others. Those who can accept it should.
Notice here that the LORD is not forcing this on anyone but rather stating that it is also acceptable to remain celibate for God's kingdom.
This is in direct parallel with Paul's instruction. If single remain single IF you can handle it. If you can't handle it then marry as this is also acceptable before God.
Also, notice that Paul tells Timothy to keep God's word as there will be a time coming where they will forbade marriage.
Therefore, the Church should NOT have ever developed and forced celibacy.
@@danielhaas9469 The divorce topic is the same topic as the many wives topic. Marry divorce, marry, divorce, stack wives then ask Jesus which one will be their wife in heaven as it happens in another gospel.
Also celibacy can be seen as not forced as joining the religious life and taking the vows is a choice. And like you said its a grace that is given to them rather than something they can handle by themselves.
I see no problem with this development, the priestly office is the most dignifying a person can have, so they should follow the most perfect ways.
As to the Timothy verse, this is not an age where marriage is forbidden, anyone who wants to marry can marry. Communist ideologues however do want to abolish marriage and throughout the ages there were heresies against all things material that also abolished procreation.
Was Jesus God ? Yes
Was Mary the mother of God? No
Mary gave birth to Jesus, and He is 100% man and 100% God.
God pre-existed before Mary, God came not into existance through the birth of Jesus.
We can read about how Jesus is present in the "old testament" and how Jesus talks that He was present with God before the time of Abraham.
So the logic that Mary is the mother of God is not 100% accurate, she is however the mother of Jesus and i love how she helped raise him and God will reward her as He will see fit.
Our focus should be 100% at God, and our Lord and Savior Jesus.
Facts
"Was Jesus God ? Yes
Was Mary the mother of God? No"
Contradiction there bud.
Was Jesus God ? Yes
Was Mary the mother of Jesus? Yes
Then MAry is the mother of God.
That title doesnt say 'creator of God', simply mother. God chose to have a mother who He Himself created.
@@zenuno6936 Since you failed to respond to my full statement, i guess you have a problem with the "Mary gave birth to Jesus, and He is 100% man and 100% God.
God pre-existed before Mary, God came not into existance through the birth of Jesus". God as described in the Torah is one: Shama Yisrael, Yaweh, Eluhenu, Yaweh Echad, here it describes the trinity being one. God is one, giving Mary the title mother of God would imply that she is the mother of The One God, which she clearly is not, she conceived Jesus, the son of God, not the Father and not the Holy Spirit. Although i praise that you want to honor her, as i stated, the honor she deserves will be given to her by God. She is not in anyway entitled of worship, this can only be given to the one and only God.
@@mangaranwow2543 “Never be afraid of loving the Blessed Virgin too much. You can never love her more than Jesus did.” - St. Maximilian Kolbe.
Any thing that happens outside you including the greatest church made with hand, Catholic is like John Baptist greatest man born of womb but wasn't able to enter heaven yet, the Mary is like any women used in Bible story that are not secular history. Paul wrote OT was written Allegory so Mary wasn't about Physical females, the son of man wasn't born by womb. The thing called seed is in the skull were it all wakes about what we are. Nothing going to church is actually not funny how many from small to biggest that is outside looking for God.
Its a social gospel now. Apologetics has ran its course. When salt has lost its savour its good for nothing. Original sin that spread its leaven in western theology, destroyed the faith of millions and went against the genesis account in chapter 1v26, Augustine of hippo was the most influential in this poison of original sin that remains today. A excuse for the priests inthe confessional and the sacrements and Eucharist. Jesus said " itis finished" your Roman papacy' took away mankind's only hope. Friedrich Nietzsche was right you killed God, regards our Only hope for mankind future development.
I'm anathematized by Trent a half dozen ways. I'm SO glad Jesus has ALL authority ...and Catholic leaders have ZERO
JESUS SAID TAKE NO VOWS AND CALL NO MAN YOUR FATHER SO VOW OF CHASTIY AND POVERTY AND CONFESSIONALS TO PRIEST AS FATHER IS ALL GOOD ALONG WITH DEFILING THE SABBATH AND WORSHIPPING IMAGES OF GOD WHEN FIRST COMMAND SAYS HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME OR ANY IMAGE OF GOD??
Surely, you have seen the easy rebuttals to these tropes before in your life. Why do you stick with arguments that are so easily refuted?
Woah you just disproved Christianity!!!!! 🤡🤡🤡
@@indianumberonecountry OK...
WHY ARE YOU YELLLLING
He’s got a point why worship images of Mary and Jesus when we know for a fact the didn’t look that way? I don’t get the first part tbh. But he didn’t disprove Christianity he disproves simply the act of worshiping images. In this the Catholic Church is contradicting the Bible. I agreed with the guy in the vid tbh pretty much all points except that part where he justified Mary being “mother of God”. God existed before the birth of Jesus. God is Jesus. So Mary was a vessel through which Jesus took physical form.
God bless you Trent.