Bishop Barron on Atheism and Assisted Suicide
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- Two recent news items-the passing of assisted suicide in California and the prevalence of atheists among Harvard freshmen-seem to be disconnected, but they ultimately flow from the same rejection of God.
I have the impression that proponents of assisted suicide often talk about not wanting to be a burden on their family or wanting the indignity of having others care for them. A person of God, who has a healthy sense of humility and service would know that serving a person in need demonstrates love of God and serves God. Being cared for when you cannot care for yourself should not be considered an indignity but, I think, for an atheist, it must be. It would certainly be an affront to that quest for freedom.
yep. when I was an atheist (even just a year ago) I used to worry about what I'm going to do 50 or 60 years from now when I am old and infirm. I used to be fearful of old age and degenerative disease, genuinely to the point of seriously thinking I would probably kill myself when I reached that point. I enjoyed my life, wasn't depressed or mentally ill, but what was driving me, what was satisfying me, was completely transient. I'm having a great time now, but I'm in my 20s. everything I lived for a couple years ago is going to begin to gradually slip away in a few decades. and then what? now I look back and realize I had such profound, nihilistic apathy about myself that I genuinely saw suicide as not the horror that it is, but as a kind of neutral, harmless act akin to choosing not to have children.
it went hand in hand with the kind of gibberish people my age blather about not wanting to "bring a child into this world." it's ironic because the standard of living is better than it's ever been in history, by orders of magnitude. you couldn't possibly pick a better time in which to have children. but many young people think they're clever when they say it's unconscionable to have children in this day and age, due to imaginary issues like overpopulation, due to income inequality, etc. it didn't take me long to realize this is simply what happens when you take materialism and atheistic humanism to their logical conclusions. in a horrible twist of irony, suicide begins to make _logical_ sense, not just as an unfortunate climax to mental illness, but as a reasoned response to suffering and inconvenience in life.
and not just for the old and infirm - after all, if it makes sense to euthanize an old person because they're in pain, why doesn't it make sense to euthanize a young person who is in even worse pain? from that point of view, killing yourself isn't just something people do when they lose control. in fact, it can be a conscious, almost heroic choice, if you believe that you're doing the planet a favor, that there are no harmful consequences beyond net getting to experience a few more years, that pleasure is the ultimate goal of life and suffering the ultimate evil. if all you have to orient yourself toward is the quest for pleasure and the fear of suffering, then killing yourself can be 100% rational. because life IS suffering. it doesn't matter what we do, we will always experience more suffering than pleasure. it's just how we're wired.
if you avoid pain all your life, it's just going to make you more sensitive to what little pain you do experience. I really believe the net amount of true misery is the same for everyone. the long-suffering are strong because of their suffering. it's simply unavoidable. and when a materialist realizes that suffering is unavoidable, if they really can't tolerate it, suicide is not just an emotional reaction, it's a logical conclusion. I think it's a conclusion I probably would have made at a certain point if I hadn't cleared my spirit of all the debris and let Christ into it.
and regarding that emptiness and hollowness I mentioned at first... it's just like jesus says about living water, and about treasure in heaven. if you live for material things and/or transient experiences, you're going to end up in poverty near the end of your life. gradually, most of the great things in your life will fall away. your youth and your pleasures will erode constantly. your parents will die, and then your friends, spouses, etc. in the process of returning to the dust, you will lose most of your reasons for living. so why not kill yourself, especially if you're suffering horribly due to breakthrough pain or arthritis or whatever it happens to be? in a materialistic view, encouraging someone to continue living seems not only irrational but unconscionable. how could you subject a person to such purposeless, hopeless pain? the only way it makes sense is if it's NOT meaningless, NOT hopeless. the ONLY unconditional reason to live is to seek the grace and love and experience of God. everything else can be ripped away from you, and most of it probably will be before the end.
agregious medieval stupidity & fairy tales are totally ineffectual
I agree with what you said Bishop Barron, but be prepared for a lot of angry atheists lol
If you want to talk about assisted suicide, you should at least try to find out what that is. Not doing so is completely insensitive to the poor terminally ill patients assisted suicide is intended to help. Why do people still think that religious people have the slightest idea what morality is? Certainly not this Mr Barron! I'm disgusted.
+Andreas Müller wrote: you should at least try to find out what that is.
Me: you haven't presented an argument here either for assisted suicide or one that shows Bishop Barron has a faulty understanding. Because you disagree with someone's position does not mean they don't grasp the material at hand.
Tad Whitty You and Mr Barron are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts. And Mr Barron chose to disregard the facts about assisted suicide. And this is not a matter of opinion.
Andreas Müller wrote: You and Mr Barron are entitled to your own opinions.
Me; entitlements is exactly what your statement was not about. You made an accusation that simply was not founded on anything in the video. Because someone disagrees with your position does not mean the don't understand it.
Tad Whitty Apparently you don't get it. Mr Barron made some incorrect assumptions what assisted suicide is. They are wrong. That makes his rant dumb and ridiculous. Do you really want to to defend this moron?
Excellent talk. I will feed on it when I am struggling with my faith. Thank you for your thought-full words.
It's an offensive caricature of Atheists, that we don't value life. I think human life the most important thing in the known universe. This is not hyperbole, we simply have the best deal on offer as far as we can tell. Its not just the fact of our existence, but the potential quality of that existence that sets us apart. But not all of us are lucky enough to reach that potential are we? Some of us are doomed to suffer moment to moment, day to day. It's a life worse than being a worm, indeed, worse than not being.
I can't speak for all atheists, but I am in favor of assisted suicide because I am horrified by human suffering. It's not a lack of empathy, but true empathy unencumbered by notions that some magical father figure would disapprove of our taking action to end suffering. The Catholic Church by contrast is in the process of canonizing the ghoulish Mother Theresa and her cult of suffering. The Catholic Church is also culpable in advocating against the use of birth control in poverty and AIDs stricken Africa, condemning another generation to suffer needlessly. It seems to me that Catholics have made a fetish of suffering. Witness the focus on Jesus' ghastly crucifixion. Impressionable children spend their childhood on their knees looking up at these gory depictions of agony and being told that it's a good thing. It's disgusting and perverse.
I value both freedom and life. You've implied that Atheists want to kill the old and infirm when they become “inconvenient”. That's slanderous! No one is proposing that. How do you propose we solve the problem of people who suffer intensely, constantly without hope of recovery? Will you look them in the eye and tell them that ever-merciful god wants them to suffer? Will you offer some tired platitudes about “mysterious ways”? That solves nothing. Bishop Barron, your faith has sabotaged your empathy and made you cruel to both sufferers and non-believers. You do have a nifty new red hat though, I hope it's comfortable.
What evidence do you have for your assertion that human life is "the most important thing in the known universe?" There is no empirical evidence that human life has any value whatsoever. Therefore, you are espousing a faith-based position/myth.
I would love for you to debate Richard Dawkins. I think you could teach him a thing or two haha.
A successful teacher must have someone willing to learn.
+Leevo I have great admiration for Dawkins. He was for me - in a way - an "eye-opener".
+Wolfgang Ruttkowski Hopefully he wasn't an eye-opener for you in terms of his science, because he cherry-picks and draws many erroneous conclusions.
+Wolfgang Ruttkowski He spews much of his militant atheism everywhere. He has opened my eyes indeed, to the most crazy of atheists.
+Michael Montague I disagree with your statement that Robert Barron would be destroyed by Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins spews shit that he doesn't know about, he is unwilling to learn though, and would rather stick to his ignorance.
As for the atheism being tied to assisted suicide, it would go hand in hand for most people that are atheists I think. Because they reject the supernatural and don't think life is precious, or that life is sacred etc etc, then they would have no problem allowing someone to end their life unnaturally... no?
The Californian legislatures may be "supernaturalists" as you call them, but they aren't Christians, or at least, not very good ones...
Not all atheists and agnostics are hedonists, materialists and nihilists. It's unfair to attack them as such. They are individuals with varied beliefs united only in their lack of belief in a deity or a religion.
To be honest, before I come to faith , I have so many questions, why things like that/this, is He really Exist, or is He God or a man? Until I saw four faces of Jesus, as the Father, He's really big like He can hug the earth, and the One like the son of man, He shows me the light, yes, He is the light. Then at the end of the clouds I saw the son of man, and He calms my emotions. How great that love is, but in between them a different face of Jesus shows unto me, w/c I have feel confuse and ashamed, because He asked me to come near Him but I didn't come, because He look really dirty and His face was disfigured. Then I realized the answer for my questions, maybe it's not word by word, but for me it's the most complete answer, and my heart desires it, for He says " this is my body, which is given for you"
Peace be unto you and grace be multiplied. Amen
I disagree with agnostic in the same group with atheism. People who label themselves agnostic can respect the fundamentals of religion but are lost in the current cultural hatred towards mainly Christianity. If there was not a firewall from opposing views from the current atheist media, they would probably be Catholic.
majority of atheists are agnostic atheists. There are also agnostic theists.
I'm not sure why you would object to the current cultural hatred towards esp the Catholic church which has been proven around the world to an ancient, international child trafficking and r@pe gang. the only response of any decent human being would be anger and hatred of such moral depravity and harm to society. If not..wtf is wrong with you and I do hope you are not permitted anywhere near children.
If you believe that something is a sin, don’t do it. Forcing your religion on others is just pathetic.
Humans are made to worship, but this is a result of evolution. You're probably fine, in fact most likely better off not believing in any kind of god or supernatural force.
Wow... the mere fact that atheist are SO TOUCHY when someone criticizes their moral foundations, appears to me as a sub-conscious realization that atheism has no moral foundation which does not collapse into relativism.
This does not make atheists automatically immoral... in spite that their irrational and offensive comments under this video show that :D
+Entropy3ko I have also noticed that Catholic apologists being touchy too when anyone criticized moral foundations of Catholic Church after the fallout of coverup from as high in the hierarchy as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, next in to then Pope. :)
John Thomas Touchy? Not really.
Besides Ratzinger was one of the people who fought the hardest against the pedophilia problem.
Also the number of priests involved is also very minute (actually among the smallest percentages compared to other religious and in particular non-religious groups, as the book by P. Jenkis clearly fleshes out)
But I guess atheist just believes what the liberal media says without any of the critical thinking they claim to so have so proudly ;)
Not to mention that the Church has done a LOT against the problem since the scandals (my oh my, the media I guess, do not care to report about that).
I fail to see what atheist have done, except whine and defend Roman Polanski :D
So they are not "touchy", just tired of ignorant atheist flinging poo instead of proper arguments.
I mean the "look some priest was a pedo" argument is basically a variant of the "argument ad hitlerum", plus a combination of several other fallacies, and used as a cop out card when the atheist has zero arguments left in its pocket, or brain.
It's the equivalent to discussing politics with a German and keep bringing up Nazism even when it has nothing to do with the topic discussed.
Now Germans accept what happened in WW2, but I am sure they would be annoyed if someone always kept hammering that nail, especially when most of them are innocent and against it ;)
Also I would say it is quite hypocritical too since the majority of pedophilia cases occur in SECULAR institutions (public schools, public hospitals, etc), which the media and atheist CONVENIENTLY seem to forget about... not to mention the problem of several cases of women being molested at "atheist conventions" (so much that some atheist women actually spoke up about it).
I guess pointing the finger and generalizing is something that everybody can do, even monkeys, as a matter of fact.
I would add an other point.
It is intrinsically illogical to point fingers when one's morality is often either purely relativistic or utilitarian (which is also arbitrary in the end).
You cannot call someone evil, unless you actually have a proper definition of what "good" and "evil" are that are not some purely arbitrary convention.
So it is basically ridiculous that people like Dawkins and co. call this and that "evil", but fail to defined it in a way that is not purely arbitrary, hence irrelevant.
... actually Dawkins theories are becoming irrelevant even in biology now... haha
+Entropy3ko My only point was that I have seen plenty of touchy replies from Catholic apologists when anyone criticizes moral foundations of their church. So it is not a phenomenon you could attribute to atheists alone. You have to go to see their replies to believe that. And it was not atheists who were criticizing the church, there were many non-Catholic Christians. Maybe majority of atheists who do not believe in objective moral values has no right to complain about it. But there are ethicists who believe objective moral truths just exist as any other objective truths exist as abstract objects, hence do not require anything else to ground it.
@@Entropy3ko Lol you are not touchy but just wrote a novel in response to a short comment that barely amounted to a sentence. Face it, Catholics are just as touchy as the rest of us.
Thanks yet again Bishop Barron. Atheism is so dumb. I guess that's what happens when form and matter get reduced to mindless matter and we become uninformed. How does the atheist explain free will or explain how they can have a free opinion on free will without free will. And the fact that our nouns refer to the very orderedness of things. Atheism is a view that reduces to radical unintelligibility. Cheers and thanks for the great job you're doing for us all.
nothing you said has anything to do with atheism. and the irony is you can't explain any of those things you listed either. "God did it!!!" is not an explanation. It's the definition of argument from ignorance.
Faith makes all religions equally valid.
@Michael Montague, I can't find our conversation in the comments, so I will just share this link: www.catholic.com/radio/shows/pro-life-open-forum-33818?Feed%3A+catholic%2Fcal+%28Catholic+Answers+Live%29&FeedBurner.
If you would, click "listen," for a radio interview with my doctor. You can skip to minutes 43-47 if you want to get right to the topic at hand.
+Michael Montague I don't think you understand what "standard catholic" views are here. Your mother was right to receive the fentanyl drip, even though it hastened her death. The intent of providing said medication was not to cause death, so it was not euthanasia. And, in fact, opioids are not usually the cause of death if administered appropriately. Just because a patient dies after receiving a medication doesn't mean that medication was the COD. Neither I nor the Catholic Church has stated that patients should not receive opioids at the end of life. It is our job as Catholic healthcare workers to treat our patients with dignity, curing them when possible, and always alleviating as much suffering as we can. You are accusing the Church of things she has never said.
+Hannah Butler I have to answer here for Michael Montague, because I notice that he failed to respond.
The difference here, and it is significant, and I speak as a molecular pharmacologist, with a long track record of DISCOVERING new drugs, the cause of death in the case of Michael Montague's mother WAS fentanyl. Now, she would have died eventually as will we all, but FENTANYL was the direct and the immediate cause of death.
He did PRECISELY the right thing in fulfilling her wishes, though they ran utterly, completely, and diametrically counter to the pronouncements of the Roman church.
Very well said father ... thank you! Pete D.---
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who do good. Psalm 14:1.
+Gary Cumberbatch
Congratulations, you managed to copy and paste some of your holy book, onto the web, for all to see.
Do you think we've never heard this tripe before?
Please, never mind the millions of non-believers who prove that statement wrong.
+Atheist Lehman I know it scary...because it true.
Gary Cumberbatch
Do you honest believe that those who claim that your God is a fiction really do no good? Do you actually believe that belief in God is what keeps people moral?
How to get saved and be right with God who loves us for eternal life!
As anyone can get saved, if they make the choice to do so!
1-Realize that all have sinned before God in one way or another.
Romans 3: 10-12+23 (KJB)
10. "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"
11."There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."
12."They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one."
23. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
2-Realize that God loved us, even as wicked sinners, enough to allow Jesus Christ to shed his blood on the cross to pay the price for our sins
Romans 5: 8-9+12 (KJB)
8. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
9."Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."
12. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for all that have sinned:”
3 -To be saved, you just need to confess unto God and ask him to save you, by accepting Jesus Christ paying the price for your sins, all in order to receive this freely given gift of forgiveness.
Romans 10: 9-10+13 (KJB)
9. “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”
10."For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."
13."For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."
Hebrews 9: 27-28 (KJB)
27."And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"
28."So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”
Revelation 21: 8 (KJB)
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”
Romans 6: 23 (KJB)
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
(Lastly, an example of what to genuinely say to God in prayer to get saved and fully forgiven of all your sins.)
“Dear God, I am a sinner and need saving.
I know I’m not good enough to get to heaven and I need you to save me.
I need the righteousness of your son, Jesus Christ.
I believe that Jesus is the Lord, who died, was buried and resurrected so that his precious blood can wash away my sins.
I trust in him alone to save me.
Nothing else.
Not my good works or anything else.
Only Jesus.
I pray this in Jesus’ name, Amen.”
It seems also a very american thing to have such link between religion and AS. Though in my country i don't really see support from the church, our very 'progressive' legislation on the topic was supported by the whole spectrum of politics (this incl concervative christian party).
I don't think what represented here as 'an atheistic lack of value for life' is accurate. Without any dogmatic concept of 'devine authority over your life', the only factors are an understanding of human suffering vs our medical abilities.
One need to only see and watch Pope Francis` efforts to see God is NOT pleased. Too much street violence and indifference toward each other, and YES The Pope is God`s representative on earth. The Pharisses ask Jesus for signs, didn`t people`s reactions in crowds to the Pope`s visiting here also see a sign? Didn`t Apple have to delay their launching of new phone because The Pope was coming, (sign of materialism), didn`t Jesus do miracles in His life, (sign of God`s Presence)? :)
I actually find it interesting how much I agree with you.
Yes, it's true. We humans, in a secular society, DO value freedom. We DO love the idea of being able to do what we want. I also absolutely agree, that the bible is absolutely against it. It does teach obedience. It doesn't look very positively on freedoms, but wants people to obey.
Where we disagree is about the idea that this is actually a bad thing.
We are more free than we have ever been before. We have more opportunities than humans have ever had in human history...
And we do much, much better than ever before!
And this is, what we see religious people deny all the time today. Often we hear religious people deny the idea that today, we have it much, much better than we have ever had it before, because if it was true that with less religiousity, and more freedom we actually live better lives... well, then religions and submission to the authority of a church becomes so much more difficult to sell.
And we see how this has to be done here.
Sorry, but assisted suicide is not seen as this... trivial thing you pretend here. No, assisted suicide is not about "when life becomes too boring, or annoying (words YOU used here)"... it's about having the option to avoid unnecessary suffering. Having the right, when there is no better option, to not just have to suffer pointlessly.
Yes, assisted suicide gives us more freedom. And it's a good thing.
Also: You can't say in one sentence that under your god belief, our lives don't belong to US, but is actually the property of HIM, and then in the next sentence say, that your belief in god is not dehumanizing.
OF COURSE a belief that tells you that your life doesn't belong to you is dehumanizing. I can't think of a more dehumanizing proposition than to claim that our lives isn't ours.
Actually if Christianity is true than assisted suicide would be moral. In fact killing anyone would be the most moral thing you could possibly do because if someone who has repented dies they will go to heaven.
Moses wrote the books in the bible. He built a tent and created smoke by burning incense. Huffing and puffing the smoke he heard god speak
For god so loved the world that he was sorry he made man on the Earth and he was grieved in his heart, so he DROWNED every living thing. You keep believing about your fairy tale all loving god, if that's what you need to get through this life. It's your only one though.
Holy youtube comments! People. Chill out. Seriously. You gain nothing from angrily shouting at one another through the Internet. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Go drink herbal tea and watch the sunset or something.
always good to listen to the opinion of a man who believes what he states with his heart. and with an extended vocabulary
Well said: I see far too many young suicides 20 and under. The worship of things of this world.
What the hell is scientism ?
The outro-music is =!!!=MUCH LOUDER=!!!= than Fr. Barron. Cant they review these videos (in their entirety) before uploading? =P The content is great, though; thank you.
Define what is good about humanity. Now make a list of all historical figures who fit that definition. Not a single one is an atheist. Atheists argue against religion because they have this strong desire to be seen as good and to feel good about themselves. This desire is one of the strongest indications of there being something more to our existence than mere evolution. If there is no God and atheism is a valid point of view there should be no need to define good or evil in the world. Atheism runs counter to the human experience.
+Steve Walsh
_"Define what is good about humanity. Now make a list of all historical figures who fit that definition. Not a single one is an atheist."_
Sure they are. All of them will be, because my list of what's good about humanity includes our capability to make rational beliefs when we make an effort to discard superstition.
_"Atheists argue against religion because they have this strong desire to be seen as good and to feel good about themselves."_
No. We argue against religion because religion motivates all sorts of harmful decision making because of its inherent irrationality. It's simply a highly detrimental force in humanity that we'd be far better without.
_"This desire is one of the strongest indications of there being something more to our existence than mere evolution."_
No, that wouldn't have followed logically even if you were right about the previous point.
_"If there is no God and atheism is a valid point of view there should be no need to define good or evil in the world."_
So, in your opinion, there are no objectively negative qualities for a human society to adopt the value "Killing random people for fun is good"? Well, that's you being an embarrassingly indoctrinated fool. Any society adopting such a value would exterminate itself in less than an hour. This means that any society that is stable necessarily will have adopted values that are some subset of the negation of that statement. So yeah, your assessment was that there should be no need - the actual state of affairs was that it was logical necessity. I don't think you should ever speak about this topic again.
_"Atheism runs counter to the human experience."_
Nah. It runs counter to your brainwashing. In any case, all worldviews are minority viewpoints, so you might as well have said that your own religion runs counter to human experience because there is a vast majority of humanity that agree that your religion is ridiculous
+Gnomefro
Your very first statement
"Sure they are. All of them will be, because my list of what's good about humanity includes our capability to make rational beliefs when we make an effort to discard superstition."
makes the rest of your observations nothing more than straw men of your own creation. If you are interested in a Logical discussion you must first define GOOD. You may define good as your own happiness. Or perhaps the elimination of anything that irritates you. But if you look to an objective, universal good such as that which is defined by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, or Jesus Christ, then the above statement makes no sense at all.
+Steve Walsh What about Bill Gates who is an atheist and is spending his fortune to eliminate disease in Africa? What about Carl Sagan who was one of the first popularizers of science and who brought public attention to global climate change back in the early 1980s? What about Steve Wozniak who quit his multi-million dollar job at Apple to teach public school kids? In addition, many doctors, scientists, etc around the world are atheists and go about helping people because they feel a human need to do so. One may say that the religious experience is felt in every culture, but he cannot say that there are no good atheists.
+Steve Walsh
"Define what is good about humanity."
*Good is a subjective term with no absolute, nor objective, definition.*
*Just like "bad"/evil and all of that.*
"Now make a list of all historical figures who fit that definition."
*I will go for atheists/non-theists. Confucius, Voltaire, Anaxagoras, Diagoras, Protagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, Lucretius, Lucius the Younger, John of Lackland, Benjamin Franklin, Frederick the Great... etc etc.*
"Not a single one is an atheist."
*Funny, I didn't come to that conclusion. I actually have even more I could add to that list.*
"Atheists argue against religion because they have this strong desire to be seen as good and to feel good about themselves."
*Uh, no, we don't. Well, some might... just as some people believe in their religion for the same reasons. I, however, argue against religion because it tries to enforce its values upon others through force and has an overall detrimental effect on society as a whole. Anything it provides can be found elsewhere, it is unnecessary.*
"This desire is one of the strongest indications of there being something more to our existence than mere evolution."
*This desire is nothing more than baseless conjecture and, even if it existed, that is not the logical conclusion at all.*
" If there is no God and atheism is a valid point of view there should be no need to define good or evil in the world."
*Atheism is a valid point of view. It has no single definition (I, for example, am what many would call a "Weak Atheist". I lack belief in the existence of deities.), either. But not accepting a claim as true because that claim has not been proven true is damn near the **_only_** valid point of view in that situation.*
*Also, "good" and "evil" don't actually truly exist. They are simply subjective, relative concepts applied at will by people.*
"Atheism runs counter to the human experience."
*If anything, Theism does. Believing in something despite a lack of evidence, and indeed sometimes in the face of opposing evidence, is counter to intelligent thought.*
You talk about "wrestling with God" as if it is a good thing, a learning experience, a method through which we connect with God and discover ourselves as Christians. This perplexes me, as I thought Jacob wrestling the angel was a sign of pride and arrogance, of one thinking himself equal to God and trying to fight/usurp him.
+Wesley Tomsky
It is both. Saint Augustine has a wonderful sermon on this.
The angel is a type of Christ, because angels carries the WORD of God. And because the angel, while being capable of breaking every bone in Jacob's body, made himself weak, like Christ.
Then, after winning the fight, Jacob held the angel in his hands and only let him go after the angel blessed him.
If you read the writings of mystic saints, you will see that they went through the same experience.
+Wesley Tomsky Just before 4:20 he clarifies with, "...when we wrestle with God ... when we engage with God." He's seems to be using the word 'wrestle' as an act of engagement (a coming to) rather then an 'I am right and that-is-that' mentality.
+VyCanisMajorislHS I need to check that sermon out. thx =D
God bless you Bishop Barron. You freely give what has been given to you, truth in love.
How do you wrestle with God when you do not understand the concept of God? Is seeking to understanding who/what God is, the same thing as wrestling with him/her/it? Please explain, I am agnostic, I don't know anything, LOL. I hope that gets me less flak than the atheists. I understand your points, I just cant get past these primary concepts to understand. I just want someone to explain this concept of God. "He" wrote the bible. "He" inspired the writers. Is this a way to say they wrote these stories with the highest moral intentions? Does believing in God require a belief in the supernatural? Is God a supernatural being? What exactly do we mean by supernatural? Was the concept of God the same for Jesus as it is for Catholics? Was the concept of God the same two thousand years ago as it is today?
+Carlosss Guerra The way I understand it is that by
wrestling with God we are engaged in a dialogue with the belief in God. Asking
the very questions you have asked is a form of wrestling with the idea of God.
Christ himself accused his peers of viewing the Commandments as dead stone as
they were not wrestling with and seeking to understand them. His holiness Pope
Francis has been doing the very thing these last weeks that Bishop Barron
discusses, he has led a synod to wrestle with questions of importance about how
we treat each other in the Catholic family. Each generation new questions arise
as new issues appear and a true people of Israel should meet each new question
and challenge with an open mind and heart and seek to understand what God
wishes.
Granted, in that itself we have a problem; how can we ever come to understand
God who is by definition a transcendent existence. But revelation, reason and
experience tells us that it is not foolish to seek and believe that we have in
some way found God. The revelations to the mystics, the philosophical pursuits
of philosophy of religion, the experiences of miracles and other religious
experiences all point to the existence of God as the Creator of the universe
and the sustainer of all that exists. The Bible is one part of that revelation
and the Church seeks/wrestles with the maintenance of that tradition. But the
Bible, as I see it, is one part only of a tradition of revelation and wisdom.
It is not the words of God in the way Muslims see the Qur'an, it contains
within it the Word of God, the revelation of God's intention for mankind, but
we can see that intention also in the writings of the saints, the revelations
of Our Lady in her appearances as well as in the videos Bishop Barron has
shared with us on Word on Fire.
God didn't write the Bible, believers in God shared their revelations and
understandings of God in the writings that were compiled into the Bible we
have. Watch the Word on Fire videos on the Bible, they are truly inspiring.
Concerning the issue of Atheism mentioned in this video, it is a sad reality
that western society is becoming more atheistic, more skeptical of the
transcendent and mystical. I wonder why that is. Surely modern physics is
telling us that at a quantum level there is nothing but uncertainty in the
universe. In fact listening to Professor Keith Ward it seems more and more
likely that the nature of the universe itself is utterly unstable and subject
to the existence of mind to know it to exist (look up the two slit experiments
and how it reveals that nature changes subject to observation, utterly mind
blowing). So it leaves me to wonder why people are so ready to question the
idea of a Creator knowingly and willingly creating the universe and support a
theory that suggests that the universe just happens to be here, we happen to
exist, there is no intention whatsoever. As Peter Hitchens observes, the ones
who opt for atheism do not do so because there is proof that there is no God,
but rather because the want there to be no God, no purpose, no intention, no
order. Just chaos.
An atheist regime will invariably lead to a society where anything is possible,
and not in the good Matrix way where we can fly and break out of the oppressive
establishment, but one where we can slaughter millions, take whatever we want,
pass it through government, make everyone believe that they really chose it and
end up in a society where the people with power rule those without.
Not to say that a theocracy is the perfect alternative, if nothing else the
Borgia popes show us that people with power use it to their own ends, but the
difference is this, the Borgias were wrong as they betrayed the very ideals
they were supposed to uphold, whereas Hitler, Mau, Stalin etc. are just
unpopular at the moment. Relative morality stipulates that there is nothing
wrong in what they are saying as morality changes from place to place, year to
year. Without a moral constant there is no right and wrong, not matter what the
atheists tell you.
They will tell you we have an innate sense of right and wrong, that morality
matures and progresses. That is unfortunately nonsense. Rape was perfectly
acceptable as an evolutionary necessity, so was murder. Now not so much, but
reciprocation is a good thing. Who decides that? You can't pick and choose.
Without a sense of the transcendent we are literally nothing more than evolved
animals holding on to a rock in space destined to die. That’s it. In a hundred
years we are forgotten, a thousand our families are forgotten, a million the
species is forgotten. As Douglas Wilson put to Christopher Hitchens, the
universe doesn’t care about what happened to the Amalekites. So from the universe’
perspective, so what if Hitler wanted to kill the Jews? In a million years
there won’t be anyone to complain about it anyway.
That gaping hole is what we are left with from the atheistic
perspective. But they won’t admit that because even atheists have a sense of
right and wrong but they can’t account for it. They want to say that slavery is
just wrong but they can’t prove it, save for its lack of popularity. But that’s
what we are left with under an atheistic regime.
When the atheists take over, we will see more legislation
that takes away human rights, one at a time placing the onus of laws and
decisions on what is popular, current and fleeting. There will be nothing left
that is scared, special, important and constant because there will be no basis
for constancy. That’s why we need the Church to be a beacon of light in a
darkening world, to be a rock on a sea of turmoil.
In order to wrestle with God, you need to believe that there
is someone with whom you are wrestling and to have a platform on which to
conduct it. The atheists of the world want to take that platform away and
replace it with a relativist swamp and they want to tell you that there is no
God so there’s no-one to wrestle. What’s left? All the decisions are made by
someone else, not the ones who care about us, but the ones who care about themselves.
The first sin, selfishness. The only answer, surrender to
God because God is love, the opposite of selfishness.
Sorry, that went on for a while!
Good points!
Thanks for the response.
+Carlosss Guerra You had a reply that has disappeared, I have answered it if you are happy to read it:
You are most welcome, I am glad that my thoughts are of some
use.
You strike an interesting cord when discussing the necessity
of religion for society. To say that society cannot function without religion
is probably a little naïve as there are examples of this. However, let us not
forget that for the longest time in history societies have functioned under the
beliefs systems of the time placing some idea of the transcendent above them.
Some might say it is the way that primitive cultures dealt with uncertainty,
however, I think that in turn that is also naïve and a little arrogant., If
there is no evidence atheists say that religion is made up; if peoples
throughout the world believe in some God or deity and build their societies
around it, atheists say that it is a shared illusion. You can’t have it both ways.
The idea of having an internal compass is interesting and
strikes semblance with the idea of conscience. Exploring what that is in itself
is a topic for discussion. I like St Thomas Aquinas’ views that it is the
rational part of us engaging with moral decisions understanding the will of God
and acting on it. Aquinas developed the Natural Moral Law theory based on
Aristotle’s Virtue theory. Aquinas said that all societies have observed five
precepts: Preserving life, educating the young, Reproducing, Living in ordered
society and worshipping God. You can see this running true in all societies,
though worshipping God perhaps can be seen as having been replaced in some
modern cultures for worshipping something else (as Bishop Robert Barron
mentions in this video).
So I do think that when we engage with the problems we all
have a capacity of gaining insight into what is morally right - objectively.
The question, however, is this, without a body holding to the idea of a
transcendent objectivity, how do we engage with an objective morality? How do
we wrestle with a God that people say doesn’t exist?
As Fr Robert Barron has discussed in a video about hook-up
culture, freedom is no use when there is no sense of truth and without truth
freedom just leads to chaos.
You talk about believing in the Catholic ideas at our own
expense. I have certainly never felt that I have lost anything by adhering to
the Catholic ideas. On the contrary, adhering to Catholic guidelines I have
felt completion, a sense of ought, a reason to strive and a structure by which
to live life. Without it, whose guidance do I follow? What role models? Whose
sense of good and bad? Atheists would say my own, but as Freudians would argue,
my own conscience is formed by the superego, so what makes up the super ego
when you take out objective morality? Selfish agents.
You talk about how free will creates a responsibility within
rational beings to have integrity, but on the contrary, free will gives us
liberty to surrender our rationality in pursuit of selfish gains. This is
evident whenever order disappears: riots, rebellions, war etc.; as Thomas
Hobbes said, when you have no government it’s a war of all against all. It is
only the establishment of government that brings order. But if the government is
solely driven by human beings with selfish goals, what makes Mugabi’s Zimbabwe
immoral? What makes Hitler’s regime evil? It is just another regime. You need
something more than human selfishness driving society and giving direction to
human freedom.
May I correct one observation you have made: religion is not
a cause of war. If you look at the wars throughout history, and history is rife
with warfare, very, very few are primarily motivated by anything resembling
religion. WWI, WWII, Korean war, Crimean war, Vietnam war, Indian Wars, Boer
War, Zulu War, Napoleonic wars…none were motivated by religion. If religion was
any kind of factor it was one of propaganda as a way to entice people who had no
interest in fighting to be made to feel obligation to fight. If you look at
modern day conflict, ISIS etc. again that is not religion, that is people
making excuses to kill people. That is not religion, that is human selfishness
using whatever is in their power to bring people together to kill other people.
It is an interesting question you ask about whether or not
we need God to feel empathy and love etc. St Paul himself wrote about how he
met people who worshipped the “un-named God” who he took to be the one God. He also
discussed how people who did not know Christ who had a conscience and obeyed
the “law”. St Paul was not an exclusivist, neither was Christ. It is inclusion
all the way. If you wrestle with God/morality/truth, you engage with your
conscience and you truly seek to do what is right, then, I would say, you are
being a Christian. But that can only happen when you believe in a higher power.
If you don’t then you are ultimately being driving by selfish ends. Even empathy
for others is selfish as the only motivation is what good it does for you.
There is no other motivation to act.
I do not agree that the determining factor the separates
people is belief in God or gods and non-belief. I think that is a short-sighted
distinction. There are plenty of non-theistic people who adhere to a notion of
truth and right and plenty of theists or polytheists who have no issue with
destruction and selfishness, using their beliefs as an excuse for immoral
behaviour. Rather, I would say that the belief in a greater power that really
distinguishes us, that Christianity certainly celebrates, is the belief in a
supreme truth and order. Thus the true distinction is one between those who
believe in order and those who belief in chaos. Atheists cannot believe in
order because they choose to believe there is no order at all. Agnostics are
open to the possibility even if they do not believe they can ever find proof of
a God; they can still side with the idea of some order in the universe.
The Church, and this is why I love the Church, is not a human
organisation. THE CHURCH is the Church in heaven. We are a poor imitation of
that Church in heaven (nod to Plato here) and we do our best to understand it,
emulate it and try to realise it on earth.
You are certainly right that any way we try to talk about God
is anthropomorphic. But even Christ called God “abba”, he told us to call God “Father”.
That does not mean we should see God as a man who fathers children, but as a
creator who cares with unconditional love. I have recently become a father and
for the first time I know what unconditional love is and it is humbling and
incredible. For the first time I had a glimpse of how God might feel when he
sees us, his creation and it made me sad that God’s love is so wastes on us.
I would say, keep looking, keep asking, keep watching Bishop
Robert Barron’s videos. Additionally, Douglas Wilson is amazing, so watch him,
especially his debates with the late Christopher Hitchens. Peter Hitchens is
incredible also, especially his attitude to the God question. D. K. Chesterton
was inspired and his words are eternal. They are the apostles of the modern
day. Watch them and maybe some of your questions will be answered.
For classical scholars, it’s St Thomas Aquinas all the way.
If you want to delve deeper, Boethius on the Nature of God is pretty special.
That said, I’m always happy to share my thoughts also J
Google+
There is absolutely no reasonable argument against assisted suicide for terminal patients. Keep your God beliefs out of my politics.
There is
Potential for abuse. A family or carers could put pressure on the terminally ill person to accept euthanasia.
Producing the old tripe that life without God is a life without romanticism....
+Larry Cloyes wrote: life without God is a life without romanticism....
Me: that is a true statement. be definition, God is love. How are you going to find romanticism without love?
@@tadwhitty7325 so your god is a human emotion? you worship an human emotion? lol.
All the Catholic students are coming to Texas A&m university for St Marys!!
+Emily Reiter Amen. The Newman Centers at Texas A&M Corpus Christi and Kingsville are also standing strong.
Every atheist has the same question prove it that's all I'm asking I am an atheist prove God exists and I will believe like most atheist we simply haven't seen the evidence
God said in the quran :
(And on the earth are signs for the certain [in faith]
And in yourselves. Then will you not see?) 51:(21:22)
If you think it is impossible that Burj Khalifa was created by accident, day after day a stone fell on a stone How about this universe, these planets, this wonderful system, and these cosmic constants of finite precision? And how this human structure This intelligent, perceived, integrated systemic being and free will To request evidence of what you do not need evidence This is a logical error and makes you in Veer's case resolvable
@@oussamagherbi5292 so no evidence I guess please try to bring real evidence not just a book written by people thousands of years ago seriously real evidence how hard is that to provide
@@oussamagherbi5292 so honestly prove to me God exists I should say your God because billions of people believe in thousands of different variations of God even in Muslims there's multiple beliefs and of course Christianity has at least couple of hundred so which God are you speaking about exactly
@@matthewarsenault6216
I respect your response even though your comment was 3 years ago First, do you use Twitter, my friend I want to talk more freely with you than TH-cam comments
My Twitter account:
@GherbiOussama8
@@oussamagherbi5292 I'm afraid not I do understand what you mean these things are funner debated in person I am not an angry atheist I do enjoy these debates. For fun not to insult anyone
Didn't Jesus go to his death willingly (suicide)? Didn't God "take delight in crushing him" (assistance)? Isn't this the basis of Christianity? (John 3:16) Please make another video.
Easily and readily, the most telling sentence of your video is your last statement. "Atheism represents a supreme threat to humanity."
Oh, irony. Thy name is faith.
I must be dreaming, because I thought I had watched this video a couple of hours ago. Why the re-upload?
+Dominus Vobiscum God wanted you to watch it twice.
The rise in secularism in the USA is quite rapid. It is projected that by 2050 the USA will be a majority non-religious country. Something already achieved by many European nations. Secularism is the most rapidly growing demographic in the world. It is also telling that the nations with the lowest crime rates are also the least religious. As secularism grows in the USA the rate of violent crime has come down. I wonder if the two things could be connected.. Well a look at the crime rates and religiosity of US states shows that the highest crime rates are in the most religious states and vice versa. If this fact were the reverse then religions would be shouting it out loud as a condemnation of Atheism. The facts being what they are then maybe religion should be examining its own beliefs and teachings before condemning non-belief.
Interesting observation by Tillich on worship
I just went to a talk about the dangers of PAS.
Wieder ein sehr gutes Video!
By the same logic, we should also stop all medical treatment and allow all conditions to proceed to their natural outcome because by artificially intervening by drugs and surgical procedures to prolong someone's life, we are working against God's will about that person.
Don't be absurd. There's a difference between allowing someone to die and KILLING them.
Don't be absurd. There's a difference between allowing someone to die and KILLING them.
+deorum333 Then you better not be smoking or drinking cause that will shorten your life. You also better be watching what you eat and exercising.
+filthyswit And if someone is smoking or drinking, that justifies snuffing them out...why, exactly?
Dennis Mahon Why do you automatically assume the worst from an atheist? All I'm saying is if God wants us to live as long as possible then one would do well to follow this advice. Is smoking and living a glutinous lifestyle not a slow suicide?
Wonderful video again! I think that you are absolutely right when you say that Freedom is starting to become an object of worship. Americans, in particular, think of rules as being restrictive (think of King George, the Revolution, etc...). So, the church (particularly the Catholic church) is seen as being the most restrictive, and thus the enemy of freedom. Whether it is the millions of laws that America has (it literally is millions), the 613 laws of the Torah or even the 1 rule that was given to Adam and Eve; each law should be seen as an opportunity to follow God (I am not saying to worship America, it was just used as a comparison!).
But, once we start to reduce the value of a human life, we are no more than just resources on this planet, nothing different than an animal. Atheism is a huge threat to our way of life, and we need to do whatever we can to open their eyes, and hearts, to the truth.
Also, about the assisted suicide, I don't believe in it, at all. My mother is a hospice nurse who works from home. I do hear the stories of the patients (geriatric, pediatric, cancer, old age, etc...). I hear about the pain and the suffering. But, then I hear what my mother tells the families, especially right towards the end. She tells them that the end is probably coming soon, and that they should keep their loved ones as comfortable as possible, comfort them and tell them how much you love them. As sad as the dying process is, it can also be a really beautiful time.
We just have to open our eyes to see proof of that statement; although sad, death can be beautiful. Look at the trees outside as they change color. They are slowly dying, but they are giving you such a beautiful site. Look at the cross with our Lord. Is that not proof of how much God loves us; by sending His only Begotten Son to this world for us.
+Patrick Cassidy
*"But, once we start to reduce the value of a human life, we are no more than just resources on this planet, nothing different than an animal."*
Ultimately we are animals, just different from the rest of them in the same way that every other animal is different.
*"Atheism is a huge threat to our way of life, and we need to do whatever we can to open their eyes, and hearts, to the truth."*
How exactly is atheism a threat? Are we proposing death camps? Are we proposing that those over 70 are sent to the gas chambers?
And what exactly is this truth that you think you hold, that we do not hold?
*"Also, about the assisted suicide, I don't believe in it"*
Assisted suicide is not a matter to believe, or not believe. It's a proposition that says that humans have the capacity to choose when they can end their lives. It allows people state that it is more worthwhile to end suffering they are enduring when compared to the rest of their lives.
Ultimately, my question to you becomes this: Why do you stand in the way of allowing people to have the free choice to end their lives, on their terms, and force them to endure suffering?
Atheist Lehman Thank you for your reply. Regarding the animal statement, I know that we are all "biologically" animals, but I was talking about philosophically. I suggest that you read up on Plato's "Republic", especially on the Democratic and Tyrannical man. To sum it up, these type of men are driven from desire to desire, like animals foraging for food. Humans have a higher intelligence and capacity, and thus should not be limited purely by their wants and needs.
But, since you brought up animals, let's talk more about this. You are viewing euthanasia as being something similar to putting a dog out of its misery, or shooting a horse with a bum leg. The quality of life is severely inhibited, and thus their quality of life is poor. Since they do not have the capacity to determine how bad their life be, we (their masters) have the right to end their life in order to lessen their suffering.
The problem with this though is that humans are capable of a higher state of feeling. For example, the dying process between families can be beautiful, although sad. It allows both the living, and the dying, to enjoy their time together and truly value their time. Do you think the horse would value the time? Do you think a dog would value that time (some dogs may actually!).
But, the main issue here is that assisted suicide devalues human life. It sums it up purely in the sense that we are free to end our lives when we get tired of this world. Look at how abortion has evolved since the 70s. The only real reason that it is such a hot issue today is because of the PP videos. For the most part, people have become accustomed to the abortions and they become a fairly everyday practice. We started to hear terms like "fetus" or "product of conception" as opposed to just calling it what it is; a life. Can you say for certain that this won't be the case for assisted suicide? How will it work with legal guardians and those who have a limited mental capacity, or mental disorder? Do you give others the right and deny others, even though that they are not suffering?
I do not support suffering either. I believe that end of life care, such as hospice, is a wonderful resource, that is free to all people. The technology and medicine has evolved significantly over the past few decades to where can be significantly reduced. If the pain can be reduced to a more manageable level, and the patient can get more time with their family before they leave this world, is that not literally the humane treatment?
Can you honestly tell me that assisted suicide is more humane than end of life care? I will await your answer.
P.S. I LOL'd when I saw your name. To create a profile specifically for atheist purpose is pretty funny. I wonder if I should create a name, "CatholicPatrick1088". How does that sound? :-)
+Patrick Cassidy
Your argument isn't about autonomy, it's about forcing people to allow their loved ones a chance to watch them die Forcing them to remain alive so that the family can delay the inevitable death of their loved on. Nobody wants their loved ones to die, but it's insane to force them to remain alive because the rest of the family doesn't want to let go yet.
Suppose this same person has no family, no friends, and nobody else who is interested in watching them suffer until natural death. Does you concern disappear in this case, and suicide should now be allowed? If not, why bring this topic up. If so, you agree there are cases where suicide should be legal.
*"But, the main issue here is that assisted suicide devalues human life. It sums it up purely in the sense that we are free to end our lives when we get tired of this world"*
Why do you think that's what I'm talking about? "I'm depressed, and want to off myself, hey Doc, please kill me" is not what we're talking about here.
*"Look at how abortion has evolved since the 70s. The only real reason that it is such a hot issue today is because of the PP videos. "*
While I'm not keen on abortions, I'm all in favor of bodily autonomy. Forcing a person to remain pregnant, and to give birth, when they do not want to, is at least as much a miscarriage of justice than allowing a fetus to die.
I also have absolutely no problem with aborted fetus', which would otherwise be medical waste, being used for medical research. I'd much rather have something come out of it than simply burying the body as waste. The money aspect of those videos was solely about the costs of maintaining the materials in a way that would keep them viable for research. Stuff like that isn't free. But, this isn't about abortion, nor do I really care to go into that discussion.
*"Can you say for certain that this won't be the case for assisted suicide? How will it work with legal guardians and those who have a limited mental capacity, or mental disorder? "*
Nope, I don't claim certainty on much... These are aspects that need to be hashed out. My general stance is that it's a decision for the person involved, and not the guardians. If you aren't/weren't competent to make the decision, nobody can do it for you.
*"Do you give others the right and deny others, even though that they are not suffering?"*
I will generally state that those who do not understand what asserting their right to die means, and the consequences of that action, do not have the power to assert that right. Competence matters.
*"I do not support suffering either. I believe that end of life care, such as hospice, is a wonderful resource, that is free to all people."*
So why must it be an either/or exclusive choice? Use the hospice care if you wish, until you no longer wish...
*"The technology and medicine has evolved significantly over the past few decades to where can be significantly reduced. If the pain can be reduced to a more manageable level, and the patient can get more time
with their family before they leave this world, is that not literally the humane treatment?"*
You're appealing to emotions on a situation where emotions simply cloud the issues. Should a person who is suffering from dementia, who recognized that their body, and mind, will degrade until they are no longer _human_, no say as to when their life no longer have value to them?
In terms of autonomy rights, I'm almost universally in favor of extending those rights.
"*Can you honestly tell me that assisted suicide is more humane than end of life care? I will await your answer."*
For those who do not wish end of life care, yes, allowing them to die (as they wish to do) is more humane than forcing them to live!
*"P.S. I LOL'd when I saw your name. To create a profile specifically for atheist purpose is pretty funny. I wonder if I should create a name, "CatholicPatrick1088". How does that sound? :-)"*
Good for you.. If CatholicPatrick1088 floats your boat, be my guest.
All death is inevitable, so making sure somebody is comfortable is not delaying the end, it is only making sure that they are treated humanely. Assisted suicide is ultimately a premature death. It will give you time to say your goodbyes properly without short changing you, or your family. Delaying the inevitable would be more the case with assisted living (i.e. a person who is braid dead in a coma).
If the person has no family (which is probably not the case most of the time), and if the patient is not lucid, then it should be at the discretion of their doctor to best preserve life. Again, this case does not happen too often, so if you can give me a more specific situation (like a homeless person, widower with no family), then we can discuss more.
I don't want to get too much into abortions specifically (and the supposed benefits since stem cell research can never produce enough specimens to be a viable treatment unless you vastly increase the number of aborted fetuses).
But, yes, I believe based on history that people with mental depression and/or limited capacity will try to abuse the system. Look at drug abuse that was meant to help people at first where the medicine became an epidemic. Or look at alcohol which starts off innoncent enough and becomes an addiction. We, as humans, are never content with the way things are, we always want to push the envelope and our rights. There is more historical examples to back my claim up than yours.
Do you think a mentally ill person won't try to abuse this?
So, again, my claim that end of life care is a better option since it treats humans with dignity and doesn't result in a premmature, albeit inevitable, death. Have you ever known anybody who joined end of life care; whether a doctor, nurse or patient? If you haven't, then you really can't understand it and should probably not talk about things that you do not know.
+Patrick Cassidy
*"Look at drug abuse that was meant to help people at first where the medicine became an epidemic*"
Yes, some narcotics have an addictive quality to them. Should we ban all opiates because somebody may abuse them, or should we try to make sure that people are using opiates safely?
*"Or look at alcohol which starts off innoncent enough and becomes an addiction."*
Yes, some people become addicted to alcohol. Are you proposing that alcohol should be banned too? Should the nanny state come in and stop everyone from drinking who might become addicted?
*"Do you think a mentally ill person won't try to abuse this?"*
Possibly. Your whole argument against this seems to be based on possible abuse, and therefore we should prevent it by completely banning it? There are, quite literally, millions of things we have access to everyday that can be abused, and result in death. Put reasonable safeguards in place, and deal with offenses.
Regardless, I'd much rather a mentally ill person come to a doctor looking for a suicide option, where they can actually be identified and treated, instead of offing themselves, which is usually done in a ghastly manner.
*"Have you ever known anybody who joined end of life care; whether a doctor, nurse or patient? If you haven't, then you really can't understand it and should probably not talk about things that you do not know."*
Yes, I have known people who have wanted palliative care at the end of their life. I'm not arguing against allowing palliative care, I'm arguing to allow people another option should they wish. While I doubt I would partake in assisted suicide, I have a hard time justifying not allowing people autonomy over their body, and the freedom to make a rational choice.
I connect assisted suicide with the problem of THEODIZEE : If an evil person is deservedly suffering, I would never help him/her to die. If, on the other hand, a kind person would ask me to help, I would do so. But only, if I would know exactly, that s/he was ALWAYS a good person.
I have a really hard time with this. I have a alot going on physically and there is a spritual curse on my life by a coven. I'm considering ending my life because the quality of life isn't there anymore. God allowed this spiritual curse to happen to me. Even demons cant operate without his permission. Why would God allow this to happen to me? He doesn't love me anymore. I already know I'll be in hell when I die. Does this apply to me? Why keep living if there is nothing to live for after I leave this world?
@@pamparanea What did you do to not deserve suffering/punishment?
@@Lerian_V From an argumentative standpoint that's a terrible question to ask because even if she never did anything wrong she would still suffer. God has condemnded us to suffer because of the sins of others, that is the problem of evil. Asking "what makes you so special to not have to suffer" almost sounds as if Humans suffering is what gods WANTS for us...
@@Bellg I'm sorry but your theology is skewed. Our sins condemn us to suffer as long as we don't turn from them and turn towards good. God wants us to have eternal life and not to be condemned to death. It's the devil's wish that we go to hell.
@@Lerian_V So suffering is the direct consequence of personal sin? That's not what christianity says.
@@Bellg Suffering is the direct consequence of sin regardless whether or not the sin is inherited? Corruption entered our nature through the sin caused by our first parents, and we are contributing to the suffering by committing more sin - like pouring gasoline into fire.
It was a facinating part in the book the, idiot by Theodore Dovteyesky, he speaks of the horror of the gullotien how it was pain less and quick , and the horror of this.and how christ suffered as a more human more liberating situation , people just want to crush others like a cocheroach.
Amazing, amen.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc in no time at all.
I don't know. I don't think I'll ever really be able to know for sure if there's a "god"
There is no such thing as dying with dignity. It is always ugly no matter what way it happens.
Can we just get proof of your claims please
I don't expect a response to this but I can only say that life can become extremely painful through our own fault or through the fault of others or by just plain genes. Who is to say?
Many people are brought into the world and they are truly unwanted and their births were an unwanted accident. Their lives are miserable and they suffer from a myriad of undeserved agonies. They cannot respond because they are broken. They cannot attain the highly educated response that Bishop Barron expounds upon.
What can be said for these people who have endured without meaning despite their pathetic efforts?
We can only go to the essence and simplicity of Christ Himself who understood this abandonment and rejection. and fid some peace in His mercy. Blessed are the poor in spirit.
Fr. Barron, what do you mean by the good the true and the beautiful in their UNCONDITIONED FORM?
Thanks so much, BIshop Barron! Atheism devalues life so profoundly. I appreciate your articulate commentary on this issue of euthanasia and rise of atheism.
In 2021, Harvard decided it could have a chief Chaplain who was an atheist.
Brilliant! Keep that fountain of knowledge flowing Bishop Barron........
+sir zophiel
Their is a reason way Bishop Barron has a global following. A lot of people agree with him, including myself.
If you think it is all just 'moronic rambling', why don't you up load a video tackling the issues raised by Bishop Barron.
I'd be only too happy to watch your argument.
+Michael Montague
For someone who doesn't encompass the super natural into the world or life....well I'm not sure what I can say to you.
Only from my experience I do believe. And that belief brings me peace. Which is real - not imagined.
God Bless
+Cillian Kelly
*"Only from my experience I do believe"*
Ah the appeal to personal experience. It's fallacious reasons. I, and most other skeptics, don't consider personal experience as good evidence for anything more than the most mundane claim.
*"And that belief brings me peace."*
Well congratulations, but it certainly does not make your belief(s) true. I'd rather have not have hope in things that cannot even begin to be demonstrated as true.
+Atheist Lehman
Hi Atheist Lehman, thanks for your response.
I would argue that personal experience is very valid.
And determines ones beliefs.
For example I could say; I believe your a nice person because you were nice to me.
That would be personal experience.
If one was to believe on anything less - It would just be from the mind and not personal experience.
Through my personal experience I have a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Partaking in the sacraments which His church has to offer, Communion, Adoration, Confession and prayer.
I always think its very easy for someone to stand on the shore line and say the waters not wet. Well you'll never know unless you get in. In my experience the water is wet, and its mighty fine. And I couldn't recommend it highly enough to you or anyone else.
About bringing me peace.
Its a different type of peace that what your imagining or other than what you've experienced before. It's not the type of peace of mind you get from putting the fire guard in front of the fire before going to bed.
Its a spiritual peace. From God. One which can be felt, throughout your being. And it transforms you. Like a light switch being turned on. There is nothing better than it, not of flesh or material can match it and bring the same consolation and tenderness to the mind soul & body.
I hope you find what I've found because I was lost and now I'm found. I'm beyond happy when He rests in me. Its a joy, but even a word can not match the belonging in my heart and the peace in my mind, tranquil beauty.
I often wonder about atheists and why they're so afraid to test the water. What do they think will happen. What are they so afraid of. Jesus loves you and He wants whats best for you. He won't lead you astray. The world promises so much but delivers so much misery.
I am speaking from personal experience and it is valid.
Cillian Kelly
For the mundane, and the typical, I'm willing to accept personal experience. Start getting into the extraordinary, and personal experience is no longer good enough.
I sincerely believe you when you tell me that you feel like you have a personal relationship with Jesus. I don't believe you that you *actually* have a relationship with Jesus, in any meaningful sense.
As for your peace, I've heard much of what you've said before. When I was a Christian, I never felt any of feeling you have described, despite praying and asking God to make me believe.
*"I often wonder about atheists and why they're so afraid to test the water. What do they think will happen. What are they so afraid of. Jesus loves you and He wants whats best for you. He won't lead you astray. The world promises so much but delivers so much misery."*
What you're offering is effectively a variation of Pascal's wager. I have nothing to lose, and everything to gain by believing. The truth is that I do have something to lose: my desire for the truth; ultimately, I want to accept true things, and not accept false things.
Sure, the world is harsh, and nature is utterly indifferent to us. This is why I consider myself a humanist.
At the moment, I see no realistic likelihood that Christianity holds any significant truth, an is as likely to be true (and false) as every other religion out there.
Assisted suicide is the over-the-counter version of hospice care. Sadly assisted suicide can also be considered murder because the person might not be competent.
A deep indifference of human life will follow immediately the bracketing of God. The biblical m
The whole assisted suicide thing isn't about people killing themselves because their lives have become boring, lost purpose, etc. Assisted suicide is allowing people who are about to die horribly to be killed humanely, as to avoid a great deal of suffering that their deaths would cause.
+Lights Blade Logically, if there really is a "right to die" which is based on "autonomy," then neither you nor anyone else has the right to tell me what is or is not a sufficient reason to kill myself. If it is a right, you have NO RIGHT to interfere with someone's autonomous judgment. Being terminally ill, or ill at all, has nothing to do with it. The teenagers who kill themselves over mean Facebook posts are perfectly in their RIGHTS.
Eve Keneinan yeah, try applying that logic to the use of force; inevitably, you would come to the (clearly faulty) conclusion that the American soldiers who fought World War II were just as bad as the Sandy Hook shooters. No, no; the morality of any act, especially a lethal one, is contextual. In some cases, killing people is OK, and in some cases, it isn't.
Not so. The only times killing people is morally permissible are:
1. In self-defense, as a proportionate response to an attack
2. In the course of a just war, which is, in fact, essentially self-defense writ large
3. As a just punishment for a crime which merits death, carried out in a lawful manner by lawful authorities.
Suicide is properly defined as "the direct killing of oneself on one's own authority."
The orthodox Christian teaching is that human beings have no such authority to determine who lives or dies, and it makes no difference if the person I wish to kill is myself. My life is not my property, but a gift of God, and is not mine to throw away at my will, but God's to reclaim in His own time.
This concept has largely been displaced by the modern idea of self-ownership, whereby my life is something owned by me, and therefore disposable and alienable at my will, as any other piece of property. This is one meaning of "autonomy," which means "self-law." I am sovereign over my self and my life.
Either my life IS my property or it IS NOT. If it is, then I am free to alienate my life, that is, kill myself, when and as I please, for any reason. No one else has any right to set limits on my right to do this. Because that is what AUTONOMY means: I MAKE THE LAW FOR ME.
If my life is NOT my property, then I have NO right to alienate it, and suicide, as Christianity has always taught, is morally impermissible and a mortal sin.
There is no COHERENT middle ground, other than an ad hoc stipulation. "Terminally ill people have a right to suicide but no one else does" is an emotional position which is as logically sound as "it is morally permissible to abort children conceived in incest, but not other children." The "contexts" of terminal illness or incest make an emotional difference, but are in fact quite irrelevant to the ethics of the situation.
Eve Keneinan Things like incest, in this case, terminal illness are completely relevant to the situation. Those three circumstances you described under which it is permissible to kill someone-- they are all based on consequentialism.
It's okay to kill someone who's about to kill you because failing to do so would result in the loss of your own life, which, considering the situation, is most likely more valuable. It's okay to kill someone in a just war because a "just war" is generally defined as a war that would have a good effect on the world if your side won; thus, killing the person is necessary to achieve a greater goal. Though I object to the death penalty, the supposed validity of its use is often based upon the deterrence of future "death-worthy" crimes.
I also object to the idea that abortions should be restricted to cases of incest or rape, but the idea that it should be is also based on consequentialism. Failing to abort the fetus can cause an extremely and/or terminally deformed child to come into existence.
The use of suicide in the case of terminal illness serves to prevent a great degree of suffering, and generally has very little effect on the sufferer's lifespan or chance of survival. The use of suicide in other cases, such as this Facebook post hypothetical, does cut a person's lifespan short by an enormous margin. It does not prevent an terribly large degree of suffering, at least, not enough to justify its use. It also prevents a great deal of happiness, and causes immense suffering for other people such as the person's friends, family, etc.
You are simply in error that these things are based on consequentialism. All these case of justifiable killing were worked out by the philosophers of classical antiquity and through the middle ages. All are endorsed by Kant, the Arch-Anti-Consequentialist. One could, I suppose, make a consequentialist case for them, but they are not in any way based on that doctrine, nor even connected to it.
These exceptions to the rule against killing are all case of JUSTICE. The term "just war" even has the word "just" in it, which ought to have been a clue. Self-defense is usually called "justifiable homicide." And quite obviously, the execution of a criminal for a capital crimes is done under the aegis of justice. None of them have to do with consequences at all, and it would be wrong if they did.
The prohibition against suicide is likewise a matter of justice. There is no case in which it can be just for me to take my own life. I do not have the authority. My life is not mine: it was not given to me by myself, and is not mine to throw away.
I might be tempted to end my life, if I am suffering a great deal of pain, but then, I might be tempted to steal from you, for a great deal of money, or tempted to kill my enemy, to seize a great deal of power.
You, like most moderns, seem to think that suffering justifies the unjust. If you are a consistent consequentialist, you would also hold that nonconsensual euthanasia is also morally obligatory, since it relieves suffering: the fact the that victim does not want to die should not be a factor in the calculation, since suffering is, after all, what matters. I suppose you applaud those "angel of death" nurses that sometimes go about in hospitals putting "suffering" patients "out of their misery", thinking they are not murderers but humanitarians.
Suffering is far from the evil you make it out to be, let alone comparable with the evil of self-murder. Suffering is a natural evil, which often brings great spiritual benefit. Consider the words of Elder Paisios: With the people I went through so much pain! I didn’t pass over their problems lightly. I was painted by them, I sighed over them, but with every sigh I turned the matter over to God and in the pain I felt for the other person God provided consolation. That is to say, divine consolation came with the spiritual approach, because the pain which carries with it hope in God also has divine consolation. Otherwise how is one to endure! How could I possibly get through all the things that I hear? Yes, I feel the pain, but I also think of the divine reward in those who are suffering. We are in God’s hands. Since there is divine justice, divine reward, nothing is lost. The more one is tormented, the more he will rewarded. Although God sees so much suffering upon the earth, even things which we cannot imagine, He never falters. “You have suffered more?” He asks, “I will provide you with more in the other life”, and He rejoices. Otherwise, how could He endure so much injustice, so much evil that exists? But He keeps in mind the reward of those who suffer and, in a manner of speaking, endures that great pain. We don’t see the glory to be received by the other person and so we feel compassion for him, and for this God rewards us with divine consolation…
Father Barron, I am really enjoying the videos you produce. I have certainly learnt a lot about christian apologetics. I would love to hear your comments on Adam and Eve within the context of human evolution. I am an inquisitive young man trying to learn about theistic knowledge.
We went through a period where many people lived as practical atheists inside the church. Many lived like God did not exists, and had no idea what they really believed about God, the Bible, and who Jesus was and is. Many created a god in their image, instead of we created in His. The sheep will be separated from the goats at some point, so why not begin now.
*****
Someone should be hot or cold, when it comes to their faith in God. Jesus warned that He would spew the lukewarm, so we must decide. The inquisition had more to do with the Catholic abusing governing control, rather than God doing, so I am not a fan.
*****
Jesus was not afraid to call out those who prayed in public for all to see, so He would challenge their beliefs. People are always making excuses for why they abandon the Christian faith, but apostasy is nothing new. God will give them over to their sin, and they develop a reprobate mind. We are all sinners, but we must repent and Trust in Jesus Christ.
*****
How many lies have you told in your life?
Have stolen anything, including downloads?
Have you taken God's name in vain?
Are you judgmental and call people disgusting?
What would you call me, if I did these things?
A liar, thief, blasphemer, and what else.
If God exist, then what do you deserve?
*****
I actually want the best for you, while you wish me harm. We both have to die, so what do you think happens. We know our body turns to dust, but the electrical stimuli that creates you is unique. God forbid that you die soon, but you will find out what is real.
Did you know that we are like pixels on a TV, molecules in motion, according to quantum physics. Energy cannot be destroyed according science, so what happens to you when you die. It seems as though you are tormented in this life, but Jesus can help you in this life and the next. This might be the loving thing someone has told you, yet you wish me bad. You are an enemy of God, but you could repent, which means to change your mind.
*****
You really do seemed to be disturbed. Wishing harm on others just for what they think demonstrates a reprobate mind. Jesus spread a message of love, but yes He did warn of a place of torment.
You seem to be intolerant, when you called me that for no reason. Religious bigotry has become fashionable, especially toward Christians. 3000 Christians are killed every month in Iraq alone, and so many more are being killed else where, but where is the out cry. If you are one who gloats in this, then you are just like a Nazi. The reason that you can spew your hatred is because Christians fought for your freedom. There is another religion coming, but don't loose your head over it.
i am who i am who made me which is what this life has shaped to be to the games i play the women i find value in to to the shows and to the mythos that i love to. i am the a dm and writer that seeks to bring back 60s to 90s romantic and nerd culture
Hmm. I have mixed thoughts on this. I am a Christian, and I actually do agree with Bishop Barron that assisted suicide is wrong. And I think Bishop Barron's views can be summed up by Dostoevsky's famous maxim if God is not all things are permitted. However i don't agree with the correlation of Atheism and assisted suicide. I know religious people who are o.k with assisted suicide ethically and none religious people who oppose it.
So I don't think singling out Atheism here helps........although Bishop Barron really lays out when the human project in relation to God.
+JANHOI MCCALLUM
Why would assisted suicide be wrong? To say people don't have the right to end their own life at a time of their own choosing is just saying that Life is _mandatory._ There is no Right to Life at that point, there is Life is Required and there is no Right to Death.
A Escoto
If you choose to end your life and you get caught attempting it or failing it, you _will_ get arrested.
There is zero logical reason not to legalize it.
Diviance the logic is to promote life rather than premature death.....only a fool could not see it.
A Escoto
Life is one of the most common things on this planet. It doesn't need promoting, it is self-sustaining.
Forcing people to do something against their will is simply wrong. Only a fool could not see that.
Diviance Your philosophy, taken to its "logical" extreme ends in madness
Bishop Barron, are you aware of what is happening in Canada at this very minute? as of June euthanasia and assisted suicide will be considered a charter right... :( they are already talking of including "mature minors" and "mentally ill" persons as those who should have access to this "right". please, please pray for Canada... pray for our supposedly Catholic politicians who do not see the evil of these laws...
this video did not bring me comfort on this issue... I guess in the face of true evil, the reality of heaven is the only comfort.
*as of June euthanasia and assisted suicide will be considered a charter right*
Would you care to explain to me why competent people, who wish to end their lives, is inherently wrong?
Bishop Barron, please make a video on the book Outwitting the Devil by Napoleon Hill, as well as an overall video on self help books.
Not true bishop. I'm catholic but I agree with the right to die movement.
Why my friend?
Good job Father Nietzsche
How would one go about discerning God’s will for oneself?
No we just want proof
This was an amazing video , I would love to go to a Bishop Barron sermon.
Atheism is danger!!!
Learn to spell!
***** Bye
Really? The last time I checked, no atheist has ever done anything wrong for the purpose of religion. What did Christians do? *Cough* KKK, *Cough* Westbro Baptist Church.
+Thundertube7
i wouldn't say that
if you recall the 1930s stalin and the millions killed
north korea and all the starving/tormented people there
mexico of the 1920s - an anti-christian government sought to exterminate all christianity from the country
but these are people with agendas
much like the people of the KKK had agenda's to "justify" their ideologies/persecutions by means of religion
it would be foolish to assume atheism and/or religion themselves cause people to commit massive killings or other egregious acts
Fear it.
100, 000 years from now, the planet & universe won't even remember humans ever existed.
Robert Barron God
I return to this video quite often. Encouraging
I think it's unfair to state that atheists are indifferent to the value of human life. You talk about atheists the way a 19th century Briton would talk about their colonial subjects.
+BipedalP314
Indeed. It is obvious that there are religious people from any religion you can name that feel indifferent about human life. If atheists were truly so indifferent to life, there would be more atheist serial killers, mass murderers and despots. But those are largely dominated by the religious.
+BipedalP314 I think he's saying that atheism often logically leads to a devaluing of human life, and I think he's absolutely right. Most atheists today have the benefit of living in societies that were shaped by religious ideas.
The_Despair_
Atheism does not logically lead to the devaluing of human life, that makes no sense. Atheism does not automatically lead to Nihilism.
Also, many Atheists live in a country like the U.S... which was shaped by secular concepts, rather than religious ones.
+Diviance Atheism does not lead to the devaluing of human life??????? please.....Alcohol does not logically lead directly to automobile accidental deaths when the driver has had too many drinks, it is the car the kills people. Sorry atheism has the same effect of the alcohol, not all drunk drivers will kill others when they drive home, but sooner or later other drunk drivers will.
A Escoto
No, it does not lead to that. There are countless atheists who lived their entire life as atheists and still valued human life.
Your entire argument is biased nonsense. It has no foundation in logic or reality.
You sound like the people saying that black people are all criminals.
Average atheist is easily a better person than 10 religious ones combined. Most my relatives are more or less believers and I'm drifting further and further from them. Not because they believe, but more because they seem to lack passion for life. And the sad thing is that especially American christians seem to obsessively label people as atheist. We are just people. Most of us are very fascinating, down to earth and just honest AND HAPPY!!!
Most atheists where I live don't even think about religion or the lack of it, they just live their lives.
AND by the way I would love to make as much money as this ass of a man here, so I could give half to the ones in need and still have all I need for my family.
+Mari Martinez One can say the very same opposite statement. You are just stating an emotional opinion, plus offensive remarks which really do NOT support that you are a "better person" than others (which you so hastily judge too, by the way).
Anyway Fr. Barron is not claiming atheists are sub-humans or evil. He is criticizing atheism, not atheists, an ideology, not individuals (unlike you, I would add).
--
"Most atheists where I live don't even think about religion or the lack of it"
and yet every video with even an hint of religion is often plagued by swarms of atheist trolls... I guess they must spring up magically from the ground :D
Who did I offend, you?
I never said I am a better person. I meant to defend atheists that they can easily be as good or even much better people than believers. I see it all the time.
Hell yeah I'm criticizing this moron. How can any reasonable person not do that?
I said "where I live" not meaning planet earth but a much smaller area.
And atheists don't troll. We are trying to make a positive change in this narrow minded society.
I was not offended, but saying "as this ass of a man here" is hardly a rational argument ;)
"atheists that they can easily be as good or even much better people than believers. I see it all the time."
As said anyone can make these subjective statements ;)
--
"Hell yeah I'm criticizing this moron. How can any reasonable person not do that?"
Again offensive remarks without any rational arguments to back them up.
Very rational... and... moral of you.
Must be nice to shoot yourself in the foot.
-
"And atheists don't troll. We are trying to make a positive change in this narrow minded society."
I guess you never read the comment section or you are just incredibly blind...
Hey... The most vocal atheists like Dawkins are nothing more than ignorant trolls!
Unless they are encouraging genocide of the Iranian people, like Sam Harris did not so long ago.... or to ostracize and put believers in 'camps' (not happy camps, the other kind) like Boghossian did in his latest book.
Really a... positive force... yeah...
You can pick whatever you want from whatever I or Dawkins or Harris said. If you can twist it in a way that makes you feel better then go ahead.
Maybe I'm not making an argument here. Maybe I'm just pissed off and had to let it out. Maybe I'll get back to it later..
Ok :)
everything that happens pleases God otherwise this wouldn't be happening
go jason thayer
+Bill Cummings That would make sense if we didn't have free will. That we, and all creation, were just atomotons doing what God wants. Are you saying that we don't have free will? That we're just the equivalent to toys in the playground, manipulated by an external force?
+infernocanuck -no - I'm saying what I do is not dependent on some 3000 year old book-nor a God that no one can prove or disprove-BUT -I can prove I exist - the things around me exist - why add another level ?
Brilliant.
I was a Catholic up until I was about 18, to which then I became a deist and then atheist shortly after. I think you'll find most atheists were brought up in a very religious background. But I didn't become an atheist because of science, evolution, or "What an evil individual God is to allow suffering." I became an atheist because I realized I had no proof or reason to believe in God, so I stopped believing.
And I'm not interested in believing in things strictly because they help humanity. My only requirement for believing is that they are true (and obviously proof for it being true.) Let me ask you a question. If you could believe in X, and it was completely false but it made society near perfect and amazing, but you could also believe in Z, which was completely true but destroyed society, which would you choose? The inconvenient truth, or a convenient lie? Now I mean perhaps you're correct that the truth is God, but my point is I'm only interested in the truth. I don't care how it effects people, I don't care how it effects me. I just want the truth, no matter how bad or good. So this whole "atheism is a threat to humanity" is irrelevant IF it is the truth.
+Teaky Picking Z would destroy society? What does that even mean? If you mean something like the nuclear option, the vast majority would disagree with you. You raise good points, but would you prefer the death/suffering of everyone to a lie?
Your second paragraph is well addressed by Chesterton's Introduction to Job if you care to give it a read.
+Teaky I'm sorry to hear that. I became Catholic because I couldn't deny it. To much evidence.
+Teaky It's great that you have such an overwhelming desire for the truth, regardless of how "useful" it is. I know this because I myself value it just as much. And yet, I am on the other side of the fence as regards God. Yet how can this be? Because I am thoroughly convinced - on intellectual grounds- that God exists, and there is ample reason and evidence to support this. To your question, the true and the good cannot conflict with one another, because ultimately they are the same thing. Hence a true revelation cannot possibly destroy society, but that takes some proving. Atheism is not and cannot be the truth. Do you want me to show you why? I'd be very happy to. Thanks for being a sincere atheist of good will- it's such a rarity these days.
+Teaky I've gone down the path of truth seeking. And I was an atheist at a time in my life.
But if you are really seeking truth, what truth is there in atheism? What proof is there that there is no God? Surely, you cannot be intellectually honest with yourself to declare that, truthfully, there is no God in the universe. Why? Because you have not been everywhere in the universe. You have not been everywhere on Earth even, or all of the USA, or all of your state... or even all of your hometown! Logically and reasonably, you must secede that you cannot be honestly and truthfully atheist, but only agnostic.
Then once you admit your agnosticism, once you admit that you "don't know" the truth... then where must you go? Well, if you care about knowing the truth, which I believe you do... then go searching for it. Seek and you shall find. The greatest treasure does not show up into your lap, you must go searching for it.
All who seek the truth shall find it, as long as you seek with all of your heart.
+ClassicalPhilosophyFTW Please show me.
So you think it's wrong when people don't have the same opinion as you and they have must have serious problems
+MrDoverfield If it were merely an opinion.
Tell me: do you have a logical counterargument as to why atheists should value human life?
+ChesterKhan So atheists don't value human life because they don't believe in God? Save that stupidity for someone else.
MrDoverfield No, save YOUR stupidity. Of course you value human life. You'd be rather hard-pressed, however, to give any good reason to do so.
+ChesterKhan Because our life is all we have? Because life is pleasurable? Because death is painful and the VAST majority of humans and other organisms fear it? How many reasons do you need?
+ChesterKhan WTF? You're not making any sense. "Save my stupidity" all I did was debunk your stupid comments about how believing in God will make you "moral".
that was fantastic. good points were made here. nice work Fr Barron.
Thank you.
I think humans deserve the same compassion as dogs, even though our holy men who are in direct communication with our current god say we don't.
Father bishop Barron, please do a show about current sense of depression within conservative catholics media outlets. Bog bless! Ave Maria
Here is my quandary, is why would the Lord condemn one for assisted suicide if one is terminal, no longer communicative or vegetative causing a drain the finances of the family and hard on their emotions, would not be ending it be an act of love.
An act of love for whom? The family or the terminally I'll person!
Being a drain on resources shouldn't be a reason for killing someone. As that implies they are feeling pressure from outside factors other than their own condition.
Nor should hardship on family. Them finding your dying hard again is an outside factor. Other people's hardship should never be a reason for rejecting a natural death. Everyone is entitled to a natural death.
In addition if a terminally ill person is vegetative, then there isn't a problem of suffering, except for their family, and people who are non communicative do develop coping mechanisms fo cope with that. The family could be suffering more with the idea that their loved one can't communicate than the loved one.
God
E=mc2
The right to die will eventually become the "duty" to die.
+chevaliervaillant Correct.
If God didn't want us to create he shouldn't have made us in his image.
Assisted suicide is a good thing. There isn't worshipping of materialism or indifference to human life going on. Rather, it is valuing well being and dignity.
Also saying our lives belong to God yet God gave life to us as a gift is a contradiction. If you gift someone something you don't own it anymore.
Ultimately if God isn't happy with assisted suicide or the state of non belief in the US he can and perhaps should show and explain himself.
+nitelite78 "Well being" is so relative. Does it mean a depressive person should be killed because they don"t feel good? Or an handicapped person. Once men allow themselves to decide who should live or die it never ends well.
God will make his anger known through secondary causes, or I should say consequences...
L2084 This isn't one man deciding who else should be killed. This is about the self and the protection in law of someone who assists. The current system makes assistance illegal which is men deciding that humans have to endure suffering. That has it's own moral implications and I think it is a worse scenario. Christians also have little argument when they believe in an all loving God and an afterlife.
What secondary causes? Making yourself known through a 'secondary cause' that is indistinguishable from a natural event is not making yourself known.
1140Cecile I have made quite a few comments on this channel before. So far I have been allowed to voice my thoughts freely.
Agreed
+nitelite78 If a society that encourages suicide then who needs a enemy.
Amazing and so many truths. I'm not a catholic but an orthodox Christian and I totally agree with this Bishop..
This video exemplifies the central flaw of so many of Bishop Barron's videos: he places side by side an attractive, profound Christian vision of the world and an absurd caricature of whatever non-Christian view of the world he wishes to attack. He is in effect shoehorning Christianity into a a polemic against atheism and liberalism as understood by extreme cultural conservatives. It can't be stated often enough: one does not have to be a fanatic as Bp Barron seems to be in order to remain Christian and still respect and engage in fruitful dialogue with those who have a different worldview. If you don't believe me, go read what Vatican II says about atheism, and notice how there is scarcely a word in this video that seems to be informed by what the Church actually taught about atheism at that council.
+Frank McManus The reference to Vatican II in this comment was sloppy and careless. Bishop Barron's words do not actually contradict Vatican II. What I was trying to say, but said so poorly, was that Vatican II saw atheism as complex and multifaceted, and did not try to demonize it; its subtle, thoughtful approach to atheism implicitly encouraged dialogue and an attitude that recognized the faults of Christians as well as those of atheists. Bishop Barron, on the other hand, has issued a mere polemic that caricatures atheism while asserting a causal link to various social evils -- with many more implied. His purpose seems to be to stir up anger at atheists rather than to bring understanding. To be specific: on the matter of assisted suicide, it does not occur to Bishop Barron to consider the possibility that the growth of assisted suicide might be partially caused by the failure of Christians to live lives of compassion towards the sick and dying. Such a line of thought should always be in the consciousness of any Catholic aware of Gaudium et Spes 19, which says (along with much else): "believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism." Words like these ought to prevent bishops from making arguments like the one is this video.
+Frank McManus I think the fundamental difference that you are failing to make and one which the Bishop clearly makes is that he does not attack the atheist, he attacks ATHEISM. This is completely in line with the teaching of the Church and of Christ himself, "Do not judge the sinner but judge the sin".
+Ernie Sanz You are mistaken. I made the distinction (and "distinction" is the word you want here, not "difference") between atheism and atheists quite clearly; I never said Bp Barron attacked atheists; and neither the Church nor Christ teaches "Do not judge the sinner but judge the sin."
+Frank McManus Thank you for the clarification, distinction is definitely the more appropriate word. However you are wrong, Romans 2:1 clearly lends support to my view for not judging the sinner, and hundreds of passages say to avoid sin, (therefore judging the sin to be bad).
+Ernie Sanz Are you really suggesting the Bible contains no instances of human beings judging other human beings, with the judging presented as praiseworthy? But this issue is a tangent from the issues raised in this video, so there's no reason to keep discussing it.
@1:45-1:52 then why blame us for not believing?
How is he blaming you?
+John Doman He's said a few times before that god doesn't send us to hell, we send ourselves to hell by the choices we make (including non-belief). But here he's suggesting that we're just products of our environment. If that's the case, then our non-belief should not send us to hell.
+filthyswit both things you said are true. Environmental/cultural upbringings and the choices we make.
Both make up who you are. I grew up in a secular/atheist culture and it turned me into a catholic.
+filthyswit
Hell, even Jesus specifically states in the Bible that he speaks in parables and is confusing on purpose because he doesn't want people to believe in him and go to Heaven.
+Diviance He is speaking in parables because despite the words being used and translated, the "meaning" remains the same.
Terry was right about this guy...