>>3338995

Exactly, growing up in a catholic school was ironic because most kids were atheists or negligent completely. They didn't know any better, the school system failed them. They intellectually arrived at a placed that couldn't house such beliefs, but they were never even given authentic beliefs to begin with. It was a babysitting mill for traditions and behavior, that's it. Anything remotely sophisticated about spirituality, (theology, meta or scientific philosophy) was virtually nonexistent.

>god is just another word for the most abstract, unpersonified definition of existance possible
>hey go to church every sunday and don't fap! God wants you to.

Who are theists actually fooling with their inconsistent semantics...

>base level introduction
ok good job, now move on to this, which is still the beginning

youtube.com/watch?v=UG77k-xLpz8

How deep have I to go down the rabbit hole of wishy washy semantics and a rethoric of ambiguity until we can agree that it makes not a lot of sense to retroactively attach the word god to certain conceptions and/ or phenomenas...

>wishy washy semantics
>literal history and theology and science perfectly congruent and orchestrated
You don't seem clever enough to deduce that everything is too eerily interconnected and coordinated, for starters how do you explain that texts thousands of years apart perfectly prophesied historically the coming and death of a messianic jew?

I don't know which texts, that are thousands of years apart, you are talking about in particular. But that could easily be classified as a self-fulfilling prophecy. With such a strong mythology it was only a matter of time for one or more Jews to step up and say ' By the way I am that guy' and then go down in history with a kult following.

old and new testament you dingus, and they are carbon dated as thousands of years apart, detailed to the tee in prophecy

sorry* hundreds of years apart

sorry*thousands

>no temple
>no world peace
Sounds like he didn't fulfill the prophecies after all.

>stupid Atheists try to strawman Christianity as Yeti believers
>God is not a single thing or person he is super meta all existence and stuff
>stupid Atheists just don't understand

youtube.com/watch?v=m_4PSgFjtvI#t=0h6m53s
>'One of the deepest truths about god is that god is a person. He is a person.'

AHhahahahahahah hahahahahahahaAHAHAHAaaha *takes breath*
HAHaaahahaaahahahahaAHAHAAahahahahahahaahhhaa

>God is not a being.

Into the trash it goes!

At first I was like: 'Atheists mislabel Christianity's concept as a supreme instance of a category being(...) Well that is exactly who god is not.'

Bishop Barron in another video: youtube.com/watch?v=m_4PSgFjtvI#t=0h6m53s 'One of the deepest truths about god is that god is a person. He is a person.He is the supreme person'

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAhahahahahhahahahahahaaaaahhhhaha *takes deep breath* hahaaaahahahahahahahahaahAHAHAHAHAHAaaaaa

6:53

On the contrary, what I was taught in Catholic school was Thomism for dummies. So much so I never considered he could be wrong until I started studying Non-Christian philosophers in college

thats how i know you don't understand, there is no verifiable wrong theory on there being a God or not scientifically speaking, it all hinges on plausibility and better argumentation, filling a gap does not imply a lack of logic

God came eventually in human from, the word became flesh, God is existence, God is love, how are you so retarded that you can't grasp this simple concept if you already concede there is a God

This video doesn't address the fact that God is very clearly a real personified thing in the Bible that interacts with the real world and people, even going so far as to bring plagues upon Egypt to prove his existence and spread fear of his name. Nu atheists are cancer but retards like this who ignore their own religion and instead choose to just spout brainlet tier philosophy just give them fuel.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ha5flTRTZWY

OK just reason this out you fucking retard. If God is love and is not in competition in creation, meaning he has ABSOLUTELY no need to terminate life forms since he cannot be threatened. Perhaps there is a clear historical or cultural context we are outside of.

That doesn't address my point, in fact his notion that "God isn't "being" like us so that's why there's no evidence of him XD" directly contradicts the entire idea of the Bible as a product of interaction between God and man.

>perfectly prophesied historically the coming and death of a messianic jew?
They didn't, reading Jewish interpretations of the Bible make it very clear that Jesus was not the Messiah.

>We're perfect because we don't have any actual solid beliefs and just change them whenever it's convienent :) Oh, and make sure to unquestionably follow our teachings and make your children do so too : )

Because Jesus was a racist???

I don't think any religion can really survive in the 1st world if they don't take a somewhat flexible approach to these kinds of things.

Yeah, but they shouldn't take the fact they were wrong as some kind of point of pride.

he means that he can't be metrically observed tangibly you schmuck, why are you so dense, but he did in fact was live on the earth in human form, which was Jesus Christ

THE BIBLE IS WRITTEN BY JEWS YOU SCHMUCK, THERES A REASON THEY"RE STILL WAITING FOR KING LEONIDIS, THOSE DUMMIES MISSED THE TRAIN

ok bud, keep stoning your harlot children to death, btw don't listen to the nazerean he changed the rules again

which sewer (sect) are you protty?

He didn't mention measurements, if he can interact with people then he is some kind of being that would leave evidence. And anyone, the fact that you can come up with something that doesn't leave any evidence or trace doesn't prove it exists, and his assumption that there must be a God because things exist is retarded.

I wasn't saying you should go back to the old ways you fucking dumbasses, and that was patently obvious in my post.

>thats how i know you don't understand, there is no verifiable wrong theory on there being a God or not scientifically speaking

I dont recall saying that their was, only that in my youth I considered Thomism's arguments iron tight. Its not like by theology teachers went out of their way to challenge him, even from the perspective of other Christian philosophers

Anderson or Barron?

Who is /ourguy/?

So he redefines god as the biblical definition is now entirely unsupportable?

This sounds like the usual continual moving of the goal posts required to keep this tired argument going.

Thomism defends the God of Aristotle and then attributes its attributes to the Christian God.

Anderson is more /pol/ and Barron is more Veeky Forums. Both are based.

So he defends a defunct god and attempts to use that to defend his own?

I'm sure in his day it was an interesting idea but we are well past his day.

...

He considered people like Aristotle and Plato as "prophets to the gentiles" preparing them for the eventual revelations of Christianity.

This was a common idea at the time

Theist arguments

No. That sounds like someone attempting to explain away the Gods that came before theirs by tying them into their own.

For someone who thinks theological arguments are "tiring" you seem to be rather preoccupied with them.

Not really, it was just a way of justifying the obvious influence of Plato and Aristotle on Christian theology

Ok. What was your point?

Theology is build on the past like every other arena of human knowledge?

How was Aquinas a hack?

Pretty much.

Don't mistake me for someone who believes this stuff, I'm just trying to put it into proper context.

retard, how many times do you have to hear the causality argument, contingency etc. God is of the spiritual realm, i can prove to you RIGHT NOW he exists by telling you to say a prayer everyday this week asking God to give you a sign, but you will say no becuase you are ARROGANT

THINGS GET REVEALED OVERTIME IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHANGING THE RULES THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (MORALITY) HAS NEVER CHANGED OUR UNDERSTANDING AND PERSPECTIVE HAS JUST INCREASED THE LEVEL OF GRACE BESTOWED ON HUMANITY HAS INCREASED YOUR ARROGANCE HAS INCREASED

>they didn't rigorously scrutinize new theology or weigh outside opinions
R U HIGH? maybe your professors were incompetent but rest assured that the whole catholic tradition has been through hell and back in terms of refinement and challenges, the core argument your talking about cannot be solved with earthly understanding, say a prayer for a week asking God to give you a sign to help you convert, be humble

>ugghh fuuuu
what do you want my man? who hurt you? ill kill em

Aside from God being named 'I Am' in the OT maybe God is like an energy like light or love.
It also seems that the video suggests that man's existence can be explained through science.
The dualist notions of nothing and something make some sense and maybe it's precisely nothing that allows something to be.

>RIGHT NOW
>It will take a couple of days though :)
Alright, what is required for it to be a genuine prayer? Because if it requires me to genuinely believe I am talking to God, then it's LITERALLY impossible, I can't force myself to believe something. Also, how am I more arrogant than either of you? Unlike you, I don't assert to know whether God exists, Im just explaining why his argument is poor.

Core argument? you seem to be missing my point. My teachers were not imcompetent. They wanted to convince my Catholism is right and they did that. From that perspective it would have made no sense for them to present critics from a non catholic perspective, and something like debating the various completely schools of Catholic thought would have been beyond the scope of the class.

You seem to be assuming I am challenging it from say a logical positivism perspective. It does not

Thomism is not Catholicism itself. His arguments are not mysteries but stem from Aristotelian arguments which are in turn based on philosophical empiricism

Rejecting Catholicism would not be the same as rejecting God either.

> maybe your professors were incompetent but rest assured that the whole catholic tradition has been through hell and back in terms of refinement and challenge

That is one way of looking at it, at the very least the Catholic church has always been more interested in new ideas than its sisters in the east, though they would argue that's a bad thing and it has at the very least caused Catholic doctrine to diverge quite a bit at least in form.

>talking about cannot be solved with earthly understanding,

I'm talking about teaching philosophy, I assure you it can be.

If you mean the struggle with faith, of course Catholic doctrine teaches that. Though its kind of weird then that Catholics are so interested in both signs and logical constructs that show the faith is not contrary to earthly reasoning. To me both these things speak of a desire not for faith, but for gnosis.

>be humble

Look in a mirror. The first step of humility would be not to second guess what someone else went through in their struggle with faith, the second step would be not to assume you have all the answers.

Jesus never changed any rulers, Peter made that up so Greeks would want to join his new religion.

Paul*

>I'm too dumb to understand it so I'll call any philosophical phraseology "semantics" and dispel anything that is too elaborate for my reddit-induced comfort zone

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy

see here
Modern theology and its intellectualized attempt to dodge the logical gaps of their ideology by mudying the waters is just incredibly inconsistent and unauthentic. God is the devine, the meta concept of all encompassing existence if you see fit and have to argue proofs for him. Just broadening the definition to the extreme.

He is a person, the supreme person, if you have to explain why a unpersonified existence would give a fuck about how we live our lifes or if we go to church or not.

*why use the word god for it if it offers no additional meaning and historically has other implications? I don't know lel.

just be truthful like you are now, tell him its impossible for you to believe unless you convince him, if you are indeed speaking to someone, he'll answer...be on the look out bud God Bless.

catholic doctrine NEVER changes, it's permanent and immortal, the full deposit of truth, however an increase in developments can further our understanding of what we already have enhancing our tradition and teaching, you are right about my humility thanks, perhaps i did not identify your premise initially, did you not say Thomism held up for you until you were introduced to other outside branches of thought?

That's the WHOLE point, he came to REVEAL to them the fullness of the gospel, and they perceived it as him destroying or blaspheming against tradition, THEY WERE DENSE HEADS, and they killed God in the process. there's a reason there's thosands of of protestant sects, no authority, no system, no order, no council, completely derailed, theres a reason we have government to mediate the masses

but be genuine in your want to know him, and humble, please, i love you

>catholic doctrine NEVER changes, it's permanent and immortal, the full deposit of truth, however an increase in developments can further our understanding of what we already have enhancing our tradition and teaching,

This is of course the Catholic stance, but you must understand that the any outsider that would be indistinguishable from "development."

>did you not say Thomism held up for you until you were introduced to other outside branches of thought?

Yes but these outside branches were other philosophers.And I to be clear I cant say for sure he was wrong, just that there are other logical possibles. When I was a teenager I didnt see that.

To be honest I was unsuitable for Catholicism. I believed because I thought it was the only logical thing you could believe. Of course I eventually realized the contradiction and tried to "correct" it but that is another story I will not share here.

so thats what i said, you can't prove or disprove what you are looking for and that catholic theology always accounts for foreign thinking and evaluates it for truth, i dont get whats your point, what is your personal belief

I remember watching and discussing the whole series on Catholicism by him with another group at an informal theology class, it was somewhat interesting, but I feel like it's geared for an entry level understanding of the topic. That was great for the class I went to since the target audience was churchgoers who were interested in some of the details of the faith, but it's certainly not a completely academic approach.

Shit, speaking as a catechesis teacher in a small town in the US, we're just lucky to have anyone volunteer to teach at all. On top of that, it's pretty damn difficult trying to teach any esoteric aspects of the church to even the oldest attending members since high schoolers usually don't have the philosophical development gained through life experience at the time.

Having this sort of thing as a continuing, college level education for willing students afterwards worked pretty well though, especially because it was also attended by more elder members who had insights past what the youngest did on their own. The community was able to contribute a large amount of backgrounds and viewpoints together that added more than just an individual analysis.

/thread

Thats Barron's genius, he distills perfectly the essential truths to engage cultural conversation. He is lightyears ahead in capacity and work volume but his goal is to amass interest in the small amount of time he has, if he'd had a course or something he could expound further or deeper

>catechist on Veeky Forums
I've seen it all lmao

question, why do so many charlatans speak of theology or philosophy with the intention of using words as artifice, they speak with the intention of not being understood, its like they want to confuse you instead of being directly clear, they either use too many big words or too many words instead of distilling, thats how i know Bishop Barron is so bright he can explain the most abstract concepts with simplicity and adequacy, i know this does not pertain to just you but i just thought of it now lol

>d, you can't prove or disprove what you are looking for and that catholic theology always accounts for foreign thinking and evaluates it for truth,

But that was never my point. Someone claimed they dont teach Thomism anymore, at least in my school they taught it so well I never thought to criticize it.

Most philosophies cannot really be proven or disproven, we can however debate their relative merits. For instance other philosophers have argued against scholasticism and even any metaphysics not grounded in the observable, Orthodox have argued that Aquinas conception of God is incompatible with the church father's
None of that was covered, though understandably so as their goal was not to get me to question it but accept it as truth.

What do you guys think of his latest video?

except the "fullness of the gospel" indeed ended up changing the rules

ok i guess its pointless to bicker amongst each other

what rules have been changed ya shmuck

Pigs stopped being treif

>Watch the link FIRST, then comment, God Bless.

"God is the supreme instance of the category of being, well that's exactly what God is not." - Catholic Dude

"He is not a God of the dead, but of the living. You have made a serious error." - Jesus

"God is spirit and his followers must worship in spirit and truth." - Jesus

youtube.com/watch?v=9QageVk0vAQ

Barron:
The virgin priest

Anderson:
The chad pastor

wtf
what basement dwelling autist?

The Church could start by actually focusing on the basics with some sincerity, passion, and honesty. Maybe being up-front with kids about how some of these things can be difficult to believe, or understand. Maybe grown adults shouldn't be so afraid of simple questions from a 7 year old. If you don't know something, you can always bring everything back to the Resurrection, and talk about how people still struggle to come to grips with the full meaning of it all. Maybe REALLY focus on the Resurrection as an event. Maybe REALLY focus on the concept of the fall, and connect it to our constant desire to deviate from the good (kids WILL understand that). Show the complete story as an epic arc. But no, we have to pansyfy everything, and rubberize the edges because too many flaming swords, and archangels may actually get the young boys in the class excited, and we can't have that now, can we? CCD for me was free after-school care once a week, nothing more.

This isn't directed at you personally, btw. I'm sure you're doing your best. At least in another generation, only the traditionalist will be left in the Church at all.

>Christians claim god is a bearded old man and or some hippie who got crucified

>Atheists call out bullshit

>Christians claim B-BUT God isn't perceivable or quantifiable

So why are you making claim about God, God's existence or God's quality or God's wishes or God's designs?

Fucking retarded.

Christians have literally never claimed God is a bearded old man. From St. Augustine:

"No man has seen God at any time:" He is a thing invisible; not with the eye but with the heart must He be sought. But just as if we wished to see the sun, we should purge the eye of the body; wishing to see God, let us purge the eye by which God can be seen. Where is this eye? Hear the Gospel: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." But let no man imagine God to himself according to the lust of his eyes. For so he makes unto himself either a huge form, or a certain incalculable magnitude which, like the light which he sees with the bodily eyes, he makes extend through all directions; field after field of space he gives it all the bigness he can; or, he represents to himself like as it were an old man of venerable form. None of these things do you imagine. There is something you may imagine, if you would see God; "God is love." What sort of face has love? What form has it? What stature? What feet? What hands has it? No man can say. And yet it has feet, for these carry men to church: it has hands; for these reach forth to the poor: it has eyes; for thereby we consider the needy: "Blessed is the man," it is said, "who considers the needy and the poor." It has ears, of which the Lord says, "He that has ears to hear let him hear."...

>Christians claim B-BUT God isn't perceivable or quantifiable

Physically

>So why are you making claim about God, God's existence or God's quality or God's wishes or God's designs?

Actually try reading an intro into Aquinas' philosophy

>Augustine is all of Christian
>Augustine is majority of Christian
>Augustine is modern Christian

>Aquinas is all of Christian
>Aquinas is majority of Christian
>Aquinas is modern Christian

If you want to find any source of a church father, council, synod, theologian, etc. saying that God is a bearded old man you are welcome to share it.

your life must be absolute shit

>Christians claim god is a bearded old man and or some hippie who got crucified
Lmao atheists actually believe this.

life is good niggas

Fuck off, no it's not

As a former Christian turned atheist, the educated leaders of Christianity dont claim that. you can hardly judge a believe based on its plebeian version

hes wrong

>i have to litsen to liturgical drivel passed down for two thousands years that resulted in their church being conquered, sacked, humiliated and turned into a talking point for latin immigration
id rather call them out

y? your comin with me to heaven

>conquered, sacked, humiliated

The Jews said the same thing about Christ