@The Cats Agree. Honestly, I'd love to see Ben Shapiro get some more Catholics on.. Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, Taylor Marshall, etc.

@The Cats Yep. It's nice to finally see some Catholics who know what they're talking about actually getting more of an online audience. The Daily Wire has over 1M subscribers, so I am very grateful for Ben Shapiro and what he is doing.

@@carsonianthegreat4672 Yea I like Michael, he's not on the same level as the ones I mentioned though. And that's ok, Michael is good at what he does.

It's a pity that some pharisaical Catholics can't appreciate that the good Bishop was proposing the faith to Mr. Shapiro.

@Maximillian K when did Ben Shapiro peddle racist ideology? throw some examples at me please

frankg4242 have you seen the discussion on the Rubin report with Rabbi Wolpe?? Worth the hour

@@ryanhunsader7038 yes, it was a great dialogue as well.

That is why it would be a nice discussion. Jordan converses with those who are atheists or those who mostly supports his own ideology. Bishop Barron is not only a man of faith but a theologian who is learned in philosophy that would force Jordan to rethink a lot of what he spouts. You don’t have to agree with Jordan to have a nice conversation between these two

Steve McQueen thank you. God bless and peace be with you

I would love to see him talk with sam harris.

​@Steve McQueen I have no idea any of the words you just used... but basically, it sounds like you just don't want to have allow a conversation by dude who was PERSECUTED for his beliefs. But you already know what that is like, so you don't need to hear another man's opinion on it. Makes alot of cents bro. Bro has some compassion and empathy for people's struggle. Be more open-minded. You have 4 subs and 0 videos. If you have a story to tell people will listen. Allow people to talk. Allow yourself to talk. You have an amazing story. I believe in it. The way you come across just sounds so ridiculous that I felt the need to leave a comment. Just being honest bro. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. Unfortunately this was written on Christmas day 12-25-2018. But whishing you the best in life and 2019 Continued Success, Alan Nafarrete And just in case this dude deletes his comment this is what he said: Be accountable for everything you say bro. It's insight into yourself. My response to you is insight into what I believe. If you would like to come on my stream then you know how to reach me. why? I mean it would be good exposure for the Bishop, but Peterson isn't very interesting... The only thing I find interesting, is why he keeps mentioning 3 years when asked if he's Christian? If he experienced a metanoia of sorts, I would be very interested in hearing about that. if it is a reference to a particular prophecy, I would be interested in hearing about that as well... specifically his calculations because most put its end at ~2017 but for now I just assume he is a typical poorly read Jungian theosophist, with various conflicting influences, and it is such boring nonsense, I could go my whole life with out hearing anymore of it.. everything he detests in the so called "post modernism" are actually core principles of the enlightenment, the same enlightenment which he upholds as some Golden age of the holy spirit like Eckhart... Yawn.... in fact that whole line of philosophy' is ZzZzZ… if you want allegory, read medieval allegory, its much more complex and thought provoking.

@@AlanNafarrete I'll admit that guy was being pretentious. But do you seriously think that Peterson has been "persecuted" for his beliefs? Why? because people criticize him?

For podcasts there’s the words “Word on Fire” in the bottom right corner.

It's not obvious from an android notification.

@@piratep You can also see the length of the video.

Mark Peter Read Lumen Gentium 16 and Redemptoris Missio, para. 10.

@@BishopBarron thanks bishop. And thank god we have bishops like you.

In what way do your agnostic friends need help that better religious arguments will provide? If it's to show them that your beliefs are true, then how do you even know they're true if you don't have good arguments for them yet?

Scott E well I mean like, it’s really more of finding a way to talk to them about religion in a serious way, because I studied the arguments for God and Catholicism well.

@@ToxicPea Okay. Have they actually indicated to you that they want to talk about religion? I do think Bishop Barron gave a lot of good suggestions here for having constructive debates about religious claims, but if the people you're talking to aren't interested in the first place then the best suggestion is to just leave the subject alone with those people.

Scott E true, but the point of evangelization is to reach all ears, is it not? Then again, I suppose if said ears are shut, one can’t do much about it.

@@ToxicPea One thing I can tell you is that if they're not currently interested in hearing about it, then trying to push it on them anyway is only going to reinforce that, no matter how much you feel you have a duty to evangelize. And saying their "ears are shut" is a somewhat negative way of phrasing that lack of interest. In this day and age, more often than not it's not because they're closed-minded or hate God or any other popular Christian stereotypes of non-believers, but simply that they've heard this message many times already, and it's never been accompanied by convincing arguments or evidence. It varies from person to person, of course, but that just means that a wise course might be to first listen to them and find out what their views and past experience with religious beliefs and arguments have been, before even beginning to give your own message. And if they don't even want to share that information, then drop the subject and go on being their friend.

I had an opportunity recently to apply an argument for objective truth. One of the post-docs in our laboratory has a propensity to make truth relative in mostly moral arguments. When an ambiguous result recently came up with the post-doc in the bay next to him, I responded, "there is only one truth; you just don't know what it is." I could see him wanting to object, but probably the strongest premise of science is that there is only 1 truth and it is intelligible.

@Drogo Baggins www.catholic.com/tract/purgatory www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-purgatory-in-the-bible

God's essense is his existence, they are one, which means he is being itself.

Thomas Aquinas explained it with a phrase that translates “univocal predication between the Father and His creation is impossible”. To break that into less technical language, while we can and do use the same words to describe God and His creation, the words do not (and can not) mean precisely the same thing in these when they are applied to these two different subjects, but only by analogy. God Is, but in such a categorical different way than humanity than a rock, or a dog, or a person, or even an angel that if you say “God and Caesar are powerful”, is like saying “he held your breath and the door for his beloved”-the adjective (in the former) or verb (in the latter) makes sense in both cases, but can not be interpreted in the same way because the way we understand “powerful” when applied to a human or “held” when applied to a door mean vastly different things than “powerful” does when applied to God or “held” when applied to the breath (this figure of speech, where the same descriptor is applied to two different objects in vastly different ways is called “zeugma” by the way). God is everywhere in his creation at all times and yet outside of his creation and, as the sheer act of being itself can justly be said to be all that be, but He is not bound by the constraints that being a member of the genus “being” would imply, even with the modifier “supreme”. Thus we can only say the Father “is” with a different “voice” (“univocal” = with same voice or meaning) than we say a person “is”, and doing so causes us to incorrectly attribute traits of beings to God that are not proper to Him. This recognition is the same instinct that causes the Eastern Orthodox to shy away from any cataphatic descriptions of God (descriptions that list positive traits of God like “Wise” or “Good” or “Powerful”) at all, preferring apophatic (negative) terms like “Boundless”, or “Without Flaw”, as these do not invite the unaware to confuse the mundane meaning of “Good” or “Powerful” with human understandings of the terms, which can make God seem far more comfortably familiar and domestic than I AM is. Jesus is the exception to this-being fully human, He “is” in the more mundane sense of the word, but being fully divine He also is in the same way the Father is. Thus, we can say “Jesus and Peter are” without any change in voice, and also “Jesus and the Father are” without any change in voice. Jesus bridges even the most fundamental of gaps between heaven and Earth.

God is our father and you can pray to him as our father as Jesus taught us. That is the best way for us to think about him as a loving father. Just as Saint Augustine could not understand the Trinity we don't need to wrap our head around who God ultimately is. As the creator of all things and beyond all things he is not definable. If he was he would not be God. Just enjoy praying to him as a father who loves you beyond your wildest imagination. This is the best any of us can do and it is why the our father is such a simple and Beautiful prayer

@@petercarlson811 Christ is God. rocks are also not beings, humans are though. As a human you are comprised of a body Made in the Image of God with a Rational Soul, the two cannot be separated. That you try to sneer God away as contingent and created and material does not make it so.

@@petercarlson811 So you are asking for the supernatural qualities of non-being material objects like rocks? Rocks have no presence past the material world, so that was easy.

Well maybe not true of many who come here, but most people are not engaged really with what the faith actually is, let alone seeking its deeper meaning, unfortunately.

The Archivist this is obviously only for people who are interested. I still think it is important to know the background of the religion which is the basis of Western civilisation. One important reason is that our countries are absorbing many people from different backgrounds with different religions. They ARE still very attached to their religions and most of them have false indoctrination or just ignorance about our religious background. I feel it is very important to be able to answer them and counter their wrong ideas. I know many people who have no respect for us because we ourselves are so ignorant about the treasure we have . In the end we are snowed under by other ideologies and religions. This is enabled through democracy.

Read Why We're Catholic by Trent Horn. It lays out the Faith deliberately and definitively. Then you can use that to expand outward.

GSRider thank you, I will certainly read it.

It's not the nonbelievers who most need to learn logical reasoning and become familiar with the arguments of Aquinas. It's the believers. You wanting a 60 second attention-getting elevator speech is a by-product of many years of believers giving crappy, illogical arguments and little to no evidence for their belief claims. The result is that nonbelievers have, _rightly,_ become jaded and dismissive. Even if you were given a truly novel and attention-getting opener, the next ten minutes of conversation after that is going to reveal that you still don't have any arguments or evidence of substance for the curious to go on to learn. Fix that first, then start on the slow road of regaining skeptics' trust and interest.

I think God would smile upon your love as a family :)

Hey Buddy - Get Real !!! Rice Crispies Are The Only Way!!! Only Dorks Eat Cheerios !!!

@@dial108dnd Anathema!

@@daenithriuszanathos9306Dear Friend - Don't try and convert me ! Rice Crispies are the Way, the Truth and the Life - If your eating Cheerios every morning for breakfast, I urge you to repent now ! REPENT NOW BEFORE IT"S TOO LATE !!!

True, but Chicago >> Cleveland

Is This video available in Spanish?

And antivaxxer. I examed the evidence about vaccines carefully and the huge increase in the sheer number given over the last thirty years. It is a problem. Cohort studies show large effects. Like 35x incidence of allergic rhinitis.

Stannis Baratheon, is that you?

@@markcobuzzi826 No, I'm Reality.

Thanks, Dude…

Wow you make a good point could you explain more if you can especially based on the two scriptures you gave. I am eager to know more if you can explain.

@UCwRJgTwl8MgqKPtmrttUDlQ oh yeah I have that book I will attend to it with much more seriousness thank you

My OpenMind he was set up and made to be a scape goat he was found guilty with no evidence at all

The existence of God is the conclusion of a rational, metaphysical argument. It is not a "gap" in a conventional scientific account of nature. It is the answer to a qualitatively different question than any raised by the sciences. If you want the details, take a look at my videos on the argument from contingency.

@@BishopBarron setting aside the logical fallacies contained in cosmological arguments for god and disregarding the fact that modern science contradicts these premises and it's conclusion, this still appeals to god as the great unknown. Some catholic apologists will freely admit this and some will say this ignorance is a way of knowing. My question is how can a person who is interested in holding true beliefs acknowledge that a god actually exists in reality? And how can you deny that faith is credulous when the beliefs are not falsifiable?

the real thing Make your argument. You’re just blowing smoke here. Tell me precisely where the contingency argument fails.

@@BishopBarron For one thing, the contingency argument fails to yield YOUR god. If accepted, it only yields some vague uncaused cause that theists hasten to label "God", in the hopes that no one notices that it has not been shown by the argument to have any of the vital characteristics of the God they actually believe in. While I am not pointing out any logical failure of the argument here, you still have all your work ahead of you to get from the contingency argument to "Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior". You like the contingency argument? Congratulations, you're a deist (at most).

Scott E Well of course. With the argument from contingency we’re just getting started. By a series of logical moves, we then come to the various divine attributes. Look at the first 12 questions of Aquinas ‘s Summa for the details.