Says old fedora atheist

@@debaterofeverythingpresent2775 If it's surprisingly bearable, then it doesn't make sense to call it unbearable in the first place.

WLC ,WLC ,WLC Booo yea.

Me too!! ❤️❤️

Me too!!

As much as I delight in those who look to Christ seeking unity (as Christ prayed for Himself), the Catholic faith is not a 'denomination' 'within' Christianity. It is Christianity. It was started by Jesus, not a mere man, and is that which St. Jude called in his Epistle, "the faith once for all delivered to the saints." Not only is it's obviously so, but no other 'denomination' even points you to history to verify such. Just like no church even claims to be the church Christ founded on Peter ("Thou art Rock [Petros] and upon this rock [petra] I will build my church"), as the Catholic Church alone does.

Ave Christus Rex no...it’s Not. I don’t know how Catholics go back and claim that status. Sooo many man made traditions and doctrines and beliefs in the Catholic Church it’s sad

​@@asmallfarmhomestead3657 What do you mean by manmade? There are traditions we believe came from the apostles, who are men. There are traditions that we believe came from God, that is, Jesus. There are traditions passed on, or if not taught, at least witnessed to, in Scripture. There are also traditions gathered over time as people found maturer and maturer, God-honoring ways to worship God, such as the tradition of churches, or buildings for worship made specifically for God and worship. Don't just repeat the 'muh traditions of men' mantra. Jesus only ever taught against traditions which you give forth to the detriment of keeping God's. E.g., the commandment says, "Honor your father and mother," yet they made up a law saying that when someone helps their parents, it is gratuitous, a gift, and thus not your duty. That's completely stripping away one's ability to keep the commandment of God. No Catholic tradition contradicts any of God's commandments.

Ave Christus Rex doctrines of men rather than of God....such as the sinless Mary

@@asmallfarmhomestead3657 Well all doctrine is taught through men, but which ones come from God or not: how does the sinlessness of the new Eve contradict God in any way?

@@TheRomanCatholicChurch How?

@@TheRomanCatholicChurch Like?

Lol..Wich church?,

what you are over looking is the fact Gods Holy Spirit is in this man doing most of this.

​@@kronos01fulmere christianity. Right?

Hey Matt. 🙂 I first found William Lane Craig on KZfaq about 12 years ago when was I skeptical about the existence of God and looking for debates between Theists and Atheists about this. His Kalam Cosmological Argument in particular had a huge impact on me. After becoming persuaded by the evidence for the existence of God, I looked into research about the Resurrection of Jesus from Gary Habermas, Mike Licona and William Lane Craig. The evidence we have for the Resurrection convinced me and I am now a Christian since 2017. 😊

Faithful Catholic here saying that - without WLC I wouldn't even have been a Christian! A fountain of knowledge. His sharp debating reignited a spark in me that I forgot was lit ages ago. Supreme scholar, master apologist and always a gentleman. I don't wear a hat, but if I did, it would always be off in front of this man. Looking forward to this one!

About 7-8 years ago when I was 18. He supported my faith with his debates and got me interested in philosophy. Im now doing a philosophy masters degree.

I think it was the Christopher Hitchens’ debate - now I’ve read a lot of his stuff!

I found him through Bishop Barron’s KZfaq conversation with him.

I didn't catch the guy's name, could someone spell it to me, please? I'd like to look him up

@@brunoarruda9916 The name is Graham Oppy.

@@endi.queiroz thanks!

Alexander Pruss, Graham Oppy, Robert Koons, and Joshua Rasmussen are the four he mentioned.

I thought the same

In what way is atheism "darkness"? I define atheism as the position of suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. Wouldn't you agree?

@@G8rfan61 What you call atheism is by definition agnosticism, which within degrees is a rational position to take. As a permanent position, it is more flawed than its counterparts.

@@myutubechannel_nr1 Your argument is a pure strawman. I'm Christian and run in Christian circles, and your argument leaves well over 99% of the Christian position on the matter.

Definitely look up Edward Feser.

@@KurtGodel432 He's on my list for sure.

1 year later.. how’s your study going?

What did you think of On Guard, presuming you finished it 😃

I know this comment is a little older but that is absolutely lovely. Thank you for your encouraging attitude!

Yes, quite right, that's right, (my goodness use your real name you are with brothers and sisters.) We should not be arguing with each other but joining to argue that killing innocent babies in their mother's womb is murder as that godless individuals in our society are getting away with murder while we argue doctrine, when we have secured the mother's womb to make it a safe place for the gift that God has given, then we can argue doctrine.

@@sarahclark5447 I am on KZfaq which is not limited to Christian brethren. We all have our ways of staying as safe as we can online. I believe you are correct that all Christians must unite to battle our common enemy. Doctrine is important and has it's place so long as we never forget we are living in the world ruled by dark forces that seek to keep Jesus Christ from everyone.

Always remember The WORD is PURE , it’s people who are impure . That’s why I follow Jesus, not a church ! IMHO. God bless

I wish he would have. The best way to have Cathalics switch is talk about the evidence.

​@@jwatson181 Funny, the evidence lead me in the opposite direction. Protestants who act like you often remind me of the atheist sophisters like Christopher Hitchens.

@Max Wylde Too bad Mormons are spreading a completely fallacious doctrine filled with heresies. Same goes with Catholicism and every other denomination. These religions have strayed away from the word of God and implemented their own interpretations and beliefs , added to the text and or taken away from it in order to frame their own doctrines.

Congratulations, you can help weed out the paedos.

@@christsawakening9702A​ctually, the catholic Church has shown a humility (especially in the last couple of centuries) in regards to accepting the scientific advancements. It's shown over the last millenia that reason and faith are not mutually exclusive, and that reason based in faith is a powerful tool for guiding people to God, deepening the meaning of the scriptures, and translating the Word into something that feels relevant to the modern age. The Catholic theology, I believe, is the most complete. When science showed that certain interpretations of scripture were false (we can use evolution as an example, as well as the earth-centric view of the cosmos), the interpretations of the scripture had to change. But God's first and final presence, his omnipotence, his omniscience, his justice, love, wrath, mercy, and forgiveness haven't changed at all. The entire story of the Bible with climaxed with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ hasn't changed. This is still central to the doctrine of Catholicism. What in particular are you opposed to?

@@BrandonMather8 My advice leave them be. Satan "tortured me", most likely I tortured myself because I let myself fall into the cirlce of doubt and questioning everything. Just like you said with the basics and the center/foundation of the Catholic Chruch and what we as catholics/christians spin around, hold on to as most and only important. You will say that the early, first churches were catholic and the eucharist they obeyed, is the same as we have today - body and blood of Jesus Christ and you will find and explain more than dozen of scripture evidence and then you will explain them why the authority of the Chruch metters and when Paul said to Timothy that all Scripture is inspired, but also said that Timothy hangs on and passes on the words he SAID, then you will explain the Mary and the saints thing, then the sacraments and in the end probably how Sola Scriptura theory "kills" it self. AND THEN they will find EVERY OTHER SCRIPTURE BASED COUNTER VERSE. Also most of them will not spend any minute trying to hear what you/we are saying and why is it like the things I wrote above. AND THEN they will call you heretic INSTEAD of WE TOGETHER AS CHRISTIANS!?!?!?!?!?! LOVE NOT JUST OTHER CHRISTIANS, BUT EEEEEEVEEEEERYBODY AND INSTEAD OF GOING OUT (or starting at your own family/neighbourhood/school/work etc.) TO OTHER "FAITHS/RELIGIONS" WHAT WE DO????? WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY HAVE AGREED ON. CHRIST RESSURECTED, HE IS THE ONLY SAVIOUR, WE ARE GOING TO HIM, HOLY SPIRIT GUIDES US AND IT IS INSIDE OF US. BUT NOOOOO "WE MUST ARGUE, WE MUST FIGHT" WHEN THERE IS SOOOOOOO MUCH PEOPLE THAT NEEEEEEVER AND I SAY NEVEEEEER HEARD OR DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT JESUS AT ALLLLLLL!!!!!!!! PEOPLEEEE, BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST, IN WHO? THAT'S RIGHT IN CHRIST!! PLEAAAASE I BEG YOU FOR THE SAKE OF US ALL AND THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY NEED SALVATION STOOP ARGUING AND HATING/ATTACKING/ACCUSING BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN CHRIST JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT WONT TO UNDERSTAND OUR PERSPECTIVE (the main foundation like I wrote already is the same!!!!!) THEN DONT HATE OR CALL BLASPHEMY OR HERESY. You know who laughs at us? The devil, the true enemy, like that scene in The Avengers (first part) when they all get into an argument because Loki tricked them. The same thing the devil is doing to us.... How can you not seeeee??????????? What did Paul said about Love, even if he had all the gifts of The Holy Spirit and if he didn't have love, he would be nothing. Sorry for the caps, but pleaseeee I pray stop it once and for all and focus TOGETHER IN LOVE on to a real enemy. God bless all 🤍

I didn’t know there was a difference either!! I thought Catholics were just other Christians lol

Orthodox or Catholicism mate. I'm the latter myself, but both are more grounded than the other demoninations.

Did you convert?

Did my best, thanks.

💯 well done Matt!

I've started looking at celibacy in a little different way. The crisis isn't because celibacy has caused un-satiated desire to explode in these abusers. That's never been the problem. The abuse crisis is because Bishops and clergy don't believe in the value of celibacy. Witness Cardinal Cupich talking at the Bishops conference about consensual relationships being handled separately. If the Cardinals don't expect the priests to live celibacy, the gift is thrown away already.

@@deaconken3752 if celibacy is relaxed... there is a serious risk of people viewing priesthood as a lucrative profession rather than a vocation... Especially in developing nations like mine...🙁

Michael A Ratnam I’m not necessarily advocating for married priests. The argument was celibacy leads to abuse. No, it’s the current disregard for vows made by priests and then bishops accepting “consensual” relationships that create the conditions for abuse. As for clergy getting rich, have you followed the money corruption by bishops? Just normal priests live pretty good right now, honestly. The change with heterosexual married clergy is they will want to leave an inheritance. But even so, will they accumulate more than say a teacher?

I was born in Portland, Oregon. O.o

I was born in Eugene, which is just Portland Oregon Suburbia.

😂

It's good to see a Protestant who isn't just running around yelling nonsense and trying to make claims about Catholics

Happy belated birthday, O Adonai.

@@timothyfreeman97 thank you.

intellectually

You could but please, don't. We love you. :D

@J w I set up the following Reddit thread, a while back, to help facilitate that very desire. Go here and follow the instructions (pass this on): *William Lane Craig on the Joe Rogan Experience:* www.reddit.com/r/ReasonableFaith/comments/bdis1w/william_lane_craig_on_the_joe_rogan_experience/

@@samaldridge5283 Rogan is an intellectual lightweight.

Hahaha on DMT.

Hey! You preached at the church I attend! Cool to see you here :)

Soli Deo Gloria!

And Orthodox!

@@anahata3478 But most of today is radical secularism, which is a religious worldview in itself. Key: It is very important how you define 'separation of church and state (found nowhere in the Constitution)

power50001562 I was a little 🤨 and 😕when that came up too. But Matt responded beautifully and then I was 😀.

Celibacy has nothing to do with child abuse.

Right. Just look at Islam.

power50001562 Celibacy isn’t the issue, the issue is that it’s forced or “mandatory celibacy” it’s found nowhere in scripture, and early Roman Catholic Priest actually could marry 🤷🏽‍♂️

@@justchilling704 Yes, flatheads, the Church that has been around for more than 2000 years with a robust theological and philosophical tradition somehow missed that detail, which, also somehow, a teenager with a KZfaq account managed to find.

Feeling better now. Thanks

@@julianneilson1820 you're loved more than you'll ever. Thanks for existing. Jesus loves you.

Not a good argument. First of all, any anecdotical argument is fallacious. I easily can say I know pastors that balance life and their calling very well. Second, your subjective opinion is irrelevant to theological issues. God clearly states in the Bible that there can be priests with wives. EVEN if celibacy is preferred, you cannot be against the very words of God. Priests should marry if they want to do it.

@@youtubecom5478 Is the Bible infallible?

@@noescape2108 Some say it is infallible, but the concept seems to be problematic. Some say it is "inerrant", which is logically possible and plausible. Others say it is neither. Either way, the issue here is that, to build a theological case for celibacy, you necessarily need to start with the two options given in the Bible. In order to ignore the marriage option... a) You would have to dismiss the books that mention the "marriage" option and consider those Bible books as apocryphal, which is anti-Catholic. b) You would have to dismiss that specific verses and accept the rest of the text, which is arbitrary.

@@youtubecom5478 , you're very logically rigorous, but I think you're missing an important nuance here (that Matt Fradd hit on): the difference between doctrine and discipline. Priestly celibacy is a discipline in the Latin Rite (with limited exceptions for some convert priests), which is subject to change by decree coming from authority (The Church). There is a hierarchy of church law and obedience to Christ (to include the body of Christ / His Church) trumps flexible options described in scripture. Similar to how state laws can never trump the federal constitution. Note1: the Catholic Church doesn't derive its authority from scripture, it derives its authority from Jesus Christ (which is inerrantly described in scripture, Matt 16:19). Reminder, the Catholic Church assembled the various books of the bible around the 4th and 5th centuries. Note2: Catholic Permanent Deacons are married men.

@@jonathanbourret2968 Yeah well authority is the crux of the matter and where you place it. But even if THEE CHURCH gets its authority from Jesus Christ, the only reason that it does is because the scriptures say so. This is of course, if we assume the interpretation of scripture in regards to Peter and a catholic conceptualization of the church.

@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 Can you defend your position? If not, who is the best?

@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 Yes I did read it. Now, can you defend your position? And if you can't, then who is the best defender of YOUR position? (Perhaps I was unclear previously?)

@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 Hm. Looks like we've got an elephant hurler here. I'll count to 3... *P1:* I think you are mostly operating on old info. Much has changed in recent years, and scoffers such as yourself are running out of excuses... As for all your other unsubstantiated claims, please. You have no argument. *P2:* Clearly not factual? Based upon what assumptions? (Most of your assumptions regarding your skepticism - I've little doubt is faulty and likely inconsistent.) Also, such a shame that you don't apply the same standards to your own faith or to anything else from antiquity for that matter. Perhaps this is because you've got a philosophical bias? Jar, don't you believe that you are a talking animal? More importantly, are you a good person? Do you believe that men ought to strive to be good? If you were to judge yourself according to the standard presented in The 10 Commandments of Exodus 20, would you be innocent or guilty? *P3:* What vague prophecies? Some are vague! Some are not... Still, since it is obvious that you are not willing to consider the Christian faith, perhaps you can tell me about your own position and explain why it is that I should believe whatever it is that you do? _Maybe that would be more productive?_ If everyone you knew lived according to Judeo-Christian principles, would that make the world a better or worse place?

@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 *P1:* I did not see any kind of compelling or historical, fact based argument of any kind. I think that you are either badly misinformed, delusional or simply a liar. *P2:* If you believe that Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, or Darwinian mythology are factual, then you're completely insane and need someone to challenge you regarding the facts of empirical science! Also, IF the first verse of the Bible is true, nothing else in the Bible is impossible. Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. But then, if there is no God, then there is no reason for you to be an apologist for your own position - which is no doubt something you couldn't do anyhow. *P3:* None of those things are condone or advocated for in any way in the Bible. But clearly you do believe in objective moral values and duties - that are also timeless! However, that is not possible if what YOU believe is true! I'm afraid that you are being neither rational nor consistent in your line of reasoning.

@@jarlaxledaerthe4045 You literally just lied and then fled the scene! [smh]

Yeah, me too. It was only after the interview that I realized we never got around to it.

@@PintsWithAquinas, next time perhaps! =)

Ed Feser combox squad. 👀

Hey John, if you want to be aware of some of the arguments you can make to prove that an infinite past is impossible therefore proving that a finite past is then the only rational conclusion, I can let you know some arguments that make that case: The most popular approach I have seen used to show this is to illistrate how it is mathematically impossible to "have" an infinite number of anything as it causes impossible outcomes. Problems with this mathematicaly will typically get illustrated by discussing scenarios like a library with an infinite number of red and blue books. If you take out all the red books how many blue books are left? An infinite amount. How many red books did you take? An infinite amount. If you put the red books back would you double the amount of books in the library? No, because it would still be infinite. You see the idea of already having an infinite of something is problematic the more you think of it mathematically. Now you can say, well dont you claim that you can have the future go on for an infinite amount of time? Yes, the difference is we do not claim to have passed an infinite amount of time or in the scenario it would be the equivalent of saying we no longer have possesion of an infinite amount of books but the amount of finite books we do have are being added to continually without end. Therefore mathematically we are still working with finite numbers and dont run into impossible conclusions and outcomes. This is what reality and logic leads us to conclude. My personal issue with an infinite regression (tho I have never seen anyone use this argument) is the problem of causation. We consider the future to be potentialy infinite. Even if we are not here, reality would continue. What we do today will affect the future as it continues in time. Well if an infinite regression is possible and the past is also ongoing and unending then it must be possible in an infinite regression to continue to have new causes in the unending past. Any new cause should still be able to effect all future events in the same timeline but that goes against what we experience as true. Because it seems that we have a stable reality in the sense we do not witness our reality changing continually in this manner it would suggest that we have a stable finite past instead of unstable ever changing infinite past. My favorite and most easily understood response to the impossibility of an infinite past is the following argument I have heard Frank Turek use: If our past is infinite we would never reach the present or any finite point in time because there would have to be an infinite amount of days that are required to pass before we get there which is impossible. The reason you can have an infinite future is because there is no reference to a finite end. The moment you mention a point in the future there has to be a finite amount of days to get there to actualize it. Infinite has no end point. We have to understand that time goes from past to present. To traverse through time and arrive at any finite point you must admit to a finite amount of days to get there. All of these arguments and many more like them show that our past can not be infinite and therefore must be finite. Therefore "time" had a begining. Now if "time" had a begining then based on Einstein's theory of relativity which shows that space matter and "time" are co relative (meaning they came into existence together) then we can safely conclude that space, time, and matter all had a begining. So is the past infinite or finite? Finite. Does the science back this up with what we now know about our universe? Yes. “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” - Alexander Vilenkin Q and A on this topic with Frank Turek: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qdCKrJaGmp7KdY0.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZsV1f5Wlqqirkn0.html

@@wheretruthleads Re: "If our past is infinite we would never reach the present or any finite point in time because there would have to be an infinite amount of days that are required to pass before we get there ..." The key is that an *actually existing infinite* number of days is not required to reach today, since only 1 moment ever occurs at a time (on presentism). I do think arguments against the infinity of the past work if B theory is true (since then the past is an actual infinite). But on presentism (where only the NOW of time exists), I don't see how any of the descriptions like Hilbert's Hotel and others apply to the universe (since they all require the actual infinite to be instantiated all at once), but the universe isn't like that. Curious to hear your thoughts.

When he grows up he needs to join reality and stop promoting mythology.

@@parkjammer Atheism = naturalism = mythology. Tell me your 'story' of origins, meaning, morality, and destiny! _What do you believe and why?_

@Tiger wasn't always the case in the eastern church. To this day for example, bishops may not marry and priests are forced to practice some periods of sexual abstinence

A great book for that which comes at the issue in keeping with Catholic Tradition is called "The Dark Passages of the Bible" by Dr. Matthew Ramage www.amazon.com/Dark-Passages-Bible-Engaging-Scripture/dp/0813221560

Dr.Michael S.Heiser does this on his videos as well as Paul Copan's book : Is God a moral Monster!