Hope you enjoy this conversation!📘 You can get a FREE CHAPTER from my book “The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God” by signing up to my newsletter: justinbrierley.com/get-justins-newsletter/
@@justinbrierley can I ask questions in the RUclips section I'm asking the host or the presenter why do people use it to answer back I got some smart answer about how a woman's child isn't from God and she's getting away with something some more patriarchal BS like a kid could be a mistake total contradiction of Christianity
Dear Justin: Thank you very much for this great conversation. I read Tom's book entitled Dominion three times, and recommended it to at least a dozen friends. I listen to Bishop Barron almost on a daily basis. May I, please, suggest that you no longer use the phrase "post-Christian world". What's post-Christian? We're here. We ain't goin' anywhere. We're becoming more and stronger. Most importantly, the Holy Spirit is with us at all times. We're making a comeback !
Highly sensible conversation. In a world where the secularists tell us, “trust the facts” “trust the science” “embrace rationality”!!! The great irony is who were the first people of authority who first taught us this?……The Church!!! And what facts! What science! What Rationality! Were they really teaching us! They were teaching us about ourselves! They were teaching us our better nature! They were teaching us our divine origin!
Bishop Barron is such a magnificent communicator. And he’s completely right. Dumbing down the faith serves nobody. Taking our cues from the surrounding culture is a fast road to nowhere. Bishops of the Church of England take note…
Tom all I can say is that your Mother’s heartfelt prayers for you, her son, have been answered rather like Monica’s prayer for St Augustine and his faith. Thanks be to God for a prayerful Mother!
"(Society) has ceased to be Christian for utterly Christian reasons." - Brilliant! I often listen to Bishop Barron's homilies here on RUclips. I must also confess that I am very near to being a Tom Holland "groupie". It's wonderful to see them together in this good discussion with Justin...one of the best interviewers I've seen.
I don't think that Jesus meant to create Christianity and disintegrate it. I believe that something is lost if we are moving towards post-Christianity.
Wonderful! As for Original Sin, unfortunately it was/is often preached by those not so perceptive as Bishop Barron. His definition resonates totally. But growing up, the versions I heard evoked utter depravity or was so trivialized I--and many-- understandably balked.... As for the 'idolatry' of Will Power of Pelagius, spot on, Bishop, about where DIY virtue and perfectionism-on-own -steam lead!! Thank you
It's nice of you to reply, but I must confess my ignorance. I'm a dabbler in theology. I know zilch about the Eastern Church, never read Pelagius, and can only say I, too, did not believe in Original Sin. As for Will Power, the glorification of it is everywhere, regardless of Pelagius. It's in churches, spirituality, and the secular. The not discerning where will power works and/or doesn't leads easily to (or is the consequence of) addictions, not to mention self-loathing for failure. Maybe we're all just wired for it--self-sufficiency in all things, refusal of creatureliness, and/or self-deifying (that not-too-original Sin). I only know I'm an 80 year old novelist about to be self-published on Amazon with a Book Out before I croak. (A Lamp at Twilight) God is good. Grace abounds!
Great! Lots of wisdom, be brave, share Truth but in Love not malice, judgement, follow the beautiudes but don't be decieved, Saten also poses as an angel of light - th Woke movment has a hidden darkness, bring the True Light - pray to our Great God and Jesus our greatest gift and the Holy Spirit our Advocate. Pray and live.
LMAO fairy tales stories. It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world from 2000-6000 years ago. To me it is insane.
The idea that "I know the truth" is so dangerous. It reminds of a Church with no humility that claimed for itself the titles of The First and The Best. That was pre Vatican II Catholicism. The strange story of Christianity is the story of God's arrival among us. We can experience it and reverence it and be full of gratitude for it, but we can never feel smug or righteous about it. Without humility about our knowledge of Jesus, its "free giftedness", we have nothing to give anyone.
What makes the Body of Christ unique is that it is the doorway to reconciliation to God through the ministry of the proclamation of the Gospel in a way that inspires the hearer to believe that Jesus really did die for us and this belief becomes so strong that it results in repentance from sin and sinful beliefs which are contrary to the scripture. It is VERY simple which in turn makes the Kingdom of God available to literally everyone only via the New Birth which the hearer of the message personally appropriated. This is universally necessary because original sin is very real and represents Adam's sin of disobedience descends into all mankind. After the new birth and repentance the believer has embraced the free gift of God we call grace. After the New Birth, we receive are led by the Holy Spirt as we walk through the remainder of our lives as He changes us. This is the work of sanctification as we obey God's leading in life and the Holy Spirit affirms our direction in the predestined plan for our lives.
Thank you for having these two thoughtful men on and this marvelous conversation. The term “ Catholic“ is a bit misleading. I prefer to call it either the Latin church or the Roman church. The term “Catholic“ belongs to all of Christendom.
Yes and no, friend. The old covenants kept expanding. With Adam and Eve, it’s a couple; With Noah, a household; with Abraham, a tribe; with Moses, a nation; with David, a kingdom; with Jesus, the covenant family becomes a worldwide “catholic” family of God. The new Catholic, universal, covenant is founded by Jesus and his 12 princes, the apostles, and their successors. It’s visible. It’s a kingdom, with a heavenly Jerusalem. So those in the Catholic Church with Peter, and his successors, as the visible head are in communion. Other Christians are our separated brethren, Christians, yes, but not united at the one table. Let us pray for unity, as Our Lord did in John 17. May God bless you.
In the Catholic Church, the Roman rite is only one of other rites, but all are in communion with the sucessor of Peter, the pope. There are Western and Eastern rires and others. Look into it more and be refreshed, with joy.
Who am i given Time in front of thee! And unto all the principalities who deceiveth and so lust to sacrifice to forbid thy 3rd command. Sitteth in high places unseen nor seen!
Tom Holland talks about Christian values having been taken on by society, making it difficult for Christianity to distinguish itself. I'm reminded of Jesus' talking of the houses built on sand and on rock: you find out the difference when the storms come. What do we do while we wait for the storms?
In light of the recent resignation by Archbishop Welby over the crimes by Smyth and cover ups by the church, couldn't God have included in the commandments, 'Thou shalt not groom, beat, sexually abuse and terrorise children nor keep and profit from slaves'. I would suggest some deep theological thinking on this glaring omission in scripture .
It sounds as though Bishop Barron is trying to do away with the first person of the Holy Trinity. Like many Christians he emphasises the love aspect of God but God is much more than that; otherwise we would still be living in the Garden of Eden.
Why did your god commit many genocides? Why did your god command Moses and David to commit genocides? Will you kill your own child when your god asks? Why do you worship this moral monster?
@ Thanks for that. No it’s not a competition. I like what Bishop Barron does. The world of modern Protestantism and to some extent Catholicism (not BB) seem to forget where a lot of this comes from and it is such a rich source and worth sharing.
@@johnandrews1162 Fair point! I hope that one day the orthodox and catholic brothers be reunited... Its always surprising when converts find out how close we actually are. Greetings from Germany
There seems to me to be a distinction between the cut and thrust of civilisations, and 'culture revolution'. The distinction here is between a clash of culture/civilisation/religion, where there is no turning back to an original state of innocence. As against one where society reaches that point of self criticism which results in reformation/revolution.
Perhaps man’s greatest sin is idolatry, in the form a statue or a tv or $. “No other God before me”. I thk Catholics don’t need to target Protestants, but rather sin.
All as a little New minds doesn't matter just a clumps of cells. Liken unto a little baby! To atonement our hands holy blood stains upon our hands in front of Oliver!
What Tom said about the importance of the story has been a bulwark for me, my rock and my fortress Amongst all the lies and BS of religion I've always felt the story of the Good Samaritan I heard as a 10 year old was a great and eternal truth more beautiful and artistic and valuable then the most ridiculously overpriced work of art purchased by some self satisfied billionaire like Elon Musk
Yes, that parable could have been told of this moment in history, if the truth were that Jesus is the man being attacked, and left for dead, on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho. Will a ,,good Samaritan,, come this time to care for his wounds as he lies there bleeding out, in stead of laughing at him as he lies in the dust. Life is full of strange and revealing parallels.
It sounded like the one guy was really against Protestantism so this made me wonder, is this a push for Catholicism? I didn't get it. But maybe I just didn't understand what they were saying. I don't think I watched the entire video.
If you watch Tom Hollands history podcast about Martin Luther, you might get a sense of some of his feelings about the Reformation and the ways it changed the world for good and bad.
There was no push for anything except the urge to spread real Truth, the Truth that many can't easily see because the darkness of what's sold as happiness (money, fame, cosmetic looks, porn, woke, dei and much more) in this world, decieves those who haven't met God yet. When someone meets God by grace through His Son or through the Holy Spirit, that person finds true freedom in Christ and the healing journey begins. Thanks be to God.
@@MartinaStC You're deluded if you think your version of "truth" is anything more than a tool to control and belittle others. You call it “the real truth,” but it’s nothing more than a self-serving narrative that allows you to feel superior. You act as if people are deceived by the world’s distractions-money, fame, looks-when in reality, it’s your blind obedience to a narrow, outdated ideology that keeps you in the dark. You don’t have some divine wisdom; you’re just using your belief as a crutch to avoid confronting the messy, imperfect world around you. Your “healing journey” is nothing but a way to trap people in a delusion, to make them dependent on your dogma. You claim freedom in Christ, but all you're offering is a sanitized cage where questioning or thinking for oneself is a sin. You talk about God's grace like it’s the key to enlightenment, but it's just a tool to make people compliant. It’s easier to sit in a comfort zone of blind faith than to face the real, uncomfortable truths about existence and human nature. Your "truth" is a lie, disguised as a solution to life's struggles, but it’s just a way to shut down real discourse and impose your views on others.
I have never liked the word Catholic with a capital C. My catholic faith is a small C and it goes back to the acts of the apostles in the 10 Commandments and the early church. The prideful C Catholic Church needs to go and go fast. I do not listen to it. I will not listen to it, and I will only listen to the words of Jesus Christ and the Bible.
Of Jesus the scripture says "In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the word was God:" Jesus spoke of God as a personal being as his father and our Father. From beginning to end of the Bible, God is revealed as a being in whose image we are made. The sophistry of the Bishop essentially denies this. We could be led to believe that we need this seemingly learned teaching. We don't. We need the simplicity, the power and the depth of God and those who will speak with the same simplicity, the same power and the same profundity
This is just a lazy cop-out, pretending that deep theological engagement is some kind of evil "sophistry." Dismissing centuries of thoughtful reflection on God's nature is not profound-it’s intellectually dishonest. God isn’t just a “personal being” to be simplified for convenience. If you’re too afraid to wrestle with the complexity of His nature and truth, you’re only showing your own ignorance and unwillingness to grow. Real understanding requires more than empty platitudes-it demands intellectual humility and the courage to dive deep into God’s revelation.
It was never inside. It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world from 2000-6000 years ago. To me it is insane.
@@jonah9861 Wow, ignorance is bliss. LMAO What a strawman. LMAO Calling atheism "for teenagers" is just a lazy insult hiding from real debate. You’re trying to paint a whole worldview as immature without actually addressing any of its points. If atheism were just a "teenage phase," it wouldn't be the chosen stance of countless serious thinkers, scientists, and philosophers. Meanwhile, you cling to this over-simplified caricature instead of engaging with their arguments, which only exposes a shallow understanding. If you’re so certain of your position, bring something stronger than playground insults to the table.
To make an impact on the secular world, we Christians have to talk about original sin in a new and different way. Few secularists would dispute the obvious claim that we are oriented towards "sin". What is in dispute is the claim that something happened in human history to cause that orientation. Most Christian apologists insist on a prelapsarian state of bliss, followed by a first event, an original sin, characterised by a rebellion against God, that caused the need for redemption, etc. Such a narrative simply does not accord with what science has been discovering for several centuries about human origins. Instead, the human story that science seems to be uncovering is this. Homo sapiens emerges from earlier hominoid species some 300 thousand years ago with particular attributes that give it an evolutionary advantage. Apart from unrivalled intelligence and manual dexterity, those attributes include aggression, highly charged sexual instincts, fear of the stranger, etc. Because of these attributes, homo sapiens has flourished as a species. As we increase our density upon the earth, these attributes have become ever more inappropriate for the flourishing of both our species and of the rest of God's creation. There should be no problem for Christian apologists to adjust the Christian story to fit these facts. But that might entail letting go of (or appropriately adjusting) some doctrines perceived as "sacred cows" in both the Protestant and Catholic traditions - specifically, notions around the inerrancy of either the bible, or the church. Until such adjustment takes place, and we find new ways of talking about original sin and "the good news", the secular world will struggle to find resonance in the Christian message.
This whole argument is a perfect example of intellectual gymnastics designed to avoid confronting the uncomfortable realities of belief. The secular world’s obsession with *science* and a purely materialistic view of human origins is the real problem here. They want to reduce everything, including morality and human nature, to biological processes and evolutionary advantages. They take the *science* they love so much and ignore its broader implications, using it as a shield to avoid facing deeper questions about purpose, meaning, and spiritual realities. The claim that Christianity should "adjust" to fit what science says about human origins is laughable. What’s being suggested is not an open-minded rethinking, but a capitulation to a worldview that fundamentally rejects the idea of anything beyond the physical world. You’re asking Christians to abandon foundational truths - like the existence of original sin and the need for redemption - just to appease a world that refuses to accept any kind of transcendent reality. Let’s be clear: this is not about finding “resonance” with the secular world. It’s about watering down the gospel to the point of meaninglessness in an effort to win approval from a culture that is spiritually bankrupt. What’s being ignored here is the fact that science, when done properly, doesn't have the power to disprove or even explain the deepest questions of human existence. Evolutionary theories may explain *how* we got here, but they do nothing to explain *why* we’re here or why humans have an innate sense of morality, beauty, or purpose - questions science is entirely unequipped to answer. The reality is that humanity's aggressive tendencies, fear of strangers, and even our capacity for evil don’t *disprove* original sin; they prove it. These are not signs of evolutionary progress; they are symptoms of a fallen nature that has been with us since the beginning, and no amount of evolutionary theory can erase that. Christianity doesn’t need to bend to secular theories to remain relevant. If anything, the gospel is *meant* to challenge the secular worldview, not cozy up to it. This whole line of thinking - that we need to “adjust” Christianity to make it more palatable - reeks of desperation to avoid confronting the stark truths about humanity that no amount of scientific theory can sweep under the rug.
@LGpi314 Thank you for your response. Although we disagree on some matters, I think that we agree on much more than you realise For example, while I disagree with your opening sentence, I agree with the rest of your first paragraph. I think you mischaracterized my position in your second paragraph. Nevertheless, I mostly agree with your third paragraph. Your final paragraph also misconstrues my meaning. So let me try to pinpoint where we actually disagree.
You apparently proceed from the notion that there are two realms of truth: spiritual and secular. Christianity asserts spiritual truths and science asserts materialistic truths. When these truths clash, then the scientific truth must be rejected. I think the matter is far more subtle. Science proposes and investigates hypotheses about the material world and, over time, refines or even rejects previously held hypotheses in line with new empirical evidence. Christianity announces to the world spiritual truths about God. But the full truth about God reaches far beyond the capacity of humans to fully grasp. Those truths can only be known in part and to the extent God reveals God's self to us. God's revelation comes to us, individually and collectively, through the bible, through God's creation, through God's people, through our reasoning, through our personal experiences, sometimes through mystical or miraculous experiences, etc. So in each age, the hypotheses put forward by science, though always tentative, reveal something more to us of God's creation, of its grandeur, ingenuity, majesty, its fragility, etc. And so, I believe that in each age we need to reconsider the spiritual truths that we assert, and -- where necessary --- refine them in line with what appears to be incontestable scientific evidence and/or human reasoning. By "we" I mean the Christian Church as a whole, but -- as a Catholic -- I also mean specifically, the teaching structures within the church. And I also mean that we Christians in the pews should be in respectful dialogue with the higher-ups, as we are to some extent in this very posting.... But you rightly raise the notion of foundational spiritual truths. Can these be changed or modified or refined? Part of the problem in this regard is that apologists are very quick to assert that this or that is foundational. At one stage, the notion of a geocentric universe was considered foundational: the underworld, hell, was below; earth above hell; the stars and moon above the earth held together by crystal spheres, and heaven -- God's dwelling place -- above that. There was a time when the heart was foundationally considered to be the meeting point of the spiritual and material where "dead" blood was enlivened by the "spiritus" in the air that we breathed in. There was a time when male sperm was foundationally believed to contain fully formed little humans and the female womb was merely an oven to grow the little beings. There were times the levying of interest was considered so (foundationally) evil that people who did such evil things were denied burial. And for many centuries, slavery was not considered a (foundationally) bad thing. One of the places we might look for foundational Christian truths is the Nicene creed. It is almost universally accepted by all Christian denominations. In your second paragraph, you call original sin a foundational truth and you also call "redemption" a foundational truth. Neither of these notions are explicitly mentioned in the Nicene creed. In fact, the term "original sin" does not explicitly appear in the bible. And the term "redemption" is often used in the bible in the context of a Hebraic notion of God redeeming them (buying them back) as a community out of slavery or oppression. At the end of the day, what I am essentially challenging is the tendency by a large slice of Christianity to (foundationally) insist that at an early period in human history we had not sinned and everything was blissful (prelapsarian state of bliss), and a change in the human trajectory occurred because some first parent sinned. I am not denying but reinforcing the idea that we humans are congenitally oriented towards sinfulness and destructiveness. You may call that orientation, in an abstract sense, "original sin". I have no wish to deny the earth-shattering relevance of Christ's death and resurrection. It affirms at every level the good news that we are saved: saved from the nihilism implied by materialism because we indeed have a telos; saved because are we called by Christ to collaborate in building a world of love; saved, because we are assured by Christ's resurrection that in the end, all will be well. That is the good news that I try to proclaim to my secularist and scientific friends.
@@DK-tk1nu You're desperately trying to dress up a fragile, outdated set of beliefs as something that can stand up to modern understanding, but all you're doing is exposing the flaws in your own thinking. You say spiritual truths go beyond human understanding, but that's just a convenient cop-out for when your arguments fall apart. You can’t explain the contradictions, so you hide behind vague, meaningless statements like “God’s truth is beyond comprehension.” It’s a weak excuse for why your beliefs can’t be proven. You talk about science revealing God’s creation, but let’s be real: you’re not using science to back up your religion. You’re cherry-picking whatever fits your narrative, and the rest you shove aside. When science disproves or contradicts religious claims, you either reinterpret the findings or ignore them altogether. How convenient. That’s not reconciliation, that’s manipulation. The “foundational truths” you keep clinging to-like original sin and redemption-are no more than human-made doctrines that have been adjusted and reinterpreted over centuries to suit the whims of those in power. You bring up examples of outdated scientific beliefs like the geocentric model, but you’re too blind to see that religion is in the same boat. Just because something’s been called “foundational” for centuries doesn’t make it true. Your defense of these beliefs is nothing more than a desperate attempt to avoid facing the fact that they are based on ignorance, not wisdom. You talk about building a world of love through Christ’s resurrection, but your entire worldview is built on ancient myths that have been used to justify oppression, violence, and control. You want to preach about love, but the very system you support has historically been anything but loving. It’s the same hollow rhetoric that’s been used to keep people shackled in ignorance for centuries. You may claim to seek truth, but the truth is that you’re clinging to a system of beliefs that are long past their expiration date.
@@DK-tk1nu Christianity is fake. It stole pretty much everything from other earlier religions and the same way Islam did with small modifications. The is no evidence of a global flood, there is no evidence that jesus as the son of god or Moses ever existed, and the resurrection was stolen from Julius Caesar's resurrection. No resurrection. Snakes and donkeys do not talk. Genesis is full of contradictions. Earth is not 6000 years old. ALL THOSE ARE LIES. People now know and are leaving the religion for what it is CULT.
@@LGpi314 It appears I have been outwitted to do battle with LLM generated text. 😆Well done. Here is some LLM generated text in response: -------- I appreciate your engagement in this discussion and the passion with which you present your arguments. However, I can't help but notice an unusual shift in your argumentative style and perspective. Initially, your responses were aligned with a conservative Christian viewpoint, and now you seem to be attacking from a secularist standpoint. This drastic change in tone and ideology might be indicative of an inconsistency that suggests your responses could be generated by a language model (LLM). Let me explain further: 1. **Consistency in Beliefs**: Human beliefs and ideologies, while they can evolve, usually follow a certain logical progression based on personal experiences and reflections. Your rapid shift from defending conservative Christian values to attacking those same values from a secular standpoint seems more like the varied responses generated by an AI trying to cover different perspectives. 2. **Pattern Recognition**: Language models are trained to recognize patterns in text and generate responses accordingly. The contrasting nature of your comments may indicate a pattern of switching between viewpoints to cover a broad range of arguments, a characteristic behavior of an AI language model. 3. **Absence of Personal Context**: Typically, human responses are influenced by personal anecdotes or experiences that support their beliefs. Your arguments lack such personal context, which is another clue that your responses might be generated by an AI, as LLMs often produce text based on data without personal experience. Given these points, I have tentatively concluded that your responses might indeed be generated by an LLM. If that's the case, it would explain the dramatic shifts in your arguments and provide a clearer understanding of the discussion dynamics. 🤣🤣😆😆
I have never liked the word Catholic with a capital C. My catholic faith is a small C and it goes back to the acts of the apostles in the 10 Commandments and the early church. The prideful C Catholic Church needs to go and go fast. I do not listen to it. I will not listen to it, and I will only listen to the words of Jesus Christ and the Bible.
Hope you enjoy this conversation!📘 You can get a FREE CHAPTER from my book “The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God” by signing up to my newsletter: justinbrierley.com/get-justins-newsletter/
@@justinbrierley can I ask questions in the RUclips section I'm asking the host or the presenter why do people use it to answer back I got some smart answer about how a woman's child isn't from God and she's getting away with something some more patriarchal BS like a kid could be a mistake total contradiction of Christianity
Dear Justin: Thank you very much for this great conversation. I read Tom's book entitled Dominion three times, and recommended it to at least a dozen friends. I listen to Bishop Barron almost on a daily basis. May I, please, suggest that you no longer use the phrase "post-Christian world". What's post-Christian? We're here. We ain't goin' anywhere. We're becoming more and stronger. Most importantly, the Holy Spirit is with us at all times. We're making a comeback !
"Christianity has died many times and risen again. For it had a God who knew the way out of the grave."
G.K. Chesterton, "The Everlasting Man."
Just reading your book and grateful for your love for truth! C.A Curtis
We're moving to the post-post Christian era, glory to God! ☦️
Highly sensible conversation.
In a world where the secularists tell us, “trust the facts” “trust the science” “embrace rationality”!!!
The great irony is who were the first people of authority who first taught us this?……The Church!!!
And what facts! What science! What Rationality! Were they really teaching us!
They were teaching us about ourselves!
They were teaching us our better nature!
They were teaching us our divine origin!
Bishop Barron is such a magnificent communicator. And he’s completely right. Dumbing down the faith serves nobody. Taking our cues from the surrounding culture is a fast road to nowhere. Bishops of the Church of England take note…
How true. No more hope for CoE bishops as they are the dumb ones.
Tom all I can say is that your Mother’s heartfelt prayers for you, her son, have been answered rather like Monica’s prayer for St Augustine and his faith. Thanks be to God for a prayerful Mother!
God is Holy Holy Holy. God is Love. God is good.
"(Society) has ceased to be Christian for utterly Christian reasons." - Brilliant! I often listen to Bishop Barron's homilies here on RUclips. I must also confess that I am very near to being a Tom Holland "groupie". It's wonderful to see them together in this good discussion with Justin...one of the best interviewers I've seen.
I don't think that Jesus meant to create Christianity and disintegrate it. I believe that something is lost if we are moving towards post-Christianity.
love learning from these three. what a treat to have them together.
Wow! Can't wait to watch this!
This is a great discussion.
I think, I must rewatch this. I think, this got met deepened in my see of Christianity, its impact to the world specifically.
Wonderful! As for Original Sin, unfortunately it was/is often preached by those not so perceptive as Bishop Barron. His definition resonates totally. But growing up, the versions I heard evoked utter depravity or was so trivialized I--and many-- understandably balked.... As for the 'idolatry' of Will Power of Pelagius, spot on, Bishop, about where DIY virtue and perfectionism-on-own -steam lead!! Thank you
You mean Baron's repeating of Augustine's and Calvin's LIES about Pelagius.
Ironically, Bishop's definition of Original Sin was non other than PELAGIUS'S view and the view Championed by the Eastern Orthodox!
It's nice of you to reply, but I must confess my ignorance. I'm a dabbler in theology.
I know zilch about the Eastern Church, never read Pelagius, and can only say I, too, did not believe in Original Sin.
As for Will Power, the glorification of it is everywhere, regardless of Pelagius.
It's in churches, spirituality, and the secular. The not discerning where will power works and/or doesn't leads easily to (or is the consequence of) addictions, not to mention self-loathing for failure.
Maybe we're all just wired for it--self-sufficiency in all things, refusal of creatureliness, and/or self-deifying (that not-too-original Sin).
I only know I'm an 80 year old novelist about to be self-published on Amazon with a Book Out before I croak. (A Lamp at Twilight) God is good. Grace abounds!
Gifted by the Holy Spirit🕊️🙏
Superb. Subscribed. God bless.
Great mashup ! Thamk you!
Great! Lots of wisdom, be brave, share Truth but in Love not malice, judgement, follow the beautiudes but don't be decieved, Saten also poses as an angel of light - th Woke movment has a hidden darkness, bring the True Light - pray to our Great God and Jesus our greatest gift and the Holy Spirit our Advocate. Pray and live.
Bewildering that a Bishop can stand take this.
Shared "i" Am students will say, LORD separated from thy sincere conversations given!
Tom Holland is so spot on about the stories that the church needs to get back to, its as if he is a prophet
LMAO fairy tales stories.
It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world from 2000-6000 years ago. To me it is insane.
The idea that "I know the truth" is so dangerous. It reminds of a Church with no humility that claimed for itself the titles of The First and The Best. That was pre Vatican II Catholicism. The strange story of Christianity is the story of God's arrival among us. We can experience it and reverence it and be full of gratitude for it, but we can never feel smug or righteous about it. Without humility about our knowledge of Jesus, its "free giftedness", we have nothing to give anyone.
Is like unfamiliar ways of speaking telling a story and took Creation apart and HE put back together in front of all HIS shared eyes to see!
Can't find rest. Students Indeed HE is Just! Likewise gentle and lowly at heart!
What makes the Body of Christ unique is that it is the doorway to reconciliation to God through the ministry of the proclamation of the Gospel in a way that inspires the hearer to believe that Jesus really did die for us and this belief becomes so strong that it results in repentance from sin and sinful beliefs which are contrary to the scripture. It is VERY simple which in turn makes the Kingdom of God available to literally everyone only via the New Birth which the hearer of the message personally appropriated. This is universally necessary because original sin is very real and represents Adam's sin of disobedience descends into all mankind. After the new birth and repentance the believer has embraced the free gift of God we call grace. After the New Birth, we receive are led by the Holy Spirt as we walk through the remainder of our lives as He changes us. This is the work of sanctification as we obey God's leading in life and the Holy Spirit affirms our direction in the predestined plan for our lives.
Thank you for having these two thoughtful men on and this marvelous conversation.
The term “ Catholic“ is a bit misleading. I prefer to call it either the Latin church or the Roman church. The term “Catholic“ belongs to all of Christendom.
Yes and no, friend. The old covenants kept expanding. With Adam and Eve, it’s a couple; With Noah, a household; with Abraham, a tribe; with Moses, a nation; with David, a kingdom; with Jesus, the covenant family becomes a worldwide “catholic” family of God. The new Catholic, universal, covenant is founded by Jesus and his 12 princes, the apostles, and their successors. It’s visible. It’s a kingdom, with a heavenly Jerusalem. So those in the Catholic Church with Peter, and his successors, as the visible head are in communion. Other Christians are our separated brethren, Christians, yes, but not united at the one table. Let us pray for unity, as Our Lord did in John 17. May God bless you.
Why did Catholic priests abuse young boys and church was converting it up?
In the Catholic Church, the Roman rite is only one of other rites, but all are in communion with the sucessor of Peter, the pope. There are Western and Eastern rires and others. Look into it more and be refreshed, with joy.
The 60s are already seen as similar to the 1520s by historians of religion
Shared "i" Am come forth!
Who am i given Time in front of thee! And unto all the principalities who deceiveth and so lust to sacrifice to forbid thy 3rd command. Sitteth in high places unseen nor seen!
Tom Holland talks about Christian values having been taken on by society, making it difficult for Christianity to distinguish itself. I'm reminded of Jesus' talking of the houses built on sand and on rock: you find out the difference when the storms come. What do we do while we wait for the storms?
Sand come here in front and remind! Lord seeing 1 FOOTPRINT!
Now rock come here in front and remind! Lord thy Feet resting upon Noone can pluck away nor shaken but here to stay for good!
Peter remember even thy name don't exist in front!
Shared "i" Am Peter come forth!
@@oliverjamito9902 Wow cognitive dissonance runs deep in you.
In light of the recent resignation by Archbishop Welby over the crimes by Smyth and cover ups by the church, couldn't God have included in the commandments,
'Thou shalt not groom, beat, sexually abuse and terrorise children nor keep and profit from slaves'.
I would suggest some deep theological thinking on this glaring omission in scripture .
Not knowing thy new 3rd. Command is vital!
It sounds as though Bishop Barron is trying to do away with the first person of the Holy Trinity. Like many Christians he emphasises the love aspect of God but God is much more than that; otherwise we would still be living in the Garden of Eden.
So long to dip thy finger unto thy Living water to quench their tongues!
"LOVE" with the "NEW DAY"
Why did your god commit many genocides?
Why did your god command Moses and David to commit genocides?
Will you kill your own child when your god asks?
Why do you worship this moral monster?
God is being itself. Not just Aquinas, the eastern church fathers knew this way before.
Thank you for sharing!
But i don't think it is a competition. Barron is a Thomist. So of course he will quote him.
@ Thanks for that. No it’s not a competition. I like what Bishop Barron does. The world of modern Protestantism and to some extent Catholicism (not BB) seem to forget where a lot of this comes from and it is such a rich source and worth sharing.
@@johnandrews1162 Fair point! I hope that one day the orthodox and catholic brothers be reunited... Its always surprising when converts find out how close we actually are.
Greetings from Germany
@ God’s blessing to you also. I’m not Orthodox but Anglican. Yet I find Orthodox theological perspectives so helpful.
@@johnandrews1162 And I will pray for you!
Anglicans are the catholic protestants! 😉
Students what is authors?
Some will say, "WHO'S TALKING"?
There seems to me to be a distinction between the cut and thrust of civilisations, and 'culture revolution'. The distinction here is between a clash of culture/civilisation/religion, where there is no turning back to an original state of innocence. As against one where society reaches that point of self criticism which results in reformation/revolution.
Not did Christian missionaries seek to overthrow violently, we have a well worn idea of in-culturation.
We need the true sacrifice of the Mass.
Now what is name nor names, alphabets, #'s, nor creation itself in front?
Here's another story!
Students will say, LORD who is the author of Creation?
2 nor more....HE is in the midst
Books come here in front and remind!
Who is You? Shared "i" Am=You!
Why say? Lord who will glorify Thee and thy neighbors given unto us? If naught in front of Thee?
Students what is creation without my shared "i" Am?
Is like Creation will say, Who's my....?
Perhaps man’s greatest sin is idolatry, in the form a statue or a tv or $. “No other God before me”. I thk Catholics don’t need to target Protestants, but rather sin.
Why shared "i" Am students? Lord 1st and 2nd commands naught! Without thy 3rd. NEW COMMAND!
What is a story?
I agree with Tom Holland. He is right on target absolutely correct.
All as a little New minds doesn't matter just a clumps of cells. Liken unto a little baby! To atonement our hands holy blood stains upon our hands in front of Oliver!
Send Tom’s recommendations to the Anglican bishops…
What Tom said about the importance of the story has been a bulwark for me, my rock and my fortress
Amongst all the lies and BS of religion I've always felt the story of the Good Samaritan I heard as a 10 year old was a great and eternal truth more beautiful and artistic and valuable then the most ridiculously overpriced work of art purchased by some self satisfied billionaire like Elon Musk
Yes, that parable could have been told of this moment in history, if the truth were that Jesus is the man being attacked, and left for dead, on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho.
Will a ,,good Samaritan,, come this time to care for his wounds as he lies there bleeding out, in stead of laughing at him as he lies in the dust.
Life is full of strange and revealing parallels.
It sounded like the one guy was really against Protestantism so this made me wonder, is this a push for Catholicism? I didn't get it. But maybe I just didn't understand what they were saying. I don't think I watched the entire video.
If you watch Tom Hollands history podcast about Martin Luther, you might get a sense of some of his feelings about the Reformation and the ways it changed the world for good and bad.
There was no push for anything except the urge to spread real Truth, the Truth that many can't easily see because the darkness of what's sold as happiness (money, fame, cosmetic looks, porn, woke, dei and much more) in this world, decieves those who haven't met God yet. When someone meets God by grace through His Son or through the Holy Spirit, that person finds true freedom in Christ and the healing journey begins. Thanks be to God.
@@MartinaStC You're deluded if you think your version of "truth" is anything more than a tool to control and belittle others. You call it “the real truth,” but it’s nothing more than a self-serving narrative that allows you to feel superior. You act as if people are deceived by the world’s distractions-money, fame, looks-when in reality, it’s your blind obedience to a narrow, outdated ideology that keeps you in the dark.
You don’t have some divine wisdom; you’re just using your belief as a crutch to avoid confronting the messy, imperfect world around you. Your “healing journey” is nothing but a way to trap people in a delusion, to make them dependent on your dogma. You claim freedom in Christ, but all you're offering is a sanitized cage where questioning or thinking for oneself is a sin.
You talk about God's grace like it’s the key to enlightenment, but it's just a tool to make people compliant. It’s easier to sit in a comfort zone of blind faith than to face the real, uncomfortable truths about existence and human nature. Your "truth" is a lie, disguised as a solution to life's struggles, but it’s just a way to shut down real discourse and impose your views on others.
It’s evangelism not “ evangelization “.
Who is HE? Shared "i" Am= HE
I have never liked the word Catholic with a capital C.
My catholic faith is a small C and it goes back to the acts of the apostles in the 10 Commandments and the early church.
The prideful C Catholic Church needs to go and go fast.
I do not listen to it. I will not listen to it, and I will only listen to the words of Jesus Christ and the Bible.
How much my little New minds bloods so sacrifice to atonement?
😮
'Concern for the weak and the poor' is virtue-signalling whether it's church or government.
How do you tell when somebody is genuinely trying to help the weak and the poor then? (Assuming you think it matters in the first place?)
Who ye all talking too?
Having faith and following a man"ufactured man"uscripted religious doctrine is not the same thing.
Remember what is evidence? Look at one another in front of Who?
👀
Tom in a formula 1 car. 😂
Raising age of Christianity 😂
Of Jesus the scripture says "In the beginning was the Word and the word was with God and the word was God:" Jesus spoke of God as a personal being as his father and our Father. From beginning to end of the Bible, God is revealed as a being in whose image we are made. The sophistry of the Bishop essentially denies this. We could be led to believe that we need this seemingly learned teaching. We don't. We need the simplicity, the power and the depth of God and those who will speak with the same simplicity, the same power and the same profundity
This is just a lazy cop-out, pretending that deep theological engagement is some kind of evil "sophistry." Dismissing centuries of thoughtful reflection on God's nature is not profound-it’s intellectually dishonest. God isn’t just a “personal being” to be simplified for convenience. If you’re too afraid to wrestle with the complexity of His nature and truth, you’re only showing your own ignorance and unwillingness to grow. Real understanding requires more than empty platitudes-it demands intellectual humility and the courage to dive deep into God’s revelation.
Is God outside of us cuz lately I've been hearing it's only inside of us and our perception
It was never inside.
It is sad that people in 21st century are relying on goat herders' understanding of the world from 2000-6000 years ago. To me it is insane.
Can any of those show any evidence for their god and disprove all other god man kind made up? LMAO
One thing quite proved: Atheism is for teenagers.
@@jonah9861 Wow, ignorance is bliss. LMAO What a strawman. LMAO
Calling atheism "for teenagers" is just a lazy insult hiding from real debate. You’re trying to paint a whole worldview as immature without actually addressing any of its points. If atheism were just a "teenage phase," it wouldn't be the chosen stance of countless serious thinkers, scientists, and philosophers. Meanwhile, you cling to this over-simplified caricature instead of engaging with their arguments, which only exposes a shallow understanding. If you’re so certain of your position, bring something stronger than playground insults to the table.
Was high enough to think it was Spiderman Tom Holland until this Tom Holland appeared on screen
To make an impact on the secular world, we Christians have to talk about original sin in a new and different way. Few secularists would dispute the obvious claim that we are oriented towards "sin". What is in dispute is the claim that something happened in human history to cause that orientation. Most Christian apologists insist on a prelapsarian state of bliss, followed by a first event, an original sin, characterised by a rebellion against God, that caused the need for redemption, etc.
Such a narrative simply does not accord with what science has been discovering for several centuries about human origins. Instead, the human story that science seems to be uncovering is this.
Homo sapiens emerges from earlier hominoid species some 300 thousand years ago with particular attributes that give it an evolutionary advantage. Apart from unrivalled intelligence and manual dexterity, those attributes include aggression, highly charged sexual instincts, fear of the stranger, etc.
Because of these attributes, homo sapiens has flourished as a species. As we increase our density upon the earth, these attributes have become ever more inappropriate for the flourishing of both our species and of the rest of God's creation.
There should be no problem for Christian apologists to adjust the Christian story to fit these facts. But that might entail letting go of (or appropriately adjusting) some doctrines perceived as "sacred cows" in both the Protestant and Catholic traditions - specifically, notions around the inerrancy of either the bible, or the church.
Until such adjustment takes place, and we find new ways of talking about original sin and "the good news", the secular world will struggle to find resonance in the Christian message.
This whole argument is a perfect example of intellectual gymnastics designed to avoid confronting the uncomfortable realities of belief. The secular world’s obsession with *science* and a purely materialistic view of human origins is the real problem here. They want to reduce everything, including morality and human nature, to biological processes and evolutionary advantages. They take the *science* they love so much and ignore its broader implications, using it as a shield to avoid facing deeper questions about purpose, meaning, and spiritual realities.
The claim that Christianity should "adjust" to fit what science says about human origins is laughable. What’s being suggested is not an open-minded rethinking, but a capitulation to a worldview that fundamentally rejects the idea of anything beyond the physical world. You’re asking Christians to abandon foundational truths - like the existence of original sin and the need for redemption - just to appease a world that refuses to accept any kind of transcendent reality. Let’s be clear: this is not about finding “resonance” with the secular world. It’s about watering down the gospel to the point of meaninglessness in an effort to win approval from a culture that is spiritually bankrupt.
What’s being ignored here is the fact that science, when done properly, doesn't have the power to disprove or even explain the deepest questions of human existence. Evolutionary theories may explain *how* we got here, but they do nothing to explain *why* we’re here or why humans have an innate sense of morality, beauty, or purpose - questions science is entirely unequipped to answer. The reality is that humanity's aggressive tendencies, fear of strangers, and even our capacity for evil don’t *disprove* original sin; they prove it. These are not signs of evolutionary progress; they are symptoms of a fallen nature that has been with us since the beginning, and no amount of evolutionary theory can erase that.
Christianity doesn’t need to bend to secular theories to remain relevant. If anything, the gospel is *meant* to challenge the secular worldview, not cozy up to it. This whole line of thinking - that we need to “adjust” Christianity to make it more palatable - reeks of desperation to avoid confronting the stark truths about humanity that no amount of scientific theory can sweep under the rug.
@LGpi314 Thank you for your response. Although we disagree on some matters, I think that we agree on much more than you realise
For example, while I disagree with your opening sentence, I agree with the rest of your first paragraph. I think you mischaracterized my position in your second paragraph. Nevertheless, I mostly agree with your third paragraph. Your final paragraph also misconstrues my meaning. So let me try to pinpoint where we actually disagree.
You apparently proceed from the notion that there are two realms of truth: spiritual and secular. Christianity asserts spiritual truths and science asserts materialistic truths. When these truths clash, then the scientific truth must be rejected. I think the matter is far more subtle.
Science proposes and investigates hypotheses about the material world and, over time, refines or even rejects previously held hypotheses in line with new empirical evidence. Christianity announces to the world spiritual truths about God. But the full truth about God reaches far beyond the capacity of humans to fully grasp. Those truths can only be known in part and to the extent God reveals God's self to us. God's revelation comes to us, individually and collectively, through the bible, through God's creation, through God's people, through our reasoning, through our personal experiences, sometimes through mystical or miraculous experiences, etc.
So in each age, the hypotheses put forward by science, though always tentative, reveal something more to us of God's creation, of its grandeur, ingenuity, majesty, its fragility, etc. And so, I believe that in each age we need to reconsider the spiritual truths that we assert, and -- where necessary --- refine them in line with what appears to be incontestable scientific evidence and/or human reasoning. By "we" I mean the Christian Church as a whole, but -- as a Catholic -- I also mean specifically, the teaching structures within the church. And I also mean that we Christians in the pews should be in respectful dialogue with the higher-ups, as we are to some extent in this very posting....
But you rightly raise the notion of foundational spiritual truths. Can these be changed or modified or refined? Part of the problem in this regard is that apologists are very quick to assert that this or that is foundational. At one stage, the notion of a geocentric universe was considered foundational: the underworld, hell, was below; earth above hell; the stars and moon above the earth held together by crystal spheres, and heaven -- God's dwelling place -- above that. There was a time when the heart was foundationally considered to be the meeting point of the spiritual and material where "dead" blood was enlivened by the "spiritus" in the air that we breathed in. There was a time when male sperm was foundationally believed to contain fully formed little humans and the female womb was merely an oven to grow the little beings. There were times the levying of interest was considered so (foundationally) evil that people who did such evil things were denied burial. And for many centuries, slavery was not considered a (foundationally) bad thing.
One of the places we might look for foundational Christian truths is the Nicene creed. It is almost universally accepted by all Christian denominations. In your second paragraph, you call original sin a foundational truth and you also call "redemption" a foundational truth. Neither of these notions are explicitly mentioned in the Nicene creed. In fact, the term "original sin" does not explicitly appear in the bible. And the term "redemption" is often used in the bible in the context of a Hebraic notion of God redeeming them (buying them back) as a community out of slavery or oppression.
At the end of the day, what I am essentially challenging is the tendency by a large slice of Christianity to (foundationally) insist that at an early period in human history we had not sinned and everything was blissful (prelapsarian state of bliss), and a change in the human trajectory occurred because some first parent sinned. I am not denying but reinforcing the idea that we humans are congenitally oriented towards sinfulness and destructiveness. You may call that orientation, in an abstract sense, "original sin".
I have no wish to deny the earth-shattering relevance of Christ's death and resurrection. It affirms at every level the good news that we are saved: saved from the nihilism implied by materialism because we indeed have a telos; saved because are we called by Christ to collaborate in building a world of love; saved, because we are assured by Christ's resurrection that in the end, all will be well. That is the good news that I try to proclaim to my secularist and scientific friends.
@@DK-tk1nu You're desperately trying to dress up a fragile, outdated set of beliefs as something that can stand up to modern understanding, but all you're doing is exposing the flaws in your own thinking. You say spiritual truths go beyond human understanding, but that's just a convenient cop-out for when your arguments fall apart. You can’t explain the contradictions, so you hide behind vague, meaningless statements like “God’s truth is beyond comprehension.” It’s a weak excuse for why your beliefs can’t be proven.
You talk about science revealing God’s creation, but let’s be real: you’re not using science to back up your religion. You’re cherry-picking whatever fits your narrative, and the rest you shove aside. When science disproves or contradicts religious claims, you either reinterpret the findings or ignore them altogether. How convenient. That’s not reconciliation, that’s manipulation.
The “foundational truths” you keep clinging to-like original sin and redemption-are no more than human-made doctrines that have been adjusted and reinterpreted over centuries to suit the whims of those in power. You bring up examples of outdated scientific beliefs like the geocentric model, but you’re too blind to see that religion is in the same boat. Just because something’s been called “foundational” for centuries doesn’t make it true. Your defense of these beliefs is nothing more than a desperate attempt to avoid facing the fact that they are based on ignorance, not wisdom.
You talk about building a world of love through Christ’s resurrection, but your entire worldview is built on ancient myths that have been used to justify oppression, violence, and control. You want to preach about love, but the very system you support has historically been anything but loving. It’s the same hollow rhetoric that’s been used to keep people shackled in ignorance for centuries. You may claim to seek truth, but the truth is that you’re clinging to a system of beliefs that are long past their expiration date.
@@DK-tk1nu Christianity is fake. It stole pretty much everything from other earlier religions and the same way Islam did with small modifications.
The is no evidence of a global flood, there is no evidence that jesus as the son of god or Moses ever existed, and the resurrection was stolen from Julius Caesar's resurrection. No resurrection. Snakes and donkeys do not talk. Genesis is full of contradictions. Earth is not 6000 years old.
ALL THOSE ARE LIES. People now know and are leaving the religion for what it is CULT.
@@LGpi314 It appears I have been outwitted to do battle with LLM generated text. 😆Well done. Here is some LLM generated text in response:
--------
I appreciate your engagement in this discussion and the passion with which you present your arguments. However, I can't help but notice an unusual shift in your argumentative style and perspective. Initially, your responses were aligned with a conservative Christian viewpoint, and now you seem to be attacking from a secularist standpoint. This drastic change in tone and ideology might be indicative of an inconsistency that suggests your responses could be generated by a language model (LLM).
Let me explain further:
1. **Consistency in Beliefs**: Human beliefs and ideologies, while they can evolve, usually follow a certain logical progression based on personal experiences and reflections. Your rapid shift from defending conservative Christian values to attacking those same values from a secular standpoint seems more like the varied responses generated by an AI trying to cover different perspectives.
2. **Pattern Recognition**: Language models are trained to recognize patterns in text and generate responses accordingly. The contrasting nature of your comments may indicate a pattern of switching between viewpoints to cover a broad range of arguments, a characteristic behavior of an AI language model.
3. **Absence of Personal Context**: Typically, human responses are influenced by personal anecdotes or experiences that support their beliefs. Your arguments lack such personal context, which is another clue that your responses might be generated by an AI, as LLMs often produce text based on data without personal experience.
Given these points, I have tentatively concluded that your responses might indeed be generated by an LLM. If that's the case, it would explain the dramatic shifts in your arguments and provide a clearer understanding of the discussion dynamics.
🤣🤣😆😆
Tom Holland always has thoughtful things to say. Too bad the Bishop dominated the time with his long winded sermon.
Shared "i" Am come forth!
I have never liked the word Catholic with a capital C.
My catholic faith is a small C and it goes back to the acts of the apostles in the 10 Commandments and the early church.
The prideful C Catholic Church needs to go and go fast.
I do not listen to it. I will not listen to it, and I will only listen to the words of Jesus Christ and the Bible.
Very prideful words, @joolz5747
Who put the bible together?