IS THIS THE DUDE WHO NARRATES "THE DEVIL AND KARL MARX" !! THIS GUY DOES DR.EVIL VOICE EVERYTIME A BULSHIVIK GIVES A RETARDED ARROGANT ANSWER! INCREDIBLE PERFORMANCES !!
Incredibly - Credibly delightful! Thank you, Kevin, for wrestling with the Publisher! Now t's 2023 & I hope everyone involved ~ Kreeft, O'Brien, the amazing actors and the Chesterton Society Conference have all aged well, this last crazy decade!
I stopped after nonsense about Old Testament god being good and all about love. Socrates would despise the bible and organized religion just like he did in his time.
I watched this with a great excitement but it was a disappointment. Towards the 2nd half it's full of cliche arguments about the truth of the Bible (e.g. the reasoning that Jesus was either completely mad or he was indeed what he claimed to be from C.S.Lewis). As I see it, this is a completely different Socrates from the one in the Dialogues where he exemplifies how to pursue truth rather than concluding with a specific statement as true.
Socrates is humble only in human sense, but he believes if a god is not moral then that god is not worthy of him. I don't even get how these cultists managed to persuade him to finish reading their Bible in the first place. Socrates can be polite while trolling you, but the bullshit Genesis is already enough to make him doubt the morality of Christian.
You are insulting his intelligence by your own pathetic lunancy. Not a single Christian on earth can explain how could a god give birth to himself, and have himself killed by us to forgive what we have against him instead just forgive us.
May I ask, are you a Roman Catholic, Protestant, Individual who follows the Bible yourself? Are you an atheist, I am guessing not. I am just not sure where you stand personally. Please and *_God Bless_*
7:48 When Socrates asks this, "If you progress towards the better, everyone must be happier", but nowhere was "better" or "progress" defined as happiness at all, nor was happiness defined in itself, I'd have to ask Socrates what he means by happiness and if he believes that that is the measure for progress, ask why, and ask, "Even if we are happy in our self-destruction, is it still progress?" Pretty major question, definitely watching in hopes that this gets addressed!!! Edit: I'm not 100% about Socrates, but I'm pretty for example, Aristotle would use Greek words like "Eudaimonia" and "Megalopsuchia" rather than blanket "happiness" to describe an overall goal for humanity. Another interesting distinction to make (and something I am still slowly coming to understand more over time) is that Schopenhauer (1788-1860) believed that the driving force for humanity was an unrelenting will to survive, and that's it. Nietzsche (1844-1900) believed humanity was driven by a will to attain power (on many levels, within society, over oneself etc.,). Camus (1913-1960) believes that humanity is driven by the will and want to be happy and to attain happiness overall. These are all three very different ideas, none of which (I think) can just be brushed aside, or easily determined to be true.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. "Socrates Meets Jesus" is a one-act play aimed at a general audience, so digging deep into major questions in philosophy is not what the play sets out to do. But a compelling play based on Plato's Dialogues, for instance, might, in fact, be interesting!
@@KevinOBrien101660 No I completely agree! It was just so thought-provoking I had to express that idea. It wasn't a criticism at all, if anything I was playing along. Yourself (and Peter Kreeft) had the characters ask the questions you wanted them to ask for the narrative, I don't disagree at all, and am certainly not questioning the writing, or your knowledge of x, y or z. This was awesome!!
I later realised "I would have asked Socrates" is irrelevant because I am not a character in this fictional narrative hahaha. I was just so enthralled.
@Kira: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Camus have the same worldview; there is no Truth-there is only the will to power. In other words, the ends justifies the means; and you invent the ends. 7:48 Socrates did not claim to know anything. He asked Molly to define her terms. Molly claimed progress is constantly moving forward… that compared to his day, today is way better because we have control over nature, cured most diseases, central heating, television and telephones. To which Socrates asked compared to his day: ->Is there more or less discontent expressed in todays’ literature? ->Are there fewer/smaller wars or more/larger wars? ->Are fewer people leaving their jobs, their homes, their wives, their lives, their husbands out of discontent? Molly had to admit there was more of those things; so her claim that things are way better today is not proven true.
2 ways u know civilization is crumbling s0d0my & usury...Dante put them both in same level of hell...one takes what is fruitful and makes it sterile the other takes sterile money and makes it fruitful
