Suan Sonna Gets SCHOOLED By William Lane Craig 

Yeah i screenshotted it

Aren't they on patreon?

he is now catholic

Most non Catholics understand catholic theology, hence why they are not catholic.

It’s almost like faithful and thoughtful Christians exist outside of Rome

@@Wilkins325Pretty much. 🙏✝️🙏

What a toxic mindset

Whether it's dumb depends on where it's coming from. Some people really care for the people who are suffering and say this. Didn't Martha and Mary say this to Jesus? I wouldn't say they are dumb. They are just a really good sisters who are really sad.

And that's the danger he just doesn't get - his seductive take on just how 'cool' it is to booze. 🤷🤷 "Therefore let us not pass judgement on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." Rom.14:13 Nothing wrong with enjoying the occasional drink but to positively promote it in every video and risk triggering others is insensitive & unwise.

@@caroldonaldson5936 do you struggle with alcoholism? I'm a teetotaler out purely of personal taste, I found it interesting that while I am wholly indifferent to the scene with Matt it can provoke such strong cravings on others.

@@caroldonaldson5936 I'd at least like to put it out there that the can in his outro is water.

@@MutohMech And if I did, you just sought to personally expose & stigmatise me - what a sick little puppy you are! My point stands, Matt lacks sensitivity to the frailties & weaknesses of his brothers & sisters in Christ; "Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak." 1 Cor 8:9. "Therefore let us not pass judgement any longer, but resolve never to put a stumbling block in the way of a brother." Rom:14:13 Your lack of understanding & compassion for others speaks volumes.

@@garriteinig3445 The booze he consumes isn't.🤷

I wish I could help but you should try emailing Suan

Evolution isn’t real.

@@stellarjayatkins4749 It's real. The question if humans came directly from evolution or were put on earth together with the function of evolution isna different one, but it's real.

@@MrEVAQ I used to think that, but I doubt evolution more everyday. They really have nothing to stand on at this point.

@@mcephas6982 What? Evolution is a fact of nature, and it makes perfect sense

@@mcephas6982 the fossil record alone is enough. So we all are quite literally standing on it

I've read Catholic theologian and apologist Dr. Robert Sungenis explain it like this: "The Alleged Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 Common objections to a literal reading Genesis 1 is that it would conflict with a literal reading of Genesis 2. Events in Genesis 2, if taken literally, happen quite fast compared to the events in Genesis 1. (1) For example, between the creation of man in Genesis 2:7 and the creation of woman in Genesis 2:18-25, God plants a garden in 2:8 and causes trees to grow in 2:9 (including the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life). The objection claims that such a scenario would entail the rapid growth of the trees that would have to occur between the appearance of Adam and the appearance of Eve. This objection holds little weight, first because it presumes to limit God's action to natural occurrences during an obviously miraculous creation week. Considering that Eve is said to be created miraculously from the side of Adam (as confirmed by Pope Leo XIII), it is quite apparent that miraculous ex nihilo activity is continuing to occur until the creation is complete on the seventh day. (2) A second objection states that, according to Genesis 2:5, there were no plants prior to the creation of man, which conflicts with the account in Genesis 1:11-12 that the plants were made prior to man. This objection can be answered by focusing on the particular words used in Genesis 2 that are not used in Genesis 1. Genesis 2:5 refers to the "shrub" (x;yfi) of the field, but this word does not appear in Genesis 1:11-12 or 1:29-30. Genesis 1:11-12 refers to the "herb" (bf,[e) and the "tree producing fruit" (yrIP. hf,[). Hence, the first distinction between Genesis 1:11-12 and Genesis 2:5 is that the former indicates only two kinds of vegetation, whereas Genesis 2:5 adds a third kind. Apparently, the two plants of Genesis 1:11-12 served as food for Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:29-30. There is a second distinction. Genesis 2:5 specifies that "not every herb of the field had yet sprung up," which would mean there were some that had sprung up on the third day of creation, and some which sprung up after the sixth day of creation. There is a third distinction. Genesis 2:5 says the "shrubs" and "herbs" had not yet produced tsemach (xm'c.yI), contrasting with dashah (av,D,) of Genesis 1:11-12. The former refers to a budding for the next generation, while the latter refers to an original sprouting of the first generation of fruits. Hence, Adam and Eve's food, on the first day of their creation, was the original fruit of the two plants in Genesis 1:11-12, while the "shrubs" and the budding plants would have to wait until the appropriate time. (3) A third objection claims that, after the creation of the trees in Genesis 2:8-9, God then makes a river to flow out of Eden in Genesis 2:10, from which it is divided into four other rivers. This would involve even more time and more miraculous activity prior to the creation of the woman. But this objection is easily answered, since Genesis 2:10 does not specifically say that God made the rivers at that time. It is more likely that the rivers may have been a product of the waters separated on day three of Genesis 1:9-13. (4) A fourth objection submits that Genesis 2:18-20 indicates that the animals were created after man, whereas Genesis 1:24-26 indicates that the animals were created before man. This objection can be answered in one of two ways. The Hebrew word yatsar (rc,YIw:) used in Genesis 2:19 ("and out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast...and every bird...and brought them to the man to see what he would call them") is a Hebrew imperfect tense, which, since Hebrew only has two tenses, past and future, can be understood as a pluperfect, which would then be understood as: "and out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast..." This explanation makes the most sense, since the quest given in Genesis 2:18 is to find a "suitable helper" for Adam. Since God knew the animals would not to be a suitable helper (i.e., a being with whom Adam could not communicate and procreate), then it would be rather aimless for Him to create the animals after He created Adam merely to see if a suitable helper could be found among them. It makes much more sense that, having previously created the animals, it was already known that none of them served as a suitable helper, and thus Eve's creation had already been anticipated. In this way, Genesis 2:18-20 serves as an alternate perspective on the chronology of Genesis 1:24-26 so as to set up the theological underpinnings of Eve's creation, a theology which will serve as the basis for Adam's headship over Eve (cf., 1 Timothy 2:13; 1 Corinthians 11:5; Ephesians 5:22). In the above scenario, the days of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 compare as follows: Day One 1:1-5 2:4-7 Day Two 1:6-8 2:8 Day Three 1:9-13 2:9-14 Day Four 1:14-19 2:15 Day Five 1:20-23 2:16-17 Day Six 1:24-31 2:18-24"

@@mcephas6982 that's a great example of a bible scholar trying to explain the inconsistencies and making a mess of it. He's coming at it from completely the wrong angle. Genesis 1 is prophetic. It's a prophetic overview of redemptive history. The Adam of Genesis 1 is Jesus, Who was created as the Son of Man on the 6th prophetic day. Too much to explain in a youtube comment though.

there is a book by the american dominican order called "thomistic evolution" or something like that and it is written by biologists, physicists, theologians and philosophers. They are in the riverforest tradition and try to explain a theory of evolution in thomist metaphysical terms. they also have a webpage

I think people only think evolution is even possible because of The Big Bang Theory. I know a lot of Christians have taken to that theory, but it was only after I discovered how the theory actually came to be that I realized evolution was also based off a whole lot of nothing. If one insists on believing in The Big Bang model, then Hugh Ross has the best book on trying to square that with Genesis. But I think Robert Sungenis' book "Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right", the abridged version, is the best out there to start understanding Genesis from a literal perspective.

One good one I know is The Lost World of Genesis One.

I read 'In The Beginning' by Fr. Lawrence R. Farley and it was pretty good in terms of examining scripture. May be something to check out.

Only A Theory

It's already on the channel: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-xMgN_G-IQTc.html

He most certainly does not believe in open theism.

Spiritual death could be what God is referring to in Genesis.

They had no one to name them till Adam irregardless the point the author is trying to make is Adam had dominion over the animal world not that Adam was created in a literal 24 hour period after the animals.

@@lilwaynesworld0 no such word as irregardless. The opposite of regard is regardless.

Uhh what?

Are you mad because they mentioned Craig, a non catholic?

Catholics often draw on CS Lewis. He was an Anglican.

There is no communication without interpretation. For without interpretation, words are just sound waves in the air and written text is just patterns of ink on paper. Interpretation is foundational to communication. Understanding is the end result of interpreted communication... for interpretation is the method through which we understand... what context you use to interpret with though... that's where people start to disagree on. In other words, we disagree on HOW to interpret, not on WHETHER to interpret.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Benedict_Medal

Evolution is fact. There is a lot evidence to back it up.

Evolution is absolutely a fact. The sole reason there is a fossil record of developing homosapien skull shapes and DNA is that evolution took place. Just because it is complex does not mean that it is impossible. Many Catholics believe in evolution, just with God being the guiding hand.

Not trying to be mean….but have you ever seen your brain? Do you have a brain? Obviously, you have a brain. Do we need to personally witness every single thing in history to believe it? Using and trusting testimony of others is called history. Look up Jesus in Britannica….Jesus is a fact.

Did I see the assassination of Lincoln? No….but I believe it happened.

Check out book Why We Are Catholic by Trent Horn….it deals with a lot of questions you have. I used to be an atheist and now Im a devout Catholic. God bless you in your search!

Not sure what observability has to do with truth.