In this episode Trent shares some of the advice he gave at a recent Franciscan University of Steubenville Conference To check out next year's conference: steubenvilleco... To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Something I particularly enjoy about this video is how funny Trent is, but because we can't hear the audience, it looks like he's dying up there, making it even funnier to me
Trent, Two things I admire about you- your genuineness of heart, and the nimbleness of your intelligence. Thanks for showing how you use the Columbo approach in such a respectful manner.
16:04 “Getting rid of the goal of converting a person; you can’t do that-only the Holy Spirit can ....” Easy to forget when in a convers but so powerful
Thanks for sharing this. Although I know people don't usually like their questions being answered with other questions. This video reminded me of a dialogue that happens way too often after doing that: "Don't reply to me with a question, answer to my question first." "I'm trying to reply, but I need you to answer this first." "I asked first." "And I asked second." "Then I reply second, but you answer first." "Who made that rule? We could have a different conversation if you were open to follow with my reply." "But you're making that to make things your way. I asked you a concrete question, I don't want to focus on this other question." "I'm asking you to make my point." "Then make it without asking questions. I asked first." And so on. Ok, this is not necessarily a dialogue about things of the faith, but definitely something that happens when you reply with a question.
True, so maybe one can ask along the line of “I want to answer, but I’m not sure I’m understanding you correctly. Can you elaborate?” or “The wording is a bit off to me. Do you mean * insert question *?” I feel that helps the first person lower their guard because it displays the second person is willing to engage and is actively listening. That goes a long way, even unconsciously, in lowering the first person’s guard. Of course, it may help if both parties know the nature of the conversation first before diving in. May work for some, but may not for others. Sort of like kids in the ‘why?’ phase. You want to answer, but it also gets kind of annoying 😅
I think the average person can comprehend speech said or played back much faster than the average person can speak. I remember listening to an episode of another podcast (You are not so smart, imo great podcast by the way if you're able to focus on the content and not be bothered by any attitudes of the host that may be different from your own) about evidence-based ways of improving the efficacy of corporate meetings; one of the things they discussed was replacing a presenter-type meeting with a video message that people can watch whenever works for them and accelerate the playback to whatever speed works for them, and then if there needs to be a discussion it can be shorter, which makes it more focused, productive, and easier to schedule). Anyway, back on topic, it's how we're wired, and RU-vid has a way to accommodate that, so no need to knock on Trent for something tangential to the quality of the content itself
Love your work and I learn every time you open your mouth...lol. But I no longer defend my faith... We can discuss it or not, but I'm not defending it any longer. It's the one true faith, ur welcome to listen or we can separate in peace.
I agree. I refuse to engage nonCatholics and their “popes” (James White, John MacArthur, etc.) who have no idea what the true Catholic Christian believes and devoutly lives every day. They will twist and turn history and the Bible any way possible to refute Jesus’ Church and refuse to research using Catholic sources.
Exactly. It's a mind shift but it totally takes away any pressure you feel. We aren't "defending" anything, simply sharing the Truth if the audience wants to listen. But its' not up to us to "prove" the Truth.
It is important for one to have a reasonable understanding of scriptures and doctrinal origination and the basis for them. I had a Mormon and a Muslim try to convince me that their faith was the correct path. They were surprised to find out that I knew a little more about their faiths than they expected. I argue their faith claims using their own books, scriptures. I reveal the incongruity of their faiths by using their own knowledge of their own scriptures and the scriptures themselves.
I love it. I have one question. At point point should we clarify misconceptions, or we shouldn't? I would imagine one can use a combination of strategies, not to win but to leave both parties with the feeling they learned something about the other person's point of view.
Trent posted another video on this talk where he demonstrated this technique. It’s right after this one. From what I can gather, ask questions to get a better read on what that person thinks and why that person thinks it. His other video had an audience member bring up so-called gay marriage and it was fascinating to watch. The guy opened with “The Church isn’t letting gay people love each other” and Trent asked through what that statement meant, what does love mean, can love be disordered, and what types of love are there. That works because it’s easier at that point to better pin down where the misconception is, give the listener time to understand the speaker, and develop a conversation from there. It also makes the speaker feel less like they are being preaches at, so the relationship flows better. May not work always, but it can work well when done correctly. Reminds me of the claim “Catholics are Mary worshippers.” You can go through the deep and traditional reasons through Scripture, apparitions, etc, but the first question one should ask that speaker “What is worship?” From what I've seen, those who make that claim don’t know the different ways one can show respect and honor to other beings. Bowing can take on different meanings in different cultures (such as in Japan where it’s a common greeting or acknowledgement and Europeans will bow before monarchs as a show of respect), and we do it even to inanimate objects like graves. So that helps them realize bowing isn’t something we set aside solely for God. Just my thoughts and observations, hope this helps!
Just a shout out for all your GenX references that the young kids don’t have cultural appreciation for. Your analysis of the nuances of Bill and Ted was top notch. You are easy to listen to. Some advice back to you though - don’t create different rules for your kids when mom (or Dad) is not around. The kids will use this against you as time goes on. Work with your wife to show United front to the kids. In this example, mom would let Matthew watch such movie at home.
I really like Trent Horns style on asking the right questions to get people to think. Is there some sort of course on Catholic apologetics answering the most common questions against Catholicism ?
Catholic Answers has courses on apologetics. They're really in-depth and high level and were around $50 the last time I checked. Jimmy Akin does the philosophical stuff while Trent Horn deals with issues of sexuality and morality etc. They're worth the money from what I've heard.
I enjoy your videos Trent. One question, were you born catholic? How lucky to be born into the true faith. As a former catholic, I despise the hubris, superiority, and condescension of evangelization and proselytization. True religion seems to be a matter, primarily, of where one was born.
Definitely the case that In 20th and early 21st century Catholics are not big on “selling” Catholicism - this being a synonym for “evangelizing”. And you are correct that one attracts more bees with honey than with vinegar. But the guy in San Diego having a problem with Catholic stance on gay marriage was an intellectual lightweight. The easy answer is that what you gave him back was a “slippery slope” logical fallacy argument. A good high school speech and debate team member would have handed you your hat back on that one.
Or the great Fr. Mitch Pacwa, or Robert Sungenis, or Gerry Matatics. They were powerhouse apologists. Why not mention them as regards 80’s/90’s apologetics? Those guys were everywhere. Mitch Pacwa was the best, hands-down.
There is no need to "defend" the faith. Where does that concept come from? Jesus did not do that. He simply taught and lived the Gospel. And he commanded us to do the same.
Yeah, I have watched a few of these the past day and realize this site and the commenters are mainly converts who really overintellucalize the church. In practice, this is a bad idea. Only one time did I 'defend' the church from blatant hateful slander , and I was in a bad position since it was 3 against 1 me, and we were on a 2nd floor balcony in a hot tub. I was gonna go anyway and thankfully no a finger was laid on me or it was on. Couple of really dogmatic baptists who had a condescending attitude and a bone to pick. Suffice to say, they admitted later about a month, we lived a condo for a contract job, they admitted they were scared shitless.
@@ripvanwinkle1819 converts over-intellectualize because the Bible tells us to reason, and to give an answer for the hope that is within us. Most importantly, we have to “work out our salvation in fear and trembling”. We have to know why we believe what we believe, using reason and Scripture. It’s not just about perceiving emotions and getting ready to swing fists.
@@ripvanwinkle1819 can I ask a question? Are cradle Catholics taught NOT to do those things? Is that why you have animosity for converts - BECAUSE they have thought through it and weighed [what they felt] was evidence? Is that a culturally offensive thing in Roman Catholicism? Maybe I’ve been watching apologists for too long. 🧐
Love this... but.... I know Trent you are killing the crowd here, but I think the noise cancellation is blocking it. It sounds like you are dying out there..... 🤣😂😆
I have a bit of a problem with calling the Farisees hypocrites. If you're a gospel writer, you wouldn't exactly want to depict the Farisees as better than Jesus and the Farisees were basically competitors. In other words: the gospel writers had a vested interest in making the Farisees look bad. It's more likely that the Farisees simply wanted to avoid big conflicts. That isn't necessarily hypocritical, just pragmatic. Just imagine how the Romans would have reacted towards a major internal conflict in Israel.
I remember a debate on God's existence v. Barker (?) where he asks Trent a question in response to his (Trent's). Trent reacted by saying: "No, it doesn't work this way. I am the one asking you. Answer before mine". And Barker said: " You know it can work this way". Even for Trent, it's not easy to get socrated.
Well, this is so rude... You force someone to answer, but when somebody is telling you to answer. Well, I have enough time, so I will think about it...
Now, you should pass to the next level by knowing and learning the gospel of salvation for us gentiles : That Jesus Christ already have paid for all our sins when He died on the cross, was buried and rose again the third day according to the scriptures. He resurrected in power and victory over sin, death and Hades. Now He has the keys of death and Hades. Do you believe it? 1 corinthians 15.1-4
So - making a defense is a different thing from attacking others' beliefs, which at about 1/3 of the way through is all you are talking about. If all you do is ask questions, but never answer in return, then you are not really interested in dialogue. I notice that you never answered that young woman's question. As for the existence of God, that question is just lazy. If you want me to argue with myself, then why should I include you in the conversation? If all you are doing is picking at someone else's beliefs to find an inconsistency, well you will find one. We are human beings, everyone's beliefs have inconsistencies. Including yours. Dig far enough and you'll find some.
You said, "... if their world view is not Catholic there is going to be something false, inconsistent, and sometimes quite ugly about it. And we have to gently show that to them... " Really? I've just got one question. Seriously. How to defend a Church with so much scandal. That's a real problem when such a huge percentage of its Priests and Bishops are homosexual. Now that is definitely "something false, inconsistent, and quite ugly". I couldn't possibly defend that "faith". I like what Protestant apologists do. They defend and explain Christianity, i.e., the simple belief in the person of Christ. They never defend a "faith" (a Church). And... I would recommend to you "Church Militant", to bring you up to date on the spiritual condition of your "Faith". Especially Michael Voris's program, "The Vortex".
Proof Eucharist is body of Jesus Christ and Virgin Mary is his mother. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;z 50this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”a 52The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?” 53Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.b 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” Eucharistic miracle.. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-soCkftBBsBo.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oogJ-cdi7yI.html (Rome Reports) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-whbzLYi7cyc.html (Lanciano) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6PJ8BORx1p8.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bd16tBRbLXw.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PvxTDAVypxs.html (levitating eucharist) Incorruptible bodies of saints due to the Eucharist - only happens in the Catholic church. No other religion has this miracle ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GSCk0qs-2-M.html (Padre Pio) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jN4SvtRje2I.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--TrR1CEWdbc.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XCDBekAQ-FI.html (Carlo Acutis) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-33vlkJh2iJc.html Apparition of Virgin Mary ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GQnKS7YUE7Q.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Ivory Coast) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0PPGuMmn6TQ.html (Virgin Mary statue moving) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tVU8bhbQInw.html (Virgin Mary apparition in Egypt) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nMEWxRB-1dc.html 1968 Egypt ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8YR6INkTK7Q.html (Miracle of the sun) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yF0_ysUivxE.html (Miracle of the sun) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-76qAMB3qUpA.html Medjugorje Sun miracle on Easter Sunday ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RyYNIulxIbc.html Virgin Mary appears in Egypt & Spain-Eye Witnesses
So the catholic version of apologetics is to NOT answer questions? Regarding the teachings of the catholic faith deferring or asking a question in response to a question is seen as evasive. If the rcc is the true church as they claim then there should be no need to turn the tables on anyone. Every question should be a softball that is knocked out of the park every time. We may not agree with the answer on our end but you should certainly have an answer when the claim of your church is to have 'the fullness of the faith.' But in my little world of apologetics i get more non answers than answers from catholics. Sorry but this is a complete cop out. If catholics don't know their own faith, then train them.
There were instances in the life of Jesus where He simply asked questions instead of directly answering their questions. One example is from Luke 20:1-8 Luke 20:1-8 One day, as he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes with the elders came up 2 and said to him, “Tell us by what authority you do these things, or who it is that gave you this authority.” 3 He answered them, “I also will ask you a question; now tell me, 4 Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?” 5 And they discussed it with one another, saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ 6 But if we say, ‘From men,’ all the people will stone us; for they are convinced that John was a prophet.” 7 So they answered that they did not know whence it was. 8 And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.” The point of asking questions is not because there is no answer but to show the inconsistency of the other person's perspective especially if the other person is not even open to listen to an answer. Anyway, I sent you a link above. I hope you'll find it helpful.
Good stuff! It all can be easily countered though. And it feels awkward to be needing to educate believers to act as salesmen for their catholic believe. If god were so much as lift a finger and write in the air to all become catholic all would be solved and we lived happily ever after. He does not since he does not exist. Christian morals however are highest standard and invented by wise men. But old-fashioned: of course a gay marriage is ok - of course they may promise each other to stay faithful to each other for the rest of their lives. And that is called marriage. Having 10 women and marry them, is not exactly faithful to 1 person - you are then 'faithful to a group and that is not how marriage is defined. But give it another name 'multi-marriage' and you are good to go. I only hope no kids are born in such constellation as our kind is used to grow up with a mother and father, period. Anything else is sub-optimal, may occur but ideally only as exceptions to the rule.
What would be the point of god forcing us to believe in him? That would be like a rock falling to the ground, it merely follows the law that was put in place for it to obey. It doesnt fall because it loves the ground, it falls because it doesnt govern itself. In order for humans to love god, they must have the choice to not love him. In order for their obedience to have more worth than the gravity that pulls a rock, there must be the possibility for humans to become apostate or heretical. The imperfection of the believer is not evidence of gods nonexistance
No third secret , no consecration of Russia , why should I look to other Non approved appearances and Messages . I know Fatima to be of the mother What I know is the beads of the Rosary are the body , Christ is the soul of the Rosary. Same with all sacred art. A cross laying on the ground the Christ hanging in the air , something is wrong , this is not sacred art , this Is no more sacred art then the Hammer and sickle given to Francis with Christ crucified on it. This is modernist art. The soul with in these body's I do not believe are anymore of the Holy Ghost then the Pachamamma. I know Fatima to be of the mother I cannot I will not leave her love and care. When lost return to the oldest ways of your father , do not remove his landmarks. No third secret , No consecration of Russia. ( No man does wrong that waits for GOD )
Understandably, The atheist puts the onus on us for our reasons to believe in God. Sorry sir. Even the Kelly example is oversimplistic - to believe that scenario will always be granted.
No, catholic faith is false because is based on the doctrine of the triune God. That doctrine states that God knows the WHOLE future and is here interacting with us. You should distinguish between "possible futures" (that God could maybe modify) and "THE ONE actual future" (including the modifications by God) that will ACTUALLY take place. Thus, God is supposed to perfectly know that One future which will ACTUALLY come true. Once again, that actual future is ALREADY AMENDED in accordance with the God's wishes. But this implies a SEPARATION of God from the world and mankind: God would simply BOREDLY STARE at what happens in the world, doing NOTHING MORE than staring at that well-known film which simply regularly UNFOLDS. God had really NOTHING to do because even the God's voice is ALREADY RECORDED on that film: his power will AUTOMATICALLY do what needed. God would not PERSONALLY take actions too, because they must be EXACTLY taken as in that film. Since that actual future is "already amended", this implies there MUST have been a "first phase" BEFORE in which God WAS FREE to make all his decisions, where God examined "possible futures", i.e. He did NOT know the WHOLE ACTUAL FUTURE above. Indeed (1) KNOWING the ACTUAL future and (2) being FREE TO DECIDE are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, God can have either one, but not the two of them AT THE SAME TIME for logical reasons: if God "reserved the right" to change the future whenever He likes (see (2)), this would mean He doesn't really know what will happen in the future and this is not serious. But it's not the case: when all his decisions are made - end of the first phase - God knows exactly the whole future and the item is concluded for good. God is almighty, He cannot afford future uncertainties. However, Jesus is God.
@@gowdsake7103 God perfectly knows the future and that future MUST come true because the almighty God cannot afford any errors. A hypothetical example. The day of the Jesus' baptism at 8:00 am God knows that He will later say " Thou art my beloved Son. In thee I am well pleased." - as previously decided by Him - starting at 11:37:51sec and ending at 11:37:56sec. The problem is: what will happen later? Shall God engage to speak those words at those times or just "a recording" will be played ?
@@claudiozanella256 Wow then no 1 your life has zero purpose or meaning because you have no control over it No 2 Stating a god knows the future does not prove god You have no proof of god or indeed that jesus even existed other than your book of myths You will never defend that position with logic or reason
You're basically advocating for a Christian version of street epistemology. Love it! Atheists seem to think (as I did once, as a former atheist) that street epistemology is the best way to deconvert people, but they fail to realize it's a swiss army knife we can also use to help convert people to the true faith. Pax Christi!
@@skullo5557 I was a protestant before I deconverted. I had gone from denomination to denomination, church to church, for about 18 years. I never stayed at one church more than maybe 3-4 years, if that. I knew the "bible stories" and the basic gist of the gospel, but my knowledge of the faith didn't stray too much further than that. When I was a few months from turning 19, I encountered atheists on RU-vid for the first time. The biggest objection to the Christian God I could find was the epicurean "paradox", i.e. the problem of evil. It didn't take long for that to deconstruct my faith. I started doubting everything from the effect of worship music being trance-like to whether God was actually good. I came to the conclusion at the time that Christianity had to be false, and that if there was a god then he was an evil, mean-spirited one. I spent around 7 months as an atheist, consuming philosophy and science like a sponge. I watched debates, listened to deconverts about their stories, and grew very angry about religion's hold on the human race. I had basically promised myself I would never fall for the religious lie again. But then one day I woke up with this desperate need/feeling that I needed to look at Catholicism. I had researched it only on a surface level before my deconversion, and during my time of skepticism I had grown very angry with that particular group over the sex abuse scandals. But this feeling would not go away, and I think after a few days I just gave up ignoring it and started diving deep into Catholic thought and apologetics. What I found was not a dumb religion forcing its members to stay away from the sciences or intellectual thought, but a deep, historical, beautiful religion that encouraged rational thought, the sciences, philosophy, and encouraged people to ask questions. This was so far removed from what I thought I knew about the Church that it got me very curious. I dived into their actual theology and found that their positions concerning scripture, science, the nature of God and his creation, and everything else to be very logical and very consistent. So then I went to my first Mass, and began meeting with the deacon there who runs their RCIA program (initiation classes). After a few weeks I resolved to join the Church, and I've been in RCIA since September. I've began reading the scriptures again, this time I'm reading from cover to cover chronologically though the Bible in a Year podcast; I've been praying the rosary and other prayers every morning, praying at night, studying apologetics, reading some Aquinas, implementing little "t" traditions, and going to Mass twice every weekend. I'm also in my parish's choir and help work on their soundboard. So that's my conversion story. The final thing I will say is that I had once asked God to let me be an atheist so I can come back and be more on-fire about my faith. I look back now and wish I hadn't asked for that, since he did allow it and those months were some of the darkest in my life. But I can also see that God used that time for good, because my faith is now more solid than it ever was before, and I actually practice it willingly.
@@AppalachianAcademics I don't understand this concept of "if God exists He must not be good." It seems like a complete lack of understanding of the very concepts of both God and goodness. God is good because He is God, and good is good because it is God's will. I met a guy who tried to hit me with that one, but the very notion doesn't even make sense, though I don't know I did him any favors by just telling him that. To his credit he immediately dropped that line of thought, though I don't know if that's because he actually realized he had said something nonsensical or if he was just annoyed that I had insulted his intelligence. If there was no God, or if there was an impersonal First Mover of some sort, there wouldn't be any objective good or evil. I surmised that these people's notion of God is more akin to some sort of pagan god who is just a real powerful guy somewhere rather than a necessary singular being upon whom the existence of every thing and concept relies. That still leaves the question of what goodness is. Was that kind of your problem when you were an atheist or do I just not get it? I can't wrap my head around a creature designed to know God saying "there is no God." They are obviously aware that good is objective, but simultaneously claim there's no way that good can be objective. Just seems like a bizarre and total malfunction.
The Catholic apologist is much appreciated these days. Historically in England and America Catholic have had to be silent as possible on fear of reprisal. The KKK were hostile anti-Catholic and their literature is still being preached today by their unwitting grand children.
This is really impressive - many thanks for your wise and inspired teaching on this matter. What is more, I think it was Justin Martyr who described Socrates and Plato as Christians before Christ. My only quibble is a very minor one: you need, I think, to make a slightly more extensive concession to the flesh because the Socratic method is, in my experience, not quite as easy as you suggest! Yes, wholeheartedly commend and explain this method! Yes, urge the faithful to develop the confidence to engage in apologetics in exactly the way you suggest! However, acknowledge that there will be those of us for whom it will come with practice! Socrates himself was an old man when his method came to prominence and (one assumes) it was the product of much experience and observation. What is more, he also (by his own account) had supernatural assistance. For the Christian apologist, as you yourself suggest, success in this area is dependent on grace. It’s also worth remembering at some point what befell Socrates as a result of his questioning! Oh yes … and I understand that the character of Columbo and the format of the series was based on Dostoyevsky’s _Crime and Punishment_ and, in particular, the character of the policeman, Porphyry Petrovitch. A Christian source, of course …
Thanks for bringing WLC and STR to the Catholic church. I come from that ilk and have recently converted to Catholicism. Your content is my favourite. It's amazing to me though how much these ministries espouse positions and approaches to evangelism and philosophy of religion which is far better reinforced under Catholicism than what they believe. But I appreciate what God is doing through them in bringing protestants closer to a Catholic way of thinking.
I think perhaps that this speech is Trent trying to think through and work through the issues of there being too much to know for us very limited humans. There just isn’t enough time and brain space to know it all, so the response is to develop good thinking and reasoning habits and approaches that serve as a thinking and debating guide. I needed this message because I’m extremely high in the openness trait and struggle to remind myself that I don’t need to concern myself with knowing all there is to know. I have a feeling many of the people that seek out catholic answers videos regularly are also high in trait openness. Also, if anyone wants to know more about the big 5 traits, Jordan Peterson has some good stuff on it. I’ve found it helpful as part of my catholic faith.
Trent PLEASE do a rebuttal on @Christforgiveness, he’s a street preacher who’s gaining popularity and is making claims that Jesus isnt God he’s only a revelation… he’s very anti catholic too and he needs to be put in his place
I enjoy arguing in a friendly way, but I do tend to dig in as it gets going. I'll reconsider my weak points, because I'm that focused on getting it right. But I do need to be reminded that I can come across as too intense, and that could be driving souls away from God. I really try to be quieter when I'm in debate about Catholic Christianity. The words of Marcus Grodi ring in my head. When he was speaking to a much younger Jimmy Akin, I think it was. Marcus said, "You don't do the converting. The Holy Spirit does." That has stayed with me. May the Sacred Heart of Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, open the hearts and minds of sinners to the truth and light of the Father. 🙏🏻🌹
As an agnostic-atheist I can say the only reasons I've been given to believe in an invisible magic man who lives in the sky can be boiled down to appeals to faith, no relevant and impactful facts. Trouble is, faith cannot correct a false idea and so is useless as a compass that can inerringly points to truth.
Correct: many appeal to faith. For one, christian moral living is crucial and superior to any other - western culture versus others is the proof. For the other, believe in god(s) was what kept people sane and safe as this entless power gave structure in times there was no police for instance to keep the sicial environment save. So tje believers as you will created save- spaces and could breed and multiply - gods were a brilliant invention of the human kind and this basically embedded the appeal to blieve part of our genes. So it is natural. But wrong - there are no gods. I like to think that that truth is already there as a hi t in the bible - god created man as an image of himself. We are in the end god. We can live our own lives.
This is a complicated response but bear with me. As as ex agnostic atheist for over 16 years, I had to make two steps to reach God. Step 1 - Arrive to a fundamental logical need for God in the universe. For example, God could be the prime mover that started the big bang. For me it was psychological. I am convinced (in the context of all the woke business) that we arrived to the 1800s in the shape we did because we all believed in some form of God. The current devolution in society is entirely because of godlessness started by the 'enlightenment'. I'm not saying things were perfect in centuries gone by but we have always been trending upward morally until now. As Jordan Peterson explains, there is evidence to show that we perceive the world through stories. And this is such an important fact that I can't stress it enough. Society moved forward because of a fundamental belief in God (as opposed to how society collapse is directly proportional to nihilism). The greatest story then is that of Jesus. God making himself as a man to understand the suffering that his creatures go though, then willingly sacrifices himself because he made a promise that the price of sin was death. Because he couldn't break His own law, he sacrificed Himself as a sacrificial atonement. No other story compares even slightly. 2) Having reached the conclusion for at least a psychological necessity for God, I then said out loud words to the effect of 'God I have no idea if you're really out there, but I know that you should logically exist. But how can I believe if I have no proof? I really want to believe because I know you must exist'. A few weeks after, I experienced Jesus twice during a period of sickness of 5 weeks where I was in real threat of dying. I couldn't eat or drink for 3 weeks, lost nearly 20% of my body weight. After 2 weeks of pain 9-10 on a scale of 10, I literally got down on my knees and gave myself up to God, I said words to the effect of 'Jesus if you're out there save me, and I'll believe in you.' Believe me this happened twice in a week and the pain subsided immediately. That was it, once you realise God is real, and sin is real, repentance comes immediately. Jesus does really heal, I immediately gave up my intense gaming addiction, pr0n addiction, no depression, my cussing and swearing dropped 95%, in fact it only ever happens if I'm intensely stressed or surprised (like when driving and someone cuts you off dangerously), and am positive of my family's future. Now you'll be tempted to dismiss this all as subjective quackery. Every person who truly believes comes to it with their own unique experience. So long as you refuse to admit evidence that sits outside your 5 senses, you cannot have a religious experience which is presumably the evidence that you'd want. May your heart be softened to hear His voice and your eyes healed enough to see His love. I'll be praying for you.
Are you gonna rebut Pastor Wingers rebuttal? I thought he had some good points. But I didn't fact check him enough to make a definitive claim. Maybe you could demonstrate some of these Socratic skills and how to be graceful about it
From my understanding Trent doesn't rebut rebuttals. However, he leaves an open invitation to Pastor Winger to join him in a debate. I would leave a message on Pastor Wingers site urging him to debate Trent. that would be definitely worth watching. God Bless
@@Matt-1926 Pastor Winger basses all his arguments on the Council of Trent documents written 450 years ago. There has been an updating in our theology since that time , because the arguments used in a flat earth society against evangelicals are not valid today or even quoted by modern Catholic Scholars except to update our understanding in today's historical circumstances very different from those of the past. Faith according to the Council of Trent is at the root and also the foundation of all justification. Today we not only see it at the root but it is from faith to faith and it is faith from beginning to end together with hope and faith working through love . In other words a faith that works !
defend your faith no matter how stupid and unlogic this faith are !! same recipy have jews when Jesus comes and they defend own faith with killing Jesus n and same thing Catholicism and other world religion will do
You can defend your Roman Catholic faith when your at the White Throne of Judgment when us true believers are at the Judgement seat of Christ getting our rewards.
I don't think there is a good defense for faith. I think that is why people sometimes abandon their faith because they realized their reasoning wasn't as sound as they once thought. Likewise for atheists becoming theists, they never seem to offer good intellectual reasons for entering the faith, usually it's good emotional reasons, which is fine but not convincing to skeptics.
Apologetics dont judge anyone. We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Jesus said " conferences prove nothing. Faith is not proven until the judgement Day. Wheat and tares parable.
Trent, if this is your calling - you seem good at it- consider a move to Brazil or somewhere in Latin America. The Catholic Church is getting crushed there - many converts to evangelical Protestantism there. The anti gay teachings will be more acceptable there too - it’s getting hard to push that in western countries now that we all realize we have gay uncles and brothers and cousins and that they are not to be ostracized for having a loving, committed relationship. That exclusionary dogma is just not going to sell here.
There is a very porwerful catholic apologist that defends the word of God in the spanosh speaking world, father luis toro, he engages in apologetics with pastors, theologians , and regular common folk and beats them using the bible.
The tactic is called shifting the burden of proof to an unfalsifiable proposition. My personal opinion is that this is a deceitful tactic used on people that have a Laymans level of understanding of the subject.
9:19 Trent nails it. The best people to try to convert to Catholicism is someone who is dissatisfied. In particular, someone who wants high ecclesiology and/or is not highly Biblically or historically literate. Or, they have a high view of hierarchy and a lower view of Scripture. Personally, my desire for high ecclesiology, liturgy and structure is what drew me to really examine the Roman Catholic Church for possible conversion.
Agreed. Also think that is part of the appeal of Latin mass as it is traditional and folks who like this concept gravitate toward it. Should allow Latin mass as option and that might draw a few more converts. But on the other side, if all you are trying to do is peel off members of other faiths - that is a losing demographic argument. That is a declining group overall in USA. Got to get the “nones”.
One does not defend his or her faith; one exercises his or her faith, even if one is in chains. The Apostle Paul said, "Though I am in chains, the word of God is not in chains." Albeit, we are called to defend the gospel of salvation in Christ Jesus---not any one particular church system.
@@dannisivoccia2712 No it absolutely is not. I have zero clue where you got that belief from. Possible objection you might have: “The Bible” Nowhere in the Bible does it say that.
The easiest way to defend your faith is to tell the truth. Lying and covering up the horrible history of Catholicism is setting yourself up for a horrible day of judgment. I mean Judgment Day!
Trent, can I ask you a question? If you *can* give a reason for the hope you have, why don't you? Why ask questions in reply and not simply give the reason for your belief? Give the evidence. Show us the Aristotelian "substance" of regular bread prior to consecration. Give just the smallest, verifiable, predictive, empirical evidence so that a neutral observer has to conclude your religious claims conform to reality. Move the needle a bit. Don't just throw questions back at the non-Catholics. Give evidence. Otherwise you're just being an evasive jerk, training other Catholics to be evasive jerks. Greg Koukl epitomizes how to be dishonest in a conversation. Try not copy him.
He *does* give answers. You won´t know his answers if you don´t read his books. Go to the library, or download them online for free if you have to. Start with: - *"Answering Atheism"* by Trent Horn. - *"Why we are catholic"* by Trent Horn And from there you can read the other books he has written.
Would you read books from Islamic apologists giving reasons their faith is true? Why not read the best Protestant apologists, who systematically show the absurdity of the Catholic magisterium? I could send you books of those. Most Catholic books I have a re physical, but I've got some transcripts of some ecumenical councils lying about digitally. Nicea II was a kangaroo court if memory serves. Iconoclast bishops were begging forgiveness before any decision had been reached, as if the outcome was known in advance. There's a fun anecdote the council used twice about how it's better to give in to a demon of temptation, which in the story is a literal demon who visited a recluse (who was probably sexually frustrated so it figures), than to fail to venerate a picture of Mary. The pushback to the creeping power grab of Vatican 1 is swept under the rug these days, but at the time it was a big deal. The excuses given by Newman in his Development of Doctrine, don't persuade me. Anyone can make up an unfalsifiable "apostolic deposit of faith". Religions make unfalsifiable claims all the time, and it's veridically worthless, to quote Sagan. The kind of excuses the RCC makes for itself confront me as... not being what truth is like. The claim to be the "one true apostolic church (TM)", a visible institution left on earth by god, is so demonstrably at odds with history, and demonstrably at odds with Catholic apologists when anything bad happens in (or perpetrated by) the Catholic church. No matter how bad the church becomes, that can never impinge on the real church. For the real church is an inner, ethereal, undetectable, unfalsifiable quintessence of one true churchliness. The True church is indefectible. But not for a minute should that be connected with the actual performance of the church. So... is the true church the visible, tangible RCC or not? When they have to account for bad priests, the visible church is quite invisible. An airtight ideal that only exists in imagination, not reality. The One True Church founded on Peter by Christ is conspicuous for its lack of empirical properties. I'm not new to understanding Catholicism. Don't assume I am.
@@stephengalanis Yes, I would actually. I would not just dismiss it out-of-hand because they are muslims. That would be prejudice. This is why islam is false: Islam is rejected because (1) the qurannic dilemma, which causes the Quran to be self-defeating, and (2) the Quran claims Jesus did NOT die on the cross (which is false) and the Quran was written hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. And the muslim apologists´ explanations do not solve any of these two objections. You would only know that by reading their books.
@@hhstark8663 Purely and simply , Harry , the god of the genesis creation account is wrong on all points of the compass. The god of genesis lived in the 3rd heaven just above the clouds and created the whole universe from that vault above the sky. He sat on a great white throne and was surrounded by millions of angels and created the universe in 6 days. Science has simply buried that primitive ignorance , and which is still sadly believed by too many christians . Trent Horn has no answer to true science , but only answers to ignorant people !
One obvious difference between a religious person and Columbo is that the believer has a dog in the fight. A detective doesn't presume to know the answer before having evidence -- and there's a well-known Sherlock Holmes quote to that effect. But a Catholic, or any other religious person, isn't in that position of trying to figure something unknown out. You claim to already know. So far as an unbiased detective only wants the truth, has no commitment to finding the outcome is x or y. It could be either. He doesn't care, he's not aligned to any particular verdict. A second, related, difference is that Columbo isn't asking questions to avoid giving a direct answer to the suspect. Trent, neither you nor Koukl are doing a "Columbo" at all. So a Catholic, a Protestant, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, and a Mormon all learn to avoid questions that make them look bad, and just ask questions in return. Who will be the first to give evidence that their religious claims conform to reality?
Likewise, the atheist/agnostic also has a dog in the race. He thinks religion is false - from his parents, from his society and from his school. Who is going to tell the atheist/agnostic that he is wrong about HIS position? ____________ Remember, Trent is a former skeptic/agnostic. He was NOT raised as a catholic.
@@hhstark8663 It doesn't get Trent a pass because other people do it too. He's not neutral, he's not asking questions for the same reason as a detective. It's just dishonest to call this Socratic or Columbo. If it applies likewise to atheists, so be it. It still applies to Trent. But atheism is the null hypothesis, the position before evidence. If a god is "guilty" of existing, that has to be proved, evidence is required to get to that verdict. Before any of that happens, the default position is not guilty. We can't assume any proposition is true by default. We don't assume Mormonism is true prior to any evidence, or Islam, or that Quetzalcoatl is the true creator god. The fast way to believe as many false things, and as few true things as possible, is to assume something is true and then look for evidence to support it. And intuitively most people understand this. So it is with the Christian god and any other god. The default position is that such a being is fictional, until shown otherwise. Hence, what the atheist and Christian have to prove, or where their starting points are, or what their epistemology is, is very different. Atheism is not a conclusion to be reached. It's the position one reverts to when faith isn't a valid conclusion. The Christian says they have evidence to move anyone from square 1, which is where I am, to belief. At some point the sophistry must end and evidence must be given. I was a very theological, Bible quiz winning, Proverbs memorizing Christian. I memorized the entire book, verbatim as a teenager. From my parents, society, and school, god and supernatural happenings were as real as the rooibos tea I'm drinking now. I've been there. And I'd be disappointed in younger me. But that's growth.
@@stephengalanis God " guilty "of existing is an ignorant presupposition based on you're biases of opinion. You seem to think you" know " he doesn't exist without any evidence to that fact.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Let's just substitute Sagan's dragon, from The Demon Haunted World, in your sentence instead. "Stephen, you seem to think you "know" [an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire] doesn't exist without any evidence to that fact". Like the undetectable dragon -- Sagan is obviously making an analogy for religious belief -- your god is likewise conspicuous for its lack of empirical properties. Until anything comes up, until you offer some test for the existence of a specific god, let's just admit it's indistinguishable from it not existing.
Catholics are still prideful. You didn’t mention anyone I’ve followed within the last 5 years, like Dr. Marshall, Michael Matt, and a previous Catholic Answers member, Timothy Gordon. Steubenville needs to quit being snobby. My relatives that went there are either flippant or very confrontational. “Unite The Clans!” ♥️🙏🏼☦️
Around 7:00 Having listened to more of Jimmy Akin on his ‘Mysterious World’ podcast and his answers during CA shows, I do agree he may be a Vatican programmed robot from the future 🤓 Such an awesome guy that I would love to have a chat with while trying to see what batteries he runs on 🤔😂 Simpler answer though, he’s a time traveling alien because “It’s always aliens” 👽 Great talk and advice! Hopefully the seeds you are planting now will reap a good harvest of well informed and well meaning Catholics and apologists to come.
The problem of this whole approach is that it is basically about winning a debate. And it's typically the smartest person who wins the debate. For example: a smarter person would reply to the question in the abortion debate that abortion doesn't take a human life exactly, but a potential human life. It's a bit like when a great composer makes a great start at a piece of music and then the composer dies (for example Mozart and his Requiem). If it isn't about winning and you are really interested in connecting with someone, you'd ask: "how could we figure this out together." But I admit that that is much, much harder to do.
I'm 20 seconds into the video and soemthing tells me this will be about Koukl's book Tactics which I'm studying thoroughly right now :D:D. Let's see what Trent has to say about it.
