- Man created in God's image is not inspiring considered God wiped the planet clean when angered and has showed callous dismissal for human lives numerous times.
- Catholicism was not the only institution involved in those egregious actions, but was one of the most prominent. That said, I hold all Abarahamic religions as being the main drivers of those things, as they Historically have had the most aggressive expansion campaigns powered by promised land mythos and the like.
- Yes I'm sure some Catholics are very fine people. But they were and are in the considerable minority. The existence of something that contradicts the norm doesnt mean the norm is. I longer the norm.
- Now you're re-wording your earlier contention. Previously you implied believing in miracles requires a suspension of logic, and at the same time said it's not all meant literally. This is relativism, which is used to cover up fallacies. Like the Bible's condoning of slavery which is contradictory to the current religious "interpretation" of it. IMO religious people just dont think it's the right time yet to say they endorse slavery again, they're working their way towards that. But in being cautious, they created a trap wherein they admit slavery is morally wrong, and at the same time must admit that God felt it was ok...that humans weren't ready for it to be over pr some other such nonsense as Ben Shapiro and Dennis Prager argued. Either miracles exist and snakes could talk, or neither are true. Suggesting that some are true sometimes and others are true other times is absurd and makes it sound like you're selling something. Bibles perhaps.
- Most American Catholics are what you would likely call protestants, because they're tired of everything not being dominated by their views. They're temporary allies with the protestants because the main enemy, as they see it, is secularism, which ha eroded the social adherence to their heirarchy (see: patriarchy). And if it were quite as prominently philosophical and engaging with philosophy, as you've hinted, then at least from my vantage point itmwouldbt have assisted in coming up with nonsense like Constitutional Originalism and Unitary Executive Theory, which has enabled our Suoreme Court to believe they are our High Priests, who have anointed Donald Trump who is now suggesting he was chosen by God.
From where I sit this is essentially unapologetic blasphemy. And I'm only naming my own Country as one example. This has happened with numerous other ones.
You mention that God's actions in the Bible—such as the flood—seem uninspiring, as they depict a being who wipes out humanity in anger. These stories are not meant to be read as simple historical accounts but as moral and theological lessons. Catholic theology, particularly since Augustine and Aquinas, teaches that God's justice and mercy are beyond human comprehension, and the Bible uses human language to express divine realities. Moreover, Catholic thought heavily emphasizes free will—God allows human beings to make choices, even when those choices lead to suffering, because without free will, love and morality would be meaningless.
You argue that Abrahamic religions, particularly Christianity, were primary drivers of aggressive expansion and conquest. It is true that historical institutions, including the Church, have been complicit in violence and colonialism. However, Catholic philosophers like Jacques Maritain and Charles Taylor emphasize that Christianity also laid the groundwork for universal human dignity, the rule of law, and human rights—ideas that, paradoxically, led to critiques of the very institutions that once held power. Catholic social teaching today denounces forced conversion and religious imperialism.
The idea that “some Catholics are good people, but they are in the minority” suggests an assumption about the statistical behavior of Catholics. What metric is being used to judge the moral standing of the majority of Catholics. Are we talking about historical figures? Modern believers? The clergy? Laypeople? Catholicism includes over a billion people across diverse cultures, and while the institution has a long history of corruption and moral failures, it has also been a force for charity, education, and social justice.
The question of miracles and biblical interpretation is a classic debate within Catholic philosophy. The Church does not require a fundamentalist reading of scripture; instead, it teaches that some parts of the Bible are metaphorical, while others are literal. This is not relativism but a recognition that different types of literature exist within the Bible—poetry, history, allegory, and moral instruction. Rejecting all miracles because some stories are symbolic is an oversimplification. Modern science does not necessarily disprove miracles—rather, miracles are, by definition, exceptions to natural laws.
Regarding slavery, moral understanding develops over time, and the Church has formally condemned slavery (though not always consistently throughout history). The idea that religious groups are "waiting for the right time" to reintroduce slavery is a conspiracy theory with little evidence.
You suggest that American Catholics functionally act like Protestants because they seek political dominance, especially in opposition to secularism. American Catholics have aligned with Protestant evangelicals for political reasons, but this is more a cultural and sociopolitical development than a theological one. Catholicism itself does not necessarily endorse theocracy or dominionism—though some Catholics certainly do. The Church has historically had a complex relationship with secularism, at times opposing it and at other times engaging with it (e.g., Vatican II’s emphasis on religious freedom).
Regarding constitutional originalism and the unitary executive theory, these are political doctrines rather than Catholic ones. While some conservative Catholics support these ideas, Catholic social teaching does not inherently endorse them. In fact, Catholic philosophers like Alasdair MacIntyre critique modern political structures and power dynamics, rather than blindly endorsing right-wing politics.
Catholic philosophy is not a monolith—there are Catholic thinkers across the ideological spectrum, from liberation theologians advocating for the poor to conservative scholars defending traditional ethics. The Catholic intellectual tradition thrives on debate, and many Catholic philosophers would agree with some of your critiques while offering counterpoints based on history, theology, and moral reasoning.
As far as the video goes, I have never heard of Sean Feucht (who is not a Catholic). He doesn't seem like an individual who deserves any attention and certainly shouldn't be taken seriously.
