Wednesday, February 28, 2007
So what I'm hearing is "Teach that homosexual life styles are good, no matter if and especially if it is against your religion." Somehow it just never hits these homosexual "rights" groups that when they demand that everyone see them as they see themselves they are really only trying to remove the rights of everyone.
The assault on the Church continues.
Seriously, for 200 years we've known where the tomb of Jesus has been-- with no body in it. Do you think the people who died gruesome deaths because of their faith in Jesus and knew where the tomb was because they were there could have screwed it up? I really don't think THIS can be taken seriously.
This isn't the first time someone claimed to know the true location of the tomb of Jesus. HERE is another that not only claims to know where Jesus is buried but also: 1) that he survived the crucifixion, he never died 2) he made his was to the India/Pakistan border because 3) the Pakistani people in Kashmir are the lost tribes of Israel. Oh yeah, and they claim that somehow St. Iranaes knew about it all along (but never told aaaanybody).
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Anybody want to take bets on how many years it takes before the government says something like this? BTW, for anyone who hasn't read The Onion before, its fake news.
Monday, February 26, 2007
I just want to comment on a few things:
1)"The Holy Father expressed particular concern about 'the obsessive search for the perfect child.' The use of advanced biotechnology, he warned, threatens to unleash 'a new wave of eugenic discrimination.'
The Holy Father hit the nail on the head here. There's been such a push for pre-natal testing lately to find out if your child has "defects." Its a little too "brave new worldish."If they can fix something, for instance if your baby is developing a blood clot or something, then it is wonderful. If the outcome will be to "fix" the situation by killing a baby the if it has down syndrome then the testing needs to be stopped. God creates each child uniquely and for a special purpose and that is almost always especially clear of special needs children. Just ask their parents if they would trade their child for any other on earth.
2)"the Pope remarked that arguments in defense of life are based not upon sectarian religious beliefs but on 'the natural law written on the heart,' and therefore accessible to 'all people of sound conscience.'"
My first comment on this is that in a fashion it is sectarian religious belief in that natural law assumes a natural law giver. Although there are quite a few theist abortion advocates (and truly only God knows why) many are atheist and so this argument from natural law opposes their religious beliefs. That would be unless they still for some odd reasons still believed in a natural law but not God or a God.
My second comment is that it is odd that given our country's divisiveness over the issue of abortion it has from its beginning not only recognized the existence of natural law (and therefore implicitly God) but also it has understood the right to life as the first and foremost right given to man by his maker. Hence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It just seems interesting to me that our nation was formed because it felt denied so many rights and it felt compelled to list them and now we deny the first on the list to so many more...
3) "He listed the drive for legalization of abortion in Latin America, the use of 'new forms of chemical abortion under the pretext of reproductive health,'"
How is abortion helping "reproductive rights?" I just don't understand how killing the purpose and fruit of reproduction makes reproduction healthier. I guess I missed that class in Logic.
4) “Life is the primary good we have received from God, the foundation of all the others,” the Pope pointed out. The campaign to protect that gift “is a duty upon which the future of humanity depends."
Friday, February 23, 2007
Now that I'm running out of Terry Tate videos to use on Fridays I'm switching gears to a more intellectual pursuit: Philosophical Powers! Check out the site to find all your favorite philosophers and their newly buffed action figure selves. This weeks philosopher of the week is Plato.
circa 427-347 B.C.E.
Plato the Great-o
Plato Never Late-o
Plato Makes Ya Wait-o
Plato Ya Love to Hate-o
Plato Seals Yer Fate-o
Plato Puts Ya in a Crate-o
Plato Ships Ya Freight-o
Plato The Pain Will Not Abate-o
Powers: talented dramatist, invulnerable skin
Weaknesses: his mentor was executed early in Plato's career, leaving him to come up with some pretty weird stuff on his own
Notes: Comes with Plato's Guide to Shadow Puppets: step-by-step instructions on how to make fun and convincing animal shapes with nothing more than your hands and a bright light! This fully-illustrated booklet includes Bunny, Dog, Bird, and Many-Headed Beast.
Plato figures are left unpainted, in deference to the popularly held notion that classical statuary was white rather than flamboyantly, gaily colored (notice the intimidatingly creepy empty-eye effect this creates).
Thursday, February 22, 2007
From my own perspective, it continues to boggle my mind how illogical the position is that
"The individual is 'nothing' and the species 'everything,' and therefore, Ludwig Büchner concluded, the smallest steps of progress in history or nature are marked 'with innumerable piles of corpses.'"Even Jean Paul Sartre was quick to capitulate that without the existence of God there is no "good," not even a "good of the species." To have a particular thing be good for the species as these people mentioned in the article see it would mean that it is an underlying objective truth that they wish us all to agree upon that the continuance and so called "evolution" of the species is a good thing. An objective truth implies an objective truth upholder (a.k.a. a creator being) which is what they are attempting to deny in the first place. Unless of course they think it is just a subjective truth which they happen to all agree upon. In that instance however their argument loses power in that if it is subjective we can choose to reject their argument in favor of our own. No sense these people.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Walking through the Texas A&M campus means opening up oneself to bombardment from multiple fronts ranging from displays about modern farming equipment to the less common displays describing art in
It seemed rather obvious to me at the time that this statement was made as one on the side of legalized abortion. Now, however, I’m not sure. Most people who believe in things “pro-life” would agree that there is in fact dignity in choice. We enjoy a great distinction in fact among creatures of the earth in that we have what is called a “meta-mind” which means that we can think about our thoughts or the thoughts of others. It is our meta-mind which allows us to actually think through our choices and make the most, or least, of them. No other animal as far as we know has this ability besides us and so we enjoy a special dignity above other creatures in our choice making.
Most Catholic and Christian pro-lifers would also agree that choice is a great dignity because it is a gift from God. When confronted with the “problem of evil” as it is so called, the first defense is usually that of the dignity of free will. Free will is our ability to choose and that means that there is indeed God given dignity in choosing. My dilemma in finding the stance of the statement was only building now as I considered that there must be more behind the statement.
I decided to consider the label then. Why is it that if you support abortion you label yourself “pro-choice?” I have been told that it is because these people see an inherent right to choose to have an abortion. But can I not be pro-choice by choosing to go to work rather than call in sick? Why the name? I have always understood the label of “pro-life.” Pro-lifers wish to save the lives of the unborn. Pro-choicers however protect a thing we’ve already got, the ability to choose things. This being the case, that we already have the ability to choose things, shouldn’t they be a little more specific? Shouldn’t they be called “Pro-Abortionists” or “Anti-Lifers?” The only reasons I can think of for not using these labels is because they sound negative. If the label is accurate however in what it represents and gives a negative impression then maybe it should call attention to the thing it labels as being negative. Perhaps this is the key to understanding their label: the term pro-choice covers a multitude of negative actions.
On some level we are all pro-choice. I want to choose to eat dinner or not. I want to choose to go to bed at a decent hour or not. There is, however, an inherent understanding that we all have that tells us that not all choices are good. I know it isn’t good for me to eat too much because it is unhealthy. I know it is bad to choose to stay up too late because I need to get up early for work. These things in mind, we are all pro-choice while we all understand what it means to make a good or bad choice. Remember thought that there is dignity inherent in choice even if the choice is bad.
Therein is hidden the real dilemma for the label “pro-choice.” Calling a movement “pro-choice” defines nothing while the term “pro-life” does. A more accurate label than “pro-choice” for abortion rights advocates is “pro-abortion” which has a naturally negative connotation. The term pro-choice is meant to do away with the negative connotation associated with being against life and instead implicitly portrays the pro-life movement as anti-choice which is clearly not the case as we are all pro-choice in the fact that we cannot go throughout our day without making a choice or two here and there and we do so willingly. If we do away with the mask of a label and focus on what we’re are choosing, we must look to find out if it is a dignified choice. The answer to the question seems to be “no” based on the fact that the rather deceitful title was necessary in the first place. Let’s not jump to conclusions though.
What removes the dignity of choice with abortion? I think it is ultimately reducible to this: If abortion is killing a baby, and killing a baby is morally wrong, then abortion is morally wrong. Is a bad choice a dignified choice? I would not think so, though it remains that our free-will to choose is dignified regardless. Of course many people think that it is a more complicated matter than this but I disagree on the basis that whether or not one meant to have a child (a.k.a. failed contraception), killing that child is still wrong. In the case of rape or incest, what has the child done to deserve death in the womb? The child has done nothing and so killing it would be wrong even if the circumstances of its conception were rather sinister. What if the life of the mother were at stake? I would think it a very selfish and uncaring mother who would not give her life for that of her child, even the child she has never met.
What else can we say if the decision made is undignified or unlawful while the dignity of choice itself remains? We can say, and rightly so, that removing the legal status of a bad choice does not negate the dignity of the choice itself. For instance, it is illegal for me to go 75 miles per hour on the local highway, but I can still choose to go 75 mph or even faster. Murder is against the law, but I can still make the wrong decision to commit murder. So regardless of law the dignity of choice remains in the individual’s decision. Applied to abortion the dignity of choice is never removed from choice while the dignity of the choice made, the dignity of the decision that is, is unquestionably wrong.
How far will the pro-abortionists go? No doubt many have heard the story of a young girl in
My final opinion of the statement left by the anonymous author must be that either it was written by a pro-lifer or by an illogical pro-abortionist. The dignity of choice is only fully appreciated when it is realized in the choice of the Divine Creator to give life to what was previously only dead matter that has been made into the Creator’s own divine image. Surely the author must have realized this truth and wanted to be sure that we all understood it. I’m sure that’s what her pro-choice statement was really about, right?
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
This Lent I will watch the Passion of the Christ, I will probably read Lenten meditations, and I will resolve to be at more daily masses. This Lent I will also learn from the UN. You see, while 1 in 3 three children in the US is murdered for the sake of "choice," there is a 1 in 45,000 chance that we will be struck by an asteroid on April 13, 2036 and this fact has the UN prepared to spend 300 million dollars (probably a low ball estimate) to find a way to possibly keep it from happening.
What can possibly be learned from this for Lent? Focus. Progress toward the final goal. Reality.
Chesterton has said we cannot be making "progress" unless we have something to make progress towards. How can we move forward if we can't see where we are now? Lent is a season for reconciliation, a season of progress towards God's infinite love. God is love-" Deus Caritas Est." The world wants us to see itself as a light to guide us, that's why the UN called itself a "Beacon of hope, peace, and prosperity." We find our light, our "city on a hill" in Christ and His church. Even our own country, which I love dearly, was described by Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln as the world's "last, best hope." But our last best hope is Jesus, and we should not forget.
I don't think the UN is all bad, despite my talk. I do think our country is the greatest in the world but I also know, however, that we are only pilgrims in this world and that our race here does indeed have a finish line. That finish line cannot be seen by the light of this world but by the light of another, in another. The light of the world sees some problems, but the light of truth reveals all. I hope that by seeing the lackluster light of the world this Lent I can see the spectacular glory present in the light of the Lord and humble myself to ask for His divine mercy.
During this season of Lent may the Lord bless us and keep us in His loving light whether we are guarding the lives of the unborn from a holocaust of "choice" or an asteroid.
"The words we use when referring to the intimate sphere are particularly revealing: They can express vulgar coarseness or tender respect. There is a four-letter word that is used only by those whose coarseness must make the angels weep; there are "scientific" words which, by the very nature of science, are neutral. (This is why we can go to a physician and speak about very intimate things in a fashion which is in no way offensive to purity.) For Christians -- blessed by their belief in the Dogma of the Incarnation -- the body has acquired a nobility that calls for an adequate expression. When the Angel Gabriel sent by God asked the sweet holy Virgin to become the mother of His Son, she did not reply, "How is this to be, I have never been sexually active." Rather, she said, "I know not man." One could give a whole university course on purity by meditating on these words."
"In a delightful spoof cleverly entitled "The Monstrance Proposal" (The Wanderer, Sept. 21, 2000), he [Fr. Joseph Wilson] writes: "We understand that we need to emphasize the Presence of Christ in the gathered community at least as much as, if not more than, we emphasize Him in the Eucharist. To this end, we are removing the choir section of our church, that section behind the current altar, and replacing it with a platform on which we will build a 20-foot tall, six-seater monstrance — a monstrance capable of sitting six parishioners in the glass chamber. We will then begin perpetual adoration. Six parishioners at a time will take turns climbing up and sitting in the monstrance while the rest of us will take turns worshiping Them." If Mannion and others are right, why not?""
Friday, February 16, 2007
Okay, I give. Its time to start talking about candidates for the Presidential election. This being my first blog on this stuff I'm only going to give candidates from each party. I'm not going to discuss issues yet. HERE is a wiki link that gives some info on the election. Let the games begin!
Republican Nominees (Official, Unofficial, Exploratory Committee formed)
Democratic Nominees ( Official, Unofficial, Exploratory Committee formed)
Third Parties (Same Stuff as above)
If anyone is willing, I'd love to hear someone's particular favorites and why. I get about 20-50 hits a day so I know y'all are out there. Currently mine is Senator Brownback because of his pro-life voting record and because I perceive him to have high moral values.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
"The UK Tablet continues its crusade for Brokeback Montanism, most recently by means of a curiously argued essay urging the Church toward a Vichy-style capitulation that acknowledges the de facto coercive power of sexual Leftism..."
There is no possible way I could have said it better. The article that the editorial refers to from the Tablet (a UK periodical) is HERE. The Tablet article leads with:
"Misunderstanding the depth of post-socialist commitment to equality and diversity, especially that of sexual orientation, was a serious mistake in the Church's handling of the gay adoption issue, according to a leading Catholic human-rights lawyer."I guess I just never understood truth as dependant upon someone's commitment. And all this time I thought truth was objective. Huh. Then again maybe truth is subjective to the masses, the mob. At least that's what I glean from this sentence:
"Might Cardinal Cormac Murphy- O'Connor and his episcopal brethren benefit from a board of lay Catholics to advise them on their contact with secular society?"As you might have guessed, this article is full of less-than-stellar stuff. Its arguments range from naivete of church teaching to down right disregard for it. The arguments are embarrassing in the sense that someone was actually paid to write this article...and they're catholic. For instance, in the case of naivete of church teaching, the author asks "The Church's stand left many questions to be answered. Are homosexual acts a "grave depravity", as the Vatican says, if within the context of a loving, monogamous relationship." Of course they are still wrong, the appetite is still disordered. Is it okay to over eat at every meal of every day as long as the food is prepared properly and at the proper times? Of course it isn't okay. Rather than spend my time refuting this, as it isn't what I'm most concerned with, go HERE for the church's position.
The Tablet article does get something right:
"The fact that this ideology is one of tolerance, mutual esteem and respect for diversity is why its imposition is not something of which its proponents are proud. But if liberals are truly committed to this perspective they need to be willing to recognise that they are being fundamentalist in exactly the way in which they often accuse others of being. The inevitable consequence is that the victims of this determination to impose mutuality of respect feel that they are being coerced, "forced to be free" as Rousseau might have put it."Exactly. If its true that values are subjective, for instance "respect their gayness if they want to be that way," then you are stuck with the fact that it is your subjective view and not mine. If I on the other hand see their homosexuality as a disordered appetite, the subjectivist cannot tell me I am wrong, though that is exactly what occurs.
Then the wrong way again goes the Tablet. To answer their rhetorical "How should the Church react to the challenge of this liberal vision of society?" it answers:
"It should recognise, first, that it is much better than the rampant capitalist world of competing selfish individuals that might otherwise be on view, and second, that it seeks a much better world than one in which all are allowed to discriminate to their heart's content. And finally, with one large exception, the liberal vision of society is very close to that of the Church, with progressives and Catholics being almost always on the same side on such key issues as esteem, dignity and opportunity for all. The one exception, the radically different approach taken to sexuality, is often more to the fore among the senior church leadership than it is on the ground at parish level."Okay comrad, first off, when and where did the Church say that the "rampant capitalist society" was perfect? Never has the Church proclaimed that a capitalist society was Utopia, as a matter of fact the Church has never said that any earthly government in particular could rule perfectly.
Second, who is discriminating wrongly? If it is true that a homosexual couple is leading a life intristically disordered towards evil by the type of relationship they commit to, then would it be wrong to stop it? Of course it would not, it should be stopped. Should we allow child molestation because some individual feel an orientation towards it? No. Is it discrimination to say they can't molest the child, which is only what their "unchosen orientation" leads them to do? If the same argument is applied to the molestor as the homosexual couple than it certainly is discrimination. The assumption by the author is that it is not intristically disordered and therefore alright for the couple to have the child. And btw if the afformentioned couple is morally sound because values are subjective, then keep your lib hands to yourself and stop touching my conservative, personally owned, "subjective" values. Also, who is "discriminating to their heart's content?" I have yet to find the man who thinks that "real" discrimination is okay. This as opposed to the neutering of the world as I will discuss in a moment. No one, even in our non-commie, non-socialist world is going around discriminating (again validly discriminating) against people just for the sake of discrimination itself.
Thirdly, the church is not nearly as close to "progressive values" (an illogical statment in itself) as the author might want us to think. The church does not see the value of an individual as "we are the same" but rather as our value in our uniqueness as men and women. We have intristic value in that we are created in the image of God, and unique value in that we are created differently than one another as male and female. If we are biologically different, does that not imply differences in natural tendencies? Does a man not have a penis and a woman a vagina naturally tending toward activity for males and a type of passivity for females.? For example, a man, by nature, tends toward more aggressiveness than a woman. A woman tends, by nature, to be more compassionate than a man. Is this not true? The liberal "progressive" ideology on the one hand demands that we neuter ourselves so that there is nothing to discriminate, but the Church says we cannot discriminate precisely because we are different, and that discrimination lies not in treating someone differently than another (because we are all different from one another) but in treating someone in a way less dignified than befits a child of God.
Also, the "radically different approach taken to sexuality..." is not different among upper and lower ranks among Church officials, the teachings are the same at all levels. Instead, it is only that the Church's teachings are more readily mutilated in order to fit "progressives" likings at the parish level.
The final paragraph of the tablet's article begins with: "The liberal vision of a tolerant society based on mutual respect but also on a rejection of intolerance is not one to be feared." If you adhere to the liberal values discribed previously they mean. But what if you don't? It seems to me that based on the "anti-discrimination laws" being laid out in Euro-topia that I will eventually be arrested for thinking differently, for actually realizing that there are gender, racial, and cultural differences. I wouldn't fear the vision if I thought that Huxley's "Brave New World" was the place I wanted to go.
Finally, the last statement made by the Tablet article reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw a year or so ago that read "The road to Hell is paved with democrats," meaning of course that good intentions alone don't make a thing work out right. Read their statment: "Liberal society knows exactly where it is going; does the Church?" I would say yes, the Church knows where it is going, to the truth- Jesus Christ. And do I agree that "Liberal society knows exactly where it is going?" Yes I do, straight to Hell.
Monday, February 12, 2007
"...it's called 'human evidence'. The sort we use in trials everyday. 20 (or 20is not argumentum ad populorum but is instead based on human experience. Why is it that Sartre can say that he is an atheist based on his "phenomenology and anthropology?" How can he base his atheism on "human experience," but when the realm of human experience tends towards the existence of the supernatural it must be cast aside.
million) people give testimony that they saw a man shoot Lee Harvey Oswald on
TV. But the stories all differ in detail. Do we therefore conclude that Oswald
lives? Or that Ruby did not shoot him? No. We take it that there is probably a
reality here to which people are responding,"
The materialist argument boils down to this:
1) Something is true if and only if it can be made evident to all (or me in the case of the individual materialist).
2) God/things of a supernatural nature are not evident to all (or me).
3) Therefore God/supernatural things do not exist.
An alternative argument seems to be roughly the same but using the scientific method:
1) The scientific method requires that something be testable in order to be "scientific."
2) Only things which are "scientific" are true.
3) Therefore since God/the supernatural is not testable via the scientific method then it is not true.
Regarding the first argument, we understand that this is not true because their are many things which many of us never see or have seen but accept as truth. For instance, how many people have ever seen Rwanda or the atrocities being committed there? No one I know. But none of us doubts that it is a real place and that real atrocities are being committed there against real people. How do we know it isn't a plot arranged by a "charitable company" to make big bucks off of our charitable wallets. We accept it on faith based on human experience.
In addition, many people do claim to have "experienced God" as Mark says. If this is true and placed into the materialist argument then it makes God's existence undeniable. However, then the materialist jumps to the second argument that it cannot be on experience only that we know God's exists because there could be any number of reasons (some quite creative) as to why people "experience God." It must therefore ,they say, be proven via the scientific method.
The second argument too is false. If, for example, I was a european scientist living during the 15th or 16th century and some one told me about such a thing as a tornado in the new world. I might say "What an imagination you have! I do not believe you or your fantasies. If it is true, then I should be able to create such a thing in my laboratory or I should have seen it here in Europe." Would I be a nut? Yes, we all know that such a thing exists and that it cannot be created in a lab because it is very much outside of our control. In the same way, why should you expect to disprove God because you cannot experiment on Him?
The only good argument seems to me to be this:
1) If a supernatural thing has occured then supernatural things must exists
2) If a supernatural thing has never occured then God or supernatural things do not exist and materialism must be true...or God has not chosen to act/ supernatural events simply have not happened yet
3) There are documented cases where supernatural things have occured, therefore supernatural things are true and possibly God exists.
From this point you must still reason toward God's existence, but I think the argument stands. Note that in the second premise the fact that God may not have acted yet or that a supernatural thing has not happened yet does not prove its inexistence. It may be that a supernatural event just hasn't happened or that God exists but has chosen not to act.
As far as the supernatural events, Mark lists a couple such as Fatima and the bleeding host of Betania. Here are a couple of youtubes with some interesting things happening:
With all of that finally out of the way, enjoy the following video. Its a mock of Professor Dawkins (he's the current "pillar of atheism") using his own argument to disprove his own existence. Got it via Alive and Young. BTW, remember that it is a parody and not somebody actually trying to prove that Dawkins doesn't exist. This seems to have happened a couple of times.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Monday, February 05, 2007
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Here's their mission statement:
"Blasting holes in scientific naturalism, marveling at the intricate design of the universe, and promoting life in a culture of death.
Critiquing art, music, film, television, and literature, interrupting mass media influence, and questioning the sanity of our consumerist lifestyle.
Countering destructive ideologies, replacing revisionist fictions with undeniable facts, and paring away political correctness.
Debunking the cultural myths that have undercut human dignity, all but destroyed the notions of virtue and morality, and slowly eroded our appetite for transcendence.
Recovering the one worldview that actually works."
Friday, February 02, 2007
Congratulations! You are more knowlegeable than most modern theologians! You have achieved mastery over the most important doctrines of the Catholic Faith! You should share your incredible understanding with others!
Do You Know Your Baltimore Catechism?
Make Your Own Quiz