“the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not.”- Ven Arch Fulton Sheen
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Traditional Eucharist Rite (and Understanding)
I know I said I wouldn't do this one but with the rise of people interested in the Jewish Passover meal, I figured I'd take some time and clarify exactly how we are to understand the Eucharist in light of the Passover, because that's where the Eucharist came from.
Yeah, that's right: The Catholic Church didn't come up with the Eucharist ritual by itself. It came from the Jewish Passover commemorating the Jews being "passed over" by the angel of death in Egypt.
Consider the parts of what God commands the Isralites to do:
1. Sacrifice a perfect lamb and shed its blood.
2. Commemorate the feast following certain guidelines.
3. Eat of the lamb.
Let's take these in order:
1. Sacrifice a perfect lamb and shed its blood.
I'm not going into get too much into this one because believe it or not, this is what most Christians agree on, but as a brief review, the Jews were ordered to find a lamb without blemish, none of its bones could be broken, and it must be slaughtered. Jesus is dubbed "the Lamb of God", found without blemish by Pilate and none of His bones were broken during His Passion. We can go further with the connection between manna from Heaven, or using a sacrificial animal to atone for the people's sins but again, most Christians are in agreement with these connections.
2. Commemorate the feast following certain guidelines.
The Gospels speak of the Last Supper happening during the Seder. Now what happens during the Seder meal? For one thing, cups of wine are passed during the feast. In fact, there are four cups of wine drunk during the Seder, each with its own blessings:
Kiddush- a blessing to God for the covenant. [Interesting note: the host of the Seder says the blessing "Blessed are You, the Lord our God, King of the Universe, Creator of the fruit of the vine. (Amen)." This is similar to the blessing a priest says as he sanctifies the wine for the Eucharist.]
Maggid- usually a rabbi skilled in the Torah and stories in the Talmud and other religious themed stories. Birkat Hamazon- a set of blessings following any meal involving bread made of wheat or with matzo. It includes four prayers for the food provided, the land given to the Jews, the holy city Jerusalem, and God's goodness respectively.
Hallel- reciting word for word Psalms 113-118; also called the Cup of Consummation.
Of these four, I am convinced the Birkat Hamazon must have been the cup Jesus used to create the Eucharist and here's how I know that: the Birkat Hamazon is also called "the Cup of Blessing", the same name given to the cup Jesus used by Paul (see 1 Cor. 10:16). Jews reading or hearing about the Last Supper would have picked that up right away.
There are several theories as to why only four cups are used. Some say it's a reference to Exodus 6:6-7 where God says "I will bring out," "I will deliver," "I will redeem," and "I will take." According to Jewish thinker Vilna Gaon, the cups stand for this world, the Messianic age, the world at the revival of the dead, and the world to come. The four cups might also reflect the ancient Roman custom of drinking as many cups as there are letters in the name of the chief guest at a meal, which in the case of the Seder is God Himself whose Hebrew name has four letters. I believe these are all tied together, because notice it doesn't say the fourth cup was consumed at the meal, but it was consumed at Christ's Passion.
In doing research for this, I came across the custom of the Seder host wearing what's called a kittel, which has multiple uses:
-it's worn by the host of the Seder. I am convinced this is what Jesus put on before washing the Apostle's feet. (see John chapter 13)
-it's used as a symbol of purity
-it's worn by a Jewish groom on his wedding day.
-it's used as a burial shroud.
Does any of this sound familiar to how the Church understands Christ's role in redemption and how the Church is viewed as the "Bride of Christ?"
3. Eat of the Lamb. This is where the biggest disagreement about the Eucharist comes from. Protestants are fine with Jesus sacrificing Himself for our sins and they get the connections to the Passover, but they don't get the part of why it must be the literal flesh and blood of Christ that we must consume and try all sorts of heretical tricks.
Let's get a few things straight here: -There are several words for something to symbolize something else, but none of those words are used by Jesus at the Last Supper. The only words He uses are, translated to Greek, "touto mou estin to soma," which means "This is really".
-Jesus uses the phrase "blood of the covenant"; the only other time this phrase appears is Exodus 24:8. -Many Protestants claim the Eucharist is just a symbol, but if that's true, why does Paul say in 1 Cor. 11:27-29 that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord? If it's just a symbol, isn't Paul giving an unjust punishment under divine inspiration?
-Other times, they claim it's just a symbol because in the Bread of Life Discourse, Jesus says in John 6:64:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life."
This notion is contradicted by 68-70 where He questions the Apostles: Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
-Some pseudo-Christians (mostly Mormons) twist the Eucharist by using white bread and water; the first doesn't match the Passover ritual and the second ignores the fact Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek, a priest-king who offered sacrifice of bread and wine.
-It is not right for a non-Catholic to eat of the Eucharist, following the Jewish tradition of the uncircumcised not being allowed to eat of the Passover.
- The Jews did not stop at just sacrificing the lamb. They also ate of it. You can't get more basic than that.
But what is the proper way to receive the Holy Body and Blood of the Lord?
Yeah, that's right: The Catholic Church didn't come up with the Eucharist ritual by itself. It came from the Jewish Passover commemorating the Jews being "passed over" by the angel of death in Egypt.
Consider the parts of what God commands the Isralites to do:
1. Sacrifice a perfect lamb and shed its blood.
2. Commemorate the feast following certain guidelines.
3. Eat of the lamb.
Let's take these in order:
1. Sacrifice a perfect lamb and shed its blood.
I'm not going into get too much into this one because believe it or not, this is what most Christians agree on, but as a brief review, the Jews were ordered to find a lamb without blemish, none of its bones could be broken, and it must be slaughtered. Jesus is dubbed "the Lamb of God", found without blemish by Pilate and none of His bones were broken during His Passion. We can go further with the connection between manna from Heaven, or using a sacrificial animal to atone for the people's sins but again, most Christians are in agreement with these connections.
2. Commemorate the feast following certain guidelines.
The Gospels speak of the Last Supper happening during the Seder. Now what happens during the Seder meal? For one thing, cups of wine are passed during the feast. In fact, there are four cups of wine drunk during the Seder, each with its own blessings:
Kiddush- a blessing to God for the covenant. [Interesting note: the host of the Seder says the blessing "Blessed are You, the Lord our God, King of the Universe, Creator of the fruit of the vine. (Amen)." This is similar to the blessing a priest says as he sanctifies the wine for the Eucharist.]
Maggid- usually a rabbi skilled in the Torah and stories in the Talmud and other religious themed stories. Birkat Hamazon- a set of blessings following any meal involving bread made of wheat or with matzo. It includes four prayers for the food provided, the land given to the Jews, the holy city Jerusalem, and God's goodness respectively.
Hallel- reciting word for word Psalms 113-118; also called the Cup of Consummation.
Of these four, I am convinced the Birkat Hamazon must have been the cup Jesus used to create the Eucharist and here's how I know that: the Birkat Hamazon is also called "the Cup of Blessing", the same name given to the cup Jesus used by Paul (see 1 Cor. 10:16). Jews reading or hearing about the Last Supper would have picked that up right away.
There are several theories as to why only four cups are used. Some say it's a reference to Exodus 6:6-7 where God says "I will bring out," "I will deliver," "I will redeem," and "I will take." According to Jewish thinker Vilna Gaon, the cups stand for this world, the Messianic age, the world at the revival of the dead, and the world to come. The four cups might also reflect the ancient Roman custom of drinking as many cups as there are letters in the name of the chief guest at a meal, which in the case of the Seder is God Himself whose Hebrew name has four letters. I believe these are all tied together, because notice it doesn't say the fourth cup was consumed at the meal, but it was consumed at Christ's Passion.
In doing research for this, I came across the custom of the Seder host wearing what's called a kittel, which has multiple uses:
-it's worn by the host of the Seder. I am convinced this is what Jesus put on before washing the Apostle's feet. (see John chapter 13)
-it's used as a symbol of purity
-it's worn by a Jewish groom on his wedding day.
-it's used as a burial shroud.
Does any of this sound familiar to how the Church understands Christ's role in redemption and how the Church is viewed as the "Bride of Christ?"
3. Eat of the Lamb. This is where the biggest disagreement about the Eucharist comes from. Protestants are fine with Jesus sacrificing Himself for our sins and they get the connections to the Passover, but they don't get the part of why it must be the literal flesh and blood of Christ that we must consume and try all sorts of heretical tricks.
Let's get a few things straight here: -There are several words for something to symbolize something else, but none of those words are used by Jesus at the Last Supper. The only words He uses are, translated to Greek, "touto mou estin to soma," which means "This is really".
-Jesus uses the phrase "blood of the covenant"; the only other time this phrase appears is Exodus 24:8. -Many Protestants claim the Eucharist is just a symbol, but if that's true, why does Paul say in 1 Cor. 11:27-29 that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord? If it's just a symbol, isn't Paul giving an unjust punishment under divine inspiration?
-Other times, they claim it's just a symbol because in the Bread of Life Discourse, Jesus says in John 6:64:
"It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life."
This notion is contradicted by 68-70 where He questions the Apostles: Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away? [69] And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. [70] And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
-Some pseudo-Christians (mostly Mormons) twist the Eucharist by using white bread and water; the first doesn't match the Passover ritual and the second ignores the fact Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek, a priest-king who offered sacrifice of bread and wine.
-It is not right for a non-Catholic to eat of the Eucharist, following the Jewish tradition of the uncircumcised not being allowed to eat of the Passover.
- The Jews did not stop at just sacrificing the lamb. They also ate of it. You can't get more basic than that.
But what is the proper way to receive the Holy Body and Blood of the Lord?
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Traditional Confirmation Rite
Continuing with my sacrament series for Holy Week, I turn now to Confirmation. For this one, I'm taking a different approach because unlike baptism, Christians don't all agree on whether Confirmation can be found in the Bible. In fact, Confirmation was one of four sacraments the Reformation threw out (Anointing of the sick, Confession, and Holy Orders were the other three; while they did view marriage and the Eucharist as valid, they don't all agree on what they mean).
Is Confirmation in the Bible? Yes. According to scripturecatholic.com, we have these verses as reference:
Acts 8:14-17 - the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders. Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within His Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood.
Acts 19:5-6 - the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation.
Eph. 1:13 - Paul writes that the baptized Ephesians were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, in reference to confirmation.
Eph. 4:30 - Paul says the Ephesians were sealed in the Holy Spirit of God, in reference to the sealing of confirmation.
Heb. 6:2 - Paul gives instruction to the Hebrews about the laying on of hands, in reference to confirmation, not ordination. The early Church laid hands upon the confirmand to administer the sacrament of confirmation.
Rev. 9:4 - the locusts could not harm those with the seal of God upon their foreheads. See also Rev. 14:1 and 22:4.
(Side note: I have yet to hear a valid counter-explanation about this particular verse)
Now, many believe that Confirmation came from the Jewish practice of the Bar Mitzvah. While it does have Jewish roots, and it does involve the adult notion of you being personally responsible for your relationship with God, there are several things wrong with that claim:
1. Bar Mitzvah is only for boys; Confirmation is applied to both genders. (And yes, I know Bat Mizvahs happen, but they're a more recent edition).
2. Bar Mitzvah is set at age 13; Confirmation is mostly set at a much younger age, though Vatican II set the age at between 11-16.
3. Confirmation is tied to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (see Acts chapter 2); Bar Mitzvahs are not related to the Pentecost.
4. While Bar Mitzvahs make the boy now part of the Covenant, this already happens with the Christian at Baptism.
5. Confirmation is grounded in a Jewish ritual also called Confirmation. In that instance, The early Jewish Reformers instituted a ceremony where young Jews who are older than Bar Mitzvah age study both traditional and contemporary sources of Jewish philosophy in order to learn what it means to be Jewish. The age instituted was older than that of Bar Mitzvah because some of these topics were considered too complicated for thirteen-year-old minds to grasp.
Since that's been cleared up now, you can find the traditional written form of the rite here.
Notice at one point, the bishop or priest lightly strikes the child on the cheek. The reason for this is to remind the child that they may be called on to suffer things for Jesus, something we all hope never has to happen.
Here's a video of the rite as it was intended to be:
Is Confirmation in the Bible? Yes. According to scripturecatholic.com, we have these verses as reference:
Acts 8:14-17 - the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders. Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within His Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood.
Acts 19:5-6 - the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation.
Eph. 1:13 - Paul writes that the baptized Ephesians were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, in reference to confirmation.
Eph. 4:30 - Paul says the Ephesians were sealed in the Holy Spirit of God, in reference to the sealing of confirmation.
Heb. 6:2 - Paul gives instruction to the Hebrews about the laying on of hands, in reference to confirmation, not ordination. The early Church laid hands upon the confirmand to administer the sacrament of confirmation.
Rev. 9:4 - the locusts could not harm those with the seal of God upon their foreheads. See also Rev. 14:1 and 22:4.
(Side note: I have yet to hear a valid counter-explanation about this particular verse)
Now, many believe that Confirmation came from the Jewish practice of the Bar Mitzvah. While it does have Jewish roots, and it does involve the adult notion of you being personally responsible for your relationship with God, there are several things wrong with that claim:
1. Bar Mitzvah is only for boys; Confirmation is applied to both genders. (And yes, I know Bat Mizvahs happen, but they're a more recent edition).
2. Bar Mitzvah is set at age 13; Confirmation is mostly set at a much younger age, though Vatican II set the age at between 11-16.
3. Confirmation is tied to the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (see Acts chapter 2); Bar Mitzvahs are not related to the Pentecost.
4. While Bar Mitzvahs make the boy now part of the Covenant, this already happens with the Christian at Baptism.
5. Confirmation is grounded in a Jewish ritual also called Confirmation. In that instance, The early Jewish Reformers instituted a ceremony where young Jews who are older than Bar Mitzvah age study both traditional and contemporary sources of Jewish philosophy in order to learn what it means to be Jewish. The age instituted was older than that of Bar Mitzvah because some of these topics were considered too complicated for thirteen-year-old minds to grasp.
Since that's been cleared up now, you can find the traditional written form of the rite here.
Notice at one point, the bishop or priest lightly strikes the child on the cheek. The reason for this is to remind the child that they may be called on to suffer things for Jesus, something we all hope never has to happen.
Here's a video of the rite as it was intended to be:
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
The Pope App
.-
A Vatican-sponsored news application for smart phones
known as “The Pope App” has risen to the top of the charts in the
iTunes store, reflecting a spike in interest in the papacy and
newly-elected Pope Francis.
In the last week, The Pope App is the most-downloaded news app for iPhone in the U.S., Canada, Spain, Venezuela, Peru, Poland, Chile, Mexico, Portugal, and Pope Francis’ home country of Argentina.
It is the second most downloaded news app in France and Germany and the third most downloaded in Germany. The app also ranks in the top ten in eight other countries, the Pontifical Council for Social Communications said March 23.
The Pope App is managed by the Pontifical Council and uses content from www.news.va, the Vatican’s multimedia, multilingual news portal.
The application provides news and official speeches from Pope Francis as well as images and videos of his appearances. Users can access live coverage of papal events and receive alerts about them.
In addition, it gives users access to live webcams of the Vatican, including a view overlooking St. Peter’s Square, a view of the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica, Bl. John Paul II’s tomb, and the papal retreat at Castel Gandolfo.
The app is available for the iPhone, the iPad and Android devices. The high-definition iPad version was recently released, offering higher resolution versions of the same content.
Pope Benedict XVI launched The Pope App on Jan. 23. Since then, it has been downloaded more than 155,000 times across all mobile devices.
The application is part of a push in the Vatican to reach out using new media. Pope Benedict also launched a Twitter account, using the handle “Pontifex,” in December 2012. Pope Francis now uses the account to reach millions of followers in numerous languages.
Brandon Vogt, a Catholic blogger who has authored a book on the Catholic Church and the new media, said there has been a “flurry of digital activity” on the part of the Vatican that has been “very surprising and encouraging.”
Vogt told CNA in January that the new technology and media can be “the most powerful means that we’ve ever had” to reach out to both Catholics and non-Catholics.
(for the full article, click here)
Will atheists catch onto their garbage not working? Nope...because atheists are idiots.
In the last week, The Pope App is the most-downloaded news app for iPhone in the U.S., Canada, Spain, Venezuela, Peru, Poland, Chile, Mexico, Portugal, and Pope Francis’ home country of Argentina.
It is the second most downloaded news app in France and Germany and the third most downloaded in Germany. The app also ranks in the top ten in eight other countries, the Pontifical Council for Social Communications said March 23.
The Pope App is managed by the Pontifical Council and uses content from www.news.va, the Vatican’s multimedia, multilingual news portal.
The application provides news and official speeches from Pope Francis as well as images and videos of his appearances. Users can access live coverage of papal events and receive alerts about them.
In addition, it gives users access to live webcams of the Vatican, including a view overlooking St. Peter’s Square, a view of the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica, Bl. John Paul II’s tomb, and the papal retreat at Castel Gandolfo.
The app is available for the iPhone, the iPad and Android devices. The high-definition iPad version was recently released, offering higher resolution versions of the same content.
Pope Benedict XVI launched The Pope App on Jan. 23. Since then, it has been downloaded more than 155,000 times across all mobile devices.
The application is part of a push in the Vatican to reach out using new media. Pope Benedict also launched a Twitter account, using the handle “Pontifex,” in December 2012. Pope Francis now uses the account to reach millions of followers in numerous languages.
Brandon Vogt, a Catholic blogger who has authored a book on the Catholic Church and the new media, said there has been a “flurry of digital activity” on the part of the Vatican that has been “very surprising and encouraging.”
Vogt told CNA in January that the new technology and media can be “the most powerful means that we’ve ever had” to reach out to both Catholics and non-Catholics.
(for the full article, click here)
Will atheists catch onto their garbage not working? Nope...because atheists are idiots.
Another Case of Atheist Stupidity
Who really deserves to be stomped on?
Across the state from Florida Gulf Coast University—so far, this year’s “March Madness” Cinderella team—a student at Florida Atlantic University (FAU), Ryan Rotella, claims to have been suspended from his Intercultural Communications class.
The problem?
According to CBS12 News, Rotella is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His professor, Dr. Deandre Poole, asked students to write the word “Jesus” on a piece of paper and step on it. Rotella refused, saying the act was insulting to his faith.
Surely, if Dr. Poole had students write “liberal activists,” “gays,” illegal immigrants,” “maggot-infested dopers,” “Obama,” or any other number of names or phrases on a piece of paper and step on it, and the students refused, they would be commended and Dr. Poole would be put on notice, no?
To protect the institution’s “brand” from these right-wing media assaults, FAU’s administration issued the following statement:
Yes, they surely will argue, academic freedom guarantees their right to “push the boundaries” to get students “to think for themselves.” In light of this lofty ideal, who should give one hoot about offending Christians?
Yet, this is to overlook what is intriguing about this story: The fact that professors doesn’t need to engage students’ feet in the activity of stomping on pieces of paper containing the name “Jesus” to learn to think for themselves. After all, isn’t that organ located at the opposite end of the human anatomy?
Then, too, there’s the administration’s “apology.” FAU’s administration wrote:
Perhaps students like Ryan Rotella should stomp on Dr. Poole and FAU administration as well
(for the link, click here).
Hey, that doesn't sound like a bad idea: put the word atheism on a piece of paper and stomp on it. Better yet, pee on it and do all sorts of nasty things to it.
Then ask yourself: what did this accomplish? Most likely nothing, and you'll tick a lot of people off. Then laugh at the double standard atheists will reveal about themselves.
I do like the one comment near the end of the article about objects called Fumi-e. Apparently, these were holy images in Japan used by authorities to reveal who was and was not a Christian (which at that time was illegal to be) by ordering people to step on them.
So there you have it: atheists are such idiots they have to resort to old tactics to offend Christians.
(Note: yes, I'm aware Mormonism is not real Christianity, but I am assuming it is for sake of argument).
Across the state from Florida Gulf Coast University—so far, this year’s “March Madness” Cinderella team—a student at Florida Atlantic University (FAU), Ryan Rotella, claims to have been suspended from his Intercultural Communications class.
The problem?
According to CBS12 News, Rotella is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His professor, Dr. Deandre Poole, asked students to write the word “Jesus” on a piece of paper and step on it. Rotella refused, saying the act was insulting to his faith.
Surely, if Dr. Poole had students write “liberal activists,” “gays,” illegal immigrants,” “maggot-infested dopers,” “Obama,” or any other number of names or phrases on a piece of paper and step on it, and the students refused, they would be commended and Dr. Poole would be put on notice, no?
Rotella should be commended and the professor “put on notice,” no?
Let’s not forget, however, this is
contemporary American higher education and not just as it being enacted
in classrooms in the sunny State of Florida.
Conservative news outlets and websites jumped on the story, festooning their headlines with eye-catching statements including “Professor Makes Students ‘Stomp on Jesus.’”To protect the institution’s “brand” from these right-wing media assaults, FAU’s administration issued the following statement:
A recent classroom exercise in an Intercultural Communication course at Florida Atlantic University has attracted public attention and has aroused concern on the part of some individuals and groups. The exercise was based on an example presented in a study guide to the textbook Intercultural Communication: A Contextual Approach, 5th Edition, written by a college professor who is unaffiliated with FAU. The course is taught by a non-tenured instructor on an annual appointment.What is intriguing about this story is not that FAU’s statement doesn’t contest the fact that Dr. Poole did invite the class to participate in this activity. Nor is it intriguing that FAU’s statement contradicts Rotella’s, in that “no student has been…suspended.” No, that’s all a sideshow, as those two items deflect from what really is interesting, namely, what must be going on in the minds of professors, like Dr. Poole, who believe they must introduce an activity like stomping on the name of Jesus into their classrooms.
Contrary to some media reports, no students were forced to take part in the exercise; the instructor told all of the students in the class that they could choose whether or not to participate.
While we do not comment on personnel matters, and while student privacy laws prevent us from commenting on any specific student at the University, we can confirm that no student has been expelled, suspended or disciplined by the University as a result of any activity that took place during this class.
Yes, they surely will argue, academic freedom guarantees their right to “push the boundaries” to get students “to think for themselves.” In light of this lofty ideal, who should give one hoot about offending Christians?
Yet, this is to overlook what is intriguing about this story: The fact that professors doesn’t need to engage students’ feet in the activity of stomping on pieces of paper containing the name “Jesus” to learn to think for themselves. After all, isn’t that organ located at the opposite end of the human anatomy?
Then, too, there’s the administration’s “apology.” FAU’s administration wrote:
This exercise will not be used again. The University holds dear its core values. We sincerely apologize for any offense this caused. Florida Atlantic University respects all religions and welcomes people of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs.Now, this apology is very interesting. Note how, as with so many so-called “apologies” today, the activity that’s being apologized for is “any offense this caused.” The act itself—stomping on the name of Jesus in an FAU classroom—doesn’t merit an apology. No, what requires an apology is that some close-minded or perhaps even bigoted party or parties, like Ryan Rotella, took offense. Apparently, Dr. Poole and others like Dr. Poole never “intend” to cause offense by introducing two-footed activities into their classrooms to get their students to think for themselves.
Perhaps students like Ryan Rotella should stomp on Dr. Poole and FAU administration as well
(for the link, click here).
Hey, that doesn't sound like a bad idea: put the word atheism on a piece of paper and stomp on it. Better yet, pee on it and do all sorts of nasty things to it.
Then ask yourself: what did this accomplish? Most likely nothing, and you'll tick a lot of people off. Then laugh at the double standard atheists will reveal about themselves.
I do like the one comment near the end of the article about objects called Fumi-e. Apparently, these were holy images in Japan used by authorities to reveal who was and was not a Christian (which at that time was illegal to be) by ordering people to step on them.
So there you have it: atheists are such idiots they have to resort to old tactics to offend Christians.
(Note: yes, I'm aware Mormonism is not real Christianity, but I am assuming it is for sake of argument).
Monday, March 25, 2013
Traditional Baptism Rite
Since this is Holy Week and the first Holy Week with our new Holy Father, I'd thought I'd take his suggestion and promote a "back to basics" theme for this week. It's often been said that there are not millions who hate the Catholic Church but rather millions who only hate what they think is the Catholic Church. However, what people believe the Catholic Church to be is wrong and sadly what many Catholics view the Church as is wrong too.
So with that in mind, this week, I'll be posting videos focusing on the traditional forms of the sacraments. Now, I've talked about the Eucharist in the form of the traditional Latin Mass so I'll skip over that one but as for the others, take the time to watch these videos so as to better understand why the Catholic faith makes more sense and why atheists are idiots. Full text for it can be found here.
For more info on Taylor Marshall, check out his website: www.taylormarshall.com
Anyway, onto the rite:
So with that in mind, this week, I'll be posting videos focusing on the traditional forms of the sacraments. Now, I've talked about the Eucharist in the form of the traditional Latin Mass so I'll skip over that one but as for the others, take the time to watch these videos so as to better understand why the Catholic faith makes more sense and why atheists are idiots. Full text for it can be found here.
For more info on Taylor Marshall, check out his website: www.taylormarshall.com
Anyway, onto the rite:
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Logical Fallacies Atheists Make
I've argued with over 500 atheists (mostly online, but a few times in person) and I can say beyond hyperbole each and every one argues the exact same thing, in the exact same way and makes the exact same mistakes over and over. Then I came across this website called www.atheismsfallacies.com and on one of its articles, there exists a full list of errors atheists make. What I have here is a reproduction of the list filled with definitions, examples and exceptions to the rule that show contrary to what atheists claim, Christianity does not commit these errors:
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition)- the argument that something is right or acceptable because of tradition or history.
Example: Whenever an atheist says "Atheism is the default position."
Exception to the rule: There is no exception per say, but the fallacy itself rests on two assumptions: the notion was correct when first introduced; in other words, it was correct because it was the most common view, plus past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. Neither of these apply to Christianity given what research has shown concerning the notions found in Christianity for both God existing and the morality found in the Bible (more on this later)
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person)- attacking the person making the stand and not the stand itself.
Example: Whenever an atheist says, "Christians are nothing more than bigots!"
Exception to the Rule: if the label matches the facts given about a person, or if a certain trait may very well be relevant to the issue, or if the trait can be proven, then no fallacy was committed. Hence, why I can get away with saying atheists are idiots.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance)- stating a notion is true because it hasn't been proven false.
Examples: either the atheist will say "God can't exist because no one has proven there is one" or they'll place an impossible or unlikely condition for belief, such as "Unless god shows himself and walks on water so that I can see it happen I refuse to believe in a god."
Exception to the rule: If despite all known evidence and research, we still can't figure out the undeniable answer, we are to go with the answer that best fits the evidence. As Sherlock Holmes once stated, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left--no matter how implausible--must be correct." Hence, why Christians can say God created the universe.
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition)- the fallacy of trying to prove something by repeating it over and over again and the expectation that the repetition alone will substitute for real arguments. It is also known as proof by assertion, an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.
Example: whenever an atheist presents the same refuted argument over and over again.
Exception to the rule: As far as I can tell, there is no exception to the rule; there is however the burden of the person restating the refuted notion to prove why it's right in spite of overwhelming evidence.
Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public)- the fallacy of trying to prove something by arguing that the majority of popular opinion agrees with you.
Example: whenever an atheist says the number of atheists are growing. (Notice the slight of hand: if the Christian population were growing, the atheists would think the people are crazy, but if the atheists are growing, they can't praise it fast enough.)
Exception to the rule: This has five exceptions. If one uses the numbers to show people do hold the belief, if it's a matter of social convention, if it concerns a law in regards to public safety, how people speak a language or if one can show why people hold the belief, then no fallacy committed. Hence, why Christians can say their faith is a matter of culture, because what culture basis itself on atheism?
Begging the question- when what you are trying to prove is already assumed.
Example: They will often argue that "Atheism isn't belief. Atheism is the lack of belief." This is nothing more than a play on words.
Exception to the rule: if something outside your assertion can prove the assertion true. This is why atheists claiming "Christians think the Bible is true because it says it's true" doesn't work. Even Michael Shermer found that wasn't the case
Dicto simpliciter (sweeping generalization)- he fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case; aka a stereotype
Example: whenever atheists claim all religious people bomb buildings
Exception to the rule: if an objective piece of evidence shows a group actually does perform this action.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this)-when correlation is mixed with causation.
Example: any given atheist notion concerning prayer, or saying prayer doesn't work
Exception to the rule: if correlation can indeed prove causation.
Naturalistic fallacy- the fallacy of trying to form a value conclusion (what is right or good) from statements of fact alone.
Example: someone might argue that the premise, "Science has concluded that naturalistic causes are solely responsible for the origins of life. You should therefore believe that a god does not exist."
Exception to the rule: There is no exception to this rule.
Non Sequitur ("It does not follow")- the simple fallacy of forming a conclusion about something that does not strictly follow from the premises or that may have another explanation.
Example: claiming that since ice cream sales rise the same time as car thefts, then ice cream causes car thefts. Or alternatively, saying atheism is rising shows atheism is the better position.
Exception to the rule: No real exceptions per say; one merely has to show what one has to do with the other.
One-Sided Assessment-fallacy committed by many atheists when they ignore arguments of evidence from religion since it isn't what they prefer evidence to be.
Example: saying there are more Christians in prison than atheists. This doesn't work since a) it has nothing to do with God existing b) the study used doesn't exist.
Exception to the rule: none
Red herring-the fallacy of bringing irrelevant facts or ideas to an argument in order to distract from the topic at hand.
Example: whenever atheists try to refute atheism being a religious stand by concluding baldness is a hair color. One has nothing to do with the other.
Exceptions to the rule: same as non-sequitor
Slippery slope-an argument that says adopting one idea or belief will lead to a series of ideas or beliefs, without showing a causal connection between the two ideas or beliefs.
Example: A popular example in atheism is when atheists argue in favor of there being no gods because believing in gods will lead to atheism of other gods. Denial of one has nothing to do with acceptance of the other.
Exception: when Christians claim having no absolute values leads to overall breakdown of values as this is based on credible studies
Straw man- This fallacy occurs when a debater sets up a related but often extreme version or easier position of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument made.
Example: using crime rates in Christian nations to show Christians murder people, even though that ignores the teachings of the Bible
Exception to the rule: the best way is to show how your take is related to the one at hand.
Tu quoque ("you too" or "you are another")- This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error.
Example: When confronted with the suffering atheism has caused, atheists will say "Christians caused far more misery," which a) answers nothing and b) is not historically accurate.
Exception to the rule: If one can prove it applies to the other side, but not at all to your own.
Now, let me add a few more to this list:
Chronological Snobbery- the erroneous argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior to that of the present, simply by virtue of its temporal priority.
Example: any time atheists refer to the Bible as "Bronze age nonsense."
Exception to the rule: none
Category Error (aka Category Mistake)- a semantic or ontological error in which "things of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another" or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.
Example: saying God can't be real because science can't prove God's existence, even though Christianity never claimed that.
Fallacy of Guilt by Association- asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
Example: every time an atheist brings up the Inquisition or the Crusades, since they don't know much about either.
Exception to rule: if you can prove this is not typical behavior of the group.
Burden of Proof error- placing the burden of proof on someone or something that doesn't deserve it.
Example: (and this is VERY common with atheists) Saying it is up to the Christian to prove God exists, when it should be on the atheist.
Exception to the rule: If the notion is one held by the majority of people and can be shown why they believe it, then no fallacy committed. Note that this by itself doesn't mean it's true but it does show who has to explain what.
Appeal to Authority- claiming something is true because an authority says it's true.
Example: if an atheist cites an atheist thinker as to why they hold a notion.
Exception to the rule: (and both of these must hold true) If the notion is held as mutual consensus by experts in the field, then no fallacy was committed.
No True Scotsman- When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.
Example: If an atheist says "all true Christians are hypocrites."
Exception: if the notion matches the textbook definition (ie all atheists don't believe in God) or mentions a trait a group is supposed to have (ie all humans are mammals) no fallacy committed.
So there you have it...all atheist fallacies and how to refute all of them. Trust me: point out to an atheist that they committed a fallacy and they will fall to pieces.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition)- the argument that something is right or acceptable because of tradition or history.
Example: Whenever an atheist says "Atheism is the default position."
Exception to the rule: There is no exception per say, but the fallacy itself rests on two assumptions: the notion was correct when first introduced; in other words, it was correct because it was the most common view, plus past justifications for the tradition are still valid at present. Neither of these apply to Christianity given what research has shown concerning the notions found in Christianity for both God existing and the morality found in the Bible (more on this later)
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person)- attacking the person making the stand and not the stand itself.
Example: Whenever an atheist says, "Christians are nothing more than bigots!"
Exception to the Rule: if the label matches the facts given about a person, or if a certain trait may very well be relevant to the issue, or if the trait can be proven, then no fallacy was committed. Hence, why I can get away with saying atheists are idiots.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance)- stating a notion is true because it hasn't been proven false.
Examples: either the atheist will say "God can't exist because no one has proven there is one" or they'll place an impossible or unlikely condition for belief, such as "Unless god shows himself and walks on water so that I can see it happen I refuse to believe in a god."
Exception to the rule: If despite all known evidence and research, we still can't figure out the undeniable answer, we are to go with the answer that best fits the evidence. As Sherlock Holmes once stated, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left--no matter how implausible--must be correct." Hence, why Christians can say God created the universe.
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repetition)- the fallacy of trying to prove something by repeating it over and over again and the expectation that the repetition alone will substitute for real arguments. It is also known as proof by assertion, an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.
Example: whenever an atheist presents the same refuted argument over and over again.
Exception to the rule: As far as I can tell, there is no exception to the rule; there is however the burden of the person restating the refuted notion to prove why it's right in spite of overwhelming evidence.
Argumentum ad populum (argument or appeal to the public)- the fallacy of trying to prove something by arguing that the majority of popular opinion agrees with you.
Example: whenever an atheist says the number of atheists are growing. (Notice the slight of hand: if the Christian population were growing, the atheists would think the people are crazy, but if the atheists are growing, they can't praise it fast enough.)
Exception to the rule: This has five exceptions. If one uses the numbers to show people do hold the belief, if it's a matter of social convention, if it concerns a law in regards to public safety, how people speak a language or if one can show why people hold the belief, then no fallacy committed. Hence, why Christians can say their faith is a matter of culture, because what culture basis itself on atheism?
Begging the question- when what you are trying to prove is already assumed.
Example: They will often argue that "Atheism isn't belief. Atheism is the lack of belief." This is nothing more than a play on words.
Exception to the rule: if something outside your assertion can prove the assertion true. This is why atheists claiming "Christians think the Bible is true because it says it's true" doesn't work. Even Michael Shermer found that wasn't the case
Dicto simpliciter (sweeping generalization)- he fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case; aka a stereotype
Example: whenever atheists claim all religious people bomb buildings
Exception to the rule: if an objective piece of evidence shows a group actually does perform this action.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc (with this, therefore because of this)-when correlation is mixed with causation.
Example: any given atheist notion concerning prayer, or saying prayer doesn't work
Exception to the rule: if correlation can indeed prove causation.
Naturalistic fallacy- the fallacy of trying to form a value conclusion (what is right or good) from statements of fact alone.
Example: someone might argue that the premise, "Science has concluded that naturalistic causes are solely responsible for the origins of life. You should therefore believe that a god does not exist."
Exception to the rule: There is no exception to this rule.
Non Sequitur ("It does not follow")- the simple fallacy of forming a conclusion about something that does not strictly follow from the premises or that may have another explanation.
Example: claiming that since ice cream sales rise the same time as car thefts, then ice cream causes car thefts. Or alternatively, saying atheism is rising shows atheism is the better position.
Exception to the rule: No real exceptions per say; one merely has to show what one has to do with the other.
One-Sided Assessment-fallacy committed by many atheists when they ignore arguments of evidence from religion since it isn't what they prefer evidence to be.
Example: saying there are more Christians in prison than atheists. This doesn't work since a) it has nothing to do with God existing b) the study used doesn't exist.
Exception to the rule: none
Red herring-the fallacy of bringing irrelevant facts or ideas to an argument in order to distract from the topic at hand.
Example: whenever atheists try to refute atheism being a religious stand by concluding baldness is a hair color. One has nothing to do with the other.
Exceptions to the rule: same as non-sequitor
Slippery slope-an argument that says adopting one idea or belief will lead to a series of ideas or beliefs, without showing a causal connection between the two ideas or beliefs.
Example: A popular example in atheism is when atheists argue in favor of there being no gods because believing in gods will lead to atheism of other gods. Denial of one has nothing to do with acceptance of the other.
Exception: when Christians claim having no absolute values leads to overall breakdown of values as this is based on credible studies
Straw man- This fallacy occurs when a debater sets up a related but often extreme version or easier position of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument made.
Example: using crime rates in Christian nations to show Christians murder people, even though that ignores the teachings of the Bible
Exception to the rule: the best way is to show how your take is related to the one at hand.
Tu quoque ("you too" or "you are another")- This is the fallacy of defending an error in one's reasoning by pointing out that one's opponent has made the same error.
Example: When confronted with the suffering atheism has caused, atheists will say "Christians caused far more misery," which a) answers nothing and b) is not historically accurate.
Exception to the rule: If one can prove it applies to the other side, but not at all to your own.
Now, let me add a few more to this list:
Chronological Snobbery- the erroneous argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior to that of the present, simply by virtue of its temporal priority.
Example: any time atheists refer to the Bible as "Bronze age nonsense."
Exception to the rule: none
Category Error (aka Category Mistake)- a semantic or ontological error in which "things of one kind are presented as if they belonged to another" or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property.
Example: saying God can't be real because science can't prove God's existence, even though Christianity never claimed that.
Fallacy of Guilt by Association- asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association.
Example: every time an atheist brings up the Inquisition or the Crusades, since they don't know much about either.
Exception to rule: if you can prove this is not typical behavior of the group.
Burden of Proof error- placing the burden of proof on someone or something that doesn't deserve it.
Example: (and this is VERY common with atheists) Saying it is up to the Christian to prove God exists, when it should be on the atheist.
Exception to the rule: If the notion is one held by the majority of people and can be shown why they believe it, then no fallacy committed. Note that this by itself doesn't mean it's true but it does show who has to explain what.
Appeal to Authority- claiming something is true because an authority says it's true.
Example: if an atheist cites an atheist thinker as to why they hold a notion.
Exception to the rule: (and both of these must hold true) If the notion is held as mutual consensus by experts in the field, then no fallacy was committed.
No True Scotsman- When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.
Example: If an atheist says "all true Christians are hypocrites."
Exception: if the notion matches the textbook definition (ie all atheists don't believe in God) or mentions a trait a group is supposed to have (ie all humans are mammals) no fallacy committed.
So there you have it...all atheist fallacies and how to refute all of them. Trust me: point out to an atheist that they committed a fallacy and they will fall to pieces.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Friday, March 15, 2013
Really, Atheists?
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), is suing the United States Treasury Department to remove the words "In God We Trust" from all U.S. currency, because they claim the motto is offensive to nonreligious citizens.
Nineteen plaintiffs and the FFRF filed the lawsuit, Newdow v. Congress in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Feb. 1. The civil action claims the motto In God We Trust violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.The plaintiffs' claim that the motto is offensive and forces atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, freethinkers and skeptics to bear a religious
According to Dan Barker, co-president of the Wisconsin-based FFRF, a nonprofit organization that represents atheists and agnostics, the majority of Americans believe the motto sends a religious message out to everyone who collects or uses U.S. currency.
"[In God We Trust] is indeed considered to be a religious phrase," Barker said in an interview with The Christian Post on Thursday. "The message belongs in churches, private institutions and can be shared by missionaries. But who is the 'we' representing, if not all of us trust in a God?"
Barker believes that recent survey responses show one out of every five Americans is not a believer, and the motto is forcing nonbelievers to proselytize for monotheism when they travel overseas and exchange U.S. currency for local money.
"Part of the complaint is the message 'In God We Trust' sends to people in the U.S. and overseas," said Barker, noting this lawsuit is the fourth attempt to remove the motto from U.S. currency. Previous lawsuits were filed in California, Texas and Wisconsin.
He added that when the motto was proposed in the 1950s, the purpose was to proselytize for religion, specifically Christianity. "The idea was that 'as our money goes around the world, we are sharing our Christianity.'"
Barker told CP that the FFRF and 19 other plaintiffs are not recommending that the motto should be replaced by any other message, they just want the words In God We Trust to be removed. "We are not suggesting that the motto should be changed to 'There Is No God,' or 'We Don't Believe In God,' because that would be offensive and the government should be neutral, and shouldn't promote or attack either side."
The three previous attempts to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency have been unsuccessful, but Barker believes that Mike Newdow, a member of the FFRF honorary board, has a strong case.
Newdow previously challenge to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2002, the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals ruled that the pledge's use of "One nation under God" was unconstitutional. However, in 2004 the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Newdow's lawsuit against Elk Grove Unified School District (where his daughter attended school), because they found he lacked standing to sue since of his daughter.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-groups-sues-us-govt-to-remove-in-god-we-trust-from-currency-91901/
This is what I've been talking about this whole time: atheists don't care about the law when it doesn't suit their purposes. In fact, I'll go further and state they'd kill every Christian in the world if the law didn't stop them.
I'll go into the stupidity of the FFRF in a later post, but for now let's focus on Michael Newdow.
Who's Michael Newdow?
He's the man who sued the Elk Grove Unified School District because he claimed making his daughter recite "Under God' in the Pledge violated the Establishment Clause. The court threw the case out after they found out he did not have legal custody of his daughter, thus he could not sue on her behalf. Having not learned his lesson, he tried this lawsuit again in the Eastern California, this time suing on behalf of other parents and their children. This was thrown out because idiot Newdow didn't realize he didn't have standing in this case either, but the parents did. Though the judge ruled in favor of Newdow and the parents, their victory was VERY short lived. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the ruling then stated Newdow didn't have the right to sue in the first place.
But his stupidity doesn't even there (atheist stupidity rarely does). Let's look at some other idiotic claims he made:
-On a Fox News interview, he equated "In God We Trust" with promoting racial segregation.
-In a radio interview, he showed he knew nothing about the Pledge Protection Act.
-He claimed the motto was a religious slogan; a federal judge told him he was full of it and threw the case out.
-Three times he sued to prevent anyone from saying "So help me God" at presidential inaugurations. All three attempts failed.
Do you see a pattern here? Every time he thinks he can sue but every time a judge throws his case out because of an amateur mistake he keeps making over and over. This is even sadder once you consider Newdow claims he has a legal degree from the University of Michagan.
Either U of M has very low standards or that's a complete lie because I don't see how one person can make the same legal mistake and not learn anything from it.
Another proof atheists are morons.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
All Hail Pope Francis!!
As we slowly accept and learn more about the Church's new Pope, it appears as if one of my predictions has come true, at least in the words of Pope Francis. Notice how at one point in the video, they quote him implying that public figures who claim to be Catholic but support abortion should be denied Communion, as evident in his signing of a document known as the "Aparecida Document".
A fact about his teachings we don't know about, since the media doesn't want that part known, instead choosing to pervert his concern for the poor for their own big government agenda, something Pope Francis (as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio) knows first hand, in both the past and recent future:
In the 1970's, then Father Bergoglio, like other fellow Argentinians, went through what became known in his native country as the Dirty War, a dark time of government backed terrorism and guerrilla warfare. In 2005, a human rights lawyer filed a complaint against Bergoglio (by this point, superior for the Jesuits in Argentina), accusing him of conspiring with the Navy in the kidnapping of two Jesuit priests during the Dirty War. All too eager to go along and not caring about the facts, the Argentine government went with the accusation. The charges were later dropped (mostly because the evidence was sketchy at best and it was proven the two were kidnapped thanks to their own stupidity).
But his fights with the government doesn't stop there. In 2010, the Argentinian government passed a law making gay so-called marriage legal, in spite of overwhelming opposition by its own citizens (no surprise here: the Argentinian government is NOTORIOUS for running over the rights of its own people). Then Cardinal Bergoglio issued this statement:
"Let's not be naïve, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God."
He has also gone on record opposing adoption by same-sex couples, free distribution of contraceptives, and described the pro-choice movement as "a culture of death." Boy, is Joe Biden going to get the book thrown at him! While cardinal, he was the first of the Latin American bishops to voice his support and go-ahead to Benedict XVI call to revive the Latin Mass in all areas.
On his first day as pope, he visited the grave of St Pius V, who was the pope who granted sainthood to Thomas Aquinas, cleaned up corruption in his own day, and ordered a papal army against Muslims to victory with the guidance of Our Lady of the Rosary (the patroness of this blog).
In other words, with our prayers and support, atheists are screwed, because atheists are idiots.
Monday, March 11, 2013
The Biggest Anti-Atheist Quote List on the Internet
A bit of bragging, I admit, but so far, I have yet to see any list with more quotes than this one. I'm putting together a long list for my Latin Mass Series and this might include more quotes later, but for now, consider this the biggest collection of anti-atheist quotes:
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God."-Psalm 14
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..."-Romans 1:19-20
"As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." -Joshua 24:15
"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in
philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." -Francis Bacon
"If you can't believe in God, chances are your God is too small."-James Phillips
"During the crusades all were religious mad, and now all are mad for want of it."
-Captain J. G. Stedman
"If you don't believe in God, all you have to believe in is decency. Decency is
very good. Better decent than indecent. But I don't think it's enough."
-Harold Macmillan
"What you don't understand is that it is possible to be an atheist, it is possible
not to know if God exists or why He should, and yet to believe that man does
not live in a state of nature but in history, and that history as we know it now
began with Christ, it was founded by Him on the Gospels."
-Boris Pasternak
"No one can be an unbeliever nowadays. The Christian Apologists have left one
nothing to disbelieve."
-Hector Hugh Munro
"An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident."
~ Francis Thompson
"Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness
as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity
(in the Harvard sense) of saying that the universe just happened to happen and
that when we're dead we're dead?"
-John Updike
"Atheism is rather in the life than in the heart of man."
-Francis Bacon
"Atheism is the result of ignorance and pride; of strong sense and feeble reasons;
of good eating and ill-living. It is the plague of society, the corrupter of manners,
and the underminer of property."
-Jeremy Collier
"A disbelief in God does not result in a belief in nothing; disbelief in God usually
results in a belief in anything." -Arthur Lynch
"The only atheism is the denial of truth."-Arthur Lynch
"He who never thirsts for God here, will thirst for Him before he has been dead
a minute."- B. North
"The three great apostles of practical atheism, that make converts without
persecuting, and retain them without preaching, are wealth, health and power."
-C C Colton
"Atheist's don't exist. If you ask anyone why they are an atheist they will proceed
to explain their religion of non belief." -Monksarnn
"An atheist is one who hopes the Lord will do nothing to disturb his disbelief." -Franklin P. Jones
"To doubt is not sin, but to be contented to remain in doubt when God has
provided "many infallible proofs" to cure it, is." -Irwin H. Linton
"There is no being eloquent for atheism. In that exhausted receiver the mind
cannot use its wings,- the clearest proof that it is out of its element." -Hare
"No man will say, "There is no God" 'till he is so hardened in sin that it has
become his interest that there should be none to call him to account." -Mathew Henry
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."
-Arkansas State Constitution
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.” -Maryland State Constitution
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."- Mississippi State Constitution
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."- North Carolina State Constitution
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." -South Carolina State Constitution
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."- Tennessee State Constitution
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. -Texas State Constitution"
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth." -Pennsylvania State Constitution
"Again, I hear almost everyday from atheists who write off religion as primitive, premodern nonsense. I summon Aquinas, Augustine, Paul [of Tarsus], Teresa of Avila, Joseph Ratzinger, and Edith Stein--in all their intellectual rigor--as allies in the the struggle against this dismissive atheism." -Fr Robert Barron.
“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”-GK Chesterton
"The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful, and has nobody to thank."-
"The atheist can appeal to nothing absolute, nothing objectively true for all people, it is just mere opinion enforced by might. The Christian appeals to a standard outside himself/herself in which truth and qualitative values can be made sense of."
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God."-Psalm 14
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..."-Romans 1:19-20
"As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." -Joshua 24:15
"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in
philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." -Francis Bacon
"If you can't believe in God, chances are your God is too small."-James Phillips
"During the crusades all were religious mad, and now all are mad for want of it."
-Captain J. G. Stedman
"If you don't believe in God, all you have to believe in is decency. Decency is
very good. Better decent than indecent. But I don't think it's enough."
-Harold Macmillan
"What you don't understand is that it is possible to be an atheist, it is possible
not to know if God exists or why He should, and yet to believe that man does
not live in a state of nature but in history, and that history as we know it now
began with Christ, it was founded by Him on the Gospels."
-Boris Pasternak
"No one can be an unbeliever nowadays. The Christian Apologists have left one
nothing to disbelieve."
-Hector Hugh Munro
"An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident."
~ Francis Thompson
"Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic uninterestingness
as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity
(in the Harvard sense) of saying that the universe just happened to happen and
that when we're dead we're dead?"
-John Updike
"Atheism is rather in the life than in the heart of man."
-Francis Bacon
"Atheism is the result of ignorance and pride; of strong sense and feeble reasons;
of good eating and ill-living. It is the plague of society, the corrupter of manners,
and the underminer of property."
-Jeremy Collier
"A disbelief in God does not result in a belief in nothing; disbelief in God usually
results in a belief in anything." -Arthur Lynch
"The only atheism is the denial of truth."-Arthur Lynch
"He who never thirsts for God here, will thirst for Him before he has been dead
a minute."- B. North
"The three great apostles of practical atheism, that make converts without
persecuting, and retain them without preaching, are wealth, health and power."
-C C Colton
"Atheist's don't exist. If you ask anyone why they are an atheist they will proceed
to explain their religion of non belief." -Monksarnn
"An atheist is one who hopes the Lord will do nothing to disturb his disbelief." -Franklin P. Jones
"To doubt is not sin, but to be contented to remain in doubt when God has
provided "many infallible proofs" to cure it, is." -Irwin H. Linton
"There is no being eloquent for atheism. In that exhausted receiver the mind
cannot use its wings,- the clearest proof that it is out of its element." -Hare
"No man will say, "There is no God" 'till he is so hardened in sin that it has
become his interest that there should be none to call him to account." -Mathew Henry
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."
-Arkansas State Constitution
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.” -Maryland State Constitution
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."- Mississippi State Constitution
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."- North Carolina State Constitution
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." -South Carolina State Constitution
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."- Tennessee State Constitution
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being. -Texas State Constitution"
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth." -Pennsylvania State Constitution
"Again, I hear almost everyday from atheists who write off religion as primitive, premodern nonsense. I summon Aquinas, Augustine, Paul [of Tarsus], Teresa of Avila, Joseph Ratzinger, and Edith Stein--in all their intellectual rigor--as allies in the the struggle against this dismissive atheism." -Fr Robert Barron.
“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”-GK Chesterton
"The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful, and has nobody to thank."-
"The atheist can appeal to nothing absolute, nothing objectively true for all people, it is just mere opinion enforced by might. The Christian appeals to a standard outside himself/herself in which truth and qualitative values can be made sense of."
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
Say Hello to the Latin Mass Pt 3
More sad deviations from Church teachings today, this time from the New York Times:
"Roman Catholics in the United States say that their church and bishops are out of touch, and that the next pope should lead the church in a more modern direction on issues like birth control and ordaining women and married men as priests, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Seven out of 10 say Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican have done a poor job of handling sexual abuse, a significant rise from three years ago. A majority said that the issue had led them to question the Vatican’s authority. The sexual abuse of children by priests is the largest problem facing the church, Catholics in the poll said. Three-fourths of those polled said they thought it was a good idea for Benedict to resign. Most wanted the next pope to be “someone younger, with new ideas.” A majority said they wanted the next pope to make the church’s teachings more liberal.... Even Catholics who frequently attend Mass said they were not following the bishops’ lead on issues that the church had recently invested much energy, money and credibility in fighting — artificial birth control and same-sex marriage.... The poll suggested that the papacy no longer occupies the exalted position it once did. Asked whether the pope is infallible when he teaches on matters of morality and faith, 40 percent said yes, 46 percent said no, and 14 percent said they did not know. Nearly 8 in 10 Catholics polled said they would be more likely to follow their conscience on “difficult moral questions” than to follow the pope’s teachings." (for the full article, click here)
"Not following the lead" is an understatement, especially considering how many went against the bishops and voted to re-elect Obama. Is it any wonder then so many remain so ignorant about what the Church not only teaches but what it is, even among professed Catholics?
In my last post, I put up a video about the sad roots of the Norvus Ordo so-called Mass. Here's part two of that same discussion:
"Roman Catholics in the United States say that their church and bishops are out of touch, and that the next pope should lead the church in a more modern direction on issues like birth control and ordaining women and married men as priests, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Seven out of 10 say Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican have done a poor job of handling sexual abuse, a significant rise from three years ago. A majority said that the issue had led them to question the Vatican’s authority. The sexual abuse of children by priests is the largest problem facing the church, Catholics in the poll said. Three-fourths of those polled said they thought it was a good idea for Benedict to resign. Most wanted the next pope to be “someone younger, with new ideas.” A majority said they wanted the next pope to make the church’s teachings more liberal.... Even Catholics who frequently attend Mass said they were not following the bishops’ lead on issues that the church had recently invested much energy, money and credibility in fighting — artificial birth control and same-sex marriage.... The poll suggested that the papacy no longer occupies the exalted position it once did. Asked whether the pope is infallible when he teaches on matters of morality and faith, 40 percent said yes, 46 percent said no, and 14 percent said they did not know. Nearly 8 in 10 Catholics polled said they would be more likely to follow their conscience on “difficult moral questions” than to follow the pope’s teachings." (for the full article, click here)
"Not following the lead" is an understatement, especially considering how many went against the bishops and voted to re-elect Obama. Is it any wonder then so many remain so ignorant about what the Church not only teaches but what it is, even among professed Catholics?
In my last post, I put up a video about the sad roots of the Norvus Ordo so-called Mass. Here's part two of that same discussion:
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Say Hello to the Latin Mass PT 2
Yes, you saw that one part right: Protestant theologians had a role to play in forming the Norvus Ordo Mass. For the whole sad tale, check out the video below:
Monday, March 4, 2013
Say Hello to the Latin Mass Pt 1
The Servant of God Fulton Sheen once wrote that there are not millions of people who hate the Catholic Church; there are however millions who hate what they think is the Catholic Church, which is another matter altogether.
While that does explain why atheists are such idiots, it also begs the question of whether Catholics themselves know their own faith. If recent polls are any indication, the answer is no. Besides the numbers I cited in a previous post concerning Benedict XVI, consider these numbers:
-52% of Catholics in America voted for Obama, a man that is for all the issues the USCCB told the faithful not to support.
- According toThe American Values Survey, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, 60% of Catholics would rather hear about social justice rather than pro-life issues, even though social justice doesn't mean anything if you're not alive
-17% of Catholics attend Mass at least once a week.
-Less than 15% believe in transubstantiation (less than 10% even know what that word means).
-While 77.7 million Americans claim to be Catholic, 34% admit they don't practice their faith.
-Even though the Church has taught artificial contraception is morally wrong, only 8% of Catholics agree with that, according to Gallup.
-Also according to Gallup, 40% thought abortion was okay, 71% thought divorce was okay, 61% thought having a child outside of marriage was okay, and 54% thought homosexual relations was okay...again, all actions condemned by the Church.
Side note: Gallup found the numbers didn't change if you separated the Mass attending Catholics from the non-attendants.
I've looked into this long and hard, and I've concluded the only way to turn this tide of filth around is to bring the Latin Mass back to the forefront of Catholic life. I'll get into more detail as to how I reached this conclusion in future posts, but for those 40 and younger (or those who have heard of it, but are not sure what it entails), please take the time to watch this video. I know it's long but it will give you a good idea of the rubrics:
While that does explain why atheists are such idiots, it also begs the question of whether Catholics themselves know their own faith. If recent polls are any indication, the answer is no. Besides the numbers I cited in a previous post concerning Benedict XVI, consider these numbers:
-52% of Catholics in America voted for Obama, a man that is for all the issues the USCCB told the faithful not to support.
- According toThe American Values Survey, conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute, 60% of Catholics would rather hear about social justice rather than pro-life issues, even though social justice doesn't mean anything if you're not alive
-17% of Catholics attend Mass at least once a week.
-Less than 15% believe in transubstantiation (less than 10% even know what that word means).
-While 77.7 million Americans claim to be Catholic, 34% admit they don't practice their faith.
-Even though the Church has taught artificial contraception is morally wrong, only 8% of Catholics agree with that, according to Gallup.
-Also according to Gallup, 40% thought abortion was okay, 71% thought divorce was okay, 61% thought having a child outside of marriage was okay, and 54% thought homosexual relations was okay...again, all actions condemned by the Church.
Side note: Gallup found the numbers didn't change if you separated the Mass attending Catholics from the non-attendants.
I've looked into this long and hard, and I've concluded the only way to turn this tide of filth around is to bring the Latin Mass back to the forefront of Catholic life. I'll get into more detail as to how I reached this conclusion in future posts, but for those 40 and younger (or those who have heard of it, but are not sure what it entails), please take the time to watch this video. I know it's long but it will give you a good idea of the rubrics:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)