Friday, May 31, 2013

Changes Coming for this June

Starting on June 2nd, this blog will combat the perversion of this month by focusing on what this month is supposed to be about:
-instead of embracing homosexuality, I will show ways out of such a destructive lifestyle.
-instead of blurring out masculinity, I will refocus it.
-instead of people running roughshod over religious rights, I will show how to fight back.
-instead of giving power to sodomites, I will give power to the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
Stay tuned for all the changes.

Saturday, May 25, 2013

My Spiritual To-Do List

In my bio, I mentioned that I have completed the consecration to Mary as written by St. Louis deMontfort but what I have never mentioned before is that I have a whole list of spiritual journeys I would like to complete in line with St. Loyola's teaching of asking oneself  what can one do in honor of Jesus. I have either started some of them, haven't gotten around to them or haven't started some because a good number  take so long to finish and rather keep them to myself, I would like to share them with you to see how many of them you would like to try to finish. Now keep in mind if you don't go to Mass on a regular basis (including all holy days) I would suggest doing that first before you try them and I will also include how many days it takes to finish them, plus any additional resources needed:

1. Consecrate yourself to Our Holy Mother (Note: I've done this already but I will do this again later this year.)
This one calls for specific readings and prayers  from three books, but since I understand some people have limited space, I suggest getting this book to have everything in one place:
Length of time to finish: 33 days

2. Complete spiritual exercises written by St Francis De Sales.
Length of time to finish: 10 days

3. Complete Jesuit spiritual exercises.
Length of time to finish: 56 days or maybe 8 days, depending which you go with.

4. Complete St Bridget prayers
Length of time to finish: 365 days

5. Receive Eucharist the first Friday of the month for 9 straight months.
Length of time to finish: 9 months.

6. Be enthroned into the Sacred Heart.

Friday, May 24, 2013

To All Who Care about the Boy Scouts

(Full credit goes to Taylor Marshall for this piece):

I am an Eagle Scout and I loved being a Boy Scout - all the way from Cub Scouts to Eagle. I want my sons to become Scouts and share that tradition with them...but I can no longer support the Boy Scouts, because of this.
I've been thinking and worrying about the Boy Scouts for months. I knew this decision was coming and I knew that the Boy Scouts would go the wrong way.
I also knew in my heart that I would have to do something about it when it actually happened...

So here's my manifesto on why we need Scouting, but why we now need an alternative Scouting organization for Catholics: The Scouts of Saint George.
In 1908 Robert Baden-Powell wrote a book for boys about reconnaissance or scouting titled Scouting for Boys. Baden-Powell was a lieutenant general in the British Army.

He developed an ideal for young men about being a "Scout," and ideal that included mentorship, camping, woodworking, backpacking, sports, and most important of all: virtue and the art of being a man.
Baden-Powell was an Anglican and he chose the fleur-de-lis as the emblem of Scouting. The fleur-de-lis is an ancient symbol of virginity and the Blessed Virgin Mary - rather fitting in my opinion. (Regrettably the BSA has trademarked the fleur-de-lis.)

Scouting spread to America and across the globe and it always possessed a religious element. We are now at the moment when this integral feature has been denied.

So we need to create a new organization for the old tradition. Here's what I'm going to do about it, and I need all the brave souls that I can get. This will be an "Eagle Project" of a lifetime!!!!

We are going to make Catholic Scouts happen: the Scouts of Saint George. 

Here's the mini-manifesto in 7 points:
  1. The Scouts of Saint George must be Catholic and acknowledge every jot and tittle of the magisterium of the Church - and be in full communion with the Holy Father. 
  2. A personal relationship with Christ and the growth in manly virtue will be at the heart of the Scouts of Saint George.
  3. The Scouts of Saint George will be like the Boy Scouts of America with hiking, fishing, camping, merit badges, and a highest rank (equivalent somehow to Eagle Scout). Same format and structure.
  4. The Scouts of Saint George must have protection from the government, which means it must be  grassroots. It cannot be a non-profit 501(c)3. Otherwise, we are under government regulation and pressure in the years to come. We must avoid influence from lobbyists and governmental powers to compromise (as has happened with the BSA). Where there is no money, there is less pressure.
  5. The Scouts of Saint George will be free and open-source. Like the original Baden-Powell, all you'll need is the book, uniform, and badges. That's it. The rest is grassroots. Fathers and sons organize and simply register or seek recognition from the other Scouts of Saint George.
  6. The Scouts of Saint George won't reinvent the wheel. Traditional scouting works. Why change it? We're just going to preserve the tradition and import a Catholic identity.
  7. The Scouts of Saint George is global. My goal is to get Pope Francis to approve it and recognize it.
  8. Why Saint George? I have a devotion to him and he's the exemplar for young men in the categories of courage and virginity? We need young men to slay the dragons of our era. Wouldn't you agree?
Okay, who's in? I need thousands of collaborators on this one. This will be a great project to get in on the ground floor:

Sign up now to get involved with the "Scouts of Saint George" 

This is a different email list from my blog subscribers. I'm not going to confuse the two. If you want to help Scouts of Saint George, please sign up afresh below: 

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Even in the face of tragedy, atheists are idiots

Before I continue with this post, my heart and prayers go out to those affected by the tornadoes in Oklahoma. We must all band together to help them get their lives back together.

And...that brings me to the point of this post: praying vs doing something: are they really polar opposites?

Apparently so, if you are a hardcore atheist like Ricky Gervais, who recently got into a flame war with a Twitter account called #PrayForOklahoma and followed it up with this statement:

                                              "I feel like an idiot now ... I only sent money."

This was later followed up by atheist idiots who either know nothing about religion, are just regurgitating the same bile from other ignorant atheists or can't be bothered to think for themselves. My favorite has to come from CNN's Facebook page where someone wrote:

           "If prayer works, there wouldn't be a disaster like this in the first place ... so please keep your religion to yourself." 

To that, I say if atheism could define for itself tragedy, then you have the right to call it that or if the Bible said believers would never endure suffering, then you would have a point but you're wrong on both counts 
so keep your atheism to yourself.

[For more on what the Bible says about suffering, click here.]

Back to Gervais for a moment....he has no right to say giving of yourself is better than prayer for the following reasons:
1. Even the Bible itself says deeds are what lead to justification and salvation and not just by belief alone. (for more information, click here)
2. Ignatius of Loyola (as well as other great Christian thinkers) would tell him affective love (based on nice feelings) is inferior to effective love (based on deeds).
3. He doesn't seem to be aware religious people, by every rubric and study you can find, give far more of themselves than atheists.

[As a side note, many atheists would argue "Christians just give of themselves because they fear hell." That doesn't even make any sense because a) not giving of yourself is not a serious enough sin to merit hell b) it's a disingenuous accusation based on the atheist's "supposed" power to read minds and c) it doesn't explain why atheists give so little. I could very well argue "atheists don't give enough because they just don't care about anyone except themselves" and mine would make far more sense.]

4. Given his track record, I see no reason to think Gervais would give anything to help people and here's what makes me think that:
-While he does have a girlfriend of several years, he refuses to marry her because "there's no point in us having an actual ceremony before the eyes of God because there is no God." (specious reasoning)
-He doesn't want kids because "[I] didn't fancy dedicating 16 years of our lives. And there are too many children, of course." (more specious reasoning plus even the UN doesn't agree with him.)

[Another side note that I'm sure people will write to me about: I am aware he did write an article to the Wall Street Journal explaining why he doesn't believe in God. I have read it, it's complete garbage and I don't agree with any of it so don't bother.]

So there you have it: more proof that atheists are idiots.

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Myths about the Miracle of Calanda Debunked

Often atheists ask Christians why God doesn't heel amputees. While a good case can be made about God helping them put their lives back together after such a lifestyle altering event, thus "healing" them in a spiritual sense, most likely the atheist wants to hear about actual limb regeneration like the type seen in reptiles. In that case, I personally bring up the Miracle of Calanda, and once that happens, look out for all the lies and distortions atheists fling at it. If you're not familiar with the story, here it is courtesy of Wikipedia:  

At the end of July 1637 Miguel Juan Pellicer, a 20 year old man from Calanda in Aragon was working as an agricultural labourer at Castellón, 60 km from Valencia, on his uncle's farm. While steering a cart by riding one of the mules that was pulling it, Miguel fell off, probably because he had fallen asleep. The cartwheel passed over his right leg, breaking the tibia. He received initial treatment at Castellón, then was admitted to the hospital of Valencia, where he stayed for five days. He then decided to leave for Zaragoza in order to receive treatment in the hospital dedicated to Our Lady of the Pillar (Madonna del Pilar) to whom he had great devotion. The 300 kilometre journey took him some 50 days. On his arrival, the doctors observed that the leg was in an advanced state of gangrene, leaving no other choice but to amputate it. In their testimony, the doctors described the leg as "very phlegmonous and gangrenous," to the point of appearing "black." In mid-October two master surgeons, Juan de Estanga and Diego Millaruelo, carried out the operation. The leg was cut "four fingers below the knee." Although they had made the patient drowsy with alcoholic and drugged drinks, as was the practice at the time, Miguel suffered excruciating pain: "In his torment," the witnesses would later say, "the young man called upon the Virgin of the Pillar, unceasingly and with great fervor." The leg was then buried, as was customary at the time, in a special part of the hospital's cemetery. The stub was subsequently cauterized with fire. Miguel Juan Pellicer stayed in hospital for a few months, until in the spring of 1638 he was provided with a wooden leg and crutches and released from hospital. For the next two years, he made his living through begging. He was provided with the necessary authorization, at the Sanctuary of the Pillar. During this time he was certainly a familiar sight for a large number of the citizens of Zaragoza. He regularly returned to the hospital for checkups and treatment through Dr. Estanga.
 According to Messori, at about ten o'clock in the evening of 29 March 1640, Pellicer laid himself to rest. Because his bed was occupied by a soldier of a garrison that stayed at Calanda over night, he went to sleep on a provisional bed in his parents' room. Between half past ten and eleven o'clock, his mother entered the room and saw two feet appearing from below the cloak that covered her son. Thinking that Miguel Juan and the soldier must have changed places, she called her husband to resolve the misunderstanding. But while removing the cloak, husband and wife, were dumbstruck, as they realized that this was indeed their own son. They shook him and shouted at him to wake him up. Some minutes passed until Miguel Juan woke up from a deep sleep. He told them that he had dreamt of being within the Sanctuary of Our Lady of the Pillar and rubbing his leg with the holy oil, as he had done so often. Soon all three agreed that the restoration of the leg was due to the intercession of the Virgin of the Pillar.

No lie: I once presented this to a group of ten atheists (strategically leaving out some parts of the story) and without fail, all ten atheists concluded the man faked his injury, using this notion or that to justify their stand and each justification didn't hold up in light of the whole story. Thinking ten atheists are not enough to make a case, I presented it to various atheist forums and without fail, all the atheists there reached the exact same conclusion and make the exact same mistakes.

Before we look into all the mistakes atheists made, I want everyone to keep in mind the following quote:

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left--no matter how improbable---must be correct."

Now, let's look at atheist objections and why none of them hold up:

1. The man in question never existed.

      Response: The town where it all took place has on file the baptism record of the man, so that would be quite a big ruse for not just one family but a whole town to make.

2. It never happened.

    Response: There are at least ten documents (and several more notarized copies of the documents) confirming the story happened as it is presented.  So either this is an elaborate conspiracy or this is the complete truth. To those who go with the first choice, I remind you that even the American Skeptics Society says conspiracies might make interesting stories but rarely turn out to hold up as truth.

3. He made the story up.

    Response: Considering how many people saw him with just one leg, then with two and considering how many doctors looked at him, I see no reason to believe this hypothesis. Sure, passersby might have been fooled by him standing on one leg (more on this later) but doctors well trained in bodily exams who would have seen him with nothing on? Very doubtful. So doubtful I'm surprised atheists--who want us to view them as "bright"--would jump to this conclusion so fast.

4. The Gangrene Theory (ie, the amount of time that passed would have caused gangrene to spread far enough to kill him)

    Response: This has a bit more thought put into it, but only in the sense 1st degree murder has more planning in it than manslaughter. This came to me thanks to an atheist blogger who brought up the theory then concluded gangrene would have set in far deeper than mere amputation could have fixed. This might sound more scientific except for one little problem:

There are at least four types of gangrene and the blog writer didn't specify which one was meant.

Given what we now know about bone fractures, the man most likely suffered from what we now call compartment syndrome on his 50 day journey. I bring this up because given the description the doctors gave and given the circumstances, the gangrene would have most likely been the dry type, the kind most often seen in elderly patients but not unheard of in poorly resent limbs. This also matches the story where the gangrene spread slowly as opposed to rapid spread and the precise description of where the leg was cut off.

5. No one asked basic questions.

     Response: Again, given the judges, magistrates, public officials, priests and bishops involved, it's hard to imagine no one asked the right questions. This is nothing more than a smoke screen to cover up the negative attitude atheists have to anyone with faith.

6. While the story might have some truth to it, overall it's too fantastic to believe.

     Response:  this is nothing more than trying to pass off an opinion as a fact. That's no different than saying "I feel the world is flat so therefore it must be flat."

7. The Brian Dunning Theory (the man saw the money people gave him for having a broken leg so he thought having a missing leg would mean getting more money and it wasn't until his mother uncovered his sheet that she saw the other leg and his ruse was discovered.)

     Response: I named this after skeptical thinker Brian Dunning who made this claim after supposedly "looking at all the paperwork evidence." Strange: I didn't think talking to the dead could be shown by document evidence. ;)
In all seriousness, how did Dunning reach that conclusion? And how does it even make sense? Does he not know that bouncing on a leg looks different than people walking on a fake leg? And I ask again:

Would doctors have been that easily fooled?

And there you have it: all objections to it shot down with ease. These are nothing more than empty tactics used by the morally corrupt to avoid facing the REAL issue. Of course atheists would use this tactic because atheists are idiots.

Friday, May 3, 2013

Of God and Pro Atheletes

What gets me about the people who have commented about Chris Broussard is the level of ignorance they display. Take a commentator for a news group called The Young Turks. In a video of theirs called "ESPN Reporter calls homosexuality a sin", one of their own points out the Bible does call it a sin but it also says eating shellfish is a sin.
So let me get this straight: a non-traditional media outlet wants people to take them seriously but has someone on camera being that stupid about a book that the vast majority of Americans take a guide for their lives? Besides, he's wrong anyway, not just in the fact dietary laws are different from laws on spiritual purity, not just in the fact the kosher dietary laws don't apply anymore, but rather from the implication this commentator seems to think he and he alone has the correct take on the Bible. Nice try, but if that level of being a nit-pick is okay, then allow me to point out the Bible says the Church is the pillar of truth, not the Young Turks.

In fact, it might interest them to know that after ministers, atheletes have the highest percentage of believers of all the professions in the world but you will never hear the media bring that up.

Liberal bias against Christians expressing what their faith says aside for a moment, I looked into Jason Collin's professional career, and while I admit to being more a football fan myself, there's a reason why so few have heard of him until now. Since he began his pro career in 2001, he has played for six  teams (possibly seven, since his contract expired this past season) and with those six teams, he has almost never played for a team that reached the NBA finals, and the one time his team did, they lost in first four games. His current team, the Washington Wizards as of this publication, has one of the worst records in the NBA. I bring these up not because I blame him for why these teams did so badly, but because I believe he came out of the closet to further his own career and nothing more, because again, his contract expired at the end of this past regular season.

Speaking of media bias, many news outlets have compared Collin's a trailblazer, along the same lines as Jackie Robinson or Billy Jean King. That--and I mean this in all seriousness---is GARBAGE!!! Robinson fought against a racist legal system and King chose to be gay after aborting a child because "I didn't believe my marriage [to a man] was solid enough to bring a child into it."

And in the end, isn't that what homosexuality is? A choice, and a very poor choice to make? In all the media coverage of Collins, they bring up the fact he has an identical twin brother who isn't gay, thereby refuting the notion being gay is genetic or they are "born that way" or whatever nonsense they're touting now.

Even Collin's choice of using the number 98 on his jersey doesn't make any sense. According to several interviews, Collin's chose that number in honor of Matthew Shepard who was killed in 1998 supposedly because he was gay. I say supposedly because according to a 20/20 interview with the prosecutor and lead investigator who put Shepard's killers in jail, Shepard's murder was a drug-related robbery that went bad, not because of his homosexuality. While the story did receive criticism, no one has been able to refute anything claimed in the story.

So this whole Collin's story just reeks of excrement and propaganda. While I do agree we should be respectful of views different than our own, I will show no respect at all to people who lie as much as atheists and secularists do. People who lie that often are just covering up how much of an idiot they are.