+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
With the new year come promises on how to improve yourself over the next 365 days, be it giving up smoking, losing weight, or accomplishing a lifetime goal. Often, people don't accomplish even a quarter of what they set out to do, and I blame that on how people perceive the best way to go about their goals. Many think they just have to go out and do it but they never consider how their lives would have to change before the goals can be reached.
As we speak, I have an extensive resolution list that might seem impossible for an ordinary man ( I think I'm up to 15 resolutions) but as the verse goes, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."
As soon as I read that verse from St Paul, it dawned on me we also need motivation now and then to keep going. So, to see me through the next year, I've put together ten sayings that I believe will best help me do what I want to accomplish:
1. "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."-St Jerome
2. “Act as if everything depended on you; trust as if everything depended on God.” -St Ignatius of Loyola
3. "Find out how much God has given you and from it take what you need; the remainder is needed by others." -St Augustine
4. "Love our Lady. And she will obtain abundant grace to help you conquer in your daily struggle."
--St. Josemaria Escriva
5. “Outside the Church, there is no salvation."
6. “The world is indeed full of peril and in it there are many dark places.
But still there is much that is fair. And though in all lands, love is now
mingled with grief, it still grows, perhaps, the greater.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
7. "It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and/or industry."-Pope Pius XI
8. “Compromise is a word found only in the vocabulary of those who have no will to fight.”
― St. Josemaría Escrivá
9. "The rule of worship is the rule of faith."
10. "Of Mary there is never enough." - William Biersach
I'd like everyone to think on these quotes and get ready for the fight ahead. I know I will.
Happy New Year!!
“the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not.”- Ven Arch Fulton Sheen
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Friday, December 20, 2013
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
A Post about Pope Francis
+AMDG+
The Masked Angel:
I hoped it would not come to this, but a personal matter has lead me to put this post together. The other day, I had to cut ties with a close friend because of his views toward Pope Francis. According to him, Francis is not only a heretic but also not a legit pope and also claims Francis has said many things that I have heard many Catholics claim about him.
So let's set the record straight on a few things:
1. Francis is a legitimately elected pope.
It doesn't matter that Benedict XVI is still alive. The Church has had two living popes at the same time once before (not counting the anti-pope era). He was elected and he did accept it so that should be it in facing the reality.
2. The fact he was a Jesuit before he was elected doesn't mean anything.
In fact, we have had popes who were members of religious orders, such as Dominicans and Benedictines. But here is the important rub to remember about that: once a cardinal becomes pope, he relinquishes any and all ties to his order. Why? Because his duty now is to the Church as a whole; the whole Catholic flock is his responsibility now, not the concerns of his order's superior.
While we're on the subject of immediate superiors, in Francis' case he has to sever all ties because of the Jesuit's fourth vow of complete loyalty to the Pope. Now that Francis is pope, what is he going to do: swear loyalty to himself?
3. Pope Francis is NOT Peter the Roman.
This wacko accusation comes from people who still think the prophecy of St Malachy is viewed as legit by the Church. Not only is that not true, but most of the prophecies can only work by quite a stretch of the imagination. For example, the line "Abbot from Subbura" supposedly is about Pope Anastasius IV. While Subbura is his real last name, he was never an abbot; he was a member of the secular clergy.
For a more recent example, the line "Glory of the Olive" is supposed to be a link to Pope Benedict XVI and proponents have tried everything from saying olives are a symbol of the Benedictine order (which they aren't) to saying it is talking about the Olivetans, which is a branch of the Benedictines. To that I say so what? There are many branches that follow the Rule of St Benedict. Just because one just happens to have the word olive in it doesn't prove anything.
No matter how you look at it, you have to dismiss the so-called prophecies as pure pseudo-Catholic hogwash.
4. Pope Francis is quite orthodox when it comes to his theology.
This will most likely be the hardest for the anti-Francis crowd to face but after doing some research, I can name a whole list of issues Francis supports, such as:
-only men being allowed to enter the clergy
-being against artificial birth control
- being against gay so-called "marriage."
-priestly celibacy
-anti-abortion
-being against "liberation theology" (More on this later)
-the pre-Vatican II Mass (more on this later)
5. Pope Francis DID NOT SAY atheists can get to Heaven.
This comes from the misunderstanding and a deliberate corruption of Francis' interview he did coming home from his first international tour. The media and several atheist talking heads had people believe Francis said atheists could get to Heaven when he was actually talking about how the redeeming power of Christ's blood is available to everyone. Even Richard Dawkins bought into his own hype on this.
Francis said atheists can remain atheist and still get to heaven? Nope. Sorry, fallen world. So-called "bright" Dawkins got it wrong again.
6. Pope Francis is NOT a Marxist.
This is coming from a recent comment Rush Limbaugh made about Francis' latest encyclical Evangelii Gaudium and in all honesty I don't think this would be making news if people didn't have this notion that critiques about capitalism automatically means you're a socialist.
(Sidenote: How is that any different than saying if you critique Obama, you must be racist?)
First of all, the document doesn't even use the words capitalism or socialism. Second, socialism by definition means the state has control over the means of production, yet His Holiness does not promote that anywhere. Third, he is not calling for a perpetual welfare state. In fact, that idea is contradicted by this quote:
"The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can only lead to new crises. Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses."
Fourth, consider another trait of socialism: the denial of the Gospel's truth, even to the point of violently oppressing it. But again, Pope Francis advocates the Church's right to preach the Gospel.
7. Even though Jesuits are known for preaching liberation theology, Francis himself has never been at ease with it.
This was especially true in the 70s when his native Argentina was suffering at the hands of an oppressive government. While Francis has made his concern for the poor known, he does not support the violence or the communist leanings within liberation theology.
8. Francis has nothing against the pre-Vatican II Mass.
This appears to come from recent reports concerning the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. I hesitate to go into much detail on it, but only because the details currently released either contradict each other or can't cite the source material. I've heard every thing from "the head of the order had SSPX leanings" to "the order is being asked to swear an oath that they will only perform the post-Vatican II Mass".
Frankly, I don't know about any of this so I won't comment on them; what I will comment on is the notion that this is some attack on the extraordinary form of the Mass( aka, Pre-Vatican II Mass, aka the Latin Mass).
This accusation is a lie and here's how I know this: if this was an attack on that Mass, then they would also be attacking groups like the FSSP, or Opus Dei or Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary or any other groups. But they aren't doing that.
So until more information comes forward, this accusation is just another violation of the Commandments.
9. Francis is NOT okay with homosexuality.
Again, this seems to come from a misinterpretation of what he said during an interview after his first international trip:
"If homosexuals want to seek out God, who am I to judge?"
The Masked Angel:
I hoped it would not come to this, but a personal matter has lead me to put this post together. The other day, I had to cut ties with a close friend because of his views toward Pope Francis. According to him, Francis is not only a heretic but also not a legit pope and also claims Francis has said many things that I have heard many Catholics claim about him.
So let's set the record straight on a few things:
1. Francis is a legitimately elected pope.
It doesn't matter that Benedict XVI is still alive. The Church has had two living popes at the same time once before (not counting the anti-pope era). He was elected and he did accept it so that should be it in facing the reality.
2. The fact he was a Jesuit before he was elected doesn't mean anything.
In fact, we have had popes who were members of religious orders, such as Dominicans and Benedictines. But here is the important rub to remember about that: once a cardinal becomes pope, he relinquishes any and all ties to his order. Why? Because his duty now is to the Church as a whole; the whole Catholic flock is his responsibility now, not the concerns of his order's superior.
While we're on the subject of immediate superiors, in Francis' case he has to sever all ties because of the Jesuit's fourth vow of complete loyalty to the Pope. Now that Francis is pope, what is he going to do: swear loyalty to himself?
3. Pope Francis is NOT Peter the Roman.
This wacko accusation comes from people who still think the prophecy of St Malachy is viewed as legit by the Church. Not only is that not true, but most of the prophecies can only work by quite a stretch of the imagination. For example, the line "Abbot from Subbura" supposedly is about Pope Anastasius IV. While Subbura is his real last name, he was never an abbot; he was a member of the secular clergy.
For a more recent example, the line "Glory of the Olive" is supposed to be a link to Pope Benedict XVI and proponents have tried everything from saying olives are a symbol of the Benedictine order (which they aren't) to saying it is talking about the Olivetans, which is a branch of the Benedictines. To that I say so what? There are many branches that follow the Rule of St Benedict. Just because one just happens to have the word olive in it doesn't prove anything.
No matter how you look at it, you have to dismiss the so-called prophecies as pure pseudo-Catholic hogwash.
4. Pope Francis is quite orthodox when it comes to his theology.
This will most likely be the hardest for the anti-Francis crowd to face but after doing some research, I can name a whole list of issues Francis supports, such as:
-only men being allowed to enter the clergy
-being against artificial birth control
- being against gay so-called "marriage."
-priestly celibacy
-anti-abortion
-being against "liberation theology" (More on this later)
-the pre-Vatican II Mass (more on this later)
5. Pope Francis DID NOT SAY atheists can get to Heaven.
This comes from the misunderstanding and a deliberate corruption of Francis' interview he did coming home from his first international tour. The media and several atheist talking heads had people believe Francis said atheists could get to Heaven when he was actually talking about how the redeeming power of Christ's blood is available to everyone. Even Richard Dawkins bought into his own hype on this.
Francis said atheists can remain atheist and still get to heaven? Nope. Sorry, fallen world. So-called "bright" Dawkins got it wrong again.
6. Pope Francis is NOT a Marxist.
This is coming from a recent comment Rush Limbaugh made about Francis' latest encyclical Evangelii Gaudium and in all honesty I don't think this would be making news if people didn't have this notion that critiques about capitalism automatically means you're a socialist.
(Sidenote: How is that any different than saying if you critique Obama, you must be racist?)
First of all, the document doesn't even use the words capitalism or socialism. Second, socialism by definition means the state has control over the means of production, yet His Holiness does not promote that anywhere. Third, he is not calling for a perpetual welfare state. In fact, that idea is contradicted by this quote:
"The need to resolve the structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can only lead to new crises. Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely temporary responses."
Fourth, consider another trait of socialism: the denial of the Gospel's truth, even to the point of violently oppressing it. But again, Pope Francis advocates the Church's right to preach the Gospel.
7. Even though Jesuits are known for preaching liberation theology, Francis himself has never been at ease with it.
This was especially true in the 70s when his native Argentina was suffering at the hands of an oppressive government. While Francis has made his concern for the poor known, he does not support the violence or the communist leanings within liberation theology.
8. Francis has nothing against the pre-Vatican II Mass.
This appears to come from recent reports concerning the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. I hesitate to go into much detail on it, but only because the details currently released either contradict each other or can't cite the source material. I've heard every thing from "the head of the order had SSPX leanings" to "the order is being asked to swear an oath that they will only perform the post-Vatican II Mass".
Frankly, I don't know about any of this so I won't comment on them; what I will comment on is the notion that this is some attack on the extraordinary form of the Mass( aka, Pre-Vatican II Mass, aka the Latin Mass).
This accusation is a lie and here's how I know this: if this was an attack on that Mass, then they would also be attacking groups like the FSSP, or Opus Dei or Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary or any other groups. But they aren't doing that.
So until more information comes forward, this accusation is just another violation of the Commandments.
9. Francis is NOT okay with homosexuality.
Again, this seems to come from a misinterpretation of what he said during an interview after his first international trip:
"If homosexuals want to seek out God, who am I to judge?"
Clearly, His Holiness is talking about people who seek out God, which is okay: anyone regardless of background can seek and find God. However, pro-gay groups hope your reading comprehension level is as poor as theirs because they keep thinking Francis said it is okay to be gay; the sad part is they even have a magazine cover showing how horrible their grasp of English is.
(Another side note: Pope Francis has admitted English still gives him problems, but then again, English is not his first language. What's the magazine's excuse?)
Atheists and Creation
+AMDG+
If the atheist take on creation is true.....
This should exist:
If the atheist take on creation is true.....
This should exist:
But this should not:
Guess atheists are THAT stupid.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Enough with the Mandela Praise Already!
+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
Quick disclosure before I continue:
I am not from South Africa. I have no relatives from South Africa. I can only imagine how bad apartheid was in South Africa. In fact, at the time Mandela was in prison, I was either not born yet or I was just a little kid. I am glad he was around to bring hope to people whenever and wherever he could.
Having said all that, we have to admit he was not the (for lack of a better word) saint that the media has made him out to be. I leave it to my readers to see what kind of man Mandela really is and instead point out a mentality around all this that once again Michael Voris nailed:
THE MASKED ANGEL:
Quick disclosure before I continue:
I am not from South Africa. I have no relatives from South Africa. I can only imagine how bad apartheid was in South Africa. In fact, at the time Mandela was in prison, I was either not born yet or I was just a little kid. I am glad he was around to bring hope to people whenever and wherever he could.
Having said all that, we have to admit he was not the (for lack of a better word) saint that the media has made him out to be. I leave it to my readers to see what kind of man Mandela really is and instead point out a mentality around all this that once again Michael Voris nailed:
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Friday, November 29, 2013
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Site Blog Test
+AMDG+
The Masked Angel:
I pray you all had a happy Thanksgiving and are taking my advise by not buying into the commercialism of Consume-us but I would like to give a quick update about this blog:
This idea has been on my mind for some time and I think now would be as good a time to start it.
Starting next Thursday, I will be putting anti-atheist memes on here that I have designed myself.
Here's one I found on Google to give you some idea about the ones I have in mind:
The Masked Angel:
I pray you all had a happy Thanksgiving and are taking my advise by not buying into the commercialism of Consume-us but I would like to give a quick update about this blog:
This idea has been on my mind for some time and I think now would be as good a time to start it.
Starting next Thursday, I will be putting anti-atheist memes on here that I have designed myself.
Here's one I found on Google to give you some idea about the ones I have in mind:
Ultimately, I want to create a side blog about this in the style of liberallogic101 but first I want to see how this idea goes over first. So check back on Nov 5th for the first one.
God keep you and remind you that atheists are idiots.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Christmas Plan of Attack
+AMDG+
With the Advent season coming, I thought that now would be a good time to bring up how much we are at war to save the Christmas season. Let's face it: there are many tools atheists/secularists use to discourage, or flat out shame people into not celebrating the holiday or at the very worst make it an excuse for companies to push their wares on us, hence why some complain Christmas has "become too commercialized."
Let's get one thing straight here: I'm all for people earning their own keep, but this is one of several reasons Pope Leo X protested against unbridled capitalism: you're sacrificing the dignity of man for the sake of the dollar and then trick yourself into thinking what you're doing is right.
If you don't believe me on that, consider this: as we speak, Wal-Mart employees who have to work on Thanksgiving night (yes, they're pulling this bull again) are holding a can drive so the workers can at least have a decent Thanksgiving meal. Upon hearing about this, the executives of Wal-Mart said (and I am not kidding: this was their real response):
"This is proof positive that Wal-Mart employees look out for one another."
So how did we get to this sad state of affairs? We and we alone must accept the poor choices we've made. We made the choice that being one of the first 100 people inside a mall just to get 80% off is more important than taking time off to actually talk to our families (and no, talking to your families does NOT mean texting or Facetime.)
Some brave souls have put together online petitions and letters urging stores to not put Christmas related goods and decorations up so early but they clearly have no affect. More and more stores are buying into the "skip Thanksgiving as much as possible because since when has spending time with family ever made us money?" mentality so now it's up to us to fight back.
How?
1. "Know yourself and know your enemies and you need not fear the outcome of a thousand battles."
This is a quote from Sun Tzu and he was talking about preparing for battle but the principle can also apply to talking Christmas back. Think about it for a moment: the only reason why stores put their Christmas decorations up before Thanksgiving (and in growing numbers, before Halloween) is because they think it will make them more money. If we give them money for it, we are enabling their behavior.
How so? Companies will only perform an action if they think it will either make them money or at the very least bring in as much as it takes to execute it. If the figures show it's not worth it, they won't do it. This right here is key to victory.
Think of it like this: pretend for a moment the dollars in your wallet are voting ballots. Every time you spend something, you're casting your vote in favor of it. Now, here is a crucial point: unlike in a public election, if you choose to not vote, your vote still counts. If you don't literally buy into the commercialism, then they'll get the message.
2. Follow your family's old traditions.
If you don't know them, learn about them. Even if you don't understand them at first, there's most likely a reason why they have existed as long as they have.
For example, in my family we have a tradition called the Christmas Pickle. If you've never heard of it,
check this link out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_pickle
3. Realize memories will last more than the stuff you give other people.
If you don't believe me on this, try this thought experiment: recall as many gifts you were given as possible. Now, recall all the other memories you have on events related to Christmas: I'll bet you dollar for dollar group B is bigger than group A.
4. Don't put your decorations up until the start of Advent.
Do I really need to explain this one?
5. Don't buy anything the day after Thanksgiving.
If emergencies happen or you want to pay off a bill, then okay, but nothing retail related. Plus, you know things are bad if even South Park starts spoofing it:
5. Observe all of Advent.
In one article I've cross, the Christmas season was compared to a buffet, with Advent as the main course and Christmas as the dessert. It further stated that too often stores want us to skip the dinner and go right to desert.
Advent is supposed to be a time of preparation for Christmas, and Christmas is not supposed to be for just one day. It is supposed to last from Christmas Day until the Epiphany (aka Baptism of the Lord, aka Three Kings Day or in my neck of the swamp, the start of Mardi Gras).
So put up not just the lights and the tree, but also the Advent Wreath and Nativity Scene.
Speaking of which....
6. Do the Advent Wreath prayers as a family and defend the Nativity scene wherever people show it.
The only thing I can add to this is a link to the Advent wreath prayers:
http://www.fisheaters.com/customsadvent2.html
As for the Nativity scene, don't let secular/atheists bully you into taking one down. If a town called Warren can stand up to them, then so can you. And contrary to what you have been led to believe, it is legal to both put a Nativity scene in full view on your own property and put one on city owned property.
7. Attend Mass on at least ALL the Holy Days of Obligation.
This means Dec 8th, Christmas Day, New Year's Day and Epiphany but can also include Dec 6th (St Nicholas Day) as well as Dec. 12 (Our Lady of Guadalupe). If you want to attend more often, you are greatly encouraged to do so.
8. If you are going to buy gifts, be sure said gifts are made in America or make something yourself.
This isn't so much Christmas related but it is a way to bring jobs and revenue back to America. Economists say if we just buy $65 more in American goods, we can create 200,000 jobs right here at home.
Notice I said "if you're going to buy." I would prefer it if gift money was spent on solving more long term problems, which leads me to....
9. Consider giving to either Samaritan's Purse or Advent Conspiracy.
Here are the links to each respective group:
http://www.samaritanspurse.org
http://www.adventconspiracy.org
10. For home cooks out there, consider making your goods with produce from a co-op and with Fair Trade ingredients.
This goes especially for any recipe that calls for chocolate and/or coffee. More information on Fair Trade can be found with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_h99DDa39E
11. Arm yourself.
Tired of not hearing "Merry Christmas" at a store? Frustrated over the fact you can't find any religious themed Christmas cards? Here you have several options:
-Catholic Daughter's Court #2554 sells online little buttons that say "It's Okay to Say Merry Christmas to Me." Orders for said buttons can be found here.
-ChristisChristmas.com sells paper Christmas cards or if you prefer online greetings, sign up for e-cards at catholicgreetings.org.
-And of course, it's easy to find car magnets for the Knights of Columbus "Keep Christ in Christmas" campaign, which can be found here.
12. Do not invite any known atheist or secularist to any Christmas party or event you throw.
That might sound mean, but think of it like this: no Jewish person would invite a Gentile to Hanukkah; no Muslim would invite a non-Muslim to Ramadan, so why should an atheist be invited to a Christmas party? They reject the faith so why let them enjoy it?
Besides, what could bring people down more than some atheist screw-head claiming Jesus is just a myth?
And there's the 12 part Christmas plan of attack just in time for Advent, but never fear: I will soon be bringing the REAL thoughts atheists have towards Christmas and it will leave no doubt that atheists are idiots!!
With the Advent season coming, I thought that now would be a good time to bring up how much we are at war to save the Christmas season. Let's face it: there are many tools atheists/secularists use to discourage, or flat out shame people into not celebrating the holiday or at the very worst make it an excuse for companies to push their wares on us, hence why some complain Christmas has "become too commercialized."
Let's get one thing straight here: I'm all for people earning their own keep, but this is one of several reasons Pope Leo X protested against unbridled capitalism: you're sacrificing the dignity of man for the sake of the dollar and then trick yourself into thinking what you're doing is right.
If you don't believe me on that, consider this: as we speak, Wal-Mart employees who have to work on Thanksgiving night (yes, they're pulling this bull again) are holding a can drive so the workers can at least have a decent Thanksgiving meal. Upon hearing about this, the executives of Wal-Mart said (and I am not kidding: this was their real response):
"This is proof positive that Wal-Mart employees look out for one another."
So how did we get to this sad state of affairs? We and we alone must accept the poor choices we've made. We made the choice that being one of the first 100 people inside a mall just to get 80% off is more important than taking time off to actually talk to our families (and no, talking to your families does NOT mean texting or Facetime.)
Some brave souls have put together online petitions and letters urging stores to not put Christmas related goods and decorations up so early but they clearly have no affect. More and more stores are buying into the "skip Thanksgiving as much as possible because since when has spending time with family ever made us money?" mentality so now it's up to us to fight back.
How?
1. "Know yourself and know your enemies and you need not fear the outcome of a thousand battles."
This is a quote from Sun Tzu and he was talking about preparing for battle but the principle can also apply to talking Christmas back. Think about it for a moment: the only reason why stores put their Christmas decorations up before Thanksgiving (and in growing numbers, before Halloween) is because they think it will make them more money. If we give them money for it, we are enabling their behavior.
How so? Companies will only perform an action if they think it will either make them money or at the very least bring in as much as it takes to execute it. If the figures show it's not worth it, they won't do it. This right here is key to victory.
Think of it like this: pretend for a moment the dollars in your wallet are voting ballots. Every time you spend something, you're casting your vote in favor of it. Now, here is a crucial point: unlike in a public election, if you choose to not vote, your vote still counts. If you don't literally buy into the commercialism, then they'll get the message.
2. Follow your family's old traditions.
If you don't know them, learn about them. Even if you don't understand them at first, there's most likely a reason why they have existed as long as they have.
For example, in my family we have a tradition called the Christmas Pickle. If you've never heard of it,
check this link out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_pickle
3. Realize memories will last more than the stuff you give other people.
If you don't believe me on this, try this thought experiment: recall as many gifts you were given as possible. Now, recall all the other memories you have on events related to Christmas: I'll bet you dollar for dollar group B is bigger than group A.
4. Don't put your decorations up until the start of Advent.
Do I really need to explain this one?
5. Don't buy anything the day after Thanksgiving.
If emergencies happen or you want to pay off a bill, then okay, but nothing retail related. Plus, you know things are bad if even South Park starts spoofing it:
5. Observe all of Advent.
In one article I've cross, the Christmas season was compared to a buffet, with Advent as the main course and Christmas as the dessert. It further stated that too often stores want us to skip the dinner and go right to desert.
Advent is supposed to be a time of preparation for Christmas, and Christmas is not supposed to be for just one day. It is supposed to last from Christmas Day until the Epiphany (aka Baptism of the Lord, aka Three Kings Day or in my neck of the swamp, the start of Mardi Gras).
So put up not just the lights and the tree, but also the Advent Wreath and Nativity Scene.
Speaking of which....
6. Do the Advent Wreath prayers as a family and defend the Nativity scene wherever people show it.
The only thing I can add to this is a link to the Advent wreath prayers:
http://www.fisheaters.com/customsadvent2.html
As for the Nativity scene, don't let secular/atheists bully you into taking one down. If a town called Warren can stand up to them, then so can you. And contrary to what you have been led to believe, it is legal to both put a Nativity scene in full view on your own property and put one on city owned property.
7. Attend Mass on at least ALL the Holy Days of Obligation.
This means Dec 8th, Christmas Day, New Year's Day and Epiphany but can also include Dec 6th (St Nicholas Day) as well as Dec. 12 (Our Lady of Guadalupe). If you want to attend more often, you are greatly encouraged to do so.
8. If you are going to buy gifts, be sure said gifts are made in America or make something yourself.
This isn't so much Christmas related but it is a way to bring jobs and revenue back to America. Economists say if we just buy $65 more in American goods, we can create 200,000 jobs right here at home.
Notice I said "if you're going to buy." I would prefer it if gift money was spent on solving more long term problems, which leads me to....
9. Consider giving to either Samaritan's Purse or Advent Conspiracy.
Here are the links to each respective group:
http://www.samaritanspurse.org
http://www.adventconspiracy.org
10. For home cooks out there, consider making your goods with produce from a co-op and with Fair Trade ingredients.
This goes especially for any recipe that calls for chocolate and/or coffee. More information on Fair Trade can be found with this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_h99DDa39E
11. Arm yourself.
Tired of not hearing "Merry Christmas" at a store? Frustrated over the fact you can't find any religious themed Christmas cards? Here you have several options:
-Catholic Daughter's Court #2554 sells online little buttons that say "It's Okay to Say Merry Christmas to Me." Orders for said buttons can be found here.
-ChristisChristmas.com sells paper Christmas cards or if you prefer online greetings, sign up for e-cards at catholicgreetings.org.
-And of course, it's easy to find car magnets for the Knights of Columbus "Keep Christ in Christmas" campaign, which can be found here.
12. Do not invite any known atheist or secularist to any Christmas party or event you throw.
That might sound mean, but think of it like this: no Jewish person would invite a Gentile to Hanukkah; no Muslim would invite a non-Muslim to Ramadan, so why should an atheist be invited to a Christmas party? They reject the faith so why let them enjoy it?
Besides, what could bring people down more than some atheist screw-head claiming Jesus is just a myth?
And there's the 12 part Christmas plan of attack just in time for Advent, but never fear: I will soon be bringing the REAL thoughts atheists have towards Christmas and it will leave no doubt that atheists are idiots!!
Monday, November 11, 2013
Atheist Church? Give Me a Break!!
+AMDG+
LOS ANGELES (AP) — It looked like a typical Sunday morning at any mega-church. Several hundred people, including families with small children, packed in for more than an hour of rousing music, an inspirational talk and some quiet reflection. The only thing missing was God.
On Sunday, the inaugural Sunday Assembly in Los Angeles attracted several hundred people bound by their belief in non-belief. Similar gatherings in San Diego, Nashville, New York and other U.S. cities have drawn hundreds of atheists seeking the camaraderie of a congregation without religion or ritual.Nearly three dozen gatherings dubbed "atheist mega-churches" by supporters and detractors have sprung up around the U.S. and Australia — with more to come — after finding success in Great Britain earlier this year. The movement fueled by social media and spearheaded by two prominent British comedians is no joke.
The founders, British duo Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans, are currently on a tongue-in-cheek "40 Dates, 40 Nights" tour around the U.S. and Australia to drum up donations and help launch new Sunday Assemblies. They hope to raise more than $800,000 that will help atheists launch their pop-up congregations around the world. So far, they have raised about $50,000.
They don't bash believers but want to find a new way to meet likeminded people, engage in the community and make their presence more visible in a landscape dominated by faith.
Jones got the first inkling for the idea while leaving a Christmas carol concert six years ago.
"There was so much about it that I loved, but it's a shame because at the heart of it, it's something I don't believe in," Jones said. "If you think about church, there's very little that's bad. It's singing awesome songs, hearing interesting talks, thinking about improving yourself and helping other people— and doing that in a community with wonderful relationships. What part of that is not to like?"
The movement dovetails with new studies that show an increasing number of Americans are drifting from any religious affiliation.
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a study last year that found 20 percent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 percent in the last five years. Pew researchers stressed, however, that the category also encompassed majorities of people who said they believed in God but had no ties with organized religion and people who consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious."
Sunday Assembly — whose motto is Live Better, Help Often, Wonder More — taps into that universe of people who left their faith but now miss the community church provided, said Phil Zuckerman, a professor of secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont.
It also plays into a feeling among some atheists that they should make themselves more visible. For example, last December, an atheist in Santa Monica created an uproar — and triggered a lawsuit — when he set up a godless display amid Christian nativity scenes that were part of a beloved, decades-old tradition.
"In the U.S., there's a little bit of a feeling that if you're not religious, you're not patriotic. I think a lot of secular people say, 'Hey, wait a minute. We are charitable, we are good people, we're good parents and we are just as good citizens as you and we're going to start a church to prove it," said Zuckerman. "It's still a minority, but there's enough of them now."
That impulse, however, has raised the ire of those who have spent years pushing back against the idea that atheism itself is a religion.
"The idea that you're building an entire organization based on what you don't believe, to me, sounds like an offense against sensibility," said Michael Luciano, a self-described atheist who was raised Roman Catholic but left when he became disillusioned.
"There's something not OK with appropriating all of this religious language, imagery and ritual for atheism," said Luciano, who blogged about the movement at the site policymic.com.
That sentiment didn't seem to detract from the excitement Sunday at the inaugural meeting in Los Angeles.
Hundreds of atheists and atheist-curious packed into a Hollywood auditorium for a boisterous service filled with live music, moments of reflection, an "inspirational talk" about forgotten — but important — inventors and scientists and some stand-up comedy.
During the service, attendees stomped their feet, clapped their hands and cheered as Jones and Evans led the group through rousing renditions of "Lean on Me," ''Here Comes the Sun" and other hits that took the place of gospel songs. Congregants dissolved into laughter at a get-to-know-you game that involved clapping and slapping the hands of the person next to them and applauded as members of the audience spoke about community service projects they had started in LA.
At the end, volunteers passed cardboard boxes for donations as attendees mingled over coffee and pastries and children played on the floor.
For atheist Elijah Senn, the morning was perfect.
"I think the image that we have put forward in a lot of ways has been a scary, mean, we want to tear down the walls, we want to do destructive things kind of image is what a lot of people have of us," he said. "I'm really excited to be able to come together and show that it's not about destruction. It's about making things and making things better."
For the link, click here.
THE MASKED ANGEL:
Oh, where do I begin with this one?
First off, are we surprised this is taking place in Los Angeles? The exact same town that brought us race riots, the 99% movement and the Oakland Raiders? The exact same area whose nonsense is causing people to go move outside of California?
Second, (and I don't know who else noticed this) "hour of rousing music, an inspirational talk and some quiet reflection"? Is it me or does this sound like a Protestant church device?
Third...what's the point? What is this going to accomplish? If the point of this is to show that one can be "Good without God" then it is doomed to fail. All a Christian is going to see when looking at this is the atheist letting the Christian frame the debate and therefore the Christian will see no need to change their mind.
Fourth, who do these two limeys think they are?
From what I can tell, Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans are two comedians (notice the people who start these movements are not qualified in any way to speak about religion?) who came up with an idea about having a church but not have God. According to an interview with ABC NEWS, Jones abandoned the faith when his mother died when he was only ten.
Not to dump on losing his mother, but I can name people who suffered far worse tragedies than that and that didn't them from believing in God.
Fifth, I like this quote from one atheist:
"I think the image that we have put forward in a lot of ways has been a scary, mean, we want to tear down the walls, we want to do destructive things kind of image is what a lot of people have of us."
Scary,mean, wanting to tear down walls and do destructive things? Now wherever would people get that idea? ;)
Sixth, service projects started by atheists? Dream on. Statistically speaking, that notion is most likely a lie. Study after study shows religious people give more, volunteer more, and donate more of themselves to community projects.
Lastly, there is one positive thing I can say about this:
this dispels the notion that atheists get together and worship nothing.
Thanks, hate-theists: I almost forgot about the Reason Rally!!!
Oh, where do I begin with this one?
First off, are we surprised this is taking place in Los Angeles? The exact same town that brought us race riots, the 99% movement and the Oakland Raiders? The exact same area whose nonsense is causing people to go move outside of California?
Second, (and I don't know who else noticed this) "hour of rousing music, an inspirational talk and some quiet reflection"? Is it me or does this sound like a Protestant church device?
Third...what's the point? What is this going to accomplish? If the point of this is to show that one can be "Good without God" then it is doomed to fail. All a Christian is going to see when looking at this is the atheist letting the Christian frame the debate and therefore the Christian will see no need to change their mind.
Fourth, who do these two limeys think they are?
From what I can tell, Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans are two comedians (notice the people who start these movements are not qualified in any way to speak about religion?) who came up with an idea about having a church but not have God. According to an interview with ABC NEWS, Jones abandoned the faith when his mother died when he was only ten.
Not to dump on losing his mother, but I can name people who suffered far worse tragedies than that and that didn't them from believing in God.
Fifth, I like this quote from one atheist:
"I think the image that we have put forward in a lot of ways has been a scary, mean, we want to tear down the walls, we want to do destructive things kind of image is what a lot of people have of us."
Scary,mean, wanting to tear down walls and do destructive things? Now wherever would people get that idea? ;)
Sixth, service projects started by atheists? Dream on. Statistically speaking, that notion is most likely a lie. Study after study shows religious people give more, volunteer more, and donate more of themselves to community projects.
Lastly, there is one positive thing I can say about this:
this dispels the notion that atheists get together and worship nothing.
Thanks, hate-theists: I almost forgot about the Reason Rally!!!
Friday, October 25, 2013
Religion Causes War? Yeah, right.
+AMDG+
"Religion is the main cause of war."
That's a bold battle cry atheists make in today's world, as if this is supposed to have the same affect as yelling fire in a crowded theatre. But how truthful is this, if at all?
The answer (like all other claims made by atheists) is not very and not even close to true.
I do know what the actual percentage is, but before I say it, I want people reading this to guess what the percentage is.
Go on. Guess.
Out of all the wars in recorded history, what percentage was actually a result of religion?
Guess....you will never guess what the answer is.
The actual percentage of wars that came about because of religion is......7%.
That's according to a study done by the authors of Encyclopedia of War, and lest you think they missed some critical information, they looked at all the wars that we have records of....all 1,763.
Furthermore, they concluded most people over-exaggerate the percentage by placing the blame on religion when in fact religion had either nothing to do with it or was tacked on as an afterthought.
In other words, any war people think was caused by religion is either part of the 7% or the war was caused by something else.
Now, I know what atheists are going to try next: they will try naming some wars or conflicts and try to prove this percentage wrong. Let's look at some and see what little atheists really know:
What about the "Troubles" of Northern Ireland?
-That was a fight between being one Ireland apart from the UK or to remain part of the UK.
What about the Seven Years War?
-That was a battle between different royal houses.
What about the French Wars of Religion?
-That was also between different houses.
What about the US Civil War?
-That is not considered a religious war
What about the Crusades?
-That is a major part of the 7%.
So in light of all this, why do atheists keep insisting it's higher than 7%? My guess is either atheists are being slightly dishonest by twisting the facts or being VERY dishonest by making religion guilty by association.
Still not convinced? Consider these two notions:
A) If the religious rate of a nation was any indication of how often they engaged in religious wars, then the vast majority of American wars should be started by religion, but the opposite is true: only one war (the War on Terror) has any connection to religion.
B) Even if religion was the main cause, then it should follow that the more atheist a nation is, then the more peaceful it should be but once again the opposite is true: officially atheist nations were responsible for the majority of mass slaughters in the 20th century.
And don't hand me any of that "what about Scandinavia or Europe as a whole". First of all, the atheist rate there is NOWHERE NEAR what atheists claim they are and second of all, their populations are shrinking because they bought into that other piece of atheist bull called world overpopulation.
Atheists pull this and they want us to call them "brights"? No wonder atheists are such idiots.
"Religion is the main cause of war."
That's a bold battle cry atheists make in today's world, as if this is supposed to have the same affect as yelling fire in a crowded theatre. But how truthful is this, if at all?
The answer (like all other claims made by atheists) is not very and not even close to true.
I do know what the actual percentage is, but before I say it, I want people reading this to guess what the percentage is.
Go on. Guess.
Out of all the wars in recorded history, what percentage was actually a result of religion?
Guess....you will never guess what the answer is.
The actual percentage of wars that came about because of religion is......7%.
That's according to a study done by the authors of Encyclopedia of War, and lest you think they missed some critical information, they looked at all the wars that we have records of....all 1,763.
Furthermore, they concluded most people over-exaggerate the percentage by placing the blame on religion when in fact religion had either nothing to do with it or was tacked on as an afterthought.
In other words, any war people think was caused by religion is either part of the 7% or the war was caused by something else.
Now, I know what atheists are going to try next: they will try naming some wars or conflicts and try to prove this percentage wrong. Let's look at some and see what little atheists really know:
What about the "Troubles" of Northern Ireland?
-That was a fight between being one Ireland apart from the UK or to remain part of the UK.
What about the Seven Years War?
-That was a battle between different royal houses.
What about the French Wars of Religion?
-That was also between different houses.
What about the US Civil War?
-That is not considered a religious war
What about the Crusades?
-That is a major part of the 7%.
So in light of all this, why do atheists keep insisting it's higher than 7%? My guess is either atheists are being slightly dishonest by twisting the facts or being VERY dishonest by making religion guilty by association.
Still not convinced? Consider these two notions:
A) If the religious rate of a nation was any indication of how often they engaged in religious wars, then the vast majority of American wars should be started by religion, but the opposite is true: only one war (the War on Terror) has any connection to religion.
B) Even if religion was the main cause, then it should follow that the more atheist a nation is, then the more peaceful it should be but once again the opposite is true: officially atheist nations were responsible for the majority of mass slaughters in the 20th century.
And don't hand me any of that "what about Scandinavia or Europe as a whole". First of all, the atheist rate there is NOWHERE NEAR what atheists claim they are and second of all, their populations are shrinking because they bought into that other piece of atheist bull called world overpopulation.
Atheists pull this and they want us to call them "brights"? No wonder atheists are such idiots.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
The Razor Hitchens Cut Himself With
+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
We, I'm sure, have all heard the notion "the simplest solution is usually the correct one." This is known as Occum's Razor and it's often used by atheists in a pathetic attempt to discredit Christianity and religion in general. When he was alive, Christopher Hitchens thought he would be cute by reviving an old Latin phrase in his dismissal of religious claims. Tell me if you've heard an atheist say this:
"That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Atheists, being the arrogant fools they are, think this kills anything a religious person can do in converting the atheist. Frankly, I see several problems with that phrase:
THE MASKED ANGEL:
We, I'm sure, have all heard the notion "the simplest solution is usually the correct one." This is known as Occum's Razor and it's often used by atheists in a pathetic attempt to discredit Christianity and religion in general. When he was alive, Christopher Hitchens thought he would be cute by reviving an old Latin phrase in his dismissal of religious claims. Tell me if you've heard an atheist say this:
"That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Atheists, being the arrogant fools they are, think this kills anything a religious person can do in converting the atheist. Frankly, I see several problems with that phrase:
1. It doesn’t define what counts as evidence.
2. The notion is self-refuting
3. The people who tout it wind up dismissing evidence they don’t feel like listening to, thereby making reason relative at best.
4. The statement makes even less sense when it comes to probability theory
5. It ignores the burden of proof
6. It doesn’t consider plausibility
7. It is not the correct translation of the original Latin: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
That last one needs a little more explanation. Hitchens and atheists would have you believe the Latin translates to the first phrase when in reality it translates as "what is asserted without reason may be denied without reason." Reason is a kind of evidence but is not the sole type of evidence.
Feel free to print this out to prove atheists wrong and if they still insist on it, tell them Ne sutor supra crepidam and see how smart they really are.
But we all know they're not smart at all. Atheists are idiots.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
History of All Hallows
+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
With October 31st coming up, something has occurred to me. Before I reveal this personal revelation, I want everyone to keep in mind all the stores where you live that have "Halloween" goods alongside Thanksgiving and Christmas goods.
Now consider my revelation:
If we are not careful, Christmas will soon become what Halloween is now. Let me explain what I mean by that.
Every year, people complain about Christmas becoming more and more commercialized and the true meaning of the event getting lost. I do agree with that, but consider this for a moment: every holiday in the average household comes with certain traditions, be it religious or known by only the family. Either way, someone is bound to know why the tradition exists. The problem is while some do know the roots of Christmas traditions (though some are now disappearing at a rapid rate) almost no one I've come across knows the meaning behind Halloween traditions.
Think I'm lying about this? Ask yourself these questions:
-What was the original meaning behind "trick or treat?"
-What does "day of the dead" have to do with anything?
-Have you heard of a treat called "Soul cakes?"
-Does Halloween have anything to do with Satanism?
If you can't answer these and you thought the answer to the last one was yes, then my point has been made.
Still not convinced? Consider these about Christmas:
-Why do we hang stockings?
-What historical person was Santa Claus based on?
-What is the real meaning behind all the days in the 12 Days of Christmas?
-When is the Christmas season supposed to end?
How many those could you answer? If it was two or less, then the damage has made its way in.
Yet this then begs the question: who is responsible for making either holiday all about the material and all the meaning being lost? Of course you know the answer: secularists and atheists.
They want all religious meaning taken out of all holidays, and no two have more religious meaning than Halloween and Christmas; one focuses on life after death and the other focuses on how life after death is possible. Of course they could engage with others who think different from them and learn the error of their ways, but since their pride will never allow that, they choose to take the meanings away.
Enough, I say.
It's time to take the meaning of Halloween back from atheists because atheists (as I have proven time and again) are idiots. Here's a video to help along the way:
THE MASKED ANGEL:
With October 31st coming up, something has occurred to me. Before I reveal this personal revelation, I want everyone to keep in mind all the stores where you live that have "Halloween" goods alongside Thanksgiving and Christmas goods.
Now consider my revelation:
If we are not careful, Christmas will soon become what Halloween is now. Let me explain what I mean by that.
Every year, people complain about Christmas becoming more and more commercialized and the true meaning of the event getting lost. I do agree with that, but consider this for a moment: every holiday in the average household comes with certain traditions, be it religious or known by only the family. Either way, someone is bound to know why the tradition exists. The problem is while some do know the roots of Christmas traditions (though some are now disappearing at a rapid rate) almost no one I've come across knows the meaning behind Halloween traditions.
Think I'm lying about this? Ask yourself these questions:
-What was the original meaning behind "trick or treat?"
-What does "day of the dead" have to do with anything?
-Have you heard of a treat called "Soul cakes?"
-Does Halloween have anything to do with Satanism?
If you can't answer these and you thought the answer to the last one was yes, then my point has been made.
Still not convinced? Consider these about Christmas:
-Why do we hang stockings?
-What historical person was Santa Claus based on?
-What is the real meaning behind all the days in the 12 Days of Christmas?
-When is the Christmas season supposed to end?
How many those could you answer? If it was two or less, then the damage has made its way in.
Yet this then begs the question: who is responsible for making either holiday all about the material and all the meaning being lost? Of course you know the answer: secularists and atheists.
They want all religious meaning taken out of all holidays, and no two have more religious meaning than Halloween and Christmas; one focuses on life after death and the other focuses on how life after death is possible. Of course they could engage with others who think different from them and learn the error of their ways, but since their pride will never allow that, they choose to take the meanings away.
Enough, I say.
It's time to take the meaning of Halloween back from atheists because atheists (as I have proven time and again) are idiots. Here's a video to help along the way:
Sunday, October 13, 2013
A Little Seen View on the Government Shut Down
+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
I know I am not alone in saying the media is making the shutdown look a lot worse than it is and here's how I know this: can anyone say beyond all doubt their lives are any different now than it was before the shutdown? Did anyone notice any difference?
But still, the question remains: why are the two sides in this fight so adamant not budging? Looking into this, I think the better question is why are we even humoring the notion of compromise? Why should we let the atheist notion of bigger government be taken as a given? (Yes, a giant, bloated government is an atheist notion and I'll tell you why in a moment.)
We've now gotten to the point that government spending cuts--any cuts--are now as taboo as divorce was sixty years ago. Thankfully, much like divorce, there are brave men and women standing up to this nonsense. Consider this from anchor John Stossel:
I have seen this episode in its entirety and it doesn't surprise me at all no attention is given to the stupid things government wastes our money on, yet we have been so conditioned to think government remains the answer to all our problems.
Don't think for a moment this is a seal of approval for the Republican Party: I have no doubt in my mind that Republicans will let the White House frame the debate, not call Obama out on anything and therefore lose the moral argument. In fact, they have lost the moral argument for some time: not only have they not said what they would cut when they say they want smaller government, but under every Republican run government since FDR, not one of them has made government smaller.
"So", some may ask me, "if both parties share equal blame for this, how are atheists the true culprits according to you?" That is no different than asking "why does government think they don't have to follow the same rules individuals and businesses do?" Why? Because we have an atheist thinker named John Maynard Keyes to thank for both implied notions.
Keep in mind that when Keynes' writings were popular, America had lost almost all faith in capitalism because of the Great Depression. Then President FDR implemented what became known as the crux of Keynesian economics: unlike the communists who thought government should own the means of production, government would instead moderate the boom and bust cycles of their respective economies. In other words, instead of government being the chief supplier, it would instead be the chief demander of goods and services. Every single Western adopted some form of Keynesianism along with one other key economic principle he presented:
Keynes argued that in order for the government to be the chief demander, it didn't have to worry about how much things cost nor did it have to worry about whether they had the money to even pay for it because---at least according to the theory-- government spending would lead to a multiplication of overall spending in the economy as a whole. (Does this sound familiar regarding the stimulus plan?)
Do you see the two major logical fallacies here? First, of all the things that influence a person's buying decision, government spending either don't rank very high or is not even considered. Second, since government doesn't earn its own money like a company or an individual, it is impossible for it to increase the money it has to spend into the economy without first taking it out of the economy. The pie's slices may be different sizes but overall the pie isn't any bigger. Yet rather than admit this theory doesn't work (as the 70s and 80s proved) government keeps going along with it since it grants them more power then it deserves...all because an atheist (which Keynes was) thought government doesn't and shouldn't have to follow the same rules everyone else has to.
To his credit, Ronald Reagan did try to stop this trend. During his presidency, he cut the actual funds coming in by lowering taxes and thought this would cause a showdown to cut government spending across the board; the problem was Keynesianism was so ingrained in government thinking by that point, the spending means switched from cash to credit. (Note: when you hear about government wanting to raise the "debt ceiling", they actually mean raising the government's credit limit, even though they have no idea how to pay it off.)
In the end, we must all ask these questions: Who else but an atheist would think it's okay to spend money you don't really have? Who else but an atheist would claim "debt doesn't matter" or "keeping your word doesn't matter?" Who else but an atheist would say government is the answer, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and thereby making a false idol out of the state?
In fact, Stossel and Dr Ron Paul are the only people most people know of that present the true way the economy is supposed to work, although neither one has it 100% right. The only ones I've seen get the true nature of the economy right are the Catholic Church and an economist out of Dallas named John C Medaille.
For more on Catholic economic teaching click here.
For more on Medaille, click here.
So...one says people should have more control over their lives and one says government should have more control. Reasonable people would pick the first; atheists would choose the other....because atheists are idiots!
THE MASKED ANGEL:
I know I am not alone in saying the media is making the shutdown look a lot worse than it is and here's how I know this: can anyone say beyond all doubt their lives are any different now than it was before the shutdown? Did anyone notice any difference?
But still, the question remains: why are the two sides in this fight so adamant not budging? Looking into this, I think the better question is why are we even humoring the notion of compromise? Why should we let the atheist notion of bigger government be taken as a given? (Yes, a giant, bloated government is an atheist notion and I'll tell you why in a moment.)
We've now gotten to the point that government spending cuts--any cuts--are now as taboo as divorce was sixty years ago. Thankfully, much like divorce, there are brave men and women standing up to this nonsense. Consider this from anchor John Stossel:
I have seen this episode in its entirety and it doesn't surprise me at all no attention is given to the stupid things government wastes our money on, yet we have been so conditioned to think government remains the answer to all our problems.
Don't think for a moment this is a seal of approval for the Republican Party: I have no doubt in my mind that Republicans will let the White House frame the debate, not call Obama out on anything and therefore lose the moral argument. In fact, they have lost the moral argument for some time: not only have they not said what they would cut when they say they want smaller government, but under every Republican run government since FDR, not one of them has made government smaller.
"So", some may ask me, "if both parties share equal blame for this, how are atheists the true culprits according to you?" That is no different than asking "why does government think they don't have to follow the same rules individuals and businesses do?" Why? Because we have an atheist thinker named John Maynard Keyes to thank for both implied notions.
Keep in mind that when Keynes' writings were popular, America had lost almost all faith in capitalism because of the Great Depression. Then President FDR implemented what became known as the crux of Keynesian economics: unlike the communists who thought government should own the means of production, government would instead moderate the boom and bust cycles of their respective economies. In other words, instead of government being the chief supplier, it would instead be the chief demander of goods and services. Every single Western adopted some form of Keynesianism along with one other key economic principle he presented:
Keynes argued that in order for the government to be the chief demander, it didn't have to worry about how much things cost nor did it have to worry about whether they had the money to even pay for it because---at least according to the theory-- government spending would lead to a multiplication of overall spending in the economy as a whole. (Does this sound familiar regarding the stimulus plan?)
Do you see the two major logical fallacies here? First, of all the things that influence a person's buying decision, government spending either don't rank very high or is not even considered. Second, since government doesn't earn its own money like a company or an individual, it is impossible for it to increase the money it has to spend into the economy without first taking it out of the economy. The pie's slices may be different sizes but overall the pie isn't any bigger. Yet rather than admit this theory doesn't work (as the 70s and 80s proved) government keeps going along with it since it grants them more power then it deserves...all because an atheist (which Keynes was) thought government doesn't and shouldn't have to follow the same rules everyone else has to.
To his credit, Ronald Reagan did try to stop this trend. During his presidency, he cut the actual funds coming in by lowering taxes and thought this would cause a showdown to cut government spending across the board; the problem was Keynesianism was so ingrained in government thinking by that point, the spending means switched from cash to credit. (Note: when you hear about government wanting to raise the "debt ceiling", they actually mean raising the government's credit limit, even though they have no idea how to pay it off.)
In the end, we must all ask these questions: Who else but an atheist would think it's okay to spend money you don't really have? Who else but an atheist would claim "debt doesn't matter" or "keeping your word doesn't matter?" Who else but an atheist would say government is the answer, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and thereby making a false idol out of the state?
In fact, Stossel and Dr Ron Paul are the only people most people know of that present the true way the economy is supposed to work, although neither one has it 100% right. The only ones I've seen get the true nature of the economy right are the Catholic Church and an economist out of Dallas named John C Medaille.
For more on Catholic economic teaching click here.
For more on Medaille, click here.
So...one says people should have more control over their lives and one says government should have more control. Reasonable people would pick the first; atheists would choose the other....because atheists are idiots!
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Freemasonry Exposed
+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
Before you dismiss this post or think this is created by some conspiracy hack, I have looked into the information presented in the following video and have found every statement to be accurate.
This subject hits close to home for me for one main reason: when I was in college, I actually did a presentation about this in my senior year. Granted, some up-to-date info is in this but overall, the message is the same:
For more information from John Salza, visit the following link:
http://www.johnsalza.com/p/masonry.html
For a printout of the prayer for Freemasons:
http://scripturecatholic.com/prayer_for_freemasons.html
THE MASKED ANGEL:
Before you dismiss this post or think this is created by some conspiracy hack, I have looked into the information presented in the following video and have found every statement to be accurate.
This subject hits close to home for me for one main reason: when I was in college, I actually did a presentation about this in my senior year. Granted, some up-to-date info is in this but overall, the message is the same:
For more information from John Salza, visit the following link:
http://www.johnsalza.com/p/masonry.html
For a printout of the prayer for Freemasons:
http://scripturecatholic.com/prayer_for_freemasons.html
Monday, September 16, 2013
Take the Oath (Even if You Don't Have to)
+AMDG+
THE MASKED ANGEL:
As I write this in the middle of both the year-long prayers of St Bridget and renewing my consecration to the Virgin Mary as created by Louis de Montfort, I came across this idea and the more I've looked into it, the more it seems to be enforced. What idea would that be?
Before I reveal the idea, this needs to be stated first: it is often said that there are no new heretical teachings, but only old teachings taking on new forms, and none have caused the Church more troubles and cost more souls than the heresy known as modernism, which brings me to the idea that I have come across:
militant atheists today, far from being original, have nothing new or interesting to say.
How did I know this and for that matter, how can others know this? How often have we heard atheists say this or the equivalent of this:
The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.
For that matter, how much evidence refutes this yet the notion persists?
Not enough evidence? Ok, how often have atheists claimed this?:
"No teaching in Christianity should be believed unless it can be proven by scientific tests."
This one is even worse because it fails on two counts: Christians have NEVER said science can be used to prove the notions true and there is no way they would ever say that because the notions are outside science's realm. Atheists might as well demand mathematical concepts be proven by social studies.
How many atheists have claimed truth is relative---or to put it another way, "truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him?" And yet they expect people to not notice their obvious logical hypocrisy?
Some more academic atheists have figured out a way to be more sneaky in trying to pass their ideas off as original. In one particular example, several authors have tried to prove Christianity was founded not by Jesus but Paul of Tarsus, arguing everything from dogmas being from Paul before the Church accepted them, to the expiatory death of Christ is Pauline in historical origin.
Speaking of history. atheists further say Christ did not exist in the historical sense and if Jesus did exist, He was nothing like the Gospels say, and especially not John's Gospel, which is nothing more than a mystical composition.
Too bad Catholic schools in general have dropped the ball because if they as a whole were half-way descent, more people would notice the pattern in all the mentioned notions I've just looked at:
Each and every one of these is a condemned notion found in Lamentabili Sane Exitu, an encyclical written by St Pius X condemning modernism.....written in 1907!!!!
Does anyone reading this understand? Atheists nowadays are just regurgitating concepts no one took seriously over a century ago yet here we have people buying into them hook, line and sinker without question.
St Pius deserves a whole lot more credit than most Catholic educators are willing to give him; he foresaw the problems modernism would have for the world and for the Church; he even went so far as to require anyone in Catholic education or who had any connection to teaching the faith to take an oath against modernism.
For reasons that still remain unknown to me, despite my best efforts, I can find no justification for why the oath was dropped in 1967. Can anyone say the Church is in better shape today than while the oath was still required?
It doesn't matter to me if the oath is not required anymore: if you are serious about learning your faith and teaching it to others, I suggest taking the oath...after learning what it asks of you, of course. I am sick of atheists trying to pass sick ideas and fresh ones but then again what else can we expect of people who are absolute morons?
THE MASKED ANGEL:
As I write this in the middle of both the year-long prayers of St Bridget and renewing my consecration to the Virgin Mary as created by Louis de Montfort, I came across this idea and the more I've looked into it, the more it seems to be enforced. What idea would that be?
Before I reveal the idea, this needs to be stated first: it is often said that there are no new heretical teachings, but only old teachings taking on new forms, and none have caused the Church more troubles and cost more souls than the heresy known as modernism, which brings me to the idea that I have come across:
militant atheists today, far from being original, have nothing new or interesting to say.
How did I know this and for that matter, how can others know this? How often have we heard atheists say this or the equivalent of this:
The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences.
For that matter, how much evidence refutes this yet the notion persists?
Not enough evidence? Ok, how often have atheists claimed this?:
"No teaching in Christianity should be believed unless it can be proven by scientific tests."
This one is even worse because it fails on two counts: Christians have NEVER said science can be used to prove the notions true and there is no way they would ever say that because the notions are outside science's realm. Atheists might as well demand mathematical concepts be proven by social studies.
How many atheists have claimed truth is relative---or to put it another way, "truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him?" And yet they expect people to not notice their obvious logical hypocrisy?
Some more academic atheists have figured out a way to be more sneaky in trying to pass their ideas off as original. In one particular example, several authors have tried to prove Christianity was founded not by Jesus but Paul of Tarsus, arguing everything from dogmas being from Paul before the Church accepted them, to the expiatory death of Christ is Pauline in historical origin.
Speaking of history. atheists further say Christ did not exist in the historical sense and if Jesus did exist, He was nothing like the Gospels say, and especially not John's Gospel, which is nothing more than a mystical composition.
Too bad Catholic schools in general have dropped the ball because if they as a whole were half-way descent, more people would notice the pattern in all the mentioned notions I've just looked at:
Each and every one of these is a condemned notion found in Lamentabili Sane Exitu, an encyclical written by St Pius X condemning modernism.....written in 1907!!!!
Does anyone reading this understand? Atheists nowadays are just regurgitating concepts no one took seriously over a century ago yet here we have people buying into them hook, line and sinker without question.
St Pius deserves a whole lot more credit than most Catholic educators are willing to give him; he foresaw the problems modernism would have for the world and for the Church; he even went so far as to require anyone in Catholic education or who had any connection to teaching the faith to take an oath against modernism.
For reasons that still remain unknown to me, despite my best efforts, I can find no justification for why the oath was dropped in 1967. Can anyone say the Church is in better shape today than while the oath was still required?
It doesn't matter to me if the oath is not required anymore: if you are serious about learning your faith and teaching it to others, I suggest taking the oath...after learning what it asks of you, of course. I am sick of atheists trying to pass sick ideas and fresh ones but then again what else can we expect of people who are absolute morons?