Sunday, August 23, 2015

Only a Real Atheist Thinks Fogle Did Nothing Wrong



I've been following Jared Fogle's disgrace and while people are correct to say what he did was wrong, I put this question to atheists:

How do you know what he did was wrong?

I can point to where in my faith it says pedophilia is wrong (more on this later) but try as I may I can't find anything in atheism---be it a writer, a text or any type of atheist authority--that says this is wrong. The closest I can find came from the founder of NAMBLA but in that case, he was fine with it.

In fact, this question--along with many others concerning morality--will most likely turn up the same set of answers atheists always tout, yet it never dawns on them how hollow all these answers are.

"It's wrong because the law says so."

And it used to be wrong to let women vote, let minorities vote, and not let the federal government tax income….yet all those have changed.
The point is what if there was no law that said it was wrong? Would it still be wrong?

"It's wrong because we as a society have determined it's wrong."

Three questions:
Going back to the other one, what if the majority in a society says they're fine with it?
Given the fact Fogle knew full well society doesn't agree with what he did, do you think he cared?
Why should someone care about majority opinion when said person doesn't believe or support any moral objective standard?

"We can reason and deduce it's wrong."
This one is only slightly better but in atheist's hands, it misses a key point:
If you're going to use reason or anything for that matter as a standard, don't you need to first establish a) standards exist and b) standards should be followed regardless of one's personal feelings?

Since atheism is so emotion driven, I see no "reason" to trust an atheist when they say this.

"It's not good for children."

I laugh every time an atheist says this because 9 times out of 10, the atheist is the first to say sex, regardless of who it's with, should have no restrictions or consequences.

In fact, I'm going to let you all on a secret: atheists don't really care about children.
Do you know how I know atheists don't care about children? Because they babble on about priests molesting kids, but turn a blind eye and a deaf ear when a public school teacher does it---despite the fact even the Department of Education itself admitted child molestation is far worse in schools than in churches. As recently as January 2014, the Government Accoutability Office even confirmed public schools still aren't doing enough to protect kids from sexual predators.

But hey, teachers promote secularism so they get a free pass, right? ;)

Finally, we get to the dumbest arguments atheists make.

"Atheism doesn't say it because atheism is just about not believing in God."

I said this once and I will keep saying it until it gets through atheist's thick skulls:

Ideas do NOT exist in a vacuum. Your outlook affects your thinking.

"The Bible itself promotes pedophilia."

Believe it or not, there are atheist idiots who think the Bible promotes pedophilia. I asked atheists about this and they either couldn't give any examples or couldn't cite any verses that say it's to be believed at the same level as the Holy Trinity or the Incarnation.

So atheists can't say pedophilia is wrong anymore than they can say abortion is wrong….proof again atheists are idiots.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

The "Amazing" A-the-tard



I must admit this took much longer than I thought to finally address but here we are: the sheer, unadulterated idiocy known as the "Amazing" Atheist (and I use the word amazing VERY loosely).
For those luckily enough to not know about this walking bowel movement, the moniker is the v-log name for Thomas TJ Kirk, a man so foul and Philistine even other prominent atheists want nothing to do with him.

There isn't enough writing space here to fully express how much I detest everything he stands for, so instead I'll get into why I wrote this:
In a recent video, he listed his top ten WTF Bible passages. Rather than put my loyal readers through his sewer of a mouth, I'll list here what those verses are so you can look them up yourself and questions that popped into my mind when he brought them up.
I should also disclose one other thing: I put these questions in a post to him a few days before this was put up; as of today, I have received no response. (SEE UPDATE BELOW).

Ok, TJ…you want to be exposed as an idiot? Here's why you're wrong on all the verses:
10. Deut 21:18-21.
Who are the elders they're talking about? Are they still around? Is there anything that says this teaching transferred into others? 9. 1 Timothy 2:11-14
Odd choice given his past history with women, but even ignoring that, isn't it obvious from the context Paul's talking about not letting women be priests and not talking about them being teachers in general? 8. Lev. 26:27-30 
What was meant by "high places"? Context shows that's talking about where idol worship was still going on. What did you think it meant? 7. Deut 25:22-12 
Again, another odd choice given your past history with women, but when two men fight, what are the odds a) a women will join in and b) even if she did, why would she ever think to do that? 6. Mark 14:51-52 
Proves nothing. Isn't it possible this is foreshadowing other events? 5. Ex 4:15 
Isn't it obvious context shows God is using Ezekiel to exemplify what the Jew's work amounted to? 4. Zec 13:3 
Did you not read the previous verse? Didn't it flat out say the prophets of the idols, the ones referred to in this verse? 3. Gen 16:7-9 
Again, did you not read the next verse? 2. 1 Peter 2:18 
This is just misquoted. It reads servants, not slaves. Did you not see where Peter calls himself a slave? Again, a broad point you missed. 1. Ex 23:20 
Why didn't you look at this: Was that too hard for you to understand?

UPDATE (May 14 2016): In the time since this initial posting, I still have received no real answer or rebuttal from him. Another atheist tried to fight me on this and even claimed he emailed TJ who in turn claimed he doesn't remember responding to this.
1. I don't believe for a moment he did email TJ.
2. Even if he did, I don't believe TJ responded.
3. Even if he did email him and TJ did respond, then TJ either is full of it or has a terrible memory because Twitter recorded his response and here it is:
You refute me so good! Me am dumb. You defeat me!

Not sure if that was meant as sarcasm or what, but it's not thought out hence NOT a real response.

Friday, August 7, 2015

Exorcise Planned Parenthood



Disclaimer: the following video will offend those who think fetuses don't count as life. Also, I should note the priest in this video runs the parish I used to attend.

Saturday, August 1, 2015

Tearing Fr Martin a New One (a Rant)



In my post about the Jesuits, I mentioned a current Jesuit named Fr James Martin, who put up a Facebook post about his stand on the Supreme Court ruling concerning so-called same-sex "marriage". I mentioned that his post was so sugary and asinine that no one should take it seriously.

Initially, I did plan to copy and paste the actual post from Facebook and point out everything wrong with it…then I couldn't find the post on his Facebook page.

For some reason, it was taken down. I don't know if this was because of how controversial it was, or it was being misunderstood or it wasn't what Fr Martin meant. In any case, if you go to the page, it's not there.

But I was able to find an article that captured the post, so I can refute it that way.

Let me make one thing clear here before I continue: contrary to what people believe the Church says, it is okay to call out a priest on an issue, especially when they say something so obviously wrong. This is why it's acceptable to call out Fr Robert Barron (soon to be auxiliary bishop of Los Angeles) when he says we have a reasonable hope all mean are saved. That notion is wrong not only in light of several Church documents, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church, but also Jesus Himself refutes that notion.

So now, here's Fr Martin's post, with my refutations in red letters:

No issue brings out so much hatred from so many Catholics as homosexuality.

(Maybe if they stop trying to trample on religious people's rights, we wouldn't have this problem.)

Even after 25 years as a Jesuit, the level of hatred around homosexuality is nearly unbelievable to me, especially when I think of the all the wonderful LGBT friends I have.

(Fr Martin, at any point did you point out to your so-called LGBT "friends" how destructive their lifestyle is, not just religiously but objectively speaking? I would think someone who has been a Jesuit for 25 years would have at least some concern over their friend's salvation.)

The Catholic church must do a better job of teaching what the Catechism says: that we should treat our LGBT brothers and sisters with "respect, sensitivity and compassion."

( Sorry, Fr Martin, but you don't get to decide what the Church should do a better job at. And what catechism are you talking about? Every catechism I'm familiar with condemns homosexuality. In addition, do you expect anyone to believe your order's founder would promote compassion at the expense of Church teaching?)

But God wants more. God wants us to love. And not a twisted, crabbed, narrow tolerance, which often comes in the guise of condemnations, instructions and admonitions that try to masquerade as love, but actual love.

(I'm confused. Are we supposed to take the Catechism's word on things or not? If we are, then shouldn't we keep it in mind when it condemns and admonishes homosexuality? If we aren't, then why did you even bring it up?)

Love means: getting to know LGBT men and women, spending time with them, listening to them, being challenged by them, hoping the best for them…

(So we're supposed to be challenged by them? What if we want to challenge them? What if we want to call them out on how many LGBT are responsible for new HIV cases? What if we want to challenge them on how many sexual partners the average gay person has? Aren't you duty bound to call on people to live lives of chastity, no matter who they are?
And where is your definition of love coming from? It can't be the Bible, because that's not how it defines love. It couldn't be from Loyola's spiritual exercises, because that's not what he says love is. So where is your asinine definition coming from?)

, and wanting them to be part of your lives, every bit as much as straight friends are part of your lives."

(Considering how they've treated religious people who disagree with them, why would I want them to be part of my life? Doesn't this sound like something I can do without?)

Love first. Everything else later. In fact, everything else is meaningless without love. 

(Didn't Jesus say if we love Him, we should keep His commandments? And didn't He also say we should love the Lord with all our heart? Don't those two commands refute everything you say?)