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.
“the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not.”- Ven Arch Fulton Sheen
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Thoughts and Prayers on the Boston Bombing
I've wanted to put my own take in on the Boston Marathon bombing but I thought it best to wait until all the facts were in on it. It is indeed a tragedy, and for those lives lost I grieve, but rather than get into what I think compelled the guilty parties, instead I'd like to point out the different ways people have reached out to Boston residents, namely the use of "prayer" and "thoughts".
Take the cases of Mark Walburg and Seth MacFarlane.
Both are from the New England area (although Wallburg himself is actually from Boston) and both have put their take in on the bombing, but while Mark is a Roman Catholic, MacFarlane himself is an avowed atheist.
With that in mind, consider the difference in their approaches:
-In an interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Walburg said "my prayers are with the victims."
-In a public statement, MacFarlane said "My thoughts are with the people of Boston."
While I am paraphrasing both quotes, it is quite shocking how atheists are so against anything transcendent, they'll use whatever language they can to cover up their rejection, and this is a perfect example of it.
To be honest, I've never understood "my thoughts are with you." How does that even work? I wouldn't mind it so much if both sides are working on the same problem from different directions but that's not the case in this instance. And given how long the average person can focus on a thought, I would find it insulting when someone tells me that.
What type of thought was he talking about? Out of the over forty types, I can't think of any that might come close to applying here.
Here's what I want people to do: go to this list and memorize a few thought types:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thought_processes
Next time an atheist says "my thoughts are with you", ask them what types, then spout them off--not all at once but slowly enough to leave them flabbergasted. Then when they stand there in shock, ask them "what's the matter? Stopped thinking for too long?"
As a final note, ever heard of the phrase "a world at thought is a world at peace?" Of course not because it's insipid, contradictory, and refuted by mere observation. The correct phrase is "a world at prayer is a world at peace."
That other phrase is idiotic, and atheists are idiots.
Take the cases of Mark Walburg and Seth MacFarlane.
Both are from the New England area (although Wallburg himself is actually from Boston) and both have put their take in on the bombing, but while Mark is a Roman Catholic, MacFarlane himself is an avowed atheist.
With that in mind, consider the difference in their approaches:
-In an interview with Jimmy Kimmel, Walburg said "my prayers are with the victims."
-In a public statement, MacFarlane said "My thoughts are with the people of Boston."
While I am paraphrasing both quotes, it is quite shocking how atheists are so against anything transcendent, they'll use whatever language they can to cover up their rejection, and this is a perfect example of it.
To be honest, I've never understood "my thoughts are with you." How does that even work? I wouldn't mind it so much if both sides are working on the same problem from different directions but that's not the case in this instance. And given how long the average person can focus on a thought, I would find it insulting when someone tells me that.
What type of thought was he talking about? Out of the over forty types, I can't think of any that might come close to applying here.
Here's what I want people to do: go to this list and memorize a few thought types:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_thought_processes
Next time an atheist says "my thoughts are with you", ask them what types, then spout them off--not all at once but slowly enough to leave them flabbergasted. Then when they stand there in shock, ask them "what's the matter? Stopped thinking for too long?"
As a final note, ever heard of the phrase "a world at thought is a world at peace?" Of course not because it's insipid, contradictory, and refuted by mere observation. The correct phrase is "a world at prayer is a world at peace."
That other phrase is idiotic, and atheists are idiots.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Traditional Reconciliation
Resuming my series about the
sacraments, it's time to look at reconciliation, also known as confession, and
sacrament of forgiveness and conversion. This is tied in to the Church teaching
about Holy Orders, which I will get to in a later post, but I bring it up now
because that seems to be one of many misunderstandings on this
sacrament that need to be addressed now before we continue.
Misunderstanding #1: Jesus
sacrificed Himself for me so I don't need to confess my sins.
While the first part is true, the
second ignores too many verses to be true. If His sacrifice is all that's
needed, then James must have been mistaken while under divine inspiration when
he commanded people to "confess your sins to one another." (James
5:16) This notion fails to understand both baptism and reconciliation in that
while the first blots out the penalty for Original Sin, that doesn't change the
fact people still sin. While some sins are more serious than others (more on
this later), God is offended by all sin and since He wants us to live with Him
in eternity, He would logically provide us the means to reach Him. God doesn't
want us to do something that He doesn't give us the means to do.
Misunderstanding #2: "I can
confess my sins to God directly."
While true on the surface, this
misses several points. God does have the power to forgive sins as does Jesus
since Jesus is God so it does make sense at first to confess them to God. That
I won't argue. However, since God the Father gave the power to forgive sins to
Jesus the Son, ie God becoming man, it would follow this God in the form of man
would give this amazing ability to regular man and indeed we see this is the
case:
He said therefore to them again:
Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said
this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall
retain, they are retained. (John 20: 21-23)
If God meant for you to go directly
to God, why would Jesus bother to give this power to mere man?
Misunderstanding #3: "While
Jesus did give this power to the Apostles, the power went away once the last Apostle
died."
Thank goodness we don't hear this
argument very often but it's worth looking at all the same. In order to argue
this, it would have to be shown, at least from the Protestant perspective, that
a verse exists to prove this point. Since there are no verses that show this,
then from the Sola Scriptura perspective (ignoring for a moment what a heretical
teaching it is anyway) the notion of Jesus giving man this power then taking it
away from them makes no sense.
Misunderstanding #4: "This
whole reconciliation idea sounds like a "get out of jail free"
card."
Far from it. In fact, it has
NEVER been taught that confession leaves the door open for people to do
whatever they wanted. No Christian branch, be it founded by Christ or the other
pseudo-types, that teach about confession has ever said it leaves you free to
do whatever you want and not to worry about the consequences. This
misunderstanding leaves out the key parts of the sacrament, which in the words
of St John are:
"Contrition in the heart,
confession in his mouth, a perfect humility in his works."
In other words, saying you're going
to change your life and doing it are two separate things.
Misunderstanding #5: "Since the
priest is a sinner too, as "all have fallen short of God's glory",
why should I confess my sins to a sinner?"
Even on the surface, the errors of
this statement should be obvious. It's no different than saying "Since
doctors need medical treatment too, why should I take medical advise from them
or let them perform surgery on me?" Even if it did follow, that would then
mean there would be no point to confession since we're going to fall short in
the end anyway. Such a nihilistic view has no place in a true Christian.
Now, earlier I talked about the difference between sins, and yes, not all sins are created equal.
He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death. (1 John 5:16-17)
It is from this verse the notion of venial and mortal sins comes from. What's the difference between the two?
Think of it like the degrees of severity you find in common law; some crimes are considered more serious than others. In the Church, these are the traits that make up mortal sin:
- Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
- It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).
- It must be committed with deliberate and
complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.
What counts as a grave matter? In a nutshell, anything that violates any of the 10 Commandments, as well as whether you followed the commandments of the Church or anything that came from the seven deadly sins. Contrary to what some think, deadly sins and moral sins are not the same; deadly sins are where mortal sins come from. St Ignatius of Loyola, in conjunction with the Holy Church says this about mortal sin in his Spiritual Excercises:
There are two ways of sinning mortally:
First Way. The first is, when one gives consent to the bad thought, to act afterwards as he has consented, or to put it in act if he could.
Second Way. The second way of sinning mortally is when that sin is put in act.
This is a greater sin for three reasons: first, because of the greater time; second, because of the greater intensity; third, because of the greater harm to the two persons.
So now that we know what we need to confess, how do we perform reconciliation?
1. Enter the church and review your sins.
Again, look at the Commandments of God and the Church. There's a good chance the devil will make you forget about your sins, but I found writing down the key mortal sins helpful.
2. Enter the confessional.
3. When the priest is ready, it will go in this order:
You: Bless me, Father for I have sinned.
(Priest will then say a prayer for full confession)
You: Since my last confession which was (insert length of time here) ago, when I received absolution and performed my penance, I accuse myself of these sins: (Insert sins here). For these and all my other sins, which I cannot at present remember, I am heartily sorry, and purpose amendment for the future, and humbly ask pardon from God, and penance and absolution from you, my earthly Father.
4. Priest will then give you absolution and advise on how to avoid the sin in the future.
5. Say the Act of Contrition.
There are many versions of this but I use this one the most:
O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended You and I detest all my sins, because I fear the loss of heaven and the pains of hell, but most of all because they offend You, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve, with the help of Your grace, to confess my sins, to do penance and to amend my life. amen.
6. Thank the priest and leave to perform your penance.
As you can see, there is much humility in this. Atheists think it's a bunch of shame and guilt but then again atheists are idiots.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Refuting the Riddle of Epicurus
The statement in question is often used by atheists to refute the notion of God being concerned over man's fate and being able to overcome evil. If you're not familiar with it, here's how it goes:
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?
Often, the paradox is given an additional line "Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God"
Without fail, every atheist that has presented this to me thinks they said something brilliant and this can't be refuted. To be honest, I see several problems with this so-called paradox.
1. It has never been called the Epicurean Trilemma.
It's either been called the Epicurean paradox or the riddle of Epicurus. A moot point, perhaps, but it is better to call things by their proper names.
2. Epicurus didn't write it.
That's right: there's no evidence to suggest Epicurus ever wrote it. The form people are familiar with, depending on who you believe, was either put together by David Hume or maybe Carneades. No one knows which but saying Epicurus put it together is yet another atheist urban legend, much like saying communism could work or saying the early Christians were never martyred. (And yes, there is a book out there arguing this).
3. The additional line I just mentioned is not a part of it and never has been.
In this case, it doesn't matter who you think came up with it: neither version has the "why call him God" part. That appears to be a later addition, but it also appears that whoever put it there didn't bother to check the original sources.
4. The so-called riddle itself is a false dilemma.
A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
Consider what the paradox says in the very first sentence: either God cannot abolish evil or God chooses not to. That's it. It only considers two options; it doesn't consider (for sake of argument) that maybe God is allowing evil or perhaps there's a reason why the evil is there in the first place. I bring this up only because Hume himself (a philosopher atheists love to quote) admitted to the possibility:
"His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?"
5. It doesn't define what evil is.
If you're going to call something evil, okay, but you need to establish on what basis something is evil.
6. It ignores free will.
Last I checked, man is free to commit evil or good. That is not to say they always make the better choice but this does say at least the choice is there. The paradox doesn't address that.
7. The whole wicked and impotent part is just an opinion, not an objective fact.
Those parts are nothing more than a slight-of-hand that add nothing themselves and suffer from their own logical inconsistencies.
8. It places the problem of evil on God rather than man.
Going back to point 6, man in the end is responsible for how he treats other people. I don't see how God could even come close to blame in light of this.
9. There is no way to take this paradox seriously.
In light of all these points, a Christian should not be threatened by this writing at all since the atheist is just picking at straws on this.
In fact, I have a much better paradox:
Are atheists really bright or are they ignorant? If they are bright, why do they make so many mistakes? Do they not care about learning? Then they are not bright. If they do care about learning, why make the same mistakes over and over? Are they ignorant? If so, why not just admit it?
Because atheists are idiots.
Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?
Often, the paradox is given an additional line "Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God"
Without fail, every atheist that has presented this to me thinks they said something brilliant and this can't be refuted. To be honest, I see several problems with this so-called paradox.
1. It has never been called the Epicurean Trilemma.
It's either been called the Epicurean paradox or the riddle of Epicurus. A moot point, perhaps, but it is better to call things by their proper names.
2. Epicurus didn't write it.
That's right: there's no evidence to suggest Epicurus ever wrote it. The form people are familiar with, depending on who you believe, was either put together by David Hume or maybe Carneades. No one knows which but saying Epicurus put it together is yet another atheist urban legend, much like saying communism could work or saying the early Christians were never martyred. (And yes, there is a book out there arguing this).
3. The additional line I just mentioned is not a part of it and never has been.
In this case, it doesn't matter who you think came up with it: neither version has the "why call him God" part. That appears to be a later addition, but it also appears that whoever put it there didn't bother to check the original sources.
4. The so-called riddle itself is a false dilemma.
A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
Consider what the paradox says in the very first sentence: either God cannot abolish evil or God chooses not to. That's it. It only considers two options; it doesn't consider (for sake of argument) that maybe God is allowing evil or perhaps there's a reason why the evil is there in the first place. I bring this up only because Hume himself (a philosopher atheists love to quote) admitted to the possibility:
"His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?"
5. It doesn't define what evil is.
If you're going to call something evil, okay, but you need to establish on what basis something is evil.
6. It ignores free will.
Last I checked, man is free to commit evil or good. That is not to say they always make the better choice but this does say at least the choice is there. The paradox doesn't address that.
7. The whole wicked and impotent part is just an opinion, not an objective fact.
Those parts are nothing more than a slight-of-hand that add nothing themselves and suffer from their own logical inconsistencies.
8. It places the problem of evil on God rather than man.
Going back to point 6, man in the end is responsible for how he treats other people. I don't see how God could even come close to blame in light of this.
9. There is no way to take this paradox seriously.
In light of all these points, a Christian should not be threatened by this writing at all since the atheist is just picking at straws on this.
In fact, I have a much better paradox:
Are atheists really bright or are they ignorant? If they are bright, why do they make so many mistakes? Do they not care about learning? Then they are not bright. If they do care about learning, why make the same mistakes over and over? Are they ignorant? If so, why not just admit it?
Because atheists are idiots.
Monday, April 8, 2013
An article about my spirituality
I've taken a week off from this blog to put together an article I'm writing for wikipedia, concerning the spirituality I follow. There are articles on Jesuit spirituality, Dominican, Carmelite, Franciscan, and Benedictine, but so far as I can tell, there are no articles on my spirituality.
Now keep in mind, this is all a rough version of the final article, and I'm still making improvements, but here's what I have so far:
Now keep in mind, this is all a rough version of the final article, and I'm still making improvements, but here's what I have so far:
Montfort
Spirituality
Montfort
spirituality is an 18th century spirituality based on the writings
of St Louis De Montfort and influenced by the French school of spirituality.
Like all Catholic spiritual schools, it bases itself on the Catholic faith and
the Gospels, but places greater emphasis in the Virgin Mary’s role in salvation
through Jesus. Considered the forerunner to Roman Catholic Mariology, it has
influenced the spiritual outlook of many Catholic figures, including Blessed
Pope John Paul II.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES:
Montfort
Spirituality can be summarized with the phrases “To God Alone, by Christ
Wisdom, in the Spirit, in communion with Mary, for the reign of God,” or “God
Alone” and “In Jesus, through Mary.”
PRACITICES:
Montfort
Spirituality can be divided into two categories: internal and external. Each
together brings about in the soul knowledge and contempt of self; participation
in Mary’s faith; deliverance from cares, fears and scruples; great confidence
in God and Mary; communication of the soul and spirit of Mary; transformation
of the faithful soul by Mary into the likeness of Jesus Christ; and the greater
glory of God.
INTERNAL:
According to
Montfort’s work True Devotion to Mary, followers of this spirituality are to
imitate the following virtues of the Virgin Mary:
-humility
-Lively
faith
-blind
obedience
-continual
mental prayer
-mortification
-purity
-charity
-patience
-sweetness
-wisdom
EXTERNAL:
Emphasis on the
Incarnation-
unlike many other spiritualties, Montfort spirituality places more emphasis on
the Word taking flesh, and becoming man. Hence, the spirituality puts great
importance on the Annunciation, which commemorates Christ’s conception in
Mary’s womb. Various prayers and litanies to the Incarnation are greatly
encouraged.
Devotion to the Rosary- Influenced by the Dominican Order
(which he belonged to), Montfort teaches daily prayer of the Rosary and even
composed five special ways of saying the Rosary (and later meditations on the
Rosary Mysteries).
Frequent recitation of
the Ave Maria, the Magnificat, and a saying to remind us of our devotion- St Montfort writes about the
importance of saying the Hail Mary often as possible:
“it is the most perfect compliment
you can give to Mary, because it is a compliment which the Most High sent her
by an archangel, in order to win her heart; and it was so powerful over her
heart by the secret charms of which it was so full, that in spite of her
profound humility she gave her consent to the Incarnation of the Word.”
He says this
about the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55):
It is the only prayer, the only work,
which the Holy Virgin composed, or rather, which Jesus composed in her; for He
spoke by her mouth. It is the greatest sacrifice of praise which God ever
received from a pure creature in the law of grace.
Montfort
even penned a special saying each follower is to say at least once a day:
“I am thine
and all I have is thine, oh most loving Jesus, through Mary, Your most Holy
Mother.”
Wearing of the Scapular,
Miraculous Medal and “little chains”- Montfort teaches that those who follow this devotion are to
wear the scapular and the Miraculous Medal as well as a symbol for their new
holy slavery to Mary (see below) for “[wearing little chains] reminds the
Christian of the vows of baptism”…”shows the world we are not ashamed of the
servitude and slavery of Jesus Christ” and “to protect ourselves against the
slavery of sin and the Devil.” However, it should be noted a simple light chain
and even a ring (like one made by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary)
will suffice.
Reciting the Little
Crown of Mary- Consisting
of three Our Fathers and 12 Hail Marys, and also known as the
"Triple Crown of the Twelve Stars of the Blessed Virgin" because it
is based on St. John the Divine's vision in from Rev 11 and 12, the Little Crown honors Mary as symbolizing
her motherhood and queen-ship over all Israel, the twelve stars representing
the 12 Tribes and the 12 Apostles. Though not written by Montfort himself, he did add
additional praises to Mary in between the Hail Mary’s and a special litany
format (link here)
A spiritual parallel to
Jacob and Rebecca (Gen 27) –St Montfort reminds us of the story of Jacob, who with the
help of his mother Rebecca, achieves the blessing of his father Isaac. This coincides with his teaching of always
depending on our spiritual mother to gain blessings from our spiritual father.
Angelus/Regia Coli- Montfort encourages these two
prayers, both said at noon but at different times of year, as reminders of the
role Mary played in salvation through Jesus.
The concept of “holy
slavery”- Going
several steps beyond regular dependence on God, St. Montfort views the
spirituality as being slaves to God and therefore love. “It is easily seen,
then, that he who is a slave by constraint is rigorously dependent on his
master. Strictly speaking, a man must be
dependent in that sense only on his Creator.”
Special method of
receiving Communion- Before Holy Communion, Montfort wants those following his spirituality
to humble themselves and ask the Virgin Mary for her heart to better receive
Jesus. “I take thee for my all. Give me your heart, oh Mary.” During Communion
but before receiving it, one is to say “Lord, I am not worthy” to each of the
members of the Holy Trinity, and ask to behold Mary, to see Mary coming into
your house and life, and to have all confidence in Mary to the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit respectively. After receiving Communion, he recommends various
suggestions, all revolving around uniting the hearts of Jesus and Mary within
yourself.
33 day consecration- once a year, those following
Montfort spirituality take a 33 day length consecration to Mary, composed of special litanies, prayers,
readings from the Bible, The Imitation of Christ, various Montfort writings,
and different exercises depending on the teaching emphasized. Upon completion,
the follower is to choose a day significant to Marian theology (such as the
Annunciation or Christmas) to make final vows and promises to the Virgin Mary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)