+AJPM+
THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
All credit goes to catholic.org for this list.
1. Vatican City has the highest crime rate in the world! With a population around 500 people and a little over one crime per day, the Vatican crime rate is above 100 percent, per capita. Although the fact is shocking it should be remembered that the Vatican is about one square mile in size, and has nearly 20 million visitors annually. Most of the crimes are pickpockets, purse snatching and other petty offenses done by outsiders.
2. The ONLY Christian church in existence for the first 1,000 years of Christian history was the Roman Catholic Church. All other Christian churches which exist today can trace their linage back to the Roman Catholic Church. Most non-Catholic churches which exist today are less than a century or two old by comparison.
3. The Catholic Church consists of more than just the Roman Catholic Church. There are 22 Eastern Rites that are in full communion with Rome and although they go by different names, they are every bit as much a part of the Catholic Church.
4. Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, was Catholic and the first book ever printed was the Catholic Bible.
5. The Catholic Church is entirely responsible for the composition of the Bible, which books are included, as well as the breakup of the chapters and verses. Protestants have removed some books of the Bible because some of the verses were inconsistent with their theology. Martin Luther was a prime offender in this regard, removing Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach and Baruch. He also made an effort to remove James and Revelations, but this was rejected by his followers and those two books were kept. Catholics are often accused of "adding" the books, but despite this common belief, it is false. Older, pre-Protestant, Catholic translations of the Bible include them.
6. How many saints are recognized by the Catholic Church? There does not seem to be an official number, but it exceeds 10,000. Of course, any person who enters heaven is a saint, by definition, so it is certain the number of actual saints in existence is much greater than the number recognized by the Church.
7. Any Catholic may perform an emergency baptism, such as if a person is in grave danger of death. In such a case, the validity of the baptism only depends upon the wishes of the person being baptized, that they desire the baptism. There are specific guidelines for such practices that Catholics should follow. Anyone wishing to be prepared for such a case should refer to the catechism for a deeper understanding of this allowance. Generally, such practices ought to be left to trained clergy.
8. About 15 percent of all hospitals in the United States are Catholic hospitals. In some parts of the world, the Catholic Church provides the only healthcare, education and social services available to people.
9. The Catholic Church spends more money than Apple brings in. Expenditures by the Catholic Church, largely on charity, exceeded $170 billion in 2012, according to The Economist magazine. In that same year, Apple took in $157 billion in revenue.
10. The Pope is protected by the Swiss Papal Guard. Wearing uniforms designed by Michelangelo and commonly armed with halberds, they are capable of using heavier weapons if needed. Each member is Catholic, male, and Swiss, and must complete military training in Switzerland. They must demonstrate good conduct and be at least five-foot-eight in height. Those who are chosen are granted a private audience with the pope along with their families. In extreme circumstances, they are expected to guard the Holy Father with their lives. The Swiss Papal Guard is the oldest active military unit in continual existence since 1506.
“the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not.”- Ven Arch Fulton Sheen
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Friday, September 11, 2015
Atheist Idiot George Takai: A Rant
+AJPM+
THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
I have never been a Star Trek fan. I know enough about it to pick out the various characters but I don't go to conventions dressed like a member of the Federation.
After the idiocy of George Takai, I don't want anything to do with Star Trek. Just look how easy it was to tear apart his stand against Kim Davis:
THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
I have never been a Star Trek fan. I know enough about it to pick out the various characters but I don't go to conventions dressed like a member of the Federation.
After the idiocy of George Takai, I don't want anything to do with Star Trek. Just look how easy it was to tear apart his stand against Kim Davis:
“So let us be clear: This woman is no hero to be celebrated.”
(That's debatable, since she certainly isn't a martyr. However, I would argue she should be defended against nonsense like yours.)
“She broke her oath to uphold the Constitution and defied a court order so she could deny government services to couples who are legally entitled to be married.”
(She took that oath before the ruling. Furthermore, the ruling did NOT say every person has the right to marry whoever they want.)
“She is entitled to hold her religious beliefs, but not to impose those beliefs on others,”
(So you think it's fine to impose your beliefs on people? I think you're jealous that it's not your beliefs being promoted.)
“If she had denied marriage certificates to an interracial couple, would people cheer her? Would presidential candidates flock to her side?”
(As a multi-racial person, I take great offense at that, Takai. Furthermore, any law, Jim Crow or other, that did ban interracial marriage were used to uphold a racist legal order. Good luck trying to convince me or anyone these bans were used for an anti-gay legal order.)
“In our society, we obey civil laws, not religious ones. To suggest otherwise is, simply put, entirely un-American.”
(That's a strange statement coming from you, since the Supreme Court also said it's legal to send people of Japanese descent to internment camps…the very same camps you've admitted you were sent to as a boy......But then again, I'm not stupid enough to say the Court has the final word on things.)
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Misunderstanding Martyrdom, or "You have not the authority."
+AJPM+
THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
Let me ask you something:
Do you know the difference between a victim and a martyr?
I ask this because to me it seems like the majority of people don't know the difference. So, as a quick review:
A victim is someone harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action; a martyr is someone killed for their beliefs. You can kill someone for a reason other than their beliefs, and hence that's why all martyrs are victims but not all victims are martyrs.
I bring this up in light of the news reports of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Many articles have come out proclaiming her a martyr for the fight against gay so-called marriage. This might make sense since all the pro-side has is the poorly thought out Supreme Court ruling (whereas the righteous side has the Constitution)….
…but a martyr? Really?
You can see how people like me might take offense at someone being called that when a) the people giving the label are not the ones who have authority to do so and b) if one were to look at all the declared martyrs, one will find besides their deaths, they were also consistent in what they believed.
This is key because much like certain beliefs (such as the Christian view on God, the concept of the Davidic Kingdom and the End Times), Christianity gets its view of martyrdom from the Jewish faith.
In Judaism, martyrdom must include dedication to your faith; in other words, one must be consistent in what you believe concerning your faith. In fact, martyr comes from the Greek word for witness (as in, a witness for Jesus) but to be a witness, one must follow all teachings of their Divine Master.
In news reports, it was pointed out the clerk had been married multiple times and even had children out of wedlock, both actions condemned by Jesus. Granted, these happened before her conversion, but I have yet to see any indication of whether she thinks both actions are wrong now or if she ever repented of her past misdeeds.
Thus, it's not clear whether the martyr label works here.
As I predicted when I first heard of this case, someone has made a connection between her and St Thomas More, especially in light of her being sent to jail. Much like the martyrdom claim, this comparison doesn't work either.
For those not familiar with the story (or the 1966 film A Man for All Seasons), Thomas More was Lord High Chancellor under King Henry VIII. Although he had an historical disagreement with Henry on whether Henry could divorce his wife Catherine of Aragon, More resigned from office rather than keep his job by signing an oath that made the king supreme head of a church. That, combined with other events (one of which included not attending Henry's marriage to Ann Boleyn and several others that involved him saying "you have not the authority), More was tried, convicted and beheaded for high treason. He was noted
Let's look at some key points again: resignation, appearances in relation to belief, and proper authority.
In relation to these, I conclude she should resign her position, because as long as she remains county clerk, her signature remains on the marriage licenses, thus she is legally culpable for these abominations and thus she appears to be supporting it. While she is correct in saying no court and no earthly authority has the right to redefine marriage, she is wrong in her approach.
These sick people hate God's word and all responsibly it stands for. Stop giving them an inch and heed the lesson from St Thomas More:
THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
Let me ask you something:
Do you know the difference between a victim and a martyr?
I ask this because to me it seems like the majority of people don't know the difference. So, as a quick review:
A victim is someone harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action; a martyr is someone killed for their beliefs. You can kill someone for a reason other than their beliefs, and hence that's why all martyrs are victims but not all victims are martyrs.
I bring this up in light of the news reports of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who refuses to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Many articles have come out proclaiming her a martyr for the fight against gay so-called marriage. This might make sense since all the pro-side has is the poorly thought out Supreme Court ruling (whereas the righteous side has the Constitution)….
…but a martyr? Really?
You can see how people like me might take offense at someone being called that when a) the people giving the label are not the ones who have authority to do so and b) if one were to look at all the declared martyrs, one will find besides their deaths, they were also consistent in what they believed.
This is key because much like certain beliefs (such as the Christian view on God, the concept of the Davidic Kingdom and the End Times), Christianity gets its view of martyrdom from the Jewish faith.
In Judaism, martyrdom must include dedication to your faith; in other words, one must be consistent in what you believe concerning your faith. In fact, martyr comes from the Greek word for witness (as in, a witness for Jesus) but to be a witness, one must follow all teachings of their Divine Master.
In news reports, it was pointed out the clerk had been married multiple times and even had children out of wedlock, both actions condemned by Jesus. Granted, these happened before her conversion, but I have yet to see any indication of whether she thinks both actions are wrong now or if she ever repented of her past misdeeds.
Thus, it's not clear whether the martyr label works here.
As I predicted when I first heard of this case, someone has made a connection between her and St Thomas More, especially in light of her being sent to jail. Much like the martyrdom claim, this comparison doesn't work either.
For those not familiar with the story (or the 1966 film A Man for All Seasons), Thomas More was Lord High Chancellor under King Henry VIII. Although he had an historical disagreement with Henry on whether Henry could divorce his wife Catherine of Aragon, More resigned from office rather than keep his job by signing an oath that made the king supreme head of a church. That, combined with other events (one of which included not attending Henry's marriage to Ann Boleyn and several others that involved him saying "you have not the authority), More was tried, convicted and beheaded for high treason. He was noted
Let's look at some key points again: resignation, appearances in relation to belief, and proper authority.
In relation to these, I conclude she should resign her position, because as long as she remains county clerk, her signature remains on the marriage licenses, thus she is legally culpable for these abominations and thus she appears to be supporting it. While she is correct in saying no court and no earthly authority has the right to redefine marriage, she is wrong in her approach.
These sick people hate God's word and all responsibly it stands for. Stop giving them an inch and heed the lesson from St Thomas More:
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Only a Real Atheist Thinks Fogle Did Nothing Wrong
+AJPM+
THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
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.
THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
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
+AJPM+
THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
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: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id1376.html? 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:
@MillennCatholic 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.
THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
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: http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id1376.html? 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:
@MillennCatholic 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
+AJPM+
THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
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.
THE MILLENNIAL CATHOLIC:
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.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)