Evolution and the Theory of Evolution

I want to speak about the theory of evolution in the main, here, and the fact that it can be recognized as a viable creationist theory... mostly because people keep asking me to do so. The whole purpose for doing so is that in the land of fundamentalism, Protestantism, and Puritanical fearmongering, a.k.a. the United States of America, the word (evolution) has become anathema, even amongst Catholics and the Orthodox. Further, any benefit that Christians of every stripe might have gained from peering into the mysteries of evolution is corban (given to God), and if that is so, what benefit could possibly be gotten by taking up the query again since it has been laid at the foot of faith? They would take St. Thomas Aquinas out of context and use him as a buckler and say,"To one who has faith, no explanation (of creation) is necessary. To the one without faith, no explanation is possible (about how God did it)." Just let it roll. Stand your ground! Don't be ashamed to insist upon a literal translation of what the bible says in Genesis (because that is the same as taking the rest of it literally, right?)! It is the word of God! Well, I would suggest the exact opposite of that nonsense.

So, first things first. I want to give you a few quotes that are not out of context from dear St. Thomas Aquinas. Now, understand that I am not trying to prove evolution on St. Thomas' authority. I'm not making an ad verecundiam argument for, not by any means. But hear what he has to say," The truth of our faith becomes a matter of RIDICULE among the infidels (NON-BELIEVER) if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false." Well, what does that sound like? It's awfully familiar isn't it? That sounds exactly like the environment in America, doesn't it? And when the creationist gets ridiculed for his rejection of scientific fact, and for his hackneyed offerings he learned from one of the so-called 'Christian' pseudo-scientists, who is really often a sophist, he reckons himself a martyr. It truly is a cause for ridicule. It's sad, verging on pathetic.

Here's another quote from St. Thomas Aquinas," Beware the person of one book." That's rather ominous. Who does that sound like? It sounds precisely like the people who have fomented the divide between science and Christianity. It sounds like the children of the man who said," Reason is the enemy of faith." Martin Luther said that. In the recent years many Americans have given themselves to hating Islam, because Islam is unreasonable. Why is it unreasonable? Because they are a people of one book, a divine book, an eternal book: The Quran. When the Muslim looks at his life, or at the world, or the lives of others, and what he ought to do and believe his question is one," What does the Quran say?" or more exactly," What do I interpret the Quran to be telling me?" Do you know what the American Christian often says to himself, or herself, inflated with their individualism, intimidated by the authority of puritanical fundamentalism," What does the Bible say?" or more exactly," What do I interpret the Bible to be telling me?"

Understand this: Fundamentalism is the enemy of humanity. Man is a rational animal. Without reason he is merely an animal. His reason is part of the image of God in which he was created. His reason gives him dignity. Without it he cannot live. Man does not have claws, or fur, or a powerful sense of smell, nor does he have any peculiar strength, to survive by. It is reason by which man lives and thrives. Man literally could not survive without reason. So, isn't it a sign of the diabolical when the highest expression of man's dignity, his faith, excludes what makes him a man? Let me say that better: Isn't it evil if someone's religion destroys their humanity? And I'm not talking about holy mortification. I'm talking about a fundamental negation and ban on the exercise of what gives dignity to the hand-crafted creation, the only hand-crafted creation, which is man. When the angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would bear a child (Jesus), she replied back to him not in doubt, but in wonder (which is the desire for knowledge)," How can this be???" In a fundamentalist religion like Islam, that would be received a bit like this," How dare she! She is a woman! How dare she question the holy angel who is only permitted to speak by the will of Allah!" But in Christianity, true Christianity, her inquisitiveness is honored and recognized as an extension and expression of the dignity God gives humans, and the angel Gabriel gives her the reply she seeks. One is hateful to reason, the other embraces, encourages, and satisfies it. And I bring all this up because the general attitude is something like that there is an inherent impiety about evolutionary science. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So, I want to talk about what evolution is not. It is not a possibility. It is a fact. We know that evolution happened. There is no question. No matter what any creationist snake oil salesman says, no matter if Billy Graham himself objects, we know that evolution happened. We know this with the same degree of certitude that we know we live in a heliocentric universe. We know that evolution happened with the same degree of certitude that we know the moon travels around the earth and not visa versa. It is a scientific fact. And this must be clearly understood. There is positively no question, whatsoever, that evolution is a fact in the teleology of the present. It is as fiduciary as the sunshine.

 What is not scientific fact is exactly how, or why, and sometimes when, evolution occurred. This is the theory. And there is nothing Godless about the theory. Unless you think that a theory that lacks a 'Far Side' character God walking around with a loud speaker calling things into existence and making man out of play-dough  circa 7,000 b.c. The theory of evolution is a forensic effort to put together the pieces of a puzzle 4.5 billion years in the making (the span of life on earth). Sometimes we make mistakes concerning this step or that, and an amendment in the theory is required. The theory of evolution is evolving itself as more comes to light. We've a lot to learn, to discover. It's really not so different from archaeology. All it is, ALL IT IS, is bringing the past to light, and nothing more. It is not some global scientific conspiracy to push God and his followers out of society and off the reservation. And neither is saying that there is no ocean above our heads, or that the world doesn't stand on pillars, which is the opposite of the fundamentalist-creationist assertion which insists upon a literal translation of Genesis. You don't dishonor God or stop being a "real" Christian because you believe in evolution, any more than you would cease to be one for denying that we have oceans over our heads and pillars under our feet.

"So then, apart from the fundamentalist fearmongering, which everyone else does, but not me and my friends/church... what's the problem with evolution? What's the big deal? Because I don't know anyone like you've described." Yeah. Okay, so the big deal is when this otherwise neutral science gets used in a charged way. Because of their intransigently anti-intellectual posture, America Christians have pigeon-holed themselves as idiots. There, I said it. And for a minority like atheists, your opponent is going to be the majority. In America, that means Protestant-Evangelicals. The argument over evolution is the nut-shot, the sucker punch. "Hit'em hard, hit'em fast. Things will get better from there." There is no way to recover from this once employed. There is no way for the traditional creationist to come away from the argument without looking like an idiot when it comes to the empirical. It automatically lumps you into the category of people who believe the earth is flat, or moon landing deniers. That is why the next thing you see in such debates is the Creationist trying to take the moral high-ground. What follows then is the atheist presents the problem of evil, theodicy... which the creationist cannot answer satisfactorily by any means. This leads to equivocation, which gives way to absurd abstraction and analogies being hurled against each other. The creationist starts quoting from the bible, which is like quoting Santa Claus to an Atheist, and therefore an exercise in stupidity. The atheist, starts demanding empirical, quantitative, evidence of God, which is stupid because God is said to be immeasurable, because he is not a creation in space-time. And the lowest common denominator reveals itself... the disagreement over whether or not God really exists. The debate was never about the veracity of evolutionary theory. It turns into a feud between people, who quite frankly deserve each other, and it all gets out of hand really fast.

So, set that aside, because that isn't part of the big deal. All that is mere drama, between two groups of fundamentalists who hate each other. There is really only one thing for a Christian to be on guard about, one question, one assertion: Polygenesis. Poly meaning many, and genesis meaning beginning: Many beginnings. That is the only thing that a Christian cannot budge on, that the human race has one origin: the hand of God. And that man has one set of parents: Adam and Eve. All other things in evolutionary theory may pass, but if any theory arises about humanity having many origins, it cannot be accepted. Well, what luck! because the science states just what the Christian professes to believe. Evolutionary science has narrowed down our beginnings to a single family. How about that! The handiwork of God, which is the evidence evolutionary science looks at, and His word agree. Science and faith in harmony. Who would have guessed it? There is literally no good reason not to believe in evolutionary theory apart from that one person or another might posit that they think polygenesis is viable. But that assertion doesn't make or brake the theory. You can reject that part. But there is absolutely NO reason to reject evolution itself.

I want to go a step further and talk about the difference between form and essence. The essence of man is that he is a rational being with a spiritual soul. When we hear that man is made in the image of God what do we think that means? Do we imagine that God has need of food, or that he grows, or that he needs to relieve himself from time to time, or that he sleeps? By getting offended at the notion our physical forms come from some evolutionary process, because our design comes from God's own image... well it's a thoroughly pagan concept. We are making out God to be like us. On the other hand it is quite the opposite if we speak so about the essence of man. We are merely affirming that man is like God, and not that God is like man.

Interesting to note that God breathes life into the man after his form is made. God is Life, Itself. "I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He is Love, Itself. Now, you think about that. If we are willing to concede that  the sky isn't a separation between two oceans, or that the world was made in seven 24 hour days, or that the  dry land isn't standing on pillars, and adopt what science has proven concerning those things, perhaps we can  afford to not be so intransigent on man's origins. There seems no reason at all to not accept that the form of humankind is a kind given by evolution and therefore nature, and therefore by God... and that at a later time when that form had become what He intended it to be He vested it with a spiritual soul. Or where did Cain find his wife? How is it that he was able to found a city, when it was explicit in his curse that he would never settle amongst men (his own kind)? How is it that he was afraid that whomever he should meet would slay him (because he was without a people) unless there were other people? How do we account for the fossil record unless there were others? But the true fact of all of it is that we don't know precisely what happened. What we do know is that the genealogy which begins with Adam does not go back as far as the fossil record does. Further, we know that there is a distinction in evolution between homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens, viz. wise man, vs. wise wise man. It is not a genetic distinction, it is an artifact distinction. It is a distinction made between mans ability to use his problem solving and tool making at one point and another. It's the difference between cavemen, and modern man. It's the difference between man surviving, amongst the animals, and man thriving due to an actualization of his reason.

I want to point out again that it is all a mystery, an unfathomably big story, one that was being told 5,000 years ago. Remember the words of St. Thomas Aquinas," A thing (in this case a story) is received according to the nature of the recipient." How would they receive the literal account? It would be unintelligible. What sort of creation account would make sense to them? Perhaps one like we see in Genesis? It is the job of science to unpack the Genesis account as far as it can be unpacked. That does nothing against faith. For all that, remember the shame the whole Church got because a few anti-intellectual loud mouths denied the heliocentric universe because the bible says in a poetic psalm that the center of the universe is earth. Remember the shame the Church got because a few hotheads destroyed the library of Alexandria. And recall the glory the Church got itself by devising the 'Big-Bang Theory.' And keep in mind that Fideism is a heresy, before you let your proclivity to be loyal to the bible imprudently overpower the actualization of your reason which is your God given dignity. In learning as much as we can about creation, we can understand something about the Creator and His plan for us. And that is a pleasant thought.

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. ~Aristotle~

Protestants, Rabbinical Judaism, and Samaritans

The other day I was talking to an old friend, a Protestant. He had called me with a question that really had him confused," How can Jews reject the Gospel and Jesus Christ when you can show them point by point the cause and effect, the prophecies, and the parallels of Judaism and Christianity? It just seems like bold denial!" I started by pointing out that it's easy to look at it from where you are, but the other side is doing the same thing. When we read Isaiah 53 we see Christ, when Jews read Isaiah 53 they see all kinds of things.

I started talking to him about Church history, and said," As a Christian, it is important for you to not separate the history of the Jews and the Christians. It is one Church history. When you look at the Old Testament you are reading Church history." When the Law was given to Moses the people of God became two classes, the priesthood and the laity. The Levitical priesthood had a specific role to play that no one else could perform, in the way the Hebrews approached God. Of course, anyone could approach God in simply prayer, but the Law was the context of Israel's relationship with God, and it could not be realized without a priesthood.

Early in Israel's history, after they took possession of the 'Promised Land' we see the Judges, we see prophets, we see king David and many other kings, as well. Finally, Israel found itself being chastised by God and was exiled to Babylon. It was during this time without a temple that Rabbinical Judaism was created. Without a temple, the priesthood could do nothing; Israel was left naked with nothing more than its scriptures. The Jews began to look towards their scriptures as the source of life and they became a scripture culture. Private, yet institutionalized interpretation of scripture became the new center of faith. It wasn't the sacrificing in the temple, as before. They couldn't even begin to fulfill the Law, because of their limitations.

I was once at an interfaith dialogue meeting and it was supposed to be civil, but things got a little wild. There were Christians of every denomination there as well as Catholics and Jews. It was hosted by the Beth Israel synagogue in my city, and a few of their congregation were in attendance who seemed bent on quarreling; they were dyspeptic to say the least. They began blasting the speaker, who was a Catholic priest. I think they took the venue to be an apologetics forum, which was not what it was supposed to be at all. They began vehemently attacking the notion that Christ had fulfilled all the commands of the Law, which wasn't even one of the points the speaker was making. In an attempt to simply silence them so that we could get back on track, I said to them," And how do you do it? Do you really think you fulfill the Law by reading your Torah and attending the synagogue?" And the most argumentative one said," But there are in the Midrash interpretations and in the Talmud statutes. If you throw in a 32nd of the challah into the oven on Shabbat this fulfills the sacrifices which the Law demands." or something very similar to it. My quick retort was," Your oven is not the temple, you are not a priest, and that is not in the Law." It became very silent.

But this is a perfect example of the popular Jewish view of their own religion. Their Midrash and their Talmud are equal to the Torah, though they would never admit it, because the Talmud and the Midrash have interpretive powers over the Torah. These two are direct products of Rabbinical Judaism. They are the commentary on and interpretation of the Torah by rabbis going back hundreds and hundreds of years, but they are not the Law. What should come to mind is Christ rebuking the Pharisees," Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

Christ did not come condemning the Law or those who follow it. At every point where Christ came into conflict with the Pharisees and the Sadducees it was over the imposition of rabbinical pretexts onto the Law and onto the people of Israel," You lay heavy burdens on men's shoulders and don't lift a finger to help them." But it is important to note that Christ did not condemn all the innovations of the Pharisees, he even said that some of their traditions were beneficial to keeping the Law. It was when the rabbis replaced the Law with their own statutes that Christ came into conflict with them.

Rabbinical Judaism may be seen, I will be so bold as to say that it should be seen, as a fulfillment of God's promise to blind Israel so that it will not see. The fog of merely human interpretation, uninspired interpretation of scripture led to the conflict between Israel and its Messiah. Rabbinical Judaism is perhaps wholly responsible for the inconsistency between what they imagined the Messiah would be and the reality of what the Messiah was, for Israel's inability to recognize it's Savior. It is very hard to imagine that Christ would have suffered a similar fate had he appeared during the time of King David, or during the time of Joshua or any of the Judges. There is a theological disconnect, a philosophical disconnect and a historical disconnect between the Judaism of the Old Testament and the Judaism we see at the time of Christ in the 1st century, just as there are huge disconnects between 1st century Judaism and the Hasidic Judaism of Germany in the 18th century.

Remember that Judaism up until the time of Christ must be viewed teleologically as Church history. Christianity begins the exact same way as Judaism did; there are two visible classes: the priesthood and the laity. Christianity was an apostolic entity from its first inception and remained to be so, exclusively, until 1517. In 1517 Martin Luther began the 'reformation,' so called. You'll remember that the shift from old Judaism to Rabbinical Judaism was the shift from a sacrifice centered form of worship in the temple to a scripture centered form of worship in the synagogue. Originally, they had the scripture so that they could practice the Law, that is to say that scripture was only a means to an end, but they started practicing the Law to appease and accord with the scripture as if it were the end itself. History repeats itself in Christian history at the moment of the reformation. In Martin Luther's own words," Worship used to be addressed to God as a homage. Henceforth, it will be addressed to man to console and enlighten him. The sacrifice (Jesus Christ/ the Eucharist) used to have pride of place but the sermon (biblical interpretation) will supplant it."

For the Protestants, Christianity became something it had never been before. The Church was no longer "the pillar and foundation of the truth" as we read in 1 Timothy 3:15, but the scripture became "the pillar and foundation of truth." Before, Christ,' the True Vine,' had been the source of righteousness in the form of His body and blood in the communion, but now it had changed and the bible was the source of righteousness. A great and terrible confusion occurred in the Protestant mind and the words of God (the bible) and the Word of God (Jesus Christ) became synonymous, and their adoration was misplaced. Before, one apostolic institution, founded by Jesus Christ, had through divine inspiration expounded truth and innovated holy tradition; that institution was the Catholic Church. Now, everyone would interpret for themselves and innovate by themselves. Sola Scriptura was born and with it Protestantism, a "Rabbinical Christianity" if you will.

The Churches of the Apostles are to Christianity what Judaism was during the days of king David, and Protestantism is to Christianity what Judaism was during the time of Christ, and in many ways it is worse off. At least the Jews had sacramentality during the time of Christ; most Protestants, on the other hand, have 'rid' themselves of the priesthood and have reduced the communion to a mere ordinance and a sign, it is no longer reckoned to actually be 'the Sacrifice.' They have no sacramentality, beyond baptism, by their own admittance.

This division is almost certainly a punishment to the Catholic Church as was the 'Great Schism.' But leaving this aside. There is another way to show the difference between the Catholics and Protestants with Scripture, namely with the Samaritans. The Samaritans broke away from Israel and chose to worship the true God in a way that was not permitted by the Law; they chose to worship in the North at their mountain and were cut-off from Israel for their stubbornness.

Often Catholics are confounded and put to shame by the zeal, good works, and piety of Protestants, the very people they esteem to be ignorant of and vicious towards the Churches of the Apostles. They can't figure how they can be so Christlike while so many, if not most Catholics are stagnant, self-centered, and secular. Of course the Protestant is very desirous to answer that question and would say," It's because we are right!" But that is not the case; rather, the Protestant is a sign to the Catholic, just like the 'Good Samaritan' was a sign to all of the Pharisees and Sadducees who listened to Christ tell the parable. The Samaritan put every caste of Israel to shame by his charity, but the value of the parable comes from the irony of the fact that the Samaritan who was wayward, unclean, and cut-off from Israel was a better person than they who were part of the chosen people and yet refused to love their neighbor. Christ uses the Samaritans on more than one occasion to shame the Jews; however, it should be enlightening for us. It was never intended to make Jews want to be Samaritans, rather it was meant to remind Jews of what they were supposed to be.

Christ in his ministry tells his disciples at first to avoid the Samaritan towns. He first sends his disciples to the Jews, because salvation is of the Jews. This happens today with the Catholics and the Protestants, Catholics start doing something, then the Protestants either catch on or get it after the fact. Case in point, the Charismatic movement. The Holy Spirit first gives revelation to the Holy Catholic Church, because salvation flows from the Church and its sacraments which Christ instituted, and then the separated brethren get their graces in an extraordinary way.

The big difference between the Protestants and the Catholics can be demonstrated through the conversation of Christ with the Samaritan woman at the well. She said to him," Sir, I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." to which Christ answered," Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews." The Church is and must be the Church of the Apostles, the same Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ. Salvation is not found outside of the Church. Christ does not have several brides, but one Bride.

Notice that Christ is not telling the woman that she is damned, or that she does not obtain salvation, he is only telling her as a matter of fact that she is ignorant of the whole truth, because she is separated from Israel. He does not accuse her of idolatry, neither does he withhold his miraculous ministry from her or her village, but stays on with them teaching and doing miracles for several days. He does not give the Samaritans the same hard time that he gave to the Syro-Phoenician woman who plead and plead for her child, but recognizes them as separated brethren of Israel. Martin Luther said," We are compelled to concede to the Papists that we have no knowledge of the scriptures apart from them." and because they have no revelation of salvation apart from the scriptures, salvation is from the Church. This puts Protestants squarely in the same position of the Samaritans in relation to the Catholic Church who would be analogous to the Jews.

When I talk about how great the Catholic Church is with Protestants and how happy I am to be a Catholic, I never do so cloaked, I speak freely and candidly. I'm never sly, and I am completely open, congenial and free with them. Because of this they feel more free to object, and for that I'm glad, so that I can talk with them freely and with confidence just as Christ did at the well with the Samaritan woman. When all is said and done, the one question in the end is often," Well, why be a Catholic? What is the benefit? I don't see it. If we are both one in the same Christ, if we both have salvation, and if we both believe in the bible why do I need to be a Catholic?" The answer to that question is simple: they need to be Catholic for the same reason that it would have been better for the Samaritan woman to be a Jew. To be a Catholic Christian is as superior to being a Protestant Christian as being a Jew is to being a Samaritan. Surely, no one would argue that it was better to be a Samaritan than a Jew! Were there any Samaritan apostles? Did Christ reveal himself through the Samaritans? No. Salvation is of the Jews. Salvation is found in Christ's Church.

Truly, Protestants, if their faith is true, are saved. Truly, they are incorporated into the body of Christ in the resurrection. Truly, the Holy Spirit works powerfully through them, even now and in such ways that put many Catholics to shame. And certainly, that Samaritan woman who had faith was superior to the Pharisees who hated and doubted Christ, but does anyone think that she was the equal of any Jewish woman of similar faith? You know that isn't the case. We work for the same wages, but when put to it who would you rather be? A son or a hireling? Who would you rather be? The Prodigal son, or the son who was always loyal to his father? Don't think that the Prodigal son was a better man than his older brother; his older brother only had a bad attitude! To be the loyal son is far superior, than to be prodigal out of ignorance and only then return.

The Protestants are the one sheep, and we are the ninety and nine. That is why we must strive to bring them in again, where they are safe, where they have the life giving sacraments, and the perfect doctrine of truth, because we already know how happy it makes the Father to get back that one sheep. Because we know they need the Eucharist. There is no use and no point in hating or being at useless enmity with the Protestants. Pray for conversions amongst our separated brethren. And if you are a Protestant reading this, and if today you hear the voice of the Lord, harden not your heart. God be with you.   

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Tradition

Tradition, it's something American Protestant Evangelicals (APEs) have a huge gripe about. They immediately level this accusation at any and all organized religions. So, I'd like to take this opportunity to rebut.

Often the "religious" person will haphazardly give a reason for tradition and the "bible Christians," as they like to call themselves, will start to realize that they are being backed into a corner with fuzzy logic and facts. When this happens, all the sudden, the "bible Christian" takes leave to redefine their position. They say that they aren't against pious tradition, per se, just the vain traditions of "mere men."

This seems even more absurd to me, because suddenly this individual takes the mantle of authority upon themselves to confirm tradition as "acceptable" and dismiss others as "unacceptable," all the while claiming to do so with the scriptures. The problem is, none of "them" agree on the scriptures! So, who are they to definitively say? The mantle they've put on themselves is tailor-made for a very large man, and they sit swamped in it's folds like a little child. It reminds me of the cartoon, Robin Hood, where prince John is perpetually stretching his ears out to hold up a crown that belongs to his cousin, king Richard the Lionhearted.

Proverbs 3:5 says," Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding." If they are "bible Christians" then why are they doing the opposite of what the bible compels them to do, leaning on their own understanding of scripture? Quite frankly, it's because each of them is woefully convinced that all of their conclusions about everything under the sun are divine, because they have the Holy Spirit.

It brings to mind Voltaire's words," These fellows are certain that the Holy Spirit 'with which they are filled' is above the law, that their enthusiasm is the only law they must obey. What can we say to a man who tells you that he would rather obey God than men, and therefore he is sure to go to heaven for butchering you?"

Now, I'm not suggesting that APEs (American Protestant Evangelicals) want to go around killing people in the name of God. Nor am I suggesting that they are law breakers by nature, and neither was Voltaire. He was talking about religious fanaticism. But he brings up a valid point, that even the APE must deal with: What is the standard for truth? Many of our sad APE friends and family, without batting an eyelash, will have already said emphatically," It's the Bible!" But that is exactly what we are talking about here: How does one interpret the bible? Again, here, many of our APE friends and family will say without missing a beat," With the Holy Spirit!" It's the old circular logic, which is a fundamental error of logic.

There is an illustration that some clever person made, called rather mockingly 'The Wheel of Power," which was drawn up at the APE's expense. It's a circle and every so often on the circle is a question, and after it is an answer and it says:
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD!
"But how can you be sure it's the word of God?"
BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS US SO!
"But why believe the bible?"
THE BIBLE IS INFALLIBLE!
"But how do you know it's infallible?"
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD!
"But how can you be sure it's the word of God?"...

And around it goes forever and ever. All those statements might be true, but those are not answers to those questions! Further, they don't even begin to address the issue of interpretation, which is what we've been talking about up to this point. Even if all of the above declarations were established, we have to ask questions about the matter of interpretation. And in order to answer those questions we absolutely must get away from erroneous circular logic, which we know to be false. Otherwise, we could just make our own wheel of power addressing the issue of interpretation.

So, being properly motivated in the inquiry, I think we've established to a degree which answers are unsatisfactory. We've also established that the right questions have to be asked. To that end, let's digress and go into what the APE says they're against: the vain traditions of men. That's what they claim to be against.

Well, let's look at this and ask the right questions so that we come up with the right answers. Is the following proposition true?
1.) Vain traditions of men= df (identical) Traditions of men

No. That isn't true, is it? Of course not! It's not true, because vanity isn't necessary to the traditions of men. That is to say, traditions of men can exist without being vain. Now, on the other hand, traditions are necessary to the existence of vain traditions, right? You can't have vain traditions without 'tradition;' you'll just have 'vain' then, yeah?

So, the point of all that is, these APEs call themselves 'bible Christians.' That is supposed to mean that they only believe in what the bible says. Well, it's obvious to everyone, including them, that, that is not the case. Case in point, that APEs stand in opposition to all traditions of men, while claiming to stand only against the vain traditions of men. And why is this? Because to the APE, proposition #1 which we all concluded is necessarily false, is in their mind true! To them, all the traditions of men are vain. The problem with this is, it doesn't say anywhere in the bible that all the traditions of men are vain. In fact, the bible doesn't even come close to suggesting that they are; it says quite the opposite. One begins to wonder why they call themselves 'bible Christians.'

Before we can just move on beyond the APE's prejudices against the word tradition and talk about what the bible says, let's quickly address what the bible is. The bible is tradition! That's right, the canon of scripture is tradition, and that's a fact. The bible as the APE's know it has 66 books; the original bible has 73 books, that's the one that Catholics use. When the canon of scripture was being compiled it wasn't an issue merely of veracity, literary accuracy, or aesthetics. Those 73 books were chosen from approximately 350 different books that were deposited as worthy of canonization or note.

So, not only did everyone have dozens of copies of these 350 books, but after they decided which ones were pseudo-epigraphical (of dubious authorship), which ones were heretical, and which ones were readable, they had to go through and figure out which books everyone had in common, if their copies of the same books all agreed, and if not, which ones were most accurate. The accurate ones that everyone already had that corroborated with each other, were then synthesized into a single definitive version of the book. Then the book was added to the canon, after much debate about its place in the chronological order of epistles and Gospels. This process took years to complete.

The one thing that all of these books have in common, both the valid scriptures and the invalid, was that the local traditions stated that they were noteworthy. All the New Testament and Intertestamental books were the deposit of tradition. Not only were they traditionally true and the version which seemed most reliable out of all of the books, but they knew that they were the most reliable and true out of all the books, precisely because they agreed with tradition. That is why the bishops (the direct successors of the apostles) came together to discuss the matter as a Universal Catholic Church. These books agreed with not only their verbal traditions, which is all most Christians had, but also, their liturgical traditions (the latter which is exactly what APEs are referring to when they say 'the vain traditions of men.')

The Christian bible itself is a tradition; it is what all Christians, throughout the ages, have traditionally believed to be valid, true, and right. That is, until the Reformation, when Protestants decided they would simply stop believing in part of the bible, and took a pair of scissors to it. That being the case, you might rightly say that the Protestant form of the bible is in fact a vain tradition of mere men. A terrible and sweet irony there, aye?

Let's use the vain tradition of mere men, called the King James Version Bible, then, since the irony is so sweet and it is their translation, after all. Note ostensibly, it is His Majesty, King James' version of the Bible. Well, what does it say about tradition? Here are some apostolic quotes from the New Testament :

2 Thessalonians 2:15
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." I say! Will you look at that: whether by word OR their apostolic epistle. I say! Take note of that if you will, not only that the apostles were delivering more than doctrines and dogmas, namely traditions, but that these traditions whether oral or written were binding. Which means that there would have been a very clear system of authority to validate these traditions. Otherwise, the apostles would have been commanding everyone to believe anything that people claimed the apostles to have said. I say! Not only do we have here evidence of apostolic authority to innovate traditions, traditions of men, but that they are binding upon believers, and also we have here implicit evidence of a definitive apostolic delivery of these traditions.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us." Here we have it that tradition ameliorates and prevents the poison of disorder. It must have been well said the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion (disorder). Tradition protects the Church, keeps it in order, and prevents the faithful from wandering away into true vanity, the vain traditions of men, self-willed iniquity, and disordered individualism. Holy Apostolic tradition, according to this scripture, most emphatically separates the sheep from the goats. And atop it all is the first statement," "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ..." Again, we see that Holy Apostolic tradition is binding and compulsory to every Christian. Not only that, but we are to get away from every brother who does not observe it!

When Christ rebukes the pharisees in the Gospels, we see Him saying that they reject the Law and observe the traditions of the elders. We see Him saying that their rabbinical traditions nullify the law. We see Him saying that the rabbis had overburdened the people with their many traditions. Yes, we see this, most certainly.

What we do not see is Christ saying that their traditions are evil or useless. There is a difference between observing the Law and traditions that are intended to help one observe the Law, and rejecting the Law and observing only tradition for the sake of traditions themselves. There is a difference between traditions which help and cause one to observe the Law, and those traditions which negate and seek to replace the Law. There is a difference between traditions which help a man do and obey what he must in order to make his life holy, and those traditions which ruin his life and crush him beneath innovated obligations. These and these alone were the issues Christ dealt with. Christ's condemnation of the pharisees and some of their traditions (those which negated the law of Moses) was not a condemnation of tradition itself; and that is self-evident. A blind man could see that. Christ never condemned tradition, nor heralded its ending.

Is the bible necessary to Christianity? No. Otherwise, there were no Christians before the bible existed and there were no Christians to write the New Testament and no Christians to write it about. Christianity is necessary to the bible, the bible is not necessary to Christianity. The truth of the bible is necessary to Christianity, now that is a true statement. That truth which is necessary to Christianity was and is alive in holy apostolic tradition, it first existed in tradition, it spread around the world in the form of tradition. If you were to put the mediums of the bible and tradition next to each other and compare them, they are both indispensable to communicating the Truth of Christ.

Think about the proposition of such a condemnation, that somehow God is not revealed in sensible things(bells, incense, vestments, the Eucharist, the holy oil, confession, marriage, holy orders, art, confirmation, Church documents), but He is revealed in sensible things (letters and words, e.g. the bible). Well, either He is revealed in sensible things or He isn't! It can't be both! A contradiction is absolutely, necessarily, always false. A Church with apostolic traditions is a Church with sacraments; sacraments are a visible sign of an invisible reality. 

A lot of APEs say that tradition is keeping them out of the Catholic Church. That's erroneous; traditions keep one in the Body of Christ. Traditions protect the faith, are confirmed by scripture, expound the truth of Christ, and reveal the fullness of salvation in every generation. Traditions keep worldliness, confusion, chaos, and dissent outside of the Church and divinity, clarity, peace and concord inside the Church. Tradition keeps the salt salty, it keeps the spring fresh, and the virgin's lamp burning.

If tradition is keeping them out of the Church of the Apostles, then they are stating that they're worldly, confused, disorganized, and dissenting. Look at the APE "church." Do they match up with that? Look at fad Christianity, Mega-'churches' with 'executives' for pastors, rock bands and giant T.V.'s. Look at the 'Prosperity Gospel' people 'living in authority' with their $1,000 seeds and their $23,000 dollar toilets. Look at the confusion of 30,000 Protestant denominations, like Ishmael, a wild man whom eveyone's hand is against and whose hand is against everyone, ever envious of Isaac, the Catholic Church.

Yes, APEs fit the bill perfectly: worldly, confused, disorganized, and dissenting. It's not tradition that keeps them out of the Church, it's their pride. It's their refusal to renounce the world and embrace the Church, to submit to the teaching of the Church, to submit to Apostolic authority, and to be unified with Christ through obedience to His bride, the Holy Catholic Church and her sacraments.

But despite all of this, there is a reason that Protestants go on praying, and keep going on missions trips, and keep trying to innovate new ways to keep each other excited about the Gospel, and keep digging through Jewish culture, and keep doing good works, and read their bibles, and show up to their churches which they know are wholly inadequate, and listen to their pastors who they regularly disagree with, and argue with each other about theology to no end seeking the truth. It's because they want what only tradition can give them. The substance of apostolic tradition is what they want, it's what they need. They need the sacraments and Christ keeps calling them to Himself through the sacraments, which they have cut themselves off from. He's like a man on the other side of a door to a pitch black room full of people looking for the same door, shouting," HERE!" hoping they find the door and then the handle. He sees how confused they are, how frantic they live, the nervous energy that possesses all their endeavors that comes from never knowing what to do next, and the perpetual longing for something more.

It's terribly ironic that APEs always invite people to have a 'deep personal relationship' with Jesus Christ, to make Him 'their personal Lord and Savior.' They only think about #1, me, me, me. But Jesus Christ is not only a personal savior, He is a communal savior. When we receive the Eucharist, we become one with Christ, because He enters not only into our souls, sharing His divinity, but He enters into our bodies, sharing His perfect humanity with us. Becoming one with Him in the Eucharist, we become one with all who partake of His Body and Blood. We become one with God and His Church, a perfect union in a single instant. There is nothing more personal than that; that is hyper-personal.

Listening to Christian rock, saying some personal prayers, talking to God like a buddy, flipping through a KJV bible, listening to Pastor 'X' and eating cracker/ juice packets is not a 'deep personal relationship.' Those things cannot replace the Eucharist and don't even come close to it. It is despair of this fact that drives Protestants to peddle what they cannot give... ' a deep personal relationship with God.' Because deep down, in his soul, every Christian recollects those non-negotiable words of Christ,"... Whoever does not eat My Flesh and drink My Blood has no life in him." The Protestant, the separated brethren, craves the Eucharist, which holy tradition transmits to us. There is only one place to get it: in the Churches of the Apostles. Pray for their conversions.          

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Ecclesiasticus

Ecclesiasticus 18: 1-5

"He that liveth forever created all things together. God only shall be justified, and he remaineth an invincible king forever. Who is able to declare his works? For who shall search out his glorious acts? And who shall shew forth the power of his majesty? Or who shall be able to declare his mercy? Nothing may be taken away, nor added, neither is it possible to find out the glorious works of God..."

What a great passage! Let's dissect this shall we? Here we have a perfectly ordered idea before us. First we are presented by the Author with the infinite nature of the Creator and then the infinite nature of His works. Just as man is created and therefore creates out of that which is created, here we see that God Who is uncreated creates out of that which is uncreated. This is what Paul was talking about when we access the wonders and power of God in Christ through faith,"... calling those thing that were not as though they be."

To prove God's infinite nature, he does not address His person. Rather, he points out the nature of His works, at the same time showing man his finite nature. He does this so that man will first acknowledge his own nature so that he can begin to recognize God's nature. Being fully aware of his own limitations, man begins to be aware of God's boundless nature. For it is self-evident to all rational creatures that they're limited by their natures. Hence, by this scripture we are made to know that just as God's nature is not delimited, neither is His person and we are sure hereby that He is God.

And who is able to declare His works? Being thusly convinced of his own finite nature and God's infinite nature, man is made to know that he is a microcosm in a macrocosm. His understanding is limited by his own nature. If man knows anything beyond himself it is because the macrocosm of God condescends knowledge to him. And if a man knows anything about himself, then it is only because the Macrocosm caused him to be. In this way man is convinced that all things must come from God and that man can neither add to or take away from their sum. He may know with certainty that even the sum of created things is too excellent for him and learns true humility. Understanding the nobility he has over other creations, man begins to know his order in creation and begins to understand God's love for him.

Man is a microcosm of a macrocosm. God cannot but love man, because he is the image of Himself. And if man is disordered, God is motivated by primal love of Himself to restore the microcosm to homeostasis. The macrocosm will make the microcosm anew. Like from like, and we are convinced of the Incarnation, knowing that God had to become man to make us anew.

When the Blessed Trinity looked down on man's fallen state, the three Persons of the Holy Trinity each were moved to compassion. This is because the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. Together they love the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit loves Them; one God, pure, unadulterated love. In looking on man, each Person of the Holy Trinity saw the other two Persons explicit in man's nature. It was the love of God that caused the salvation of mankind primarily. Their love of each Other necessitated the Incarnation. That same divine love is why Christ endured all things.

The only way than man can show anything about God is by being a perfect microcosm, to do more than this not in man's power. But by being perfect, man becomes one with the Macrocosm. In becoming one with God he begins to participate in superhuman activities. His love becomes God's love, his thoughts become God's thoughts because he is taught of God, his motives become God's motives. Man when rightly ordered is absorbed into the macrocosm of God, maintaining his own unique person, yet uniting in fact with the Person of God. And we've seen these people, who God put in order and brought into His bosom and they are the saints.

But who shall search out his glorious acts? And who shall shew forth the power of his majesty? Or who shall be able to declare his mercy? None, except God, because it is written that we shall no longer say to one another,"Know God!" but rather that we shall be, each of us, taught of God ourselves. It is God who shows forth His glorious acts and the power of His majesty. It is God who declares His mercy. But having been united with God, man may begin to know and do those things that were too great for his nature. This is the work of Christ, and for this purpose it is written," You shall be as gods to the Egyptians." the Egyptians not only being themselves, but also representing a type of fallen man, a microcosm cut off from the Macrocosm.

We cannot comprehend the gift of God and that is why it is the most that we can do, by the very limit of our natures, to adore Him. That is why our adoration of Him is the meaning and purpose of life; it is incumbent upon us. It is the sacrifice due to Him; it was why we were made. Our adoration must be total and complete; we must love as He loves. This is why Christ said," I give you a new commandment: love one another as I have loved you... This is how all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one." It must extend to all things: what we do, what we do not do, our intentions, our actions, our thoughts, all things. And this is why we are exhorted by the holy apostle St. Paul to,"...work out our salvation." and the holy apostle St. James says," Faith without works is dead." This is how we are to know full well that the "once saved, always saved" doctrine is a heresy and a lie designed to make us lazy and rob us of our blessings and salvation. Strive to workout your salvation.

Just as St. Paul says, you were foreknown, predestined to salvation by God. Therefore, seek to make your calling and election sure through good works, as though you could justify your own election. Be blessed, all of you and pray for me a sinner.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

The Pauper- On Hypocrisy

There once was a man who lived in the streets of the city and he was a pitiful sight of mange and emaciation. As long as he had been in the city the young boys would come out and mock him; and he was the butt of all their jokes and songs. Whenever they saw him they would pass no occasion to speak evil of him.

Then one night, three drunken men came out and began to tear his clothes and kick his dog, which was his only companion until it laid down and died. And they began to beat the man with the palms of their hands. Now, when the young men saw this from a distance they ran shouting to stop the men from beating this man, though they didn’t know who they were beating. And when the drunken men saw them coming they turned to them and said,” Go away, fools! Or we'll beat you too!” And they all began to fight fiercely over this man. Having pulled him to safety and driven off the drunk men, the young men realized it was the same man who they mocked every single day and threw garbage at and defamed. 

Therefore, who had the greater shame, the drunkards or the young men? There are a lot of Protestant churches who are really involved in missions. They go on thousands of missions trips each year to Central America, South America, Asia, Africa. Often they are simply trying to convert people away from Catholicism. But then fierce persecution of Catholics starts in some foreign country and all of the sudden the Protestants say," Christians are being persecuted! We're being persecuted!" To many Protestants, Catholics aren't Christians until they're martyred or persecuted; they have no scruples about using Catholics this way. The people who do this should be just as aware of their shame as the young men in this parable.  

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Why Every Christian Needs the Catholic Church-Things You've Never Thought About

I'm in the process of transferring a lot of my notes, so bear with me:

It's been quite some time since I've written anything to the Protestants. But they have entered into my mind once again, with their assertions that the Catholic religion is superfluous to Christianity. I am convinced that the majority of those who hold this opinion have never given any real thought to the matter. So, being willing and quite able to supply, I figured that I would do through exercise of reason what they have lost the ability to do by the atrophy thereof, namely, reason. Let it be noted that this is a general reply to certain assertions made by Protestants. I'll just begin...

The Protestants claim that Catholicism is superfluous to Christianity; they do this through a number of stock charges, all of which are fallacious, the majority of which are strawmen. But that is neither here nor there. I do not feel compelled to defend the Church; I've see enough feeble assaults against it by Protestants to convince me that it is in fact unassailable. I am much more interested in what the Protestants who make this argument think they know.

If the Catholic religion is a superfluity, if it is a body of man-made traditions, doctrines, and dogmas unnecessary to salvation and a proper Christian faith and they claim to have discovered this, then, it follows that they must know what is essential to the Christian faith. In fact, I don't think that there is any danger in me saying that Protestants must imagine that they are bare essential Christians.

If I was to ask them what things are essential to the Christian faith, what can we imagine them to say? I suppose that they would say several things are necessary: faith in salvation through Jesus Christ, the bible, the Holy Spirit. Further, if I were to then ask them which person has a purifying effect upon the people of God, I would get several different answers: the pastors, the community of believers, and the Holy Spirit.

So, here I have the Protestant faith in general which states that a biblical faith in Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation. Further, that the whole community of believers has a refining effect upon the Christian and that the Holy Spirit is his guide in all of this. Now, we have six things to examine, here, six essentials beyond which the Christian, according to the Protestant, has need of nothing.

So, let us discuss pastors in general. How are they chosen? Are they selected from seminaries or do they begin as house church leaders, or something like that; or do all of those things occur? Certainly, all of those things occur; no one would say that all Protestant pastors have seminary and likewise no one would say that none of them do. In any case, who does the selecting? The individual churches, of course, choose their pastors. In some cases, the former pastor will choose a new pastor and so on. But in the end, if the church is discontented with the pastor, whether he has seminary or not they will eject him from their employ. And if the people do not have the power to eject him they will leave and go to another Church.

So, I must ask the question again, who does the choosing? It is the people who choose. Further, having seminary might be a means of more directly gaining employment as a pastor, but it is not usually a factor in whether or not a pastor keeps his position. Ergo, if a man without seminary finds himself employed as the pastor of a protestant community, his having seminary on his resume is not going to be a factor of whether or not he remains the pastor. Therefore, there is no real advantage to seminary beyond gaining employment. What matters is the people's opinion of the man.

This I find extremely strange. When a man goes to receive his doctorate in the medical arts, he does not go before a board of nurses, but instead he goes before a board of medical doctors. Or if a person went to receive a license of any kind, don't we all know that they must receive the license from someone else so licensed? Whoever obtains a drivers license must obtain the license from someone who can drive, and whoever obtains a license for gun ownership must obtain it from someone apt in teaching the laws concerning ownership. Therefore, the person without seminary who claims themselves a pastor is like a person who claims to license themselves.

Also, if the community decides that he is to be a pastor, I find this even more strange. The ignorant are commissioning a teacher as though they are qualified to do so! A person is a teacher because they are apt in knowledge, the pupil is the pupil because he is ignorant of what the teacher teaches. If the pupil is ignorant of what he will be taught, then it follows necessarily that he is ignorant of what he needs to be taught, who knows it, and who is able to teach it. Imagine, that we took a rhetorician, whose task it is to convince through routine the ignorant of whatever he pleases, and placed him in with eight doctors. Let us further say that we placed them before a crowd of average people. Whom do you suppose the ignorant mass of people will say is the best of the doctors? It is certain they will say the man who speaks the best is the best doctor. They have no objective way of gauging the excellence of the doctors, because they are ignorant of the art. It is for the very reason of their ignorance that they need a doctor!

So, having selected the rhetorician to be their doctor, do you suppose they will enjoy many benefits because of this? Do you suppose that they will enjoy great health by him? No, they certainly will not. And so we know that not only are the people ill equipped to select good teachers for themselves because of their ignorance, but that they have even less business choosing a teacher from amongst their ignorant fellows. The person without seminary has no business in either case, whether he chooses himself or is chosen by his fellows, to be a pastor.

Now, concerning the man who has been to seminary, let us examine. If we went to a doctor and became dissatisfied with him and demanded his license to be revoked, how would we go about this? We would take him to court and lawyers would go find his peers, true doctors, and his practice would be examined. If his peers found that he was guilty of malpractice then he would surely be punished to the fullest extent possible. We would not simply strip him of his license and rights because a rabble of discontented folk, ignorant in medicine, brought an accusation against him. Never!

Likewise, if we find that a doctor is guilty of malpractice, but the patients love him and make many excuses for him will this in anyway prevent the law from delivering what it must, namely, justice? Will pathetic pleas and stories of how great and faithful a family doctor he was save him from the fact of his malpractice of medicine? No, never! He will be striped of his license and prevented from practicing medicine wherever the law can prohibit it and fines and possibly imprisonment will follow.

In this way, the doctor is aloof from the ignorance of his patients. When he is a good doctor and they are bad patients he is safe and secure in his position and they still have recourse to him because he provides to them what they cannot provide to themselves. When he is a bad doctor, the ignorant nostalgia and favoritism of his patients will not save him and he will no longer be allowed to misapply the art of medical science. The doctor is established by his peers and knowledge which no man takes away.

It should be the same with pastors. However, as our inquiry has revealed, this is not the case. Ordained ministers find themselves a congregation of one if they do not do as the ignorant require. The ordained minister is not protected from the ignorance of his people at all. He must be careful not to hurt them, even if he must; he must be careful to entertain them and conform to their expectations. If he doesn't they will abandon him or eject him from employment. If at any time they become discontented with the ordained minister, they will prefer the unordained man who knows how to tickle their ears, to him.

And how can we be sure of this? Which would children prefer, the teacher who teaches or the teacher who gives them games? The one who gives them games. And which do the children prefer to listen to, a block of instruction, or a story? A story. And which one will the people rather encounter, a police officer who is lax or one who delivers justice? The officer who is lax. And I could continue on this way, ad infinitum.

We can, therefore, confidently know which man the congregation will prefer. So, what Protestants posses is democracy, which is the worst form of government. Democracy descends into despotism, because mob always gives birth to a tyrant. Democracy always murders itself and chooses the wrong instead of the good. It is short sighted, selfish, ignorant, anarchic. In this "democratic Christianity" that Protestants possess who is in charge? Obviously, the same people who are in charge in all democracies, man in general. I can devise of no other form of government which is more dissimilar to monarchy than democracy. Where is the singular rule of Apostolic authority? Where is Christ the king? How ironic that they accuse the Catholic Church of being an organization of men, when they have democracy. Their communities simply could not be more man-made. You begin to see why I said I don't think that Protestants have given any real thought to their position on the Catholic religion.

But we should hold right here, because here we find that the Protestants have been consistent in one thing: they asserted that the whole community of faith has a refining effect on the Christian. This keeps with their democratic attitude. And I'm certain that when I said," Where is Christ the king?" some of you were saying," He is in all of us!" So, Protestants claim then, that they whole community of faith has a refining effect on the Christian. Then, you have only to shut off from the outside world and make your communities exclusive and you will be excellent. But what does history tell us about such experiments? I think that the Puritans are sufficient evidence that this is not true, witch trials and all.

Protestants claim that because they have the holy Spirit, the bible, and have Jesus in their hearts, that they all have a refining effect upon one another. But what about health, because the business of the church primarily is the health of the soul, or as the Protestants like to say, the spirit? So, what about other kinds of health? What of mental health? Do all people have a refining effect on the health of the mind, or do only some people have a positive effect on the mind? And bodily health, too; do all people have a positive effect on the health of the body, or only a few people? Obviously, only a few people do good to these and the rest do damage or nothing.

And what about people who live in houses, do they all know how to build houses because they possess them? Or people who drive cars, do they know how to make them, because they own them? Or people with tumors, do they know how to treat them because they possess them? No, only a few know how. But here, then, the Protestant stands confuted with his mouth open, because it is obvious even to children that there is no way that everyone has a refining effect, but rather that only a few have this effect. So, the democratic nature of Protestant Christianity is necessarily counter-intuitive to the end of religion, just as it would be counter-intuitive to bodily health if suddenly everyone claimed to be a surgeon.

If they understand this, why are they doing this?

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

Ad KJV Protestants: A General Reply To Some Stock Charges

I'm making a general reply here to some stock charges that self described "Bible Christians" have made against the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. So, please read it in that context:

 The Church is not a man made institution any more than the bible is a man made book. It has been given Life by God; life is the death of death. This is why we are baptized, because death dies in life which is the water. We rise again out of the water, life from life. Therefore, the Church "IS" until it is not.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not the scripture, because Paul says in Timothy 3:15 (KJV, just for you): "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

To dismiss the Church as secondary and only complimentary, as though it were some mildly beneficial superfluity, and yet give assent to the scripture as primary and necessary, totally salvific based on its own merits, disagrees entirely with the whole bible itself, common sense and the whole history of the people of God. Indeed, that supposition controverts Christ Himself.

The Church made and conglomerated the bible, because it has the authority to do so. It approved and disapproved texts, because it has the authority to do so. The scripture submitted itself to the Church so that the Church could submit to the scripture; both submit to God because they are equally from God. Each are clearly defined, the Church is defined in councils the scripture is defined in canons. They have recourse to each other. To have only the bible and no Church is like having faith but no reason, or being a bird with one wing, or being a man with one leg, like having a heart but no liver. And the Church is not only generally ontological being called "the people of God" but it is particularly ontological being "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" which includes all proper Apostolic Church, East and West. So, the Protestant, the person who only clings to the bible and not the Church, is diminished, being only generally ontological, not enjoying the particular graces of being particularly ontological.

The power of the bible is that it is interpreted. You make the assertion that the King James is "self-correcting," except the reality is that it is readily found in the hands of over 30,000 different protestant denominations, not to mention those who are not even Trinitarian Christians, or not even Christians at all... like the cults of the Mormons and the Seventh Day Adventist. Indeed, the KJV is the translation from which many modern heresiarchs have unilaterally innovated their own patent heresies.

The practice is pretexting; taking a text out of context to make a pretext. Protestants can't help but to pretext, because they have no legitimate means by which to put those texts into context. And whenever confronted with this fact, the automated rebuttal is," I have the Holy Spirit." Yeah, you and the 30,000 other denominations, and the Mormons and JW's, prosperity gospel spongers, etc... etc...

The fullness of faith is found in Churches established by the apostles, whether it be any of the Orthodoxies or any of the rites in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. These Churches shepherd the flock of Christ with the Holy Spirit, and not in a presumptive and arbitrary manner, but via the confluence of the shepherds (bishops), that is, their mutual and prayerful agreement upon what the Holy Spirit has revealed to them as a whole.

You state:"Trusting an ever infallible Christ in opposition to an only fallible man-made institution seems only logical to us." Except, it is obvious from scripture and beyond refute that the infallible Christ 'has' already entrusted those things which are worthy of faith to "only fallible men" because according to the scriptures he gave the Apostles the right to bind and loose on earth and in heaven and to forgive sins, he gave Peter the Keys and the Book of Life, and put the whole flock of God predestined to salvation into the capable hands of the Apostles and their successors, the bishops. This is the work of Christ. So, trusting in those organizations, because of what Christ has done Himself, is only logical.

It is the height of folly to rest upon one's own understanding, or to even trust in an island of peers who rest upon the conjecture of one another (which is Protestantism). "The bible alone" is to be quite alone indeed, and though it can be a path that leads to life, it is most often one that leads to despair and is not the path intended by Christ for his followers.

"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." ~Aristotle~

When the 'Reasonable People' Make Unreasonable Demands

I have no desire to address the demeanor of atheists or theist. However, I would like to address this one statement I keep hearing from Atheist without relent; so, I may have to address their demeanor just a little bit and in a general sense. I've been arguing with a guy recently who basically has a very poorly informed Atheism, and by that I mean most Atheist would be ashamed of him. So, I apologize if this seems like I'm railroading Atheist. I have great respect for many Atheists and their arguments. That being said, this is designed as a treatment of the Atheists who commit the error discussed, so that theists can recognize it and defend accordingly; I have no intentions of painting with a brush all Atheists. Many people who don't know what to believe think that being an atheist is a magic pill to being smarter than everyone else, but we all know that really they're just as ignorant as before. In fact, I think that 'The Amazing Atheist' on Youtube says something to the same effect.

Likewise, theists in general take for granted that they are right and hobble around on crutches, arguments that dismiss people on principle. They parrot to themselves and to each other," They're blinded by the god of this age." or," The ways of God are foolishness to men and the ways of men are foolishness to God." or ,"The cross is foolishness to those who are perishing." So, if they do make fools of themselves and say something stupid, and someone points it out and holds them accountable for it... suddenly their opponents are written of as having been hopelessly deceived by the great Satan himself. And other utterly stupid, unenlightened, and superstitious beliefs have they.

There never seems to be a shortage on the internet of fundamentalist Atheists and fundamentalist Christians to fight each other. It's as if each is the others private hell. They pass their time, futily trying to control each others beliefs and thoughts. In the midst of all this, they deteriorate into bizarre irrationalism and abandon what they said they had a sole claim to in the first place; namely, reason.

The product is a seemingly endless droning of illogical reasoning designed not so much to reveal the truth, but to torture and shame one another. Out of this comes an Atheist argument which seems natural," Show me God." However, very often they don't employ it to soundly defeat the theist or even to dumbfound them, but rather to embarrass the theist in front of whoever is watching. This argument is of course is a rather ignoble means on the Atheist's part, when so employed, to end the exhausting discussion by shaming his opponent instead of nobly claiming victory if it can be had through arguing well. Beginning like a man the atheist finishes like a boy, looking for a way to make his escape.

Further, before I continue onto my point which is actually quite brief, I have another criticism for both of them. That is, both sides only argue until one side is worn out; and the end point in the conversation is always for both of them their own position."We'll argue until one of us seems so right that the other is shamed beyond recovery." Yeah, that's the way to find the truth. And this is why I have a very egalitarian disposition towards the members of all such discussions, regardless of their beliefs.

Anyway, back to the whole point of the note, here. "Show me God," it seems to be a natural argument, doesn't it? Now, a natural question is necessarily a reasonable question, because reason is the course of nature and pertains to what exists and is fiduciary. However, the whole reason an Atheist supplies a reasonable question is to demonstrate that the theist has no reasonable answer.

But what we have here is a bifurcated strawman, which is an error of logic. If theists were claiming that God is quantitative, then asking to be shown God would be a reasonable request. However, it's quite the opposite isn't it? Mainstream theists, specifically Christians, maintain that God is uncreated and immeasurable. There are no measurable traits concerning God.

Imagine if you will that God is in form like a man. Let's just say that "God" in the most general sense is a man with the attribute of "immeasurability." His eye would be infinitely big and infinitely small; his knee would be infinitely big and infinitely small, and so on. He would be patently unobservable. There would be no point of reference to even make a measurement. These are the natural consequences of the theistic argument; God is immeasurable, therefore, God is unobservable.

Demanding to be shown God, then, is taking the theist out of context and demanding that he defend the strawman. That is absurd and ridiculous; not only because it has nothing to do with the argument of the theist, but because it demands the theist to defend something irrational. It's all highly irregular and unethical concerning civil discussions. Asking to be shown God is the same species of nonsense as if I were to tell you all that morality is 57cm long and periwinkle blue.

Aside from all this, even if this wasn't the case, and it's self-evident that it is, the request is still absurd. Let's say that God is observable, and therefore measurable. Let's play along with the Atheist. Now, imagine a little child begins to petulantly demand that an accurate and exhaustive explanation be given them concerning nuclear reactors. Do you suppose that just anyone of the child's peers will be able to teach him? No. Do you suppose that the older children will be able to teach him? No. Do you expect that the adults will be able to teach him? No. Only certain individuals will be able to supply that sort of knowledge; professors of high calibur, correct? And those scientists, don't they only teach to a select few other adults who have proven at length that they can understand what they will be taught? And so is the child even qualified to be taught by those teachers? No. Is the child even qualified to comprehend the discussion of the students? No. Can the child comprehend or understand the subject, then? No. Can the child's demand be met? Yes, a scientist could tell them everything they wanted to know. Will the child be satisfied? By no means, because he will not understand.

Now, imagine the child begins to mock the scientist because they couldn't teach him. Doesn't the child fail to realize that it was prevented from being satisfied in the inquiry because of its own ignorance and not that of the teacher's? So, if all these things naturally follow, how is it that Atheists have missed this? Not even the child would assume that everyone could be his teacher, but here the atheist demands that everyone who is a theist explain. The Atheist assumes that every theist is apt to teach on a subject they themselves couldn't possibly comprehend(God); it would be more reasonable to assume that all people who use nuclear power are nuclear physicists, and that is an insane notion.  Even further, the Atheist takes for granted that they will understand perfectly everything that is propounded to them in the way of religion, science and evidences. What a singular dispensation of fortune these Atheists have, to understand everything and at all times!

How they can justify being dismissive of religion and God because someone made a weak argument for, I cannot tell. What's worse is when some poor wretch comes along and is tricked by the abundance of words into believing that the strawman the Atheist made for them is indeed their argument, then that poor unfortunate fool goes and defends the strawman to the death and fails utterly. And the Atheist pats himself on the back because he tricked a simple fellow into defending a strawman.

So, here we have it, that in both cases the request of the Atheist is irrational, unreasonable; whether we follow the the theists argument, or even if we experiment with the strawman the Atheist creates. I am more and more convinced that man does not want to know the truth; and I am reminded of the ancient words that say," The evil flee from the light and love the darkness." I've never offended more men than when I'm telling the truth and I've never seen them more at ease than when they share a common ignorance. One in a thousand maybe, I have seen who truly care for the truth and rejoice when they find it. Together they hypothesize, experiment, find conclusions, and make theories and strive to understand one another, to find the truth and agree in one thing. These men are excellent and well hated amongst the ignorant who always resent them.

Well, keep these things in mind the next time one of you is debating with an atheist. Make reasonable demands of him, that he not take you out of context or force you to reply to his statements that do not address your position. I find that I am often bettered and taught by a sincere atheist, even more often than I am a theist. If you can walk slowly the path of respect in such inquiries, you may find that you can do much good for each others souls.