Deliver Me, O Jesus "Blessed Mother Teresa"

Deliver me, O Jesus,
From the desire of being loved,
From the desire of being extolled,
From the desire to being honored,
From the desire of being praised,
From the desire of being preferred,
From the desire of being consulted,
From the desire of being approved,
From the desire of being popular,
From the fear of being humiliated,
From the fear of being despised,
From the fear of suffering rebukes,
From the fear of being calumniated,
From the fear of being forgotten,
From the fear of being wronged,
From the fear of being ridiculed,
From the fear of being suspected.
Amen.
~ Blessed Teresa of Calcutta~

"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 Protestant Evangelical Attack On Christian Religion

This issue really gets me. APEs (American Protestant Evangelicals) constantly shove this "personal relationship" with Jesus down everyone's throat, yet never cease their attack on religion. Why is that? I'll tell you. They've unilaterally redefined what the term religion means in order to attack religion in general.

They say that by religion they mean dead man-made traditions. But they don't get to redefine what the word religion actually means. Religion means exactly what the dictionary would tell you: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity (Merriam-Websters). Religion is a way of life centered on the reality of God, extending to all venues.

The attack on religion really highlights the fact that Protestantism is a heresy, just like the Church has always said it is. The message Protestantism sends is one of," Live for God, but don't do it with any sense of order or regularity. Organize your life around God, but without any organization thereof. Order your life around Christ, but don't do it with any kind of order. Sanctify your life, but without sanctifying anything. Create a Christian culture, but without any traditions or culture. Have a relationship with Christ, but not through the Church. Seek the Truth, but once you've found it don't write it down authoritatively in order to help subsequent generations grasp the Truth; we want to keep reinventing the wheel in every generation. Bring something to the table of Christianity, but once you're gone, so is everything you brought."

Let me just cut to the chase: "The Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion." Christ did not intend for each generation of Christians to build so that the next generation could knock it down and discredit it. The Holy Spirit does not reveal the Truth to Christians so that they will forget it. The Holy Spirit does not reveal the Truth to the society of all Christians so that it's forgotten over and over and over again, only to be painfully relearned in every generation. That's like having to learn that fire is hot, every single day. The Truth is revealed in an accumulative fashion so that each generation builds, until the fullness of the Truth, once delivered by Christ, is revealed in full. This is the perfection of the Bride of Christ.

This "personal relationship" nonsense that Protestants push is designed by Satan to do one thing and one thing only: to cut Christians off from the brethren. It's designed to cut Christians off from the Body of Christ, the society of all Christians. It's designed only to blind people from the communal revelation of Christ, and the revelations that the Holy Spirit gives to the Body as a whole throughout the ages. And if you think those revelations are superfluous, look at some communal revelations: the doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Real Presence. You won't find the word trinity in the bible, or consubstantiality, or hypostasis, or transubstantiation for that matter. Those are communal revelations about the truth once delivered by Christ. Those are pretty substantial revelations.

The proposition of Protestantism which says," Forget religion! A deep personal relationship is all you need!" is counter intuitive and that's why they love it, it's a gimmick. It's the same as saying," Hey, eye ball, you don't need the head. Hey, finger, you don't need the hand." Go tie off your index finger good and tight, and tell me how long it takes before it turns green and starts to stink. The relationship of the Christian individual to the Church is more than going to listen to a sermon. It is a serious, life or death component to Christian life. The individual Christian needs the Body of Christ just like any body part needs the rest of the body.

The body shares a nervous system made out of the same substances as all it's parts; that is analogous to religion and tradition. The electrical impulses that move through the nervous system are analogous to the Holy Spirit. APEs are basically saying," You don't need a nervous system. Let me paralyze you." It's spiritual suicide. It's a bullet aimed at the head of Christ, His Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

This heresy is a darkening of the intellect, which is why Evangelical Protestantism is world renowned for its sophistry, its fear-mongering, its anti-intellectual nature, its hatred of logic and reason, and its enmity with scientific and historical facts. This specific heresy of only needing a "personal relationship" is illogical and evil; it's designed to stunt human souls through ignorance. In fact, it was St. Augustine who famously said," Sin darkens the intellect." and as an Orthodox friend of mine aptly translated," Sin makes you dumb." Beware of this heresy! This IS NOT kosher, this IS NOT Christian, and most of all it IS NOT true. You need the Church, humanity needs the Church. The path to Christ is the Church and all of its sacraments. The Church is not merely some vague concept of you and me and everyone who calls on the name of Jesus. The Church is a way of life, it is religion, it is the sacraments. And don't forget it.      



"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~

Humanity

Humanity is something that we all have; human is what we are. Our humanity is the "image" of God spoken of in Genesis. If we are totally depraved as the Calvinists say, then it follows necessarily that we are not human. If the image we were created in is totally depraved, there remains nothing left to call human. Christ is called the "kinsman redeemer." It was St. Gregory of Nazianzus who said that, that which is not assumed is not redeemed. Christ redeems humanity and if there is no humanity to redeem, then there is no redemption. The heretical doctrine of Total Depravity seeks to nullify the Incarnation.

Man is certainly depraved by concupiscence; that is not doubted or disputed. However, can one human be more human than another? By all means and this is the work of Christ. Let us begin a discussion of forms. Imagine before you there are two knives. One is dull on the point and on its edge, also corroded and dirty; the other knife is sharp on the point and on it's edge, clean and shinning. Further, imagine that the dull knife has a worn handle that is falling apart and dry rotted. And suppose that the sharp knife's handle is sturdy and sound. If necessity was upon you, which knife would you choose? Certainly, you would choose the sharper, cleaner, and sturdier knife over the dull, decaying knife.

Each of them are knives, no doubt. Yet, you would choose the good knife to the one in disrepair, because the good knife is more like a knife. That is to say, if we define as knife a tool of utility meant for the cutting of food and cloth and other things of a similar sort, then, it is evident to us that the good knife is truer in form to what a knife is than the shoddy knife. The good knife has more knifeness than the bad knife. So, it follows that while they are both knives, the good knife is more of a knife than the bad knife.

Again, let us examine a fruit, a plant. Imagine, that before you are two apple trees; one of them is blotched and cancerous, while the other is healthy and sound. Suppose that the desire to eat an apple came upon you, which tree would you extend your hand to? Would you choose the malformed and blotched, hard fruit of the cancerous apple tree? Or would you not be more likely to reach out and take an apple from the healthful tree, which is succulent, ripe, and shinning? To be sure, you would prefer the wholesome apple to the depraved apple for the very reason that it is more like an apple. It is better for eating and is without blemish or malformation, and is more like an apple than the diseased permutation. Therefore, the good apple and the bad are both apples, yet the good apple has more appleness than the bad apple.

Once more, let us examine animals. Imagine a bitch gave birth to a litter of pups and one of them was mutated, with a malformed jaw and sealed eyes, while it's siblings were sound in form. Suppose further that you were interested in obtaining a pup for breeding other dogs, so as to carry on a pure breed. Which would you choose for this venue? A sound animal or the mutant? Certainly, you would choose one of the sound offspring over the mutant, because it is more like it's own species and breed. Therefore, while all are certainly being dogs, the mutant is less of a dog than its siblings who are sound in form.

We could go on this way with angels as well, and any other species of plant, animal, or object ad infinitum, but there is no need. Therefore, it is rightly said that whatever is more like unto itself is truer. Here we digress to the issue of humanity.

Original Sin deformed mankind so that humanity became less like itself. As a means of remedy, Christ came as a man. In fact, as we can readily discern from our experiment, Christ was more human than the humans he lived amongst and came to die for. Thus, St. Paul was right in calling Him the Second Adam in that He had in His person undelimited humanity. Comparatively, if we use ourselves as the definition of what human means, Christ was superhuman. Yet, in point of fact, Christ alone is the definition of what a human is; He is completely human and it is we who are deficient in humanity.

The Eucharist, which may only be found in the Churches of the Apostles, is given unto us to strengthen us. By receiving the Eucharist, we not only obtain divine graces and mercy, but also become more human by virtue of Christ's humanity which we receive into ourselves. When we look at what God said to Adam in the Garden, we know that Adam was without death. Then, we look at what Christ, Who is God, says to us in the Gospel," Whoever does not eat of My Flesh and drink of My Blood has no life in Him." 

This is the truth and we can go to no one else, for as the apostles said, who else has the words of Life? The more human we become, the more like God we become, because our humanity is being restored to its full glory, the true image of God. But this is not the end of Christ's work, for we are brought into God by receiving the Holy Spirit into us. But here, I've committed to only speaking to you about humanity and must digress from theosis and divinity, though admittedly they are intertwined.

Hitherto, those who faithfully receive the Eucharist and continue in it are becoming more human; they are attaining to Christ's humanity. This is why it is so important to be in a Church with VALID sacraments. This is the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. This is why one should be a Catholic, and why being a "Bible Christian" is not enough. This is only part of what the Most Blessed Sacrament does for us. It is the power of God to put our souls into order. It is the power of God to place our bodies in subjection to the soul. It is the power of God, to literally undo the Gordian Knot of sin and restore our nature. This is how God returns us to being a true microcosm of the Macrocosm, as discussed in my previous note Ecclesiasticus. 

And everything on top of this is working out our salvation, attaining to and obtaining the promises of Christ, becoming joint heirs with Christ. How wonderful that we are not only set in order, having our humanity restored to us, but that we have separate graces so as to participate in the righteousness of God. This is eternal life, the Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith.
 
"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 Eminence of Conscience

The word conscience is perhaps the most abused word in Catholicism and since it is such a broad subject, I'm not even going to address genuine situations of culpability and conscience; that is to say, I'm not addressing the instances in this blog where conscience truly is a legitimate factor in decreasing culpability to sin, for instance those victims of sexual abuse who left the Church. The point is that deformity of conscience is not a license to sin.

There is a heterodoxy frequently encountered by the faithfully, namely, that conscience is what man makes it. This is a rather convenient heresy for those who seek to destroy the Church, because herein is the idea that each person is granted the power to impose upon himself a subjective body of morals, which he is obliged to observe.

The gravity of this error is profound; by it we see all sorts of allowances for sin in the Church, but not only within the Church. Those without the Church of the Apostles suffer as well from this insidious heresy, because the Catholic Church is the moral authority of Western Civilization. Amongst ourselves we see people admitted to the Eucharist who live in a morally unacceptable manner. For instance, the cohabiting are given the Eucharist, sexually and emotionally active homosexuals are admitted to the Feast, those who support abortion and homosexual marriage are admitted to the Feast, and others of such a similar sort are allowed to receive the Eucharist as well. All of them receive against the prohibitions of the Church. And if anyone points out this profanation of the sacrament they are met with the charge that they are un-Christlike and uncharitable, where upon they are told," Who are you to judge?! It is a matter of conscience!"

This error seems most often amongst the laity to be born of a species of arrogant ignorance and amongst the priesthood a virulent desire for subversion of sound doctrine. It is important, therefore, to educate and reprove if possible all such people gently at first and severely if necessary. The object that is hidden in this heresy and in ignorance is the true substance of the conscience. On the one hand, some people being deceived by themselves or others who propound error, do not know what the conscience is; even further, they are not certain of what is concomitant to the conscience. Others, still, know very well what the conscience is and take whichever means and occasions present themselves to stymie the understanding of what the conscience truly is in the minds of the faithful.

In this fashion, the latter confuse sound doctrine and heterodoxy seeking to make a profit. The profit they seek to bring about through this perversion is to accomplish the peace of Christ through their own so-called logic. They suppose wrongly that if anything may be part of conscience, then nothing will be judged. They seek to let everyone off the hook, so that they themselves escape. They seek to stop the violence between good and evil by neutralizing them both, through making morality out to be wholly subjective. They strive to make God acceptable to man, instead of  making man acceptable to God, which is the end of the Eucharist that is the source and summit of our faith.

However, you will all know and be sure that they are in error and do not hold the opinion of the Apostolic See. There is one truth; indeed the truth is a singularity. Christ says of Himself," I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." If we desire to be sure about the nature of the truth we have but to look at God. We do not give assent to multiple gods, but instead one Holy God. In the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church it teaches us that God is One, but He is not solitary. Therefore, the truth is infinitely voluminous and at the same time simple, but not varied; the truth is a singularity.

Further, we know that God is not made up of a sum of parts so as to make Him dissolute if it were possible. Created things are made up of a sum of parts, but God is not created and therefore is One in fact. In this manner you should be able to know what is the truth and what is the lie. The heretic says that the conscience is the voice of the man, it is his own judgment of his actions. Much the otherwise, the Church teaches that the conscience is a moral law which man did not impose upon himself, but rather is a grace given to him by God. The Church teaches that the conscience is the inmost part of a man where God whispers to Him behind a veil. The Church says further that the man who listens closely to his conscience hears the voice of God and not that of himself.

So, who will you believe? The one who seeks to save the flesh of a sinner a little pain by deflecting judgment by saying that all consciences are subjective and are crafted by our unique observations and experiences? Or the Church who with the magesterium seeks to save the sinner's soul and tells us emphatically that the conscience is God speaking to us true judgments?

The bible tells us that we are made in the image of God. In this teaching we see why we are drawn to the Good and convicted by it. The conscience is the metronome in man which makes him act in accordance with God. True conscience is God's discernment. Therefore, the man who acts in perfect accord with the conscience God gave him does not offend God. Since his fall, man has experienced a deformity of conscience; herein, his conscience is materially deformed and muted to varying extents. He does not hear the voice of God with perfect clarity, he cannot discern perfectly which portion is divine and which is not.

To write off sin and the effects of sin upon the human soul on account of man's deformity is precisely what those in error intend to do. They seek to suggest that God is content with ignorance, that God is sufficed and pleased with deformity, accepting of evil. But we know from scripture that nothing evil shall abide or endure in the presence of God; it cannot come before Him. This heresy makes twins of its evil.

Firstly, it seeks to negate the work of Christ, the very purpose and necessity of the Incarnation. If man in his deformity and depravity is already acceptable to God, then where is the atonement of Christ? Do they make him out to be a mere man, a hyper-prophet? What possible purpose does Christ crucified have if their heterodox position is true? None at all.

Secondly, they seek to make the deformed conscience of fallen man equal with the perfect conscience of the Second Adam. According to those who teach this error, God is equally pleased with the conscience of the heathen and the saint. Thus, it follows necessarily that they say that God and man are equal by holding on the same level their separate products which are the perfect and deformed conscience. By this they make man out to be a god unto himself, becoming idolaters.

St. Paul speaks about these corrupters and the corrupted in the first chapter of the Book of Romans. He exposes those who weave such lies, gives proofs of the conscience and what it truly is, and shows the consequences of those who reject the gift of conscience and corroborating knowledge for their own vanity:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 
 
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving. unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."

Do not let those who are mistaken and those who are heretics mute you out and shame you by telling you that you are uncharitable when you stand by Holy Mother Church and her teaching in regard to offenses, abuses, and undeserved allowances. When you hear people say that all kinds of evil must be permitted and wholly ignored because it is a private matter of conscience, be ready to correct them charitably at first and sternly if necessary. We must all strive to perfect our conscience by coming under the yoke of the Church's teaching and moral authority, not being rebellious and perverse seeking to reconcile the Church who is one with Christ to ourselves, but seeking to reconcile ourselves to the Church who is one with Christ. If we seek to reconcile the Church to us, then we seek to make the Bride of Christ a whore. She will not commit adultery and those who compel her to do so will be punished.

Live at peace with the teachings of Christ. Be convinced and seek to be convinced. Christianity is hard and we all fail; that's what confession is for. But beware of honeyed words like," It's ok. It's a matter of conscience." As the Psalmist says," If a righteous man strikes me it is a kindness, but let not the oil of the wicked anoint my head." We can't afford to lean on the crutch of heresy. It seems like every time a Catholic struggles unsuccessfully with a sin or a teaching of the Church all the sudden someone magically pops up like a fairy godmother and says," Good news! It's a matter of conscience! So, don't sweat it!" as if to say," Don't worry about it, it's not important, because of the state of your conscience. So, no matter what you do, DO NOT  make any changes or strive for conversion... and you'll be o.k." It is precisely this lie that is destroying the Church today. Be on guard against the easy path, be on guard against what you want to hear when the going gets tough. The grace of God is your strength. God bless 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~

Just Love

Love is. It does not ever try to prove itself, because it is. If you have true love, you will never be lonely; you will never lack genuine and unfeigned love. True love is selfless and strives to take care of everyone else first. In this way it propagates agape and provides for the one who loves and the beloved.

The person who loves in truth gets the benefit of their own love; their own love ministers to them. It is like a mother feeding her child, yet both of them become full. Again, it's like filling one sack from another, but both of them become full. Love is infinite, because God is Love. If our love is infinite and we give away an infinite amount of love, we still have an infinite amount of love. Do you see the mystery of love? Don't horde your love, or you will run out; that is the life of misery and despair.

Love is. Stop trying to prove your love. Don't choosing substitutes to love instead of the true path. Don't grooming your outward appearances so that people will like you or even worse lust after you. Instead, become concerned with doing good to the souls of others, ministering to people's hearts, wiping away their despair and people will love you. Propagate the love of God; propagate agape.

"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~

Theodicy - The Problem of Evil

I was commenting recently to an Atheist friend; the eminent Richard Dawkins had come up on her page. I was wondering what Richard Dawkins would do with a guy like Ken Miller, a well published molecular and cell biologist who gives assent to evolution and does his own debates against American Evangelical Creationism. Ken Miller is Roman Catholic and says that he is a theist in the broadest sense. Admittedly, that can only mean one thing... he doesn't give much attention to his faith.

A little while later it dawned on me," You know... that probably wouldn't be that great of a debate." The reason being is that the only thing they would have to argue about is the cosmological argument, which is the issue of whether or not the universe has a cause and what that might be. The other thing they might argue about is theodicy, which addresses the problem of evil.

These are the two pitfalls of such debates. It's one thing to watch an atheist scientist beat up on a theist rhetorician who parrots second hand Creationist arguments, to watch an atheist scientist and a theist scientist shrug in agreement, but quite another to watch them wade into a mire of philosophical issues they don't have the credentials to discuss.

So often people watch these epic clashes, bedazzled by the scientific jargon, sitting on the edge of their seats, mesmerized by the simultaneous embarrassment and verbal glory of the debaters. We forget that these men are usually specialists, or at least pretend to be. They are either theologians, scientists, philosophers, or mere rhetoricians. Too often, the rhetorician plays the menace and it must be admitted that most often in the matters of science it's a theist. A creationist rhetorician will hide behind a mass of unfinished, ill-quoted, misinformed, assumptions and subjective arguments. We even catch them holding up completely discredited and disproved theories like the infamous "irreducible complexity of the eye" and the "irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum." If the creationist initiates a question on science and the atheist responds with a line of science, he will follow a line of so-called morality, and visa versa, evading the issue.

Too often theists in general get represented by meddling rhetoricians who aren't qualified to teach a high school biology class. But on the other hand, Atheists are just as guilty. Such is the case with Dawkins. Dawkins is a Biologist; that's what he is. But you see him attempting to speak authoritatively on philosophy, morality, history, ethics, virtue, etc. He's not qualified to comment on any of those things and usually he ends up hackneying out arguments from Kant, Hegel, and Hume with shaky form and questionable understanding. Even if he did possess a good understanding of such philosophies, which has not been evidenced, he does not have the ability to defend these philosophies systematically, nor can he explain their intricacies. It's cocktail party knowledge; they don't really even know what they are talking about.

Because of this, Dawkins and other atheists often come out strong with tricky and hard ethical questions, but end up feebly retiring prematurely, feigning a noble profession of ignorance in an attempt to make their opponents look arrogant. That's not to say that such atheist debaters don't exist, those who are philosophers and anthropologist, etc. Rather, most often apologetics debates are completely mismatched. In fact, I've never seen one that was well matched. I've observed a team of atheists versus a team of creationists. But what if such a panel existed where you had the best of the best? The atheist team having an anthropologist, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist; and the theist side had a theologian, a biologist, a philosopher, and a physicist? Only then I think would such a debate be worthy of note; a debate where another two could continue where the former two left off.

Anyway, as stated, most apologetics debates disintegrate once the issue of philosophy and theodicy arise. The debate turns into a defamation of ideas, a verbal slug-fest, and all sides deteriorate into ridiculous non sequiturs and random scenarios designed not to reveal the truth, but rather into trap the opponent in his words or trick him into admitting something as if character assassination was the point of the debate. This of course usually takes place at the end of the debate once both sides are fatigued after having tried to their utmost to make eloquent arguments and eloquent refutations. It becomes nothing more than a show of vanity by the end, very often.

Leaving aside the venue of apologetics and focusing on theodicy, I think the subject deserves some treatment. It's a fair question the atheist asks," If there is a God, then why is there so much suffering and what we might call evil in the world?" The thing is, most atheists would be talking out both sides of their mouth by even saying this. Atheist don't believe in a universal morality, they don't believe in objective ethics and virtues. In fact, most of them would staunchly defend the notion that these are conventional, man-made, subjective concepts. So, in essence, if we take their assertion as just stated, then that would be like asking an Alaskan native to account for culture of the Bushmen of Africa. Subjective is subjective right?

But far from attempting to wiggle out of answering, like the rhetorician does, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy there, and I'll go a little further. The atheist asks the question because the theist is stating that there is an objective morality and that there is a universal right. So, the atheist is basically putting a ball in the theists court that he's pretty sure the theist can't possibly dribble. That's fair; the atheist shouldn't have to argue the theists side of the argument for him. But supposing that the atheist is right, what then? What do we make of evil? What can we possibly say? There's only one thing we can say: there is no real evil, there is no real morality. What then? If there's no tangible, objective moral difference between giving a person a hug and giving them poison, then there is no problem of evil. It simply doesn't exist.

This is where the atheist hypocrisy usually rears it's ugly head and we have a full on, uncompromising endorsement of morals from the atheist, which is exactly what they atheist was refusing to tolerate from the theist. Except, instead of the theist's morals, the atheist pushes post-modern humanism down everyone's throat. So, the atheist only condemns the theist so they can turn around and do the same exact thing, and that as we all know, whether you're a theist or an atheist, is pure hypocrisy.

Theodicy can seem like a tough nut to crack, but in reality the only thing that makes it a tough subject is that people apply strawmen to the people arguing the issue. For some reason, the theist isn't allowed to make an argument unless he defends the Calvinist double-predestination, where God controls everything and everyone and micromanages the universe with supreme impeccability, right down to the tiniest quirk. That's kinda like the atheist saying to the theist," Hey, let's race, but you have to drive in the car I give you." Huh?

In a universe where God and man are both described according to the Catholic schematic, answering theodicy isn't problematic at all. The universe works in the same pattern as we observe everyday. Parents make a child, the child once grown has choices to make. It can make good choices or bad choices. In short, freewill is the answer to theodicy. At the bottom of each of my blogs I have my favorite quote from Aristotle, perhaps from all philosophy," 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."

God is the good; the good is certainly something anyone can give assent to and at the same time know that it is immeasurable. Here we have a reasonable argument concerning God, I think.. Everyone does what they do for a reason, even when accidents happen, they did certain things which set the accident in motion. A woman procures an abortion so that she will not be encumbered with a child, aiming at the good of freedom. A man steals to satisfy a desire, aiming at the good of happiness. People rape to satisfy sexual urges and to establish dominance, aiming at the goods of power and pleasure. All of them fail miserably. In the end, however, they prove Aristotle correct, that all things do in fact aim at the Good.

So, the problem of evil is exactly what Christians have been saying it is all along: a conflict between man's ability and desire to obtain the good. It comes down to free will. Man must take responsibility for the problem of evil, because he causes it and eliminates it, by both action an inaction. This has nothing to do with God being malevolent and everything to do with His sovereignty. As the Greek philosophers were so fond of saying," The sun, too, peers into privies and is not contaminated by them." That evil exists has not to do with God. In fact, evil is a kind of vacuum, seeing as how God is the Good and evil is chiefly a lack of good, as we have just demonstrated with the rapist, the thief, and the murderer. The Christian schematic isn't problematic at all, like the Atheist suggested it was. It's only problematic if Christianity is forced in such a debate to defend a heresy and a non-God. There, theodicy solved.
 
"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 Communion of the Saints

This is quite possibly one of the most self-evident and easiest doctrines of the Church to defend and explain. This is because it follows necessarily from faith in Christ.

When we think of the word "communion" we might think of several things. We may think of the Eucharist, we may think of juice and cracker packets, we may think of unity, solemn prayers, etc. Depending on who we are, the word communion can be rather nebulous. Rarely do people stop and look at the obvious etymology of the word: common-union. Some common union must be effected in order for communion to be effected. We must participate in that common union to be affected by the communion.

Now, the Catholic dogma known as the "Communion of the Saints" states that the Church Militant (the Church alive on Earth) benefits from the intercession of the Church Triumphant (the Church in Heaven) and the Church Purgative (those in Purgatory) benefits from the intercession of both the Church Triumphant and Militant. These three have a common union with each other because they are commonly unified in Christ by the Holy Spirit. That is to say, they are each of them individually and all of them communally unified with God the Father and God the Son, having been incorporated by the gift of the Holy Spirit who is God.

All true Trinitarian theology states that there is one God, three Persons. Further, it is stated that the Holy Spirit is the mutual love that God the Father has for God the Son and visa versa. Therefore, the Holy Spirit while being God, is the union between God the Father and God the Son. So, it follows necessarily that the Holy Spirit is equally God. There is no disputation or discrepancy on this point between Christians, regardless of whether they be from the Orthodoxies in the East, the Roman Church in the West and those in communion with her, or even amongst the Protestants. If anyone denies these essentials they deny what Christianity has faith in and are not Christians, ipso facto.

The purpose of bringing this up is to show, or remind rather, what kind of union it is that the Christian is incorporated into. The union takes on the attributes of the unified; for this reason God became a man. St. Gregory of Nazianzus said," That which is not assumed is not redeemed." God shared in our humanity so that we might share in His divinity. Being human ourselves we know precisely what it means for Him to take on humanity.

But what does it mean to put on divinity? Does the Catholic faith teach that we become gods independent from the One True God? By no means. It teaches that we share in what He promises, namely His Holy Spirit. So then, what does it mean to share in this divinity? It means that we will be holy as He is holy, it means that we share in His eternal life, in His omnipotence, in His omnipresence. It means that we enjoy that same degree of closeness with the Trinity that It enjoys Itself. This is accomplished by the work of Christ, at the good pleasure of the Father, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Now, it is written in the Book of Hebrews that we have been given an eternal priesthood, in the order of Melchizedek and that we have a High priest, who is Christ. Christ is both the Lamb who was sacrificed and the Priest who sacrificed Himself for us and we know this from the Gospels, because he told them that no one takes His life away from Him, but He lays it down for His sheep and has the power to take it up again. And He tells us further that this command is from His Father.

Now, there is no other purpose for a priest except for to make sacrifice for the people, but here we see that Christ the high priest has made a sacrifice once and for all. And yet our priesthood does not end here; no, much to the contrary, we hear that ours is an eternal priesthood. What does this mean? Let us examine. God is infinite and God was sacrificed, therefore the sacrifice is infinite. We behold an infinite sacrifice of mercy, more than sufficient for the offenses of mankind. But why then are we yet priests?

St. Paul says," How I wish that I were with you to make up for that which is lacking in the wounds of Christ!" Does St. Paul contradict what we know to be true, which is precisely what we just stated, that Christ's sacrifice is more than sufficient for the sins of mankind? By no means does he disagree, but understand what he means to say... you and I are the wounds of Christ. Not only this, but we must assist one another and workout our own salvation, meeting faith with works and giving life to the hope we have in Him, participating with the work of Christ.

If then we are the Body of Christ, which is the Church, and we are the wounds of Christ shouldn't we know that we have become once with the Eternal Sacrifice and the same Priest who did sacrifice It? Aside from all this, don't priests also make offerings of prayer? Isn't it written that our praise and prayers go up to heaven as an offering of sweet smelling incense? We offer these prayers and praises not only for ourselves, but for each other and the whole world, because God wills that all men shall be saved according to the scriptures.

We read in the Gospel that after Christ was done answering the Sadducees concerning their question about marriage and the resurrection He gave them evidence of the resurrection and proof of the life of the righteous. He said unto them that when God spoke to Moses in the bush He said," I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." And Christ said that God was a God of the living and not of the dead.

So, what is this that you say that the dead are cut off from the living? Who told you this and where did you read it? Did you forget that Moses and Elijah were present at Christ's transfiguration? How then do you define eternal life? If you say that the soul lives, where? If the soul is present in the body the body is alive, and if the soul is absent from the body the body is dead. And if the soul is alive the body shall live; this is the resurrection.

If then you have eternal life and an eternal priesthood, don't you know that you will not cease your priesthood in bodily death, seeing that the soul yet lives? Or do you believe that you are only a priest sometimes, and that you only kind of have eternal life? Eternal means one thing only, there is no such thing as delimited eternal life. Either it's eternal or it's not. There's no such thing as a delimited eternal priesthood; you either participate eternally in an eternal priesthood or you don't.

So, what's your priestly duty after you have died? Will it not surely be to pray for those who toil on the earth against temptation to evil and the power of darkness? Will you not pray for those souls which fly toward God and experience a painful purging, which is called Purgatory?

Do you suppose you will pray as feebly as you do, now? Ignorant of what is needed, deluded by vanity, swayed and distracted by the flesh, deceived by sin? Or will you, standing in the presence of God, after having come through the fire, not pray more perfectly? Will you not confess what we already know to be true, which is precisely what we said earlier, that we share in the divinity of Christ just as He shares in our humanity? Will you not enjoy His omnipotence, His omnipresence, His wisdom, His compassion, His knowledge, His understanding? You must already know that you will!

And wouldn't you prefer someone to be praying for you in this manner? When you communicate to these saints who have gone on before you, how will they hear you? Will your prayer be carried on the wind into heaven to souls that do not have bodies, and therefore have no ears? Don't you know that you rather will communicate by a common union, namely by the Holy Spirit? Are you confused, even though you know that you are One in Christ and both have the same Holy Spirit, and share in the same eternal life and are members of the same priesthood, with One High Priest? This is the 'Communion of the Saints.'

Now, without a doubt, there are many of you who until this point are saying that Christ alone is the Mediator between God and man. You are right, but here you show more than a little confusion. We know that He is in us and we are in Him. Further, we know that we are the Body of Christ and that we are His wounds. Then, why are you so fearful as though this mediation is not done in Christ? You yourselves just now said that Christ is the Mediator between God and man. Listen to your own mouth, friend, and be taught by yourselves that the doctrine of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is true.

And if there is anyone else who says that they shall have none pray for them but Christ alone, to you I say charitably and gently, do not be a hypocrite. You are the same person who asks his fellows to pray for him, you are the one who says," I covet your prayers." You are the one who when distressed looks for the one who seems the most spiritual among you and ask him to pray for you; very often it's your pastor. Therefore, again, do not be a hypocrite concerning the Church and the things of God.

The communion of the saints is a blessing to us. The Saints in heaven, those martyrs and Apostles, innocents and holy, are not bound as they once were by the flesh, praying for one person at a time. They now pray perfectly and intimately for you and me and for all, without ceasing. This is the will of the Father, established by Christ, accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Christ has prepared this for you and set it before you on the table. Christ said that whoever rejects those whom He sends also rejects Him; and whosoever rejects the Son rejects the Father also, because He and the Father are One. It is not right to reject Him. "Today, if you hear the call of the Lord, harden not your heart."

"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~

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.