Monday, June 30, 2008
Why Obama is more Dangerous to our Security than Carter
Many political pundits have stated that an Obama Presidency would be a second Carter Term. There are indeed some comparisons in that both seem to think that negotiation is the only way to address global issues. During Carters presidency the Military technological advantage the United States Had over the Soviet Union was almost lost. Carter canceled several defense projects such as the B-1 Lancer bomber program. Instead of defeating the Soviets, Carter sought to appease and negotiate with them. Obama has made it clear that he will take the same approach with our current enemies. The problem is that we live in a much more dangerous world today than in the 1970's. The Soviets were many things, but they were not suicidal. They sought to destroy America but were not willing to be destroyed in the process. So while Carter was pushing for negotiations the United states still had a Nuclear arsenal that could destroy the Soviets and the Soviets knew that. Our current crop of enemies on the other hand are not only willing to die, but see death as desirable when fighting the infidels. So while Obama negotiates with our enemies they are developing Nuclear weapons in the belief that their version of Armageddon will bring forth the twelfth Imam. So while Carter was Naive in dealing with the Soviets, the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction served as a deterrence against overt Soviet Aggression. There is no such deterrent against the current crop of Islamic Terrorist. To elect Obama is to re-elect Carter to negotiate against an enemy that is not interested in negotiating. While the prospect of a McCain presidency is not my Idea of an Ideal presidency, the prospect of an Obama presidency literally frightens me. Even a Hillary Clinton did not frighten me that much, with her at least I could be assured she could to to our enemies what she did to her husband when she found out about the Lewinsky Affair. I understand it was not pretty.
Why I cannot Vote for Obama
Article, No to put to fine a point on it, and at the risk of beeing called politically incorect (as if I cared) but this is simply evil, right there with Stalin and Hitler.
It's easy to be tolerant when there are no absolutes
This Column points to a survey dealing with religious tolerance. The fact is that the survey points not to religious tolerance but to religious relativism. Tolerance is recognising and thus protecting the God given rights of individuals. Tolerance does not mean giving another belief systems the same truth status as yours. While all beliefs systems have truth in them, they cannot all be equally true in all aspects. Christians believe Jesus is God and the Messiah promised in the old Testament, Jews reject that and Muslims believe Jesus was merely a prophet and hold Mohammad as higher in the order of prophets. Now only of these can be true. The relativist says that all three are true since what is true for one may not be true to another. The thing is that truth is truth and it remains true regardless of individual belief.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
What are the Sacraments
One of the most misunderstood aspects of Catholic Doctrine , both by non-Catholics as well as by Catholics themselves is the Sacraments. The Sacraments are Central to Catholic theology. Failure to understand them is failure to understand Catholicism. Many of those who reject Catholic teaching on the sacraments often ague against a false understanding of them and are thus working against a straw man, in many cases in good faith wishing to correct what they perceive to be Catholic errors and in some cases by people who should know better. Examples; Here, here, here, and here. This post will (in the feeble words of the author) attempt to explain what the sacraments are and what they are not.
A Sacrament is in a essence a visible, outward sign of a spiritual reality. In essence what the we see taking place with our senses is actualytaking place in the spiritual realm. In baptism for example, Water which represents cleansing, actually cleans the soul of the individual of original sin. The following web sites give similar definitions of the word Sacrament; Here and here.
Humans are unique creatures in all of creation. Creation is comprised (As far as what has been revealed to us) by three distinct living being, the spiritual in the form of Angels, who have spiritual but not corporal natures, and corporal as in the from of animals and plant who have corporal but not spiritual natures, Humans are unique in that they are created with both spiritual and corporal natures. Of these beings the Angelic and the Humans are made to worship God. The Angels worship God within their nature and worship with their whole being which is spiritual. Humans are made worship God with their whole being as well. So how can a human creature who is both flesh and spirit worship God using their whole nature? This is where the Sacraments come in. In the old testament there was no sacramental system, so the Jews worshiped God using symbols such as the Temple, Sacrifice, Images (yes the Jews used Images in their worship, this is for another post) etc. Jesus Came to show us a more perfect form of Worship, first by becoming flesh himself and showing us God though our senses. Jesus usually used matter to perform his miracles. He would for example make mud by spitting on dirt and healing the blind. He would show a visible act of Worship to the Father and raise the dead. The lady with the blood disease showed her faith by touching the garment Jesus wore. Jesus made it a point of going down to the Jordan and being baptized by John. Jesus turned bread into his body and blood and commanded his apostles to forgive and retain sins. So by becoming flesh and leaving a visible church with visible means of showing us God's grace Jesus instituted a Sacramental Church. Indeed as Jesus is seen as a sacrament of the Father by making God visible, the Church is seen as a sacrament of Jesus as it is her mission to make Jesus visible in the form of his body, both in the sacrament and in her body of believers. It must be noted
that all of the Sacraments have supporting passages in scripture. I will deal with each sacrament individually in other posts.
There are seven Sacraments;
Each sacrament corresponds with a certain aspect or stage in human life. The fact that there are seven is also significant. In scripture the number seven corresponded with the fullness of what is being spoken off. Thus there are seven days in a week and on the fullness of Creation God Rested.
In essence the Sacraments are gift from God that shows us his grace. They are not means of earning salvation (as some non-Catholics say) since they have no use to us unless we have faith, they are simply there for us, to aide us in worshipping with our whole being, to see and feel Gods grace flowing into our lives, keeping us feed in our journey in this life while at the same time showing us glimpses of the next.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
What Not Global Warming
So let me see place an exploding volcanoe under the polar ice cap and what do you get. The Ice sheets melt. They still have to throw in the increasing water temperature... Read Article
On the existence of Ghosts.
I thought I would post on something less political and less apologetic in nature and post on something that I find interesting in a somewhat related field.
Recently I have become fascinated by the Sci-Fi Original Series Called Ghost Hunters. I have always had an interested in Ghosts, but have always found the field troublesome as it is filled with people whose views are decidedly non-Christians. I am interested in the field from the Christian point of view. The reason I find the program interesting, even though the main characters do not bring a Christian world view to the field, it the skeptics approach they bring to their investigations. Unlike the British guys on travel channel these guys (plumbers by trade) enter a situation with a desire to disprove anything paranormal and in many cases do show alternative explanations. When all natural explanations are exhausted then they are willing to acknowledge paranormal activity. Of course when paranormal activity is documented they do not usually offer a Christian explanation or solution. Sometimes they do offer solutions, but not a Christian one, such a bringing in clergy. One of the things that the show serves to establish is that there is something in this world besides the physical world. Which can come as a revelation to those from an atheistic point of view.
My interest in these subject as mentioned is belief that whatever entity is active in these hauntings can only come from one of two sources. Either it is of God (which is in most cases not likely as angels invariably come with a divine mission, there is also the potential of the souls in Purgatory seeking prayer some mistics have written on this) or it is of demonic origin (the more likely explanation in most cases) This is where I think the Ghost Hunters guys may be failing their "clients". Not all demonic activity results in possessions and are as overt as that depicted in the exorcism of Emilly Rose. Many are quite benign in appearance, the purpose of which is to cause confusion and crisis of faith amongst their intended victims. The victims then turn to spiritism and other pagan practice as a source of explanation and are thus drawn further from Jesus. I think these are more dangerous than the actual possessions as those are clear and the solution is also clear. It takes duly appointed Catholic Priest to liberate those poor souls.
The website for the Ghost Hunters group is Here.
There is a more Catholic oriented site that deals with the demonolgy aspect of this.
Recently I have become fascinated by the Sci-Fi Original Series Called Ghost Hunters. I have always had an interested in Ghosts, but have always found the field troublesome as it is filled with people whose views are decidedly non-Christians. I am interested in the field from the Christian point of view. The reason I find the program interesting, even though the main characters do not bring a Christian world view to the field, it the skeptics approach they bring to their investigations. Unlike the British guys on travel channel these guys (plumbers by trade) enter a situation with a desire to disprove anything paranormal and in many cases do show alternative explanations. When all natural explanations are exhausted then they are willing to acknowledge paranormal activity. Of course when paranormal activity is documented they do not usually offer a Christian explanation or solution. Sometimes they do offer solutions, but not a Christian one, such a bringing in clergy. One of the things that the show serves to establish is that there is something in this world besides the physical world. Which can come as a revelation to those from an atheistic point of view.
My interest in these subject as mentioned is belief that whatever entity is active in these hauntings can only come from one of two sources. Either it is of God (which is in most cases not likely as angels invariably come with a divine mission, there is also the potential of the souls in Purgatory seeking prayer some mistics have written on this) or it is of demonic origin (the more likely explanation in most cases) This is where I think the Ghost Hunters guys may be failing their "clients". Not all demonic activity results in possessions and are as overt as that depicted in the exorcism of Emilly Rose. Many are quite benign in appearance, the purpose of which is to cause confusion and crisis of faith amongst their intended victims. The victims then turn to spiritism and other pagan practice as a source of explanation and are thus drawn further from Jesus. I think these are more dangerous than the actual possessions as those are clear and the solution is also clear. It takes duly appointed Catholic Priest to liberate those poor souls.
The website for the Ghost Hunters group is Here.
There is a more Catholic oriented site that deals with the demonolgy aspect of this.
Voter Guides
Voter Guide For Serious Christians.
Note that nowhere in this guide is there mandate that seeks to create a government dependent class. Nor is the death penalty a non-negotiable, as the church while frowning on the death penalty still recognaices the right of the State in such matters. It is not the same to kill an innocent child and to kill a convicted Murderer.
There is at least one candidate that I know that will violate several of these non-negotiables.
Note that nowhere in this guide is there mandate that seeks to create a government dependent class. Nor is the death penalty a non-negotiable, as the church while frowning on the death penalty still recognaices the right of the State in such matters. It is not the same to kill an innocent child and to kill a convicted Murderer.
There is at least one candidate that I know that will violate several of these non-negotiables.
One More Justice is all we need....
To keep making good decisions like this, on a consistent basis.
Of the Two candidates one promises to nominate, Justices like Ginsburg, and Stevens the other promises to nominate justices like Thomas and Elito.
Of course the one that promises to nominate such originalist Justices has a maverick streak and we cannot truly know what he will do, but if the other guy wins we do know what he will do. One might give us the majority we need to overturn state sponsored infanticide, with the other there will be no such chance perhaps for a very long time.
Of the Two candidates one promises to nominate, Justices like Ginsburg, and Stevens the other promises to nominate justices like Thomas and Elito.
Of course the one that promises to nominate such originalist Justices has a maverick streak and we cannot truly know what he will do, but if the other guy wins we do know what he will do. One might give us the majority we need to overturn state sponsored infanticide, with the other there will be no such chance perhaps for a very long time.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Priest Sex Abuse Scandal
It was terrible and it did highlight problems in church administration. It gave the Media an excuse to go for endless weeks attacking the church and showing how this proves the folly of Priestly celibacy. No mention of Protestant Clergy accused of similar crimes, this of course by married clergy, but to report on this would not advance the notion that sex abuse is the fault of celibacy. Also ignored are the acquittals of Catholic Priests being.
I found these in ten minutes using Google. I do not have the world wide resources of the media or a Lexus Nexus account.
Please note, I am as angered by the scandal as the next devout Catholic, but I think there should be perspective and this should point to the medias Anti-Catholic Bias.The Fact is that the incidents of Sex Abuse were wildly exaggerated in order to cast aspersions upon the Catholic Church and to discredit her teachings which stand in opposition to the secular Medias
libertine lifestyles and beliefs.
Charity is not a Government Program
It’s an election year. This means that predictably the secular left candidate will discover Scripture and Jesus and translate the teachings of scripture and Jesus on the treatments of others with charity into a government program. They will say Point to passages such as the Good Samaritan, the Be Attitudes, Do unto others etc. and speak of treating others with charity an immediately point to a government program as the only expression and or application of these teachings to the exclusion of legitimate charities such as Catholic, Charities, Lutheran Social service, The Salvation Army and other charities to do great service, often on shoe string budgets and lots of volunteers and real individual acts of charity. Interesting that when a secular left winger quotes scripture or refers to Jesus the ACLU’s and George Soros of the world do not scream as they do when a right winger does the same, perhaps because they know that the left wing candidate does not mean it.
Catholic Social teaching does allow and even encourage government assistance for the poor, but it also recognizes the obligation of a free people to do service for each other without the need or want of a government program. Catholic social teaching does not really care where the assistance comes from, it does not however promotes one method or the other. Catholic social teaching opposes the extremes of both Socialism as well as Capitalism and believes that society can have an economic systems that incorporates the best aspects of both economic systems. Only politicians seeking to buy votes and to create dependence of government will promote government as the only legitimate form of charity.
Real charity is something one does without coercion. No can be forced to be charitable for, if one is forced it is no longer charity. Charity by definition is voluntary. Politicians who promote charity through government programs are seldom charitable with their own Money as evidenced by their own tax returns. They love to be charitable with other peoples money, which the take in the form of confiscatory taxes. The fact is that it is people of faith that are the most charitable and they give without coercion, often above and beyond what is already taxed. It is also people of faith who often volunteer their time to charitable organizations (this never makes it on a ledger sheet). In time of disasters it is private individuals who often out-gives even our own very giving government
My Brother posted an excellent treatise on the true meaning of Charity on his Blog Assenting Catholic. Read Post here.
So in short do not let politicians fool you. Whenever they bring up Jesus and the bible and speak of charity, grab a hold of your wallet, it’s not as though they are going to open theirs.
Catholic Social teaching does allow and even encourage government assistance for the poor, but it also recognizes the obligation of a free people to do service for each other without the need or want of a government program. Catholic social teaching does not really care where the assistance comes from, it does not however promotes one method or the other. Catholic social teaching opposes the extremes of both Socialism as well as Capitalism and believes that society can have an economic systems that incorporates the best aspects of both economic systems. Only politicians seeking to buy votes and to create dependence of government will promote government as the only legitimate form of charity.
Real charity is something one does without coercion. No can be forced to be charitable for, if one is forced it is no longer charity. Charity by definition is voluntary. Politicians who promote charity through government programs are seldom charitable with their own Money as evidenced by their own tax returns. They love to be charitable with other peoples money, which the take in the form of confiscatory taxes. The fact is that it is people of faith that are the most charitable and they give without coercion, often above and beyond what is already taxed. It is also people of faith who often volunteer their time to charitable organizations (this never makes it on a ledger sheet). In time of disasters it is private individuals who often out-gives even our own very giving government
My Brother posted an excellent treatise on the true meaning of Charity on his Blog Assenting Catholic. Read Post here.
So in short do not let politicians fool you. Whenever they bring up Jesus and the bible and speak of charity, grab a hold of your wallet, it’s not as though they are going to open theirs.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Obama Supported by Foreign Leaders,
Such as Castro, HAMAS, Hugo Chavez, and Mahmoud I'm-a-dirty-Yak, And Now Kim Jung Ill. Still Waiting on Osama Bin Ladens, grainy video tape is probably in route as we speak.
It's nice to know who Americas Friends and well wishers want as our president.
It's nice to know who Americas Friends and well wishers want as our president.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
This is what I was talking about on a previous post.
About the Author
Almost every book I read has a little snippet about the Author. I thought this would be a perfect time to Introduce my self and give you more than what is in my bio. This is also a far easier subject for me to write about when I do not feel up to pulling multiple sources for reference on a more controversial topic. Believe I have a Word file with about a page and a half of topics ranging from The Sacraments to UFOs I intend to get to in time. So here it Goes.
As Mentioned in my bio My name is Richard Lamb. I was born in Ponce, Puerto Rico in May 19th 1972. I have been married for 15 and a half years. I have two beautiful daughters, 9 and 4 respectively. I have a Bachelors in Information Technology, and Masters on Information Systems, with an eye for an MBA and perhaps a Doctorate (Depending on Student Loans Career Advances and My wife's Patience) As can be seen and will yet be seen by my posts, my interests vary greatly. I love Religion (Because I love God), Politics, Science, Sports (Especially NFL, Go Jaguars) etc. I short I am interested in those topics that people seem to want to avoid in polite company to avoid controversy. I firmly believe that people avoid these topics because they are often not well versed in them and can offer little support for their views and because they are really afraid of finding their view to be wrong. But since many of the topics I cover here are consequential, especially Religion and politics, which deal with both our eternal lives as well as our temporal, I think they not only should be discussed, but can in polite company when discussed with a sense of charity and truth seeking.
My Interest in religion and politics comes from a crisis of faith that I lived though when I was younger. I was born into the Catholic faith and grew up in the church, but as with many who are born into a faith my initial faith education was nominal at best. None of my early education prepared me to give a reasoned Response for my beliefs when faced with tough questions. During the process of my growing up in the church my parents were divorced my Father moved to Jacksonville and became more involved in his own faith tradition which was Disciples of Christ (Very much a Southern Evangelical Faith, similar in many ways to the Baptist, with minor but important differences not pertinent to this post) Fast forward to my 11th year of life when we moved to Jacksonville from Puerto Rico. While here we spent more time with our father who would make it a point to take us to his church when we stayed with him. Initially I resented that since I am not a morning person and preferred to go to Mass on Saturday nights with my mother when we stayed with her. In time though I was OK with it. I met friends there and there were even a girl or two that I took a licking to. But something happened while I was growing there that forced me to look deeper into my beliefs. People began asking me questions about such subjects as the papacy, and Mary, questions I had not answers for at the time. This forced me to research Christianity. I knew I was going to remain a Christian since I believed Jesus was my saviour, even then I felt an attraction to Jesus as saviour. My research focused initially on finding the historical church, the church founded by Jesus since I instinctively knew that a church not founded by Jesus himself had no historical standing. In my research I began to both find answers to such questions as the papacy, Mary and other Catholic teachings. Indeed I found the early church was Catholic, both in doctrine and structure, though in a nascent form initially. I also found that like my most Catholics were ill prepared to give responses for their faith and many were catholic because their parents were. To this day I find that. I began reading books that were both historical in nature as well as books that were more apologetic in nature. initially these books were in question and Answer format. Then I discovered Catholic answers on the Radio. I also discovered such heavy wights as Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin. their knowledge was invaluable to me. I feel it is incumbent on me to teach others what I have learned and show others the beauty of Catholicisms and the Truth contained within.
My Interest in politics stems from my Interest in Religious issues, my first political thoughts stem from the abortion issue. When I initially voted I looked for the candidate that promised to put an end to the murder of unborn Babies. At this same time I recall hearing a voice on the radio espousing things I instinctively understood to be true, both from a Christian perspective, but also from a more down to earth common sense perspective. That voice was Rush Limbaugh. I guess it could be said I am a Rush teen. I would listen to him after school while driving home from school. Then I would listen to him when ever I could after work etc. Then I discovered other voices such as Bary Farber and others who espoused similar views. It should be noted that these voices only gave me a means to better express what I already knew to be true based on my upbringing and my faith. I found the notion of individual responsibility and judging people not skin color to ring true. When I heard the opposing thought process of government dependence, secularism judging people as remember of a race or group I found the reasons lacking and based on emotion not reason.
In short I find Religion and Politics to be so closely related in so many areas that I have become a religious and political animal. I seldom find people willing do discuss these topics with me (My brother does but we agree all the time, when we discuss these topics we reinforce each others views and help each other bolster our rhetoric, with resources and better answers). The few people that engage either agree or quickly shut down when I begin to make sense.
This why I am Glad I discovered this forum. Here I can give free reign to my thoughts rather than letting them fester and just sit in my brain unused (In time I will write a Book and find a way to get it published)
As Mentioned in my bio My name is Richard Lamb. I was born in Ponce, Puerto Rico in May 19th 1972. I have been married for 15 and a half years. I have two beautiful daughters, 9 and 4 respectively. I have a Bachelors in Information Technology, and Masters on Information Systems, with an eye for an MBA and perhaps a Doctorate (Depending on Student Loans Career Advances and My wife's Patience) As can be seen and will yet be seen by my posts, my interests vary greatly. I love Religion (Because I love God), Politics, Science, Sports (Especially NFL, Go Jaguars) etc. I short I am interested in those topics that people seem to want to avoid in polite company to avoid controversy. I firmly believe that people avoid these topics because they are often not well versed in them and can offer little support for their views and because they are really afraid of finding their view to be wrong. But since many of the topics I cover here are consequential, especially Religion and politics, which deal with both our eternal lives as well as our temporal, I think they not only should be discussed, but can in polite company when discussed with a sense of charity and truth seeking.
My Interest in religion and politics comes from a crisis of faith that I lived though when I was younger. I was born into the Catholic faith and grew up in the church, but as with many who are born into a faith my initial faith education was nominal at best. None of my early education prepared me to give a reasoned Response for my beliefs when faced with tough questions. During the process of my growing up in the church my parents were divorced my Father moved to Jacksonville and became more involved in his own faith tradition which was Disciples of Christ (Very much a Southern Evangelical Faith, similar in many ways to the Baptist, with minor but important differences not pertinent to this post) Fast forward to my 11th year of life when we moved to Jacksonville from Puerto Rico. While here we spent more time with our father who would make it a point to take us to his church when we stayed with him. Initially I resented that since I am not a morning person and preferred to go to Mass on Saturday nights with my mother when we stayed with her. In time though I was OK with it. I met friends there and there were even a girl or two that I took a licking to. But something happened while I was growing there that forced me to look deeper into my beliefs. People began asking me questions about such subjects as the papacy, and Mary, questions I had not answers for at the time. This forced me to research Christianity. I knew I was going to remain a Christian since I believed Jesus was my saviour, even then I felt an attraction to Jesus as saviour. My research focused initially on finding the historical church, the church founded by Jesus since I instinctively knew that a church not founded by Jesus himself had no historical standing. In my research I began to both find answers to such questions as the papacy, Mary and other Catholic teachings. Indeed I found the early church was Catholic, both in doctrine and structure, though in a nascent form initially. I also found that like my most Catholics were ill prepared to give responses for their faith and many were catholic because their parents were. To this day I find that. I began reading books that were both historical in nature as well as books that were more apologetic in nature. initially these books were in question and Answer format. Then I discovered Catholic answers on the Radio. I also discovered such heavy wights as Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin. their knowledge was invaluable to me. I feel it is incumbent on me to teach others what I have learned and show others the beauty of Catholicisms and the Truth contained within.
My Interest in politics stems from my Interest in Religious issues, my first political thoughts stem from the abortion issue. When I initially voted I looked for the candidate that promised to put an end to the murder of unborn Babies. At this same time I recall hearing a voice on the radio espousing things I instinctively understood to be true, both from a Christian perspective, but also from a more down to earth common sense perspective. That voice was Rush Limbaugh. I guess it could be said I am a Rush teen. I would listen to him after school while driving home from school. Then I would listen to him when ever I could after work etc. Then I discovered other voices such as Bary Farber and others who espoused similar views. It should be noted that these voices only gave me a means to better express what I already knew to be true based on my upbringing and my faith. I found the notion of individual responsibility and judging people not skin color to ring true. When I heard the opposing thought process of government dependence, secularism judging people as remember of a race or group I found the reasons lacking and based on emotion not reason.
In short I find Religion and Politics to be so closely related in so many areas that I have become a religious and political animal. I seldom find people willing do discuss these topics with me (My brother does but we agree all the time, when we discuss these topics we reinforce each others views and help each other bolster our rhetoric, with resources and better answers). The few people that engage either agree or quickly shut down when I begin to make sense.
This why I am Glad I discovered this forum. Here I can give free reign to my thoughts rather than letting them fester and just sit in my brain unused (In time I will write a Book and find a way to get it published)
Friday, June 20, 2008
The Case for the Iraq War
It's popular these days especially in leftists circles to malign the war in Iraq. One can hear the common refrains in the evening news. They will say things such as, there were not weapons of Mass destruction, Bush Lied, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11, this was is about Oil Etc. I will try to address some of these Issues as I am perhaps one of about ten that still supports this war.
To begin with I must address a question that may be forming in the minds of some. How can a Catholic who claims to be devout support this was in light of the Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI's opposition as well as many other bishops. The answers is simple. The Catholic church is not opposed to war as a matter of Doctrine the same way the church is opposed to Abortion and Contraception. The fact is that the Catholic Church has developed a Just war Doctrine (Read here and here) There is no Just abortion doctrine. The Issue of War is a matter of prudential judgement by legitimate authority and neither the Pope not the bishops are privy to the information available to heads of state that leads them to such decisions. One can be a Catholic in Good standing and be in support or in opposition to this war (though I think that those that oppose it are misguided)
OK, now that that is out of the way lets address some of the talking points of the opposition.
1. There were not WMD's. This is one of the most common statements of those opposing the war.
First it must be pointed that this argument was used by no one before the war started, the fact is that every intelligence service in the world from the French, to the Germans, to the UN and everywhere in between had intelligence that they did have WMD's. He was tried on the use of the WMD's (article, and article) He used the weapons on his own people.I remember watching the Images when it happened. In actuality WMD's were found (Article). It is true that the expected stock piles were not found waiting for our troops to just pounce on them (As if Saddam were dumb enough to leave them liying around waiting to be found.). Was was found was documentation that a WMD program existed (This article shows that though it is not friendly to the U.S. cause) The opposition to the Iraq War before the was centered around allowing the inspectors to do their Job, the only notable war opponent that did not hold to this view was Saddam himself, he did all he could to prevent the inspectors from doing their Jobs.
Bush Lied. This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding what a lie is. For someone to lie they must know that what they are saying is not true. Bush was relying on the same Intelligence used by the previous administration to support military action in Iraq. The only difference is that this time it was a republican and there were no interns involved. And yes the little Matter of 9-11. The famous sixteen words regarding Uranium in Africa is still affirmed by British intelligence to this day.
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11, No one said he did. Though the 9-11 commission report did document contacts at various levels with Al quaeda. the events of 9-11 showed us the reality of Islamic terrorism in general of which al queada is but one group and the one brought to the fore front after 9-11. Bush said as much in his speech after 9-11. We are at war with Islamic terrorism not just Alquaeda. Furthermore to beleive that Al-quaeda a world wide organization was everywhere but Iraq is self delusional. Sadam was himself a terrorist, he ran a terrorist state and he sponsored terrorism world wide paying money to the families of suicided bombers in Israel.
The Iraq War is about oil, This argument was used during the last war with Iraq. If this war were about oil, gas would not be $4.00 a gallon. The Iraqis run their own Oil.
The war in Iraq diverts from tracking down Bin-laden, this argument is based on the notion that we somehow left Afghanistan to go after Iraq. This not true, the hunt for Bin-Laden is still ongoing. The ground condition in Iraq and Afghanistan are different thus different force structures are required. The notion that the U.S. cannot, with the most powerful military in the World cannot fight war in two countries. The fact is that the war on terrorism has our troops all over the world, including the Philippines and Somalia. Iraq is and has always been one front in the war on terrorism and those that say we should have stayed in Afghanistan are trying to imply that Iraq has nothing to do with the terrorism. If Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism then why are the terrorist streaming in from all over the world to fight there. I mush prefer they take on our trained troops than to have them here killing my family. Make not mistake they still want to do that.
To begin with I must address a question that may be forming in the minds of some. How can a Catholic who claims to be devout support this was in light of the Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI's opposition as well as many other bishops. The answers is simple. The Catholic church is not opposed to war as a matter of Doctrine the same way the church is opposed to Abortion and Contraception. The fact is that the Catholic Church has developed a Just war Doctrine (Read here and here) There is no Just abortion doctrine. The Issue of War is a matter of prudential judgement by legitimate authority and neither the Pope not the bishops are privy to the information available to heads of state that leads them to such decisions. One can be a Catholic in Good standing and be in support or in opposition to this war (though I think that those that oppose it are misguided)
OK, now that that is out of the way lets address some of the talking points of the opposition.
1. There were not WMD's. This is one of the most common statements of those opposing the war.
First it must be pointed that this argument was used by no one before the war started, the fact is that every intelligence service in the world from the French, to the Germans, to the UN and everywhere in between had intelligence that they did have WMD's. He was tried on the use of the WMD's (article, and article) He used the weapons on his own people.I remember watching the Images when it happened. In actuality WMD's were found (Article). It is true that the expected stock piles were not found waiting for our troops to just pounce on them (As if Saddam were dumb enough to leave them liying around waiting to be found.). Was was found was documentation that a WMD program existed (This article shows that though it is not friendly to the U.S. cause) The opposition to the Iraq War before the was centered around allowing the inspectors to do their Job, the only notable war opponent that did not hold to this view was Saddam himself, he did all he could to prevent the inspectors from doing their Jobs.
Bush Lied. This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding what a lie is. For someone to lie they must know that what they are saying is not true. Bush was relying on the same Intelligence used by the previous administration to support military action in Iraq. The only difference is that this time it was a republican and there were no interns involved. And yes the little Matter of 9-11. The famous sixteen words regarding Uranium in Africa is still affirmed by British intelligence to this day.
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11, No one said he did. Though the 9-11 commission report did document contacts at various levels with Al quaeda. the events of 9-11 showed us the reality of Islamic terrorism in general of which al queada is but one group and the one brought to the fore front after 9-11. Bush said as much in his speech after 9-11. We are at war with Islamic terrorism not just Alquaeda. Furthermore to beleive that Al-quaeda a world wide organization was everywhere but Iraq is self delusional. Sadam was himself a terrorist, he ran a terrorist state and he sponsored terrorism world wide paying money to the families of suicided bombers in Israel.
The Iraq War is about oil, This argument was used during the last war with Iraq. If this war were about oil, gas would not be $4.00 a gallon. The Iraqis run their own Oil.
The war in Iraq diverts from tracking down Bin-laden, this argument is based on the notion that we somehow left Afghanistan to go after Iraq. This not true, the hunt for Bin-Laden is still ongoing. The ground condition in Iraq and Afghanistan are different thus different force structures are required. The notion that the U.S. cannot, with the most powerful military in the World cannot fight war in two countries. The fact is that the war on terrorism has our troops all over the world, including the Philippines and Somalia. Iraq is and has always been one front in the war on terrorism and those that say we should have stayed in Afghanistan are trying to imply that Iraq has nothing to do with the terrorism. If Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism then why are the terrorist streaming in from all over the world to fight there. I mush prefer they take on our trained troops than to have them here killing my family. Make not mistake they still want to do that.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Does God Even Exist?
This is the Classic question for the ages. For me the answer is simple. I have absolutely no doubt that God even exists. I could stop right here and go on since this answers the question of this post. But to do so defeats the purpose of this blog, doesn't it? So here we go.
There are several classical arguments for the existence of God. There is no way I can do justice to all of them on this blog, to even attempt to would probably take up the memory space of the server that stores this blog (the IT guy in me is showing) so I will use some of the more common one that I tend to use.
I have already used one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God here and here, This is the nature argument. The grandeur and majesty of Nature, even in its fallen state, proclaims with a loud voice the existence of a creator. The Psalms put it beautifully in Psalm 19:1. A lowly single cell organism is vastly more complex that the most modern of computers and yet the computer was created by an intelligent being, so to was the single cell organism.
The other argument is that of Human nature. Man was created with a desire for God. This is proven by the fact that every single Human Culture (even the Neanderthals who where a separate Human Species) has developed a religious system. The fact that there are many religions is due to original sin. Prior to the fall of man there was a belief in one God. After the Fall many religions systems developed. God then began a slow and deliberate process of revealing himself to man through a process of covenants. (it is this process that is depicted in scripture) It was not until the 20th century that a whole human made system developed from the outset as atheist and that is Marxism. Indeed the belief on the spiritual is so ingrained in the human nature that an Atheist must talk himself into that Atheistic mindset, or talk himself out away from believing in God, and in the process argue against his or her very nature to get to that point. No one is born not believing. Put a Child in a deserted Island and he will grow up believing in something higher than himself. Put that same child in Harvard and the outcome might be entirely different.
There is a reason why most Atheists come from academic and educated settings and that is that with Knowledge comes the great potential for arrogance. The belief that human achievement is the pinnacle of achievement. It is also true that many highly intelligent people will go though the same process of education and be humbled by the majesty of Creation and by how little of it we really understand. I will put the intellect of a G.K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas or Even Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI against any Atheist Intellectual, modern or historical.
For further Reading, Read this Article
There are several classical arguments for the existence of God. There is no way I can do justice to all of them on this blog, to even attempt to would probably take up the memory space of the server that stores this blog (the IT guy in me is showing) so I will use some of the more common one that I tend to use.
I have already used one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God here and here, This is the nature argument. The grandeur and majesty of Nature, even in its fallen state, proclaims with a loud voice the existence of a creator. The Psalms put it beautifully in Psalm 19:1. A lowly single cell organism is vastly more complex that the most modern of computers and yet the computer was created by an intelligent being, so to was the single cell organism.
The other argument is that of Human nature. Man was created with a desire for God. This is proven by the fact that every single Human Culture (even the Neanderthals who where a separate Human Species) has developed a religious system. The fact that there are many religions is due to original sin. Prior to the fall of man there was a belief in one God. After the Fall many religions systems developed. God then began a slow and deliberate process of revealing himself to man through a process of covenants. (it is this process that is depicted in scripture) It was not until the 20th century that a whole human made system developed from the outset as atheist and that is Marxism. Indeed the belief on the spiritual is so ingrained in the human nature that an Atheist must talk himself into that Atheistic mindset, or talk himself out away from believing in God, and in the process argue against his or her very nature to get to that point. No one is born not believing. Put a Child in a deserted Island and he will grow up believing in something higher than himself. Put that same child in Harvard and the outcome might be entirely different.
There is a reason why most Atheists come from academic and educated settings and that is that with Knowledge comes the great potential for arrogance. The belief that human achievement is the pinnacle of achievement. It is also true that many highly intelligent people will go though the same process of education and be humbled by the majesty of Creation and by how little of it we really understand. I will put the intellect of a G.K. Chesterton, St. Thomas Aquinas or Even Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI against any Atheist Intellectual, modern or historical.
For further Reading, Read this Article
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Tiger Woods proves the Fallacy of Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action is the practice of setting aside a certain number of position, either in jobs or classroom space, for minority based a percentage of the population at large. The premise is that minorities especially those of African decent have no other way to make it in our society unless these percentage quotas are set aside for them.There may have been a time when racial apartheid existed in our nation where there may have been some merit to this, but that time is long gone. Today affirmative action is used to promote a political agenda and it is inherently racist. Forty years ago racism was legally permit ed and indeed it was written into our laws. Today racism is not only illegal, if proven it can affect a companies reputation to the point where it affects them financially (this reality is exploited by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who use the threat of going public with a racist act, real or contrived to shake down major corporations) .
Today Minorities are represented in almost every industry, there is even a major political candidate who is Black, which is not possible without white vote.
To insist on Affirmative action is to tell minorities that they are incapable of succeeding without quota set asides. It also puts doubt in the success of those that do succeed on their own merit without affirmative action.
Tiger Woods is a perfect example. Had the PGA implemented an affirmative action program, Tigers success would be suspect on the premise that a potentially better white player was crowded out due to the set aside programs. Without this affirmative action program we know Tiger has achieved his success by defeating the best of the best in is sport. Even with a bad Knee. Golf Fans do not care what Color Tiger is, they tune in to watch a great golf game, to the point that the recent U.S. open was one of the most watched Golf games in history. People tuned in to watch Tiger play Golf, they did not tune out when they saw a black man winning. Tiger is proof that affirmative action an Idea whose time has come and Gone
Today Minorities are represented in almost every industry, there is even a major political candidate who is Black, which is not possible without white vote.
To insist on Affirmative action is to tell minorities that they are incapable of succeeding without quota set asides. It also puts doubt in the success of those that do succeed on their own merit without affirmative action.
Tiger Woods is a perfect example. Had the PGA implemented an affirmative action program, Tigers success would be suspect on the premise that a potentially better white player was crowded out due to the set aside programs. Without this affirmative action program we know Tiger has achieved his success by defeating the best of the best in is sport. Even with a bad Knee. Golf Fans do not care what Color Tiger is, they tune in to watch a great golf game, to the point that the recent U.S. open was one of the most watched Golf games in history. People tuned in to watch Tiger play Golf, they did not tune out when they saw a black man winning. Tiger is proof that affirmative action an Idea whose time has come and Gone
There is hope for Charlie Crist After All.
Read Article.
Not Sure what it says about Crist. Either he is reading the tea leaves and acting accordingly or he is being a true politician and Doing what is politically expedient. Either way I hope he keeps going in that direction. We need the oil and we can get it in a way that does not automatically mean an ecological disaster. We need not be dependent for our oil to people that would rather we were dead.
Not Sure what it says about Crist. Either he is reading the tea leaves and acting accordingly or he is being a true politician and Doing what is politically expedient. Either way I hope he keeps going in that direction. We need the oil and we can get it in a way that does not automatically mean an ecological disaster. We need not be dependent for our oil to people that would rather we were dead.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Why Does God Permit Evil?
There have been thousands of books written by smarter men than me dealing with this question. Even so the question may never be fully answered on this side of eternity but I thought that since one of the areas I deal with on this blog is Theology I would take a stab at it.
The reason God allows evil is because he created being endowed with free will. God did not create puppets and this goes for the angels in heaven. The beginning of evil begins with the rebellion of Satan. Satan was created with the same free will and rebelled against God. After Satan's Fall he sought to tempt man and bring man down with him. When this happened original sin entered the world and creation. Thus bringing disorder to what had been an orderly creation. Satan threw a wrench in the works so to speak. Man was by no means an Innocent participant. Man made a free will decision to disobey God and conspired with Satan in this rebellion. The difference is that Satan's fall is complete since his rejection was complete. Mans fall was not complete, this is why Jesus was able to come and redeem us.
The consequences of that primordial rebellion remains and man is still a fallen Creature and still endowed with free will. Ultimately though Evil as a result of free will both Human and angelic is permitted by God as a manifestation of his greater glory.
The truth if this last statement is made manifest in the Paschal Mystery. The Paschal mystery is the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus. In the paschal Mystery we see evil in its purest form. Jesus a man with no sin is betrayed by Judas (and act of Free will) condemned by the Sanhedrin and Roman authorities (all acts of free will) to die the most horrible death possible (as seen on the Movie the Passion). It took this act of pure evil to bring forth the manifest glory of God in the resurrection.
In short evil is allowed (not caused) by God because he allows for free will, which is abused by both man and angelic being, in order that his greater Glory is made manifest.
Further Reading
The reason God allows evil is because he created being endowed with free will. God did not create puppets and this goes for the angels in heaven. The beginning of evil begins with the rebellion of Satan. Satan was created with the same free will and rebelled against God. After Satan's Fall he sought to tempt man and bring man down with him. When this happened original sin entered the world and creation. Thus bringing disorder to what had been an orderly creation. Satan threw a wrench in the works so to speak. Man was by no means an Innocent participant. Man made a free will decision to disobey God and conspired with Satan in this rebellion. The difference is that Satan's fall is complete since his rejection was complete. Mans fall was not complete, this is why Jesus was able to come and redeem us.
The consequences of that primordial rebellion remains and man is still a fallen Creature and still endowed with free will. Ultimately though Evil as a result of free will both Human and angelic is permitted by God as a manifestation of his greater glory.
The truth if this last statement is made manifest in the Paschal Mystery. The Paschal mystery is the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus. In the paschal Mystery we see evil in its purest form. Jesus a man with no sin is betrayed by Judas (and act of Free will) condemned by the Sanhedrin and Roman authorities (all acts of free will) to die the most horrible death possible (as seen on the Movie the Passion). It took this act of pure evil to bring forth the manifest glory of God in the resurrection.
In short evil is allowed (not caused) by God because he allows for free will, which is abused by both man and angelic being, in order that his greater Glory is made manifest.
Further Reading
Gay Marriage is not about Equal rights
Lets not kid ourselves Gay Marriage is an attack on Marriage. It is an imposition of their morals, or lack thereof, upon the majority. Yesterday the California courts did what California courts do, to overturned the will of the people and legislated from the bench, allowing for the homosexual lobby to redefine a God ordained institution. They say that this will be a legal matter, but and that Churches are not obliged to recognized or sanction such unions. How long before a church is sues for doing just that?
It is not about equal rights, if it were they would have lobbied, with the support of the majority of people, they would have lobbied for the legal and social benefits of marriage, such as the sharing of insurance policy etc, without forcing the change in the definition of Marriage of the union of One man and One woman (till death do us part). The reality is that Marriage as currently defined and as ordained by God, places gay unions in judgement as immoral. Anything that places immorality in judgement is dangerous to the those that live immoral lifestyles.
I have heard the argument that redefining marriage does not affect my marriage, this is true. This is not about me, it is about a God ordained institution. If we want to redefined Marriage, why not redefine any other word, why not call Dogs, cats, or call water, fire.
Ladies and Gentlemen, There is no such thing as gay marriage. Gay unions, domestic partnerships, perhaps. Let them have their unions and allow them to have other social right, but they cannot have Marriage.
Article
It is not about equal rights, if it were they would have lobbied, with the support of the majority of people, they would have lobbied for the legal and social benefits of marriage, such as the sharing of insurance policy etc, without forcing the change in the definition of Marriage of the union of One man and One woman (till death do us part). The reality is that Marriage as currently defined and as ordained by God, places gay unions in judgement as immoral. Anything that places immorality in judgement is dangerous to the those that live immoral lifestyles.
I have heard the argument that redefining marriage does not affect my marriage, this is true. This is not about me, it is about a God ordained institution. If we want to redefined Marriage, why not redefine any other word, why not call Dogs, cats, or call water, fire.
Ladies and Gentlemen, There is no such thing as gay marriage. Gay unions, domestic partnerships, perhaps. Let them have their unions and allow them to have other social right, but they cannot have Marriage.
Article
Monday, June 16, 2008
What is truth?
What is truth? This was the ironic question Pilate asked when in the presence of truth incarnate. (John 18:38). This question seems to reverberates through the ages to the present where modern man seems to be asking the same question. Unfortunately for modern man the answer is not the truth incarnate. For modern man the truth is whatever feels good. Today the response is what ever is true for you may no be true for me, but both are valid truths. Truth today is relative and subjective. Truth in today's world is in fact 6.5 billion truths.
But the real truth is something entirely different. The fact is that truth is objective and not dependent on anyone belief for it existence anymore than the wall in front of me depends on my belief for it's existence. If I were to say that my truth says that the wall does not exist that does not mean I can simply walk though. Any attempt to prove my version of the truth would likely result in a broken nose.
There is one truth, and that is the person of Jesus. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the Life"(John 14:16). He also said "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free"(John 8:32) This last passage has great implications. It shows that knowledge of truth (real truth not the subjective relativism we see today) brings freedom, it also means that the opposite is also truth, living and believing a lie will lead to slavery. Those that claim a truth not from Jesus are in reality enslaving themselves to a falsehood disguised as a personal truth.
But the real truth is something entirely different. The fact is that truth is objective and not dependent on anyone belief for it existence anymore than the wall in front of me depends on my belief for it's existence. If I were to say that my truth says that the wall does not exist that does not mean I can simply walk though. Any attempt to prove my version of the truth would likely result in a broken nose.
There is one truth, and that is the person of Jesus. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the Life"(John 14:16). He also said "you will know the truth and the truth will set you free"(John 8:32) This last passage has great implications. It shows that knowledge of truth (real truth not the subjective relativism we see today) brings freedom, it also means that the opposite is also truth, living and believing a lie will lead to slavery. Those that claim a truth not from Jesus are in reality enslaving themselves to a falsehood disguised as a personal truth.
Man Greater than the Sum of his parts
Today I was Listening to Bill Bennett and he made a comment that made me think. He was expressing amazement at how the Brain, a three pound mass of connecting neurons and firing synapses could result in our thought processes and to the notions of being. The fascinating thing is how this process of bio-electrical impulses translates to what we are as people. In essence philosophical statement "I think therefore I am" is the result of this biological process. Or is it? I think the fact that we are self aware goes beyond biological processes. The fact that we are born with a desire to go beyond ourselves and seek out God makes us greater than the sum of our parts. We are not merely a mass of cells working in harmony to form a human being. We are more than that. Only the Human can turn those firing synapses, in to splitting the atom and into putting a man on the Moon. In any other animals those firing synapses are geared towards mere survival and reproduction. We go beyond that and beyond ourselves.
Further Thoughts on the Divinity of Jesus
There are religious groups that claim the title of Christian that do reject the Divinity of Jesus and thus the historical understanding of the Trinity as espoused in both the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.
Two Groups in particular come to mind, the Jehovah's Witnesses (Further Reading, here and here) and the Mormons (Further Reading, here and here), the latter's most Famous adherent would have made and may still yet make a good president, that would be Mitt Romney.
The Jehovah's Witnesses for example have gone so far in their desire to do away with the trinitarian dogma that they have authored their own translation of the bible called the New World Translation, with numerous translations errors (I am being charitable here), done specifically to deny Christ his divinity. This translation has led many and unprepared Christian, both Catholic and non-Catholic (Sadly mostly Catholic Though) to leave their tradition and join with this pseudo-Christian Group. As Demonstrated in my previous post the Scriptures as well as the constant teaching of traditional Christianity is quite clear on the Divinity of Jesus.
The Mormons are something entirely different. They accept a Traditional version of Scripture in the King James Version (which has it's own problems but not to the extent of the New World Translation). This translation does establish the Trinitarian dogma quite clearly, however in order to justify their anti-traditional trinitarian view they state that their acceptance of this translation is conditional. The difference between them and the JW's is that they accept continuing revelation as expressed through their own office of Apostles and Prophets and in a second inspired Scripture called the Book of Mormons. It Must be noted by the way that this is not their only inspired text, they also believe all documents emerging from their governing body located in Salt Lake City, such as The Pearl of Great Price, is also inspired and on equal footing with Scripture, in this ongoing revelation they have developed a truncated version of The Trinity
Note in the article linked their notion of the Godhead and three gods forming one God Head. I heard a Mormon one state is as Three god that are one in purpose. This is completely different from the Traditional and Apostolic teachings regarding the Trinity as expressed in the Creeds.
It is important that As Christians we are clear, The Trinity is an undeniable dogma of all Christians. It is what makes other non-Catholic traditions Christians even if they do not hold to the fullness of faith as expressed by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith. One cannot be a Christian and not Accept the Trinity. Thus the JW's and the Mormons are not true Christian Faiths even if they insist in claiming that title (I say this in all charity, but it is true).
This Column from Marcellino D'Abrossio is intereting in light of this post.
Two Groups in particular come to mind, the Jehovah's Witnesses (Further Reading, here and here) and the Mormons (Further Reading, here and here), the latter's most Famous adherent would have made and may still yet make a good president, that would be Mitt Romney.
The Jehovah's Witnesses for example have gone so far in their desire to do away with the trinitarian dogma that they have authored their own translation of the bible called the New World Translation, with numerous translations errors (I am being charitable here), done specifically to deny Christ his divinity. This translation has led many and unprepared Christian, both Catholic and non-Catholic (Sadly mostly Catholic Though) to leave their tradition and join with this pseudo-Christian Group. As Demonstrated in my previous post the Scriptures as well as the constant teaching of traditional Christianity is quite clear on the Divinity of Jesus.
The Mormons are something entirely different. They accept a Traditional version of Scripture in the King James Version (which has it's own problems but not to the extent of the New World Translation). This translation does establish the Trinitarian dogma quite clearly, however in order to justify their anti-traditional trinitarian view they state that their acceptance of this translation is conditional. The difference between them and the JW's is that they accept continuing revelation as expressed through their own office of Apostles and Prophets and in a second inspired Scripture called the Book of Mormons. It Must be noted by the way that this is not their only inspired text, they also believe all documents emerging from their governing body located in Salt Lake City, such as The Pearl of Great Price, is also inspired and on equal footing with Scripture, in this ongoing revelation they have developed a truncated version of The Trinity
Note in the article linked their notion of the Godhead and three gods forming one God Head. I heard a Mormon one state is as Three god that are one in purpose. This is completely different from the Traditional and Apostolic teachings regarding the Trinity as expressed in the Creeds.
It is important that As Christians we are clear, The Trinity is an undeniable dogma of all Christians. It is what makes other non-Catholic traditions Christians even if they do not hold to the fullness of faith as expressed by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Faith. One cannot be a Christian and not Accept the Trinity. Thus the JW's and the Mormons are not true Christian Faiths even if they insist in claiming that title (I say this in all charity, but it is true).
This Column from Marcellino D'Abrossio is intereting in light of this post.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Is Jesus God?
Today I had a disturbing Dream. The details are unimportant but the essence was a discussion with a family member as to the Divinity of Jesus. The disturbing part is that this family member should have known better (no it was not my brother). I thought that since this is in part an apologetics site, I should post something in that area, lest this becomes exclusively a political site.
It is a part of traditional Christian teaching that Jesus is divine and the second member of the Holy Trinity (read article as well).
Other Scripture Verses For example, Mat 1:23 Jesus claim to be equal with the Father In John 10:30. Jesus Also Use the Term " I Am" to refer to himself on various occasions.
"I Am" is the descriptive name God gives to himself in Exodus 3:14,15, which the Hebrew renders as YAWH.
Jesus appropriates this title for himself in these Verses, John 8:58, Statement for which they wanted to stone him precisely because they knew the implications of that statement, In John 18:5,6 we see those who come to arrest him fell when Jesus said "I am he" it was at saying I am he that they fell back.
As can be seen by the linked articles there is plenty of scriptural and historical evidence to point to the Divinity of Jesus. The apostles understood this, but only after a time, which is why Jesus lamented Phillips lack of understanding in John 14: 8,12.
But it is in the Resurrection where we see the true divinity of Jesus. That Jesus rose from the dead on his own power is proof of his divinity and a historical fact (this will be dealt with in future posts).
In Short Jesus is as much God, (one person, two natures one human one Divine) as the Father and the Holy Spirit is God. This is the mystery of the trinity, revealed to man not something come come up on his own.
It is a part of traditional Christian teaching that Jesus is divine and the second member of the Holy Trinity (read article as well).
Other Scripture Verses For example, Mat 1:23 Jesus claim to be equal with the Father In John 10:30. Jesus Also Use the Term " I Am" to refer to himself on various occasions.
"I Am" is the descriptive name God gives to himself in Exodus 3:14,15, which the Hebrew renders as YAWH.
Jesus appropriates this title for himself in these Verses, John 8:58, Statement for which they wanted to stone him precisely because they knew the implications of that statement, In John 18:5,6 we see those who come to arrest him fell when Jesus said "I am he" it was at saying I am he that they fell back.
As can be seen by the linked articles there is plenty of scriptural and historical evidence to point to the Divinity of Jesus. The apostles understood this, but only after a time, which is why Jesus lamented Phillips lack of understanding in John 14: 8,12.
But it is in the Resurrection where we see the true divinity of Jesus. That Jesus rose from the dead on his own power is proof of his divinity and a historical fact (this will be dealt with in future posts).
In Short Jesus is as much God, (one person, two natures one human one Divine) as the Father and the Holy Spirit is God. This is the mystery of the trinity, revealed to man not something come come up on his own.
To all Fathers out there
Happy Fathers Day. I think this article highlights what most of us instinctively know. Fathers are important.
Affirmative Action Conservative?
I find this troubling, Article.
I understand the Historic aspect of a Black Man being this close to wining the presidency, but the damage done to the country after four or eight years of this particular black mans presidency cannot justify this type of affirmative action presidency.
I have a suggestion, If these guys wanted a black man in office then why do they not run themselves, that way we can have not just an affirmative action black man but one that is qualified and would earn the office based on his character not the color of his skin. To vote an unqualified black man into office based only on the color of his skin is to do a disservice to the legacy of Dr. King and his vision. It also seems to state that Black men cannot gain higher office without affirmative action, this notion is inherently racist and I have to believe these guys do not hold racist views.
As a Hispanic (with an English name to boot) my candidate would have been Bill Richardson under this criteria. In all actuality I believe Richardson is far more qualified. At least he has executive experience as governor of New Mexico and although left wing in his politics he is a realist and was not above cutting taxes to help the economy of his state, Article, I do not think Obama will be this smart.
So I ask these conservative power houses (not that I would be so lucky to have them read this minuscule bog, but if anyone knows them please send them my way) do not compromise your principle for affirmative action, Instead run for office an get the vote of the likes of me who would love to vote for a qualified conservative candidate, woman, black, or Hispanic.
I understand the Historic aspect of a Black Man being this close to wining the presidency, but the damage done to the country after four or eight years of this particular black mans presidency cannot justify this type of affirmative action presidency.
I have a suggestion, If these guys wanted a black man in office then why do they not run themselves, that way we can have not just an affirmative action black man but one that is qualified and would earn the office based on his character not the color of his skin. To vote an unqualified black man into office based only on the color of his skin is to do a disservice to the legacy of Dr. King and his vision. It also seems to state that Black men cannot gain higher office without affirmative action, this notion is inherently racist and I have to believe these guys do not hold racist views.
As a Hispanic (with an English name to boot) my candidate would have been Bill Richardson under this criteria. In all actuality I believe Richardson is far more qualified. At least he has executive experience as governor of New Mexico and although left wing in his politics he is a realist and was not above cutting taxes to help the economy of his state, Article, I do not think Obama will be this smart.
So I ask these conservative power houses (not that I would be so lucky to have them read this minuscule bog, but if anyone knows them please send them my way) do not compromise your principle for affirmative action, Instead run for office an get the vote of the likes of me who would love to vote for a qualified conservative candidate, woman, black, or Hispanic.
I love Ann Coulter
For all His faults. There are some things I have disagreed with him on. One cannot fault the job George Bush has done in two areas. One is the war on terrorism, read this column.
The other area I think he has done great is on the economy. You might think me crazy given the recent down turn. But I contend that were it not for the tax breaks (which by the way are set to expire, and if you think things are bad now wait until that happens) things would be far worse.
The other area I think he has done great is on the economy. You might think me crazy given the recent down turn. But I contend that were it not for the tax breaks (which by the way are set to expire, and if you think things are bad now wait until that happens) things would be far worse.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Another question
Senator Obama has a terrible track records when it comes to judging the character of his friends. When troublesome quotes make the new his standard response is "So and So is not the person I met however many years ago".
I wonder when he meet Makmud I'm-a-dirty-yak, and Hugo Chavez (without preconditions mind you) will he make the same statement to what is left of the press when New York or Los Angeles is turned into a radio active piece of glass.
I wonder when he meet Makmud I'm-a-dirty-yak, and Hugo Chavez (without preconditions mind you) will he make the same statement to what is left of the press when New York or Los Angeles is turned into a radio active piece of glass.
Master pieces.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Immigration
Immigration is perhaps the one issue where I tend to part ways with the stereotypical right winger. My views in immigration are perhaps closer to that of the libertarian. Before I post what I think is the most sensible way to solve the immigration situation I must disclose that my views on immigration are partly based on having married a woman who at the time we met was an undocumented alien. She is the woman I love and the mother of my two beautiful girls pictured in my bio section.
It seems to me that neither of our two parties have a real interest in addressing the immigration issue for what I think are selfish reasons on both sides. One party is happy to keep them as illegals so as to provide the cheap unregulated labor they provide and the other are content to keep them illegal so they can have the issue available for campaigning when election time comes around. To solve the issue eliminates a campaign issue you see.
What seems to be forgotten on both sides is that what is being used for political capital here are human beings. Yes they are breaking our immigration laws and yes I know immigration laws in many of these countries are worse than our own, but they are human being's nevertheless. We must never loose sight of this. I hear a lot of people on my side state that they are breaking our laws and thus must be treated as criminals and that they are jumping in front of the proverbial line of those that others must wait in order to enter the nation legally. seldom is does anyone mention that it often takes years to enter process the paper legally and that all to often after years and months of waiting they are rejected entry. While they are waiting months and years to process their legal papers they must sit there and watch their children go to bed hungry and live in houses with dirt floors ( I have been to Mexico I have seen them). Again I will grant they are breaking the law entering our country, we must not forget that Rosa Parks broke the law when she sat in the front of the bus and Harriet Tubman was breaking the Law when she took human across state borders to freedom in the north where slavery was illegal. I have yet to hear any one of my right wing brethren propose changing the laws to make it easier for these people to come in legally and with their dignity intact.
I do recognize the need to have secure borders especially in this day and age of terrorism. (by the way all of our Sept 11the terrorist came into the country legally and from our northern border not the southern. That also seems to get scant mention. that too is a part of our broken immigration system that needs to be addressed.)
I will not leave this post without proposing what I think is a reasonable solution, which by virtue of being reasonable is doomed to being ignored by politicians who have no interest in solving the issue and are content in using humans as political pawns.
I will list here a multi point solution to the immigration situation.
It seems to me that neither of our two parties have a real interest in addressing the immigration issue for what I think are selfish reasons on both sides. One party is happy to keep them as illegals so as to provide the cheap unregulated labor they provide and the other are content to keep them illegal so they can have the issue available for campaigning when election time comes around. To solve the issue eliminates a campaign issue you see.
What seems to be forgotten on both sides is that what is being used for political capital here are human beings. Yes they are breaking our immigration laws and yes I know immigration laws in many of these countries are worse than our own, but they are human being's nevertheless. We must never loose sight of this. I hear a lot of people on my side state that they are breaking our laws and thus must be treated as criminals and that they are jumping in front of the proverbial line of those that others must wait in order to enter the nation legally. seldom is does anyone mention that it often takes years to enter process the paper legally and that all to often after years and months of waiting they are rejected entry. While they are waiting months and years to process their legal papers they must sit there and watch their children go to bed hungry and live in houses with dirt floors ( I have been to Mexico I have seen them). Again I will grant they are breaking the law entering our country, we must not forget that Rosa Parks broke the law when she sat in the front of the bus and Harriet Tubman was breaking the Law when she took human across state borders to freedom in the north where slavery was illegal. I have yet to hear any one of my right wing brethren propose changing the laws to make it easier for these people to come in legally and with their dignity intact.
I do recognize the need to have secure borders especially in this day and age of terrorism. (by the way all of our Sept 11the terrorist came into the country legally and from our northern border not the southern. That also seems to get scant mention. that too is a part of our broken immigration system that needs to be addressed.)
I will not leave this post without proposing what I think is a reasonable solution, which by virtue of being reasonable is doomed to being ignored by politicians who have no interest in solving the issue and are content in using humans as political pawns.
I will list here a multi point solution to the immigration situation.
- Secure the border. National security demands we do secure our borders, both northern and southern and make sure we keep track of all who enter, not just those of our southern border.
- Stream line the immigration process. There is no excuse for keeping these people hanging for years filling unending reams paperwork. I have asked Mexicans if they were promised that they could enter the country legally within six months if they would go back and come in legally. The answer is usually yes. They do not like their legal status any more than we do.
- Stop welfare services. I am opposed to most welfare programs in principle. Most Mexicans do not come here looking for handouts, they come here looking for work. They are however not stupid, when social workers come around offering assistance they will take it. They just left a socialist country after all, they often know no better.
- Force them to change their economic system. As long as other countries send their economic problems to us we have a right to do what ever we can to make them change their economic system to look like ours. Mexicans here can vote in their national elections, they also have regular contact with family and friends at home. I say we actively campaign for the candidate that most promises to do that. If they imitate our economy they will in time not need to come here. No one wants to leave their country if they do not have to. I would also use foreign aid as a means of forcing as many countries as possible to change their economic systems. No foreign aid unless you take steps to imitate us. In time they will not need foreign aid as once they adopt our economic system their economies will flourish.
It is my belief that by adopting these ideas we will both protect our borders, reduce immigration and treat our immigrants with respect and dignity once more.
Why I do not like to use the word Liberal
As can be seen by my posts I am nothing if not a right wing capitalist, in my political outlook.
So why will I not use the word Liberal when referring to left wing, secular, socialists? The answer is simple, the word Liberal is derived from the rook for Liberty. I contend that there is nothing in the left wing, secular, socialist ideology that is liberating. Instead I contend that any ideology that places a person in servitude to the state and to ones passions as in the, pro-abortion and so called "gay rights" movements are by definition the antithesis of Liberty. Therefore I will not grant to such an Ideology any word that has at its roots in Liberty
So why will I not use the word Liberal when referring to left wing, secular, socialists? The answer is simple, the word Liberal is derived from the rook for Liberty. I contend that there is nothing in the left wing, secular, socialist ideology that is liberating. Instead I contend that any ideology that places a person in servitude to the state and to ones passions as in the, pro-abortion and so called "gay rights" movements are by definition the antithesis of Liberty. Therefore I will not grant to such an Ideology any word that has at its roots in Liberty
Monday, June 9, 2008
Question for those that Believe man evolved by chance
Why is it that this machine required intelligent design to evolve, but we are expected to believe that this far more complex machine, evolved by accident?
Just curious.
Just curious.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Why I am Catholic
One of the reasons I created this blog is to Give a reasoned defense for my Catholic Faith.
1 Peter. 3:15 ....Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; (note the link takes you to the whole epistle, lest I be acused of missing the context). I believe that it is incumbent in each believer to be able to give a reason for their faith, and not just a some murky sentimental reason, but an explanation based on sound reason. In my view there is nothing more reasonable than Christianity.
So now for my explanation for why I am catholic. For me it comes down to what was the church that Jesus founded upon the apostles. Everything I have seen points to the Roman Catholic Church. There is an unbroken line of succession from my bishop to the apostolic era. This is called apostolic succession. The early church was catholic both in doctrine and in structure. Jesus said to Peter in Mathew 16:[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Jesus went on to tell his apostles in Luke 10: 16; He who hear you hears me and he who rejects you reject me. And In Mathew 28:20 "....I am with you til the end of the age".
The promises of Jesus to his apostles did not die with the last apostles nor did the early church believe that. This is why I remain Catholic in light of recent bad press regarding the sex abuse scandal and crazy priests like Reverend Pfleger.
So basically I am Catholic because the Apostles were. I see no need to start another church. Jesus already did that. I have no nail scars on my hands to give the authority to start a new one.
1 Peter. 3:15 ....Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence; (note the link takes you to the whole epistle, lest I be acused of missing the context). I believe that it is incumbent in each believer to be able to give a reason for their faith, and not just a some murky sentimental reason, but an explanation based on sound reason. In my view there is nothing more reasonable than Christianity.
So now for my explanation for why I am catholic. For me it comes down to what was the church that Jesus founded upon the apostles. Everything I have seen points to the Roman Catholic Church. There is an unbroken line of succession from my bishop to the apostolic era. This is called apostolic succession. The early church was catholic both in doctrine and in structure. Jesus said to Peter in Mathew 16:[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Jesus went on to tell his apostles in Luke 10: 16; He who hear you hears me and he who rejects you reject me. And In Mathew 28:20 "....I am with you til the end of the age".
The promises of Jesus to his apostles did not die with the last apostles nor did the early church believe that. This is why I remain Catholic in light of recent bad press regarding the sex abuse scandal and crazy priests like Reverend Pfleger.
So basically I am Catholic because the Apostles were. I see no need to start another church. Jesus already did that. I have no nail scars on my hands to give the authority to start a new one.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Who is at Fault for high Oil Prices
Today while working I noted that Gas locally was up to $3.99 a gallon. Who is to blame for these high gas prices. It is easy to blame the Gas companies, or Big oil as the industries detractors are want to call them. But are they really to blame?
Let see, Oil companies make less than $.08 per gallon, while congress makes $.18 per gallon, this does not account for what state and local government also gets from a gallon of Gas. Of course governments says it is for road improvement. Yeah! tell that to the families who lost loved one in the Minnesota Bridge collapse last year.
Oil Companies take their portion of the profits and use it for further exploration (in the few areas they are still allowed to explore) and to pay it's stock holders (If you have a retirement plan this means you) Congress takes it's portion and uses it to buy votes. I wonder which is the more efficient use of gas profits?
The reason oil prices are as high as they are is due to the basic Laws of supply and demand. Oil extraction has not increased dramatically in recent years. In the U.S. Oil refineries have not been built in over thirty years, to the point that we are now importing refined gasoline. Therefore the supply has not increased much. On the demand side countries such as China and India have gown economically and are now using more petroleum products. So while the supply has not grown significantly the demand has. Low supply and high demand means high prices.
The obstacle to increasing supply lies with our own government and their Eco-Nazi allies that have prevented us from drilling for our own oil and from using technologies such as Atomic power to ease the demand of power plants for petroleum leaving that supply for the use of gasoline.
Maxine Water let the cat out of the bag, socialist are about taking over the means of production and having it run by the federal government.
Let's not kid ourselves government ownership of the big oil is the goal. Once that is done gas prices will not go down. I know I have been to Mexico where the oil company is state run. Gas prices are as high there as they are here and their oil production runs at a surplus to the point that they are a major supplier of petroleum to the U.S.
If we want to bring the price of Oil down lets try this.
While portions of this idea seems to buy into the Global warming hoax, at the very least is seeks to use market forces to bring oil prices down. the Geo engineering Idea will probably never work, simply because if it were to prove sensible the very people that are screaming global warming now will come up with a reason to oppose any Idea that would result in man made solution, that does not result in humanity moving back into caves and creating more green house gases at the family Hearth.
I refuse to believe that the country that put man on the Moon, split the atom and invented the Airplane cannot figure out how to allow market forces to bring oil prices down.
Remember the price of Gas is due in large part to the cost of oil Futures. Oil futures are based one speculation about future supply and demand. If congress allowed for oil drilling tomorrow oil futures will drop and gas prices will as well.
Let see, Oil companies make less than $.08 per gallon, while congress makes $.18 per gallon, this does not account for what state and local government also gets from a gallon of Gas. Of course governments says it is for road improvement. Yeah! tell that to the families who lost loved one in the Minnesota Bridge collapse last year.
Oil Companies take their portion of the profits and use it for further exploration (in the few areas they are still allowed to explore) and to pay it's stock holders (If you have a retirement plan this means you) Congress takes it's portion and uses it to buy votes. I wonder which is the more efficient use of gas profits?
The reason oil prices are as high as they are is due to the basic Laws of supply and demand. Oil extraction has not increased dramatically in recent years. In the U.S. Oil refineries have not been built in over thirty years, to the point that we are now importing refined gasoline. Therefore the supply has not increased much. On the demand side countries such as China and India have gown economically and are now using more petroleum products. So while the supply has not grown significantly the demand has. Low supply and high demand means high prices.
The obstacle to increasing supply lies with our own government and their Eco-Nazi allies that have prevented us from drilling for our own oil and from using technologies such as Atomic power to ease the demand of power plants for petroleum leaving that supply for the use of gasoline.
Maxine Water let the cat out of the bag, socialist are about taking over the means of production and having it run by the federal government.
Let's not kid ourselves government ownership of the big oil is the goal. Once that is done gas prices will not go down. I know I have been to Mexico where the oil company is state run. Gas prices are as high there as they are here and their oil production runs at a surplus to the point that they are a major supplier of petroleum to the U.S.
If we want to bring the price of Oil down lets try this.
While portions of this idea seems to buy into the Global warming hoax, at the very least is seeks to use market forces to bring oil prices down. the Geo engineering Idea will probably never work, simply because if it were to prove sensible the very people that are screaming global warming now will come up with a reason to oppose any Idea that would result in man made solution, that does not result in humanity moving back into caves and creating more green house gases at the family Hearth.
I refuse to believe that the country that put man on the Moon, split the atom and invented the Airplane cannot figure out how to allow market forces to bring oil prices down.
Remember the price of Gas is due in large part to the cost of oil Futures. Oil futures are based one speculation about future supply and demand. If congress allowed for oil drilling tomorrow oil futures will drop and gas prices will as well.
There is Global Warming after all..
This is terrible, it appears that this planet is warming dramatically. The polar ice caps are melting. In the meantime human vehicular activity has increased four to five times in recent years. We must do something or the planet is doomed......
The problem is I am talking about Mars, here is the Article.
Even this article tries to make the connection that Our global warming is associated with human activity and in the very next Paragraph states "But changes in our planet's average temperature can also be driven up or down by natural phenomena such as shifts in orbit or axis rotation, and the release of naturally-occurring greenhouse gases by volcanoes and vegetation".
It also appears that climate change is taking place in other planets such as Jupiter, Here is that Article.
The fact is that the one constant in earth geologic history is climate change. Everything from the average global temperature to the mixture of gases in the atmosphere has changed dramatically over the milennia, most of this before man was ever in the picture. The woolly mammoth disappeared when the planet warmed so fast it was unable to adapt to climate change. Man was barely using spears at the time.I saw a program on one of the educational channels the other day that stated that before there were even dinosaurs the earth went through a period where the whole planet was one big ball of ice. Guess what it took global warming to get the planet out of that condition.
Lets get over ourselves, we did not make this planet we will not destroy it. Lets worry about the condition of our souls, that we can control.
The problem is I am talking about Mars, here is the Article.
Even this article tries to make the connection that Our global warming is associated with human activity and in the very next Paragraph states "But changes in our planet's average temperature can also be driven up or down by natural phenomena such as shifts in orbit or axis rotation, and the release of naturally-occurring greenhouse gases by volcanoes and vegetation".
It also appears that climate change is taking place in other planets such as Jupiter, Here is that Article.
The fact is that the one constant in earth geologic history is climate change. Everything from the average global temperature to the mixture of gases in the atmosphere has changed dramatically over the milennia, most of this before man was ever in the picture. The woolly mammoth disappeared when the planet warmed so fast it was unable to adapt to climate change. Man was barely using spears at the time.I saw a program on one of the educational channels the other day that stated that before there were even dinosaurs the earth went through a period where the whole planet was one big ball of ice. Guess what it took global warming to get the planet out of that condition.
Lets get over ourselves, we did not make this planet we will not destroy it. Lets worry about the condition of our souls, that we can control.
Friday, June 6, 2008
When Are we Going to Learn
As a Catholic I am morally bound to Church teaching when it comes to matters of faith and morals. I am thus subject to the Bishop of Rome and my local bishop as duly appointed Shepherds of the flock to which I belong. I am free however to question and even criticize, respectfully of course church the way the non-doctrinal aspects of the church are administered.
I had to get that in as I am about to go on rant against how the church is being administered in a particular situation.
That Particular situation is that of Reverend Pfleger ( I still cannot bring myself to call him Father) The response from Francis Cardinal George the Archbishop in charge of the Archdiocese of Chicago where all this is taking place is at the very least troublesome to me.
I use the following article as my reference; Article
My question is, Has the Child abuse scandal not taught the Church in the United States anything? Please understand that I am not trying to compare the evils of Child sexual abuse to the political ratings of a priest, but there are parallels that I will draw out here. For one the way the abusive Priests were reassigned (based in many cases on the advice of Medical Professionals, which is not an excuse but it a mitigating circumstance) proved to be a disaster of Church administration and resulted in many people leaving the faith and even rejecting God altogether.
The response of the Archbishop has been to Ask, not order, Reverend Pfleger to take time of, Two weeks to be exact. Here is the problem. Apparently Reverend Pfleger has a history of such political astaticism, which is itself problematic as it is against Church practice to endorse political candidates or movements. It is only when one of these rants makes national headlines that the Archbishop decides to ask, not order, the Reverend to take time of, two weeks to be exact. A case can be made here that this Reverends rants have caused grave damage to the faithful. He has endorsed a political candidate that is Pro abortion to the point that he stood in the way of protecting the survivors of Botched abortions already this is grounds for excommunication (far better in my view than asking, not ordering time off, two weeks to be exact).
The article also shows the reaction of the parishioners in support of the Reverend. This is also problematic since one attends mass to Worship Jesus not to offer cult to any one person even the priest presiding. The other problem I have is some of these people are talking of starting another church or joining what ever church the reverend may start, again indicating that whatever this Reverend was preaching from the pulpit was not Catholicism but something more akin to the liberation Theology preached In Obama’s church.
I understand that the Church has to be pastoral when dealing with its members. Unfortunately is seems these days that being pastoral is simply an excuse for being a decanting catholic. Being pastoral means bringing the Flock Jesus entrusted to you to his teachings not leading them away from them. True Catholic Pastors Preach the truth of Jesus that sets one free, not the political garbage we heard from Reverend Pfleger that only enslaves people to the lies of racial politics.
I had to get that in as I am about to go on rant against how the church is being administered in a particular situation.
That Particular situation is that of Reverend Pfleger ( I still cannot bring myself to call him Father) The response from Francis Cardinal George the Archbishop in charge of the Archdiocese of Chicago where all this is taking place is at the very least troublesome to me.
I use the following article as my reference; Article
My question is, Has the Child abuse scandal not taught the Church in the United States anything? Please understand that I am not trying to compare the evils of Child sexual abuse to the political ratings of a priest, but there are parallels that I will draw out here. For one the way the abusive Priests were reassigned (based in many cases on the advice of Medical Professionals, which is not an excuse but it a mitigating circumstance) proved to be a disaster of Church administration and resulted in many people leaving the faith and even rejecting God altogether.
The response of the Archbishop has been to Ask, not order, Reverend Pfleger to take time of, Two weeks to be exact. Here is the problem. Apparently Reverend Pfleger has a history of such political astaticism, which is itself problematic as it is against Church practice to endorse political candidates or movements. It is only when one of these rants makes national headlines that the Archbishop decides to ask, not order, the Reverend to take time of, two weeks to be exact. A case can be made here that this Reverends rants have caused grave damage to the faithful. He has endorsed a political candidate that is Pro abortion to the point that he stood in the way of protecting the survivors of Botched abortions already this is grounds for excommunication (far better in my view than asking, not ordering time off, two weeks to be exact).
The article also shows the reaction of the parishioners in support of the Reverend. This is also problematic since one attends mass to Worship Jesus not to offer cult to any one person even the priest presiding. The other problem I have is some of these people are talking of starting another church or joining what ever church the reverend may start, again indicating that whatever this Reverend was preaching from the pulpit was not Catholicism but something more akin to the liberation Theology preached In Obama’s church.
I understand that the Church has to be pastoral when dealing with its members. Unfortunately is seems these days that being pastoral is simply an excuse for being a decanting catholic. Being pastoral means bringing the Flock Jesus entrusted to you to his teachings not leading them away from them. True Catholic Pastors Preach the truth of Jesus that sets one free, not the political garbage we heard from Reverend Pfleger that only enslaves people to the lies of racial politics.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Intro
My name is Richard Lamb and as can be seen by my Bio, I am a man of many interests. I am also opinionated and like to engage in what some call the arena of ideas. This blog is one of what I hope to be an ever-growing number of ways in which I can express my views.
So you know where I come from I am a devout Roman Catholic. I try my best to live in accordance with the Magisterium of the Catholic church and remain in Communion with the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome. Politically I tend to lean right on most issues, and more libertarian when It comes to Immigration, more on that later.
At present time I am about two weeks from earning a Masters Degree in Information systems. Actually I should be working on my homework not starting a Blog, what can I say. I have a Bachelors Degree in Information Technology. I love computers and am in awe of technologies potential for good and terrified of it's potential for evil.
I also have an interest in the Sciences, especially natural Science and Social Sciences. I love Animals, Nature in General and am fascinated and am an avid student of Human nature. I have strong views when it Comes to Man made Global warming, other eco-leftie, anti-capitalist movements.
I am also a capitalist, as Winston Churchill is quoted as saying "Capitalism is the worst economic system to ever work". I hold a slightly higher view of Capitalism but I like the quote.
So, Religion, Politics, Science, Technology Family and Country. Of course there is much more to me, but I have to leave something for future posts, don't I?
So you know where I come from I am a devout Roman Catholic. I try my best to live in accordance with the Magisterium of the Catholic church and remain in Communion with the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome. Politically I tend to lean right on most issues, and more libertarian when It comes to Immigration, more on that later.
At present time I am about two weeks from earning a Masters Degree in Information systems. Actually I should be working on my homework not starting a Blog, what can I say. I have a Bachelors Degree in Information Technology. I love computers and am in awe of technologies potential for good and terrified of it's potential for evil.
I also have an interest in the Sciences, especially natural Science and Social Sciences. I love Animals, Nature in General and am fascinated and am an avid student of Human nature. I have strong views when it Comes to Man made Global warming, other eco-leftie, anti-capitalist movements.
I am also a capitalist, as Winston Churchill is quoted as saying "Capitalism is the worst economic system to ever work". I hold a slightly higher view of Capitalism but I like the quote.
So, Religion, Politics, Science, Technology Family and Country. Of course there is much more to me, but I have to leave something for future posts, don't I?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)