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
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)