Meditation is an ideal way to pray. Using God's word (Lectio Divina) allows me to hear, listen and reflect on what the Lord wants to say to me - to one of his disciples - just like He did two thousand years ago.
The best time to reflect is at the beginning of the day and for at least 15 to 30 minutes.
Prior to going to sleep, read the Mass readings for the next day and then, in the morning, reflect on the Meditation offered on this website.
I hope these daily meditations allow you to know, love and imitate the Lord in a more meaningful way.
God bless you!

Thursday, April 25, 2013

Mk 16:15-20 In A State Of Denial

Feast of St. Mark, the Evangelist
(Click here for readings)
Jesus appeared to the Eleven and said to them:  “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.”
You may not believe me, but it’s hard to preach that which is self-evident, especially when your audience is in denial. 
America is a state in denial.  Our media is in a state of denial.  Our self-proclaimed “tolerant” people are in a state of denial.  They just can’t seem to place their finger on who’s (actually, “what’s”) to blame for the latest terrorist attack.  Of course we all know who committed this atrocity.  But what everyone is reluctant in saying or admitting or suggesting is what’s to blame for it.
We are in a state of denial!  Can anyone blame us?  No!  We face a scary reality.
There are so many people in our nation that would like to believe (or play “make believe”) that religion doesn’t really matter anymore and that all religions are the same.
We would prefer to believe that 9-11, the most horrific terrorist attack EVER, was an American conspiracy.  Yes!  It’s true.  There are a lot of people who would prefer to believe that some nation, even our own nation, was behind it.  They would prefer to believe in this than in the alternative: a group of unprofessional, yet highly religious Muslims. 
We would prefer to believe that these individuals were attacking our democracy and targeting our most important institutions (Twin Towers, Pentagon and the Capitol building), and not our support for Israel and religious freedom.
We would prefer to believe that a government or nation was behind the attacks, not clerics.  You see, a nation is contained to a specific geographical region, and we can put our hands around it.  But clerics?  They’re all over the world!  How do you stop them?
We would prefer to believe that all these terrorist attacks were orchestrated by a small group of individuals who died in their attacks.  Good riddance!  But the reality is quite different:  their legacy lives on; their story is being retold and repeated to this day.  More recruits are coming in… and by the thousands, and they are fighting all over the world and gaining experience.
We would prefer to think that we can kill or apprehend every single terrorist before they strike.  But it seems like sometimes we get there just a little too late, even with the latest technology.
We would prefer to believe that we will not be held hostage by terrorists.  Boston Brave!  But the people of Boston were held hostage for hours, nearly an entire day!  It wasn’t the wrong thing to do, but it was exactly what they (the terrorists) had hoped to do.
We want to believe that people in the Middle East are rejecting radical Islam and embracing something else.  But the truth is:  they are electing Islamists.  We have more countries in the Middle East that have embraced Sharia Law as their law.  In Pakistan, non-Muslims are routinely persecuted and put to death under their recent blasphemy law.   In Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, women are stoned to death.  In Saudi Arabia, criminals are beheaded.  In Iran, a Christian pastor was sentenced to death.  The head of the Iranian nation, elected by the people, continues to deny the Holocaust.  In Egypt, the Muslim brotherhood and the ultra-religious Salafists won, far and square, the Arab Spring elections. 
We would love to believe the war on terror, religious freedom and intolerance is over.  We would love to believe that our leaders are on the right track.
Maybe Christ was on to something when he told his disciples:  “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.”  Maybe he foresaw what would happen if we didn’t.
We have a message that needs to be told.  We have a message that is worth sharing.  Maybe they could use our help today.


  1. Father Alfonse, please keep up the good works you are doing through your Daily Meditations. Many of us love what you say and try to live up to our belief in Christ. Sometimes we don't do such a hot job of it, but we always have the knowledge that we can be better at it next time with His help. His mercy is constant.


  3. Wow! Great questions, Father! This is precisely what we discussed in class today - the importance of spirituality & culture in society. And America has heard {but not heeded} the advise of 3 of its heroes & prophets - President Washington, Eisenhower, & Gen. MacArthur. Washington's Farewell Address - "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." Ike's Farewell Address - "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political & spiritual heritage." And MacArthur's Farewell Address to Congress - "The problem basically is theological ..." All 3 men understood what Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia declared, "America's best ideals are well worth fighting for but we also need to remember that our way of life is as mortal as every other great power; and sooner or later, America will be a footnote in history. Only God is forever." Indeed, as you imply, religions are so very different in substance & we deny that reality. How can we coexist with those who would destroy us, if given the chance? Repent & believe the Gospel because Christ was & is unique - the Son of God! When our President & many others declare that we are no longer a Christian nation, they are saying that we are no longer the nation of our founders. We have lost the protective mantle that once shielded us from much of the potential chaos. The expression "Christ or chaos" has now entered into sharper focus for Americans. Let us pray that we choose wisely.

  4. Amen, Father! As always, I appreciate your refreshingly honest insight and unflinching position on the topic of tolerance, political correctness and society's perpetual denial of most substantive issues. Boston, the mecca to the gurus behind many of these ideals, along with President Obama, will have a difficult time ignoring and excusing radical Islam now that Dzhokhar Tsarvaev has said that he and his brother were "'inspired' by jihadist thought." The intellectual elites of Cambridge, MA who, by the way make up most of our current government and national media, will have to come up with a new rationalization for the terrorists' actions given Dzhokhar's straight forward testimony. I imagine the clerics back at the Chechnya jihad boot camp are none too pleased that their newly Americanized apprentice did not either keep his mouth shut or willfully try to deceive and distort the accusations against him as his predecessors did in the NYC trials. Earlier in the week at Cambridge Ringe and Latin, the fancy ivy-league feeder school, where Dzhokhar had the priviledge of attending, a meeting was held in the auditorium for the students to discuss what happened, etc. A traditional dressed muslim girl stood up and told the 400-student assembly that her first thought upon hearing of the bombings was that she hoped the "perpetrators would not be Muslim" and then she went on to say, "please don't judge me by the way I dress or for my religion." She received a roaring expression of remorse or sympathy for the victims. This is always the reaction we get from the so called "moderate" Muslims. Having grown up in the suburbs of Boston and being subjected to relentless liberal apologists throughout my school life, I can tell you it would be truly miraculous if practicing Catholic students in Boston were afforded the same respect, support and praise as their Muslim peers. Even when I "proclaim the Gospel" by supporting pro-life, pro traditional marriage, displaying a cross in my yard, displaying religious art in my home there are, undoubtedly, handfuls of acquaintances, friends, neighbors and family who eventually become uncomfortable by these outward signs of my faith. Apparently, being in the presence of a group of women clad in Burkas at Six Flags is less threatening than being in my house with Jesus and Mary staring at them. I know you have mentioned this before in your meditations, Father, but I do often wonder what our neighborhoods, our towns, even our Churches and of course, our world would look like if 1.2 billion Catholics were fearless in their proclamation, in word AND deed, of the Gospel today and everyday... Lord Jesus, I trust in You.

  5. Yep, what people blindly following their religion need is more religion - you got in nailed Fr.

    Especially Christianity, because, you know, never in the history of the world have Christians behaved abominably. It's not like a literal reading of the Bible could ever lead anyone to stone people, or push for the death penalty, or criminalize blasphemy, or adultery, or make apostasy (or heresy) punishable by death. Thanks goodness Christians have moved beyond that, but with religious fervor and political power as seen in the Middle East, such things could easily be reintroduced (cf. anti-homosexuality laws in Uganda).


  6. MARCH HARE SAID: Yep, what people blindly following their religion need is more religion. You got "in" nailed Fr.

    I SAY: No. He doesn't say that. In fact, what he actually says (in so many other meditations) that people need to stop following blindly, and that includes atheists, politicians, you name it.

    Christianity would be a great solution. I just finished reading what Pope Francis said: "If our heart is closed, if our heart is made of stone, then the stones will end up in our hands, and we will be ready to throw them at someone."

    I notice more and more how atheists don't like to mention their fellow atheists, such as Kim Jung Un or Joseph Stalin, who are great atheists; that is, they really don't believe in GOD.

    But what you continue to fail to mention are great Christians: the saints, who actually followed the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    So, let me get this straight. What the world needs are more atheists who smoke the following opium: "Do whatever you want, because you'll never be judged for it."

    That's it March Hare. That's what the world needs: more atheism and less conscience.

    I love it. Imagine a world without religon. We don't have to. Banana_slug and you remind us of how obnoxious, ungrateful, arrogant and prideful it would be.

    You nailed it...on the cross.

    1. "No. He doesn't say that."

      Well, actually... I suggest you read the last two paragraphs again.

      "What the world needs are more atheists"

      Pretty sure I never made any positive claims.

      As a stock response, one I'm sure you've heard over and over - but if you're making the same deluded arguments - if all that is making you a nice person is the fear that you'll be judged for it by an omnipotent, omniscient being then you are in real trouble...

  7. "No, he doesn't say that." What did I write? I wrote: "he actually says (in so many other meditations)." That's what I wrote, March Hare. Read it again.

    "Pretty sure I never made any positive claims:" You're right. Nothing you say is very positive, and nothing you claim is positive.

    "As a stock response:" Yes, in other words, as cue from the atheists survival guide, you mean. Only atheists make this claim. I do not know anyone who fogives seven times seventy seven times because of fear of going to hell. In fact, fear will not lead you to heaven; rather, love will.

    It's really sad that no one has ever explained this to you. Really. It is sad.

    But again, you keep nailing it...on the cross.

    1. My dear Anonymous, here's what you don't get I (and possibly most atheists) don't have an emotional attachment to atheism. It is not a club, or a society, or even a set of beliefs that bring people together, it is an observation about the likely state of the universe. Sure, many atheists are not like this, many non-believers are as they are because their religion treated them poorly or they are rebelling against their parents/society, but be that as it may, many of us have no strong opinion on the existence of a deity, we have no particular interest in there not being a theistic god or gods, but if there is I for one would sure like to know about it/them. But what I'm not going to do is pick the religion my society has deemed is right without first having some solid evidence and, thus far, evidence is scant at best.

      "Imagine a world without religion ... how obnoxious, ungrateful, arrogant and prideful it would be"

      So, what is it that makes you not 'obnoxious, ungrateful, arrogant and prideful'? I was assuming, based on your own words, that it would be because you would be judged for your actions since your complaint against more atheism was that atheists subscribe to "do whatever you want, because you'll never be judged for it."

      But anyway, the big question is, should Catholicism gain a massive political power in a western nation, what laws would be enacted? Would drugs be legalised? Would gay civil marriage be allowed? Would gay acts be allowed? Would straight people be allowed to use contraception? Would abused wives be able to leave their husbands? Would non-virgin wives be taken to the steps of their father's house and stoned by the town? Would unruly children be put to death? Would blasphemy be a sin (do Christians have Fatwa envy?)? Would apostasy or heresy be a crime?

      Can you answer any/all of these? Can you say that a completely Catholic theocracy wouldn't, to most outside observers, be in many ways virtually as bad as the current Muslim theocracies?

    2. March Hare,
      I can assume you, banana_slug and many of you other atheist readers are here reading these blogs by Father Alfonse because you are searching for something. I'm doubtful that deep in your heart you don't believe in God. You can't say science has not proven God exists, because science is proving more now than ever that God indeed does exist. Remember the "God Particle" article that came out year or so?

      Coming to this blog and ranting is not the answer. I read all our questions above and there is indeed an answer for every question. For example, the Catholic Church will not accept the idea of gay marriage or contraception out of love for us. Were you aware of the fact that gay men who live the gay lifestyle have an average life expectancy of 20 years less than straight men or gay men who don't live the lifestyle. It is out of love that the Church has her dogmas, teachings and disciplines in place for us. As hard as it is to accept the teaching on contraception, its for our own good, for our physical and emotional health. Since the introduction of the pill, the pregnancy rate for women out of wedlock has gone from 4% to 40%. Disease has spread like wildfire - all in the name of contraception and freedom for women. Really, does this sound like what's good for women? The Church, shepherded by the Holy Spirit, knows what's good for us.

  8. My dear March Hare. I am not an emotional guy. Faith is not an emotional affair. It is an intellectual response to grace and the world around us. We had faith that one day we would go to the Moon. Why? Because the moon is there. We have faith that one day we will cure cancer. Why? Because it exists. We have faith in Cinderella. why? Because we believe the humble are more beautiful than the arrogant. "Blessed are the humble of heart."

    If anything, ATHEISM is a highly emotional affair, for it definitely isn't based on logic or scientific study. Why do atheists continue to believe that scientists will prove that God does not exist? Aren't they barking up the wrong field of study? So what is it? It's pure and simple bigotry.

    Now, I wouldn't even count myself as a great Christian. But what I do well is tear apart the arguments of atheists.

    Let's start shall we. Let's see the hypocrisy in your arguments.

    1. YOU SAY: "Should Catholicism gain a massive political power in a western nation."

    I SAY: I do not believe that Catholicism has any interest what so ever to create a political power. If they did, they would have done so long ago. In fact, even during the Middle Ages, they worked side by side Kings and Queens. If they wanted power, they would have established an army long ago. If they wanted war, then the priests would have generated soldiers from their vast fleet of members. But they didn't. Instead, atheists did. They created communist states and totalitarian states. They even created the first self-proclaimed atheistic state (Albania). You fear the rise of a Christian nation. I fear the rise of ANOTHER (not the first, but another) atheist nation.

    You see your hypocrisy. Let's continue...but now in the reverse. So what if the Church organized a political party? Can't it freely mobilize in a democracy? Or is it an exclusive club were only the rich people (like Mark Zuckerberg) and Hollywood stars, etc... allowed to influence votes? So, hopefully, you would agree that everyone has a right to influence a vote and to cast a vote and to participate and form a political party, correct? So why are you being a hypocrite? I must live with what we have. Shouldn't you, if the chairs were reversed?

    2. Would drugs be legalized? Interesting you mention this. Why should we legalize drugs? To dummy-down our society? To make health care more expensive? To have more ways to drive while intoxicated? To have more people in rehab? Who will pay for them? Who will pay for all of this? The ones that don't have the luxury of being irresponsible and useless? I know far too many young people who started on one drug only to end up on another. If we can't have prayer in schools because it may bother one child, shouldn't be make drugs illegal because it may harm one child? Again, hypocrisy!

    I would hope that if there ever existed a Christian democratic party, then it would CONTINUE to make drugs illegal for the sake of children and families.

    3. Now, in a previous comment, you stated that people should not believe in something out of fear of going to hell. I argued that love, not fear, is what motivates people to heaven.

    But looking at it again, you're argument is pure hypocrisy when you consider we have prisons for people who don't do what they must do. And we consider the "negative" motivation of jail time to be perfectly acceptable. Well, at least "hell" is something you get at the end of your life, not during your life! Do you see the atheistic hypocrisy? You expect religion not to be motivated by the prospect of hell, but you expect society to be motivated by the prospect of prison cells. Nice argument...for a hypocrite.

    Do you begin to see the atheistic mentality that hits religion with a baseball bat and society with a marshmellow?

  9. 4. Would gay civil marriage be allowed? Again, do you see the hypocrisy of your position? You believe THE CATHOLIC Church is exclusive when it doesn't allow gays to marry. And You believe you're inclusive when you do. But your not, because you are still excluding another group of people: polygamists. And believe me, there is an entire group of people that would have been excluded from our fifty-states if they did not renounce polygamy long ago (UTAH).

    The Catholic Church is being consistent in thought. You're not. You're actually driven by emotion, but logic.

    Now I'm not intersted in defending polygomy. I simply want to illustrate your hyprocrisy.

    What is inclusive today, will soon be exclusive tomorrow.

    Before I get off this subject, let me ask you March Hare: When did marriage become unconstitional in the U.S.? When? In 1786? In 2013? When? This question was actually asked by Justice Scalia, an intellectual, not a very emotional guy. The lawyer for gay "marriage" could not answer his question. He knew he was full of it. In a very embarrassing moment, all he could say was: "I DON'T KNOW." Of course he didn't know. It's because it would mean it was unconstituional from the very beginning, and that wouldn't make no sense whatsoever.

    Everything else you mention is simple nonsense and I don't have the time to teach you.

    The French Revolution killed thousands of innocent nuns and priests. The enlightened ones buthered and sent to the guillotine thousands of innocent people. Atheists chalk it up as a gain rather than a loss. That's how you guys think. You say that democracy was in its infancy and so it burped and farted a few too many times.

    Well, can't Christianity say the same as well. Mistakes were made.. We learned. Now, we're ready again.

    Again, the double standard of an atheist (or a hypocrite).

    I would like to make a few points to you.

    1. Muslim terrorists. Our secular and atheistic media would like us all to believe that not all muslims are terrorists; yet, when it comes to priests, they are all pedaphiles. What hypocrisy! They don't want to take an entire group of people and put them in a class, but that is exactly what atheists do to Christians. They call all of them homophobes, racists, etc... Hypocrites!

    2. We have an NBA star who came out of the closet just yesterday. "He's brave," we are told. Yet, for a priest to wear a collar in many countries around the world, including our own, is a very brave thing for them to do. Again, the hyprocrisy of the media is obvious, but I'll excuse it as fanaticism for a radical cause.

    The manner in which the fashion industry exloits women; the manner in which hollywood destroys the innocence of children; the billions the pornographic industry makes off of women's bodies (all in the name of freedom) is more disgusting and more disgraceful than anything you mentioned above.

    When you call the religious homophobes and ignore a young lady who mocked and insulted Catholics, not with arguments or logic, but with profanity and vulgarity - dressing like the Pope and shaving the hair below her belly in the shape of a Cross; when you ignore a Bishop in Belguim who was insulted and assaulted by some punks who blurted out "anus dei", well...all you do March Hare is give me an opportunity to refute your arguments and inform the public of one very apparent thing: How emotional, not rational, you are.

  10. You forgot the best one anonymous: As a Christian, I should not impose my belief on others, but must must pay for others beliefs (i.e. Obamacare and contraceptives). The hypocrisy!

    1. Everybody pays taxes on things they don't want, use or need. People without kids pay taxes for schools. People who never drive pay taxes for roads. Pacifists pay taxes that go to the military.

    2. Exactly. So? What was the point that was being made. Everybody wishes to impose themselves on others, not just the religious.

  11. Father, I have to ask, are you posting as anonymous occasionally? Either accidentally or to hide your identity?

    "The enlightened ones buthered and sent to the guillotine thousands of innocent people" from anonymous here, and

    "why did Hitler buther over 3,000 priests and nuns" from Father on 03/19 (from 03/15 Getting to Know Jesus).


    I have also seen some other very similar phrasing about walking contradictions, how glad the poster is to see how an atheist responded to a particular post, and a few others; some coming from Father, some coming from an anonymous. Nothing conslusive, it just seems a little odd and suspiciously coincidental.

    1. Dear Anonymous. (Am I writing to myself now?) :) I do not typically respond to anonymous comments or phone calls.

      I wish I had the time to respond to comments. Sorry for my delay in getting them out on a timely basis. Believe me, it's not easy to write my daily meditations on a daily basis.

      I think people actually read and remember my meditations. I know some of them use them in their talks.

      But I can say that I have written some comments in the past as anonymous, anonymous.

      Anyways, Hitler's acts are well documented and we all know the French Revolution was a blessing as well as a nightmare. Facts and faith should speak louder than anyone, including me.

  12. That's quite a chip you have on your shoulder there Anonymous, please let me take at least some of the weight from you...

    Let's start with some simple ones: Faith that we would go to the moon is in a whole different category than faith that there is an unseen, unknowable entity that loves us and gives us everlasting life and has opinions about shellfish, mixing two types of cloth or the sleeping arrangements of consenting adults.

    You ask "Why do atheists continue to believe that scientists will prove that God does not exist?" when the reality is very few atheists believe this - most actually know that science could not prove that any gods don't exist. It's tough to prove a negative.

    Now, to respond to your points:
    1. "I do not believe that Catholicism has any interest what so ever to create a political power." Except they do... Ireland and Poland are recent western examples where the Catholic church had massive political influence (cf. abortion, divorce, contraception etc.) and they wield great power in many African and South American countries. If you want to go further back, the periods you mention had the Papacy as the most powerful position in Europe. In America the Church cannot mobilise as a political power unless it gives up its tax-free status - up to them, but no hypocrisy here.

    2. So push to ban alcohol. Or how about you don't get to tell others what they can and can't do if it harms no-one else?

    3. Fear of a going to a place after death when we have no evidence of existing after death or the existence of such a place is a really bad reason for doing (or not doing) anything. Prison is very real and serves multiple purposes, fear being just one. But prison is real and people know they exist. Heaven/hell may be real, but no-one knows and there is no good evidence that they exist.

    4. Ah, you don't know me at all. I'm against state involvement in marriage, but as long as it sticks its nose into private affairs then it shouldn't discriminate. If one group of consenting adults should be entitled to protection of the law then all groups should be, which would cover polygamy, gay marriage and, most controversial of all, incestuous relationships. Again, no emotion, no hypocrisy, just logic. The Church on the other hand should be allowed to restrict the Holy Sacrament of marriage to whomever it chooses.

    "When did marriage become unconstitutional in the U.S.?"
    Don't know. I'd be perfectly happy to assume it is an unconstitutional state of affairs as it quite clearly discriminates against single people, people 'living in sin' and any group barred by teh state from being married.

  13. I just deleted my response to you.

    Let me respond to what you said were the "simple arguments" and let me correct you for a moment.

    "Faith that we would go to the moon is in a whole different category than faith that there is an unseen, unknowable entity that loves us and gives us everlasting life."

    Who said that we have faith in an unseen, unknowable entity. Really? I don't know about others but I know Christians have faith in a very seen, touchable, hearable entity called Jesus Christ, who actually walked on our planet and in a very specific part of our planet as well; spoke to people, simple people, wealthy people, believers and non-believers, sinners and saints; and who did the unbelievable: raised people and himself from the dead. Now you know as well as I do, that human beings can't do that. So, there must have been something amazing about Him. He must have been more than a man.

    We have testimony from his closest friends who actually lived with Him, talked to Him, listened to Him and witnessed what he did.

    So, as you can see, he's not really unlike the moon or the son, but maybe he's more like an eclipse - seen by some, apparent at certain moments, and yet explainable and believeable by all.

    1. Fr. I don't want to sound condescending and tell you what you believe, but please let me correct you a little on something - you do not have faith in Christ who did the things you mention, you have faith that Christ did the things you mention. This is a fundamental difference.

      If you think having faith in Jesus who raised the dead is a reasonable comment (as opposed to having faith that Jesus raised the dead) then I'm afraid your logic has been completely taken over by your faith on this matter.

      Equally a Muslim would say they have faith in Mohammed who flew to Mecca on his horse, rather than they have faith that Mohammed flew to Mecca on his horse.

      As you can see, Jesus may not be completely unlike the sun or the moon, but his claimed miracles clearly are unlike the moon or the sun.

    2. Fr., my point will stand without the inclusion of other religions - most atheists simply use other religions as a way to show believers how they are unconsciously privileging their own religion and shielding it from their critical faculties when they do not do so for claims of other faiths.

      So I am more than happy to dispense with any other religion if it distracts us from the central point in such an egregious way. My intention was to use it to illuminate, not to obfuscate. In that I have clearly failed.

      "your argument was that God was an unseen and unknown entity"

      Yes. Either you have some subjective personal experience of God (which has many, many issues, not least being exceedingly similar experiences being reported by people in a variety of cultures or intoxication levels or brain damage) or you are taking the word of other people (personally or through scripture). No matter which of these is your route to believing it is still an obvious fact that for most people Jesus/Trinity is unseen and unknown. There is scant evidence for the existence of any gods and there is little to no evidence worthy of the name that Jesus performed any of the supernatural acts claimed by believers.

      Before I answer your question, you have to explain what a 'God' is. Is it the Catholic one? Is it any being outside of the universe? Is it a creature with powers so beyond human capabilities that 'God' is the only concept that fits in our minds? Is it a being that creates universes, or this one in particular?

      But, even without your definition, it is entirely feasible that being(s) could exist beyond this universe and potentially generate universes by acts of will and even influence events inside those universes. However, I see no conclusive evidence of this and very little that could even be considered weak evidence. And experience has shown that any supposedly supernatural event that has been thoroughly investigated has never been shown to be anything but natural (and occasionally a fraud) - while this doesn't prove that none were, or that none will be, it does prime us to be skeptical of all supernatural claims.

    3. March Hare, your argument was that God was an unseen and unknown entity. I pointed out that Jesus Christ revealed himself to the human race.

      Now, I must admit that I knew you would move on, and move on as quickly as possible, from Jesus Christ to some other figure. So let me get this straight: your argument against Jesus is that of Mohammad, correct?

      Shouldn't Jesus be evaluated according to his own strengths and weaknesses? What is this “guilt” by "association”?

      Now, I can only think you threw Mohammad in your argument because you thought Mohammad revealed himself as God and not a prophet of God. Or maybe you threw him in there to make God still kind of "unknown"? But that wouldn't make God unknown, it would just make some people confused.

      Mohammad never claimed to be God and neither did Buddha (just in case you were wondering).

      So, what I believe you are doing is avoiding your "unseen, unknown" argument and now moving on to purported miracles and comparing them to others, correct? That is, who has the biggest miracles??? (“My daddy is bigger than yours” type argument).

      I don't know about you, but I need to be systematic in my approach to things. I need to start from the beginning before I can move on or even bother to move on. So, before we can argue on the purported miracles of any religion (which, by the way, I do not have time, but you can read C.S. Lewis' book, MIRACLES), I must ask you: Could God (a superior being) exist? Could God have revealed himself in Jesus Christ? What arguments would you have against Jesus Christ being God: Other religions? Christians??? Again, "guilt" by "association"? It would be better to say He was a liar or a lunatic. Or maybe it was something He said.

  14. Oh, and I forgot to add...

    Thank you very much for your comment regarding incestuous relationships. You're right: human logic, unchained from faith, can lead us to all sorts of conclusions. That's why faith (not emotions) is necessary.

    1. As long as there is no chance of birth defects (screening or gay relationships) and absolutely no coercion involved in any way (e.g. half-sisters who have never met until adulthood) then I fail to see any reason that you'd wish to ban these relationships outside of the 'icky' factor, which I have about gay relationships too, but don't feel that my personal discomfort is enough to make laws against these people.

      Perhaps you have a good reason for stopping the gay half-sisters who didn't meet until adulthood from having a loving relationship recognised and protected by law in the same way they would if they were second cousins or childhood friends. If so I'd love to hear it.

  15. MARCH HARE SAYS: "If one group of consenting adults should be entitled to protection of the law then all groups should be, which would cover polygamy, gay marriage and, most controversial of all, incestuous relationships. Again, no emotion, no hypocrisy, just logic."

    I SAY: That's not even's disturbing.

    1. Disturbing for most, but the same thing could have been said about marriages between people of different classes, different religions, different races or the same gender at various points in history.

      It's interesting that you'd want to use the power of the state to criminalise relationships that you personally find disturbing but which are consensual acts between adults and do not harm anyone else. But hey, it's probably for their own good, eh?

      All of which has become a bit of a tangent from the original point which is that what overly religious countries do not need is more religion and one like Christianity would probably not be noticeably different from the point of view of liberty or equality.

    2. MARCH HARE SAYS: "Disturbing for most, but the same thing could have been said about marriages between people of different classes, different religions"

      I SAY: I wouldn't say disturbing. I would say concerning. The rest is disturbing and disgusting.

      An atheist, Banana_slug, wrote that atheism is simply a belief that there is no god. And that it doesn't effect teh way one lives.

      I think we can put that to rest and agree that that is pure nonsense.


Updated: Comments that are judged to be defamatory, abusive or in bad taste are not acceptable and contributors who consistently fall below certain criteria will be permanently blacklisted. Comments must be concise and to the point.Comments are no longer accepted for posts older than 7 days.