Saturday of the Fifteenth Week In Ordinary Time
The Pharisees went out and took counsel against Jesus to put him to
death.
This morning I turned on the TV
and saw a doctor explaining a certain disease.
I have to admit, I didn’t pay much attention to what he said. Instead, my attention turned to what he was
wearing. He was wearing a very nice
suit. My attention then turned to his
nationality. His name and his looks
appeared to be of Middle Eastern origin.
I then thought to myself: He must be a secular Muslim. I was impressed. He looked very “western” in his fancy
suit. He looked very much as if he had
accepted “western” culture. My attention then began to drift towards secularism,
and I began to imagine for a moment that this ideology had the power to suppress
religious wars and bring people together.
But luckily I caught myself
before I fell into this delusion. What was I thinking??? I knocked some sense back into me and reminded
myself of some history.
Imperialism. Colonialism. Communism. Fascism. Nazism. Hip hip Hooray!!!
Yes, some of the worst fruits of secularism.
Secularists may have suppressed religious wars, but they didn't suppress
WAR. No, not at all! Now, instead of fighting
for God, we know fight for others, for oil, money, influence and power.
Let me play the devils advocate for a moment.
Some say the United States was
founded on the principle (tradition) of the separation of church and state. They're proud of it. But are they also proud of the consequences of it as well: the reprehensible Spanish-American War; the slave-trade; the horrific Civil War; the greed that led to the Great
Depression; the drafting of 18-year-olds into the military; the amazing atomic bomb; the dropping of the atomic bomb; the Vietnam
War; the Korean conflict; spying and espionage; the overthrowing of governments;
the Bay of Pigs; the Iraqi War; the Afghanistan War; etc…
How is this any better than, say, the Crusades? How is this progress?
I don’t know of any "modern" country that has gone to war as often as we have and has as short a history as we have.
Did I mention abortion on demand, gay “marriage," the hyper-sexualizing of our children, and the legalization of marijuana for recreational use?
How is this any better than, say, the Crusades? How is this progress?
I don’t know of any "modern" country that has gone to war as often as we have and has as short a history as we have.
Did I mention abortion on demand, gay “marriage," the hyper-sexualizing of our children, and the legalization of marijuana for recreational use?
But it doesn't end here. Now, instead of getting killed
for heresy, we get killed (maybe by a drone) for revealing secrets, like in "secret documents." This is progress? And instead of being burned at the stake for
being a witch, we get burned (electrocuted) for being a spy! How is a "spy" more real than a "witch?" After all, what is a spy if not a label (branding) given to someone by Big Brother! We own you!
Now the notion that every nation is as good (or bad) as the other is as ridiculous as the notion that every religion is as good (or bad) as the other. Likewise, being "unpatriotic" must be just as sinful as being a...well... "sinner."
I could go on and on...Maybe one more. We are led to believe that our Constitution is somehow less of a creed than the Creed, and less dogmatic than Dogma. All men are created equal. Sounds nice. Now prove it scientifically, please.
We're supposed to accept that life has somehow become better, more civilized under secularism. Who are these people trying to fool? Only the fools, I guess.
Again. Let me play the devil's advocate.
This separation of Church and State gig has been going on for a couple of centuries now in the United States and we’re supposed to think that it’s better than bringing the two together; that is, the state accepting faith in God as a blessing, not a curse.
This separation of Church and State gig has been going on for a couple of centuries now in the United States and we’re supposed to think that it’s better than bringing the two together; that is, the state accepting faith in God as a blessing, not a curse.
Today, I read an article regarding an anti-islamic tweet sent by the leader of the topless
feminist group “Femen.” You may not have heard of her or them, but the women of
this movement are “famous” for baring their chests in public and in protest for
“female” rights.
Femen leader, Inna Shevchenko,
sent a nasty tweet slamming Ramadan and Islam in general and it apparently set
off a “mini-storm of protests.” A
mini-storm? Now that’s interesting. When the Pope spoke at the University of
Regensburg, it apparently set off a “fire storm” and was considered highly “insensitive”
by our weak minded and weak willed secular media. However, when Inna Shevchenko flippantly insults Islam
and Ramadan, it only creates a “mini-storm.” Hmmm…try that on for a double standard
(Actually, in this case, there is no comparison in the two “speeches” at all).
The tweet in question,
reads: “What can be more stupid than Ramadan?
What can be more uglier than this religion?” [These are her words].
When asked if she had an axe to
grind with Muslims, Inna responded by saying:
“Femen’s position has always been
the same. We are an atheist movement,
against all religions, against their principles, which compromise the rights
and freedoms of women.”
Shevchenko was granted asylum in
France after receiving death threats in her native country of Ukraine for
removing a cross in Kiev with a chainsaw.
I guess we're now supposed to yell: "Heil Femen! Heil Shevchenko!”
Oh, the inconsistencies and
incoherencies of atheists! They feel
entitled to remove a cross in Kiev with a chainsaw and spin it as the quest
for freedom. But when Christians block the
entrance to an abortion mill, they label it the "intolerance of religion.”
Stop! My head is spinning!
An atheist once told me that “atheists
only believe that God does not exist.” Riiiiggggghhhht!!! As if all they do is think, and that their thoughts never turn into actions! Remember:
You only fool the fools. You only fool yourself!
A Dutch-Egyptian academic, Sara
Salem, responded to this atheist by accusing her group of practicing “neo-colonialist”
feminism by trying to impose their concept of what a woman should be on foreign
cultures.
Good for her!
Now I personally do not find a fully
covered female Muslim as repulsive as a bare chested female atheist, but what I do find is that both sides are
like the sides of a counterfeit coin.
Deep down, they both have false ideas of truth, beauty and dignity.
The Pharisees went out and took
counsel against Jesus to put him to death.
They weren’t the only ones.
The Romans (the pagans) were plotting against Him as well.
" All men are created equal. Sounds nice. Now prove it scientifically, please."
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly are you getting at here? Are you looking for a scientific reason to be able to discriminate against someone?
"This separation of Church and State gig has been going on for a couple of centuries now in the United States and we’re supposed to think that it’s better than bringing the two together..."
Which church should we bring together with the state? Yours? Why not somebody else's?
"An atheist once told me that “atheists only believe that God does not exist.” Riiiiggggghhhht!!! "
Was that me father?
"Now I personally do not find a fully covered female Muslim as repulsive as a bare chested female atheist..."
You find the female form repulsive? The natural form that god created?
(7/11)"And then I will read your other comments, and comment on them appropriately."
You ever going to respond to my other comments?
Banana_slug,if you only comment on a sentence, then you probably will get confused. Try writing a comment that responds to the meditation in general. Then, we might get somewhere. Otherwise, you remind me of people who read one verse in Scripture and interpret it solely on that one line rather than Scripture taken as a whole. Understand?
ReplyDeleteIf I apply the same game to your comments, then I will have to assume (based on your silence) that you find nothing wrong with an atheist group chain sawing a cross off a Church, correct?
Also, you haven't proven your point that atheists only believe that there is no God. Explain the atheist group Femen, please? And how their atheistic movement does not create certain actions, violent actions, that is?
Also, you pride yourself in believing only that which can be scientifically proven. Prove to me that all men are created equal. I will disregard the flagrant attempt at distracting my point within the meditation. You know perfectly well where I stand: faith and reason. But I'm curious as to how you will approach this philosophical statement: genetically? height? Weight? intelligence? monetary? And yet you believe it, don't you? I do. But I don't need scientific proof. You do, right? So where is your proof?
I won't respond to the other comments, because unfortunately, you can't respond to mine. You move from one subject to another without adequately answering my points. In other words, you start more fires without every extinguishing a single one.
Let's resolve one before we start another.
“Explain the atheist group Femen, please? And how their atheistic movement does not create certain actions, violent actions, that is?”
ReplyDeleteWhat is there to explain? They do not believe in a god, but they have other beliefs. Just like those who do believe in a god, but also have other beliefs.
“then I will have to assume (based on your silence) that you find nothing wrong with an atheist group chain sawing a cross off a Church, correct?”
I actually do find it wrong. That would be vandalism, possibly trespassing or breaking/entering; I do not know any details about what you are referring to. Now could I assume that you think that putting up religious monuments on public and government property is acceptable even though it is unconstitutional?
“Also, you pride yourself in believing only that which can be scientifically proven. Prove to me that all men are created equal.”
I can’t because all men are not created equal. Some are taller, stronger, smarter, faster, etc. No two people are the same. But does that mean that all people don’t have the same rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? Or basic equality?
“You know perfectly well where I stand: faith and reason.”
Yes, but you have never been able to explain why YOUR faith either validates your reason or is validated by reason. Other people of other faiths also believe in faith and reason, but according to you, they are wrong in their faith. Why is that?
“I won't respond to the other comments, because unfortunately, you can't respond to mine. You move from one subject to another without adequately answering my points.”
And I will never be able to answer your points to your satisfaction. As far as you responding to my posts, you had asked me to respond to your comments, and then you would respond to mine. I feel I have answered what you had asked to the best of my ability. If you do not agree, please restate a few of the questions that I may directly reply to them.
Sorry for the confusion in my multiple replies.
Delete1. "What is there to explain? They do not believe in a god, but they have other beliefs. Just like those who do believe in a god, but also have other beliefs."
So let me get this straight: Their assertion that there is no God does not lead to any other assertions? Is that what you are trying to say? I would agree with you that their assertion "there is no God" would have no correlation with, say, their favorite ice cream. But for you to even suggest that one assertion does not lead to another is an Ludacris. Logic is like math, it flows: 1+1 = 2 leads to 2+1=3, it doesn't stop with 1+1.
2. "I actually do find it wrong. That would be vandalism, possibly trespassing or breaking/entering; I do not know any details about what you are referring to. Now could I assume that you think that putting up religious monuments on public and government property is acceptable even though it is unconstitutional?"
You answer a question by posing a different problem (religious freedom). But the problem is easily resolved. If a display is unconstitutional, then it is removed. But if it is not unconstitutional, then it is not removed. Correct?
But you opened up a can of worms here. So, according to you, what is constitutional is "right" and what is unconstitutional is "wrong?" Is the constitution (200 years ago) your "God" that tells us what is right and wrong? Was man made by the Constitution or the Constitution made by man? Are votes your "lit candles" that helps determines the "Will of "God" (or the Amendments to the "Constitution" (aka God))? Are articles in the constitution your Scripture verses? Is the Supreme Court infallible and the Constitution inerrant?
Is this what makes vandalism "wrong?"...that it goes against the Constitution? Is that the only reason?
If you say something is wrong why should I care? Who are you to tell me what is right or wrong? WHO ARE YOU??? Here's another one of those old discussions that never got resolved. You have no moral compass. You have no standard to go by. You only have what others have said before you. It is all relative, like shifting winds and sand.
2. "I can’t [claim all men are created equal] because all men are not created equal. Some are taller, stronger, smarter, faster, etc. No two people are the same. But does that mean that all people don’t have the same rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? Or basic equality?
Let's first go over the text, please: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Now, the first premise is that all men are created equal and that leads to the second; that they are endowed with certain unalienable rights. But if men are NOT created equal (as you just said), then the second part of the premise would be totally bogus. Do you see how you just sidestepped the obvious? You, who, theoretically, only accepts scientific evidence have no evidence for the above claim; therefore, your brain should tell you that there are no such thing as "basic equality."
Basic equality? In what??? How would you defend your position?
By asking the question: "Basic equality?" you are "basically" saying nothing, for what does "basic equality" even mean if we are not created equally? Your argument is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to consequence or to tradition. Wow! That's not very scientific Banana_slug.
3. "Yes, but you have never been able to explain why YOUR faith either validates your reason or is validated by reason. Other people of other faiths also believe in faith and reason, but according to you, they are wrong in their faith. Why is that?"
ReplyDeleteReally??? Well, maybe you never asked: Example of faith validated by reason: Thou Shalt Not worship other gods. Reasonable, for if God exists, then we should not hold or worship anyone or anything above the supreme being, correct? The premise is logical regardless of whether or not you believe in God. Understand?
Example of reason validated faith: Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery. Now why do we find adultery as something that is unbecoming of man or woman? Something inside us tells us that we should not do such a thing. We should keep our promises. Hence, reason is validated by faith, for this is a commandment of the Lord.
4. Again: Do your homework.
* If there is no God, then you have no standard whatsoever to tell me what is right and wrong; or good and bad. None, except popular vote.
* 50:50 argument. Rather than arguing against God you instead argued against four religions. But atheism isn't "a-religious," it is "a-theistic." Therefore, you are arguing against the existence of God by pitting one religion against another. The argument you present is an equivocation fallacy, for atheism does not argue against religion per se but God in general: that is, a superior, intelligent and powerful spiritual being.
Good luck.
I guess we should lighten the atmosphere a little Banana_slug. You asked me if I did not have an appreciation for the female form. I do, but not an "unhealthy" or "not-so-well-taken-care-of" form. These atheists all look pretty ghastly to me, wouldn't you agree?
“50:50 argument. Rather than arguing against God you instead argued against four religions”
ReplyDeleteNo, four gods and associated possible combinations. You stated there were ONLY two possibilities, that god exists or he doesn’t. Technically that is true, but that completely ignores every other potential god out there that could or could not exist simultaneously. Could you even conceive of god not existing, while Baal did? Maybe you couldn’t but it IS a possibility, and until you can show your work, both equally likely. Now why not both? Once you open the door to the supernatural and say “god exists, there is no way to prove, detect, measure, etc., but he exists” it is illogical to tell someone else who makes the exact same claim about their god that it doesn’t exist.
You keep claiming that your 50:50 argument means that for every argument for, there is an argument against. But you have never stated what those arguments are. Anybody could say the same thing about their god(s) and their statements would be equally as valid. It could also be that while some people would accept the arguments, others would not. For example, would you use biblical prophecy? Some accept it, others do not. If you want to come to an actual probability, you are going to have to start producing something that can be realistically measured.
“But atheism isn't "a-religious," it is "a-theistic." “
I’m not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. An atheist would certainly believe religions exist, but not the gods upon which they are based.
Now back to the 50:50. I can imagine that 10 people could each argue their god either exists or doesn’t and none of the others could dispute it. This is essentially 10 coin tosses, probability says the most likely outcome is 5 will exist, 5 won’t (~25% chance this will happen). Could be 4/6 (~20% chance ), 3/7 (~11% chance), etc. The chance of only 1 existing is around 1/1000. If that does happen, then it’s a 1 in 10 chance that it is your god for a 1 in 10000 chance that only your god exists out of a given 10. Of course it is equally likely that out of those 10, yours is the only god that DOESN’T exist. But the number of possible gods is much greater than 10, so your chances have just decreased. Now, do you know what would be useful? If you could do something similar to demonstrate why your god alone has a 50:50 chance of existing, perhaps using numbers or something quantifiable. Or maybe even show something to tell me why all the other gods couldn’t exist.
“atheism does not argue against religion per se but God in general: that is, a superior, intelligent and powerful spiritual being.”
All gods, any spiritual being, not just yours.
“Therefore, you are arguing against the existence of God by pitting one religion against another.”
No, I am arguing against the existence of all the other gods as well, something I’m sure you will agree with. You could just as easily say you are arguing for the existence of god by pitting your religion against the others. Should be a slam dunk for you since you can easily prove your god and yours alone exists. Yet you have never provided me any reason to think that your god is true while all other gods are not.
Oh, and by the way, if you wait till the very last day to send four comments that would require a response, then that isn't very fair. Unless you are not interested in a response but in having the last word.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed that when you argue, you don't give a rebuttal to my answer but pose another question. For example: when you asked me to give you an example of how faith assists reason and reason assists faith, I gave you an answer. What was your rebuttal? To go off the subject and pose another dilemma.
How pathetic!
By moving to another question you simply prove you have no answer and therefore, your comment is irrelevant and off the subject.
You should be content with you responses Banana_slug. After all, I am with mine.
Banana_slug: "No, four gods and associated possible combinations. You stated there were ONLY two possibilities, that god exists or he doesn’t. Technically that is true, but that completely ignores every other potential god "
ReplyDeleteOkay Banana_slug. Let's do baby food shall we?
Now, you say your an atheist, correct? That means you claim there is no god, correct?
Define god for me, please?
Obviously, you won't tell me the Christian God definition or the Muslim God definition, but you will give me a definition. Otherwise, we can't have a discussion.
So, by giving me a definition, you are giving me the attributes of what we are arguing about in our 50:50 discussion.
GREAT!!!! Now can you connect the dots?
You claim that I have not given you an example of an argument. I cannot believe that. What have we been discussing Banana_slug? What have I been showing over and over again to you?
That for every argument you give me, I give you a counter argument. And, if I may add, a much more intelligent argument.
Connect the dots!
If that isn't clear enough for you. Let me give you an example. [And let me remind you that you will have to give an answer before tomorrow because the fifteen days are almost up.]
If you say to me "God exists." Then I will say to you, "Prove to me that he doesn't."
Now what would you say to that?
NOTE: I already know what you will say, but for our audience, I would like it to come from your mouth.
And then I will give you my response. You can guess what my response will be, okay? That will make it even more interesting. I can't wait to hear from you.
“GREAT!!!! Now can you connect the dots?”
ReplyDeleteNot without any dots to connect.
“You claim that I have not given you an example of an argument. I cannot believe that. What have we been discussing Banana_slug?”
No, I asked for an example of an argument that is directly in favor of the existence of your god and your god alone.
“What have I been showing over and over again to you?”
Nothing to suggest that your god exists or has any more possibility of existence than any other god.
“That for every argument you give me, I give you a counter argument.”
See the two statements above.
“And, if I may add, a much more intelligent argument.”
You may, but you would be wrong.
“If you say to me "God exists." Then I will say to you, "Prove to me that he doesn't.” Now what would you say to that? NOTE: I already know what you will say, but for our audience, I would like it to come from your mouth. And then I will give you my response. You can guess what my response will be, okay? That will make it even more interesting. I can't wait to hear from you.”
Well, I could say he exists simply because I can argue for him, but we both know that is wrong and will get us nowhere.
So let’s see, something along the lines of we both have agreed that you can’t disprove the non-existence of something, it’s up to me to prove god, then you will respond with so it isn’t up to you to disprove the other gods, etc. etc. We’ve gone in circles on this over and over. What you have never been able to do is give any indication of why, out of all possible gods, yours is the only one that has any evidence or what that evidence is. Honestly, I don’t care about the other gods. Even if god were the only god that was ever conceived of, that alone does nothing to prove his existence. Give me something. Give me your very best argument that I could not possibly refute.
Oh, Banana_slug. You are not connecting the dots because you refuse to see the dots. Let me do what you cannot do: summarize the dots.
Delete• You made the claim a while back that you were once a Catholic. I made the claim that you were an ignorant Catholic. After you made a series of mistakes explaining Scripture and Catholicism, you showed, as I expected you would, that you knew very little with regards to Catholicism and Scripture. The faith of your childhood remained that of a infant - uninformed, never of an adult. You assumed that only Catholics had the truth. You assumed that only Catholics can go to heaven. You assumed that Catholics have a different God than Muslims or Jews. Then you showed your ignorance of Scripture and Judeo-Christian understanding when you made the claim that God created the world, literally, in six or seven days.
You made these claims in order to justify your departure from the faith. I made the claim that if I believed what you believed, I would have departed as well.
So your first argument against the faith was based on ignorance.
• You then moved on and claimed that science drew you away from belief in God. I made the claim that that was a preposterous notion. You tried to argue, over and over again, and you still do, using scientific theories, to make your points. And yet, I made the claim that priests are often scientists, and extremely brilliant scientists too. And I gave a few examples. Your response was pathetic. I NEVER SAID THAT! Ah….riiiiighhht. You have no humility to admit your mistakes.
That’s another dot, you refuse to connect. And now actually deny ever existed.
• Now you claim that you cannot define the word “God.” Of course you can! But like a child, who is losing horribly in a game, you are now saying: “I quit.”
So you “can’t” define what you refute! Amazing! "Hey, do you like the new XR75260Zy? "No!" "Well, do you know what it is? "No!, but I still don't like it." How funny!!!
But you can define what it means to be an atheist (of course, your own definition). You can even use the word “god” over and over again in your arguments, but you don't know how to define it. This one is for my class!!!
Which brings me to your unicorn and laser saber argument. You say these are representations. But of what? Of things that do not exist??? Then if they do not exist, then they cease to be representations and become real things. For who are you to tell me that something is a "representation" of something that does not exist? Prove to me that your "representation" of a unicorn is a valid one. WE would only know if the unicorn revealed itself.
Which now brings us to God. There are many representations of God. And all of them would be equally poor, unless God revealed himself. And here is the amazing point. God revealed himself not in pre-history, but in history: at a certain time, certain place, certain way. This is unique and not at all common. Zeus and company form part of pre-history. There is no history of them.
Like Father, like son, your son, like you, may know what a lightsaber is, because he knows STAR WARS. But the problem isn’t knowing STAR WARS. The problem is when you only know STAR WARS (and I don’t mean SDI, remember?).
Again, you wish to define things your way. A lightsaber can ONLY exist as a George Lucas light saber. But it cannot exist in a Fr. Alfonse form. Just like your God cannot exist except in your way, not His.
And that is how you fail to connect yet another dot.
• The last dot, the best, is your claim that you cannot disprove God because you cannot prove a negative. I knew you would say this. I have yet to meet an atheist that actually thinks originally. Oh well.
So let me ask you, do you know why you cannot prove a negative?
I await your response. You only have a few hours left. Call your friends. Google it. Find out from others. Just make it snappy. Don’t make it at 11:59 pm please.
Oh, and by the way... we all live by rules imposed by others. So spare me another excuse, please.
You once asked me if I believed in Cinderella. Like a good atheist, you don't understand how Cinderella can be a true story in so many ways. What you fail to see (as you do so often) is the depth and truth of the story and what the author wished to convey; one of them being: how we all have a certain amount of time to get things done (midnight).
ReplyDelete