Monday, August 15, 2022

Answering an Atheist: Part 2 of 9

 Mike said the following...


Christians have been proclaiming the imminent return of Jesus for almost two thousand years, with nobody seeming to notice or care that the claim has become absurd, that the trail has gone cold.

Whenever someone says that Jesus is coming soon, the first thing you should ask is what do you mean by "soon?" After two thousand years of waiting, the word has been stripped of any meaning that might be reasonably ascribed to it. When your message hinges on a meaningless word, your message becomes meaningless as well. Time for a new message.

I've long been puzzled by the fixation of some Christians on end times predictions. If you'll allow me a phonetic pun, it's impossible to get the "scat" out of eschatology. The joke would be even better if the spelling would cooperate. But for practical purposes, and in the context of one's own salvation, what does it matter? If the intent is to warn the sinner that time is short, the point is better made reminding him of the precarious and undeniably brief duration of his own life. If the second coming of Jesus and one's demise both represent cutoff points in opportunities for salvation, why not go with what we know for sure? Presumably you'd get agreement from the hundred generations of Christians who have expired while waiting for the second coming that never came.


Of course we should find out what they mean by "soon". Nowhere does the Bible say when Jesus will come again. That doesn't make Him not to be God as you imply in your blog. It wasn't His mission to tell us when he would return. I will explain that later. REVELATION 22:20 does say the following...

The one who gives this testimony says, “Yes, I am coming soon.” Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!


But "soon" doesn't refer to time in this case. If you had done your homework you would have found that there are multiple translations. Biblehub.com will give those.
https://biblehub.com/revelation/22-20.htm

In this case I checked and some used the word "quickly" instead of soon.

This article goes into more detail on that translation.

https://www.bibleref.com/Revelation/22/Revelation-22-20.html

In this verse we read Jesus' affirmation that He is surely coming "soon." As with similar statements in Revelation, this is translated from the Greek word tachys, which most literally means "quickly." This is more a statement on the way Jesus will return than a claim about when He will return. 

In other words He's not going to come back and preach to the multitudes. It will be businesses like.


These three articles give us a few more hints. 

https://catholic-daily-reflections.com/2020/11/07/ready-for-the-lord-2/

https://www.bibleinfo.com/en/topics/second-coming-jesus-christ

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/end-times/is-jesus-coming-back-soon.html

Christ’s second coming will be bright, loud and glorious. This event cannot be hidden, every human on planet earth will see Jesus. He will come back personally and literally. Revelation 1:7 says, “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him.” There will not be a person on earth who is unaware of Jesus’ return. Jesus Himself describes the manner of His coming. Matthew 24:27 states that the return of Christ will be like the brightness of lightning illuminating the entire sky from the east to the west. Verses 30 and 31 of the same chapter describe Jesus coming with power and great glory and with the sound of a great trumpet, that awakens the righteous dead who are then gathered from the ends of the earth. 

When He Was speaking to his disciples on the Mount of Olives, He told them that He would come in power and in glory. Angels said that Jesus Christ would return. In Acts Chapter 1, when it speaks of Jesus ascending to His Father, then the angels are there and they said, "He will return in the same manner that He has left."



The only thing we can be sure of is that only God the Father knows when, so we better be ready. That doesn't take anything away from the divinity of Jesus Christ. As I will explain in my next post, He is true God and true Man!

The Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids
Matthew 25 1:13
25 “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like this. Ten bridesmaids[a] took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom.[b] 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 When the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them; 4 but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. 5 As the bridegroom was delayed, all of them became drowsy and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a shout, ‘Look! Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ 7 Then all those bridesmaids[c] got up and trimmed their lamps. 8 The foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise replied, ‘No! there will not be enough for you and for us; you had better go to the dealers and buy some for yourselves.’ 10 And while they went to buy it, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went with him into the wedding banquet; and the door was shut. 11 Later the other bridesmaids[d] came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’ 12 But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I do not know you.’ 13 Keep awake therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.[e


Links to other posts in this series:








Saturday, August 13, 2022

The Truth About Abortion - What is in the Womb?

 

As I  write this,  it's been a little over a week since the Value Them Both amendment was defeated.  I wrote the following on election night...

I am disappointed that we lost the Value Them Both vote tonight.  But it will not ruin my day. I will keep on fighting, till the day I die,  just like I  have every other day prior to this. In fact it will make me work harder. We have to. We may have lost the battle but we didn't lose the war. We've  been fighting this battle for many years.  We're used  to it.

When my Ohio State Buckeyes give up a touchdown on the opening drive,  they don’t give up. They get up off the ground and keep fighting. Eventually, they win the game!

God has a plan! I don't know what it is. What I do know is that in the end we win. Just like my Buckeyes, I too will get up off the ground and continue to fight. I don't know how long it will take, but I'm ready to do what it takes.

It's just a matter of getting there. Someone has to take a stand for the unborn baby in the womb who has no voice!

Anyone with me?

Why do I fight? Let me ask you this. If there is something that you are so passionate about that you know it is true?  Did you remain silent or did you feel like you had to shout it out to the whole world? Was this cause so important that perhaps you could make a difference, and maybe even save the lives of others?

If you are silent about your beliefs because you are worried someone will be offended, then your beliefs are not that important to you, but rather what people think about you is. When you stand up for what's right and true, you will receive both hate and love, but everyone will know what you are fighting for.

In this country we have the freedom to speak up and express our opinions about things that are important to us, even if others may not agree. People in other countries don’t always have what we call “freedom of speech”. We should not take this right lightly. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” 

To me, Abortion is one of those issues. When discussing abortion, what   everyone avoids is the discussion of what is in the womb.  Basic science tells me  that its a human being.  Catholic doctrine  and the Bible tell me that its wrong  to kill any human being no matter what the stage of development. 

Go back to your basic science and answer two questions. 
What  is in the womb?
What is abortion?
If you can answer honestly answer those questions looking at the science of human development, looking at photos of  preborn babies in the womb, watching videos of doctors describing abortion, and  looking at pictures of aborted babies and then honestly answer those questions, I can almost guarantee that you will be pro life.

Fr. Frank Pavone of "Priests for Life" says that America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion. 
That is my goal.  To go back to the roots, define the issue, and show America the truth of what abortion is. 

I am willing to have that discussion with anyone as a Facebook  Messenger or email.

The sad thing is that those who support abortion rights use linguistic gimmickry, changing definitions,  to avoid answering the questions and to dehumanize what's in the womb

They call abortion a choice, a right,  or a medical decision about their body but they don't tell us what that  choice, right or decision is.  And when you ask them,  you are the bad guy,  you are stupid,  or you are playing games with them. 

They use terms like fetus (which is actually a stage of human development), clump of cells, or parasite to define what's inside the womb while ignoring terms like human and baby.

Most importantly, they ignore the right to life of the developing human being as a separate, and unique individual with its own DNA and body parts. 

Recently I had a discussion with someone on Facebook.  A Facebook friend of mine posted the following...

"Women have spoken,  our body is our choice!  The Government,  rather Federal  or State  can't make our Decisions for us!
So I asked the question...
"The choice to do what. "
A friend of hers answered...
"To make a medical decision between a woman and her Dr that is not anyone else's business."
I asked...
"What is that medical decision? A medical decision to do what?"
He answered...
"Have you been in a coma for the past 6 months or do you have early onset dementia? Legit question since I need to know if I have to sit you down and explain like I would my 4yr old granddaughter.
My reply...
"Just answer my question.  The choice to do what? What is that medical decision? "
He answered...
"Not playing your game go try to rope someone else in."
My reply...
"I'm not playing games.  I'm trying to get you to engage in an honest discussion based on facts, which you seem unwilling to do. Usually when someone asks a question you don't answer it with another question.  Seems like you are the one playing games.  I'll answer it for you.  Is it the right to have an abortion?  My next question...what is an abortion?"
His answer...
"An abortion is the removal of a mass of parasitic cells
A mass of parasitic cells that if allowed to continue to grow may or may not form into a baby


My  reply...
"That's not what medical science says...
Life Begins at Fertilization
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:

"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]

"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]

"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]

"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]

"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]

"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]


I continued...
here's some more basic science for you.  

Prenatal development is the process in which an embryo or fetus (or fetus) gestates during pregnancy. Normal prenatal development lasts about 38 weeks and is divided into three stages: germinal, embryonic, and fetal. During these three stages of gestation, the original single-celled zygote develops into an embryo and then fetus

Zygote 0-2 weeks
Embryo 3-8 weeks
Fetus 9-weeks to birth

After birth
Infancy (neonate and up to one year age)
Toddler ( one to five years of age)
Childhood (three to eleven years old) - early childhood is from three to eight years old, and middle childhood is from nine to eleven years old.
Adolescence or teenage (from 12 to 18 years old)
Adulthood.

His response...
"We can go back and forth all day is why my statement of I am not playing your stupid game. I can cite medical journals that state otherwise more recent ones to be exact. You are not going to get me to change my mind or anyone else for that matter so just leave it alone we voted and you lost."
My reply...
"then cite one for me. Don't just say it.  Prove it. Show me the quote or give  me the link that shows all of my sources are wrong.  Once again I'm not playing games here. It seems like you are. Maybe you can't handle the truth. "

He never did respond or cite any medical journals. I continued...

Here are some amazing photos of those babies in the womb.  With modern science we actually have a window to the womb. With  a laparoscopic camera we get great pictures.  We actually know what's in the womb and it's not a mass of parasitic cells.  Its actually a growing and developing human being. Check them out.  That's what you want women to have a choice to make a medical decision to have dismembered,  decapitated,  and ripped from the womb. 
https://www.priestsforlife.org/graphic-images/?gid=1&sid=1

what's amazing is that we've had that technology to take pictures of the growing and developing baby for a long time.  Check out the cover of Life Magazine from April 30 1965.  Sure doesn't look like a mass of parasitic cells.



that science also gives us another window to the womb. It's no guessing that it's a human being.  With the development of the 3d and 4d  ultrasound medical science makes sure that we don't have to guess at what we're looking at.  It sure looks like a growing and developing baby to me.  Check out this remarkable video.

That's the science! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it. From the moment of conception/fertilization, we know beyond a doubt that what's in the womb is human. When has it ever been okay to kill another human being? But that's what our society does.  Why? For political reasons? Since 1973  there have been 63 million babies aborted in the United States.  When have you ever seen the science in the newspaper or on the nightly news?  The mainstream media refuses to give us a platform to educate Americans. Let's get the word out. Share this information with everyone you know.  Let's open up that window to the womb so America can see it. 



Wednesday, August 10, 2022

Yellow Journalism - Kansas City Star prints hit piece from Kansas Senator attacking Catholic Church

 Less than a week before the August 2nd primary in Kansas,  the Kansas City Star printed a an op-ed from Kansas Senator Cindy Holscher that amounted to yellow journalism. What's obvious is that Cindy couldn't make the case against the Value Them Both amendment. How could she? How does anyone support the intentional dismemberment, decapitation,  and ripping an innocent baby from the womb?  You can't. So she changed the subject.  A classic case of whataboutism.  Instead,  even though she tells us that she has "no quarrel with members of the Catholic Church," she writes a hit piece attacking the Catholic Church.  Here is her letter...after that you can read the response that I sent to her.



Kansas Constitutional Amendment on Abortion is a Bailout for the Church

Does your church have a lobbyist? I posed a similar question in social media last week. I suppose during my time in Topeka, I’ve grown accustomed to seeing lobbyists who work for certain religious organizations and affiliations, but overwhelmingly, regular taxpayers seemed to be unaware of this activity. Some who replied to me indicated the very idea seems inappropriate given the separation of church and state.

Over the past few years, certain lobbyist groups in Kansas have been extremely focused on forwarding the constitutional amendment on the Aug. 2 ballot dubbed “Value Them Both,” which would allow the Legislature to ban abortion. Lobbyists for the Kansas Catholic Conference, Kansans for Life and Kansas Family Voice have had a consistent presence in the Capitol the past several sessions. Having a church building with an oversize banner supporting the amendment and offices directly across the street from the Capitol allows for easy access to legislators, along with a constant reminder of their agenda. Mind you, this is all perfectly legal — although some would contend that’s only because state statutes have special carve-outs and loopholes allowing it. The bigger issue, though, is that many people — including parishioners of the Catholic Church — seem surprised to hear of this. Some voice concern about how their offerings to the church have been spent.

To say the movement to ban abortions in Kansas has been fueled by the Catholic Church is no overstatement. The Sunflower State Journal noted several main funders:
▪ The Archdiocese of Kansas City in Kansas gave approximately $2.5 million to the campaign this year. Last year, it contributed close to $500,000. On the Vine A weekly conversation between The Kansas City Star and the minority communities it serves, bringing you the news and cultural insights from across the Kansas City region and abroad, straight to your inbox every Thursday. SIGN UP This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
▪ The Catholic Diocese of Wichita contributed $550,000 this year, and the Kansas Catholic Conference added another $275,000.
▪ Kansans for Life provided close to $325,000.
▪ The Catholic Diocese of Salina and St. Michael the Archangel Parish in Leawood each contributed $100,000.

The Legislature currently has the power to pose limits on abortion. To date, there are dozens of restrictions. What the Legislature can’t do is ban the procedure, as the Kansas Constitution currently guarantees access. That’s what this amendment is about, contrary to the confusing language that appears on the ballot. Here is what’s interesting, though: More than half the membership of the Catholic Church believes abortion should be legal. So why has the church invested so much in this effort? The answer appears to be finances. Consider this:
▪ Over the past decade, the Catholic Church has lost substantial membership, dropping by nearly 20% since 2000, according to the Catholic News Agency.
▪ The church has paid out close to $4 billion in sexual abuse settlements involving priests. Of course, there are more cases out there.
▪ The church is “going broke” in the U.S., as a Catholic News Agency analysis recently put it. The long-term financial health of many parishes across the country is in question as people leave the church. This is not a sustainable path for any organization, let alone a denomination that enjoys opulent buildings and a massive, top-heavy hierarchy that is dependent upon strong incoming revenue.

The church has been relying on handouts to continue its power establishment, including receiving more than $1.4 billion in aid through the federal Paycheck Protection Program. Additionally, lobbyists in Kansas tied to the church work to divert taxpayer money from public schools to their private facilities. And then there’s the topic of abortion. What could that have to do with finances? It has to be a major challenge for the church to retain members with messaging about banning abortion when half its congregation believes it should be legal and accessible. Loss of membership means fewer people in the pews and a loss of revenue. If the church gets the government to ban abortion, it doesn’t run the risk of continuing to lose members by consistently bringing the topic up. It’s a government bailout.

BILL TO HELP SEXUAL ABUSE VICTIMS BLOCKED
Here’s something else you should know. A few years ago, I introduced a bill to update the statute of limitations (which is currently very narrow) for civil cases for survivors of childhood sexual assault. The person who chairs the committee the bill has been assigned to is state Sen. Kellie Warren, a Catholic. Additionally, the lobbyist for the Kansas Catholic Conference has voiced concern regarding the “impact” on the church if it should pass. My bill — S.B. 420, which would help dozens of survivors of childhood sexual violence pursue justice — has never been granted a hearing. Coincidence? I think not, especially considering the staggering amount of power the church wields at the state house.

Please know, I have no quarrel with members of the Catholic Church — or any church, for that matter. I do have a problem with a church using its outsize, top-heavy power structure to force its belief system on everyone while looking for government hand-outs to do it. And, guess what? Most of its rational members also have a problem with that.

There are many reasons to vote no on this amendment. One of the most compelling being the fact the government already provides unparalleled support to churches through their tax exempt status. In Kansas, roughly 18% of the population is Catholic. Getting the entire state to confirm to church doctrine would be a huge win. And that brings us to the final reason to vote against this amendment: No state or body of citizens in a democracy should have the religious doctrine of one faith imposed upon them. Period.

Value them both? No, this is the church valuing its bottom line. Don’t fall for it.

Cindy Holscher represents District 8 in the Kansas Senate.

Read more at: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/readers-opinion/guest- commentary/article263915311.htm

Here is my response which I emailed to Senator Holscher.  She hasn't replied,  and I don't really expect a reply from her. 

You owe the Catholics in your district an apology for the hit piece that you did against our Church.  I am offended. As an elected representative I hold you to a higher standard.  You need to do the research and  check the facts before you write this type of yellow journalism.

Senator  Cindy Holscher  said the following...

"Some who replied to me indicated the very idea seems inappropriate given the separation of church and state."

Actually,  that doesn't exist.  The words separation of church and state are not in the US Constitution.  Go back  and read the 1st Amendment. 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

In other words, Congress can't promote one religion over another.  We can't have a state religion such as the Church of England. Also, Congress can't restrict religious practices. As Christians our faith isn't limited to the walls of the church.  We take our religious practices into the public square.  The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.

As Christians  religious freedom isn't just going to church on Sundays.  We are taught to practice our faith everyday outside of the church walls.  You don't have to have the same beliefs,  but the US Constitution says that you have to let me practice them. 

There is so much that government does to take away our religious freedoms. Its more than just abortion. What she doesn't tell us that faith and politics do come together. I want someone fighting for my right to practice my faith when it does come together with politics.    She doesn't tell us what are what other issues that The Kansas Catholic Conference prioritizes. Why?  Because this is a hit piece against the Catholic Church and it's pro life beliefs. 


The Kansas Catholic Conference

Founded in December of 1967 by Kansas’ Catholic bishops, the Kansas Catholic Conference serves as the official voice of the Catholic Church in Kansas on matters of public policy. The Conference operates at the intersection of faith and politics. By applying Catholic moral principles to the important political questions of the day, the Conference strives to ensure that citizens and elected officials evaluate public policy options in light of a moral framework that transcends party affiliation or partisan politics.

Priorities of


1. Protect Human Life from conception until natural death

2. Religious Liberty - do you think its okay for government to require doctors or pharmacists to provide services that go against their beliefs?
Bakeries and florists have been forced to  provide services for events that go against their religious beliefs.  Do you  think that is okay?  What about our freedom of speech.  We've already seen those rights trampled in social media. What ever happened to having an honest discussion. Will government trample on those rights just because they disagree with our religion?

3. Marriage and Family -  Catholics and many other Christians believe that same sex marriage are wrong. We believe that families are stronger with a mother and a father,  but more and more  same sex marriage is forced upon us.

4. Education-School Choice

5. Healthcare

6. Immigration

7. Poor and Vulnerable


She is critical of the Catholic Church and it's tax exempt status.  What she fails to tell you is all of the good that the Catholic Church does.  For instance did you know that the Catholic Church is one of the largest charitable organizations not only in the United States but also in the world.  Locally, we have homeless shelters, a food bank,  a soup kitchen....the Lord's Dinner which provides a meal every night of the year and over a million meals served in its history,  a medical clinic...the Guadalupe Clinic providing thousands of visits every year,  Catholic Charities who provide resources, adoption services,  and counseling for families in need, crisis pregnancy centers to assist  pregnant  women  with baby supplies ultrasounds, and prenatal care,  hospitals that also provide charitable services, a baby supplies  warehouse, and schools...etc. the list goes on...recently the mens group at my local church just completed a week with our annual fireworks tent earning thousands of dollars that we donate to charities - see the  photo showing some of the many causes that we support.  During Lent, we had a food drive at our parish where we collected and donated 3,600 lbs of food including 300 lbs of ground beef. Efforts similar to those are replicated  in every parish and diocese. What would be the cost of government providing those services?


She also is critical of the Catholic Church and  it's payments in sexual abuse settlements involving priests. It is sad anytime a child, teenager or adult  is sexualy abused.  What she doesn't tell you is that most of the cases that you read about in the mainstream media are decades old. What she also doesn't tell you about are the great strides that the Catholic Church has done to correct the problem. 
After the Church reforms articulated in the Dallas Charter and Essential Norms (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002a, 2002b), the number of new cases in the United States averaged about a dozen per year; during the past five years, it went down to about one new case per year. The Church has gone from averaging about 660 new cases of abuse per year during the 1970s to about 1 new case per year since about 2014 (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2011; Steinfels, 2019; United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2018). 
There are about 25,000 Catholic Priests  in the United States.  What she doesn't tell you about is all of the good priests who don't abuse children. What she doesn't tell you that a higher percentage of  public school teachers abuse children.  What  she doesn't tell you  that there are far more children sexualy abused in their homes. Why not? Maybe because the Catholic Church is an easy target. 

She also tells us...
"More than half the membership of the Catholic Church believes abortion should be legal. So why has the church invested so much in this effort?" What she doesn't tell us is where she got her statistics. 

But that's not entirely true depending on what poll you are reading.  A Knights of Columbus/Marist Poll of 1,004 adults taken in January of this year tells us that 49% of Catholics are pro life, 45% are pro choice,  and 6% are unsure.

If you break it down even further 
Only 12% of Catholics believe that abortion should be available for a woman any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy. 
10%  believe that abortion should be allowed only during the first  6 months of pregnancy.
19% believe that abortion should be allowed only during the first three months of pregnancy.
31% believe that abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape,  incest or to save the life of the mother. 
14% believe that abortion should be allowed only to save the life of the mother.
14% believe that abortion should never be allowed under any circumstances. 

The problem with polls in the words of Bishop Fulton Sheen -1953
"Moral Principles do not depend on a majority vote.  Wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong . Right is right even if nobody is right."


Finally  she tells us ..."No state or body of citizens in a democracy should have the religious doctrine of one faith imposed upon them. Period." I agree, but people who tell you that  have no problem imposing their irreligious beliefs on you.

This is a hit piece against the Catholic Church because she is pro abortion and the easiest way to attack the Catholic position on abortion abortion is to attack the Catholic Church.

What  she and everyone else avoids is the discussion of what is in the womb.  Basic science tells me  that its a human being.  Catholic doctrine tells me that its wrong  to kill any human being no matter what the stage of development. 

Go back to your basic science and answer two questions. 
What  is in the womb?
What is abortion?
If you can answer honestly answer those questions looking at the science of human development, looking at photos of  preborn babies in the womb, watching videos of doctors describing abortion, and  looking at pictures of aborted babies and then honestly answer those questions, I can almost guarantee that you will be pro life.

I am willing to have that discussion with anyone as a Facebook  Messenger or email.

Terry Brennan



PS

Are you upset with the source of most of the funding for the Vote No side...Filed with the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission last week, KCF's financial report showed that about 71% of the $6.54 million in contributions it has received were from out-of-state entities. An estimated 29% of the contributions it received were from residents or groups in Kansas

Notably, an estimated 22% of contributions received by KCF were from abortion providers or abortion lobbying organizations located both in-state and out-of-state.

Large contributions received by KCF include $1.38 million from Sixteen Thirty Fund, a powerful left wing dark money group, and $850,000 from Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, an advocacy arm for Kansas' Planned Parenthood Great Plains, also donated more than $490,000.

HYPOCRISY! 










Thursday, August 4, 2022

Answering an Atheist: Part 1 of 9

Mike said the following...
I don't have the time or inclination to engage a back-and-forth about
who Jesus or God is. Anyway, I'm not yet finished with Fulton Sheen's
slur and your failure to own it. As for who Jesus is, I touched on this
a good bit here, and it will have to do:
http://amorpha.blogspot.com/2014/07/what-do-you-mean-by-soon.html
As you can see, there is far more here than you could ever digest, and
our trying to have a discussion in the context of your incapacity and
density would be futile. I'm not up for it, and I'm insanely busy right
now.


My response:

Well I've taken the challenge. I've broken it down and am ready to respond. In fact, I've got 9 rebuttals ready for you. Don't worry I won't give it to you all at one time. That's not how discussion takes place. I don't make speeches.  We have plenty of time to take it one point at a time. You keep saying that you don't have time. We know that's not true because you have plenty of time to write political emails that nobody gives a crap about.

On to your blog post. First a couple of general comments. The first thing that I noticed is that there are no footnotes. No sources. Where did these opinions come from? You tell me you that you don't like it when I send you blind links in my emails. You are also critical about books that I give to you because you don't like the format of the bibliography notes. Maybe you should give your readers the same courtesy. What are your sources?

If you are going to write about Jesus Christ, shouldn't you do the research and find out what those who know Him believe? It's no wonder that you can't find God. Maybe you're looking in the wrong places. 

What's obvious is that this is a very weak attempt to paint Jesus as a failed prophet. It reads like a fairy tale. Obviously not true. Jesus was truly the Son of God, both human and divine, with one mission. To suffer and die for our sins so that we may have eternal life with Him and His Father in heaven. That is what I will try to prove.


Mike said the following...
Interestingly, the notion of Jesus' return has undergone considerable revision and theological development over the centuries, but particularly in the first hundred years or so. It's fascinating to examine that development. As we do so, never forget that Jesus was a Jew, and that his public ministry was among and to fellow Jews. Jesus proclaimed a very Jewish message: that the end of time was near, the kingdom of God was at hand, and so time was short for Jews to repent and get right with God. Because of this teaching, many scholars view Jesus as a Jewish "apocalyptic prophet."

On this matter there are endless opportunities for confusion among modern day Christians who, after all, are not Jews, and who would not necessarily understand the first century Jewish context in which Jesus taught. It's really easy for Christians to misunderstand certain formulations they encounter while reading the New Testament.


There are also opportunities for modern day atheists who don't know how to interpret the Bible to be confused. It's really easy for atheists to misunderstand certain formulations they encounter while reading the New Testament. That's why we should let the experts interpret the Bible for us, and be careful when we read bull crap from armchair atheists. Jesus Christ started a Church, One Church, and gave that One True Catholic and Apostolic Church the sole authority to interpret His word. When others such as Mike Brennan attempt to interpret the Bible, you end up with 40,000 different interpretations of His word such as this fairy tale that he has given us. Jesus Christ didn't want 40,000 different interpretations of His word. He wanted one. Nowhere do the scriptures give Mike Brennan the authority to interpret the Bible.

The Bible makes it clear that we need help in understanding scripture. Peter tells us that the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction.


2 Peter 3:16
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 

He goes on to tell us that scripture is not a matter of one's own interpretation.

2 Peter 1:20
20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 

That's why I show you my sources, something that you fail to do. Those aren't my own interpretation. Where do you get your interpretations?


Here the Ethiopian tells Phillip that he needs help in understanding scripture.

Acts 8:27-31

26 Then an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Get up and go toward the south[g] to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” (This is a wilderness road.) 27 So he got up and went. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury. He had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning home; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go over to this chariot and join it.” 30 So Philip ran up to it and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah. He asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 He replied, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him. 

And finally, Paul tells that we should look to the church for assistance.

1 Corinthians 12:28

28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tounges

Mike, your blog says that you are interested in the nature of truth.
The Church is where we find the truth!

1 Timothy 3:15

15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

That's why Jesus started a church and gave that one church the authority to teach and interpret scripture.  Which church is that.  I can make the argument that it's the Catholic Church.  But that's a discussion for another day. If you're interested in that discussion,  here's the link to a video talk by Catholic apologist John Martignoni titled "One Church"

No Joke: Christians Can't Participate in Homosexual Celebrations




There is an aggressive attempt to normalize homosexuality, especially during the month of June,  being inundated with wokeness. It is neither normal nor Godly. 

This season, St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Jack Flaherty called out  five Tampa Bay Ray's  players for refusing to wear LGBTQ Pride uniforms,  calling it an "absolute joke ".

Whats obvious about this is that Flaherty, who calls himself a Christian,  knows nothing about what Christians believe on homosexuality or doesn't care.  It's a fact that Christians take their faith seriously.  No Joke!  Religion is more than just going to Church on Sunday.  Christians practice their faith everyday in the public square.


While Christians believe that homosexual actions are a sin, comments on social media websites  have  been making Christians out to  be  homophobic bigots. This would mean that Christians hate or dislike gay people showing prejudice against them.  That couldn't be further from the truth!

Bishop, Joseph Strickland, head of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas, said that preaching the truth of the Gospel is not homophobic, that sexual intimacy is for a married man and woman "for the procreation of children," and that this is "simply reality."

As Christians, we are taught to love the sinner but hate the sin. From a Catholic perspective, "they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." (Catechism of the Catholic Church  2358)

One of the common statements is that Jesus Christ = Love.

True love of Jesus Christ doesn't mean that it's okay  to look the other way when someone sins.  Jesus Christ didn't look the other way when He turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple.  When a woman who was accused of adultery was brought before Him,  He didn't look the other way.  He told her to "go and sin no more".

We wouldn't look the other way with  people who murder, rape, steal,  or commit adultery.  So why does society have different rules for the sin of homosexuality.

Pope Francis calls the church a hospital for sinners.  We are all sinners.  As Christians we are taught to repent and ask for forgiveness no matterwhat our sins are.

We must recognize that we have done wrong.
We must have true remorse for doing wrong and for the pain and problems we've caused. We must be committed never to repeat the act regardless of the temptations or situation. We must repair the damage we've done, or at least do what we can to apologize directly to the injured party.

Jesus Christ died a horrific death on the cross for all of our sins. Christ does indeed = Love, but true love of Jesus Christ is not giving people the green light to commit  sinful acts.
True love is offering His Mercy and Forgiveness. Jesus Christ will forgive everyone who asks. Our job as Christians is to get to heaven and to take as many people as we can with us.  Only when we offer the Mercy  and forgiveness of Christ do we accomplish that. We shouldn't force it on them,  but at least offer it to them. 

Love is not condoning a sinful lifestyle, love is helping them out of sin and helping them understand why its a sin. Love is telling people the truth.  I dont ever want God to ask me, "Why didnt you tell the truth?"

So why can't Christians wear the Gay Pride uniforms or take part in the celebrations of gay people as a sign of unity. Are Christians hiding behind their religion?
One comment I've seen is that Jesus Christ would have worn the uniforms.  That's probably not true.

St Paul  tells us that it is also a sin to approve the sinful actions of others or participate in their sins.
Romans 1:26-32
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.


Also  1 Timothy 5:22
22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.

For this reason  a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual celebration, a florist can't provide flowers for a homosexual celebration and a baseball player can't wear a Gay Pride uniforms.  That would also be a sin.  Why would you want to force anyone to go against their beliefs? Why would you want to force someone to sin?  Wouldn't that be reverse discrimination against the Christian? '

Homophobic  prejudice  would  be refusing to hire a gay person, rent an apartment to a gay person, or serve them at a restaurant because they are gay. Those situations would be wrong because those aren't sinful  actions. The Christian isn't participating in another person's sin. The Christian isn't taking part in the celebration. See the difference?

What if on Easter Sunday all players would be asked to wear a cross on their sleeve to symbolize the resurrection of JesusChrist? Would it be ok for players to refuse because of their religious beliefs or lack of them? Of course! Would you ask a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Atheist to wear that cross or participate in a Christian Celebration? Some MLB teams have Christian day at the ballpark.   What if MLB and its teams incorporated the Crucifix or the Christian fish symbol  into its logos for a month, like they do with the Gay Pride Rainbow? Do you think that maybe non-Christians such as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists would be offended? 



I am a St. Louis Cardinals fan,  and I like Jack Flaherty as a baseball player, he has a lot of talent, but I don't like the way he or MLB divide the fans. Sports is supposed to bring people together. Not divide them.  Christians take their faith seriously. Gay people take their lifestyle seriously.

You may  not agree with the beliefs of Christians but you should always respect them and  their right to believe just like Christians should respect gay people.  But society should never expect anyone to celebrate the lifestyle or beliefs of anyone else.

This is why MLB should stay out of politics.  Stick to what you do best.  Play Baseball!