Question: If Christians want to convince us of their great beliefs, shouldn’t they make an effort to come across as more intelligent? They often come across as irrational, prejudiced and a bit wacky.

Question: If Christians want to convince us of their great beliefs, shouldn’t they make an effort to come across as more intelligent? They often come across as irrational, prejudiced and a bit wacky.

Answer: You are very observant.

Authentic Christianity, along with all its doctrines and dogmas, is laid out much like a computer algorithm: If it isn’t true and it isn’t logical/rational, then it doesn’t work and it should be rejected, since anything that doesn’t meet the standard of divine truth is essentially, good for nothing.

The Catholic Church used to excel in teaching and preaching only superb, rational and scholarly theology, but since it got “reformed” some fifty years ago, Catholic leadership seems to think that type of thing is no longer necessary, so they have opted instead to promote the kind of weak, superficial, irrational, politically correct drivel that had previously, been the hallmark of the followers of Martin Luther.

It’s still possible to discover and learn authentic Christianity and it’s still possible to learn to practice it and clearly explain it, but that evidently, requires more time and effort than many are willing to invest.

ASK A QUESTION OF YOUR OWN

Those who do evil insist upon the acceptance and even the promotion of evil, on an ever-widening scale.

There is a substantive moral difference between permitting a particular elective practice and forcing everybody to participate in the funding of that practice. One has to be pretty far gone morally to fail to see this distinction. To fail to see it, one must argue something very much like the following:

  1. Practice X is a morally good personal decision.
  2. Therefore, those who embrace Practice X promote the common good.
  3. Therefore, everyone should contribute to the costs of Practice X.
  4. Therefore, anyone who believes Practice X to be immoral should be coerced into paying a share of the costs.

This line of thought includes no fewer than four logical leaps. It begins with the assumption that there can be no legitimate disagreement concerning the value of Practice X. It leaps from that assumption to a further assumption about the common good, and from this second assumption to a third, that the cost of whatever contributes to the common good should be shared by all, and finally from this third assumption to a fourth—that coercion is warranted for those who disagree.

Read more

Editor’s note: Liberalism in itself is evil … so it’s no wonder that liberals typically suffer from a pronounced darkening of the intellect … and are often guilty of blindly following a profoundly deviant moral compass … currently exemplified by Barack Obama and his merry band of left-wing, Marxist/Leninist anarchists.

Liberalism is a sin