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

A study in differences: The state of the Catholic Church – and the world – before Vatican II – and after.

Before Vatican II:

Faith, reason, and grace-giving sacraments … in addition to almost 2,000 years of Catholic tradition, philosophy and scholarship … served to assist Catholics in making rational and morally upright life decisions … for their own sake, for the glory of God, for the good of the Catholic Church, and for the common good of all mankind.

After Vatican II:

Change has come to the Catholic Church. Virtually all that came before is now irrelevant.

Personal conscience … enlightened by modern secular thought … is king.

A disoriented/disordered Magisterium fails to provide a suitable and practical replacement for that which they permitted to be summarily discarded.

Many Catholics no longer have a sound basis for making rational and morally upright life decisions. Ditto for the rest of the world. Corruption abounds … in the Church … and at every level of society. The earth rapidly descends into chaos.

Welcome to the Brave New World!   

Editor’s note: There are some signs of a turn-around. Where there is grace … there is hope!

Sexual Identity Therapy (SIT) Framework provides rational cover for virtually any sexual disorder

Editor’s note: This is the type of morally vacuous, psychologically accommodating approach that for years, in the Catholic Church, got sexual predators moved from parish to parish, and from doctor to doctor, while offering virtually nothing to help fix the underlying problem of same sex attraction and disordered sexuality towards our youth.

Now it appears that some of our protestant brethren are getting set to attempt the same thing!

In this article, the folks at Illinois Family Institute (and others) take Grove City College professor Warren Throckmorton and Regent University professor Mark Yarhouse to task for their apparently heretical, accomodationist approach to sexual identity therapy, which basically states that those who, despite the abundantly clear Christian prohibitions against such behavior, “feel” that disordered sexuality is OK for them, are indeed correct, and hence, in no further need of therapy.

This is just another institutionalized form of “Pay to Play” or more correctly, “Pay to Sin”!

Read the article

The Anti-Christmas Crowd Has Reason On Their Side, While All We Catholics Have, is God.

The anti-Christmas crowd has reason on their side.

It’s not rational for God, the Supreme Being of the entire universe, to care about the lowly inhabitants of an insignificant planet.

It’s not rational for God to condescend to becoming one of us.

It’s not rational to believe that one person could (at the very same time) be both fully God and fully man.

It’s not rational for God to choose a “putrid backwater” of the ancient world, then known as Roman occupied Palestine and Judea, to be the home of his divine son.

It’s not rational for God to choose a lowly Jewish maiden (the sinless, Virgin Mary) to be the mother of his son.

It’s not rational for God to ask the maiden’s consent.

It’s not rational for God to wait patiently for that consent.

It’s not rational to believe that a woman might conceive a child without benefit of some type of physical sex act or medical procedure.

It’s not rational for humans to believe in angels (or devils).

It’s not rational for a lowly human to even consider being part and party to such an unimaginable, boldly metaphysical, wholly unlikely and totally unparalleled event.

It’s not rational for the here-to-fore unseen, unknowable, ineffable God to expect anyone of sound mind to agree to take part in such a thing.

It’s not rational for the Son of God to be born after the usual nine months of gestation, without loss of the woman’s virginity.

It’s not rational for the Son of God to be born in a stable, because no room was available elsewhere.

It’s not rational for “Kings of the East” to set out on extended pilgrimage based primarily on their limited understanding of ancient and obscure Hebrew prophecy.

It’s not rational to believe that the same Kings were guided to their destination by the appearance of a mysterious, dedicated, still unexplained and unidentified heavenly light (star).

It’s not rational for the Son of God to have to flee the country of his birth in order to foil an assassination attempt on his person, by an earthly king.

It’s not rational for the Son of God to be raised by a decidedly “middle-class” foster-father, in an indistinct and virtually unknown little town called Nazareth, and to eventually become a carpenter.

It’s not rational for a married couple to voluntarily and permanently fore-go sexual relations with each other.

It’s not rational to believe in Scripture/Bible prophecy.

It’s not rational to believe that one man could, during the course of his short, thirty-three years of earthly existence, perfectly fulfill all of the hundreds of Bible prophecies that were written about him.

It’s not rational to believe that the atoning death of the Son of God at the hands of sinful mankind, could somehow ultimately result in the successful reconciliation of mankind with God.

It’s not rational to believe that God so loved the world, that he gave us his only begotten Son: that whoever believes in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

It’s not rational to believe that it is possible for a man to raise himself up again from the dead.

It’s not rational to believe that, having risen, that same man could give us his glorified flesh and blood to eat, as true food and true drink, and as the antidote to eternal death and hell.

It’s not rational to believe that a little group of eleven apostles and a few hundred disciples could establish one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church that would eventually convert the pagan Roman Emperor, then the entire Roman Empire, and one day, go on to encompass most of the known world.

It is not rational to believe that having reconciled the world to God by his life, death and resurrection, that Jesus Christ will one day return to judge the living and the dead, and that his kingdom will have no end.

It may not be rational, but the bulk of the above events have already occurred and passed into history, while our Christian faith informs us that the last will also truly come to pass, in God’s good time.

Merry Christmas!

More on this here

Three rational proofs for the existence of God

THE THREE PROOFS OF CARDINAL RUINI

The first speakers, on Thursday, December 10, were Cardinal Ruini and Robert Spaemann of Germany. Both spoke as philosophers.

Ruini outlined three ways of access to God, three proofs of his existence, not theological but rational, and therefore able to be presented to all, not only to believers.

The first way departs from the evident fact “that there is something rather than nothing.” The second moves from the observation that the universe can be known by man. The third is based on man’s experience of a moral law within himself.

The three ways therefore make reference to the “transcendentals” of classical philosophy: to being, truth, and goodness. In making his arguments, Ruini intended to overcome the radical objections that these have faced over the past two centuries, beginning with Kant. But he acknowledged that not even these ways have the power of an apodictic demonstration, one that does not raise new doubts. And so? The cardinal’s final proposal is that the existence of God be accepted as “the best hypothesis,” with a formula taken from Joseph Ratzinger.

Here are the final two paragraphs from Ruini’s address:

“The difficulties of the metaphysical approach in the contemporary cultural context, together with the dilemma arising from the existence of evil in the world, are the essential reasons for that ‘strange shadow that looms over the question of the eternal realities’. Thus the existence of a personal God, as solidly arguable as we have sought to make it, is not the object of an apodictic demonstration, but remains ‘the best hypothesis, which demands that we renounce a position of domination and take the risk of a stance of humble listening’. The implications of such an acknowledgment are great, both for relations between believers and nonbelievers – which, already for this essential reason, should be marked by sincere and firmly held mutual respect – and  for the personal attitude of each believer, and in particular for the fundamental role that prayer must occupy in our relationship with God, so as to be able implore from him the gift of faith, which gives us that unconditional and at the same time free certainty about God which, as Saint Thomas explains, does not in any way exclude the possibility of further inquiry, but supports our fidelity to him, extending to the gift of ourselves.

“I will finish with an observation that seems to me fairly emblematic of the condition in which we are living. There is a profound parallel between the approach to God and the approach to ourselves, as intelligent and free subjects. In both cases, we are currently subjected to the pressure of a strong and pervasive epistemological scientism and naturalism, often unconsciously metaphysical, which would like to declare that God does not exist, or at least cannot be known by reason, and to reduce man to an object of nature among the others. Today, as perhaps never before, it therefore seems clear that the affirmation of man as a subject and the affirmation of God ‘simul stant et simul cadunt’, they stand or fall together. This is deeply logical, because on the one hand it is very difficult to establish a true and irreducible emergence of man with respect to the rest of nature if nature itself is the whole of reality, and on the other it is equally difficult to keep the mind open to a personal, intelligent, and free God – in a way that is true, even if it is ineffable to us – if this irreducible specificity of the human subject is not acknowledged. Bearing witness to the true God and at the same time to the truth of man is therefore perhaps the most exhilarating task that has been entrusted to us.”

Read more

Christians: Can a son be his own father?

trinitycloud

Q: Christians: Can a son be his own father?

Jesus is son of God, and he is God. How can father and son be the same person?

A: God the Father is of an eternal, unique, uncreated, godly “essence”.

God the Son is eternally begotten of this same essence.

God the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and is also of the same godly essence.

Each person of the Godhead is a divine and distinct person, yet all three together constitute the one, true, God.

The Father is distinctive from the Son and the Son from the Father and the Holy Spirit, yet all are of the same godly essence, so all constitute the one God.

Mathematically: 1 X 1 X 1 = 1.

Jesus also took on flesh and became man, in order to redeem the world from sin. This merely added a human body and soul to his unique godly identity.

So … Jesus and the Father are NOT the same person. They (along with the Holy Spirit) are equally God (consubstantial) but are also distinctive,unique, rational persons, in their own right.