Quote of the Day

Today's quote is the response I heard about this disturning use of Danish/Australian Taxpayer money.
"What a forward thinking society...Why are they providing the disabled with prostitutes? They should be using the disabled as prostitutes. It makes more economic sense."
Doug

(Heard in person, said tongue-in-cheek.)

Another Nail in the Coffin of Society

If there is a contest for setting bad precednets, the Netherlands would be one of the top contenders. Among other other things, they were among the first to allow for homosexual "marriages," euthanasia, and have held liberal positions on abortion. Now, we see not one, but two new developements from this land of liberalization. One the one hand, The Netherlands are going to give the "go-ahead" to child euthanasia, while on the other hand giving the license for a three-way polygamous marriage.
Am I surprised by these developements? No. The precedents for both have been set, and the wheels have been turning in that direction for years. Abortion and euthanasia/assisted suicide for the elderly set the precedent to do allow for the killing of children. Next, it will be anyone who is terminally ill and in pain. And consent won't always be required (one precednt set most recently/prominantly by the Terri Schiavo case).
As for polygamous marriage, that was the natural next step after the meaning of the institution was destroyed by allowing for homosexual marriage. I posted on this topic before.
The question begged by all of this is, where did society go wrong? What thing did we do to open the floodgates that would allow for all of these things? When was the lid to Pandora's Box pried open?
Well, the answer to this question is "Eve ate the fruit, and Adam did too." But we as a society continue to do just that; one taste was apparently not enough. To be more specific, it is not that gaining knowledge (or "freedom") is necessarily a bad thing. Rather, it is the rejection of God and the morality that He gave to us that is prooving to be our downfall.
Every major problem that faces society can be attributed back to this rejection. The taking of a person's life is wrong for a variety of reasons. There are the emotional reasons against it: the pain involved, the sense of loss to the person's loved ones, etc. Then there are "defined" wrongs, set not be God but by men. For example, killing a person is wrong because society has defined it to be wrong. Why? For the mutual protection of society.
However, all of these things ignore the most import reasons: killing people is wrong because they are not just animals. What seperates us from the animals? Our higher intellect? No, because our intellect is only higher than that of the beasts by a matter of degree; thus, by the reasoning that only intellect matters, the life of a genious is far more valuable than the lives of any common man (or men!). Is it right, then, to force an average man to sacfrifice his life to save the life of a very smart man? Clearly, no. The less intelligent man has every bit as much right to live as the more intelligent man.
Rather, the right of a man to live comes from his possessing a soul. This soul is the very "lifebreath" that God "breathed" into men, setting us apart form the common beasts. This is what the meaning of being created in God's image truly is. But in rejecting God, we ultimately are also rejecting this part of our nature. This is manifested in so many of the world's problems, from homosexuality and abortion to polygamy and euthanasia. Even rape, murder, and the Gulags and Nazi death camps require some devaluing of one's personhood. This is where we went wrong, in rejectingGod, His morality, and the concept of the soul.

Quote: September 27

"Freedom is indivisible—there is no 's' on the end of it. You can erode freedom, diminish it, but you cannot divide it and choose to keep 'some freedoms' while giving up others."
-Ronald Reagan

Education and Parental Choice

Yesterday, a superintendent of the Lexington, 'Assachussetts school district told the school district that it no longer needed to notify parents of the contents of the school district's courses when that content "promote[s] tolerance and respect for individuals, including recognition of differences in sexual orientation." In other words, parents no longer need to be notified about the pro-homosexual content of the courses offered within the school district. This makes it increasingly difficult for parents to give a moral education to their children.
Consider the possible options for dealing with this. Option one is that a parent can yank his or her kids out of the public school system. This involves placing the children in either 1) homeschooling, 2) private schools, or 3) a charter school. Thanks to the rise of feminism, many women are now working, which means that most families do not have a stay at home parent to allow for homeschooling (even those that do are forced to try to live off of a one parent income, which is increasingly becoming difficult). Charter schools are becoming more widespread, but cannot keep up with the demand or alternatives to the public educaton system. And all three options are often prohibitively expensive (with private schools being the most expensive). Furthermore, the teachers' unions are increasingly clamouring for control of these other otions, which basically involves preventing people from using these options. In short, most people are stuck with the public schools.
Option two, then, is to simply pull children from courses in which objectionable material is presented. Unfortunately, many of these course are ultimately required by the school systems, if not at elementary level then at least later on. Thus, pulling children out of a course with objectionable material is not always an option.
Solution three is to pull children from class on the specific days during which objectionable material is presented. And with yesterday's pronouncement, this option has become increasingly difficult. Parents no longer know the days on which this cr@p will be taught, so they're resort is to attend class with their children every day and remove their child as necessary. But even this solution, ridiculous as it is, is not possible. Not only would this mean the loss of income from having one parent wasting time in class every day.
On top of all of this, one parent of a child attending the school in question was arrested for "trespassing" when he showed up at his child's school- and he was going to attend a scheduled meeting! Thus, the schools are forcing this immorality on children against the consent of parents, while at the same time not allowing for parental choice in schools, not allowing kids (parents) to opt out of objectionable curses, and not even allowing for the parents to have any feedback on the matter. This is yet another sign that our society is going straight to hell. It's just ne more sign that we will rendezvous with Gamorrah in the next 50 years.

I'm Back, Kind of

Well folks, I'm now mostly situated back at OSU, and classes have officially begun. I have a fairly busy term scheduled, so I'm not sure how much time I've got to maintain this blog. Hopefully, as I get back into the swing of things, my posting will become more consistent. I've posted the promised Deutercoanonical piece, and it's fairly long.
I know that this is promising to be a fairly busy term, with a solid core of physics courses combined with TAing lower div physics labs and a second job. Plus, there's all of the clubs and stuff, and undergraduate senate. I also have the dreaded GRE Physics test coming up, and a trip to the APS conference in Denver; and when that's over, it will be time to fill out graduate school applications. Oih. However, I do expect to find at least some time to post here in between it all, so sit tight, hold on, and stay tuned.

Defending the Deutorocanonicals: Upholding the "Apocrypha"

Overview

I earlier promised to post something about the Deuterocanonicals, those seven books in the Catholic Bible that are not found in modern Protestant Bibles. Aside from being a major point of contention between Catholics and Protestants, these seven books (Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabbees, and Judith) are the root of several disagreements between the two groups. The protestant positions is generally that the Deuterocanonicals are apocryphal- ie, that they do no belong in the Bible. I disagree with this position, siding rather with the position that had been held by Christians for well over a thousand years, up until the Reformation.


Some History

Before getting too carried away, it is useful to examine a little bit of the history of these books. The Deuterocanonicals include seven Old Testament books: 4 "Historical Books," 2 "Wisdom Books," and 1 "Prophetic Book." Additionally, the Protestant Bible contains shortened versions of Daniel and Esther as compared to the Catholic Bible. Some time around 250 B.C., Jewish scholars in Alexandria began to translate the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek. This translation is referred to as the Septaguint, and eventually included 46 books (the 39 "Protestant" books, plus the 7 "Deuterocanonicals). I say eventually, because not all of these books had yet been written as of 200 B.C. Then, circa AD 30, something happened to throw the Jewish community into a state of disarray. Namely, Christ was crucified, died, and rose from the dead, all in a three day time span.
The result, as seen by the leaders of the Jewish community was that a new religion was springing up in the area. This religion used the Septaguint as their scripture; the written languaeg of that time and region was Greek, thus the Greek translation was the most accessible to people, especially to those who were not Hebrew-speaking, Hebrew-writing Jewish scholars.
As a reaction to this new religion, the Jews called a council in AD 90. This council was known as the Council of Jamnia (Jabneh), and consisted of a group of Jewish scholars who were granted permission by Rome to meet and establish a non-authoratative Sanhedrin (recall that this is after the destruction of Jerusalem). This group discussed a number of things such as several "questionable" translations of the Jewish Bible, as well as the early Christian writings. As Greek had become the main written language of the Jews by this time, and since the existing Greek translation of the Bible (the Septaguint) was being used to convert Jews to Christianity, this council made a new translation Greek of the Old Testament.
It is interesting to note a few things about this council. First, it was not a council by Christians, but rather by Jews who were specifically meeting in response to the appearance and apparent success of Christianity. In other words, it was a council opposed to Christianity. Second, this council did not actually close even the Jewish canon. The canon had been open before Christ walked the earth, while He walked the earth, after He had died, risen, and been assumed, and it remained open (even for the Jews) until after this council. It is also interesting to note that the Jews themselves did not agree as to what the canon should include during all this time: the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch (first 5 books), the Pharisees included a larger canon; the Septaguint included the Deuterocanonicals, while the less widely used Masoretic text did not.
Third, there is no known list of books that was actually drawn up at this council, and certainly no Old Testament books were formally excluded. For example, Sirach was still read and copied by Jews after the council was eventually excluded by the Jews. The books that this council did reject were the Gospels and all of the New Testament letters. Finally, the Jews would no longer have the authority to determine the canon of the Old Testament that should be used by the Church. Can you imagine if the Jews met today and declared several Old Testament books as non-canonical, or if they had added a few books to it? No Christian today would accept this new canon, even if there hadn't been an established canon prior to this. As an interesting aside, the Ehtiopian Jews today still use the Septaguint (including Deuterocanonicals).
In any event, the common language of the Roman Empire was Latin rather than Greek. Therefore, as the Empire became increasingly Christianized, a new translation of the Bible was needed. This Latin Bible is referred to as the Vulgate. So about 300 years after the "council" of Jabneh, St. Jerome was tasked with translating the Bible and Greek and Hebrew into Latin. By this time, the Masoretic Bible contained 39 books, seven less than the Septaguint. He wanted to translate only these 39, but the Pope and most bishops wanted all 46 traditionally used books to be translated. St. Jerome ultimately translated all 46 books into the Vulgate. By this time, most Christians accepted the entire Septaguint (all 46 books) as Scripture; St. Jerome is the exception to the rule, while a handful of others recognized some distinction between the Deuterocanonicals and the other 39 books, but these would often cite the Deutercanonicals as Scripture.
In fact, the "non-canonical" designation once held multiple meanings. Today, the term means that the book in question is not inspired and doesn't belong in the Bible. However, during the time of the early Christians, this term could mean one of three things. The first is that the book in question is heretical (such as the Gospel of Thomas). The second meaning was that the book was uninspired, but that it holds good spiritual of historical merit; an example of this is the Shepher of Hermas. The third meaning, and the one used by those Church Fathers who termed the Deuterocanonicals as "non-canonical," is that the book is inspired Scripture, but not in use in the Liturgy of the local city-Chruch. For example, the Book of Revelation was most certainly considered inspired Scripture, but the Eastern Churches (particularly the Eastern Orthodox Church) often did not use it in their Liturgy.
The Church councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397, AD 419) all listed the Deuterocannonicals as Scripture, and some of the earliest Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament include the Deuterocanonicals mixed in with the other books. These manuscripts include the Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and Codex Alexandinus (circa AD 450). Since these councils also finalized the 39 books accepted by Protestants in the Old Testament, any subsequent acceptance or rejection of books based on these councils would be quite ambiguous and arbitrary. Pope Innocent I sanctioned these councils in AD 405.
The next major change occurred during the Reformation, when Luther rejected certain books from the Bible as being Apocryphal. In his original Bible, Luther actually included these books in an appendix, which was eventually removed entirely (as late as 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society). However, he also did not stop at just the seven Deutercanoniclas: the New Testament Canon was also scrutinized by Luther. Hebrews, James (the "epistle of straw"), Jude, and Revelation were all looked down upon by Luther (they were also initially placed in an appendix, but other Protestants placed them back in the Bible). The other Protestant reformers all followed Luther's lead in rejecting the Deuterocanonicals, but the Catholic Church re-affirmed them as a part of the canon during the Council of Trent.
Thus, the Deuterocanonicals were always generally accepted by the Church as canonical; the early Christians used them, too. A few occasional people such as St. Jerome rejected them (even St. Jerome eventually came to accept at least parts of the Deuterocanonicals as scripture), but the majority of Christians accepted them. Even the Protestant historian JND Kelly once wrote:
"It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54).
Also, some of the early Protestant bibles included the Deuterocanonicals. As mentioned previously, Luther included these in the appendix to his original translation. And the 1611 King James translation of the Protestant Bible included the entire Septaguint (meaning the Deuterocanonicals, too); there was even an ordinance at the time stating that anyone printing a King James Bible without including those seven books could be sentenced to a year in prison (source).


Deuterocanonicals in the New Testament?

The history of the Deutercanonicals shows that they have always been generally accepted by the Church as a part of the canon, and always as Scripture. However, history isn’t everything. Many apologists for the Protestant position have claimed, "Since these books are nowhere found referenced in the New Testament, they cannot possibly be inspired Scripture." There are a number of problems with this position.
The first is that several books accepted by both Catholics and Protestants as Scriptural don’t appear anywhere in the New Testament, either. For example, Obadiah is nowhere referenced in the New Testament. Other Protocanonical books not quoted by the New Testament writers include Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. However, Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians all accept these books as inspired Scripture.
The next problem with this position is that there are a few books and works quoted in the New Testament that no Christian groups accept as a part of their canon. St. Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch and from the Assumption of Moses. Hebrews 11:37 alludes to the Ascension of Isaiah. St. Paul even references the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus)! These last few at least are in no way inspired, and nobody ever argues that we should be including these books and writings in our canon. Why should it be any different for the Deuterocanonicals?
One final flaw with this position is that the Deuterocanonicals are in fact quoted or otherwise referenced in the New Testament. As Envoy Magazine's Mark Shea puts it:
"St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind." Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament…. Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being ‘set apart,’ just as Judas Maccabeus ‘set apart…’ in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection… by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called ‘apocryphal’ books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament."
2 Maccabees 7 is especially important here, as it refers several times to the resurrection to life after death, doing so more times than the rest of the Old Testament books- combined! Wisdom 3:1-4 also alludes to the resurrection:
"1 But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. 2 In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction, 3 and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace. 4 For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality."
In his commentary on Romans 1 (source), Douglas DeLacy, a Protestant, writes, "More significant is the fact that Paul often alludes to or uses ideas parallel to and apparently drawn from certain apocryphal books, notably the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus (Also known as Sirach)" ("Image and Incarnation in Pauline Christology," vol. 30, Tyndale Bulletin, 1979, pp. 3-28).


Prophetic?

This brings up one more important point about the Deuterocanonicals. Namely, that some of them are, in fact, quite prophetic. Aside from the 2 Maccabees and Wisdom references to the resurrection of the dead, there are Deuterocanonical prophecies about Christ Himself. Consider the prophecy of Wisdom 2:12-20. This prophecy is examined in-depth here. Particularly important are verses 18-20, which state:
"18: for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19: Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20: Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."
Sound familiar? This is basically a summary of the Passion. Even verse 18 is referred to by Christ in Matthew 26:53 after Simon Peter attacks the High Priest’s servant with his sword (actually, Matthew does not name Simon Peter, but John does). Additionally, Wisdom 14:7 alludes specifically to a death on the cross: "For blest is the wood through which justice comes about."
So Wisdom and 2 Maccabees are prophetic, but what about the others? Well, Baruch is actually listed amongst the Prophetic books; Baruch, by the way, is the secretary of the prophet Jeremiah. Baruch 3:31-38 is particularly interesting. The early Church fathers cite Baruch 3:36-38 as foretelling that Christ would come down (from heaven) to live among men. And Baruch 3:31-32 states, "For the Lord’s rejection does not last forever; Though he punishes, he takes pity, in the abundance of his mercies." This is a definite allusion to our Redemption (we are no longer rejected for our sins, but rather offered Salvation).
Also, many of the Old Testament books accepted as Scriptural by both Catholics and Protestants are not prophetic. For example, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther all fail to add any new messianic prophecies to the Old Testament, while many of the Protocanonicals do not ever claim to be written by prophets (these include such books as 1&2 Chronicles, 1&2 Kings, and Ecclesisastes). Thus, the lack of new messianic prophecies or claims to be prophetic does not necessarily eliminate a books from being Scriptural. The Old Testament books were meant to do more than prophecy: some were historical, while others offered moral teachings and the Law (God’s Law, His Commandments, etc.), for example.


Tradition, Sola Sciptura, and the Canon

First, I would like to point out that having a closed canon is more important to Protestants than to Catholics. Now, this is a bit of a strong statement to be making until you realize a big difference between Catholics and most Protestants. Catholics use Scripture extensively to build Church doctrine (it is used throughout the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example), but we also rely a lot on tradition. 1 Corinthians 11:1-2 states (NAB):
"Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I praise you because you remember me and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."
Protestants, on the other hand, prefer to cite Sola Scriptura. Well, if you’re going to base everything on the Bible, then you have to have a closed canon (new revelations or prophecies would be particularly harmful to this doctrine). Thus, knowing whether the Deutercocanonicals are inspired or not becomes imperative for Protestants. If they are inspired, then they are included as a part of the doctrine forming Scripture. If not, then they must be excluded from Scripture. But I have argued above that the Deuterocanonicals are inspired, even including messianic and salvational prophecies.
Luther rejected these seven books. However, he had little to base this rejection on other than a difference between the Maseretic and Septaguint versions of the Bible, the comments of a minority of the Church fathers (mostly taken out of context), and a Jewish council that had been convened to counter Christianity. However, Luther did not stop with the Deutercanonicals: he would have cut several New Testament books from the Bible as well. Indeed, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were originally placed in an appendix to his Bible, but later placed back in the Protestant Bible by more prudent Protestants who realized that cutting these would result in the loss of any credibility that they had. Ultimately, Luther settled with more-or-less claiming that they were less inspired than the others. Cutting these books from the Bible entirely would probably have resulted in his failure to attract a following (and he would have stamped out as heretic).
What were his motives for doing this? We can’t know for sure, but based upon some of Luther’s commentaries, especially those regarding his "New Testament Apocryphra" (Hebrew, James, Jude, and Revelations), probably the fact that these sometimes contradicted the theology that he wanted to build. This, of course, leads to circular reasoning: doctrine is based only on Scripture, but the only things that are kept as Scripture are those that agree with the desired theology. Specifically, Luther disagreed with the doctrines that were based on 2 Maccabees; but to be credible while throwing this out, he needed to throw out the other Deuterocanonicals and claim that they were collectively unscriptural.


Conclusion

Luther’s claim was that the Deuterocanonicals are unscriptural, and Protestants have generally followed his lead on this. Unfortunately, history, cultural, and the existence of fulfilled messianic prophecies indicate that these books are, in fact, a part of Scripture. As such, I believe that they do in fact belong in the Bible.


~Note: Since I composed this while away from the internet, I have not linked the specific Bible verses. These can be found via the links on the sidebar. I will try to link these verses, but I may or may not get to doing so. Also, my formatting was not preserved when I transferred from on computer to the next, so the linked articled have all become unlinked. I'll definitely fix this at some point, but don't have the time to do so right now.

Quote of the Day: September 16

Since we are in the midst of the confirmation process for Judge John Roberts, I think that today's quote shall be about something that every good judge needs.

"All wisdom comes from the Lord and with him it remains forever."
Sirach 1:1

Brief Explanations, and Directions

As I stated before, there will be inconsistent postings on this blog over the next few weeks. Today is my last day at the lab, and tomorrow I will be driving home (it's about a 9 hour drive). Thus, no further posts will be likely to ensue for at least a few days (depending on the internet connection at my parents' place, and also on how busy I am while there). I do intend to post something about the Deutercanonicals by hopefully the end of next week. Beyond that, I have a few other topics that I will be considering: the sacraments (especially Baptism and Communion/the Eucharist), Mary, "Papal Infallibility," and tradition & Sola Scriptura. I may write about one, some, all of these (plus maybe a few more beyond those listed). If anyone wants to be specifically notified when I get these posted, just let me know (post a comment here, it will be forward to my email address).

I should say, though, that this is not intended as an apologetics blog (Catholic in particular or Christian in general). And unless I happen to find a few Catholic friends who want to join as contributors and whom I decide to allow on as contributors, this blog will continue to not be an apologetics blog. I've pretty much dropped the ball on about everything else that requires substantial thought in the last week (not that I've ever really done more than about two posts on any one day, plus the Quotes of the Day), both news-wise and otherwise.
I did have some plans to post a possible collection of short stories here set in a New Dark Age, but those are going to be on hold for a while longer, too. And of course, there are my random philosophical musings (both happy/light and dismal/dark), which will probably continue again when I return (depending on what I feel like writing and what comes to mind).

However, before I leave, I would like to try to clarify a few points from my last post about Catholicism.

First, I stated that I believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church on earth. I then had a brief discussion about beliefs: ideas about "the way (or how) things are." A few people clearly either didn't make the connection between the two, or misunderstood what I was saying. In stating that I believe the Catholic Church is the true Church, I'm saying that I believe it to be the one that presents the correct version of "the way things are." Alternatively, you could relax this to say that it is the Church that most correctly explains "how things are."

To clarify, I'll take a specific doctrine. Let's go with the Assumption of Mary. I choose this as an example because it is straightforward: either she was assumed into heaven or she was not, and her mortal remains are still on earth somewhere, quite probably decayed. I believe that she was assumed, for a variety of reasons*. Other people believe that she was not. Either I'm right, or they're right. Now, honestly, if my opinion was that they're right (and therefore that I'm wrong), I wouldn't hold this view. Now apply this to more and more issues. As it turns out, I happen to agree more with the Catholic Church than any other denomination. I therefore must conclude that it does the best job of explaining "the way things are," and that it is therefore the one true Church.

The defense I hear from the other side of the argument is basically that the Catholic Church has too many added "bells and whistles" in its doctrines and teachings. I would say that this isn't so compared to other religions. Here's my explanation. Refer back to the Assumption of Mary. The Catholic Church believe that this happened; most other denominations believe that it didn't. Thus, you could say that they hold as doctrine that Mary died.

The big difference is that in the Catholic Church's case, this is an official doctrine, in other denominations, it's an unofficial one. But as a general rule, the majority of each denomination holds to that denomination's doctrine (official or otherwise). Most Catholics believe that Mary was Assumed, most Protestants believe that she was not. In order for this not to be a doctrine/belief one way or the other, the denomination has to take the position that it may or may not have happened, and not teach one way or the other.

I should note that this addition to the last post is meant as a clarification and not as a rebuttal to anyone's particular posts. I will add one more point to all of this: just because I believe that Catholicism is the true(st) religion does not mean I think that everybody should convert to it from their denominations. The Church's doors are always open for those who want to convert; however, even though I am elitist in that I believe my religion to be the best, I also recognize that there are plenty of people on the other side who feel the same way. The amount of potential strife created by converting several half-believers to Catholicism may outweigh any benefits to the Church and even to such people**. We're all Christians, and I believe that we are in fact all conservative Christians, and as such we all have far more in common than not.
An actual defense of several doctrines associated with the Catholic Church will be laid out in some of the future posts that I previously mentioned. Until then, I hope everyone enjoys the rest of your week (and the weekend).

_____

*These reasons aren't important to this discussion. If I do a post on Mary, the Assumption will be discussed.
**"Cafeteria Catholicism" has proved problematic to the Church. I tend to agree with Pope Benedict that the Church doesn't need to change to suit their needs: we don't need a Church that legitimizes homosexuality or abortions, etc. As applied to most of you, nothing quite so blatant or drastic as that would occur, but, will, let's just say that small problems at the least will still arise. For example, it is considered a sin for a non-believer to recieve communion, and I know a number of you reading this do not believe in the actual presence.

Quote of the Day: September 15

Today's quote of the day demonstrates that when you elect a liberal, you get what you pay for. Unfortunately.

"My impression today is that you [Judge John Roberts] are a very cautious, very precise man ... and that concerns me more."
-The apparently recklessand haphazard Senator Dianne Feinstein (D- California)
As Quoted on CNN

Quote of the Day: September 14

Due to my my present state of craziness for this week, I'll just link today's quote of the day here.

Much Ado About Anglicanism (or Churning One Out for the Church)

It's going to drive me crazy if I don't post something. Do I have time to be undertaking this right now? No, so I'm going to be exhausted tomorrow. In lights of posts on several other blogs, including the Veritas blog, the Fly's blog, Pontifications, and several others, I'm going to have to say somehting or I'll go mad. Several specific points have been brought up, and most of these I will not be addressing tonight; I do have plans to address some of them directly in future posts, so hang tight.

Instead, a question arises as to whether the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church on earth. My opinion is no, it is not: because that excludes the smaller rites that are also a part of the Catholic Church. (Ok, so I'm a bit of a smart-@ss tonight). Honestly though, what does this mean? That the other denominations are wrong?

Not exactly. Rather I personally believe that they all contain at least a part of the truth, some a very large part, others a smaller part. Before you get to attacking this position, hold on for just a moment. About the only semblance of consistency between all of the Protestant denominations that is not also something in common with the Catholic Church is the position that the Catholic Church is wrong. But somebody has to have it right, don't they?

Well, each person reading here must believe that he or she has got it right. In other words, each of you reading this most likely believes that your particular beliefs are correct. Ok, maybe a few don't, but in your case you are probably at least trying to find a set of beliefs that you can then justify as correct. Now, we know that some set of beliefs must exist that is correct. That's just the way the universe works: somebody (a hypothetical person or a real person) has the set of ideas about "the way things are" which actually (correctly) explains or predicts exactly "how things are."

This also means that there are a lot of somebodies whose belief systems are not correct, or alternatively, are not complete. Now, as far as I know, all of my readers are Christians. Thus, we all essentially share a set of beliefs. Where we differ are on smaller points of belief: the reality of Transubstantiation, authenticity of the Deuterocannonicals, free will vs. predestination, authority of the Church, etc.

Now, in general, every one who has commented that they disagreed that the Catholic Church is the one true Church on earth has ineveitably made some comment about the corruption in the Church proving that it can't be the true Church on earth. But this is a fairly weak claim for stating that Luther was right: there was plenty or corruption on the Protestant "side" of the Reformation. Thus, following this logic, both sides are wrong.

Furthermore, corruption of individuals is not equivalent to corruption of doctrines. Remember, doctrines are basically about "the way things are." Thus, to claim that a doctrine is incorrect because some of the people supporting it are corrupt is really just an ad hominem attack. As an example, take Operation Iraqi Freedom. Does the fact that Hillary Clinton and John Kerry voted in favor of going to Iraq mean that doing so was wrong? No. It merely means that some people were using this to their own ends. So it was with many of the doctrines of the Church. The fact that clergy were getting rich off of various doctrines doesn't mean that those doctrines are necessarily false.



*Note: I will be posting more on this subject later. I will then address some more specific points, many of which may be big enoguh to warrant their own seperate psots. But right now, it is late and I am tired.

Update: For those interested, here is a website which attempts to compare the beliefs of several denominations to some of the Catholic Church's beliefs. I will also attempt to find some other sources on this.

Quote of the Day: September 13

I may just get flamed for posting this quote today. However, based on discussion at a few of the linked sites, this is fairly relevant for today (at least in the local blogosphere). When I have more free time, I'll probably post my opinion on the subject matter, but don't count on that happening this week. Probably not this weekend either, since I will be driving home Saturday (it's about a 9 hour drive), and Sunday I may not be in a position to think through anything (and thus to give a truly good post on the subject matter); even if I am, there may not be an internet connection to post over. I do have plans to address some issues of "Catholic vs. Protestant" in the future, though.
However, in light of comments on other blogs, a quote about Catholicism and Protestantism (sp?) seems appropriate:


"It is often said that Anglicanism is a bridge between Catholicism and Protestantism; but what is a bridge but a structure to walk over to get to the other side."
-Al Kimel, The Phantasy of Anglicanism



*It should be noted that this quote is, for lack of a better term, a double-edged sword. Catholics will argue that the bridge is for protestants to come over to our "side" (for lack of a better word), but Protestants can just as easily argue the other way around.
**I should also note, before any tempers begin to flare up, that I do have plenty of respect for several people on the Protestant "side." No hard feelings.

Public Notice: Inconsistent Times Ahead

As warning to the readers of this blog: during the next couple of weeks, my posts on this blog, and particularly my substantive posts, will be rather sporadic. This is largely because this is my last week working at the lab before going home. This results in fairly long days at the lab as I attempt to finish my projects while filling out the paperwork (read, bureaucratic BS) necessary for terminating all while trying to get my data organized so that I can get it cleared to take it home with me. This in turn means that I will be spending less time thnking about non-work related stuff (read: this blog) until I have left the lab. And since my parents don't have the best internet connection, I likely won't be doing much updating while at home, either. After that, classes will begin again; likely, the frequency and possibly quality of posts will momentarily be decreased until I settle into a rhythm at school. If you don't hear much from me over the next few weeks, don't worry. It just means that 86400 seconds aren't enough for each day (or that I have a weak internet connection). After that, the pace should pick back up again. And who knows, I may find the time to put a few good, substantive posts up during that time (I certainly should have some free time between stopping at the lab and starting at the university).

Quote of the Day: September 12

Much as I know that there well be some feckless crapweaslery as a result of selecting this quote (or more precisely, a quote from this source), today's quote of the day comes from Anachronism. Well said. The only remaining questions are, "Why was there a big fuss over allegedly flushing it down the toilets as a method of torture?" and "How would you flush that down a toilet, anyway?"

"The Koran isn't even good as toilet paper since it's already full of crap."
-Anachronism Veritas Blog: Doom doom doom

Quote of the Day: September 11

In light of today's being the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, it seems fitting that today's quote of the day is one often associated with President Bush and his war on terror. However, this quote come from a rather different source than the president himself (much to the chagrin of liberals).

"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."
-Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 11-23, NAB)

Science without Limits

Usually, I'm a fan of scientific progress. After all, I am a scientist by training and by profession. That being said, there is a limit to what science can achieve- and more importantly, there are limits to what science should attempt to achieve.

As a general rule, science and religion, or science and morality, aren't at odds with each other. Rather, it is the philosophy that can stem from science that collides with religion. Science tells us what the laws of nature are and how things work. Religion (and philosophy) tell us more about life, it's meaning, and how to live it. Thus, the two don't really collide.

However, just because the two don't collide in the direct sense does not mean that the morality derived from religion will never collide with science. That's not to say that one can refute the other; rather morality can, and should, impose some limits on scientific research. In general, morality can (and should) be used to impose certain limits on all fields of study, be they science or engineering, business or economics, the medical professions or the legal ones.

This concept of allowing morality to influence a given field is generally known to us as "ethics." The concept of ethics is ultimately critical to the maintenance of harmony wherever the human factor is involved. In government, ethical limitations on government power help to ensure that the government is fair and impartial when dealing with its citizens. In business, ethics are a detterrant against one party deliberately cheating another. And in science, ethics ensure that we don't create monsters, to use an old phrase.

Unfortunately, ethics are be slowly pushed out of every field. Most notable is the field of science, especially the biological sciences. The result is that we are in fact crreating monsters, of sorts. For example, scientists driven by a desire to use embryonic stem cells to cure diseases are fighting vehemently against federal regulations that inhibit doing just that. In the process, they are also ignoring the use of adult stem cells, which are already being used to treat many afflictions.

But what is the moral result of this? It can be argued that, due to abortion, the value of a human life has already been destroyed prior to birth. There are several problems with this argument. First, it concedes a false statement: there are many people who still value the unborn as fellow human beings. Based on the pro-abortion side's avoidance of the terms involved, it is probable that many on that side have doubts of their own. Thus, conceding the argument that the human life is already devalued due to abortion really only offers justification for the people whom commit thic atrocity.

A far greater danger exists in this argument, though. It ignores that far from merely devaluing human life, this kind of research actually puts a value on the destruction of human lives. Thus, rather than "merely" taking the neutral position, we actually begin to encourage the destruction of human lives for the sake of some benefit to humanity. This causes problems, because right now, most people who have abortions were not trying to get pregnant*. How much worse will it be when people are intentionally getting pregnant (or worse, when children are created in other ways) to have an abortion for the purpose of obtaining more stem cells?
Even if the stems cells did offer a cure to disease, if they could cure all diseases, the price that we will have paid is too high. Painful as it may be to lose a loved one who might have been cured, it is much worse to be alive at the cost of murdering an innocent for the sole purpose of "harvesting" the cure.

All of this brings me back to the article that I linked above. The creation of human life was not meant to be done artificially, as is occuring in this case. This means cloning, in vitro fertilization (which I would say has in some ways been a precedent for cloning), or "test tube babies" grown entirely outside of the womb. There is all manner of danger in doing this. First, in crossing this threshold, we have entered a realm in which nature is no longer allowed to move its course. What is to stop us from modifying the genetic materials in ways to make a "superman" race: high intellects, powerful bodies, immunity to more diseases?

Now, you may be asking why this would be a bad thing. There are a few reasons for this being bad rather than good. For one thing, we would then be playing gods, a dangerous thing for men to do. Another thing is, if we can modify genetics to be better, why not modify them to be worse? We could make an entire race of semi-retarded, smaller statured people similar to the "Epsilon semi-morons" of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World." This race would be little more than a slave race, being too dumb to ever desire to rebel, to taste freedom. Another problem also arises from this, in that human life would then be devalued even further: these people would be almost mindless, and knowing the path that society is charging down these days, that will soon enough mean that these people are no longer human. It's a small step from that conclusion to the conclusion that no "artificially created" people are humans, and from there yet another step to saying merely that nobody is really human, and that there is no intrinsic value to human life**. After all, if the supermen aren't valued, why should we, the "normal" people, be valued any more?

-----
*As an aside, I should state that 1) contraception is actually a part of the problem as well, because of how it has helped to redefine the meaning of sex and thus set some dangerous precedents, and 2) the fact that people weren't intentionally getting pregnant does not excuse them from the blood on their hands after an abortion.

**Actually, we already see a form of this, as I have mentioned before. The philosophy that has been created out of Darwin's theories about the evolution of life on earth have lead to the idea that since man is descended from the beasts, he is in no way special, separate, or above the beasts.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, here are some related ones:

The Limits of a Limitless Science (Book Review)
Science and the Death of Wonder (Thirty Minute Musings)
Science Cells
Three Sunrises (Poem)
Professor Walzeburn (Poem)
G.K. Chesterton on Ceremony and Science
The Idiocy of Modern Man
Arrogance is Bliss
_____ 

Quote of the Day: September 10

I was considering another quote about the left's hatred of all things conservative (or even moderate), particularly embodied in our president. However, in light of having 2 quotes about this the other day, I think it's time to move on to another important point about the Katrina disastor: the possibility of a terrorist strike in the US for the first itme since 9/11. Based on lessons (un)learned from the Britain attacks in July, we (should) know that not all of the terrorists are in Iraq at this time. Yet, most of the discussion happening with regards to post-hurricane situation is political pontifications (in the case of the government, on both sides) and incessant yammerings about racism and classism (in the case of the remaining leftist elitists and prominent leftist blacks). And most of the ordinary citizens (right or left) who do not fall into these groups are too busy helping out or too far removed from sources of power to put much thought above and beyond this into the situation. Fortunately, a few people such as Ben Stein and Doug Giles appear to have at least put some thought into the real threat of this situation: terrorists.

"So, here we sit with borders that are more open than the space between Kanye West’s ears, with airports and ports that receive cargo that gets inspected about as often as Rosie O’Donnell does her abdominal workout, and while Hollywood and D.C. play the Katrina blame game and get wrapped around the prop regarding who sucks the least. The terrorists, on the other hand, are staying their course, biding their time, blowing through our borders, getting briefed and fired up in their mosques, and with religious zeal, are looking to put and end to our world as we know it."
-Doug Giles, Townhall

Miracles: Are They Still Happening?

Those who have read the Bible are familiar with the concept of miracles. Miracles occur in various forms throughout the Old and New Testaments: from the plagues of Egypt to the parting of the red sea by Moses, from the healing of those ailed to raising people from the dead, and from prophecies to the casting out of demonic spirits. In spite of the frequency of miracles before, during, and shortly after the Christ walked the earth, there are many people today who assert that miracles don't happen. Alternatively, a number of people hold the belief that miracles happened "way back then" but that they no longer happen.
A number of questions are raised by this standpoint. The first question that must be addressed is, "What actually constitutes a miracle?" This question is similar to, and in fact relevantly equivalent to, the question, "What is a miracle?" Arguable the most frequent answer to this question is that miracles are any events that cannot be physically (or otherwise scientifically) explained. This may seem like a good answer, but I disagree with this as an answer: this only covers a subset of all of the miracles that occur. Rather, I (and others) would define miracles as being any event caused by either direct or indirect Divine Intervention. A lame person being miraculously cured is certainly a miracle, but so too would be the almost imperceptible Voice that speaks to the devout atheist and turns him to God.
The former case appears to be more impressive, and it is the one that certainly can't be explained physically. The second case appears less miraculous, and the Voice can certainly be explained away as the person's imagination. However, the miracle involved is actually greater than the healing of the lame man. The former is a physical healing which may lead to a increase in the man's faith, but the latter is a spiritual healing; but while the physical life will pass away, the spiritual one is for eternity.
Strangely enough, I do know quite a few Christians who hold fast to the belief that the former case no longer happens, but who at the same time argue that the latter case happens all the time. These people are often very devout in many ways (more about that in a moment). They have read the Bible, and have studied certain verses, chapters, and even books in the Bible thoroughly. Many of these are the passages that reveal miracles in the world during Old and New Testament times. These are often the people who assert most adamantly that the age of miracles is over. Yet in the Acts of the Apostles, the risen Lord tells the apostles gathered during his ascension that the power of the Spirit would come upon them, and that they would be His witnesses to the ends of the earth (See Acts Chapter 1). The significance of this is that the group assembled there certainly did not make it to the ends of the earth themselves; they did spread the words far and wide, but there were plenty of places not reached by these people. Thus, their descendants or disciples would then spread the word further: many of these likely also under the guidance of the Spirit. This guidance is certainly a sort of miracle, and certainly other miracles would be performed.
Now, I mentioned earlier that many of the people that I know who hold the position that miracles don't happen are in many ways devout Christians. A part of this devoutness manifests in prayer; I don't know when, where, or how long and frequently these people pray, nor is that for me to know. However, I am fairly certain that they do in fact pray. Certainly, there have been times when they have asked me to pray for them, for a variety of reasons. This brings up a point: what, exactly, are they asking me to do?
There are several "types" of prayers. These include praise, thanksgiving, atonement, and petition. The first three are, in effect, personal*: you glorify God on your behalf, you ask for the forgiveness of your own sins, and you give thanks to God for what He has done in your life. The fourth type, petition, is the one most frequently used for the behalf of others. When a friend asks you to pray for him, or to say a prayer for her, it is most often because he or she is going through a hard time in life: he or she needs God's help. Thus, he or she is generally asking you to petition God on his or her behalf.
But what is a petition to God on a person's behalf? It is merely a request that He do something for that person. Often it is a request that a friend be comforted in a time of sorrow, but there are also cases of people asking for God's help with a sick relative. Perhaps, though, the most telling thing here is the friends who ask for us to pray for their speedy recovery after an injury. This recovery is generally purely physical. In any case, they are asking me to petition God to intervene on their behalf- in other words, to pray for a miracle (even if a small one)**.



*This is a generality: for example, some people thank God for something He has done in a friend's life, or ask for the forgiveness of a dead or dying relative's sins. However, often in these cases a petitionary form of prayer is or was used: you don't apologize for someone else's sins, you ask God to forgive that person's sins and to bring that person closer to Him. In the case of the prayer of thanksgiving, more often than not you, the person will have asked for your prayers of petition, and the thanksgiving is done after those prayers have been answered, directly or indirectly. Prayers of atonement are in effect an apology to God, and thus would be most sincere if done by the person who has sinned. The petitionary prayers, on the other hand, are asking God for something: sometimes for your own sake, such as asking for patience to deal with a frustrating situation; sometimes they are for the sake of others, such as asking God to help them in a time of difficulty.
**Note that sometime the expectation isn't for a quicker recovery per se, but for a full recovery, etc. This is irrelevant: the ultimate request is a petition to God for intervention.

~As a final note, it should be mentioned that while miracles do occur, not all miracles are necessarily God intervening directly. Some may even be a placebo effect, though it can be debated that God is using this placebo as His medium... or it can be argued that God was not involved at all in these cases, or that the person wasn't really cured of anything (or that the problem was all imagined to begin with).

Quote of the Day: September 9

Sorry, no commentary this time. I'm just too exhausted from a long day at work. Hopefully tomorrow I'll be feeling more well-rested, and I'll post something more substantial then.

"Liberals, white and black, lecture conservatives, white and black, about how conservatives are racist (or race traitors) if we don't agree with them."
-Jonah Goldberg in National Review

Quote of the Day: September 8

Today's quote of the day is actually a pair of quotes. Two different means of saying the same thing. They each do a nice job of pointing out yet another problem with America (or at least, with half of it). Namely, the insistence that everything that goes wrong in this world must be the sole fault of President Bush. Oddly enough, the causal power of Bush, though more destructive than even those of nature, can't ever be credited when something goes right.
Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass destruction but we invaded: blame Bush! North Korea (probably) has nukes because we haven't taken action: blame Bush! The levies protecting New Orleans break and the town is flooded: blame Bush! Hurricanes have struck the US: blame Bush! Blacks in N.O. have gone cannibal, and anarchy abounds in the area: blame Bush! The US hasn't socialized healthcare: blame Bush! The federal deficit is too high: blame Bush! Casey Sheehan is dead: blame Bush! Iraqis are free and Saddam sits in a cell; our economy hasn't completely collapsed after 9/11, the dot com crash, and now this; and the ME countries are beginning to allow for more democratic elections: blame... oh wait, no.

Ok, here are the quotes:

"It is only a matter of hours now that, after any catastrophe anywhere in the world—a tsunami, a hurricane, a terrorist bombing on the London tube—Bush haters find ways to blame President Bush. Hurricane Katrina? Bush haters have pointed their fingers at global warming, the war on terror, the Bush tax cuts, the national dependence on oil—and in every category, Bush is the root of the evil. Forget nature. George W. Bush is more powerful."
—Debra Saunders

"Is there any problem in the world that is not Mr. Bush's fault, or have we reverted to a belief in a sort of witchcraft where we credit a mortal man with the ability to create terrifying storms and every other kind of ill wind?"
—Ben Stein

Both from the Federalist Patriot's Brief (e-letter).

Not Much to Show Since July

After two months of gay "marriage," Spain has had a grand total of... 22. Compare that to 35000 total marriages in Spain, and you get, well, more evidence that it's all about attention and normalization, and not benefits. Surprise, surprise.

Additions to the Blog Resources

I have added and may continue to add a few more links to the blog. Recently, I've added links to two versions of the Catholic Bible; I'll probably add additional versions as I find them (most notably, the RSV Catholic Edition, upon which I believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church was based).

Quote of the Day: September 7

In light of the the changes on the Supreme Court due to death and retirement, it seems only fitting that I quote from a former justice of that body. This becomes all the more true when one considers that our courts have have not been orginalists since before the days of the Earl Warren court. There is certainly danging to having and ever-shifting constitution to "protect" our rights.

“At the constitutional level, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.”
-Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas Quoted from Townhall.com

Legal Contracts and Arbiters

When you sign a legal contract with a second party, you probably expect for that contract to remain the same for as long as it is binding between you and the other party. Certianly, some changes may have been made to the contract before it is signed by both parties involved. However, once the contract has been signed, it cannot be changed, save writing a second contract that enacts the changes to the first one; this second contract must be agreed upon and signed by both parties to the first contract. This is all common sense, as it protects the chief interests of both parties involved.

Now imagine that the parties involved have an appointed arbiter. This arbiter's sole job is to make sure that both parties obey the contract as written. In other words, this arbiter ensures that neither side is cheating the other based on the contract to which both sides agreed.
Finally, imagine that this arbiter has the ability to arbitrarily change the contract without re-writing it, and without obtaining the consent of you or the other party. Further, this arbiter often does just that: the contract is expanded in some ways to give the other party more control and less responsibility in the partnership. The arbiter sometimes settles disputes between you and the other party by drawing from contracts between this other party and a third party, or worse yet, from contracts between two third parties. The arbiter occasionallyu expands the contract to allow for third some third parties to takes some of your benefits without sharing in your duties.

Believe it or not, this scenario is not really an imagined scenario at all. The US Constitution, like any legal contrct, is between two parties: us (the citizens, and to a lesser extent the states) and a second party (the federal governemnt, as well as inter-state). It outlines what the government can and can't do to us (for example, it can levy taxes, it can't quarter troops in your house without your permission; it can govern interstate commerce, it can't deny equal representation to each state in the Senate).

An arbiter of sorts exists as well: the courts. Further, this arbiter has in fact overstepped its role of interpeting the contract (Constitution) to the point of actually changing it without allowing for the consent of either party involved. It has invented some things that are not to be found anywhere in the Constitution. It has made some of it's rulings based on laws and legal documents of foreign nationas (using, in other words, contracts between third parties to interpret the the contract between us and the government). And it has even made rulings in favor of third parties that grants them some of our benefits/privileges without reuiring that these third parties contribute to our "duties;" for example, in the Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe, illegal immigrants were given "rights" to our education, without necessarily having to pay taxes into the system to support the public education system.

As with any contract, the Constitution is not meant to be arbitrarily alterred without the express agreement of those parties whom it serves and protects. The unfortunate question then becomes: what to do when the arbotor oversteps its bounds? A good question, indeed.

Quote of the Day: September 6

Today's quote of the day comes from Thomas Sowell, arguably the leading economist of our time. Dr. Sowell's comment rings all the more true in light of the "Southern Decadence" festival, though the raping, looting, and even murdering that is occuring in the wake of this disaster certainly underscores his point: namely, that this physical devastation has unfortunately unearthed an even worse devastation- that of our very society.

"The physical devastation caused by hurricane Katrina has painfully revealed the moral devastation of our times that has led to mass looting in New Orleans, assaults on people in shelters, the raping of girls, and shots being fired at helicopters that are trying to rescue people."
-Thomas Sowell, Economist and Columnist for Human Events

Well, At Least the Name Fits the Event

The aptly named Southern Decadence festival has been postponed until Wednesday. This is wrong on so many levels. First, it is unbelievable that someone would want to hold a festival of this size in New Orleans for any reason at this time. At a time when the people of this city have become largely refugees (even if only temporarilty until the damage can be rpaired), it is hardly the time to be celebrating much of anything in New Orleans.
Further, this "festival" which has attracted so many people in the ast (and which will certainly attract many now) will not be of any help to the people working in that region. The town is already in a state of anarchy which is very slowly being brought under control- and that's with the people in the town being asked to evacuate. Having 125000 people show up to engage in a giant (homo)sex-fest, complete with public nudity and sex, prostitution, and yes, rampant drug use, is going to accomplish little other than hamper those who are struggling to return order to the area.
"Decadence" is a very mild way of putting what this is a demonstration of. More like barbarism, hedonism, and complete cultural collapse.

Quote of the Day

Assuming that I am able to maintain a sembalnce of organization on this blog, I think I will try to start postins a "quote of the day." The quote may come from any source: conversation, the Bible, whichever other book I happen to also be reading, forums, other blogs, my own blog, the news. It's all fair game. Today's (inaugural) quote comes from that very smart, and quite witty, former US Supreme Court nominee, Robert H. Bork:

"In addition to five genders [male, female, gay, lesbian, and bisexual], radical feminists apparently recognize three sexes: men, women, and people who might otherwise have qualified as women but have chosen to be Republicans instead."

Source: "Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline"

Creation and the Numbers Game

I previously mentioned where the harmful effects of evolution upon society are to be found: in the philosophy, and not in the scientific theory itself. However, there are still a number of Christians who oppose evolution itself as being harmful to Christianity, as being unBiblical. This is largely based on Genesis, which tells us that the earth, and the life on earth up to and including humans, was created in six days. They contend that since evolution requires millions of years to occur, it cannot be a correct theory, as it took only 6 days to create the earth, animals, and ultimately humans. Evolutionists, on the other hand, often claim that this is proof that the Bible must be in error, not evolution. But both sides have ignored a number of things that are critically important to this debate.

The first is the passage of time. There is no sound basis to demand that the Bible's six days last the same amount of time as our six days do right now. Scientifically speaking, time does in fact dilate under certain conditions (Eintsein's Theories of Relativity allow for time dilation, and this has actually been experimentally verified). Thus, six days then may be dilated to appear as millions of years now, to us (in our reference frame); alternatively, six days in our current reference frame may have appeared as millions of years in the reference frame of creation.
And why not? God Himself probably exists both in and outside of time. In any case, this is the conclusion reached by many centuries of Jewish and later Christian philosophers.

But there is something else that points towards this difference in times. How much of the Bible was written to be taken only literally? Certainly, some of it, but there are lots of cases of the use of metaphors, symbolism, literary devices, and of course, cultural assumptions. As it turns out, much of the culture involved had a certain symbolism based in numbers. For example, 12 (being the number of tribes in Israel) often meant "the whole world" or "all of;" two sometimes meant the combining of opposites (male and female, good and evil, light and dark, etc.); forty meant "all of" or sometimes "forever."

Three, being sometimes representative of two opposites and a third to reconcile the differences, was often understood to mean "enough." Thus, in the Holy Trinity, there are three Persons, meaning "enough" persons to carry out the Divine Plan or to fulfill all of the necessary roles in the Divine Plan. When Christ rose after three days, it meant that he was dead and in the tomb for "long enough" to atone for the sins of mankind.*

So where does this tie into the six days of creation? Well, it turns out that six is twice three, and creation can in fact be separated into two different kinds of actions by God. These actions include making things and separating things: He made the stars and the sun and moon, but he separated light from dark. Thus, in this context, God spent "enough" time during the creation to get the job done: long enough to create the earth, the stars, the sun and moon, life, etc; and long enough to separate the sky and land and sea; light and dark, etc.

Before concluding, I should address a single specific objection to this: namely, the objection about man being made from dust (or clay, if you prefer). This is found in the "second" creation story (Genesis Chapter 2), though not in the first one (Genesis Chapter 1). It is also alluded to in Ecclesiastes 3:20, however this latter verse allusion actually strengthens the case against this argument.

Specifically, the Ecclesiastes reference also states that:

(18)I said to myself: As for the children of men, it is God's way of testing them and of showing that they are in themselves like beasts... (20)Both go to the same place; both were made from the dust, and to the dust they both return.

This seems a fairly stong argument that the Bible can, in fact, support evolution. May was made of clay, perhaps directly, but perhaps rather evolved from the beasts that were themselves made of clay. Does this mean that the Evolutionists are right? Not necessarily, and the secularist claim that evolution is independent of God is certainly wrong; it also does not specifically mean that the strict Creationists are wrong. What it means is that the Bible does not in these verses say that evolution is false, in other words, that evolution is not necessarily unBiblical.

If You Love the Sinners, Warn Them of the Sin

You hear it all the time, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." These words certainly ring true: the Bible tells us many times to abhor sin, and Christ Himself often said that we are to love even the sinners. But what does it mean to "love the sinner and hate the sin?" The Bible itself actually instructs us about this as well. In the beginning of Chapter 33 of Ezekiel, duties of "The Prophet as a Watchman" are described. Specifically, Ezekiel 33:7-9 reads:

You, son of man, I have appointed watchman for the house of Israel; when you hear me say anything, you shall warn them for me.
If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his way, he (the wicked man) shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death.
But if you warn the wicked man, trying to turn him from his way, and he refuses to turn from his way, he shall die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself.

The duties of a watchman are explained earlier in that chapter. Basically, the watchman is the person who is posted to be on the lookout for an invading army; his job was to warn the people of his city if he saw such an army approaching, so that they could prepare to fight for or flee from the city as necessary, rather than be taken by surprise.

If the watchman saw an approaching army and did nothing to warn the city, then the deaths of those people killed in the invasion would be on his hands every bit as much as on the hands of the invading army; if, however, he warned them and they did nothing to prepare, then their deaths would be their own faults. The Lord has said that He appoints us as the watchmen, and the attacking army is a metaphor for sins.

This means that we are being called to not turn a blind eye to the sins of others. Rather, we are to point them to the error of their ways. Thus, "loving the sinner" does not mean ignoring the sin, but rather pointing it out and, if possible and necessary, helping the repentant sinner to overcome the sin.

This is increasingly becoming one of our great failures as a society. The ideas of self-esteem, political correctness, multiculturalism, and tolerance have taken precedence in our society: to the extreme point of having many in society deliberately ignoring the sins of others for fear of offending them. This is done under the guise of "loving the sinner."

To use an analogy, if you saw a person getting ready to do something really stupid, something which could cost him his life, would you try to warn him against doing it? You certainly would if he was somebody that you knew and, well, loved. Can you force him to not do it? Rarely, though in some situations, yes; but in any case, you would advise him not to do it. This is how it should be with a person's sins; why would you place more emphasis on an action that could end a person's life on earth than one which could ultimately lead to the loss of his life in heaven? If you truly loved the person, you wouldn't.

Yet, you see this kind of thing happening all of the time. We live in a country whose population predominantly claims to be Christian (~70%), yet we are largely silent on issues such as abortion, pornography, homosexuality, suicide, sexual promiscuity, and a host of other sins. We as a society have grown decadent and thin-skinned to the point of not ever pointing out that anything is wrong, even when we know that it is. And where has that brought us? The problems of society have done nothing like going away on their own.

Rather, they have become seemingly worse as many who should be opposing this moral decay have allowed or even embraced it in the name of tolerance and "loving the sinners." I'm fairly certain that loving the sinners doesn't mean joining them in their sins. Instead, it means trying to help them overcome their sins if they ask for it, and at the least pointing out the error of their ways when you see it.

Now, some of you reading this will ask about Chapter 7 the Gospel according to Matthew. Specifically, Matthew 7:1-5 states:

"Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.

This is also found in Luke 6:37-42. This is actually not an argument against Ezekiel. Rather, it is a warning to not be judgmental of others, i.e. to point out their faults out of arrogance rather than love. It is also an admonishment, telling us not to forget our own sins even as we warn others against theirs; it is this difference that in part separates pointing out another's sins in arrogance from doing so in love. In a sense, we are being warned to try and be discreet when warning a specific person against his or her sins, rather than doing so in a public manner which may embarrass that person.

From a societal standpoint, it is still best to warn against societal sins (homosexuality, abortions, etc.), and perfectly right to do so in public speeches or writings, etc, so long as the person doing so is doing so out of genuine concern for society. In other words, we should refrain from condemning the sinners, lest you fall into sin ourselves. We should also refrain from boasting of our innocence of a particular sin (we all sin, after all); and certainly, treating the sin as a thing that is below us is a sure sign of arrogance, of that most deadly of sins: pride.

It is best to always remember that pride is the deadly sin that is hardest to notice in oneself, and thus is the one that most easily obtains a foothold in our lives. Be ever vigilant against your pride, for you are ultimately your own worst enemy. When pride catches hold of us, that is when become like the man in Christ's parable in the Gospels: the man with the beam in his eye, eager to point out the small faults of others while missing our own large one. Nevertheless, we are never to be excused from our duties as the watchmen, lest our society finally be overrun by wickedness and sin. For if we do, then the death of society is on our hands every bit as much as on the hands of those who bring it about.


Notes: In all cases, the Bible texts are borrowed from the USCCB's New American Bible.
_____
If you liked this post or found it helpful, you might also like these other related posts:
"Judge Not" and Mercy
Being Tactful and Being "Nice"
Tolerance, Charity, and Dignity (on the Nicene Guys Site)
Truth and Tolerance:  A Review
Argument and Motivation
Warnings and Ignorance

Safe Paths, Scenic Routes

Previously, I spoke metaphorically about life as a city or forest through which we must travel to find our destination (ultimately, heaven or hell). I meantioned that (luckily enough) we do not have to travel alone through this city or forest, but rather have been given maps, compasses, and even guides. What was left virtually unsaid is why it matters which streets we drive on or which paths we wander down. Since we ultimately end up at either heaven or hell in the end, does it really matter ho we get there, so long as we arrive at the desired destination (heaven)? Indeed it does.

When taking a walk through a forest and given the choice of several pathes, all leading to the same destination, I usually try to pick a single path based on its potential merits. Is one of the paths likely to be more scenic than the others? Does it cross a stream where I might stop for a swim? Is one path safer than another? One path may lead through poison ivy and another through clover. In other words, some paths are in fact better than others.

The same questions can be asked of the city streets. Some will pass through "high traffic" areas while others are less congested; some will allow for the driver to stop by a nice restaurant for lunch, while others pass through the "shady side of town."

So how does this apply to life? I mentioned before that we have a map (the Bible), a compass (our consciences), and even a guide (our religious leaders, our family and friends). These things can collectively tell us which pathes are the safe pathes, the scenic paths, the paths that cross streams for swimming; or alternatively, the road grid of the city, where the good restaraunts are, and even the traffic patterns (in the case of the guide).

This principle is just as true in real life. There are many ways to get to heaven, to find God; He will not turn you away if you have truly accepted Christ as your Savior, if you have repented of your sins, and if you have begun to at least make an honest effort at living a life in accordance with this faith. This is true up to the hour of your death. However, some of the roads that you may walk in your lifetime will lead to a more complete life.

This completion will make you a more "fulfilled" person. You will be more capable of experiencing things that you would otherwise have missed: intimate love, joyfull happiness, faithful hope. These things are often missed or lost when life is not lived as it was meant to be; instead, you find lustfull infatuation, discontented psuedo-pleasure, and ultimately, lonely despair. For example, consider the Bible's teachings on sexual morality: do you really love a person if you are incapable of fidelity of that person? No, rather you become infatuated with every pretty girl or handsome guy that you meet, until none of them seems the least bit special to you.

Your lust will never be satisfied, regardless of number or duration of encounters: you will always crave more, and soon the act of sex between you and another loses all meaning. You no longer love the other person, they are little more than an object to be used to satisfy your urge. And even should you grow to love somebody, to truly love them, what then can you give them that you have not given already to others, whom you have not loved? On the other hand, when living a chaste life in accordance to the Bible, if (or when) you find a person whom you love, you will be able to give them something shared only with that person; and this will continue to be the case so long as ou both remain true to each other. You will then be able to develop a special intimacy through the fidelity of your relationship, and the relationship will be more satisfying, it will bring you more joy and greater happiness, than would otherwise have been the case. True love means compromising, making sacrifices, not retreating and giving in to every temptation that crosses your path.

Both the path through the clover and the one through the poison ivy will eventually lead you out of the forest. In the same way, you may eventually find God in both the mostly moral or the moslty immoral life (eventually, meaning you may find Him at the end of you immoral life and repent, or alternatively, you may find and ignor Him). The difference is that in the former case, you arrive at your destination smelling sweet as clover, and in the latter you arrive miserable and itching from the poison ivy. You can get there either way, but which was the better way to do it? Personally, I prefer the clover to the poison ivy.

The Death of Rehnquist

Today, our Chief Justice William Rehnquist has passed away. He was known as one of the more conservative justices on the court, and his death will bring sadness to our nation. He should be remembered as a man who died with dignity, choosing to live life and to hold on for as long as he could, rather than taking the easy way out as so many people do with suicide and euthanasia. He apparently died in his home in suburban Virginia, surrounded by his family. Though he did some things with which I and others disagreed (I won't list these things here: de mortuis nil nisi bonum!), he will be remembered as one of the few justices of the last few decades to oppose abortions and respect States' Rights, a conservative voice on the liberal courts of our times. Dei gratia, requiescat in pace, et Dominus vobiscat.

Our Christian Roots? Part 3: The Significance and Implications

In a pair of previous posts, I discussed the Christian roots of the colonists and founders and also the Christian foundations of our nation's birth. The United States is indeed a "Christian nation," in that Christianity and Christian moral are the basis of our foundation and much of our legal system. But what are the implications of this basis? What does it mean today?
First and foremost, it means that Christianity should not be forced out of the public eye. Increasingly, the "Separation of Church and State" (a phrase not found in the Constitution) has meant "State Removal of Church." The "Separation" did not mean for children to be denied to right to read their Bibles at school during free time, or for public office holders to be forced to refrain from having religious symbols in their offices, let alone for the government to force the removal of every religious monunent from public land (especially those Monuments like the 10 Commandments, which are there as a part of the basis for our legal system). Ditto for the demands that Christian symbols be removed from city seals, as in Los Angeles (which was originally founded as a Catholic mission).
Sure, churches are given tax breaks, but this is actually logically implied by the "Spearation." If you don't believe me, just look at the Supreme court's ruling that private property can be confiscates for commercial devolopers in order to boost tax revenues; how would you like to have your house confiscated to build a church that could increase tax revenues (most parishes which I have been a member of have operating budgets in the millions of dollars, imagine how much the government would make if that was taxed). Thus, it is actually in our best interests to keep church lands and churches themselves tax-exempt.
The fact that we are a Christian Nation also means that Christians should be free to practice their religions when and where they see fit. This principle in general may be applied to other religions as well. There are, of course, certain limitations on this particular implication. The rights of others must be respected, too. This means such things as not blocking traffic to hold a demonstration and not disturbing the peace: in effect doing no economic or physical damage to any other person and respecting the sanctuary of their homes. Praying or even preaching in a public place does not constitute distrubing the peace, and condemning sins, even specific sins, does not constitute an invasion of peoples' "privacy," let alone their right to sanctuary within their homes.
Yet another implication is that it is not a crime to hold religious services on public land. This includes even specific denomination services. I know, I know; I can already hear the shrieks and wailings from the left, the cries and undulations of the anti-religious, the knashing of nails and grinding of teeth from the secularists. There is the first ammendment, which forbids the federal government from respecting or establishing one religion over another. This is only being done if the public lands are permitted exclusively for use by one particualr religious group. So long as acces is given to other religious groups who may want to hold their services on these lands, no religion is being respected or established.
Now I've mentioned a few of the implications of the US being a Christian Nation. What I haven't yet mentioned are a few of the things that are not implied by being a "Christian Nation." First is that Christianity is not our official national religion (we don't have one, and yes, atheism is a religion in this case). This means that people can choose to not be Christian; however, it also means that they can choose to be Christians. This should come as a relief to all people involved: faith can't be forced, it must be chosen.
Second, it means that laws should not be voted upon based only on whether or not they are found in Christianity. As it turns out, people have all too many disagrements as to what is and what isn't rooted in Christianity. Take homosexuality as a perfect example of this: more specifically, anti-sodomy laws. Some argue that these do not have any real Christian basis, because Christ did not walk around condemning people; others disagree, saying that he didn't condemn people, but he did condemn sins (including homosexuality). Chrisitianity is not the sole basis for any given set of laws precisely because there is no single version of Christianity to deal with each specific thing. Christianity is, first and foremost, a religion, a faith in Christ as Redeemor and in the Holy Trinity as God; the Bible was not written to tell us how to write specific laws (such as one sdealing with homosexuality, for example). That being said, a law should not be disregarded on the sole reason of having some basis in Christianity, nor should the teachings of the Bible or Christian morality be thrown aside when considering a law. Our morals are an important tool, a compass of sorts, for determining whether or not a thing is right. Rather, when a law is being decided, the lawmaker's morals should serve as one factor, with other factors including reasoning based on historical outcomes, scientific research, etc.
The United States is indeed a Christian Nation. But this does not mean that we are restricted in our freedoms or our choice of religions. Far from it, liberty and justice are more complete as a result of our basis in Christianity. That is the real meaning of a Christian Nation.

Ah September

The first weekend in September is upon us, as is the associated holiday. For those who have children, they're off at school (or immersed in self-study at home). And for those not attending college on the west coast, classes have started up. But perhaps most importantly, this weekend marks the beginning of... FOOTBALL!
That's right, today is the home opener for my Beavers. Today's game is against the Portland State Vikings, a team that is not even a part of the division 1-A. This means that we are essentially seeing an exhibition game: a win doesn't prove much (even a blowout win), and a loss proves that we may be in for a disappointing year. But we get to see the new QB in action (or maybe all of the new QBs?), as well as whether or not the Beavs have rediscovered their running game, which was MIA last year while they struggled to find a replacement for tailback Steven Jackson. And of course, we have our recieving corps, from our towering tight-end Joe Newton to the always-solid wide-reciever Mike Haas. Yhen there's kicker Alex Serna, who (after a tough opening game against defending co-champions LSU) was the best kicker in the PAC-10 last year. Defensively, it may be interesting to see how the Beavs will fare without DE Bill Swancutt or CB Brandon Browner, two key players for the last few years.
Of course, this year offers many questions to the Beavs, with so many key players having left over the last couple of years (Sports Illustrated has listed OSU as the PAC-10 "team in decline" in it PAC-10 Preview, and has ppicked the Beavs to end up in 8th place with a loosing 1-7, 3-8 season). In short, this is expected to be a rebuilding year for sure, but so long as it doesn't become a rebuilding three decades as happened last time around, it may not be too disappointing for Beaver Nation. And as any beaver fan will admit, if that 1 win is against rival U of O, the year may not be so bad after all.

Update: The Beavs won their home opener 41-14 over PSU after a slow first half. This shows promise in that the victory was not close and not a loss; however, PSU is also not a Div 1-A team, so anything short of a blowout could be signs of a bad season ahead. Next weekend, OSU faces off against a recently crushed though currently natinally ranked Boise State in Corvallis. BSU will be coming off of a devastating 48-13 loss to Georgia in their opening game.

Evolution, Marriage, and The Slippery Slope

Warning: The content of this post is not to be read by the feint of heart. Some material may be found to be objectionable to some readers. Biblebookworm, Bible-sponge, I am referring to you two specifically, so consider yourselves warned; everybody else, well, consider yourselves warned as well. It may be disturbing, but, well, it is a possible and even likely path down which our society may embark (and in fact is in many ways down which it has already embarked).

The standards of Western "Civilization" are in a state of flux right now. Several philosphies, when carried through to their logical conclusion will lead to a state of degradation do low that people will be ashamed to look upon society, let alone be a part of it. Consider three seemingly unrellated concepts: the first, gay "marriage," the second Evolutionary Philosophy of Man ("EPM"), and the third being moral relativism. The tendency of most (not necessarily all) people who support one is to support the other two. The first concept, that of gay "marriage" comes into play here because it shows a willingness of many in society to redefine marriage to make it more "inclusive," more "fair" to people who engage in an alternate lifestyle. The second states that since man is descended from the beasts, he is really no greater than (or alternatively, no different from) the other beasts. And the third states that every system of values is ultimately equal.

Proponents of gay "rights" generally go beyond even just supporting the homosexual lifestyle. They often go so far as to ridicule those people who feel the homophilic attraction but who resist the urge to engage in such acts. These people are in general supportive of a sexually promiscuous culture, and openly or in secret mock anyone who stands up to this belief system. They insist that people should not "repress" their sexual urges. If this philosophy is to be taken to its logical end, this means going beyond promiscuity with people of both sexes, beyond orgies and strip clubs, beyond indoctrinating children and ecnouraging them to "experiment" at a young age. It must be extended to include incest, pedosexuality, polygamy... anything that a person is sexually attracted to must be permitted to be the object of that person's lusts and "affections," so long as that person does not "harm" any other member of society. Most disturbingly, perhaps, is that beastiality must also be tolerated (or accepted, or, horribly, encouraged), as it would be unfair to the people who are attracted to this lifestyle if it was not.

Those who extol EPM hold that man is descended from the beasts, and is thus not in any way seperate from the beasts. Therefore, any laws that govern our actions, that curb our instincts, are inherrently wrong according to this philosophy's logical conclusion. Sure, a provision would exist to mean "do no harm," but anything beyond that becomes "fair game." Thus, our laws and "tolerances" should logically based on how other animals react or interact. As it turns out, this must again lead to the acceptance of beastiality: there do exist other species that will interbreed. Horse-donkey-zebra interbreeding is a common example. Cattle-buffaloe interbreeding is another. If we are truly not to be seperated from the beasts, then logically, human-Ape intercourse cannot be opposed. Also, most beasts do not set boundaries for incest or "polygamy," so EPM offers us no basis to do so either.

Finally, there is the philosophy of moral relativism, in which every system of values must be treated as equal. This mens that every religion, every set of moral values, every cultural deviation in behavior must be tolerated, if not supported or accepted. So, how does this tie into the destruction of our sexual barriers? Many cultures have nigher rates of pedosexuality, of incest, of polygamy, and yes, even of beastiality. Moral relativism states that these cultures must also be respected, tolerated, even encouraged.

Yes, but nobody actually carries these philosophies out to this level, right? Wrong. There are a number of examples; the last I checked, Islam still permits up to four wives for each man (though this practice is increasingly rare because of the economics of this); historically, mormonism and even Judaism have also permitted polygamy. Pedophilia is a problem that occurs in our society, and even members of the clergy have fallen into the sin of pedosexuality; it occurs at significantly higher rates outside of the Church. Even beastiality has its supporters among the "intellectuals," most notably Princeton "philosophy" professer Peter Singer.
Ultimately, the supporters of these philosophies cannot have moral claim to be apalled by any sexual act. This is just one more price that our "enlightened" civilization must pay for its attempt to bring about the "tolerant" secular humanist society. These things signal the death bells of right and wrong.