As discussed previously in posts on this blog, the Sacred Tradition is as important and valid as scripture. The Bible itself is a product of Sacred Tradition, its books having … Continue reading Holy Orders & The Priestess
The idea that one can be Christian without a church has become disturbingly common in today’s society. The reasoning behind such ideas is usually as follows: I don’t need a … Continue reading The Flaws of Personal Christianity Without a Church
The Burger King publicity stunt of releasing “The Proud Whopper” and the phrase it used, “We’re all the same inside,” is yet another example of the irrational “acceptance culture” which I have written of previously. “We’re all the same inside” proposes that anatomical similarity serves as justification for actions.
The anatomical structures which are present in heterosexuals are also present in homosexuals and bisexuals. Of course, they are also present in sociopaths, psychopaths, eugenicists, etc. Now, according to the phrase “we’re all the same inside,” any action that these people take as a result of their mental state is acceptable simply because “we’re all the same inside.”
Homosexuals, bisexuals, and psychopaths are all perfectly capable of not acting in accordance with their already present mental state. This has been proven many times over. Yet the argument of “you can’t control who you are” is repeated over and over again. You can, in fact, control who you are to some extant. You can control your actions, which, in the end, is the real determining factor of who you are as a person.
– James Ingalls
Sorry for the short post. I’m lacking ideas and motivation lately, but this gay acceptance argument was also pretty easy to discredit.
Should you find yourself becoming a regular reader of my posts here, you will no doubt notice the frequency in which I will include my friend Jacob in my posts. This is due to our conversations often becoming discussions on Christianity and its history. I find that it’s far too uncommon in today’s society that one finds themselves able to hold a good conversation on topics such as Church history and theology with their friends, family, and acquaintances. As such, I find myself only able to hold such conversations with Jacob (though I’m actively attempting to influence a Lutheran cousin of mine to convert).
Christian conversation, specifically Catholic conversation, remains a largely untapped gold mine of enriching subjects for discussion. I find that you can learn much more about the faith and its history through discussions between two or more well educated Catholics, than through simple research alone. It allows for the comparing and contrasting of how people understand and explain a single belief or facet of the faith and opens the possibility of modifying and improving upon the understanding with live feedback. Conversation regarding these topics will inevitably lead to some form of peer teaching every time one of the people in the conversation is more learned in a specific aspect of the faith or its history than the other.
In recent years, however, the explosion of social media such as Instagram and Facebook has granted us the ability to discuss these topics without the limitation of physical location. It’s apparent that social media is more often used for debates rather than chatting on these subjects, but debate itself is also a valuable asset to the learning mind as it exposes one to opposing viewpoints and forces one to thoroughly think through the positions of both their opponent’s as well as their own viewpoints. It’s not uncommon that upon reading through the comments under posts by Instagram accounts similar to RomanCatholicKnights or CatholicLegion that one finds debate among educated Catholics and Protestants (or, sadly more commonly, well educated Catholics and hateful protestants).
So, try to hold a Catholic conversation this week. Whether it be with those in your immediate location or those on social media, I’m certain you will find it enriching.
Sorry for the short post. There isn’t much for me to say on this subject, but I feel it’s important.
Americans today live in what is a strange point in our nation’s history. Our society indulges in inaccuracy and lies, all the while assuring itself it follows only reason and objective thought. This will be one of the most, if not the most, controversial post that I will publish on this blog, but I see it as needing to be said. The topics explored here are all sensitive and controversial issues. I’ll be openly criticizing today’s United States.
The Good Intentions of an Ignorant Society
To begin with, I would like to make one thing clear: I truly believe that people holding views opposed to my own have only the best of intentions. However, this is not to say that I believe they are in any way justified in their resulting actions. Many societies over the years have held beliefs and practices they deemed acceptable which we have since deemed inhuman (EG: slavery).
Irrational Acceptance Culture
Today’s society is very much a part of what I will call here the “acceptance culture.” By “acceptance culture” I am referring to the current society’s tendency to accept abnormalities as normal. Of course, there is a line drawn where some abnormalities are simply deemed too abnormal to be considered normal. However, the fact of the matter is that, this line is based entirely on emotion, as it holds no water when examined for rationality.
Homosexuality & Bisexuality Vs. Consentual Pedophilia & Incest
Here is the first of the emotionally charged and controversial issues of which we will examine. Society’s acceptance of Homosexuality and Bisexuality cannot be held in congruence with its intolerance toward consentual pedophilia as well as incest. This is for one simple reason: any argument presented which is in favor of homosexuality and bisexuality is equally applicable to consentual incest and/or pedophilia. I will point out that, if you accept all four of these practices as acceptable, you should skip this part of the post, it is more in favor of your ideals than in opposition of them.
I have often heard the argument made that genetics plays a role in one’s sexual orientation. This has, however, proved dubious at best. Despite this, for the sake of the debate, let us assume the premise of sexual orientation being largely genetic is correct. If this serves as justification for homosexuality and bisexuality then it must serve as justification for incest as well. Incest can be caused by what is called “genetic sexual attraction.” Genetic sexual attraction occurs due to assortative mating in humans. Assortative mating is the name given to the trait exhibited by many humans in which we find ourselves attracted to people with similar traits as ourselves. As two genetically similar people will share physical traits, they will likely find each other attractive unless they were subject to the Westermarck Effect, which occurs in most relatives whom grow up together and which desensitizes their genetic sexual attraction for each other. Simply put, incest is genetic.
Psychologically speaking, homosexual tendencies hold many traits in common with pedophilia (not ephebophilia toward legal minors). The first of which is sexual attraction toward a partner whom, by evolutionary design, one cannot reproduce with. This differs from heterosexual sterile relationships due to the exact opposite traits being present in the psychology. Sterile heterosexuality is due to a hiccup in evolution while still maintaining the integrity of biological design purpose. The attraction is due to the human brain doing exactly what it was designed to do, attempting to reproduce with a mate of the opposing gender who has undergone sexual maturity. The only issue to be found here is that the sexual organs are in some way improperly working, an evolutionary hiccup, rather than design.
Are Homosexual Tendencies a Natural Response to Overpopulation?
It has been claimed by some that homosexuality is a natural evolutionary response to overpopulation. To put it simply, this is evolutionarily and genetically impossible. In order for any trait to continue within a species, it must firstly become beneficial and secondly be passed on into the gene pool. For this trait to even be encoded into the human genome, our ancestors must first have faced overpopulation, but, as far as we know, they did not. In fact, it is believed the initial human population was quite small. Now, if we are to assume humans or their evolutionary ancestors did face overpopulation, then next it would be required that the trait of homosexuality be passed on into the gene pool. Now, for this gene sequence to become a response to overpopulation, it would be required of it to cause a halt in reproduction. It is here where lies the central impossibility of this claim. The trait cannot both cause a halt in reproduction and still be passed on into the gene pool, that’s simply not how evolution or genetics work.
Should Homosexuality, Bisexuality, Incest, and Pedophilia be Acted On Consentualy?
Now if you’re not a Catholic, don’t worry, I’m not going to be using a religious base for my argument. My stance, that the before mentioned traits should not be acted on, shall be presented from evolution’s point of view.
Homosexual acts, incest, and pedophilic acts are all maladaptive evolutionary behaviors when occurring in homo sapiens. They negatively impact our biological purpose, to reproduce. It’s here that one finds that, in practical application for the continuation of a species, the usefulness of each of these acts is described as follows: Incest causes a slight increase in the chance of passing on genetic disorders, pedophilic acts lower the chance of reproduction to being almost nil (“almost” because some instances have shown natural reproduction is possible), homosexual acts cause the chance of reproduction to become nil.
The argument that homosexual acts should be allowed because of their nil possibility of the reproduction of progeny with genetic disorders is inherently an argument for eugenics, a human rights violation.
Some claim that if a trait is genetic, such as sexual attraction toward a relative, then acting upon this should be permitted because it is encoded in their DNA to do so. This argument holds equal validity toward acting on psychopathy, which has been proven to be genetic.
Why This is NOT a Modern Civil Rights Movement.
We’ve all heard them, people claiming the push for homosexual “marriage” is the modern Civil Rights Movement. There are many things in this statement that are simply wrong. To begin with, the Civil Rights Movement was a push to prevent something from happening, not a push for something to happen. The Civil Rights sought to end blatantly unconstitutional laws already put into place, not to put new laws into place. The Civil Rights Movement served to end persecution, real persecution. I have never once seen a sign that read “straights only” or “Gay section that way.” Now, this is not to say that these signs do not exist, but these signs are rare. Homosexuals are not denied their legal rights. The fact of the matter is, the Civil Rights Movement fought for already existing legal rights as citizens to be protected. The push for homosexual “marriage” is a press for legal rights to be expanded. We all currently have equal rights under US law. We all have the right to marry the opposing gender.
Abortion and Euthanasia, Cracks in a Pillar of Civilization
Of the many things I specifically remember from my freshmen World History class, the most resonating statement my teacher had made during the year was that one of the greatest advancements made by the Ancient Greeks was their respect for human life and dignity. Obviously, this does not apply to all the Ancient Greeks, such as the Spartans, but the Spartans are not the Greeks whom we consider the founders of western civilization. She mentioned specifically that newborns were not euthanized for being week or sick. Think about that for a moment. The Greeks ended the closest thing they had to abortion, infant euthanasia, because they saw it as inhumane. There is no dignity found in ending a life, on the contrary, it is the greatest offense against it.
What Qualifies you as a Living Human Being?
Biologically speaking, one is an individual organism classified as Homo Sapiens, or human being, from conception. The fertilized egg meets all scientific standards for human life. It’s that simple. You are a human being from conception according to Biology.
When is someone called “dead” in medical terms? A person is considered dead when their heart stops beating, then declared dead when they cannot be revived; even the brain dead are considered to be medically alive. Now, medically speaking, when does a human become “alive?” A human heart begins beating only eighteen days from conception, and after only twenty-one days the heart is already pumping blood through the circulatory system. Medically speaking, a human being is alive after only eighteen days.
Still, others say that for it to be considered human, it must be able to have thought. When does this begin? A human has a fully functioning brain after only six weeks from conception.
Why These Facts Are Ignored
Society is largely ignorant to these facts due to, once again, acceptance culture. It does not wish to have outside information presented unless if agrees with it’s irrational ideas. Our society values perverse self indulgence and blissful ignorance over intellectualism and reason.
Just recently, I was conversing with my friend Jacob, a devout and well educated Catholic, on the many topics regarding Christianity when an interjection by another friend of mine turned the conversation quite awkward. This friend, whom shall remain unnamed, had just informed us that he no longer held belief in the Catholic Church, nor any church for that matter. He went on to say that he no longer believed that the Bible was the inspired word of God as well. When inquired why, it became apparent, at least to me, that his initial thought was that he simply did not know why he believed what he did. Yet, he responded, after a moment, with, forgive my paraphrasing: I feel like it’s a scam. Jacob then inquired further on his beliefs, asking what God he believed in. The answer was simply, “I believe in what I understand God to be.” Further questioning did not lead to an expansion on this answer, however we were led to believe that his understanding was based on some distortion of the God of Abraham.
To make matters more interesting, a week or two after this happened, I was visiting that same friend when I took notice that he wore a bracelet adorned with images of Catholic Saints. Let’s examine his statements and beliefs, shall we?
Is the Holy Bible a scam?
Q: Is the Catholic Bible, using the Catholic understanding of the books, a scam, historically speaking?
A: We know for a fact Jesus and the Apostles existed, any historian, Christian or not, will tell you they did.
The Apostles made their way through the world telling people a Jewish man was God. No sane person, or in this case twelve persons, would lie about a man being resurrected from the dead when it would lead only to their persecution and execution. If we are to be honest with ourselves, the chances that all of the men were delusional, that all of them shared an identical delusion, and all the while managed to gain more followers and run the Catholic Church successfully under the constant threat of death is essentially nil.
As for the Old Testament, archeologists and historians have more than confirmed the existence of the places and items mentioned within it. The rest is, admittedly, entirely up to faith. However, these books predate Catholicism and therefore could not be a scam created and perpetuated by the Church. Some of these books were written as historical accounts by the Hebrews, others had always been purely religious. However, the fact of the matter is that these books were written for the Hebrews by the Hebrews. They had no need to convince each other of what was already accepted by all of them as true. The Old Testament serves no purpose as a scam.
Q: Is the Catholic Bible a scam spiritually speaking?
A: If the Bible was created in its current form for the purpose of the Catholic Church to be deliberately placed as the one true faith, the books within it would have been modified to the point that there would be no questioning the Church’s authority which would lead to the need for Protestants and the Orthodox to disregard it in it’s entirety.
Believing in what one understands God to be without examination.
Q: What does “I believe in what I understand God to be” really mean?
A: in most cases, as with this one, it boils down to this: the person in question is projecting their own moral limitations onto God. To put it simply, their God will always agree with their actions unless they personally decide against it. For example: Joe hangs his cat for fun. His god is okay with this because, just like Joe, he doesn’t care for the animal. This is why holding a belief such as this, which can not be set in stone, holds dangers to one’s morality.
Q: Can this belief in God exist in rational thought?
A: This belief unavoidably leads to one’s irrationality in thought. If God is whomever you want Him to be, He fits into any illogical understanding of Him you can muster. This is apparent in that my friend still chooses to honor the Catholic Saints. The Saints… Let that sink in for a moment. He holds the belief that the Catholic Church, its faith, and its Bible are all illegitimate, yet its Saints are legitimate. The same Saints who would waste no time informing him that Catholicism is true.
I can think of only one reason for this contradiction to exist: comfort. Despite the blatant irrationality in honoring the Saints while rejecting nearly all they believed in and stood for, he still honors them because he finds comfort in it. Whether this comfort is through prayer or simple acknowledgement is unknown and irrelevant toward it’s lack of rationality.
Examination of Origin
Now that we have thoroughly examined and discredited these statements and beliefs, I’ll attempt to uncover their origin. I’m thoroughly convinced that this belief stems from, the cliche holding true, sinful behavior. Earlier this summer, my friend expressed his distaste for his own actions, lust, pride, and negligence of mass attendance. He clearly knew his actions were wrong, and wanted to improve. However, by the middle of the summer, it became apparent the willingness to improve had all but disappeared entirely. I’ll not go into details on this, out of respect for my friends privacy. Simply put, the sins of lust and pride have taken prominence in his mind. His new found irrational beliefs stem from the wanting of justification for his actions.