Sed Contra,

As St. Thomas Aquinas would say, "Sed Contra" in response to three common popular opinions to demonstrate what was true. So, I have been challenged times three by atheists on my earlier blog about the self-defeating nature of Atheism.



I agree with the Curt Jester, we need a series of Dominican priest murder-mysteries.



Under the Mercy,

Matthew S

Bible Bible+christian+society atheism proof+for+God God antiatheism anti-atheism against+atheism

A little Apologetics about Purgatory

One of the best little apologetics sites around, The Bible Christian Society. I can't vouch for all these ideas being my own as some of them come from their but I ran across this blogpost and thought it worthwhile to respond to protestant criticism that their is no purgatory.

There has never been a place called Purgatory and there never will be a place called Purgatory. It does not exist. If you search the scriptures you will not find this place in there at all.

First, to understand what I am trying to show here it would behoove you to read the post and the line of reasoning that Mr. White presents. Alright, now that you are back let us look at the line of reasoning.

What seems to be laid out is that if purgatory existed it would be mentioned and laid out in the Bible and by Jesus in the Bible. Now, on the face this doesn't make a whole lot of sense for the following reasons.

1. Taken to absurdity, for something to exist it must be presented in the Bible. Cars are never mentioned in the Bible but who would say that they don't exist. The same could be said of airplanes and many other things including the very computer that you are reading on.
2. Reducing back to an area that is more generous, let us assume only that if it is a theological principle it would be mentioned in the Bible so that we could have knowing of it. Why did Christ not write anything or command the writing of the scriptures? It can't be found in the Bible, if it can, please show it to me!
3. "There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described indicidually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." John 21:25. It would seem to me that this particualr point of the text indicates that the reality of faith and that which is is not and cannot be limited to the Bible alone.

Now let us look and see what we can find about this whole idea of purgatory, is it Biblical? Yes, it is and I will lay out the texts to show you how it is.

1. "Then David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' Nathan answered David: 'The Lord has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." 2 Samuel 12:13-14. This first principle of the Bible shows that their is still punishment due to sin, even after the sin is forgiven.
2. "So be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48. The second principle shows us that we must be made made perfect, it is a direct command and the will of Jesus Christ.
3. "the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved but only as through fire." 1 Corinthians 3:13-15. The third principle from the Bible is one that shows us how we will be judged on "the Day" and what will happen with the work we have done. On "the Day" after we are judged (translation=dead) it is interesting that we can a) suffer loss (something that doesn't happen in heaven), b) still able to be saved (enter heaven) but through fire (purification).
4. "The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls. The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire. (This pool of fire is the second death). Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the pool of fire." Revelation 21:12-15. I find it interesting that people who had died were not in heaven or in hell but under the possession of Hades and Death that were thrown in the pool of fire that is second death. Some of these people were thrown into the second death (hell) and some were not and went to heaven. Conjecture on my part, but I believe it is possible that those who were to be damned were in one place and those who were to join Christ in heaven were in the other.

Okay, so we have found that their is punishment due for sin after the forgiveness of sin, we must be perfect as Christ himself commands, we can be purified after the day of judgement and we will be somewhere else until we are judged for our sins. As a Catholic, that is my understanding of purgatory, those four biblical principles.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew S

Technorati Tags:
Jesus, God, Gospel, Deception, Satanic Deception, Love, Spirituality, Christianity, Religion, Media, Politics, Faith, Truth
apologetics, purgatory, bible christian, bible, Catholic, blog, anti-Romanism, anti-Catholic, former Catholic
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |

Atheism is logically self-defeating? YES!!

My wife and I talked last night afterwork and we got to talking about higher things, atheism and life not on this earth. Of course, I being a smart aleck, when my wife asked me if I thought life existed somewhere other than earth enthusiastically said, "YES!" Retort the obvious she said, "Well other than God and the Saints!" I again replied,, "YES!" This tottally took her aback until I told her she forget about the damned, the souls in purgatory and demons.

I said that while I think it is possible for life to exist on other planets I think it is highly improbable due to how closely everything has to line up for us to exist. This of course brought up the idea of intelligent design and somewhere atheism came in. I noted that atheism is a self-defeating purpose. So here I go, attempting to share that.....

First, let us assume that everything that is here just happened, no logical design and we just crawled up out of the muck. Human beings would be a series of basically organic computers. The limitation of these computers is that they are completely based on stimulus and response. What goes in gets processed and defines a return, now the software gets refined with every response but nothing comes out that doesn't come in. Now, let us proceed to imagination....

I am going to make the claim that we can only dream up things that are something that exists. We have to have stimulus to regurgitate it. Well, obviously this is not true because I just thought of a Pink Elephant in my head. Actually, I am taking the idea of Elephant and the idea of Pink and putting them together, I am Re-membering the parts together, imagination just puts thinks together that don't exist together.

Ok, so now if God doesn't exist how does the idea of God exist? The idea, infinite and omnipotent, are beyond the human experiencing and thus cannot be remembered or dreamed up. Sooooooooo, they must have been placed in the mind by something that can fathom being infinite and omnipotent, hmmmm, sounds like God to me.

Ok, so someone will object and say, "That is just a short circuit in the software, like the blue screen of death on your Window's PC." Well, then why don't people think of God and then fall over dead, why do people never connected to each other become able to understand at a finite level these concepts beyond them and why do people come up with comparable ideas in seperate places at seperate times uninfluenced by each other?

Lastly, that is the place where the gift of faith comes in. I hope this philosophic rambling has been helpful or enlightening or stirred your mind to think. I love you dearling (my wife that is) for being a great source of inspiriation to me. Oh, and if you want to hear a great talk abou atheism check out John Martignoni's Website, The Bible Christian Society, he has a great talk Called "Was Hitler Right?" that is available as MP3 here and tape/Cd here. He has tremendous resources available and keeps fees low so that Truth is accessible to all.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew S

Bible Bible+christian+society atheism proof+for+God God antiatheism anti-atheism against+atheism

When something sounds right but the conclusion is wrong....

The hard part about working and discussing with people things moral and immoral is that they take the truth and then run into the ocean or up the cliff instead of continuing on the shore.

Case and point and be found here:

Last week, the Catholic clergy restated its opposition to the use of condoms. But they should understand that sinful sex has nothing to do with condoms, but morality. To use or not to use condoms is a decision the faithful should be allowed to make. Safe sex should not to be fought; it should be encouraged.
Sabastian Wandera,
Funyula

The way that I have learned to deconstruct this type of argument or conjecture is as follows below.

First, lets begin by identification of what is true in the post:

1. Sinful sex is a moral problem.
2. Safe sex should not be fought but encouraged.
3. The Catholic Clergy restated its opposition to the use of condoms.
4. To use or not to use condoms is a decision that the faithful should make.

Now, lets dissect how the author goes astray with each of the above numbered points.

1. Obviously the moral guidelines surrounding sex are what determines its sinfulness or moralness. The falsehood that is presented in the argument quoted above that the mechanics of the sexual act has no determination on the morality of it. However, if the mechanics of the sex act are not what effect the moralness of the act then what does? Driving a car is not immoral but when you pull up on the sidewalk instead of on the road and place pedestrians in danger, then we have a problem. Mechanics of the act and deviations from the way God designed things are what determine the objective morality of an act. The moralness of sexual relations is determined by whom, with whom, where and how, what else is there?
2. Yes, this is sooo true, but what is meant by safe sex? Is it safe to have sex that doesn't give oneself fully to the other? Here the author quoted above turns to just looking at physical safety and gives no consideration for the mental impacts of adding a layer to the act not designed into it by God that has the potential to objectify the other party. A good well written source on this is Humane Vitae itself. If you haven't read it, you should, it's not a difficult read.
3. While it is true that the clergy restated the prohibition on Condom usage, it is defending that which is handed onto it as an immutable truth from God. The clergy doesn't make this stuff up on a whim. The rules are just defended by the clergy, they are given to us from God. The rules on the morality involving intercourse was given to us by the design imparted by God during creation.
4. Yes, the faithful have free will and the ability to chose to use or not use condoms. What should be remembered is what they are choosing between in an eternal perspective, the choice between a moral choice and an immoral one. This life isn't for temporary pleasure but our eyes should stay focused on the prize and with a well-formed conscience we are able to make choices that are in line with God's eternal truth. Yes, the faithful have the ability to choose, they choose to be faithful or unfaithful.

The problem with the quoted letter above is that it fails to state realities and utilizes only partial truths, or that is the attraction in the human heart to the kinds of arguments demonstrated above. We are attracted to the truth in it but if we fail to see the falsehood, stated or unstated, then we can buy into the Master of Lies and his ways. I believe that most people that buy into contraception have a poor world view and don't really understand the reasoning against it, they may be hardened through an attatchment to sin, the comfort of their current life or just a good old fashion poorly formed conscience. Whatever the case may be we must proclaim the truth.

Hopefully, I have been able to shed insight on a method to do this. Pick out the truth in the argument and then see which way they go.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew S

logic condoms catholocism catholic deposit+of+faith NFP natural+family+planning contraception