Jul 29, 2011

Child-like apologetics

"Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children,  you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18;3

I have been trying to wrap my head around a new apologetic style that has infiltrated my brain.
Teaching/defending the faith by asking questions like a little child.

When a child wishes to know something, they ask, why this…why that…why….why….why…..till they get to the root of the matter (or drive you crazy).

I think if we can get people to that place in their heart, their mind, their emotions….the source of their unbelief or unreasonableness; they can truly be liberated and free to hear and reason the Truth.

As long as they have an attachment to whatever made their perspective personal, they may never see beyond their world into the galaxy of Truth.
Of course getting them to that point is a monumental effort.

After some debate at a recent family function, I had some thoughts on the conversation. Of course, I can never think of these things when I really need to, only after the fact.
This is not exactly how the conversation went, but it is a close facsimile.

Individual #1---You  don't think women should have a "choice...?"                                            
 Sweet pro-lifer---“A choice between what?”….killing a baby or not killing a baby?”

When she made that “choice”, God privileged her with the opportunity to be a part of creating (procreation) a human body, with an eternal soul.

A soul that will be around forever. A soul that will either go to Heaven or Hell.
A soul that she (and the father) is responsible for…..

Now, of course there is always someone who will debate based on the fact of rape or some other forced pregnancy but that is for another day.

But to be child-like, we should ask, why do you think she has a “choice”?
Who gave her the choice to take a human life and soul?
Is that baby only hers?...it takes 2 to tango. What if the guy doesn’t want the baby aborted?
Does the baby have a “choice” in the matter?
Why do you think it is alright to kill an embryo (baby), but it is not alright to club a baby seal, or kill a whale or throw a puppy out of a moving vehicle?
Why do you have a moral law within you?
If you believe there is a God, what God do you believe in?

Of course this is just a very rough and quickly thought through series of questions, but if you continue to ask the person “why” on whatever the issue of the day may be, whether abortion, Church teachings, Euthanasia; I think we will find the root cause of their unreasonableness and it will probably be something personal that has happened to them or someone they know and love.
….but, with child-like confidence, if we trust in the Lord, and ask the right questions, the Truth shall set them free.

Please feel free to leave suggestions (or concerns) in my child-like apologetics thought process.

My thinking after the fact---The woman had a “choice” (under normal circumstances), whether or not to engage in the act that causes her to become pregnant. She (under normal circumstances) knows that there is a chance of becoming pregnant. She made that “choice”, and now there is a human life conceived. A human life not only consists of a mind and body, but also a soul.

Jul 28, 2011

Why homosexual behavior should be against the law

February 3, 2010
Why homosexual behavior should be against the law
By Bryan Fischer

I received a phone call this morning from a reporter for NBC Action News in Kansas City by the name of Josh Luch. He contacted me in response to my blog entry of last Friday, in which I suggested that it is proper for our culture to impose legal sanctions on homosexual behavior for health reasons alone.

The leftwing blogosphere has virtually lost its mind in response to my Friday post. Many of them falsely accused me of saying that I wanted all homosexuals to be locked up, and the response of many of these voices of tolerance was to declare that they wanted me locked up instead and locked away from civil society so my voice would be silenced.
Josh asked for some more information from me, regarding my position, including links to relevant FDA and CDC websites, and below is the email I wrote to Josh this morning.

Thanks for contacting me for clarification, and demonstrating journalistic integrity by reading my blog entry for yourself rather than forming your judgment based on what the left wing blogs have claimed I said.

I nowhere in my blog said we should lock homosexuals up in prison. What I said is that our public policy toward homosexual conduct should be the same as our public policy toward intravenous drug abuse.

My position is that homosexual behavior represents a severe threat to public health, and is even more dangerous to human health than intravenous drug abuse. Because of the health risks involved, curtailing homosexual behavior should be as much a public policy concern as curtailing intravenous drug abuse.

FDA: "Men who have sex with other men ... are currently deferred as blood donors"

The Food and Drug Administration is hardly a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, and is not the research arm of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family. Yet the FDA will not allow a male to donate blood if he has had sex with another male even one single solitary time since 1977.
Why? For the simple reason that the FDA cannot afford to adopt political correct postures with regard to homosexual behavior because it is entrusted with protecting the purity of the nation's blood supply. They understand that to allow homosexuals to donate blood is to put the nation's health at risk.

The FDA states quite explicitly that "male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS."
In fact, the FDA goes on to state a staggering fact: men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an "HIV prevalence" that is "60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

And further cementing my argument, the FDA will not allow "intravenous drug abusers" to donate blood either, for exactly the same reason: "Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population."

The FDA flatly declares that this policy is not discriminatory, since it "is based on the documented increased risk of certain transfusion transmissible infections, associated with male-to-male sex and is not based on any judgment concerning the donor's sexual orientation."

I argue that my position, since it is identical with the FDA's, is no more "discriminatory" than theirs.

CDC: At least 60% of HIV/AIDS victims are men who have sex with men. The Centers for Disease Control is likewise not a part of the vast right wing conspiracy, nor is it the research arm of the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, or Focus on the Family.

On its website, you will find a page devoted to "Basic Statistics," and one set of statistics has to do with the total number of persons who have received an AIDS diagnosis from the beginning of the epidemic through 2007, the last year for which information is available.

The CDC's own statistics indicate that, among males, over 60% of the victims of AIDS over the entire course of the epidemic acquired the disease through "male-to-male sexual contact."

The next highest risk category was "injection drug use," through which just under 22% acquired AIDS.

The third category consists of those who engaged both in male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use, meaning the CDC could not assign transmission definitely to either category, and this category represents just under 9% of all AIDS cases. A miniscule 8% acquired the disease through "high risk heterosexual contact."

The bottom line here is that "male-to-male sexual contact" is far and away the riskiest kind of behavior for contracting AIDS, and IV drug abuse is a distant second. When you add these two categories together, a staggering 91% — 91%! — of all AIDS sufferers acquired the disease either through homosexual behavior or shooting up with drugs.

The neutral observer must conclude that homosexual behavior is extremely risky, dangerous and unhealthy, and represents an even greater risk to public health than intravenous drug abuse. This is highlighted by the fact that male homosexuals comprise perhaps 2-4% of the American population.

It is obvious, then, from the information gained from the FDA and the CDC that homosexual behavior represents and enormous threat to public health. Quite simply, if intravenous drug use is against the law, homosexual behavior should be too. It's a simple matter of common sense, sound public policy, and a concern for public health.

Now once we have agreed that we have a serious health problem on our hands here, the best public policy will contain the same kind of sanctions toward homosexual behavior that we have established toward intravenous drug abuse. Whatever we think we should do to curtail injection drug use are the same sorts of things we should pursue to curtail homosexual conduct. And that's the place for the discussion to begin.
Below the excerpts you will find the link to the FDA website. Here are relevant excerpts from the FDA website:
What is FDA's policy on blood donations from men who have sex with other men (MSM)?
Men who have had sex with other men, at any time since 1977 (the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the United States) are currently deferred as blood donors. This is because MSM are, as a group, at increased risk for HIV, hepatitis B and certain other infections that can be transmitted by transfusion.

Why doesn't FDA allow men who have had sex with men to donate blood?

A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for the presence of and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. FDA's policy is intended to protect all people who receive blood transfusions from an increased risk of exposure to potentially infected blood and blood products.

The deferral for men who have had sex with men is based on the following considerations regarding risk of HIV:
Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors (American Red Cross). Even taking into account that 75% of HIV infected men who have sex with men already know they are HIV positive and would be unlikely to donate blood, the HIV prevalence in potential donors with history of male sex with males is 200 times higher than first time blood donors and 2000 times higher than repeat blood donors.

Men who have had sex with men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing.

Are there other donors who have increased risks of HIV or other infections who, as a result, are also excluded from donating blood?

Intravenous drug abusers are excluded from giving blood because they have prevalence rates of HIV, HBV, HCV and HTLV that are much higher than the general population.

CDC website on HIV statistics by mode of transmission:

Bryan Fischer
Director of Issues Analysis and host of "Focal Point"

American Family Association
© Bryan Fischer

Jul 22, 2011

Campus Crusade for who?

I just heard the news today that Campus Crusade for Christ was dropping the "Christ" from their name.
You can read the details here;

First they take God our of the classrooms.
Then they take God out of some funerals.
They are always trying to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
They are taking Christ out of Christmas little by little.

Now our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ are taking Him out of secular society so as not to offend anyone.

I understand that there is more to it than just that, but....give me a break!

I could understand maybe taking the word "crusade" for Christ out because of the blot on Christianity it is associated with. Although I doubt any kids these days have even heard of the Crusades much less know the history of them.

This is just another blow from satan to take any reference to God, Christ and Church from our culture, from our society.

Jul 20, 2011

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J. on Catholic homeschooling


Aricles like these make you wonder why some parishes give homeschooling families such grief.
I will put my kids religious education up against any of the kids in CCD or our local Catholic schools.
I don't say that in a prideful way, but truthfully and sincerely.

Jul 19, 2011

The Screwtape Letters (part V)

Our business is to get them away from the eternal, and from the Present. With this in view, we sometimes tempt a human (say a widow or a scholar) to live in the Past. But this is of limited value, for they have some real knowledge of the past and it has a determinate nature and, to that extent, resembles eternity. .It is far better to make them live in the Future....Biological necessity makes all their passions point in that direction already, so that thought about the Future inflames hope and fear.

Hope and fear. That is what brought about the most pro-choice and anti-American president this nation has ever had.....at least for those whom were really concerned voters and not just those cultural voters who wanted to be a part of history and be able to say "I helped elect the 1st African American president".

Hope is good if it is used in the framework of Christianity. Faith, hope and love; the theological virtues.   Hope is bad if it based solely upon man's own doings. I think many people are feeling the sting of this principle after the last presidential election.
They were promised false hopes, then when their hopes were dashed, they were more anxious and hopeless about the future than ever.

The forces of evil know mankind's weak nature and uses it against us. We have reasons to hope and reasons to fear; both rational and irrational.
The Holy Spirit was sent to us to guide us, to help us discern these matters so we may be rational people making rational decisions.
Hope in the Lord and you can never go wrong.

If (or should I say when) we make mistakes, we should not dwell on them. We can learn from them, but not despair from them.

16)  Surely you know that if a man can't be cured of churchgoing, the next best thing is to send him all over the neighbourhood looking for the church that "suits" him until he becomes a taster or connoisseur of churches.

This sounds very familiar.
Ever since some of Jesus's disciples departed from Him during His "bread of life" discourse (John 6;66) and    the jealousy and rivalry of the followers of St.Paul and Apollos, there has been nomadic Catholics (or cafeteria Catholics) that only like to follow certain priests or teachings.
Granted, there are some priests that are more pious or traditional, or are better homeliest than others. I myself prefer "old school", in your face, teachers of the faith. BUT, we cannot forget the real reason for attending Mass. The Holy Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. No matter how bad the homily is, no matter how wishy-washy Father may be; no matter how bad you think the idea's of your parish council may be,
we still can receive all the graces of Mass and the Eucharist.
There are many, many other issues that I could mention concerning the weaknesses of mankind, but the teachings of the Church has never wavered. That fact is what should bring unity among us all and encourage us all to take our faith and our Church more seriously.
As Archbishop Sheen wrote in "Life of Christ".....
"How holy must the Church be before you will enter into it?"

17) The contemptuous way in which you spoke of gluttony as a means of catching souls, in your last letter, only shows your ignorance. One of the great, achievements of the last hundred years has been to deaden the human conscience on that subject, so that by now you will hardly find a sermon preached or a conscience troubled about it in the whole length and breadth of Europe. This has largely been effected by concentrating all our efforts on gluttony of Delicacy, not gluttony of Excess.

At first this seemed strange to me. I always thought of gluttony as excess...eating or drinking too much or hording. After reading this chapter though, I realized that I have seen gluttony of delicacy in my own life and that of others.

I am not sure if I can do this subject justice, so please read this chapter in full to better understand.
Sometimes it's not the quantity we want, but just getting things OUR way.
I call that the Burger King lifestyle....have it YOUR way as their slogan goes.
It's really just the same issue as normal in our society...relativism...it's all about YOU and YOUR way of thinking, YOUR choice.--------Gluttony of yourself.

The other thing I noticed that satan is secretly doing here, is getting us to think we are doing good, but we are really damaging our souls in another way. It is like looking directly at the sun; you can see it's radiance and beauty, but secretly you are damaging your eyes.
We may think we are sinless, but in reality, we may be committing a larger sin.
....or as Screwtape puts it--"keep your man in a condition of false spirituality".
I find this as one of the most common fallacies in Christianity; to think that just because you go to church, or just because you are a "good person", you are in good standing with the Lord.
If you are comparing your "goodness" to that of other people in the world, you are putting your soul in great jeopardy. You should be comparing, or should I say, striving to achieve the goodness of Jesus, imitating Him and conforming your will to His.