Random Thoughts On Abortion, Truth, and Other Stuff...

My Mother is Going to Kill Me

Thu, 9 Feb 2012 07:06:51 -0600

Speaks for itself...

Maybe the Most Bogus Lawsuit Ever?

Fri, 3 Feb 2012 16:15:13 -0600

In the "Gay Marriage" debate, the gay community's focus is always on the gay persons' alleged "right" to marry each other. The rights of any children affected by this "marriage" are disregarded or forgotten. Although not a "gay marriage" story, here is a great example of the absurdity of the disregarding a child's rights:  In Jaycee B. v. Superior Court, 42 Cal. App. 4th 718 (1996), the court wrestled with an unusual set of circumstances. A couple that wanted a baby could not have one - the woman could not carry a child and the man had weak sperm. So, they commissioned an assisted reproductive technologist to mix somebody else's sperm - the sperm donor - with somebody else's egg. The couple paid for this. Through this process they created an embryo, which was then put into the womb of a surrogate mother. The surrogate mother delivered the baby nine months later.   The problem began when the original couple filed for divorce and a question then arose as to who the child Jaycee's parents were. The options were (1) the original couple who commissioned and paid for all this; (2) the anonymous sperm donor and egg donor; or (3) the surrogate mother and her husband.   The court got hung up in discussions of "intended parents," "gestational surrogate" and "potential parents" before determining that the "intended father" was Jaycee's legal father for purposes of child support. Later, however, the appellate court concluded that the "intended father," in fact, had no support obligation to the now two-year old Jaycee; that the surrogate contract was unenforceable; and (get ready for this) the "intended mother" would have to complete an adoption to finalize her parental rights.  If this case doesn't expose the staggering consequences of screwing with God's plan, I'm not sure what can.   Don't believe this? CLICK HERE.

Great Bogus Lawsuit Redux

Wed, 1 Feb 2012 12:06:06 -0600

CLICK HERE for yet another great bogus lawsuit...

Great Bogus Lawsuit

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:04:25 -0600

CLICK HERE for a great bogus lawsuit...

The Pro-Aborts CANNOT Defend Their Position!

Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:46:48 -0600

I have a friend from high school (and now a Facebook friend) who is smart, educated, successful, liberal, and irreligious. Oh, and he’s pro-abortion.

A week ago, I posted the comment above on my Facebook page. My friend, who I’ll call Clarence Smith (not his real name), responded with some of the most, uh, well, um, er, interesting pro-abortion comments I’ve ever seen. His comments, despite his intelligence, are so unsupportable that, in a way, I think he’s pulling my leg. I tried to flesh this out with some very simple comments and questions, but....nope, no backtracking, and, of course, no answers.

In the end, after I painted him into a corner with questions he could not (or just would not) answer, he QUIT! He hadn’t answered a single question (probably because he knew he couldn’t do so with a straight face) and QUIT. Right in the middle of the debate!

Here is the entire thread (my comments in red, his in blue, and one third person in green) without any change in spelling, grammar, or anything else. Judge for yourself whether the pro-abortion crowd’s position is getting harder and harder to take seriously (let alone defend), and whether my very intelligent friend has made any coherent points:

Clarence Smith so if I follow your argument you are equating "abortion" with "kiddie porn" - and both are equally wrong. Assuming for discussion purposes that premise is correct, the flaw in the argument is that simply because the government doesn't stop one evil doesn't mean it should not stop another evil. Sort of like the argument some people make that we should not intervene to stop genocide in countries because we can't stop it every country. So we should let it happen in every country? Of course. You do what you can to stop what you think is wrong. Each issue needs to stand on it own merits. There is a difference between people being "smart" and "wise" - and the irrational and blind hatred people express about Obama certainly illustrates that distinction.

Chris Aubert Clarence, always good to hear from you. I think you may be missing my point. First, yes, I am equating abortion with kiddie porn to the extent that they are both "private family matters." (I agree that, in other ways, they are also different.) Second, Obama said that the "Government should not intrude on private family matters." Third, if he truly means that, then I think he should apply that principle - HIS principle - consistently. Fourth, since both abortion and kiddie porn are both "private family matters," for him to apply his own principle consistently, it would have to be applied to both. (Had he chosen a different yardstick than "private family matters," my point might not be valid.) Sixth, and finally, I have no "blind hatred" for Obama. I'm just pointing out his reckless use of language to suggest that maybe he didn't think this one through very well. Kind of like when he chose these words about his daughters in speech a few years ago: "But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." Of course, I could suggest that some people have a "blind hatred" for certain unborn people, such that they'd like those unborn people killed, but I'll let that one slide for now. :) Stay well.

Third Party It would have been a better argument if you use seatbelts. If it truly is our bodies and we should have a say over it, why can we not determine when we wear a seatbelt? It is an inconsistent world.

Chris Aubert Well, I'd say seatbelts would have been ANOTHER argument, not a better argument. But, yes, I agree that seat belts is the same thing - a "private family matter" that, at least according to Mr. Obama's own words, the "government should not intrude on."

Clarence Smith Actually - I see a huge difference between the two. The public policy argument for mandating seat belts is to reduce the number of injury producing accidents. More injured, maimed and diabled citizens imposes a greater burden on social services, the court system, and various related aspects of society's infrastructure, and increasing insurance rates. There is a compeling public interest in reducing that cost to society. The same policy argument supports the right to abortion, in that unwanted children born to poor single mothers creates a negative financial and social burden upon society and government resources (more welfare, more ciriminals, etc). Similarly, prohibiting people from viewing "kiddie porn" is to destroy the incentive for people to exploit children. in contrast, there is no economic or social argument that supports prohibiting abortions. The argument boiils down to one single premise - if you believe that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception entitled to the protection of the laws - then abortion is murder and immoral. But that's it - and there is really no rational way to prove that point wrong or right. Either you believe it or you don't believe. Based upon current science it is "belief". I don't believe it, and I believe society's interest in avoiding the adverse finanical and social consequences of unwanted babies born into families that do not want them or are unprepared to support them, and lack the financial and family structure to nurture them into adulthood, along with a women's right to control her own body, prevail in the debate. But those who oppose abortion should at least have the intellectual honesty to recognize that the legitimacy of their position is dependant entirely upon the proposition that a fetus is human being - or some sort of life form - that is entitled to protection under the law from the moment of conception. But that's just my opinion - I could be wrong.

Chris Aubert Clarence, my friend, you're losing me. A few comments. (I do address your main point at the end)

First, let's see if I follow your logic: You wrote, "unwanted children born to poor single mothers creates a negative financial and social burden upon society and government resources (more welfare, more criminals, etc.)." Okay, then, piggy-backing on what you wrote just before that, you suggest that "there is a compelling public interest in reducing that cost to society." Okay, got it.

So, if reducing the cost to society of unwanted babies is a justification for abortion, then why not extend that same public interest - cost savings - to other unwanted and inconvenient people who may require welfare, become criminals, or otherwise cause an undue burden on society due to their own physical conditions or the environmental or family conditions in which they must live? Is the only difference that one is already born and the other is not yet born? Or, is there another difference? (I presume - see below - that the only difference is that one was born and the other was not born, but please clarify.)

Second, as for protecting children from exploitation due to kiddie porn, why not also protect them from being killed from abortion?

Third, and at the crux of your position, obviously, is your correct observation that our disagreement is on whether the unborn baby is, in fact, a human person entitled to human rights. I say that it is, and you deny that it is even "some sort of life form." Okay, fine. Let me then ask you this: Could you tell me what the unborn thing actually IS, if it's not a baby or "some sort of life form"? And, whatever your answer is, could you please tell me at what time that the non-life form turns into a life form called a baby. Please be precise with your answer.

Fourth, and finally, I'd like to ask you just a couple of personal questions, if you don't mind. First, aren't you Catholic? Second, how many abortions have you personally been party to? If you don't know my personal story in this regard, you might find it interesting: CLICK HERE

Finally, you are, rather obviously, intelligent. Here is an interesting non-religious article: CLICK HERE

Be well...

Clarence Smith oh-oh - personal questions. The first 4 paragraphs still boil down to the pivotal question of "do you believe the fetus is a human being entitled to protection under the law".

Clarence Smith What is a fetus? I don't know - but in the first six months I don't "believe" it is a human being. I submit that nobody has the definitive answer to that question.

Chris Aubert Indeed, and that's why I asked the questions of you in the paragraph that begins with "Third." Hope you will answer them.

Clarence Smith My religion? Raised a Presbyterian. Refused to be confirm. Agnostic, occassional athesist depending on the day, hostile to any organized religion - but will defend anyone's right to believe in any god they want to believe in as long as they keep it out politics, out of government, and out of my life. Embrace the philosophy of "Singularity" which will eventually save humanity from its self destructive insanity.

Chris Aubert Okay, good, we're making progress! :) First, I assume that you know what "fetus" means? It comes from the Latin "foetus" which means, basically, "offspring." And, I do appreciate that you do not think it is a human being. But that begs the question: if it is NOT a human being, then what IS it? Oh, and even though you didn't ask, I'll tell you why I think life begins at conception: Because it can't logically begin at any other time. For example, you say for the first six months it is not a human being. From that, logic tells me that in the last nanosecond before the 60th day expires, it's not a human being, but that in the very next nanosecond, it is a human being. That's an awfully thin llne, don't you think?

Chris Aubert Oops, I hit "return" to make a new paragraph... Anyway, you admit that you don't believe the unborn child is a human being. I disagree, but fine. Your admission, however, is a far different thing than saying, "I hereby declare as a matter of undisputed fact that it is not a Baby!" My point, Clarence, is that if you are not sure it's a baby - which you readily admit - don't you think that you should err on the side of NOT aborting? I mean, what if it IS a baby, and you are wrong? Think of it this way - would you ever detonate an explosion to bring down a building if you simply didn't believe there was a person inside? Wouldn't you take EVERY possible precaution to be SURE that the building was empty first? Same thing here...

Clarence Smith When life begins is indeed a profound question. When life ends is also an equally perplexing question. If you had to watch a love one grow old and live longer than the body is able to handle you have to ask yourself - when does life end? What is it - 80 to 90 perecent of all the money you spend on medical care throughout your life is spent on the last six months of your life? I think with the expondetial advancement of technology, and the ever increasing need to converse resources, that we will find that society's understanding (acceptance? definition?) of when life begins - and when life ends - is going to change. Is it right? Is it wrong? I think those are probably the wrong - and unfortunately irrelevant questions. Our values are eventuallyl dictated and controlled by our environment. When do I think a fetus becomes a human being? I think my opinion is subjective like your opinion. But to me, the logical line is when the fetus is capable of living outside of the mother's womb on its own or with medical assistance (i.e. incubator) with a reasonable chanve of developing into a normal human being. Before then - I think not.

Chris Aubert Clarence, I'm not following you, and I hope you will indulge me with just a few short answers to some easy and specific questions:

1. Is the only difference between abortion and murdering newborns the fact that the former is not yet born, and the latter is already born?

2. Let me concede for argument's sake that both of our opinions on when life begins are subjective. If it's true that neither of us REALLY knows, this means that life COULD begin at conception. Doesn't logic therefore dictate that we should give the benefit of the doubt to the earliest time, and be against abortion because we MAY be killing a baby?

3. If six months in utero is your line after which you can't abort, then what is the practical difference between one nanosecond before six months, and one nanosecond after? More importantly, how do you know? Let's say a couple engages in relations twice a day and turns up pregnant. How do we know, for sure, when the appropriate six months begins?

4. Your logical line for life is "when the fetus is capable of living outside of the mother's womb on its own or with medical assistance." Okay, then what do you do if one competent and knowledgeable doctor says "this fetus IS capable of living outside of the mother's womb on its own or with medical assistance," and another equally competent and knowledgeable doctor says, "this fetus IS NOT capable of living outside of the mother's womb on its own or with medical assistance"? How do we resolve this? Either way, I'd hope you'd give the benefit of the doubt to life, not abortion.

5. I'm guessing that you have a "dog in this hunt" on abortion - a personal experience? Am I right?

Hope you'll keep this going...

Clarence Smith You seek a "bright line" test to define the issue which, like so many other difficult issues, is not a realistic expectation. Example, an old man is in a coma, on an ventalator, the doctors give him no chance of recovering, but they can keep in that condition for the indefinite future. The family decides (or maybe his living will dictates it) to pull the plug and he dies. Is that murder or sucide? By your "black and white" logic it is murder. As I said earlier on, the compelling interest of allowing women control over their reproductive organs, whether to assume the obligations of being a parent, and the adverse social consequences of unwanted pregnanicies - when combined with what is a subjective opinion as to when life begins - in my opinion easily tips the scale in favor of "pro-choice". There is a lot more at play here then just one's opinion on when life starts. For example, what if that person is poor and no insurance and his family refuses to pull the plug - and stays in that conditions at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars paid for by everyone else in society. Is that right? I think not. The arguments that have been above about providing support for the mother and child after birth - although nice - are utterly unrealistic and history demonstrates that is nothing more than a pipe dream. It never happen when abortion was illegal - what's to think it will happen if made illegal again. Especially in today's dwindling world of limited resources society could never marshall, allocate and deliver the type of support system to care for such children. Your serve.........

Clarence Smith ps - personal experience has nothing to do with my opinion. Felt this way long before Wade vs. Roe.

Chris Aubert Well, a few thoughts, my friend:

1. In my question 2, above, I conceded that there is no bright line, so that's not the point. The point is, if we agree that there is no bright line, doesn't logic dictate that we should give the benefit of the doubt to the earliest time, and be against abortion because we MAY be killing a baby? Why can’t you answer this question with a simple "yes" or "no"?

2. Your old man in a coma question raises the same question in my question number 4 above. What if one competent and knowledgeable doctor says "this man has no chance of survival," and another equally competent and knowledgeable doctor says, "this man DOES have a chance of survival"? And, your question ignores the countless miraculous miracles that happen all the time in just this situation.

Putting medical disagreement and possible miraculous recovery aside, I will answer your question directly (with the hope that you will finally answer my questions directly):

Your question, in essence, is "If every single doctor says there is no chance of survival and the man's living will says 'If there is no chance of survival, I want you to pull the plug,' then what would you call it?"

My answer is: I wouldn't call it suicide or murder. It can't be suicide because the old man is in no condition to take his own life voluntarily and intentionally, which is the definition of suicide. It also can’t be murder because it's not the unlawful killing of one human by another, which is the definition of murder.

So, what IS it then? I don't know what term to use, but maybe "justifiable termination of life"? Whatever term you want, I would not agree to "suicide" or "murder."

Oh, and anything short of the standard in your question (e.g., 10 doctors say no chance of survival but one says there is a chance of survival, or there is no living will, or anything short of the absolute presented) would be murder in my view.

3. As for the compelling interest of women supporting abortion, society controls what women do with their bodies all the time. They can't put alcohol in their bodies and drive; they can't put steroids in their bodies and participate in the Olympics; etc. And, what if the person being aborted is female. What about HER body? Does she have the right to not have her body dismembered without her consent?

4. Finally, your argument about society's financial interests in supporting abortion do not adddress, or apparently even consider, adoption. Why is THAT not a choice for an "unwanted" baby?

5. Yes, your personal experience DOES have something to do with your opinion. You see, you can argue with an opinion, but you can't argue with an experience. Think about it this way: If you were an alcoholic or a drug addict and I was neither, do we have equal ability to discuss the effects of alcohol and drugs? I say "no." What do you say?

Chris Aubert Clarence, let me add my sincere appreciation of your comment about changing opinions. This is a good faith DISCUSSION, not an argument, between long time friends.

Clarence Smith Chris - it has been fun. But now I am goinig declare victory and leave the battlefield (lol). Until our next debate - I suppose we could have some going at it over the coming election.

Chris Aubert Clarence, it *has* been fun. One final thought: While you see yourself declaring victory; I see it as surrender. You didn't answer even one question!!! See you at election time in November...

I really like my friend, but I have to admit...I am rather surprised that a man of his intellect and experience could be so unable (or unwilling) to articulate or defend his pro abortion position. But, I guess he is one of those people whose mind is made up, and also closed.

I thought only Catholic Priests did bad things?

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:51:32 -0600

I wonder how much traction THIS STORY will have? It will probably be forgotten in a day or two. Of course, this guy is probably the only (cough, cough) Protestant pastor who has ever done something wrong.

Speaking of Catholic Priests, THIS STORY might top them all. Wonder if this story will ever be reported by the mainstream anti-Catholic elite media? Doubt it...

Opposing "Gay Marriage" Without Using the Bible

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:51:52 -0600

Over the past few weeks, many of the 400-plus people from my high school graduating class have reconnected on Facebook. In many ways, this is good - reconnecting and catching up with old friends is fun. In other ways, however, it's not so good - I've seen and read too much about affairs that start with social media.

That aside, I find one thing particularly disturbing. As background, I went to a large public high school in the suburbs of New York City. Very simply, it was an affluent, liberal, elitist place. Many of my friends are still of the liberal "everything goes" mindset.

Well, two of my friends on the group's page married and had children. Fine. The disturbing part, though, is that they both then divorced and gave in to a same-sex attraction. One guy actually just "married" his gay lover and the "marriage" announcement from the newspaper was posted, proudly, on the group's page. Due to the overwhelmingly liberal and elitist bent of the board, this "marriage" was celebrated and applauded by most people.

When I suggested, as politely as I could, that I didn't feel like this should be such a popular announcement, I was, naturally, flamed. Not by all, but by most.

In any event, the other now-gay person has engaged me in a discussion on the "gay marriage" issue. She is not one of the flamers, and, quite honestly, has been most fair and gracious in her comments. She asked me, in essence, to defend my opposition to "gay marriage" without using the Bible. What follows is my response. (The names have been changed to Betty and Clarence to protect the innocent!)

Some preliminary comments before I dive in, Betty.

First, my goal with this discussion is to make the case against both so-called "gay marriage" and "same sex attraction" without, as much as possible, using the Bible.

Second, I am doing this because, quite honestly, I don't find it fair or reasonable for my views as a conservative Christian to be ridiculed, as they were on the SHS page. (This is not a comment about you - you have been gracious.) Please don't misunderstand - this is not about my having "thin skin." Rather, it's about intellectual honesty, fairness, and common decency. If someone disagrees with me, it's fine with me - really. Personal attacks like those levied at me by a few people, however, at least in my view, suggest that the person making the personal attack is intellectually unable or unwilling to have honest dialog.

Third, I agree with you that this issue is not about sex, which the article you sent suggests. Clearly, merely engaging in sex doesn't equal marriage (or much of anything else, frankly, beyond personal pleasure for personal pleasure's sake).

Fourth, my goal is not to change your mind. I just hope that you will realize that there is, in fact, another way to look at this issue, and that reasonable and intelligent people can, and sometimes do, see things differently. And, more importantly, they are not cavemen for having a different view.

Fifth, asking a Christian to make an argument without using the Bible is a little like saying, "Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" The Bible, to me, is God's authoritative word, and it matters. I do realize, however, that this is not the case for everyone, and if someone else rejects the authority on which I rely to construct my argument, then they have no reason to accept the conclusions I draw from that authority. So, here, no Bible.

Sixth, none of my comments are meant to be unkind. The written word, by its nature, is one-dimensional, and you won't have the ability to hear my tone of voice, see my facial expression, or decipher my nuance. Thus, you'll just have to trust me that these words are typed with kindness.

Seventh, and finally, I have not proofed this completely. So, please disregard any typos or illogically written sentences.

With that background, here goes - my list of reasons that gay marriage is wrong:

1. I deduce from some of your posts, and also from some of Clarence's posts, that you both were once in "traditional" marriages with a person of the opposite gender, and that you both have biological children of that union. I assume that when those traditional marriage vows were taken, you and your spouses promised to remain married to each other "in good times and in bad times, in sickness and in health, until death do you part (or maybe 'for as long as we both shall live')." Thus, by eventually "giving in to" a preexisting or newly discovered "same sex attraction" and deciding to pursue that "same sex attraction" in a "marriage" with someone of the same gender (at least in Clarence's case), you violated the solemn promise you made at the time of your traditional weddings. (Aside: I have no idea if your husband or Clarence's wife are happy about your new same sex attraction/marriage lives. Regardless, would you acknowledge that there are probably many ex-husbands and ex-wives (and children) who didn't want their families broken up because one spouse decided to pursue a same sex attraction/marriage, and were prepared to live up to their wedding vows until they died, no matter what? In other words, just because divorce and subsequent "coming out of the closet" may work for your ex-husband or Clarence's ex-wife, doesn't mean it is right for everyone.)

2. The "gay marriage" issue is often presented as, "Why can't gay people have the same rights to marry their lovers as heterosexual people?" The problem is, this is not an "equal rights" issue. In fact, gay people want a new right created that does not exist for anyone - the right to "marry" someone of the same sex. In other words, absent the "right" of "gay marriage," every man is free to marry a woman, and every woman is free to marry a man. So, let's at least be honest and admit that what gays want is a new right - to allow them to marry someone of the same gender - that nobody, absent "gay marriage," has.

3. Rightly or wrongly, "traditional marriage" for thousands of years has been between one man and one woman. Until the recent push for "gay marriage," the historical line of marriage "acceptability" (again, rightly or wrongly) was drawn between, on one side of the line, one man and one woman, and, on the other side of the line, everything else. Gays then sought to, in essence, jump from one side of the line (unacceptability) to the other side of the line (acceptability) by seeking to have their same-sex "marriages" deemed acceptable. In such a case, the "burden of proof," so to speak, should be on the people trying to change history - the "gay marriage" proponents - to support the change, rather than on the people trying to protect or maintain history - the traditional marriage proponents - to oppose the change. Yet, the "gay marriage" issue has been presented in just the opposite fashion, putting the burden of proof on those trying to protect traditional marriage: "If you oppose 'gay marriage,' you are a bigot homophobe who doesn't care about the rights of people different from you!"

4. Regarding the line of acceptable traditional marriage, let's assume that one man and one man, or one woman and one woman, can now "marry" each other and that is deemed socially and legally acceptable. What logical argument would remain to prevent three men from "marrying" each other, or four women, or two men and a horse, or a father "marrying" his daughter, or a woman "marrying" her grandfather? More simply if two men or two women can "jump over the line of acceptability," so to speak, why can't everyone else who wants "new rights" be allowed to do the same?

5. Gay marriage devalues traditional marriage. I can hear you now: "Oh, yeah, how?" Let me give you few examples. First, let's say you bought a Picasso painting that, because of its rarity, cost you millions of dollars. Soon after your purchase, museums all over the world decide to start displaying scribble scratch paintings created by monkeys right next to their own Picasso paintings, with signs saying, "These paintings are of equal value," and the museums then treat the monkeys' paintings as if they were of equal value to the Picassos. In such a case, your Picasso is devalued in the public's eye because the experts say it has the same value as a monkey's painting. The history and mystery are lost, as well.

Second, let's say that your employer starts to use a robot as an employee and treats that robot the same way it treats you and other human employees. In such a case, the human employees are devalued because the employer is, in essence, saying, "A robot can do your job the same as you can." Would the public think the same of your value as a human employee now?

Third, let's say that the New York legislature decides to issue licenses to babysitters that grant them the exact same rights, protections and responsibilities as a child's parents. In that case, wouldn't parenthood be devalued because the government says that parents are no different than babysitters?

Fourth, if the New York legislature grants professional licenses to anybody who wants one, then every profession and qualified professional is devalued. For example, if the government says that an uneducated panhandler can do brain surgery, doesn't that devalue brain surgeons?

In short, a license allowing "gay marriage" is a legal document by which the government officially treats same-sex marriage as if it were equal to traditional marriage. The license speaks for the government and tells society that the government says the marriages are equal.

6. There are certain biological or scientific or natural realities that cannot be ignored or disputed. For example, only one man and one woman can procreate. Without procreation, society ends. Granting same-sex couples a license to marry will not change this biological or scientific or natural law. Licensing the unnatural does not make it natural, any more than licensing an electrician to produce power by taping two same-sex plugs together would cause the laws of physics to change. Similarly (and I will try not to be gross here), male sex via the exit hole is unnatural and physically and medically harmful in ways that normal intercourse is not. More simply, the male and female bodies are designed for and complement each other. If you don't agree with this, just look at them side by side naked.

7. Speaking of rights, rights do not exist in a vacuum. Your exercise of your rights can and does affect others. For example, I would suggest that children have the right to be raised by a father and a mother. Thus, let's say you enter a traditional marriage and have a child. Let's also say that when that child is six months old, you decide to divorce your husband and pursue a same sex attraction and "marry" your same-sex partner. In that event, your child's rights are negatively affected - indeed, their rights are negated and trampled on - by your exercise of your rights.

8. More generally, I think the biggest problem getting society to understand why marriage is devalued by the existence of a counterfeit "gay marriage" is that much of the public (particularly the northeast liberal elite) does not value marriage at all. You can count the ways: adultery is no big deal; no-fault divorce is both tolerated and even encouraged; absentee fathers and mothers are rampant; unmarried pregnancies are common; and fornication is "normal" with abortions resulting from this behavior at least tolerated, if not encouraged. When making the case against so-called "gay marriage," I think the case has to also be made against these other problems that devalue marriage. More to the point, I think that legalizing "gay marriage" compounds these other problems, instead of solving or lessening them.

I could go on, Betty, but I think I've laid out a coherent, logical, and factual argument against "gay marriage." I doubt you will be persuaded and throw up your hands, slap your forehead, and say, "Chris, you're right, how in the world could I have missed this?!" Instead, I hope that you will at least fairly and honestly acknowledge that just because you and I differ on this issue, it does not mean that those who think like me are Neanderthal idiots who haven't thought this through. Does that sound fair?

And, if I may, please let me end with just one religious comment: God bless you!

P.S. One final thought, if I may. Although I'm pretty smart (not trying to be immodest, I promise), I tend to be a base thinker, and I wonder about things on a primal level. For example, it's chic today for married couples to combine their names - you know, like Jane and Bob Smith-Jones and their child Jimmy Smith-Jones. Well, what happens when Jimmy Smith-Jones marries Susie Wilson-Johnson? Will they be Jimmy and Susan Smith-Jones-Wilson-Johnson? And what about their kids, and so on and so on? My point is, "gay marriage" causes confusing language problems. Is it Mr. and Mr. Clarence Hamilton-Thompson and Mrs. and Mrs. Gladys Jackson-Rodriguez? (I know this sounds silly, but I'm not kidding - have you ever thought about this?)

Get Service...Great Video

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:14:50 -0600

See things from Christ’s perspective...

Dear Mom

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 18:31:28 -0600

January 23, 2023

Dear Mom:

Can you believe it is already the year 2023? I’m still writing ’22 on everything! It seems like only yesterday that I was sitting in the first grade and celebrating the change to a new century.

I know we really haven’t chatted since Christmas, Mom, and I’m sorry. Anyway, I have some difficult news to share with you and, to be honest, I really didn’t want to call or talk about this face to face.

But before I get to that, let me report that Ted just got a big promotion, and I should be up for a hefty raise this year if I keep putting in all those crazy hours. You know how I work at it. (Yes, we’re still struggling to pay the bills.)

Little Timmy’s been okay at kindergarten, although he complains about going. But then, he wasn’t happy about the day-care center either. So what can we do?

He’s been a real problem, Mom. He’s a good kid, but quite honestly, he’s an unfair burden on us at this time in our lives. Ted and I have talked this through, and we have finally made a choice. Plenty of other families have made the same choice and are really better off today.

Our pastor is supportive of our choice. He pointed out the family is a system, and the demands of one member shouldn’t be allowed to ruin the whole. The pastor told us to be prayerful and to consider all the factors as to what is right to make our family work. He says that even though he probably wouldn’t do it himself, the choice really is ours. He was kind enough to refer us to a children’s clinic near here, so at least that part is easy.

Don’t get me wrong, Mom. I’m not an uncaring mother. I do feel sorry for the little guy. I think he heard Ted and me talking about this the other night. I turned and saw him standing at the bottom of the stairs in his PJ’s with his little teddy bear that you gave him under his arm, and his eyes were sort of welled up with tears.

Mom, the way he looked at me just about broke my heart, but I honestly believe this is better for Timmy, too. It’s just not fair to force him to live in a family that can’t give him the time and attention he deserves.

And please, Mom, don’t give me the kind of grief that grandma gave you over your abortions. It’s the same thing, you know. There’s really no difference.

We’ve told Timmy he’s just going in for a “vaccination.” Anyway, they say the termination procedure is painless. I guess it’s just as well that you haven’t seen that much of little Timmy lately.

Please give my love to Dad.

Your daughter

(Author unknown)

I hate this day

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 14:12:56 -0600

This day in 1973 will live in infamy. Very sad day for America. Please pray for the 53 million babies killed since then, and the millions of parents who are victims, too.

To make it even worse, our commander in chief in the White House vowed today to continue the carnage. Figures...

Transgendered Girl Scouts? Come on...

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 14:04:40 -0600

I don’t know what to think about THIS? All I can say is, this PC stuff is getting sicker and sicker by the minute. HERE is more, in case you, ahem, can’t get enough of this insanity.

Wait, maybe this is a Saturday Night Live skit? Or maybe I’m on Candid Camera? I really can’t believe this garbage...

I Love Living in Dallas...

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 18:11:25 -0600

Great Prolife Community up here in North Texas. CLICK HERE for a great story.

Speaking as a small businessman...

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 16:10:07 -0600

...this makes perfect sense to me.

I just think this is funny.

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:09:30 -0600

"I've Got This..."

Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:41:50 -0600

Trust in Jesus...

Texas Sonogram Law - CONSTITUTIONAL

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:06:26 -0600

Praise God! CLICK HERE for the good news.

Unborn Babies are Children

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:45:58 -0600

Well, I guess it’s good news, but the Utah Supreme Court has ruled that unborn children - at any stage of development - are to be considered “minor children” for purposes of the state’s wrongful death statute.

I’m thrilled to hear this, but it begs the question: what else would they be if they are not children? I just can’t believe that this is even before a court for resolution, but that’s the world we live in...

CLICK HERE for the full story.

The Sistine Chapel

Mon, 9 Jan 2012 13:51:42 -0600

THIS LINK is really amazing. Move your mouse around and see what happens. What beauty...

The Grocery List

Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:26:05 -0600

A poorly dressed lady with a look of defeat on her face walked into a grocery store.  After gathering her groceries in a cart, she approached the owner of the store in a most humble manner and asked if he would let her charge the groceries. She softly explained that her husband was very ill and unable to work, they had seven children, and they needed food.  
The grocer scoffed at her and requested that she leave his store at once.    Visualizing her family's needs, the woman said: "Please, sir, I will bring you the money just as soon as I can."  The grocer told her he could not give her credit, because she did not have a charge account at his store.  
Standing beside the counter was a customer who overheard this conversation. The customer leaned forward and told the grocer that he would stand good for the groceries in the cart. Still not wanting to help, the grocer rolled his eyes and decided to take one last shot at not helping the woman. He said in a reluctant voice, "Do you have a grocery list, or did you just collect these groceries in your cart?"

The woman replied, "Well, yes sir, I have a list, but it's in my head." "O.K.," the grocer said, "Write your grocery list down and put the list on the scale and whatever your grocery list weighs, I will give you that amount in groceries."

The woman hesitated a moment with a bowed head, and then reached into her purse, took out a piece of paper, and scribbled something on it. She then laid the piece of paper on the scale carefully with her head still bowed.

The eyes of the grocer and the customer showed amazement when the scale went down and stayed down! The grocer, staring at the scale, turned slowly to the customer and said begrudgingly, "I can't believe it. But, you said you would cover it, so I'll ring it all up."

The customer smiled and the grocer started putting the groceries on the other side of the scale. The scale did not balance so he continued to put more and more groceries on the other side until the scale would hold no more.

The grocer stood there in utter disgust. Finally, he grabbed the piece of paper from the scale and looked at it with even greater amazement.

It was not a grocery list at all. It was a prayer, which said: "Dear Lord, you know my needs and I am leaving this in your hands." The grocer gave her the groceries he had gathered and stood in stunned silence.

The lady thanked him and left the store. The other customer handed $50 to the grocer and said; "It was worth every penny of it. Only God Knows how much a prayer weighs."

Daughters

Sun, 8 Jan 2012 13:04:51 -0600

I just like this...

Add Boston College to the list of heretical places

Sat, 7 Jan 2012 06:40:27 -0600

Here we go again. Another “Catholic” college that refuses to simply be Catholic. CLICK HERE to read about Boston College’s pro abortion club. When is this going to end at supposedly Catholic Colleges?

Sign of the times?

Thu, 5 Jan 2012 18:58:28 -0600

I’ve often pontificated about how things are out of whack in our schools, and how parents of young kids and teens, over and over again, fail to parent their kids or otherwise have their priorities straight.

My 16-year old daughter used to play “club volleyball.” We quit because, well, the coach, the team, and the facility, in my view, had their priorities way out of whack - volleyball first, and everything else (family, school, church, friends, etc.) later. Of course, they saw things quite differently, as people “of the world” typically do.

In any event, here is an email I just got from the coach of this high school age team, even though my daughter hasn’t been on the team for two years. You decide whose priorities are out of whack:
Hello team and parents,

Just a reminder that missing practice to study is not an excusable absence. You are expected to balance and organize your schedule and attend practice. If you choose to miss anyway, then playing time will be affected. We are in a crucial time to prep for our first tournament. With the last week and a half off, we need 100% attendance for that prep.

And another reminder, you may not communicate with me via text unless is small informative things like court or time changes or questions. I will no longer respond to texts telling me you will miss practice and then that will be considered not communicating to me at all of an absence.

Please review the team policies and rules.

Thank you for your cooperation!

Coach Cindy

Okay, coach, let me get this straight: missing practice to study is not an excusable absence? What is an excusable absence? Surgery? Death? Incarceration?

Sheesh.... No wonder we’re in the cesspool we’re in...

An Observation about Converts

Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:18:49 -0600

I have never met a Protestant who left their faith and become Catholic who hated the tradition from which they came, but almost every Catholic I've met who left the faith and became Protestant hates the Catholic faith. I wonder why this is? Let me share my personal experience, which may or may not be representative: Typical Catholic to Protestant convert: "I left the church because they have all these rules, all they do is worship statues and Mary, and I never read the bible or had a personal relationship with Jesus - I just wasn't happy or fulfilled there." Typical Protestant to Catholic Convert: "There are many wonderful people who really love Jesus in the Baptist/Assemblies of God/Lutheran [pick any other one you want] church I went to, and I have many fond memories of my time there. I left, though, because I found the fullness of Jesus' truth in the Catholic Church."

P.S. In case it isn’t obvious, the cartoon on the right is what Protestants typically say about Catholic education. The cartoon on the left is a spoof on the absence of confession in the Protestant communities. No offense intended - they are cartoons!

Intergenerational Intimacy? Are you kidding?

Wed, 4 Jan 2012 17:00:21 -0600

THIS IS SICK. CLICK HERE for more.

Just some random thoughts...

Wed, 4 Jan 2012 13:35:15 -0600

• We ask for strength and God gives us difficulties, which make us strong.
• We pray for wisdom and God sends us problems, the solutions to which develop wisdom.
• We plead for prosperity and God gives us a brain and brawn to work.
• We plead for courage and God gives us danger to overcome.
• We ask for favors and God gives us opportunities.

Good cartoon for the faith alone crowd...

Mon, 2 Jan 2012 10:37:05 -0600

I like this...

Best Christmas Video Ever

Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:48:21 -0600

I can’t add anything to this. Just make sure you have extra tissues handy when you watch!

The Portrait... (Be sure to read to the end)

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:33:41 -0600

A wealthy man and his son loved to collect rare works of art. They had everything in their collection, from Picasso to Raphael. They would often sit together and admire the great works of art.
 When the Vietnam conflict broke out, the son went to war. He was very courageous and died in battle while rescuing another soldier. The father was notified and grieved deeply for his only son. 
About a month later, just before Christmas, there was a knock at the door. A young man stood at the door with a large package in his hands.   He said, “Sir, you don't know me, but I am the soldier for whom your son gave his life. He saved many lives that day, and he was carrying me to safety when a bullet struck him in the heart and he died instantly. He often talked about you, and your love for art.”

The young man held out a package. “I know this isn't much. I’m not really a great artist, but I think your son would have wanted you to have this.”

The father opened the package. It was a portrait of his son, painted by the young man. He stared in awe at the way the soldier had captured the personality of his son in the painting. The father was so drawn to the eyes that his own eyes welled up with tears.

He thanked the young man and offered to pay him for the picture. “Oh, no sir, I could never repay what your son did for me. It’s a gift.”

The father hung the portrait over his mantle. Every time visitors came to his home, he took them to see the portrait of his son before he showed them any of the other great works he had collected.   The man died a few months later. There was to be a great auction of his many valuable paintings. A large number of influential people gathered, excited over seeing the great paintings and having an opportunity to purchase one for their collection.

On the platform sat the painting of the son. The auctioneer pounded his gavel. “We will start the bidding with this picture of the son. Who will bid for this picture?'

There was silence.

Then a voice in the back of the room shouted, “We want to see the famous paintings. Skip this one.”

But the auctioneer persisted. “Will somebody bid for this painting? Who will start the bidding? $100, $200?”

Another voice angrily said, “We didn't come to see this painting. We came to see the Van Goghs, the Rembrandts. Get on with the Real bids!”

But still the auctioneer continued. “The son! The son! Who’ll take the son?”

Finally, a voice came from the very back of the room. It was the longtime gardener of the man and his son. “I'll give $10 for the painting.” Being a poor man, it was all he could afford.   “We have $10, who will bid $20?'

“Come on already, give it to him for $10. Let’s see the masters!”

The crowd was becoming angry. They didn’t want the picture of the son. They wanted the more worthy investments for their collections.   The auctioneer pounded the gavel. He said, “Going once . . . going twice . . . SOLD for $10!”

A man sitting on the second row shouted, “Finally! Now let’s get on with the collection!”

The auctioneer laid down his gavel. “I’m sorry, the auction is over.”  “What about the paintings?” 
I am sorry. When I was called to conduct this auction, I was told of a secret stipulation in the will. I was not allowed to reveal that stipulation until this time. Only the painting of the son would be auctioned. Whoever bought that painting would inherit the entire estate, including all the other paintings. The man who took the son gets everything!”

God gave His son over 2,000 years ago to die on the Cross. Much like the auctioneer, His message today is: “The Son, the Son, who’ll take the Son?” Because, you see, whoever takes the Son gets everything!

This is why you don't kill Terri Schiavo

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:15:09 -0600

Being “brain dead” is not good. But, God can fix things that are not good. CLICK HERE for evidence of what surely looks like a miracle of a young man hours away from having the “plug pulled” recovering from being brain dead. THIS is why you don’t kill people.

Fordham is a Catholic college, right?

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:17:41 -0600

Here we go again. Another supposedly “Catholic” college that refuses to simply be Catholic. CLICK HERE and HERE to read about Fordham permitting a “student-led group” (made up of law students, no less, who should know better) concerned with advancing “reproductive rights.” In English, this is birth control, which, as Catholics, they must be against, since it is intrinsically evil.
Of course, this is not the first time Fordham has openly taken a pro-abortion stance.

Let's dress up like vaginas - great idea!

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 16:08:56 -0600

This is a great way to show support for the pro-abortion, er, I mean, pro-choice position - dress up like a vagina. Attractive...

Politically Correct Allstate

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:01:31 -0600

I’m tired of the continued assault on Christmas. For goodness sake, DECEMBER 25 IS CHRISTMAS!!!! It’s not Winter Solstice Day or anything else! My auto insurer is latest to tick me off. Click on the letter above that I wrote in response to their generic holiday greeting.

More Susan G. Komen Nonsense

Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:04:12 -0600

Pink Bibles? What will they think of next? Even the Southern Baptists “get it” when it comes to the pro-abortion bent of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. CLICK HERE and HERE for an entertaining and interesting story.

Winter Solstice Celebration?

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 18:21:34 -0600

This is not a joke. It’s from today’s Fort Worth Star Telegram. Don’t the pro-abortion Methodists know it’s CHRISTMAS? Unreal.

Yup, gotta love the media...

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:11:54 -0600

This speaks for itself...

Another Daily Thought...

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:15:33 -0600

A baby is God’s opinion that the world should go on.

I thought all priests are old, boring, and stodgy?

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 14:31:31 -0600

Well, not this guy!

Just a thought...

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:22:17 -0600

Great quote from Bill Donahue of the Catholic League: “It is a sign of our times that critics of the Catholic Church cannot settle for rational discourse, and that is because their goal is not to persuade, but to plunder.”

The Blessed Virgin Mary

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:56:29 -0600

In Galatians 2:20, Paul tells us that when we are Christian and live by faith in Christ, CHRIST LIVES IN US. Jesus Christ as a devout man would surely have had a great love for his mother. Shouldn’t the Christ that now lives in all of us have a special relationship with the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Here's a great idea....

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:07:25 -0600

Let’s all self abort! That’s right, let’s all induce our own abortions, thereby eliminating the middleman!
Think this is a dumb idea? Well, THIS PRO-ABORTION WEBSITE doesn’t think it so strange.
What WILL the pro-aborts think of next?

Thief on the cross - saved by faith alone??

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 08:39:23 -0600

Last night at a Christmas party, I somehow got to talking with a friend about “faith alone.” He is studying in the Missouri Synod Lutheran tradition and is adamant that “faith ALONE” is all that is needed for salvation. His said his theology is primarily based on the thief on the cross: “The thief on the cross didn’t do a single good work; therefore, that proves that faith alone saves us.”

Here are the points I made in response to this weak argument, expanded somewhat since Christmas parties are probably not the best place for full and thorough evangelization:

As for baptism, there is no evidence that the thief was not previously baptized. May have been; may not have been – we just don’t know. (Kind of like every apostle except Paul and maybe Peter.) Either way, it makes no difference because the point is this: If the thief had been baptized, he surely would have done some good works, his crimes notwithstanding, and he therefore would have been cloaked in Christ and subject to forgiveness upon repentance on the cross. Let’s just assume, though, for argument’s sake, that the thief wasn’t baptized. So what? Had he known about and understood baptism, he surely would have done it, based on his openly stated fidelity. Clear example of baptism by desire. ‘Nuff said on that.

As for faith alone, let’s examine the passages and the argument more closely. Christ said, “Truly, truly I say to you, this day you shall be with me in paradise.” The Lutheran’s argument goes, “See, if we just believe in Jesus Christ – like the thief did - then we will go straight to heaven no matter what, and surely without works because the thief had faith but no good works.”

Here’s the problem: Look more closely at what the good thief did. First, he admonished the other thief – a sinner railing against Jesus – saying, "Have you no fear of God..." Admonishing a sinner is considered a good work. Second, if the thief had not opened his mouth in defense of Jesus, would he still be saved? (Answer: who knows?) Third, he accepted responsibility for his own sin. Fourth, in the midst of all the people in agony, he turned to Jesus and said, “Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom.” He confessed Jesus Christ as a king when everyone else abandoned him. Fifth, consider what the thief was going through at the time - he was being crucified. People who are crucified die a very painful death, usually by asphyxiation. Fluid slowly collects in their lungs making it very hard to breath. Their hands and feet are nailed to a wooden cross. A suffering thief would have had to press down on his nailed feet in order to clear his lungs to allow him to speak. This, too, is surely a work.

In short, this thief clearly had both faith and good works, by which we are saved through grace.

Remember... It's HIS birthday....

Fri, 9 Dec 2011 10:34:34 -0600

I have no words for this beautiful video. Please have tissues ready when you watch....

Immaculate Mary

Thu, 8 Dec 2011 08:33:09 -0600

‎"Hail, full of grace." Amazing words. At other places in scripture when angels visit people, they say, "Be not afraid." When Gabriel visited Mary, however, he greeted her first with a sign of respect ("Hail"), and then declared her "full of grace." Not "partially full of grace," and not "almost full of grace." FULL of grace. Full means full, with room for nothing else. Mary is FULL of grace, with no room for anything else. If this doesn't support Mary's sinless nature, I'm not sure what can.

More on so-called "gay marriage"

Fri, 2 Dec 2011 20:26:21 -0600

I’ve posted a good amount here on the topic of so-called “gay marriage.” I’ve been formulating some thoughts on this, but I’ve never really had occasion to reduce them to writing. Today, I had that opportunity.

As background, one of my “friends” on “FaceBook” posted something in favor of “gay marriage.” In response, I posted something against “gay marriage.” Specifically, I asked, very simply, if he thought that a child had the right to be raised by a man and a woman, or, put another way, a father and a mother. The answer was two-fold.

First, he said that, no, the child did not have that right. Second, he said that his niece was offended because she and her cancer-stricken lesbian partner were raising two happy children. He then asked me not to post any more on this. I agreed, not wanting to insult anyone.

As I thought about this, it began to trouble me. I felt that this was a good time to try to synthesize some more thoughts on this, and I did. I sent him the following private email. I will post his response here, if I get one:

First let me apologize again for the angst I apparently caused your niece. That was certainly not intended. Nonetheless, your note on this has been gnawing at me since I got it, and I’d like to share some thoughts with you here privately, as opposed to on your public page. I assure you that they are written with respect, and with no desire other than to ask that you consider an opposing view with an open mind.

I am a Christian man and I believe in the truth of the Catholic Church. I believe in God, and I believe that God is all loving, and I believe that God imprints morality and his natural law on our souls. As you know, a large majority of Americans embrace a similar Christian worldview. I’m not trying to persuade you that you should; I’m just saying that this is who I am. I also understand that not everyone shares my view, and that not everyone agrees with it. I’m fine with that, I assure you.

What I’m not fine with is that when Christians express their views on social issues like abortion or so called “gay marriage,” there is never a debate or discussion on the merits of the issue. Instead, the “enlightened” crowd arguing in favor of abortion or “gay marriage” immediately cries “WOMAN HATER!” or “HOMOPHOBE!” and dismisses the opposing view out of hand. There is zero recognition that perhaps another thoughtful, intelligent, thinking human being might – just might – look at the same facts and issues and come to a different conclusion. In my view, this is intellectually dishonest and offensive. Yet, if I, as someone opposed to abortion or “gay marriage” expresses that view, I can be silenced without even a second thought, and dismissed as a Neanderthal kook. That, my friend, is offensive to me.

Let me first explain my point on to “gay marriage,” and then address why you note has troubled me. The issue of so-called “gay marriage” is predicated on the view that “gay” people should have the “same rights” as everyone else to “marry” the partner of their choosing. I reject this premise, because before “gay marriage,” every single person already had the exact same rights: We all the right to marry someone of the opposite gender, and none of us had the right to “marry” someone of the same gender. My point is that, in reality, “gay” people wanted a new right to be created – the right to “marry” someone of the same gender – not the “same rights” as I had. How come the issue couldn’t have been framed honestly?

Similarly, until “gay marriage,” the line of “socially acceptable marriage” was drawn between one man and one woman on one side, and every other relationship on the other side. Then, two men (or two women) who wanted to “marry” wished to jump from the “socially unacceptable” side of the line to the “socially acceptable” side of the line. There are two problems with this. First, I think anyone seeking to change the status quo (i.e., the two “gay” men or the two “gay” women who want to “marry”) have the burden of showing why the status quo should be changed, not the opponents of the change having the burden of maintaining the status quo.

Second, the same people arguing for the change in the status quo want it only for themselves, and not for other people with similar desires. For example, how come four men don’t have the “right” to marry each other? Or, how come a man doesn’t have the “right” to marry his daughter? Or, how come a woman doesn’t have the “right” to marry her dog? If it’s a “rights” issue, then why are Larry and Steve’s “rights” to “marry” each other different than a father and daughter’s “rights” to marry each other or a woman’s right to marry her dog?

Thus, the reason for my comment on your public page about a child’s “rights.” If two “gay” men “marrying” is a “rights” issue, don’t everyone’s “rights” have to be considered? I believe and contend that children have the “right” to be raised by a father and a mother. Thus, if we permit two men (or two women) the “right” to “marry,” don’t we, at the very same time, abridge the rights of the children they then adopt? Why is it fair to the child to take away its rights just to give two men the “right” to marry? (I can hear you now: “I don’t agree that a child has the right to be raised by a father and a mother!” Fine. I don’t agree that one man has the right to marry another. There, it’s a tie.)

Now to the point of why I found your note troubling. I made a comment that your niece found insulting, offensive, nasty, rude, insensitive, or any one of a number of similar adjectives. Fair enough. But, your note suggests that my right to have an opposing view must – MUST – take precedence to her feeling insulted or offended, and must therefore be silenced. At the same time, however, if someone (your niece maybe, or you?) decides to declare that abortion should be acceptable, and I am insulted and offended because I personally killed two of my own children by abortion, THEIR opposing view must - MUST – be permitted, my insult notwithstanding? What’s the difference?

I’m sure that if you respond to this note (which I do hope you will), you will ask me one or more common questions like, “How is your traditional marriage devalued if two “gay” men or two “gay” women “marry” each other?” I am, sincerely, happy to answer those questions, if you care to hear my answers. If not, it’s fine with me.

I wish you the best, my friend.

"Non Denominational" Bible Study

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:58:36 -0600

I attended a “non-denominational” Bible study this morning at my club. I have not done this for years, save for the few times I’ve been invited to various groups and asked to share or expound upon Catholic teachings that the group in question doesn’t know or understand.

Today was interesting, and quite fun. About 14 guys, all from different faiths, backgrounds, and walks of life, and all searching for Jesus to help them in their daily lives. This is a good thing.

Interestingly, the very first topic we discussed was whether one can lose their salvation. Naturally, the non-Catholics in the group argued in favor of this proposition, and the Catholics argued against it. The discussion/debate was gracious and no body armor or weapons were necessary. That’s another good thing.

At the same time, however, this “elephant on the table” clearly exists and is “alive and well.” And, more to the point of this website, we both can’t be right. In other words, either you can lose your salvation, or you can’t. It is our job as Christians to find out God’s position on this, and to live accordingly.

For now, I’ll save you all the detailed arguments in favor of the Catholic position (Matthew 24:13; Romans 11:22; 1 Cor. 10:11-12; Gal. 5:4; Matthew 7:21; 2 Tim 2:11-13; Heb. 6:4-6; and Heb. 10:26-27), and leave you with one very important thing to remember: The gate to life is narrow (Matthew 7:13-14; Luke 13:23-24), and only few make it (Matthew 22:1-14). Further, it’s hard to get there. (Mark 10:21-25.) To me, this recipe doesn’t sound consistent with one day simply saying the “sinner’s prayer” and accepting Christ into your heart as your personal Lord and savior and then being assured of salvation no matter what comes next

God bless my new Bible study friends!

Why Be Catholic?

Sun, 27 Nov 2011 11:54:42 -0600

Many people (me included) have written articles and given talks called “Why Be Catholic?” All of them basically make the case for being Catholic, as opposed to anything else.

I’m having a little Internet discussion/debate with a friend from long ago, and my friend wrote this: “Chris I know what the church teaches, but with my 55 years of education in Catholism, which is extensive, I don't truly live by the teachings of the churh which is a building...I live by the teachings of my Lord and Saviour. Sometimes the teachings of the church aren't always correct. (sic)”

In response, I asked my friend: “If you ‘don't truly live by the teachings of the church,’ then may I ask, respectfully, why you want to remain Catholic?” Her response? “Babe I love you but lets agree to disagree....”

Wow. There is no better example of how the Catholic Church has “missed it” in its catechism over the past, well, 55 years. This is so sad. I can only wonder why my friend (and so many like her) even care to still call themselves Catholic if they admittedly “don’t truly live by the teachings of the truth” and just consider the Church that Christ started “just a building.”

Thus, the point of this post: We can rightly ask CATHOLICS, “WHY BE CATHOLIC if you don’t believe what we believe?” Very sad...

More on the Legion of Christ

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:14:53 -0600

In case you didn’t “get it” yet about the Legion of Christ, THIS NEWS might help turn the light on. What a sad state of affairs. God bless all those good Legion and Regnum Christi people.

CLICK HERE and HERE for another look at the Legion from outside its confines.

Anti Catholic Question

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:43:21 -0600

Attention Anti-Catholics: I have a question for you. At any given time, I am involved in several "discussions/debates" with non-Catholics (most of whom are truly anti-Catholic) about doctrine, Church history, etc. I have yet to meet one - literally zero - non-Catholic who actually knows and understands what the Church really teaches. Indeed, I've not met one who ever even tried to find out - from a Catholic source, not a Protestant source - what the Church teaches, and why. Yet, they all, to a one, bash the fake Church that they THINK exists and the non-existent doctrines that they find unbiblical.

My question is: Can anyone tell me why this is? Similarly, how come anti-Catholics cannot (or just will not) dispute what the Church really teaches?

By the way, imagine what the non-Catholic would say if I asked, "Could you please tell me why you Protestants gather around on Sundays and thump your Bibles? Where does the Bible say to do that?" I assume that such a comment would be laughed at. And rightly so. But, dopey non-Catholics do the exact same thing with non-sensical questions like, "Why do you Catholics worship Mary?"

What’s more important - Hunting or God?

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 12:11:54 -0600

Another great example of a "church" that doesn't understand that Jesus started a Church, or the reason we are supposed to go to Jesus' Church in the first place. Wait, wait, wait... now I remember - isn't there a passage in the Bible that says, "Go forth and hunt on Sunday, and then, if you have time on Monday, go to Church?" Yeah, that's it....

Another "great" Catholic University - Fordham

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:39:32 -0600

A professor at that esteemed Catholic university Fordham, Patrick Hornbeck, has weighed in on Church teaching on homosexuality. On his blog, he posted a writing titled, “Why good Catholics are challenging church line on homosexuality.”

Well, it seems to me that “good Catholics” can’t “reject Church teaching on homosexuality.” That’s an oxymoron, Mr. Hornbeck.

CLICK HERE for a more detailed story on this.