tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-57127299477003721492024-03-13T10:59:30.864-07:00New ChristendomA
century or two hence Spiritualism may be a tradition and Socialism
may be a tradition and Christian Science may be a tradition. But
Catholicism will not be a tradition. It will still be a nuisance and a
new and dangerous thing.
-G.K. ChestertonDavid Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.comBlogger182125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-67318894899110957722013-06-18T07:05:00.003-07:002013-06-18T07:05:47.589-07:00Rules are great... for other people.<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="PHOTO: Edward Snowden, seen here in an interview with The Guardian newspaper, told the newspaper he was the source of a series of leaked documents from the National Security Agency." height="225" src="http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/abc_edward_snowden_2_jt_130609_wg.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Snowden</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I am not much of a news guy. I check the mainstream news every few days for a few minutes. The other day I saw something unique, however, and it captured my attention. All the more because my wife and I are going through the T.V. spy series <em>Alias</em> again. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, and sometimes when you think you are suspending too much disbelief for a fictional story, real life outdoes fiction.<br />
Edward Snowden is the NSA spy who defected to China last week and is spilling the beans on some seriously problematic and tyranical behavior of the U.S. Government. <br />
There it is. That sentence tells all you need to know. Yet if you look at the news, you will find many people denying one of those statements. But he did defect, and our government is behaving like a tyrant. I love my country. But with G.K. Chesterton I say- my country, right or wrong is the same as saying my mother, drunk or sober.<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/18/edward-snowden-leaks-grave-threat" target="_blank">an article</a> for the Guardian, the same paper Snowden approached to go public, there is an article today which tries to tell us that it is just fine for our mother to be drunk, because hey... she is <em>our</em> mother, not the other guy's ugly drunk mother, but <em>our</em> beautiful drunk mother.<br />
<br />
Here are some of his disturbing remarks-<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The political implications are grave. Snowden has given Beijing something it couldn't achieve on its own: moral equivalence. Now, China can portray itself as a victim, besieged by America, and simply trying to defend itself.</blockquote>
But has Snowden <em>given</em> moral equivalence, or has he merely <em>revealed</em> it? The answer is as sad as it is obvious. The U.S. has been berating (rightfully) China for cyber attacks for a long time. Yes, China is bad for doing these things. But the sticky thing about making moral judgements is that they apply universally. Rules aren't just good for other people, and optional for the moral people. On the contrary, following the rules is what makes one moral. The U.S. can't seem to understand this basic truth. Ever since Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, the rules which we want applied to other nations we feel should not apply to us. <br />
<br />
But people are bad because they behave badly. Of course there is forgiveness and redemption, and of course in the inner man is often revealed a good heart that seems betrayed as if by a phantom hand by the actions of the outer man. Nevertheless, you are what you do. If you do evil, you are evil. If rules of morality don't apply to everyone, then they aren't rules, but merely norms. <br />
<br />
The authors most disturbing statement-<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
But Beijing does not deserve moral equivalence, given the intensity of its cyber-attacks against America. The key point is that China struck first, developing a pronounced asymmetric advantage.</blockquote>
Any parent recognizes this "he hit me first" mentality, and it makes as much sense in international relations as it does on the playground. Just because Johnny throws sand in your eye doesn't mean it's OK for you to throw it back. And in fact, throwing it back makes any claim to moral high ground laughable. All sympathy melts away as the other kids in the schoolyard slowly turn their back on your petty little squabble. <br />
<br />
This is a great country, and many brave men have died for it. But they didn't die for government clowns to piss on the fourth amendment and then tell the world it's raining. That is not America. Between this current scandal and grievous offenses like the contraceptive/ abortifacient mandate which will take effect soon, it is getting harder to recognize where America is anymore among all B.S. it is pulling.<br />
David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-53674769314021082762013-06-10T10:23:00.002-07:002013-06-10T10:29:53.672-07:00I Want my 40 Grand for HomeschoolingSo in my state (Minnesota) the State <a href="http://www.twincities.com/education/ci_20974044/minnesota-spends-more-than-most-states-educate-each" target="_blank">spends</a> $10,685 per year, per kid, in the public school (as of July 2012). <br />
The average homeschooling parent <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/07/Report-Growth-in-Homeschooling-Outpacing-Public-Schools" target="_blank">spends</a> $500-$600 per year, per kid, for their homeschool costs.<br />
<br />
Personally, my wife and I have never spent nearly that much to homeschool our 3 school age daughters, and I suspect the numbers for the homeschooled kids are inflated because so many are first year students. After all, homeschooling is growing <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/07/Report-Growth-in-Homeschooling-Outpacing-Public-Schools" target="_blank">seven times faster</a> than public school enrollment, and that makes for a lot of first time homeschooling parents. Not to mention, the public schools themselves now have an online option for homeschooling which is free to the parents. For many, like us, we can reuse materials for the younger kids. So a $200 4th grade writing course isn't $200 for that 4th grader... because her little sister will use it too. You get the idea. In this way we have never spent more than $1,000 on homeschool supplies in a year, and this year, for a kindergartner, second, third, and fifth grader, we will spend around $750 <u>for all 4</u>. And we could have scrimped and spent less. So that is $15-$19 a week, very affordable. By the time our oldest is out of high school, the cost should go down dramatically because we should have most of the materials we need already. <br />
<br />
So considering we will have 4 kids in school next year, that would cost the State of Minnesota $42,740 if we sent them to public school. Ouch! In a couple years, I will have 5 school agers, and the State would be paying $53,425 for them to go to school. <br />
<br />
The cost for my kids... well let's see... lets get them a laptop and take them on a field trip to get the cost up to $600 per kid... really splurging on 'em. So next year I would be spending a total of $2,400 for extravagant homeschooling. Public school would need $42,740 to put them in a prison with bars and metal detectors and let them be bullied, teach them how to put a condom on a bananna, teach them homosexuality is just fine, and oh, yeah, besides all the moral problems, <u>not</u> teach them <a href="http://www.educationnews.org/parenting/number-of-homeschoolers-growing-nationwide/" target="_blank">accademically</a> as well as we could homeschooling them.<br />
<br />
Same kids, same numbers and alphabet, same SAT, but the government spends $42,740 to teach them and I only need $2,400.<br />
<br />
<br />
They spend 18 times as much to make it 18 times more likely they become:<br />
<br />
-less literate,<br />
-morally blind, <br />
-dull, <br />
-conformist, <br />
-materialists <br />
-whose last brush with the word 'logic' was from Spock in the recent Star Trek film.<br />
<br />
No thanks. I will have smarter, holier, better adjusted, happier kids for 1/18th the cost by homeschooling them.<br />
<br />
Oh, and I am waiting for my check in the mail for the $40,340 I saved the State of Minnesota by homeschooling. Or even just the check for $2,400 would be a nice gesture.<br />
<br />
Still waiting...<br />
<br />
(crickets chirping...)<br />
<br />
David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-75183463176690463532013-04-24T12:31:00.000-07:002013-04-24T12:31:41.742-07:00Natural Fertility: How many kids will a woman have in her lifetime?If humans are ever put in a zoo by an alien race, and we are left to our own devices with plenty of food, medicine, exercise and safety, and with an ideology that neither shuns children or demands loads of them, how many children would women have?<br />
<br />
Well it turns out researchers have been asking this question for a long time.<br />
<u><strong><span style="font-size: large;">The Amish</span></strong></u><br />
<br />
I just read an interesting research paper called <a href="http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/anth/documents/Populationgrowthandfertility.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Population growth and fertility paterns in an Old Order Amish Settlement</em>. </a>by L. P. Greksa.<br />
<br />
It looks at 1,337 Amish wives in the Geauga settlement in Ohio from 1908 - 1993. The Amish are considered an ultra high fertility group (in today's standards) straight out of the 19th century in their breeding habits, yet they use modern medicine. This makes them perfect for studying and looking at what the rest of society would look like if we still had traditional 'pro-fertility' attitudes. The conclusion of the paper says that the women do not attempt to control their fertility either up or down in any major way. To the researchers, this means the group in question is a "natural fertility population", which they desire to define so as to have a benchmark to measure from.<br />
<br />
So how many babies do you think these perfect specimen, natural fertility, married Amish women have? Are they all like Michelle Duggar with 19 kids per woman? <br />
<br />
Is it more than 19? Does it round down lower to around 10? (that was my guess). Let's see:<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The mean number of pregnancies per married woman was 7.7 (SD 3.6). Fifty-two pregnancies terminated<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>in a stillbirth and 41 women gave birth to one set of twins, four gave birth to two sets of twins, and one woman gave birth to four sets of twins, for a twinning rate of 13.9 per 1000 pregnancies [1.4% -DM] resulting in a live birth. Mean completed marital fertility was 7.7 (SD 3.6) births, ranging from 0 to 17 births. About 3% of these women were childless while 28% had 10 or more births. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
The men get married at 22.2 years, women at 21.1 years. The birth of the first child is consistently a year later when the woman is 22.1 years. The second child is consistently born 1.5 years after the first, with subsequent births spaced just under 2 years apart. For the period studied ('08-'93), the age of the last birth has dropped from age 40 to 35, marriage age and first birth age both dropped by one year, and spacing also dropped slightly. The fertility rate also dropped by 1 child during this time. <br />
<br />
In this study, the 7.7 children per woman is per <em>married</em> woman, and I am unclear if this study ever actually says what the Total Fertility Rate for the community is. It does give data on sterile couples (3%), stillbirths and twins though. After all that is factored in, the number is still 7.7 per married woman, and of those with children the average is 7.94. <br />
<br />
<u><strong><span style="font-size: large;">Normal Fertility Rate</span></strong></u><br />
<br />
So what does this all mean? Almost all of these numbers were different than I expected. I expected them to be marrying younger, having more kids for a longer time, and I expected the natural infertility to be higher. Instead the study shows that<br />
<br />
<strong>normal human women have a very reasonable 7.7 kids within a 14 year timespan.</strong> <br />
<br />
The biggest family of all 1,337 of these women had 17 kids (so even Michelle Duggar would have a big family in this Amish community). And only 28% of families had 10 or more kids, with ony 3% of couples being infertile (way lower than I thought). Another fun fact is that the 7.7 "completed marital fertility rate" is not comparable to the "Total Fertility Rate" we are used to seeing. Total Fertility Rate includes all women of childbearing age, which will include singles who will never have kids such as nuns, the severely disabled, or those who otherwise have a vocation other than marriage. <br />
<br />
<strong>If 30% of our study population remained unmarried and childless, the Total Fertility Rate would be <em>still</em> be <u>5.4</u> children per woman! That is three times the U.S. Total fertility rate!</strong><br />
<br />
My take away from this is just how incredibly... normal... and natural all these numbers seem. As a father of 5 myself, who can easily imagine more kids in my home, but find it harder to imagine having 10+ kids, I took comfort that 7 or 8 kids is naturally where fertility will end up (on average) for people in a healthy marriage. It is so easy to believe our culture that says having 3 or 4 kids is "a lot". Well it just isn't. In fact those 3 or 4 kids are </div>
</span><em>below</em><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"> the average for where a couple will naturally be. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Our American TFR of <a href="http://www.prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx">1.9</a> children per woman is now "well below" the replacement level of 2.1 needed to just keep a population steady. And much of that number is from new immigrants, who quickly adjust their fertility habits in the first and second generation, and anyway the countries who have been sending immigrants are no longer doing so and will soon stop. The American middle class is down to a TFR of 1.6 and falling. </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">I am not saying couples with zero or 1 or 2 kids should feel second class. Unless they have that few because they have an unhealthy view of children and their place in marriage. Obviously couples can be infertile (even 3% of Amish are), can have vocations or health issues which make it prudent to limit the number of kids, even to zero potentially. But these exceptions prove the rule that <strong>families should naturally be much larger than they are in our culture</strong>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><u><strong>The exceptions that prove the rule.</strong></u></span> <br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><em>Infertility</em>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">3% infertile couples is... 3%. Get over it! That is a very small amount of couples! Yet if I had a nickel for every time I hear this as a reason why every family I see has only 1 or 2 kids, I could buy my own tropical island. Even factoring in infertility, the normal fertility rate for married women is still 7.7 kids </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><em>Insanity.</em></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">All parents have mental issues to some degree that having more kids may make worse. But are Amish women with 8 kids going insane by the truckload? I don't think so. Will having child number 4 really push <em>most</em> women over the edge? Or is it more likely that only a small percentage of parents have true psychiatric problems that make it unwise to have more kids? Even if I were generous and assumed that 30% (!!!) of women went clinically insane the day their third child was born, and never had another child, the Normal Married Fertility Rate would only drop by 1.41 kids per woman to 6.29.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times;"></span><br /><em>Going to college extends time of marriage and first birth.</em><br />
This is another very valid reason that a woman's fertility might be reduced. And using our Normal Married Fertility Rate of 7.7, with women becoming mothers at age 22.1, we could account for a generous 2 years of post college time to get married and conceive, and then she gives birth at age 24. That is a full six years after high school graduation, plenty of time for a college degree or two. So to account for this lost 2 years from her reproductive clock, lets deduct a full child from every woman in our study. That's right folks, we will assume universal college education from our women! They all lose one child and our average drops to 5.29.<br />
<br />
<em>Working outside the home.</em> Some people say that families are so small because women have to work, and no longer have the time to give birth and to properly take care of lots of kids. To this I say... yep that is true. This is on the one hand a valid reason to reduce the number of kids you have, but at the same time is a bad excuse because it should not be happening nearly on the scale it is. Ask any woman to list the most fulfilling aspects of her life. If she has kids, she will have them higher on the list than a career. Yet the same woman will often say that her career is the reason she did not have more children. This makes no sense. If raising good human beings from childhood to adulthood is the most important job on earth, which we all agree that it is, then why do so many women choose something less fulfilling to fill their time? This one is hard to estimate, but my guess that in a healthy society no more than 30% of married women would want to work outside of the home in such a way as to reduce normal fertility. If these 30% each limited themselves to an average of 2 kids each, our average drops to 3.88 kids per married woman.<br />
<br />
<strong>So assuming all the modern things we blame for our low fertility, we are <em>still</em> left with 3.88 kids per married woman in a healthy society. </strong><br />
<br />
Now let's take this society and assume that 20% of the women do not get married and become nuns or run businesses or whatever (20% seems like a lot by the way). After we factor that 20% in, we are <em>still</em> left with 3.1 as our total fertility rate. 3.1 is considered by demographers to be a high growth rate and significantly higher than the replacement rate of 2.1. <br />
<em>You might ask: Where the heck are you going with this you long winded weirdo?</em><br />
Here is my point:<br />
If we believe what our culture tells us, that it is perfectly fine that families come in all shapes, colors and sizes, and arrangements, with same sex parents or divorced parents, with any number of kids, with either mom or dad (or both) working and sending junior to the public school... if that is really true... and all that is just so *great* for families and we live in such a wonderful new springtime of humanity... then why do all the families I see buying into these modern notions look so much the same, with the same abnormally low number of kids (0-2), with most of the moms working outside the home <em>and</em> still doing the housework**, with 50% divorce rates? <br />
<br />
<strong>Instead of being progressive and bold, our new culture is homogeneous and boring.</strong> <br />
<br />
On a basic level using the simplest of math, think about it like this: Not every woman is called to marriage. And of those that do marry, I would argue that <em>most</em> married women will have various trials (described above) that prevent them from having lots of kids. <br />
So if both of these things are true, and the replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman <em>in general</em>, then how can we think that having 2 kids per <em>married</em> woman is healthy? Married people need to be having far more than 2.1 kids for a society to simply replace itself because they need to be having the kids to replace those who will not or cannot have them. As I have shown above, when we see a family with 3.88 kids we should be thinking "that is an average, healthy family size". And considering how conservative I was with my math (20% of women not marrying would be very high), we should consider the 3.88 to be on the low side.<br />
<br />
So the next time you see a family with 4 or 5 kids, remember that that is a very average number. And a family with 8 kids should look no stranger to us than a family with only 1. We cannot let our suicidal culture dictate to us what a normal family size is. The simple, scientific fact is that a normal, healthy family size, even in the modern world with all its challenges, will be far larger than is culturally acceptable. <br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">*If we were to translate the 7.7 married fertility rate into a Total Fertiltiy Rate, it can only go down because we are adding in non-breeding women. Let's pretend 10% of all Amish women never marry. If the married fertility is 7.7, then the total fertility would drop to 6.9. Married women would still have their 7.7 kids, but overall, the Total Fertility Rate would drop due to the 1 in 10 of all women that will never reproduce. If the number of unmarrieds rises to 30% of women in this population, the TFR drops to 5.4. If fully half of women in our naturally fertile society never marry and reproduce, then the total fertility rate drops to 3.85. 10-30% of women never marrying and procreating does not seem all that unreasonable. Particularly if marriage is seen as the important vocation it is, to not be entered into lightly. I think one thing that is perhaps not natural with our Amish case study is the high marriage rate, which I suspect is well over 95%. So although their family fertility is "natural", perhaps the number of families is unaturally high due to their anabaptist religion and a lack of vocational choice.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">**The studies I read on European demographics last week had hard evidence of this. Unfortunately I cant recall where the data is located. But it was astounding how even in northern Europe, where women are supposedly so advanced in equality, they still do most of the housework. </span>David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-7523451966261871402013-04-18T12:24:00.000-07:002013-04-18T12:24:01.368-07:0071 people were murdured in Massachusetts, not 3.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E2MeYePls7Y/UXA_tqR-qKI/AAAAAAAAAm4/bPlsnixgbh0/s1600/massachusetts+deaths.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" dua="true" height="270" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-E2MeYePls7Y/UXA_tqR-qKI/AAAAAAAAAm4/bPlsnixgbh0/s320/massachusetts+deaths.bmp" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
The bombs at the Boston Marathon killed 3 human beings. Lu Lingzi, a 23-year-old Boston University student from China; 8-year-old Martin Richard; and 29-year-old Krystle Campbell. More than 170 people were injured. (<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/stories-casualties-boston-marathon-bombing-18984991" target="_blank">source</a>)<br />
<br />
God rest their souls. And I wish nothing but God's comfort to them and their families. <br />
<br />
But the frenzy that has surrounded these deaths is outrageous. 68 innocent babies are slaughtered each day in Massachusetts through legal abortion. Think about the 68 other innocent human beings being slaughtered that day of the Boston marathon. Then 68 the next day, then another 68 the next day, then 68 today... and 68 every single day of this year, and every day of next year... all last decade, and all this decade... 68 per day. And those 68 are just in Massachusetts. <br />
<br />
<a class="image" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fenway_from_Legend%27s_Box.jpg"><img alt="Fenway from Legend's Box.jpg" height="266" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Fenway_from_Legend%27s_Box.jpg/275px-Fenway_from_Legend%27s_Box.jpg" srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Fenway_from_Legend%27s_Box.jpg/413px-Fenway_from_Legend%27s_Box.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Fenway_from_Legend%27s_Box.jpg/550px-Fenway_from_Legend%27s_Box.jpg 2x" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
Imagine Boston's Fenway Park filled to 70% capacity (25,000 souls) for a Red Sox game. Suddenly a terrorist blows the place up and all the people die. That is what is happening <em><u>every year</u></em> in Massachusetts already. 68 souls per day murdered as they sleep in Massachusetts and not a peep from the media, politicians, or nearly anyone. Even Catholic leaders who have expressed sympathy for the victims of the marathon bombing (the ones I have heard) have generally failed to mention the 68 babies murdered every day.<br />
<br />
Where is the outrage on a daily basis for the 1,200,000 people legally murdered every year in the US? That is more lost than were on 9-11 on every day of every year. <br />
<br />
More deaths than 9-11 every day of every year in this country!<br />
<br />
Where is the outrage?<br />
<br />
David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-78004124922899871092013-04-18T09:12:00.003-07:002013-04-18T09:12:42.629-07:00H. P. Lovecraft: Not skeptical enough.I was reading some quotes from H.P. Lovecraft, who was a fantasy/sci-fi writer in the 20th century. This was my first brush with him, and at first, I liked what I saw. He seems like the type that when he sees a rock, he wants to look under it, then crack it open and wonder why it isn't filled with chocolate. I like that. And so Lovecraft speaks some truth by accident (so does the devil). But in the end he does not believe in a distinction between truth and falsehood, good and evil, beauty and ugliness. <br />
<br />
<br />
Truth Goodness and Beauty are the same thing, they are being. Truth is being as seen by the intellect, goodness is being as seen by the will, and beauty is being as seen by the senses. And of course God is being and the source of all being. So when a clown like Lovecraft believes there is no distinction between good and evil (and ironically, makes distinctions to do so), or believes there is no difference between truth and falsehood (proclaiming his opinion to be true), and says beauty is merely in the eye of the beholder (yet strives to write beautiful literature), I get very tired of it.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class="rg_hi uh_hi" data-height="194" data-width="259" height="194" id="rg_hi" src="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlS3ltrXFq7r4Dx0kI59CtCwdYbyZ9beNOEwVbsBgNglui1a5s" style="height: 194px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width: 259px;" width="259" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><br />
"If religion were true, its followers would not try to bludgeon their young into an artificial conformity; but would merely insist on their unbending quest for truth, irrespective of artificial backgrounds or practical consequences." -H.P. Lovecraft A<em>nd if irreligion were true, it's followers wouldn't teach it to their children... right Mr. Lovecraft? Because something is true because of how those who believe it act? Is that what you believe? -D.M.</em><br />
<br />
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So here is my examination of one of this man's statements:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em><strong>The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far</strong>.</em></blockquote>
<em></em><br /><br />
"The most merciful thing in the world,..."<br />
<br />
How does he know what mercy is? In relation to what? What is the world? Does it have boundaries? Is it a shared reality that both you, me and this man inhabit? Is it real? What is real? What are the words he wrote with and why can I read them? Why did he assume I would be able to read them? Is there a reality that existed when he wrote the words that he is assuming will still exist when I read them? Why would he assume that? <br />
<br />
"I think, ..."<br />
<br />
Why did he think this and not some other thought? Perhaps because it is better to have though this thought than other thoughts? And if so, would that not mean that he thinks this thought to be closer to something like the 'truth'? And if so, doesn't that mean there is a distinction between 'truth' and 'not truth'? <br />
<br />
"...is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents."<br />
<br />
If it is unable to correlate all it's contents, then how can he be sure it is able to know that it is unable to do so? Why not be sceptical and assume it is able to correlate all it's contents? Why does he chose one view over the other? Is it because he believes one to be objectively more true than the other? And if so, hasn't he correlated knowledge to come to that understanding? And if so, doesn't that refute his thesis that knowledge cannot be correlated?<br />
<br />
"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity,..."<br />
<br />
The fact that he mentions an island in a black sea of infinity implies a finite arena in which the island exists, with a separation of "island" and "sea", otherwise he would have said "we are a black sea of infinity". therefore the situation he describes with an island is actually one of knowledge, not ignorance. Knowing one is on and island in a sea is actually to know quite a lot. In some ways it is to know everything. <br />
<br />
"...and it was not meant that we should voyage far."<br />
<br />
Why? I see no reason to believe this statement. And as I said, knowing you are on the island is to already have correlated knowledge and made a very specific statement about not only the island, but about an area that is "infinitely" far away (the black seas of infinity), and even to have gone so far as to claim to know that it is infinite and black is a very bold statement based on knowledge. So this very statement is refuted by the statement itself. By claiming knowledge about the far away thing, it is silly to say you werent meant to go far away to get the knowledge. A tight little circle like a snake eating itself into nothingness.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong>Skepticism always ends in this hypocrisy. Skeptics are never skeptical enough, but are always selectively skeptical about things. They should be skeptical of their skepticism, but they never are.</strong></span><br />
There is much we don't understand, but we have the ability to recognize truth, goodness and beauty, and to work towards understanding more of them. The fact we can do this implies we are made in God's image and our goal is union with our creator. We are not on the island he describes, but in a valley. We can reach the mountaintop, but it requires work and a greater understanding of 'being', not a dissolution or blurring of it. We need greater participation in real being, aka- greater participation in the source of being, aka- theosis. Authentic theosis is not the melting of distinctions/knowledge into a black sea of ignorance, but the refining of distinctions/knowledge so we can participate in the love within the Trinity. David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-55643390978988201542013-04-05T10:00:00.001-07:002013-04-05T10:00:32.567-07:00Jesus Didn't Write a Book<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class="rg_hi uh_hi" data-height="179" data-width="281" height="179" id="rg_hi" src="https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlg86r4i2IqrLq6CaC6gfJyPWd-hbNK7FH3vpGwl5LwJWzx04J" style="height: 179px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; width: 281px;" width="281" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The only time Jesus is described as writing, we don't know what he wrote.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Jesus didn't write a book.<br />
<br />
Think on it people. He could have easily done so. Why didn't he? If you find yourself wishing he had, or wishing perhaps his apostles had written more -in general or on your pet topic- then your paradigm is wrong. Find a paradigm where it make perfect sense for Jesus <em>not </em>to<em> </em>write down his teaching, and <em>not</em> to write it down in such a way that would supposedly clear up misinterpretations of future Christians. You should find that paradigm because <em><u>that is what happened</u></em>. Jesus actually <em>didn't</em> write anything down, and his apostles wrote shockingly little. And we don't even know if he told his followers to write anything down, and often it seems they dont expect it to be scripture anyway. Did the apostle John think 3rd John would be scripture? Did Paul know Philemon would be read by people 2000 years later as scripture? And if Jesus had intended the future Church to be guided solely by a book, we should expect the apostles would have written much, much more! would have written on some very basic topics like.. oh... what do we do when we gather on Sunday morning for instance. Yet they apparently didn't think it was necessary to write that down! That makes no sense at all in scripture only Protestantism. Did it skip their mind? Do you find yourself wishing they had spelled things out better on topic X? If so, you may be assuming that the text was meant to explain topic X. But if Christ left everything this Church needs, yet forgot to leave them a way to sort out topic X, then there is a problem. And in the Sola Scriptura paradigm, that <em>is</em> a problem. <br />
<br />
But for Catholics, we know he didn't write a book because he sent men. And he told us that if we have a problem to "<a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/18-17.htm" target="_blank">take it to the Church</a>". We can affirm that the bible consistent with everything we need to know, and that Christ left us with everything we need, but that includes successors of the apostles authorized to rightly interpret scripture.<br />
<br />
So if you find yourself wishing more were written down to explain something, or wishing perhaps Jesus had personally written down stuff, you need to change your paradigm. Go to the Church. Those men Jesus commissioned commissioned other men, who in turn did the same, all the way to the present day, and their identity is not mysterious or controversial. <br />
<br />
If the bible were meant to be the sole authority in the Church, shouldn't there be a heck of a lot more info in there? And shouldn't it be a heck of a lot clearer so there perhaps would be just a few dozen Protestant interpretations, rather than thousands?<br />
<br />
It really is this simple folks. David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-70564622756397708272013-04-01T11:50:00.000-07:002013-04-03T10:01:23.752-07:00Orthodox Demographic WinterGlobal Orthodoxy will steeply decline in numbers this century. Just my opinion, and I am no expert, but the data seems to point to this outcome.<br />
<br />
I asked the guy who knows about this stuff, the very competent Eric Kaufmann, whose book <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Shall-Religious-Inherit-Earth-Twenty-First/dp/1846681448" target="_blank">Shall the Religious Inherit The Earth</a></em> has captured my attention for quite a while, this question<a href="http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=244285959036719&id=104461412989297" target="_blank"> on Facebook</a>: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"I am interested in how the demography of Eastern Europe will affect the global Eastern Orthodox population (230 million). 93.2% of Eastern Orthodox live in 20 countries of Eastern Europe and Greece. The average TFR of these 20 countries is 1.37. The top 82% of Orthodoxy is located in Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Greece, Belarus, and Bulgaria, which also have a combined TFR of 1.37. With fully half of the world’s E.O. in Russia (TFR 1.42). <br />
<br />
<br />
What I am interested in is if there are higher fertility groups of Orthodox within these nations that will outbreed their low fertility neighbors? The data is hard to find though. Orthodoxy seems set for an unusually steep decline in population compared to Catholics, Protestants, or most Muslim groups. Am I right about this?"<br />
<br />
Eric Kaufmann: <br />
"Yes, I think that's right. Though I believe Orthodox attenders have, as elsewhere, somewhat higher fertility than seculars or nominals (see Tom Frejka's work[*] on European survey data on this). What they are lacking is a closed, fundamentalist group with high fertility a la Dutch Calvinists or Finnish Laestadian Lutherans or Orthodox Jews."</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Eastern Orthodoxy has it's population center of gravity in Eastern Europe (including Russia) and Greece. So the demography of Eastern Europe will affect the global Eastern Orthodox population (230 million) in the future quite heavily. This is of course assuming there are no large sub populations of Orthodox with high fertility rates. I had not heard of any, and Kaufmann seems to confirm that there are not. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=t&chs=440x220&chd=s:AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&chco=FFCC00,ccffcc,33ccaa&chld=ALBYBABGHRCYCZEEGRHULVMKMDMEPLRORURSSKSIUA&chtm=world&chf=bg,s,0000FF" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="160" src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=t&chs=440x220&chd=s:AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA&chco=FFCC00,ccffcc,33ccaa&chld=ALBYBABGHRCYCZEEGRHULVMKMDMEPLRORURSSKSIUA&chtm=world&chf=bg,s,0000FF" usa="true" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
And another aspect is that theologically, the Orthodox appear to accept contraception, so even the more religiously conservative Orthodox fertility in these countries, while higher than their secular neighbors, will still be tempered by these factors. If significant sub-groups of high fertility endogenous growth sects of more conservative Orthodox were present in these nations, then these groups would be the future of Orthodoxy in these countries. But it appears there are not.<br />
<br />
Of the factors that affect religious population positively the 2 biggest are:<br />
<br />
1. Growth from within. Religious populations within countries with high fertility rates due to prolonged <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition" target="_blank">demographic transition</a>, eg. Africa and Latin America. In these societies, large, young populations of adherants (even nominal ones) will still have a much higher fertility rate than their counterparts in countries further into their demographic transition. <br />
<br />
2. Endogenous growth sects. These are the groups Eric calls "closed, fundamentalist groups". So this is not only the Amish, Hutterites, and Ultra Orthodox Jews, but less closed (yet still self consciously seperate) groups like the Mormons, Quiverfull type Protestants, and conservative Catholics. Each of these groups is closed to some degree from worldly influence and has intentionally high fertility rates while rejecting contraception. <br />
<br />
On the flip side, nations who are far into the demographic transition have very low fertility and high secularization, with aging populations and actual population decline... right now. Not future decline, but right now decline due to people not procreating.<br />
<br />
The other major Christian groups have eggs in all of the above baskets, and have more geographic diversity as well. Orthodox have none. Somehow Eastern Orthodoxy has managed to be most populous in the lowest fertility countries on earth, So while Catholics in Italy (1.4) and Spain (1.48) do have a fertility rate just as bad as in Ukraine (1.29) or Greece (1.39), there is the crucial difference that Catholics are <em>not</em> only in Italy and Spain, while demographically, it can be said that Orthodox <em>are</em> only in Eastern Europe. Sceptical? Look at my research in this chart:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="border: currentColor;">
<div class="separator" style="border: currentColor; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VwUh1b-00-w/UVSSNaaUj7I/AAAAAAAAAmA/L3SsMttbpCE/s1600/Orthodox+Population+2012.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="422" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VwUh1b-00-w/UVSSNaaUj7I/AAAAAAAAAmA/L3SsMttbpCE/s640/Orthodox+Population+2012.bmp" usa="true" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="border: currentColor; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="border: currentColor; clear: both; text-align: center;">
93.2% of Orthodox live in Eastern Europe and Greece.</div>
<br />
<br />
That chart is staggering. 93% living in Eastern Europe and Greece?? None of these contries have anywhere near the replacement fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman. Compare with <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/Christian/Catholic/The-Global-Catholic-Population.aspx" target="_blank">this chart</a> from the Pew Research center of the worlds 1.2 billion Catholics:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-93yXGx6dAUE/UVm0QITmFFI/AAAAAAAAAmQ/YCsfkBfJdx0/s1600/PF_13_02_13_Global-Catholics_chart-1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="520" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-93yXGx6dAUE/UVm0QITmFFI/AAAAAAAAAmQ/YCsfkBfJdx0/s640/PF_13_02_13_Global-Catholics_chart-1.png" usa="true" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Here are maps showing the same data, although keep in mind they do include Oriental Orthodoxy, which I did not.<br />
<br />
The Orthodox:<br />
<br />
<img height="398" src="http://features.pewforum.org/global-christianity/world-maps/christianity-graphic-19.png" style="padding-bottom: 25px; padding-top: 25px;" title="World Map of the Global Christian Orthodox Population" width="640" /><br />
<br />
The Catholics (from <a href="http://features.pewforum.org/global-christianity/world-maps/catholic.php" target="_blank">Pew Research</a>):<br />
<br />
<img height="383" src="http://features.pewforum.org/global-christianity/world-maps/christianity-graphic-13.png" style="padding-bottom: 25px; padding-top: 25px;" width="640" /><br />
<br />
Comparing these charts and maps we see not only a geographic isolation in Orthodoxy, but the countries it is isolated to are among the lowest fertility in the world. Protestantism and Catholicism on the other hand are diverse in geography and fertility.<br />
<br />
If 92% of Catholics were located in Italy, Spain and Brasil (TFR 1.82), I would be predicting that there would be a huge plunge in the number of Catholics in this century. But the Catholic Church is spread wider and has a significant presence in high fertility Africa the Phillipines and other high fertility areas of the globe, and looks ready to keep growing significantly alongside Pentecostalism. <br />
<br />
It would not be shocking if Eastern Orthodoxy, which is now second in numbers to Catholicism as a "denomination" (for lack of a better word), will be overtaken within a couple generations by an actual denomination: the Assemblies of God. Pentecostalism as a movement (279 million) is already larger than Orthodoxy. But if we nail the Protestant jello to the tree for a moment and count denominations before it falls, we see there are 64 million Assemblies of God members currently. Given their expansion rate and the swift contraction rate for Orthodoxy, they could easily switch places within a generation.<br />
<br />
So what does this mean? Just as with historical recurrence we say with confidence with Mark Twain that "history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme", we can say with equal confidence that demography is not destiny, but it is pregnant. And we can look at the parents and reasonably expect what the child will look like. <br />
<br />
We know that religion in general will gain in strength both of numbers and of force in the coming century. The future is one of religious fundamentalists gaining prominence, while the candle of the secular enlightenment is slowly suffocated and extinguished in the early 22nd century. The future of Christianity is going to look Catholic and Pentecostal, while Orthodoxy, sidelined by demographics, will implode alongside secularism until a core of true believers is revealed. Oriental Orthodoxy will grow during this time, thus increasing their percentage of global Orthodoxy. I am not sure what this will mean for Catholic Orthodox reunion efforts, or for Oriental Orthodox reunion efforts with each group. Unfortunatly my suspicion is that once the nominal Orthodox in Eastern Europe have left this earth, having aborted and contracepted themselves into the grave, the higher fertility attenders who are left will be the ones sending their children to Mount Athos, and thus Orthodoxy will go from being 230 million and willing to discuss reunion, to being 40 million and hardened against it. Who knows. But one thing is certain, and even Eric Kaufmann agreed with me, that Eastern Orthodoxy looks set to decline dramatically compared to other religious groups. It will be interesting to check back in 10 years and see where things are.<br />
<br />
*This is <a href="http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol19/7/19-7.pdf" target="_blank">the article</a> he is referring to possibly.</div>
David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-68779493835029454632013-03-22T06:04:00.000-07:002013-03-22T06:07:44.421-07:00The Hobbit Movie: My Review...Well to be more precise, a ditto of <a href="http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2013/03/22/the-long-expected-hollywood-ification-of-the-hobbit/comment-page-1/" target="_blank">a review Devin Rose did</a> and a couple additional thoughts of my own. I am too lazy to do my own review so I though I would just ride on Devin's coattails and blithely puff a bowl of the southfarthings finest longbottom leaf. Here is a comment I left on his blog which sums up my feelings:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
My thoughts exactly.<br />
<br />
<br />
Steven Greydonus, who is the best film reviewer now alive, <a href="http://www.decentfilms.com/reviews/hobbit1" target="_blank">said:</a><br />
<br />
“There is an early moment in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey that captures the evocative poetry of Tolkien’s songs — something that The Lord of the Rings films, for all their achievements, never did. By the time the credits roll, that moment feels like it belonged in a very different film.”<br />
<br />
<br />
This film is forgettable. Tolkiens book is anything but forgettable. So Jackson failed. Period. He really should have just left it alone if he wasn't ready to do it well, and I wish he had.<br />
You said it best when you said:<br />
<br />
“Hint to Peter Jackson: More of Tolkien’s genius and less of your discombobulation.”<br />
<br />
I was excited when I heard he would do the Hobbit. Less so when I heard it would be 2 installments. Then I was very sceptical when I heard it was going to be 3. Can he really credibly claim that it is not about the bling? I understand wanting to stretch them out to include more of the book. Cool. But when much of the “stretching” is stuff not even in the book, and done in a swashbuckling goofy way that is uncharacteristic of the book, it is hard to not think there is some other goal than to just put Tokien’s vision on the screen.<br />
<br />
I might watch this again with the kids someday, but it is not like Jackson’s earlier trilogy where I would watch them a few additional times and even wait with baited breath for the extended version.<br />
<br />
Also I am sick and tired of adults ruining tales which children should be invited to enjoy also. There is no reason for many of the intense scenes to be in this movie. As <em>The Incredibles</em> showed, adults and kids CAN watch the same movie and enjoy it without needing “mature” material like violence and super scary scenes. I just don't get it</blockquote>
I was pleased to see Kate Blanchett reprise her role as the Virgin Mar... uh... I mean Galadriel. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o69PwejhXcE/UUxUZdxT-8I/AAAAAAAAAlw/R-5gsvoPbc0/s1600/Galadriel+with+moon.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="176" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o69PwejhXcE/UUxUZdxT-8I/AAAAAAAAAlw/R-5gsvoPbc0/s320/Galadriel+with+moon.jpg" ssa="true" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I am the type to find symbols where there are none in movies, but I can't help but wonder if the moon behind Galadriel was not intentional here. Tolkien was a Catholic, and many things in the LOTR books are very tempting to see as allusions to Catholic spirituality. The Lembas bread as Eucharist is a big one, and Galadriel as Mary is another. The moon is associated with the Mother of God because of Revelation 12 where she has the moon under her feet, and also because she reflects the light of Christ to us in the darkness. I doubt Peter Jackson did this purposely, but did someone on his team?</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And of all the odd additions to the film, I really did like Radagast the brown. I thought he was interesting and filled out the picture of who the angel-like 'race' are in the LOTR, who before we only knew of through Saruman and Gandalf. Radagast fills out that picture... interestingly.</div>
<br />
<br />David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-4026855323899371422013-02-14T05:52:00.001-08:002013-02-14T05:52:39.081-08:00Now he will diminish<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img height="294" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3mcaEUUCvD4/URvlqx7-WTI/AAAAAAAAOQ8/lGLEPAaGsJQ/s400/b16mdc3.JPG" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A German man receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday. <br />
<br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The pope is a mere man, and the Catholic faith has never and never shall teach otherwise. And when the current pope steps down and there is a new holder of the petrine office, this fact will stand in stark relief. When the key of the house of David is passed to another, and yet both men are still living, one having the keys and one having given them up, we will witness this truth of the papacy.<br />
<br />
When I heard Benedict XVI was stepping down, I became excited. Not because he is a bad pope, on the contrary he has done a superb job. But this move shows to the world what the Church has always believed and taught: that the bishop of Rome is a bishop just like any other bishop, and a man just like any other man, and that his unique charism is all about who Christ is and the indefectability Christ promised the Church, and most pointedly it is all about <em>the chair</em> the man sits in, and absolutely nothing about <em>who </em>the man is who sits in that chair. The most powerful man on earth does not lift himself by his bootstraps and lord over the people as the kings of the earth do. He receives his power from Another, and is merely a chamberlain to the Emperor, or a Prime Minister to the king. As <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2022:15-25&version=RSVCE" target="_blank">Isaiah 22</a>, which Jesus himself refers to when choosing Peter as his steward says: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, <span class="text Isa-22-21" id="en-RSVCE-20452">and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.</span>I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. <span class="text Isa-22-23" id="en-RSVCE-20454">And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. </span><span class="text Isa-22-24" id="en-RSVCE-20455">And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house...</span></blockquote>
And now, he will hand the keys to another. <br />
<br />
He has passed the test. Now he will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Joseph Ratzinger. <br />
<br />
<br />David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-62993643486425021602013-02-06T08:19:00.000-08:002013-02-06T08:19:19.254-08:00Gun Control? Who cares.<br />
I'm sure back in the day a master archer liked to have a good quiver, but he didn't need it. If he found his enemy had stolen it from the camp in the night, or that his enemy wants to ban all quivers, he would simply laugh and offer his enemy his cloak also. He is serene in the knowledge that his effectiveness in battle has very little to do with his quiver, but has everything to do with his skill in archery, his bow, the quality and quantity of his arrows, his bravery, and above all, the quality of his Marshal and his Lord. He wonders why his enemy is so anti-quiver, but shrugs and crosses himself, thanking God for confounding the mind of the enemy to take the quiver and not his precious bow or arrows.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gck3xIblIQw/UQlUWlb3opI/AAAAAAAAAhc/WwjrCGlcG38/s1600/st-paul.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" ea="true" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gck3xIblIQw/UQlUWlb3opI/AAAAAAAAAhc/WwjrCGlcG38/s320/st-paul.jpg" width="231" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Apostle Paul <br />
is often depicted with a sword</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
St. Paul says, <br />
<br />
"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels, And every height that exhalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ; And having in readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience shall be fulfilled."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2010:3-6&version=DRA" target="_blank">2 Corinthians 10:3-6</a><br />
<br />
Guns are weapons we use to protect our weapons. <br />
<br />
They are the archer's quiver. We husbands and fathers are the archer. The bow and the camp are our wives. The arrows are our children, the marshal is the Church, and the Lord is Christ. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20127&version=RSVCE" target="_blank">Psalm 127 RSVCE</a> (my emphasis)<br />
<br />
<em>A Song of Ascents. Of Solomon.</em><br />
<br />
Unless the Lord builds the house, <br />
those who build it labor in vain.<br />
<strong>Unless the Lord watches over the city,</strong><br />
<strong>the watchman stays awake in vain.</strong><br />
It is in vain that you rise up early and go late to rest,<br />
eating the bread of anxious toil;<br />
for he gives to his beloved sleep.<br />
<br />
Lo, sons are a heritage from the Lord,<br />
the fruit of the womb a reward.<br />
<strong>Like arrows in the hand of a warrior</strong><br />
<strong>are the sons of one’s youth.</strong><br />
<strong>Happy is the man who has</strong><br />
<strong>his quiver full of them!</strong><br />
<strong>He shall not be put to shame</strong><br />
<strong>when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.</strong><br />
<br />
If only Christians would worry less about the evil of gun control and more about the evil of birth control. As the psalm says, the watchman watches in vain unless the Lord watches the city. This means the watchman could have a supply of weapons like the in the Matrix...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CggITL3KlYw/UQll-sPKgoI/AAAAAAAAAh4/Xqdc72kqrWs/s1600/the-matrix+weapons+room.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ea="true" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CggITL3KlYw/UQll-sPKgoI/AAAAAAAAAh4/Xqdc72kqrWs/s1600/the-matrix+weapons+room.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
with a nuke silo in the back forty and an aircraft carrier battle fleet down at the marina, and he could still be doomed. If the Lord has ceased to watch the city, then all the modern armaments in the world will not stop that city from being overrun. And now for the reality check: Do you seriously think the city is not overrun? Do you seriously think God is watching the gate? Of course He isn't. Why would he? The men of the city are at home playing Xbox and "polishing their swords" by giving their wives contraceptives. And what children they do have are not being equipped to battle against the culture of death surrounding us <em>within</em> the city walls.<br />
<br />
Now I know what many conservative Christian gun guys might say about all this,<br />
<em> "Yeah, that's all fine and good, our weapons are not carnal and all that... yeah yeah I get it. <u>But what about my AK47!?</u> Big Brother wants to take it away! *sob sob*..."</em><br />
<br />
My response:<br />
<br />
<strong>Let's focus on the more powerful weapons at our disposal: our own children, first by being open to lots of them, and second by training them for war, and to train their children for war. </strong><br />
<br />
When we fully understand that the war we are engaged in is entirely spiritual in nature, I think the whole gun debate will become about as meaningful to us as a presidential debate. I am not saying we should not care about voting for president, I am simply saying it is of very little importance to our lives as Christians. In the same way, many of these distractions we men let ourselves get focused on are the equivalent of a soldier boasting in the town tavern while the war is a mile down the road. Just one single Christian father who allows himself to be seduced by pornography or video games or any other evil that our culture offers is a bigger defeat than if all guns were banned tomorrow in the US. Think about that. <u>Just one father failing his family by giving in to Satan is worse than all guns being banned.</u> We are in a spiritual war, and we need to focus on the true weapons of are warfare.<br />
<br />
Lets engage the enemy by being the best husbands and fathers we can be, and mobilizing vast armies of warriors to do the same. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dCWY-c4kY3k/URKBRZuQfII/AAAAAAAAAiw/B3s50h_M2As/s1600/st+michael.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" jea="true" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dCWY-c4kY3k/URKBRZuQfII/AAAAAAAAAiw/B3s50h_M2As/s320/st+michael.jpg" width="224" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Saint Michael, defend us in battle</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-29735264795464769652013-01-31T06:41:00.000-08:002013-01-31T06:41:07.988-08:00Discussion about Orthodoxy and Catholicism[What follows is a segment of an email exchange with someone looking into the diferences between the two. These are tough topics for scholars, let alone a biased layamn like me, so cut me some slack] <br />
<br />
I highly recommend submitting some of these question to Bryan Cross on Called to Communion. He will give a better answer in every way, and most importantly, he will give an answer that you can trust to be the Catholic answer, and not just Dave’s feelings.<br />
<br />
<br />
You said:<br />
<br />
“Oriental and Eastern who aren't exactly in communion (although I think they have reached some sort of formal agreement) can seem to be so much alike theologically and yet both agree with each other against Roman Catholics on a variety of issues?”<br />
<br />
You chose the perfect description when you said “against”. I find that the antipathy both groups (in general) have for Catholicism helps them to overlook big things they disagree with each other about like the dual nature of Christ. The Orientals are non-Calcedonian Monophysites who only accept the first 3 councils. It is great if they are showing signs of wanting to change, but the fact remains the Eastern Orthodox have far more in common doctrinally with Catholics than with them. <br />
<br />
Check out the Orthodox doctrine (of not all Orthodox, but some) of “aerial tollhouses”. For some reason they are ok with being in communion with Orthodox who believe the aerial tollhouses theory, but not “purgatory”. Orthodox believe in purgatory. They just have a less defined doctrine of it. Otherwise why would they pray for the dead? Praying for the souls of the dead can only mean one thing… the soul is not known to be in heaven or hell, and the soul still has some journeying left to do. Is there anything else it could possibly mean? But anyway, Orthodox when being polite will insist that even that much cannot be said about the topic, and say it is a mystery, -or- they will just keep insisting on purgatory being heresy while their doctrine (or lack of one), because it is mystery, is just fine. Well as I said, they do have a doctrine (praying for the dead has very specific implications), and what is wrong with one tradition having something more defined or a different nuance than another? Look at the doctrine of the Trinity for instance. The Orthodox developed the essence-energies distinction. The Latin west did not. Therefore we talk past each other on the filioque. In my personal experience, Orthodox folks usually believe the filioque to be a big dividing issue between the 2 sides, yet the same people, in my experience, have never heard that Roman Catholics (the Latin rite) do not have a category for an essence/energy distinction within God. So often the criticism of the Latin rite is criticizing something they have no category to even describe or believe. The fact is, that the Orthodox have a more fully developed doctrine of the Trinity with their essence/energy distinction. It is not necessarily at odds with the Catholic (Latin rite) doctrine, it is just saying thing the Latin rite has left to mystery, simply affirming the unity of God. The Orthodox doctrine says more than the Catholic doctrine, and the Catholic Church is a-ok with that! Catholics just don’t want to be forced to adopt a tradition they do not share without a council or some discussion. And honestly, many Catholics have some reasonable reservations about the essence/energies distinction. Nevertheless, officially, the Catholic Magisterium does not see these differences as something which prevents reunion. Nor does it see a lack of specifics concerning the purgatorial state a barrier. The traditions are not necessarily at odds, they just have different emphases. The Church, even before the schism, has always had different groups within the Church give different emphasis on doctrines and which have different traditions (small t) within the Church, or different schools of theology. What I have found, and something which Timothy Flanders says well, is that Orthodox often want to tell Catholics what the Catholic tradition is and should be. (I am assuming you have read Timothy’s great article on Devin’s blog? <a href="http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/">http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/11/26/an-eastern-orthodox-christian-looks-west/</a>) But if a Catholic says that the doctrine of aerial tollhouses is compatible with what he means by purgatory, or that he sees no contradiction with Catholic doctrine with the essence/energy distinction, but prefers to leave more mystery, I think Orthodox should give the benefit of the doubt. <br />
<br />
“The fact is, that in matters of ecumenical dialogue, talk of reaching consensus and points of agreement only serves to mask the very real theological differences that separate the Orthodox Churches from Roman Catholicism.”<br />
<br />
This saddens me and I couldn’t disagree more! In matters of ecumenical dialogue, talk of reaching consensus and points of agreement… in the Truth, should be what we are constantly doing! Not only between Catholic and Orthodox, but between Christians and non-Christians as well. This “talk of reaching consensus” does not by necessity mask anything. If he truly believes the Orthodox Church to be the true Church, which he no doubt does, how will he ever bring that truth to others who disagree if he does not try to reach a consensus with them? I am always puzzled when I hear this statement from Orthodox. I see it as a straw man view of ecumenism. There is good and bad ecumenism, the bad one wants agreement and unity without unity in the truth. The good kind wants unity and consensus in the truth. This does not “mask” anything. <br />
<br />
I must be more of a Catholic partisan than I thought, my appologies for that. because I was pretty frustrated by that Ancient Faith article. Almost every sentence I was saying “wait a minute, that’s not true”. One thing is for sure, I am not the best person to give a full defense of Catholic ecclesiology. And I certainly am no scholar. So I will just touch on a few points that really stood out and make a general comment as well.<br />
<br />
First the general comment: Many things he said about Catholic ecclesiology a Catholic would not agree with, or would certainly want stated in a different way, or with more nuance. I will give one example for the sake of brevity: <br />
<br />
“…Roman Catholics, however, use the term [catholic] to mean the universal Church, which to their minds, is the Church, proper.” <br />
<br />
No, that is not true. As I am accustomed to saying to Protestants, “It is both/and, not either/or”. Catholics also believe what he says, interpreting St. Ignatius as saying “when the people of God gather around their bishop in the same place to celebrate the Eucharist, there is the Catholic Church. There is Christ in all of his fullness. Nothing is lacking.”<br />
<br />
Catholics fully believe this! My Archbishop, who sits on the chair (cathedra) in the Cathedral of St. Paul, is the “the image of the father” (as St. Ignatius said) and has the highest office in the Catholic Church, and that where he is, with his priests and deacons and his Eucharist, that there is the Church in its fullness. Nothing is lacking, and if the rest of the world suddenly were destroyed, nothing would be lacking in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis to call it the Catholic Church. Not even the pope. Oh, sure, Archbishop Nienstedt would then become the pope, but the pope is just a bishop. <br />
<br />
And even as Clarck rightly points out in the article, Orthodox absolutely have a hierarchy of bishops (Bishop, Metropolitan, Patriarch) while at the same time the level of Holy Orders is the same for each*. In a similar way, Catholic hierarchy sees all bishops with equal authority, yet some have different functions based on the prominence of their diocese. I want to ask the author: If it is good for the Orthodox why is it bad for the Catholics? If, for the Orthodox, only a Metropolitan or Patriarch can do certain things within the government of the church, why is that wrong for Catholics? Nevertheless, my main point here is that I think he misstates the Catholic position. And calling our view of the papacy blasphemous is inflammatory. For Catholics, the term “Church” must include both what St. Ignatius says about the local Church, but also the universal “Church” in terms of individual “Churches” who are in communion with each other. The difference is that instead of merely one group of reference points which supposedly determine the “whole”, Catholics have that but also a single reference point which all others must be in communion with. This is very consistent with the fathers of the Church view of the apostolic see. It does not trump the unity of the episcopal college, but it must be present to have such a “whole” or “catholic” unity. <br />
<br />
And if the Orthodox do not think in terms of this second “universal” church, as Clark implies, then why do they refer to themselves as “THE Orthodox Church”? I think the Orthodox have a very healthy understanding of a hierarchy of Bishops while at the same time, having no hierarchy. They both are true at the same time, it just depends on what we are talking about. And the Catholic ecclesiology is no different in that respect. Bishops of greater sees can depose or excommunicate those of lesser sees, call councils, vet and approve decisions, and all sorts of things, all while being of the same, (highest office) rank of “Bishop” in another sense. An Orthodox bishop and an Orthodox “Patriarch” are of the same office and are the source of the same Eucharist. Yet they have different authority in matters of Church governance. So if this is a wrong form of ecclesiology for the Catholics, then it should be for the Orthodox as well. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
As far as his take on St. Cyprian, I completely disagree with his take. Let me suffice by encouraging you to read this article by Bryan Cross. <a href="http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/09/st-cyprian-on-the-unity-of-the-church/" target="_blank">http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/09/st-cyprian-on-the-unity-of-the-church/</a><br />
<br />
If you haven’t already, I highly recommend checking out Called to Communion. Particularly Bryan Cross. You can even email him privately, and I know he will respond, but feel free to leave comments on old posts and he will respond. I am no theologian! So things I say in this email will be less accurate and far less helpful than someone like Bryan Cross. Honestly, even just emailing or commenting to him with a short list of your top questions, you will not regret it. He will give you the authentic, best elucidated take on things from the Catholic point of view, and in a totally polite way. If you end up not being convinced by the Catholic arguments, please make sure that they are the best arguments--- and that they are arguments made by knowledgeable Catholics, not Orhtodox/Protestant glosses of those doctrines. By all means, read the glosses, but ask a Catholic like Cross “is this what Catholics believe? Or is there something missing?” At least then you can know you are making a totally imformed choice. <br />
<br />
One more personal addition to this already long letter. When I found myself up my epistemic creek looking for a paddle, I happened to be looking at all the articles on Called to Communion. So obviously the Catholic take on theings was strongly presented. I knew I needed some balance. So I personally corresponded with Keith Mathison for a while. If you havent heard of him, look him up. But he has the cutting edge Reformed book on sola Scriptura, and is quite qualified to defend the solas. I knew that if he couldn’t defend sola Scriptura, no one could. Of course I also read many books (written by Protestants) on sola Scriptura. This gave me confidence in future decisions knowing I had gone to the best sources. I also did this with Orthodoxy. I read Orthodox literature and talked with Orthodox folks. But again, I am no scholar. The best I can give you is a fireside chat type of discussion/testimony with most likely weak and self-serving proofs. Bryan Cross can cut through the BS and get to the root of stuff. I cannot recommend him enough.<br />
<br />
Sorry for the long letter again, peace to you and yours!<br />
<br />
*Or perhaps not, because he says a single Orthodox bishop cannot ordain? I didn’t realize the Orthodox believed that. My mind immediately raced to think of what a bishop is lacking in order to ordain? Catholics certainly do not believe that more than one bishop is needed to ordain.<br />
<br />
David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-22666021339167154932013-01-30T17:04:00.001-08:002013-01-30T17:06:11.854-08:00Militant Fecundity<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Gtt_EdbhNWs/UQnCeZACd2I/AAAAAAAAAiU/113vVgVPcSc/s1600/Duggars.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="237" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Gtt_EdbhNWs/UQnCeZACd2I/AAAAAAAAAiU/113vVgVPcSc/s320/Duggars.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Duggar Family</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"I am not convinced that we are in any very meaningful sense in the midst of a “culture war”; I think it might at best be described as a fracas. I do not say that such a war would not be worth waging. Yet most of us have already unconsciously surrendered to the more <br />
insidious aspects of modernity long before we even contemplate drawing our swords from their scabbards and inspecting them for rust. This is not to say that there are no practical measures for those who wish in earnest for the battle to be joined: homeschooling or private “trivium” academies; the disposal or locking away of televisions; prohibitions on video games and popular music; Greek and Latin; great books; remote places; archaic enthusiasms. It is generally wise to seek to be separate, to be in the world but not of it, to be no more engaged with modernity than were the ancient Christians with the culture of pagan antiquity; and wise also to cultivate in our hearts a generous hatred toward the secular order, and a charitable contempt. <strong><u>Probably the most subversive and effective strategy we might undertake would be one of militant fecundity: abundant, relentless, exuberant, and defiant childbearing. Given the reluctance of modern men and women to be fruitful and multiply, it would not be difficult, surely, for the devout to accomplish — in no more than a generation or two — a demographic revolution.</u></strong> Such a course is quite radical, admittedly, and contrary to the spirit of the age, but that is rather the point, after all. It would mean often forgoing certain material advantages, and forfeiting a great deal of our leisure; it would often prove difficult to sustain a two-career family or to be certain of a lavish retirement. But if it is a war we want, we should not recoil from sacrifice...."<br />
<br />
<em>David B. Hart is an Eastern Orthodox theologian </em><br />
<br />
This guy reads like a modern Chesterton. Read the rest <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/10/freedom-and-decency--12" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<em></em><br />David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-78426142784479430512012-11-09T12:46:00.001-08:002012-11-09T12:48:53.776-08:00Guess what this map is showing...<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IiP6veX7MWE/UJ1i_ZTbHhI/AAAAAAAAAfE/8Qi4DKzj7gs/s1600/Marriage+amendment+by+precinct.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="cssfloat: right; height: 291px; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; width: 616px;"><img border="0" height="320" rea="true" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-IiP6veX7MWE/UJ1i_ZTbHhI/AAAAAAAAAfE/8Qi4DKzj7gs/s320/Marriage+amendment+by+precinct.bmp" width="312" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
This is <a href="http://www.sos.state.mn.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=12124" target="_blank">a map</a> of the greater Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area here in Minnesota. The top left light colored blip is St. Cloud, the huge blip is the Twin Cities, with Mankato down in the bottom left. Take a moment and try to guess what the light and dark colors represent.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
...........</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
................</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Did you guess population? Well, I can't blame you for that very good guess, and to be fair, if I overlaid a population map, it would look almost identical. So what do the colors represent?</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e7oR6BWRjCo/UJ1jILpO6tI/AAAAAAAAAfM/fLGsy1RKyMs/s1600/untitledasdo;jeteiotu.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="147" rea="true" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-e7oR6BWRjCo/UJ1jILpO6tI/AAAAAAAAAfM/fLGsy1RKyMs/s400/untitledasdo;jeteiotu.bmp" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
They represent the level of degeneracy/sanity. Let me explain. We recently had a question on our ballot on whether to add a statement in our state constitution affirming that marriage as recognized by the state is between one man and one woman. Pretty simple right? </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The amendment did not pass.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
You see, the light colored areas apparently think marriage is an arangement that people define for themselves and their spouse, who apparently can be of the same sex, or a chimp, or 3 spouses, hell, why not a man and three chimps -who am I to decide- right!? Wrong. These people are insane. I just don't get it. When a culture looses its desire to live, and starts lying to itself on this grand of a scale, it can't last long. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
But what mystifies me is <strong>where</strong> these people live. They live in the higher populated areas. And not just the huge cities. Even my little town of Rockford, which is just a few thousand souls (which you can see on the map as the light colored blip in the south-east side of Wright county) had a below 50% "yes" vote. I am so ashamed of my town. But why oh why is every blip -big or small- of population so deranged? Every little hamlet I could think of, when I zoomed in on it is a lighter shade than the surrounding countryside. Is there something about living in proximity to other humans that makes us desire our own cultural destruction through gay marriage? </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Lord, have mercy on us.</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-84488419373257799752012-10-16T09:46:00.000-07:002013-03-18T05:00:04.870-07:00Orthodox Catholic Reunion: What will it NOT take? <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img height="299" id="il_fi" src="http://www.speroforum.com/site/article_images/sampleBenedictBartholomew.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding-bottom: 8px; padding-right: 8px; padding-top: 8px;" width="400" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Pope Benedict XVI and Eccumenical Patriarch Bartholomew</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-u3yrQNnILDo/UH2H32agjhI/AAAAAAAAAek/MBEIwVVTqwg/s1600/Religions+of+the+world+2012+by+David+Meyer.bmp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="464" nea="true" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-u3yrQNnILDo/UH2H32agjhI/AAAAAAAAAek/MBEIwVVTqwg/s640/Religions+of+the+world+2012+by+David+Meyer.bmp" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Chart of World Religions based on my own research</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In the chart above look at the grey blob at the top. Catholicism will not be reaching unity with Protestantism any time soon simply because there is no single Protestantism, and it continues to divide like a cancer cell. But what about Orthodoxy? They are true Churches in Catholic eyes, with all 7 sacraments being valid, and compared with other Christian groups they have rock solid unity. A unified "Cathodox" Church would be a great witness to the world, and would unite the 2 main Christian groups (51% Catholic + 11% Orthodox = 62%) into a true majority of Christians. But isnt there a lot that hold us back from unity?<br />
<br />
In this post, I dont want to focus on what we need to agree on for unity to take place. I think the two biggest items on that list are obviously going to take time and effort to work through. The question I think is helpful before getting to the "big 2" is this:<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">What will it <em><u>not</u></em> take to achieve unity?</span></strong><br />
<br />
In other words: All else being equal, will my pet issue prevent unity? One thing is for sure: It should not take agreement about beards to achieve unity. Yet believe it or not I have seen this argued about as a reason for continued separation. A "sign" of where the true Church is that Latin's trend toward no beards and Orthodox have them. Stupid, silly, ridiculous, bad reasoning, which completely ignores the Maronites and other "bearded" Eastern Catholics. We need to get beyond it. <br />
<br />
A few weeks ago I was chatting with an Orthodox co-worker. Let's call him "Nicholas" (And lest you think I am stereotyping, that really is his name!). For background, we are both "devout" in our respective traditions. I take my Catholicism deadly serious, as he does Orthodoxy. Although it is also his familys heritage, it is not merely that for him. He really cares about his faith. So our discussion gets around to distinctives of our respective "teams". Incorruptible saints bodies, quantity and types of saints, Holy Fire shooting from the Holy Sepulchre, marrying priests, monastic life, beards, ethnicity, nationalism, calendar differences, the Rosary, etc, etc. <br />
<br />
After quite a bit of that sort of back and forth (quite congenial I might add), I was struck with the realization that we never quite got around to discussing Papal Primacy or the Filioque. As someone who is very interested in reunion between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, I always find this situation somewhat depressing. It seems comparable to a troubled couple going to marriage counselling and on the top of the list of crucial discussion topics for potential reunion is:<br />
<br />
#1. Toothpaste tubes: Rolling or Squeezing?<br />
#2. Toilet seat: To leave up or put down.<br />
#3. Which is better: Mexican food or Thai food? <br />
<br />
<u>DUN DUN<strong> DUUUUN!</strong></u><br />
<br />
Misses the point eh? Perhaps instead of focusing on this meaningless stuff getting down to the real issues would be nice? Okay, so how to do that? I propose first using this same "non-issue" list as a starting point in narrowing the discussion. The guiding principle should be this:<br />
<br />
If issue X were the <u><strong>last issue on the table</strong></u> would it prevent reunion? And if not, forget discussing it.<br />
<br />
In other words, if the issues of papal primacy and filioque were resolved, and whatever else is deemed crucial to either side, and all that was left is issue X (beards for instance), would that issue prevent reunion? If the answer is "no", then please for goodness sake, let's ignore that issue from the get-go. So I propose we come up with a list which gives the many worthless, go-nowhere debates that would not and do not needfully separate Catholics and Orthodox. Keep in mind that some of these are worth discussing, and some are even fairly important, but they don't rise to the level of something that separates us from being in full communion with each other.<br />
<br />
I would start the list thusly:<br />
<br />
THINGS ORTHODOX AND CATHOLICS DO NOT NEED TO AGREE ON FOR REUNION:<br />
<strong>#1. Beards.</strong> Get over it. No sane Jesus loving Christian would prevent reuinion because of such a triviality.<br />
<strong>#2. Celibate priests.</strong> This is not a matter of dogma for Catholics, but merely the <em>practice</em> of the <em>latin rite</em> and <em>not</em> even the eastern rite Catholics such as the Maronites. And Orthodoxy would not need to change to accept this practice, they would merely need to allow some (latin rite) Catholics to continue this practice. And the fact that Orthodox priests may not remary, and that their bishops may not be married shows that they understand the latin reasoning to a degree, and should be able to respect and tolerate the Latin Rite on this discipline. <br />
<strong>#3. Charisms of religious orders</strong>. Some Orthodox criticize Catholic piety for having different religious orders with different callings, unlike the Orthodox who have a more singular vision of what religious life should be like. <br />
<strong>#4. Leavened or unleavened bread. </strong><br />
<strong>#5. Statues in the round vs. icons only.</strong><br />
<strong>#6. Different types of miracles.</strong> (Orthodox saints do not have stigmata, while some other miracles seem to only happen to Orthodox or Eastern Catholic saints, such as miracles of uncreated light appearing). Either way, let's agree that we both have holy ones who have miracles, and not disrespect the other side for it's differences.<br />
<strong>#7. Differences of devotional practices.</strong> This one actually get's me steamed up a little. I have heard Catholics roundly criticized by Orthodox for praying the Rosary or Stations of the Cross. Generally the critique is that prayer focusing on events is not spiritual enough, and the Orthodox are soooo much more spiritual in how they pray. This kind of attitude is toxic for everyone who touches it. Both sides have deep histories of very intense types of prayer, and getting into a spitting contest here is just petty. In defence of the Orthodox critics on this topic, I have often found that they have wrong information about Catholic practices anyway.<br />
<strong>#8. Calendar issues.</strong> Fact: There are three calendars in use among Orthodox churches who are in communion with each other: Julian, Revised Julian, and Gregorian. This fact should be the end of the discussion if this issue is brought up in the context of reunion. It is currently a controversy in Orthodoxy, and it can continue to be a controversy in a reunited Chruch. <br />
<strong>#9. Orthodox crabbing about "proselysing"</strong> in "their lands". Give me a break. If I, as a Catholic, lived in a majority Orthodox country (in Eastern Europe or Russia), I would need to go to a Church in communion with the pope. It is as simple as that. The presense of Catholic Churches in these areas is totally legit, and Orthodox need to get over it. Was the way they got there in some cases not a good way? Perhaps. But the fact is that Catholics who wish to recieve the Eucharist from priests in communion with the Apostolic See need somewhere to go. And the fact that Orthodox have churches in America and elsewhere shows that they do the same thing the Catholics have done, yet the Catholics don't gripe one bit about it. I am just fine with there being an Orthodox diocese in my area. Let's each make our case and let people decide which team is right.<br />
These a just a few things that it will <em>not</em> take to achieve unity. Unfortunaltely, that are often the ones most discussed as if they really are an impediment to unity. Anyone have any other items to add to the list?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-20948789828166454902012-10-12T08:51:00.001-07:002012-10-12T08:51:53.162-07:00The Medieval Mind<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The medieval mind is awesome. And personally I would say that humanity is on the slow slide downward since the 13th century. Look at our culture, be it architecture, theology, morality, music, literature, and even science (yes I went there), and a very good case can be made that humanity has not outdone the Middle Ages. In fact, in the case of architecture, I think it is not even up for debate. Shall I compare Chartres Cathedral to the signature architecture of today, which would have to be a Wal-Mart building, or the big box mega-church auditorium? We should be ashamed. Compare the following images and ask yourself where the focus is, and what kind of mind created each worship space.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><img height="640" id="il_fi" src="http://catholicexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Chartres-Cathedral-Candles.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding-bottom: 8px; padding-right: 8px; padding-top: 8px;" width="480" /></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-size: small;">Inside the Medieval mind.</span></strong><br />
Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Chartres, France, completed in 1250AD.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://emilypothast.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/2412866.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Lakewood Church - megachurch" class="size-full wp-image-3432" height="480" src="http://emilypothast.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/2412866.jpg?w=497" title="Lakewood Church - megachurch" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-size: small;">Inside the Modern mind.</span></strong><br />
Lakewood Church and zombie thunderdome, Houston, TX. Completed... who cares.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">On a personal level, I love the era because I *get* their thinking better than 21st century thinking. I did a bit of reading today in <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=CcpJAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false" target="_blank"><em>Religious art in France, XIII century: a study in mediaeval iconography and its Sources of Inspiration by Émile Mâle</em></a><em> </em>(Which you can read online for free btw). </span><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">It is a fascinating peek into the medieval mind, to whom, to sum up the intro to the book, the whole world is a symbol. Here is a excerpt with my bolded emphasis:</span> </div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; line-height: 115%;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">The author of the Bestiary, whoever he may have been, must have drawn largely on his imagination. The traditional symbolism founded on the Bible gave him little help, for the animals of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Physiologus</i> are fabulous monsters like the griffin, the phoenix and the unicorn, or animals of India unknown to the Old Testament, and he had of necessity to invent most of the moral interpretations accompanying his descriptions of animals. His symbolism was accounted none the less excellent, and was accepted without criticism through the Middle Ages. It occurred to no one, moreover, to verify the accuracy of stories in the bestiary. In the Middle Ages the idea of a thing which a man framed for himself was always more real to him than the actual thing itself, and we see why these mystical centuries had no conception of what men now call science. <strong>The study of things for their own sake held no meaning for the thoughtful man. How could it be otherwise when the universe was conceived as an utterance of the Word of which every created thing was a single word?</strong> <strong>The task of the student of nature was to discern the eternal truth that God would have each thing to express, and to find in each creature an adumbration of the drama of the Fall and the Redemption.</strong> Even Roger Bacon, the most scientific spirit of the thirteenth century, after describing the seven coverings of the eye, concluded that by such means God had willed to express in our bodies an image of the seven gifts of the spirit.</span></span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">I think there is profound wisdom here that has been lost. We sure don't see the world this way anymore. If there is anything our age will be known for once it has passed from the earth, it will not be our search for meaning in the universe. Oh sure, we might be able to describe (to some degree) how the physics how light is both particle and wave, or how Kryptonite has so many and such electrons in its valence field, but who cares? What we as humans long to know is <em>why</em>. And we long to know what the creator is telling us through His creation. And that longing is something modern "science" laughs to scorn.</span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: Times;">At the foot of one of the side altars at the front of my Church is a pelican tearing at its chest so as to feed its blood to its brood gathered around. Something like this:</span></div>
<br /><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<img height="320" id="il_fi" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__zYu2MdAxIk/S88m6qelwaI/AAAAAAAAEKI/q_V5jIJL4JY/s320/pelican.gif" style="padding-bottom: 8px; padding-right: 8px; padding-top: 8px;" width="297" /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: Times;">The modern mind looks at this and laughs, because of course we now know pelicans don't <em>actually</em> do this in the wild, like the silly medievals thought, so we have really advanced from the old superstitions they were beholden to. </span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: Times;">But the medieval mind doesn't care if the fable is true or not, -the modern mind has missed the entire point- and in their "wisdom" has become as fools. Because the whole world is a symbol, we should see the pelicans action pointing us to Christ, who feeds us with his blood, which he says is real drink indeed (Jn. 6:55). Does it matter that a phoenix may not have existed? If you think it does, then you are a fool. You have missed a beautiful lesson about the Resurrection. And what I find ironic is that modern science has found these animals*, yet modern man ignores their significance. </span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: Times;">The difference is not one of scientific ability, as modern men might think, but it is one of philosophy, and specifically teleology (purpose). If medeival people had cared to know for sure if gryphons or unicorns or the pelican story were real, they could have easily examined the question. But for them it would be a worthless question. Because whether the pelican feeds its young of its own blood or not is not what matters. What maters is that Christ feeds us, and that the creation itself speaks of this feeding if we would just pay attention. What a wonderful world God has placed us in if we would only humbly look.</span></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<span style="font-family: Times;">*Off the top of my head, I think of frogs who bury themselves in mud and are dead in a kind of hybernation, then when rain comes they come alive ala the phoenix. Or the many animals who sacrifice their life for their young, often even giving their own body as food, as Christ does for us. </span></div>
</span><br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-49685648348683622282012-09-24T10:04:00.000-07:002012-09-24T10:04:11.339-07:00Yet Another Reformed Bigshot Renounces the Reformation<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fnbTqHHE_GA/UGCLqfZqtXI/AAAAAAAAAeM/e-DviwpSzCQ/s1600/jasonpreaching+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="height: 213px; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; width: 183px;"><img border="0" hea="true" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fnbTqHHE_GA/UGCLqfZqtXI/AAAAAAAAAeM/e-DviwpSzCQ/s1600/jasonpreaching+2.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The tide is turning... (cue Lord of the Rings type ominous music)</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The Church, as She always has done, is winning... (slow-mo shot of pope offering the Eucharist at mass) </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
As the cobbled together raft of Evangelicalism <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html" target="_blank">sinks before our eyes</a>, with vapid emergentism on the starboard, and Purpose Drivel Life on the port, with wide-eyed, happy clappy Pentecostalism and every-man-a-pope fundamentalism filling the hold, Reformed Theology seems to beckon as the solid, traditional refuge from the theological anarchy engulfing global Protestantism. The problem for Reformed theology is, that when you give people an inch of authentic tradition, they will take a mile. And that mile means becomming Catholic or Orthodox. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Jason Stellman, who PCA and Reformed types will know as the prosecutor of the Peter Leithart heresy trial, and as a young up-and-comer in the Reformed world, has entered into full communion with the Catholic Church. Please read his brief article on Called to Communion titled "<a href="http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/09/i-fought-the-church-and-the-church-won/" target="_blank">I fought the Church and the Church Won</a>". (man, that is a clever title!).</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
I will try not to be triumphalistic here...</div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
It is really hard not to. Bear with me... </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
WOOOO HOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!</div>
Ok thanks for letting me do that.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l3sbfRStjSs/UGCLjrFWy6I/AAAAAAAAAeE/xp64HrApaNs/s1600/stellman+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; cssfloat: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" hea="true" height="316" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l3sbfRStjSs/UGCLjrFWy6I/AAAAAAAAAeE/xp64HrApaNs/s320/stellman+2.jpg" width="320" /></a><a href="http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/4/2/2/4/member_25576932.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" hea="true" src="http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/4/2/2/4/member_25576932.jpeg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: center;"><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
This guy looks like a cool cat. I would love to share a hookah and some scotch with him. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Perhaps read some poetry or talk about how the new Star Wars movies suck.</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
As a former PCA guy, let me just say that it gives me a lot of comfort to know that all these smart guys are coming over to the Church. I mean, I would still be here if they didn't keep coming, but seeing them come, and reading their arguments and reasoning for their choice really bring me much peace about my decision. I find it so fascinating that his crucial "breaking point" issue was Sola Fide. Mine was Sola Scriptura, and for him S.S. was important too, but the lack of biblical and historical evidence for forensic imputation (which is what sola fide boils down to in it's essence) seems to be what really did it for him. Is the dunghill still dungy yet covered with snow? Or does God transform the dung into snow? That is the Protestant/Catholic paradigm difference in a nutshell, and unfortunately for the Protestant position, scripture and history know nothing of forensic imputation. Facts is facts.
<br />
This man is giving up his pastorate (his job), and really has nothing worldly to gain by this choice. Much of his Reformed schooling will be of little employment value now. He has a wife and kids. You got to respect a man willing to give everything to follow Christ.<br />
<br />
So please pray for him, and Catholics reading could offer their next mass intention for him.<br />
<br />
David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-81278395704080374942012-07-26T08:27:00.000-07:002012-07-26T08:27:07.936-07:00Archbishop to speak at man night<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.catholicmannight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cropped-Man-Night_Color-42-198.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" border="0" height="198" src="http://www.catholicmannight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/cropped-Man-Night_Color-42-198.jpg" width="940" /></a></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
I just got this email from the local Catholic Men's group here in the western X-urbs of the Twin Cities. Anyone reading this who is within range of attending (or even if you arent), whether Catholic or not, please attend and stand in solidarity with Archbishop Nienstedt on this issue. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Dear Brothers in Christ, <br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Next Thursday, August 2, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. there will be a special CatholicManNight at the Church of St. Michael in St. Michael. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
We will be gathering to hear Archbishop Nienstedt teach about Jesus Christ - Defender of the Family. This is a particularly timely and important topic as we prepare for the Marriage Protection Amendment vote in November 2012. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Please help us get the word out for this event! We pray for a large outpouring of support for our courageous Archbishop. </div>
</blockquote>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
<br /> </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
The Catholic <a href="http://www.catholicmannight.com/?page_id=35">Man Night</a> is a great thing. There is a well put together message given by a priest (or in this case an Archbishop!), confession, and there are always ample priests on hand so everyone has a chance. There is adoration during that time followed by benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and then a meal. The whole experience is one of quiet interior reflection on how we are living our vocations as men, whether called to marriage, holy orders, or singleness. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Archbishop Nienstedt rocks. <img height="300" id="il_fi" src="http://thecatholicspirit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/global_nienstedt.jpg" style="padding-bottom: 8px; padding-right: 8px; padding-top: 8px;" width="220" /> </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
He has been out front protecting marriage in this state, and he is very orthodox. I can't wait to hear him next week. I think I will bring a crucifix or statue for him to bless as well. </div>
<div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
Directions to the Church of St. Michael can be found <a href="http://www.stmcatholicchurch.org/">here.</a> </div>David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-84559013820150008512012-07-12T07:23:00.000-07:002012-07-12T07:23:33.283-07:00Will There Be Zombies? Look around.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hiC0ymoqt2k/T_7ct45OasI/AAAAAAAAAdg/VtCEsi1utj0/s1600/Zombies.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img $ca="true" border="0" height="212" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hiC0ymoqt2k/T_7ct45OasI/AAAAAAAAAdg/VtCEsi1utj0/s320/Zombies.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
I love Zombie shows. <em>The Walking Dead</em> on AMC has been my surprise favorite viewing entertainment of the last several years. And even he movie <em>Zombieland</em> strikes more than a funnybone. There is some underlying truth that makes it so funny and entertaining. I have often wondered <em>why</em> we love zombie stories though. I think these shows (particularly <em>The Walking Dead</em>) are the most culturally relevant art available at the moment. They are relevant because they are true. What follows is an excerpt from an article with some of the most profound social commentary I have ever read. It answers my question about zombies better than anyone (including myself) has yet done, and it has an extended prophecy of the coming collapse, its causes, and what we can do to be prepared. It is sobering yet encouraging.<br />
<br />
From <em>Will There Be Zombies?</em> by <a href="http://distributistreview.com/mag/author/john-mdaille/" rel="author" title="Posts by John Médaille">John Médaille</a>:<br />
<br /><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
...it is often so that popular culture, guided only by its intuitive and communal wisdom, sees what can’t be seen, but is nevertheless real. But having gained some trust in that, I was still confused by the rather odd phenomenon of the zombies. Why did this rather obscure Caribbean cult of people in a drug-induced catatonic state get so easily transformed into such an elaborate metaphor of the post-apocalyptic world? And why did they think that the world after the collapse would be filled with people stripped of their souls, stripped of all feelings, whether of pain or pleasure, anger or joy, who spent their time relentlessly pursuing one product?<br />
<br />
<br />
And then it struck me: they aren’t looking into the future, they are looking at the present moment; and they aren’t looking at what will be done to others; they are looking at what has already been done to themselves. The image, so silly on its face, resonates with the young because they know, at some intuitive level, that we are already in the midst of the apocalypse, that the world wishes to strip them of their minds and their hearts and make them pure consumers, and relentless consumers of one product, the advertiser’s dream. They know, in their heart of hearts, that the world is out to get them, and means them no good. They have seen a deeper truth than anyone cares to admit.<br />
<br />
And what they have seen is something for which there is no parallel in history. Literature and the arts have always had, as their purpose, the transmission to the young of the most important values of a culture; they were the means of initiating the young into their own history, of telling them their own story. But never in history have such vast engines of persuasion and manipulation had, as their sole purpose, the degradation of the young, the stripping them of their minds and spirits; never has any society deliberately dedicated so much energy and wealth to corrupting its own young, to sacrificing its children to the idol of mindless consumption. There have been, to be sure, periods of bad literature and awful art, but even the worst was done with the best of intents; its purpose was never deliberate degradation for mere commercial advantage. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States has once again affirmed that the organized corruption of the young is a commercial right, even as it has affirmed in the past that exposing them to prayer in the classroom would be a violation of their rights. No civilization has ever committed such crimes against its own children.<br />
<br />
Or perhaps there is a precedent. The Carthaginians, under siege from the Romans in 146 BC thought they could revive their fortunes by sacrificing their children; 300 children were thrown into a furnace to the god Moloch, but the city fell anyway, the inhabitants were sold into slavery, and the ground sowed with salt so that nothing would grow there, so deep was the Roman revulsion with the city. <em>Carthago delenda est</em>, and no city more deserved its fate.<br />
<br />
But what of our fate? Have we not, in a way, committed the same crime to be condemned to the same fate? Have we not condemned our children to be sacrificed to the fires of a commercial Moloch, and must we not suffer a fate much worse than Carthage? Well, after all of this, I have a rather odd message: be of good cheer. We can get through this; we can do this, and perhaps it is only us, and people very much like us, who can do it. I believe that if we keep our wits and our faith about us, we can show our neighbors how to live—once we relearn the art ourselves.<br />
<br />
We start by asking what happens in a collapse. ...</blockquote>
Read the full article <a href="http://distributistreview.com/mag/2011/08/will-there-be-zombies/">here.</a><br />
<br />David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-83780285237585309482012-07-06T05:48:00.000-07:002012-07-06T05:48:18.437-07:00The Four Sins that Cry to Heaven (And USA's report card)Dr. Taylor Marshall has a great post that comes just in time for the 4th of July season. I like his take on politics. For instance he does not believe the HHS mandate is really a freedom issue, but thinks we should be proclaiming the gospel instead:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Is Religious Freedom a God given right and if so, what are its limits? That is, should I pray my Rosary so that Satanists have the protected human right to practice Satanism? Are we merely asking for a toleration of our beliefs or should we be speaking with the voice of Christ and the holy martyrs against an evil empire. Should we be on offense or defense?</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Read that post of his <a href="http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2012/02/were-missing-opportunity-why-obama.html" target="_blank">here.</a> <br />
<br />
And yesterday he had another post right in line with that one concerning the true state of our nation which lists the 4 sins that cry to heaven in Scripture, and gives our nation a report card. Here is an excerpt:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
According to the Holy Spirit speaking through the Holy Scriptures, there are four sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
From the Douay Catholic Catechism of 1649<br />
CHAPTER XX - The sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance<br />
Q. 925. HOW many such sins are there?<br />
A. Four.<br />
Q. 926. What is the first of them?<br />
A. ........</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Ok, now thast you are interested, <a href="http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2012/07/four-sins-that-cry-to-heaven-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+taylormarshall+%28Canterbury+Tales+by+Taylor+Marshall%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher" target="_blank">go read the post for yourself</a>. <br />David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-23495585849321391132012-07-05T07:13:00.002-07:002012-07-05T07:13:24.213-07:00Catholics: Acid in Uncle Sam's Belly<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Y6cxLaZlLaE/T_WfRchBD-I/AAAAAAAAAdU/nh2geVDlSHs/s1600/Riots1844staugestine-thumb-400x214-274.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="171" sca="true" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Y6cxLaZlLaE/T_WfRchBD-I/AAAAAAAAAdU/nh2geVDlSHs/s320/Riots1844staugestine-thumb-400x214-274.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Burning of St. Augustine's Church in the 1844 Philadelphia Bible Riots</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I want to link to a <a href="http://forgottenaltars.blogspot.com/2012/07/hhs-mandate-fourth-of-july-time-of.html" target="_blank">great article about Catholics in the US</a> from the blog Forgotten Altars. The author makes the case that Catholics will always be acid in the belly of Uncle Sam, particularly the older, fatter, and more cranky he gets (these are my words not his). My take is that yes, we need to fight these "battles" like the homosexual marriage and HHS mandate stuff. But let's not kid ourselves. This country's fate was sealed when the good guys lost the civil war, and it will end the way all empires end... with coliseums and killing of Catholics. I think the final death throes are as much as a century or so in the future, but we need to be prepared for this eventuality. Don't get me wrong, I love America. This is still probably the greatest nation on earth. But as Chesterton has said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<span class="st">My country, right or wrong is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying My mother, drunk or sober."</span></blockquote>
<span class="st">There comes a point where our patriotism becomes entirely something that looks back... to what our country once was, and to the men who in days past have died for it. But when increasingly our country ceases to resemble the former one, and our primary freedoms are taken from us, it gets harder and harder to wave the flag out of anything but mere nostalgia. </span><span class="st"></span>David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-88861276083627355182012-06-29T07:00:00.001-07:002012-06-29T07:00:25.043-07:00Of chimp poop and men[What follows is a exchange I had with a friend by email. After patting myself on the back after reading my excellent use of the term "chimp poop' in a sentence for the first time in my life, I figured I would share this]<br />
<br />
[My friend:]<br />
"Joe S [Soucheray] doesn't have much to do with it, but I find his complaints ring hollow because he is always blaming 'liberals', without seeing that his belief system leads to similar outcomes."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[Me:]<br />
I agree. I stopped listening to him years and years ago because his Republicrat country club psuedo-conservatism was retarded. <br />
<br />
I want to make 2 points to you.<br />
<br />
1) Look, I understand wanting to see the "fruit" of a religion. There is nothing wrong with wanting to see how members of a religion live out their lives and judging, to at least some degree, their religion by their actions. So I agree with you to a point there. So does the Catholic Church. The marks of the Church to us are different than for Reformed. One of those marks is that the Church is Holy, along with One, Catholic, and Apostolic. So yes, holines does have to be a mark of the Church. But even in the new Testament we see poor behaviour even among the Apostles. So of course when we say the Church is holy, that does not mean impeccable, and if that impossible standard of impeccability does not apply even to the Apostles withing the writings of the New Testament, they we can't expect it to apply now. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
2) Follow my train of thought. I think we can agree on the following points:<br />
<br />
1. All people in all religions sin and do dumb stuff.<br />
2. Catholics are people in a religion.<br />
3. Angicans are people in a religion.<br />
4. Presbyterians are people in a religion. Etc, etc.<br />
5. These groups not being impeccable does not disprove the validity of their religion, unless their being impeccable is a doctrine of their religion.<br />
6. None of these groups have a stated doctrine or dogma that they will be impeccable. <br />
<br />
Ok, so I think we can agree on those points, right?<br />
<br />
So, why all the fuss about Catholics being sinners from you? And not only that, but connecting it to the validity of Catholicism in general? I can see if you decided to leave Christianity because of hypocrisy and sin among Christians, but to sit over in the Anglican/Reformed corner of the Christian room and throw your chimp poop on the Catholics for being sinners is just shameful. Take a look in the mirror dude, we all suck. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eNPi5VHH7vw/T-2v6_tDSTI/AAAAAAAAAcs/u-NNgCMbMwM/s1600/monkeys_fling_poo1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="198" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eNPi5VHH7vw/T-2v6_tDSTI/AAAAAAAAAcs/u-NNgCMbMwM/s320/monkeys_fling_poo1.jpg" vca="true" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
So I see a big inconsistency in your problem/argument with Catholicism. If sin disproves Catholicism in the way you seem to think it does, then it should also disprove Christianity in general. But yet you do not reject Christianity in general. So do you see where it seems to me you are inconsistent?<br />
<br />
In the Catholic Catechism, check out 823 to 829 and read for yourself what we believe about the holiness of the Church.<a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#II">http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#II</a><br />
<br />
Particularly 828 and 829 explain it well. And most of the whole section could be afirmed by me before I was Catholic (other than the bit about canonizing saints). The saints are how the Church exibits the holiness promised it by God. Again, this is not really disagreed upun between Prots and Catholics. We both agree the Church is holy, and we both agree the Church has sinners in it. So again, I just don't know what you think you acomplish by pointing out Catholic failings (or percieved failings as sometimes you have done)? Yes it is a scandal for Christians to sin, but this does not disprove the holines of Christ's Church, however that Church might be concieved of in it's organization.<br />
<br />
Along with this point, I want to also say that you are really being one sided in your pointing out the faults of Catholics. Yes there are sinners, but there are saints too. Many thousands of saints! There are great and holy reformers like St. Francis who revolutionized the Church and really cleaned house, bringing much needed renewal. And St. Catherine of Sienna who boldly stood up to the pope and cowed him into doing the right thing. Both of these reformers didnt change any dontrine, they just helped the Church to live up to what it already believed. These are two examples among many. Waht about all the monestaries filled with quiet people spending a life in prayer and solitude? <br />
<br />
Ever seen the indie film Into Great Silence? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUYjqp5PDdc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUYjqp5PDdc</a><br />
These men arent sinless, but please, they are holy people who have given everything for Christ and exibit the holiness of the Church! Even in modern times, who can bring a charge against Bl. Mother Teresa or St. Padre Pio? These are holy people who exibit Christ to the world. And yes, I would include many Protestants I have known too who are just visibly holy people. You can almost feel it being in the same room that they are so full of Christ they are bursting. This is the holiness that is a mark of the Church. I believe the Catholic Church has that holiness, and I wouldnt argue with even my Pentecostal brother if he were to say that his denomination was the true Church based on some of it's holy men and women. I have seen Pentecostals that looked like they had a halo they were so holy. I have seen a few Reformed women that did as well. And I have seen more Catholics like that than any. Perhaps because Catholics are more numerous, whatever. My point is that the Church is holy, and if you atack the Catholic Church for it's sin, you are proving too much, because you are atacking whatever Christian group you are a part of too at the same time. If Catholicism is false because of it's sinners, then your denomination is false too. <br />
<br />
The Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world. Period. Does that say anything to you? Do you know the bishops conference in the US (USCCB) has a "Fortnight of Freedom" going on right now in every diocese in the US for Christians to show their displeasure with government removal of our freedoms? Have you seen Cardinal Dolan recently in the media talking trash on Obama? Do you know that <a href="http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26957" target="_blank">ALL ~188 bishops in the USA, yes, every single one of them</a>, came out personally, publicly and in writing AGAINST at least the abortion/contraception mandate and most against Obamacare in general? That is not bad. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-l0UuhWmwRy8/T-2yDaV6AGI/AAAAAAAAAc8/oCtP3_GQoz8/s1600/bishops.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-l0UuhWmwRy8/T-2yDaV6AGI/AAAAAAAAAc8/oCtP3_GQoz8/s320/bishops.jpg" vca="true" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Not a clipped haired lesbian in the bunch.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Did you know Communism, according to oficial Catholic doctrine, is not a valid form of government, and that John Paul 2 was instrumental (with Reagan) in bringing the beast to it's knees? Do you know that the central, underlying principle of Catholic economic theory that must be present in any governmet is privatye ownership of property? That is not negotiable for Catholics. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f8T8YO6Pdm4/T-2xOF1uP_I/AAAAAAAAAc0/mA_RRI7DL94/s1600/trickle%2520down%2520economics_preview.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="241" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f8T8YO6Pdm4/T-2xOF1uP_I/AAAAAAAAAc0/mA_RRI7DL94/s320/trickle%2520down%2520economics_preview.jpg" vca="true" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">This pic has nothing to do with this post. Now back to your regularly scheduled rambling.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Did you know that many of the Catholic politicians you have criticized are already excommunicated, either by decree or by latae sententiae excommunication? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae<br />
Kathlean Sebalius herself has been excommunicated in her home dioces and in D.C? And Nancy Pelosi was recently denied a photo op with the Pope and instead he privately lectured her for 15 minutes, giving her an excommunication warning. <br />
<br />
Do I wish the bishops did more? Yeah. But they are doing some things, and they are getting better and more faithful as each year goes by and the hippie ones die off. The members of the Church arent perfect. But the Church is holy. <br />
<br />
So...<br />
<br />
Will you please admit that bringing sins of Catholics to light does not show the Catholic Church to be false? <br />
<br />
Sorry you didnt get your job. Perhaps you should learn some farming skills and head out to the hills somewhere. That's my plan!<br />
<br />
-DavidDavid Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-70811151373140075042012-06-20T08:11:00.000-07:002012-06-20T08:11:16.135-07:00Pope Benedict XVI on Agricultural Work<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EaTawHeRwgM/T-HmXuVTR7I/AAAAAAAAAcg/DldbHfdxiSA/s1600/B16.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" rca="true" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EaTawHeRwgM/T-HmXuVTR7I/AAAAAAAAAcg/DldbHfdxiSA/s1600/B16.jpg" /></a></div>
"It is essential to cultivate and spread a clear ethic that is up to the task of addressing current challenges: Everyone should educate themselves in more wise and responsible consumption; promote personal responsibility, along with the social dimension of rural activities, which are based on perennial values, such as hospitality, solidarity, and the sharing of the toil of labor. More than a few young people have already chosen this path; also many professionals are returning to dedicate themselves to the agricultural enterprise, feeling that they are responding not only to a personal and family need, but also to a "sign of the times," to a concrete sensibility for the "common good."<br />
<br />
Let us pray to the Virgin Mary that these reflections can serve as a stimulus to the international community, while we give our thanks to God for the fruits of the earth and the work of man."<br />
<br />
Pope Benedict XVI<br />
<br />
NOV. 14, 2010<br />
From an address titled: <br />
<strong>On Agricultural Work</strong> <br />
(His full statement <a href="http://www.zenit.org/article-30955?l=english" target="_blank">here</a>)David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-2130751716883033382012-06-18T10:55:00.000-07:002012-06-18T10:55:06.468-07:00A new Christendom by connecting to the soilGreat thoughts from Kevin Ford at the <a href="http://www.thecatholiclandmovement.org/2012/06/works-of-god-and-works-of-man.html" target="_blank">Catholic Land Movement</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"...we need families to return and nurture her [the land] for the sake of future generations. So it is that we need others who see, as Pope Pius XII saw, that "The farm is the ideal nursery for the family." <br />
<br />
<br />
A connection to the soil is a connection to our beginning and our end. It is a constant meditation on the first and last things. It is a connection to the reality of our own powerlessness in the face of life, and leads us to a greater trust in Divine Providence. Here we learn to number our days aright as season leads to season, and we begin to see that it is God who is in control of all things. When things don't go right we look up to God and say with Job: "I have received good things from the Lord and ought I not to accept evil things as well? " This connection to the soil is vital for any civilization and is one that when lost leads to catastrophic results. Such was the case with every civilization. With the degrading of the soil comes the degrading of society. We must seek to rebuild a new civilization by returning to the soil. There we see that from which we are made and that to which we will return. There we will work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and earn our bread by the sweat of our brows. It is a humbling and difficult task, but one that many more are called to."</blockquote>
Build the farm, to build the family, to build the culture. With God's grace going before our efforts, it really does seem this simple folks. Keep it up Kevin.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-75572201323234732042012-06-16T13:27:00.001-07:002012-06-16T13:27:50.099-07:00Baby Steps Towards Christendom: Step #5: Plant some foodHere are some pics of my garden as of this morning:<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7P-8dAydnC8/T9zWT6HbfMI/AAAAAAAAAZc/-ZuN-PNPSCo/s1600/Photo0028.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7P-8dAydnC8/T9zWT6HbfMI/AAAAAAAAAZc/-ZuN-PNPSCo/s320/Photo0028.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">~36 bags. ~30 different veggies and herbs.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1FfLnpoqskA/T9zWfmRGmkI/AAAAAAAAAZk/BkPXEGJwYQE/s1600/Photo0027.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1FfLnpoqskA/T9zWfmRGmkI/AAAAAAAAAZk/BkPXEGJwYQE/s320/Photo0027.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Notice the irrigation timer in the corner. I zip tied it to a cheap plastic fence post. The town home does not have water out back!!! So I had to run a hose through the house from a shower head through a window- no simple feat. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OYqWDEXT7To/T9zWggDBUnI/AAAAAAAAAZs/Dwv_FOcBKIA/s1600/Photo0026.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OYqWDEXT7To/T9zWggDBUnI/AAAAAAAAAZs/Dwv_FOcBKIA/s320/Photo0026.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Front row here has broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts. In the back you see a big Jalapeno plant I got for cheaper than the value of the jalapenos that were on the plant... so sad. Also cukes, Japanese eggplant, echinacea and black cherry toms in the back.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EwrpG4VkdcU/T9zWh4nVfZI/AAAAAAAAAZ0/ZQXNC_PhSBc/s1600/Photo0025.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EwrpG4VkdcU/T9zWh4nVfZI/AAAAAAAAAZ0/ZQXNC_PhSBc/s320/Photo0025.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Back row: Alaska peas growing about 6 inches a day, beans struggling after transplant, Nasturtiums in front of eggplant, young tomatoes. Front row: Bug eaten lettuce, 6 kinds of herbs.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fpGJ6zKqSqc/T9zWkHXnTPI/AAAAAAAAAaE/FAC5R-LBNm0/s1600/Photo0024.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fpGJ6zKqSqc/T9zWkHXnTPI/AAAAAAAAAaE/FAC5R-LBNm0/s320/Photo0024.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Back row: second from left is something I am excited about: Willamette hops. Yes, as in for making beer. The trellis for these goes up to my living room window on the second floor! I hope they get that high. To the right there is a 6ft steel fence post with three hanging bags or strawberries, green peppers, and tomatoes. You can just some of the drip line going to the top bag. This fencepost system is SOLID and works really well for a small space and I will be doing more of it next year. Also putting it in front of the lettuce for shade was planned.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8X39jzXofDU/T9zWlt7O57I/AAAAAAAAAaM/Ww3lygrqVQc/s1600/Photo0023.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8X39jzXofDU/T9zWlt7O57I/AAAAAAAAAaM/Ww3lygrqVQc/s320/Photo0023.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">You get the idea. More tomatoes and some chard I just planted yesterday from seed. Oh, and my Bonsai tree hanging out on the right getting in on the drip irrigation action.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-P8n-t14wneo/T9zWmTsQnmI/AAAAAAAAAaU/nNy3bezZWCc/s1600/Photo0022.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-P8n-t14wneo/T9zWmTsQnmI/AAAAAAAAAaU/nNy3bezZWCc/s320/Photo0022.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From left wall to right wall my townhouse space is only 30' wide. The bags are on landscaping rocks which go out 3' from the wall. So all the usable ground space would be maybe be 100 sqft including the sides. I am using 36 grow bags which are 1.57 sqft. apiece for a total "dirt surface area" of 57 sqft in a total garden area of ~80 sqft. If this were in a raised bed style garden, it would be the equivalent of a 4'X14' raised bed, which is really not all that much. But it sure seems like a jungle to me! (And my neighbors!) What is weird is that there is unused space! And the vertical fencepost system (which I hadn't really planned on doing) is supporting 30 plants in a space of about 1.5 sqft! If I had another dozen of those posts, this garden would be ridiculously space efficient.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NM0RwJa8TtA/T9zkkCpOPwI/AAAAAAAAAcI/_EiIfc3M9cs/s1600/Photo0011.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NM0RwJa8TtA/T9zkkCpOPwI/AAAAAAAAAcI/_EiIfc3M9cs/s320/Photo0011.jpg" width="240" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Here it is in April. My kids were quite interested in the whole thing.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ER9DyFPhE24/T9zWvVZhisI/AAAAAAAAAbc/CcGRkEl5bP8/s1600/Photo0010.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ER9DyFPhE24/T9zWvVZhisI/AAAAAAAAAbc/CcGRkEl5bP8/s320/Photo0010.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Filling the bags was probably the most labor intensive thing so far. My mix was 1 part Vermiculite, 2 parts peat, and 3 parts composted manure. 1, 2, 3, easy. I mixed it on a big tarp and measured with a 5 gallon pail. It was nice to do this on cold April days.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ktUJB_vSIY0/T9zWpn9VHYI/AAAAAAAAAas/1nlYMIAGWmc/s1600/Photo0014.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ktUJB_vSIY0/T9zWpn9VHYI/AAAAAAAAAas/1nlYMIAGWmc/s320/Photo0014.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Baby hops rhizome from a month ago in back, broccoli or brussels in front. You can see the drip tubing. I have it set to water in the morning. I found that the water in the tubing gets super hot, which would kill plants I bet, so I make sure to water in the morning when the water will have cooled.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K3iY063JeBs/T9zWqaa3Z9I/AAAAAAAAAa0/gW6jG-uWTuY/s1600/Photo0013.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K3iY063JeBs/T9zWqaa3Z9I/AAAAAAAAAa0/gW6jG-uWTuY/s320/Photo0013.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Drip tubing half installed.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Yo_vcntjvdI/T9zWze-A5RI/AAAAAAAAAbs/_RmXxzYLHQ4/s1600/0512121821-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Yo_vcntjvdI/T9zWze-A5RI/AAAAAAAAAbs/_RmXxzYLHQ4/s320/0512121821-01.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">~month ago</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DHVGo7-jF3A/T9zWz0gbb3I/AAAAAAAAAb0/5Ih0ZSjWBfM/s1600/0512121821-00.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DHVGo7-jF3A/T9zWz0gbb3I/AAAAAAAAAb0/5Ih0ZSjWBfM/s320/0512121821-00.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Farmer Dave</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
What is interesting about this garden (if I do say so myself!) is that I live in a townhome. This means that I have like... no space to garden. I think if I asked the association (who takes care of all the common areas in my neighborhood) they would say I shouldn't even have this garden. Which is precisely why I didn't ask them! ;-)<br />
Also because I don't actually own any of the land, I decided to do something which could be removed. I wanted to build a raised bed, but I knew as soon as the last screw went into the bed that I would be told to get rid of it all. So... I started looking for something more portable. There are lots of options! At first, I thought of doing something like the <a href="http://www.smartpots.com/big-bag-bed" target="_blank">Big Bag Bed</a> from the Smart Pot company. These smart pots are awesome. They are fabric, so obviously portable, and they breathe, and help regulate heat, but also they are expensive. <br />
I looked at hard plastic pots and all sorts of things, but finally I opted for some <a href="http://www.htgsupply.com/Product-10-Gallon-Grow-Bags.asp" target="_blank">plastic grow bags</a> that ended up being about 60 cents apiece! <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wUz0rvwv38I/T9zrPF0G4wI/AAAAAAAAAcU/VrKueqZNw6Y/s1600/10_Gallon_Grow_Bags.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wUz0rvwv38I/T9zrPF0G4wI/AAAAAAAAAcU/VrKueqZNw6Y/s200/10_Gallon_Grow_Bags.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
They are thick, and black on the inside/white outside, and have holes already in them. I am pretty sure I am the first person to grow veggies in these bags by the look of the website (ja know what I mean mon?) but hey, they work great.<br />
Drip irrigation and a timer was the priciest item of the non-essentials (~$60), but I really wanted to do this thing right, and it is something I won't have to buy next year. Soil was expensive, but again, mainly a 1 time cost. And I could have just got all compost for a third of the price, that probably would have worked just fine.<br />
<br />
So do a garden. If I can do it in a townhouse you have no freaking excuse! There is absolutely no downside to this. I tried to think of one, and I just can't. My kids love it, I love it, the food is good, it's cheap, my wife loves the fresh herbs, my chubby body likes the exercise, whats not to like? And even the failed parts of it, like dead plants are lessons for next year. Really no downsides at all. <br />
<br />
So, tell Monsanto to eat crap and die. Grow some food today!<br />
<br />
Previous posts in this series: <a href="http://newchristendom.blogspot.com/2012/03/baby-steps-towards-christendom.html">Introduction</a>, <a href="http://newchristendom.blogspot.com/2012/03/baby-steps-towards-christendom-step-1.html">Step#1: Quit Pimpin'</a>, Step#2: <a href="http://newchristendom.blogspot.com/2012/03/baby-steps-towards-christendom-step-2.html">Homeschooling</a>, Step#3: <a href="http://newchristendom.blogspot.com/2012/04/baby-steps-towards-christendom-step-3.html">Brewing Beer</a>, <a href="http://newchristendom.blogspot.com/2012/04/baby-steps-towards-christendom-step-4.html" target="_blank">Step#4: Question Technology</a>.<br />
<br />David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5712729947700372149.post-14649740706079361992012-06-11T11:55:00.001-07:002012-06-12T05:18:26.243-07:00Heads I win, Tails you lose.So let me get this straight:<br />
<br />
Reformed conversion story = helpful retelling of true events.<br />
Catholic conversion story = Manipulation.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-71tynGyEpT8/T9Y-enMeAYI/AAAAAAAAAY8/NIXf79YXNqc/s1600/Rome+at+night.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" fba="true" height="300" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-71tynGyEpT8/T9Y-enMeAYI/AAAAAAAAAY8/NIXf79YXNqc/s400/Rome+at+night.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Go West, it is peaceful there. The city set on a hill awaits! [Warning, manipulation in progress]</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
In an article entitled <em><a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5107" target="_blank">CTC Conversion stories</a></em>, Reformed apologist James Swan criticizes the conversion stories on the website Called to Communion, which is a Catholic website devoted to dialogue between Catholic and Reformed Chrsitians. <br />
(Full disclosure: This website is the reason I am Catholic. Not the only reason of course, but without it, I would not have converted. It is to me what <em>tolle lege </em>was to Saint Augustine. It is a very successful website in achieving its goal of bringing unity to Christians. James Swan <a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?amount=0&blogid=1&query=reformed+tiber+swimmers" target="_blank">critiqued</a> my <a href="http://newchristendom.blogspot.com/2010/06/letter-to-gspcpca.html" target="_blank">letter explaining my family's conversion</a> to my PCA congregation. I found the critique something like a year later by chance, which makes me think I wasnt really his intended audience.) <br />
What I find weird is that Mr. Swan seems to view the same activity of... telling a story... as either helpful or manipulating depending on -not the way its told or the content- but on whether he agrees with what the character in the story did. It seems to me that according to Mr. Swan, if I were to recount the religious conversions in my life, that my describing becoming pentecostal would be manipulative on my part, describing my conversion to the Reformed faith was not manipulative, then describing conversion to Catholicism would, again, be obvious manipulation on my part. Isn't this the definition of Ad Hominem argumentation? Here is an excerpt from his post with my <span style="color: red;">[comments in red]</span><span style="color: black;">:</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The story relates more than facts to be scrutinized for truth. It places you and the facts in the realm of emotion. <span style="color: red;">[Nothing wrong with that right?]</span> Perhaps the particular experience described also strikes a cord in your own experience. For Mr. Lim's story, did any of his questions about epistemology resonate within you? For instance, can you, my Reformed friend, recall when you were in your non-Reformed church <span style="color: red;">[Yes, I can.]</span> like Mr. Lim and came across "an anti-intellectual ethos, and the study of too much theology, which was often held in contrast to the Bible, was sometimes frowned upon"? I sure can. <span style="color: red;">[So can I!]</span> Can you, like Mr. Lim, recall coming into contact with deep Reformed systematic theology like Calvin, Berkhof and Bavinck for the first time? I sure can. <span style="color: red;">[Again, me too! So far so good. No manipulation here, just a normal experience we all relate too.]</span> Then, having such deep theological tomes at your fingertips, have you ever wondered why, as Mr. Lim recounts, "Luther felt that it was necessary to separate from the Catholic Church, Zwingli from Luther, the Anabaptists from the Magisterial Reformed, the Calvinists from Arminians, and on and on- all on the conviction that I have the correct interpretation of Scripture"? <span style="color: red;">[Yes! I know what he means! I relate to Mr. Lim here. Still no manipulation right?]</span> If you've scratched your head "yes" then the story is probably manipulating you. <span style="color: red;">[Huh? So when the dice roll for the Reformed they are fair, but when they don't they must be loaded?]</span> These sorts of recollections of experiences are attempting to provoke you to question the validity of your own experience. <span style="color: red;">[What is wrong with this? This is how I came to faith in Christ, and later, this is how I came to be Reformed. Part of it was people telling me stories that made me question my experiences. "Maybe those things I have done are really sins after all?" "Maybe I was wrong to think otherwise?" "Maybe I need a saviour after all?" "Perhaps that gnawing feeling in my heart is my yearning for a saviour!" These are all questions we want people to ask themselves... to challenge the validity of their own experience! I guess not James Swan though.]</span> The more times you can empathize with a CTC story, the more you're being manipulated. <span style="color: red;">[So the more times I empathize with a parable of Jesus am I being manipulated too? Or can a story be a way to help us relate to the truth?]</span> If you haven't had the same experience as that being presented, why not? Is it because your experience wasn't as real as the account in front of you? Don't you want something real? </blockquote>
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar Mr. Swan. People like conversion stories. And yes, being able to relate to someones thinking through a true life story of their experience is a great way to communicate. Is this really news? Think of the parable of the Good Samaritan. This story does exactly what you criticize! In this story we find Jesus is "attempting to provoke you to question the validity of your own experience." Jesus uses a story to make us think about the question of "who is our neighbor". It is a very effective story! Was Jesus being "manipulative"? Is it true that "The more times you can empathize with [the Good Samaritan] story, the more you're being manipulated"?<br />
<br />
If Reformed theology is true, James Swan has absolutly nothing to fear from these conversion stories. Nobody is going to convert to Catholicism because they are jealous of someones story. Have a bit of respect for peoples intelligence. Instead of accusing people at CTC of manipulation perhaps give them the benefit of the doubt that they are trying to help people. If, I repeat <strong><u>IF</u></strong> they are trying to help people... then they are not manipulating people. They might be wrong, and the pope might be the antichrist, but it ain't manipulation. Likewise I don't think your boss James White is being manipulative when he asks Catholics to question their beliefs about salvation or the Church. I know he does these things out of a love for the truth. <br />
Why does Mr. Swan have to resort to ad hominems though? Well if I wanted to throw one out there myself and try to get into his head like he seems to want to get into others heads... I would say he is secretly intrigued by these stories. Perhaps a bit insecure about his theology. Perhaps he wakes up at night in a cold sweat with the smell of incense in his nostrils and Gregorian chant in his ears... pope Benedict XVI beckoning him with that humble smile he has... holding out the Eucharist. Or perhaps that little story was trying to get too much into James' head and a bit over the line.<br />
<br />
<strong><u>Update:</u></strong><br />
Mr. Swan says:<br />
"This isn't simply taking the allegedly simple rudiments of Reformed theology and sprinkling them with magic Roman dust so as to watch it flourish into a full faith."<br />
<br />
Uhm. We use holy water for that dude. It's called a sacramental. And it isnt magic, but it does prepare the recipient to recieve grace, which is pretty cool. <br />
<br />
<strong><u>Yet another update:</u></strong><br />
Mr. Swan says:<br />
"I'm tempted to launch into the story of Athanasius as he stood alone against the church of his day."<br />
Correction: It was Athanasius AND the pope. Don't forget Peter! Of course Jesus promised that the pope would never err, so it follows that he would be with Athanasius contra mundum.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />David Meyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06181838722750428356noreply@blogger.com10