Seeker of Truth

Is Christmas Still Worth It?

2011-12-30T06:14:00.000-08:00

Youread the news and it's all over the headlines. You turn on the tv andit's the same thing, same on the internet. Government debt andfinancial crisis in the US and recently, Europe. Iran, reportedlybuilding a nuclear bomb, Syria in a civil war, Egypt possibly beingunder the rule of terroristic, militant and radical Islamic politicalparties (threatening the very survival of the significantly numerousChristian minority!).

As we go into 2012,it doesn't look that good. Not only on an international scale dothese crises unfold itself but also on the local scene. You lookaround and see the real effects on your loved ones, relatives,neighbors, friends, etc. You go to your local grocer and see theworry on people's faces - there's that subtle fear and you can feelit.

Ina time like this, people save more and take lesser risks so you'd seepeople buy less. There'll be more people gloomy and frowning, evenwhen Christmas is so near. There'll be more people saying "patawad"on the children carollers. And where are the usual Christmas songsringing in the air? This year, I hardly hear them!

Doesit always have to be like this? Is it still right behavior to treatChristmas based on how our financial well-being is doing? Do we onlyhave a happy Christmas only if we're currently being blessed, butonly frowns and lukewarmness when things don't go our way? Even thepagans do these things. What will make us so different from them?

IsChristmas still worth it? The answer is clear. Yes, Christmas willalways be worth it! Through good times and bad, it pushes through upto forever even. We celebrate Christmas not because the economy isgood or we are being blessed. We celebrate Christmas because it isthe birth of Jesus Christ Our Lord - the birth of our salvation.That, my friend, is why we celebrate!

A Day In The Life Of Debating An Atheist

2011-04-27T03:04:00.000-07:00

Theist: The atheist belief based on "To see is to believe" is a fundamentally flawed belief. It has always been defeated black and blue by experienced theist debaters in major debates.

Atheist: Really now. Here's a fundamental question: I can see the sun and know it physically exists. Science and logic can prove the sun's existence. Science, however cannot detect God. How can you prove His existence?

Theist: This is probably the most basic attack of atheism. It really is but a variation based on the "To see is to believe" ideaology. This is where it fails.

It is based on the flawed belief that only the scientific method is to be believed, that it is the only source of truth. It further goes into the error that anything not detected by the scientific method is not to be believed or that it does not exist.

Quite simply, the "To see is to believe" belief can only be true if the scientific method was perfect, or had perfect knowledge. The limits of both our senses and scientific technology itself make this a flawed belief.

Take this example: My brother Alvin went to the ref to eat a burger. Ok. I was eating at my dinner table and could not see him.

My brother twitched his nose while eating the burger. He finished the burger.

I finish my food and go to the ref. By using logic and the scientific method, I can reason out that somebody ate the burger. I cannot say exactly who, but I can reason out that my brother was the one who most probably ate it because only the two of us were in the house at that time.

Now, if I detected a footprint near the ref, I can even use the scientific method by measuring that against his foot. So far, so good.

However, how do I detect the reality that he twitched his nose while eating the burger? That occurred in a point in time, a reality we call historical reality. It will be beyond the scientific mehod to detect it.

Atheist: Well, how do you distinguish reality from fiction then? By your logic, you can say "The flying spaghetti monster exists." I would say "Prove it by science". But you would counter me by arguing "Well, the flying spaghetti monster exists unless you can prove it doesn't!" Duh.

Theist: Ah, the popular "flying spaghetti monster" argument by the atheists. Not at all. In my example on my brother's nose twitching above, your "flying spaghetti monster" argument does nothing. What does this do? Does it suddenly make the reality of my brother's nose twitching disappear?

Of course not. It does nothing to the argument. Fact is, it happened in a historical reality, at a certain point in time in the past. Your flying spaghetti monster argument is irrelevant.

Atheist: Hmmmm, quite a point. I'm stubborn though. I still cling to my belief that anything not proven by science does not exist. Note that I didn't say "may not exist". There's a difference. It's just safer, in a way to just stick to the belief that only physical evidence is reality.

Theist: Another argument is that the atheists' definition of reality itself is wrong. They will only believe in physical reality, it always has to have physical evidence. This is wrong because there are actually three types of reality: physical reality, mental reality, and spiritual reality.

Physical reality is the most obvious. We can measure air pressure through a scientific instrument, for example, thus verifying air exists.

Mental reality is just as real, but has no physical evidence. For example, I thought of an ice cream cone in my mind two minutes ago. There is no physical evidence for it. But that reality occurred in the past, at a certain point in time and is still a historical reality. Atheists cannot simply dismiss something that occurred in the past as not part of reality, can they?

Spiritual reality can be defined as a supernatural event that does have physical evidence or credible witnesses, but cannot be explained by science or reasoning. There are an overwhelming number of supernatural events even before science was formalized as a discipline! Even scientists themselves admit there is no scientific explanation possible for supernatural events.

Supernatural events of course support theism's truths not atheism. The supernatural is major proof that there are things beyond just the natural, events beyond scientific reasoning. It humbles the atheist since he/she will only believe what science says.

One of the most famous, of course, is the miracle at Fatima. Our Holy Mother Mary gave an exact date and time for various supernatural events to take place before a large crowd. The greatest public miracle of all time took place. It is popular also because of the high number of atheists and agnostics who came to witness for themselves (and were converted).

Great miracles and wonders occurred. Hundreds of witnesses saw for themselves how the sun danced in the sky. Suddenly, cries of fear filled the air as people scrambled for their lives when the sun itself became larger and larger as if falling to the ground! Then just when they thought the sun would crash down on all of them, the sun returned to its normal, original position.

Afterwards, people reported rain fell on all of them there drenching them entirely wet as it happened so fast. Then, miraculously, they were surprised to see themselves completely dry in an instant! Many other miracles occurred.

Others include: scientists/doctors having no explanation for the children visionaries' ability to open their eyes when in a trance (looking up to heaven and talking to Mother Mary), yet not be affected by bright light being driven by scientists/doctors into their eyes! This "trance" phenomenon happens instantly, all of a sudden, so it cannot be the same as hypnosis (which takes time, has a process, and is never instantaneous).

Atheist: On the mental reality argument, atheists do not believe in the existence of mental reality. What we believe is that only the brain exists, and we do not consider mental thoughts as part of reality. Thoughts are just electrical impulses from a physically existing brain, right?

Theist: Assume I thought of an ice cream one minute ago. That is historical reality, a true event as the sun exists. Note that the ice cream existing physically is not correct; what is correct is that my thoughts of an ice cream happened at a point in time and is considered reality. It simply cannot be denied - this event, reality happened. Period.

Now if we can measure the physical characteristics of the brain, detect its brain cells, etc. why can't we even detect the existence of the ice cream I just thought of one minute ago? Why can't scientific instruments detect my mind as well?

We do not see the mind, nor detect it with scientific instruments. Yet we do know that the mind or intellect exists, right? So much for your "To see is to believe" atheist ideaology.

It's just another proof of mental reality as we defined earlier above. There are realities that cannot be detected by scientific instruments but nevertheless exist.

Now, why can't we deny the existence of the mind? The answer should be obvious - it's because all of us have a mind!

Can even an atheist deny the existence or the reality of his own mind? That would be absurd.

Atheist: Atheists cling to the scientific method to play it safe. We want to believe only in physical evidence of someone or something existing because. as explained earlier, we don't want to take the risk of believing things that may not exist like the "flying spaghetti monster".

You theists will just state "Well, the flying spaghetti monster may exist unless you prove to us that it doesn't!"

Theist: The scientific method is an effective way to search for truth, yes, we theists do believe in that.

What we disagree with is the atheist belief that the scientific method is the "only" way to verify existence of something or someone. It is not. It is only one way to get the truth.

Atheists make it an absolute rule that only science can give the truth. Of course not. This is only true if science had perfect knowledge of the universe, of all things hidden beneath the earth, the seas, etc. Sadly, the scientific method and technology has its obvious limits. Even the very limits of science make it prone to error as well. An established scientific law now may not even be true in the future.

That's why, as stated above, the scientific method failed to detect my brother Alvin twitching his nose.

Another discipline that relies on logic, equally as science does, is legal law. It acknowledges the use of physical evidence as a source of truth. It also considers the use of credible witnesses in a court of law as a valid way to get the truth or as a source of truth.

Who allowed this? Surely, it didn't just exist without human judgement. The top judges and lawyers (along with the legal community as a whole) did by experience over time. This is simply their opinion of how best to arrive at truth/facts.

The discipline of science, of course, also relies on logic but in a significantly different way. It does not consider credible witnesses as a valid way to get truth/facts. It only considers physical evidence -testable evidence that can be measured in a laboratory in real-time and reproduced by experiment.

Again, this is simply the opinion of top scientists (along with the scientific community as a whole) of how best to arrive at truths/facts. This is how they deemed it best through experience over time.

Now, which logical discipline is superior: science or legal law? the scientific method or the legal method? None is superior of course. They both have their unique advantages and disadvantages. Both have only one goal though - to arrive at truth and get the facts.

If the atheists want to believe the scientific method as their one and only source of truth, then that is just their opinion, not truth. It is their subjective opinion. Totally subjective.

By legal law's logic, many credible witnesses saying the same thing on describing what happened at Fatima's miracles is proof and evidence of truth.

Atheist: Any more ways to convince me of your theism arguments?

Theist: Well, yes. Have you heard of theism's popular "coin in a box" argument?

Assume I got a coin marked "Alex C" and hid it in a box. Furthermore, I hid the box in the deepest parts of a cave where nobody else knows about it, where science nor scientists do not even know it exists there.

Now I ask the top scientists and other scientific experts: "Do you believe a coin with the markings "Alex C" exists underneath a cave or not?" (without specifying the location of course)

They would answer that due to lack of any physical evidence they do not believe a coin exists and some would argue that most probably a coin does not exist because there is no proof of its existence as of this time unless further proof is shown.

Of course, both these answers are wrong. I'm holding that very coin physically! It shows again clearly, why the scientific method cannot be an absolute determinant of truth and reality. It has its limits. That is why it is not hard at all to refute the atheists' ideaology of "to see is to believe".

Theist: Oh yeah. I'd like to tell you your atheist statement of "Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods and of the supernatural" is unscientific and truly faith-based.

Atheist: Oh really? Prove it. This I gotta hear......

Theist: You asked for it. You see in order for a statement or something to be considered scientific, it must be "testable".

Well the statement "Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, and of the supernatural" is unscientific because:

a) It cannot be tested by the scientific method because you do not even know how much you don't know. There are too much gaps, large gaps in your data. Look, the universe is constantly expanding beyond the reach of our science. Human knowledge of the known universe is only possibly 10%, maybe 30% at most (and that's pushing it).

b) If it is not testable, then it is unscientific. Simple as that.

Atheist: You've heard of the atheist author Richard Dawkins' popular book right? In it, he gave an example of a watchmaker creating watches. He reasoned that if the watchmaker has skills in his craft, then it's reasonable to assume that somebody, a mentor, taught him watchmaking.

But if that mentor taught him, who taught his mentor? Further, who taught the mentor of his mentor, onwards to infinity. How do you resolve this problem of infinite regression?

Theist: I want to give credit to my brother (Alvin) for this answer. He mentioned that the problem of infinite regression (never-ending source) is solved if the watchmaker himself invented the whole "watchmaking industry".

A Tribute To An Amazing Woman

2011-01-05T06:40:00.000-08:00

By now, even you must've heard about the miraculous wonders being shown by our Holy Mother Mary to one of our own, a Filipina, Mrs. Emma de Guzman. Mrs. Emma is a modern-day mystic, visionary and evangelist. She is now also the founder of La Pieta International Prayer Group, which has spread the love of God and prayer through prayer groups all around the world.

But not everybody knows how she started, how all this started. Mrs. Emma first worked as a lowly domestic helper abroad. This was before the fame started. She had children, but her job couldn't make ends meet. Standing outside a Catholic church, a gust of wind suddenly started and a small piece of paper landed on her palm. It was an agency for workers to Canada.

She called it up, and her employer turned out to be a Filipino too! In Canada, her spiritual mission was being revealed slowly but surely. She could read people's minds and know their illnesses. At a group of people she suddenly felt the urge to tell a woman “You have a painful back, correct?” The woman answered that it was true, wondering how she knew. Our Lord Jesus Christ and Mama Mary would appear to her to convey messages.

A prayer session was once held near a hill. She was smiling as she was talking to Our Holy Mother. She reported seeing a lot of angels all around. Suddenly, witnesses saw golden glitters of dust appearing on her face! While people were going home, some reported a shower of gold dust suddenly exploding in the night sky out of nowhere.

But why am I doing this tribute to Mrs. Emma? Because most of all, she taught us very important lessons in humility and respect. Society often looks down on domestic helpers. We are all guilty of this. Mrs. Emma's example has changed our biased perception of the “lowly maid” to one of honor. Now, when you look at a domestic helper, who knows if she'll be the “next Mrs. Emma”? Thank you Mrs. Emma!

How Far You Have to Go (Not How Far You've Come)

2010-11-17T05:25:00.000-08:00

I was browsing a forum on the internet and read a wise post from somebody. He stated this:

"The sin of pride can be especially emphasized on people who are destined to be holy or want to be holy. This is a sin known as "spirtual pride."

The Pharisees were holy men of Israel. But their greatest mistake was focusing on how far they've come, instead of how far they had to go."

It's a very good point. Oftentimes, it is so easy to be lenient on our spiritual life. We get tempted to be casual. We may sometimes feel we are doing enough already. We do acts of goodness/charity, we honor the sacraments, never skip Mass, pray the rosary, etc.

When this happens, beware. It's a temptation. If you give in to it, what makes you so different from a Pharisee?

Fact is, most of us are very far from reaching the highest level of our spiritual life. It is obvious that God intended it this way so we'll constantly strive higher as long as we're on this Earth. Didn't Jesus Himself order us that "You must be perfect just as your Heavenly Father is perfect?"

That verse is the ultiumate proof of what we can and what we must achieve.

I'd advise you to read St. Teresa of Avila's famous book "Interior Castle". Guided by Jesus mystically, she was given knowledge on the various levels of spirituality that a soul has. When you read this, it will definitely humble you on how far you have to go.

When I read it, I was astonished at how far most of us have to go to achieve our highest spiritual growth level in this life.

The secret of the saints most of all has always been the virtue of humility - the source of all the virtues and the highest among them as well. Since no person knows his or her exact spiritual level, the saints are wise by playing it safe. They always assume that their spiritual level is not enough, and so the tendency is to strive to improve it.

We should do so as well....

The Power of the Smile

2010-10-20T06:30:00.000-07:00

Riddle me this: What is free and is often taken for granted and underestimated?

You got that right. A smile.

The smile is an extremely powerful gift given us by God. Most overlook this or simply don't know how powerful it truly is.

Case in point. Look at the saints (or pictures of them). Most, if not all have big smiles on their faces.There is a good reason why they smile a lot and they have always known the secret power of "the smile".

First off, the smile is a major weapon against depression. It is a fact that people who smile more are usually the ones less prone to depression.

There are times when we just feel "lazy" to do something, anything for that matter. This is of course effect of the sin of "lukewarmness or sloth" - one of the seven deadly sins.

Feeling that laziness thing? Yup, you got that right. Once again, the smile to the rescue! Smile your way to defeat that stupor.

It;s simple really. Just force a smile on your lips. Believe me this definitely works. You can try it now to believe it. You simply won't regret it (just don't forget you got it here first hehe!)!

The "smile power" can of course be used similarly on the sin of "anger or wrath" - again, one of the seven deadly sins.

When you're angry or at the boling point, you got that right. Again, the simplest solutions are the best. Force a smile on your lips. You will be surpised how powerfully effective it is! Sure beats having to take meds for high blood, right? I'd advise you to try it right now if you can. I'm too excited to see you witness this for yourself.

Scientifically, this spiritual weapon we call "the smile" does have some logical explanation in helping us fight laziness or anger (among other things). I read in an article before that a smile releases something in us, a hormone or something similar.

This may explain the reason why a smile induces a "feel good" effect, a feeling of well-being if you will.

Now, are you starting to see the secret power of the smile?

Oh yeah. This one. Many do know about this fact. It takes more muscles to frown than to smile. So it's better to smile than frown a lot. It is a well-known secret among those who look younger than their age that smiling a lot delays aging and does make you a lot younger than your age.

This, I can verify from my own experience. A lot of people have told me I look a lot younger than my true age. A lot. As big as ten years less than my current age. I do attribute this to my tendency to smile a lot. =)

Why Do Problems Exist For Each And Every Soul?

2010-07-28T06:01:00.000-07:00

Problems. Who doesn't have them? Love it or hate it, it will come. Guaranteed to come for any person who breathes with life.

Do you know of any living person who does not have a problem? Logically, as long as a person is alive, he or she will encounter problems. We have heard the saying "Only the dead have no problems"!

But why does God give us problems? Believe it or not, the answer will surprise you.

God gives us problems in life because it is a spiritual need for our souls. Yup, you heard it right. We have problems because we need problems.

It's not just some spiritual desire or want, it's a real spiritual need.

The truth is, without problems, we cannot grow spiritually. Actually, spiritual growth is not only hard but impossible without it.

If it is impossible to grow spiritually without problems then it is becoming clearer now why we need it and it is given to us.

Reminds me of s story:

A speaker asked his audience this simple question "Who among you here want to be really successful in life?" Most of the audience raised their hands.

Then, the speaker went into detail, outlining each and every step to be successful. It was through a lot of hard work, no shortcuts.

He asked again "Now, knowing what is needed to succeed, who among you want to really be successful in life?" This time, most of the audience didn't raise their hands!

-----end of story -----

So many times, we want the reward but not the hard work. Problems are hard work; they are but challenges to be defeated.

Problems strengthen us. They're not there to weaken us. A person who experiences trials is like gold purified through fire. He or she comes out stronger and more experienced.

Imagine a person who doesn't have problems. There is no strength in such a life only weaknesses. No problems also mean no achievements (or a lack of it), no experience, no challenges in life. What is the purpose of such a life? It is meaningless.

Even in university, the top schools also have the toughest entrance exams. If you want the easier exams, go to the less prestigious schools. There's always a price to pay.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The harder the problems you face in life, the stronger you do become. The easier your problems, the less experience and strength you gain. It's a universal law.

So let's thank God for our problems. Even these are blessings after all!

The Abortion Fallacies

2010-05-20T06:18:00.000-07:00

The abortion issue is considered by the Catholic Church (and most, if not all Christian churches)as the most serious issue among all the major issues.

And for right reasons. Many millions of babies are aborted in the US alone. One shudders at the thought of the many millions more aborted all over the world.

If the US is already a Christian country and abortion is this bad, how much more other countries whose religion or culture may not be that strict against murder of the unborn?

Sure there were abortions in past generations before, granted. But not at these numbers. Compared to before, the current and quite recent generations are having abortions at an unprecedented rate.

The primary reason? A variety of reasons have been stated, but in my opinon, the cause is due to major fallacies/errors that have somehow been embraced as truth by recent generations and the current generation.

Actually, any sin is always due to fallacies or errors. A fallacy or error is a lie or half-truth which, though morally wrong, disguises itself as truth.

So in the case of abortion:

Fallacy Number One) One of the fallacies is that the rights of the mother is higher than the rights of the unborn child.

And why? Is it because the mother has contributed more to society as an adult than the baby about to be born?

Are rights given more to some, but limited to other people? What's the basis for this and who decides it? More importantly, who has the right to decide it and why?

But most of all, this fallacy is doomed from the start with the awesome truth that the right to life of the unborn child is higher than the rights of the mother to decide for herself.

The right to life of any person is paramount and fundamental, and must be above any other rights.

Without this right to life, there would be no mother to decide for herself in the firstt place! Who among us would exist?

Fallacy Number Two) Abortion pro-choicers will argue that the fetus is still not a human being especially in the earliest stages of the pregnancy. They would even say that the fetus is incomplete at a certain stage (lacking limbs, etc.), and therefore to them this justifies their belief that aborting a fetus at these early stages is okay because well, the fetus isn't really a human being yet.

Be careful of this fallacy. It has confused many. To counter it, who's to say that a fetus isn't a human being because it lacks body parts?

Is an adult person who lost his leg in an accident considered a lesser human being? Is he not a human being because he lacks body parts? Did he suddenly lose his rights because "he looks different from normal" now?

Obviously not.

The Christian Church has always stood by the truth that life begins at conception. At that earliest of stages, not only life but a soul is infused into the fetus.

Who can refute this? It cannot be denied.

Fallacy Number Three) Abortion supporters will tell a mother this common fallacy: "You have a right to abort your baby. Just do what you think is right."

Do what "you think" is right?

You're using semantics to defend abortion. Playing around with words and meanings doesn't somehow make abortion morally right in any way.

Murder of an innocent unborn is just the same as the murder of a born person.

But the so-called "pro-choicers" would use relativism to try to defend abortion.

Relativism is defined as a belief/ideaology that there are no absolute truths. Everything is subjective, no clear black and white.

So a fetus is defined as a "piece of flesh", or a non-human. Furthermore, when you try to refute this, they'll simply say "That's your opinion, this is ours."

It's "I believe it's right" somehow becomes the truth. A lot of people just comment this nowadays - "Just do what you think is right."

Believing that a fetus is not a human being does not remove the truth that it is a human being. Truth was never based on opinions or the "majority rules". Truth is not subjective.

Yet relativism contradicts itself when it declares "there is no absolute truth"! (Whatever happened to its subjectivity?)

Don't Miss The Point

2009-12-30T05:23:00.000-08:00

With Christmas so near we see a lot of preparations, decorations and a lot of parties all around. In the Christmas spirit, it's only natural to get absorbed in all the fun and happiness around. Hey, it's Christmas! No Ebenezer Scrooges please.

In all the busy atmosphere, we can easily lose sight of what it is all about. You can miss what Christmas is for, why we even celebrate it. You see all the commercialization of Christmas around, and mutter "Am I missing the point?"

A wise priest, during a homily once said that one of the greatest temptations of their priestly vocation was taking for granted the holy and supernatural duties given them. When this happens, the Mass becomes "just another Mass", forgiving of sins at confession becomes some routine job, etc. There has to be wonder, awe at doing holy duties.

This principle not only applies to the priestly vocation but to each and every one of us. Oftentimes, we become lukewarm, we simply do not even count our blessings the way we should. So we become less grateful.

The wise saying goes "Only the humble are happy." It is impossibe for a person to be happy without being grateful. And it's impossible to be grateful without humility!

Each Christmas then shouldn't be "just another Christmas". We should first of all be grateful for all the blessing we received from the brthday celebrant Jesus, along with Mother Mary's blessings.

Second, we should be thankful at spending another Christmas with those we love, never forgetting our lives and theirs are only temporary. The wise saying "Live each day as if it was the last, for someday it will be."

Spiritual Willpower

2009-10-14T06:38:00.000-07:00

We all are at least familiar with the word "willpower". The power of the will is quite a valued prize among us. Modern society gives higher respect, confers higher honor on people who are deemed or judged to be people with strong willpower.

And for good reason.

It is observable that those with strong willpower are usually the ones who excel in what they do. They are considered the achievers in our society.

Leadership skills alone demand a leader whose willpower is at least above the average. Nobody follows a weak-willed leader.

But when we speak of willpower in general, we have to mention the most important aspect of it - spiritual willpower.

What is spiritual willpower?

Spiritual willpower can be said to be that part of our overall willpower that protects us from sin and temptation. It is that ability inside of us that somehow acts to resist being tempted into sin.

We all can observe this and cannot deny it. It's like that inner strength that refuses to simply allow us to fall into errors and sin. Without it, sin would be this irresistible candy we cannot refuse!

Theology teaches us that the original sin we inherited from our first parents, Adam and Eve, has weakened us spiritually. Our intellects were darkened, our willpower weakened.

Sure, the sacrament of baptism is there particularly to remove original sin. However, it doesn't mean we suddenly transform into perfect creatures. The "scars" of original sin are still there.

To better understand this, we can compare this to a pet dog who runs over a newly-cemented floor. You would instinctively tend to your pet dog, washing its feet with water before the cement hardens.

However when you go back to the cement floor, your dog's footprints are all over the now-hardened cement floor.

In baptism, original sin is removed from us. But its footprints are all over us.

Our sinful nature affected our willpower. Man and women were created in the image and likeness of God, yes, but original sin did affect us in a negative way and weakened our willpower (especially spiritual willpower).

But God will only give us tests and allow temptations only within our spiritual limits and never beyond it. So whenever we are tempted and fall into sin, we cannot point a finger and say "The snake made me do it" or "Blame it on my original sin nature".

Rather, any sin is always out of free will. That's the importance of free will. Point the finger at yourself.

Remember that when God caught Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit, Adam pointed to Eve as tempting him. Eve in turn pointed a finger at the snake (the Evil One in disguise of course).

Well if snakes had fingers, who do you think he'd point it at? (Not that there was anybody left to point it at except God!)

It's always easier to blame others, right? It's more convenient to point the finger at the "snake" than blame ourselves.

So don't take it for granted that God gave us this special grace called "spiritual willpower". It is also related to what we call "conscience". Spiritual willpower is that frontline defense we have against fallacies, temptations, and sin.

Our Favorite Sin

2009-08-12T06:28:00.000-07:00

Why do we sin?

This is such a common question, of which the answer is so important to our spiritual life and to life itself.

We can observe the effects of sin in our lives and the lives of others. Its destructive effects to the individual, to families and societies are self-evident and cannot be denied.

It is observable too that people sin for many reasons. We can observe at least three general types of sin:

1) Some people sin out of ignorance or lack of knowledge. This is the first type of sin.

Say, for example a man who was raised up living a life of crime. His very parents brought him up to steal from others, teaching him it was justified if the victim was well-off or rich.

Nobody ever taught him what is morally right and wrong. He sins against society thinking what he's doing is morally right.

There is always a punishment for any sin whether the sinner is aware the act is sinful or not.

2) Some people sin even when they know the act is sinful. They use logic to justify an action or rationalize to suppress guilt feelings. This is the second type of sin.

It is important to note that the person does not admit the sin.

Say, a woman who has an illicit relationship with a married man. She and the man are church-going Christians and know fully well that this is a grave sin.

The woman rationalizes to justify this. She assures herself "I think it's ok for me to have a relationship even though he is married. He doesn't love his wife anymore. As long as we love each other, I don't think this is a sin."

This type of sin is more severe than the first. To sin with knowledge of the sin carries higher punishment than sinning without knowledge of it.

3) Yet there's still a third reason why people sin. Some people still commit sin even with full knowledge that it is morally wrong. However, instead of using logic, they do something else. They appeal to God's mercy. This is the third type of sin.

If you compare it with the second type of sin (previous topic just above this), this third type of sin is different in one aspect - the admission of sin. The person admits the act is sinful.

This is unlike the second type of sin where there is no admission of sin, rather there is denial of sin.

Case in point: There's a terrorist who was promised payment to his family if he did a terrorist act. He knows it is wrong but says to himself "I will explode this bomb so my family will have a better life. I know God will understand. God have mercy on me for this."

Of course, this heinous crime will destroy the lives of other families. As long as one family benefits, right?

Or this case: A man's son is in the hospital needing an emergency operation. The father knows stealing is a sin and crime but decides to do it anyway.

He becomes a criminal to save up enough money. He takes money from people at the point of a gun. He intimidates them to give him cash in exchange for their lives.

To appeal to God's mercy to lessen the punishment of a sin, while still doing the sinful act anyway (even with full knowledge of the sin and its consequences) is an insult to God.

Yes, God is a merciful God. But He balances this mercy with His divine justice. In His infinite wisdom, He knows without this balance, His mercy will be constantly abused.

So what then is the origin of sin?

The Holy Bible tells us. Ironically, human beings are not the source of sin. The first sin was committed by an angel.

And no ordinary angel he was. He was one of the highest ranked angels (some accounts even state he was the highest ranked). His original name was Lucifer. Now he is known as Satan, The Evil One, etc.

Yup, hard to believe this angel was once envied by even the other angels. It is said that he was the most handsome among them all. Wherever he walked, music accompanied him. He was popular among the other angels.

Until he became vain. His pride was his downfall. He used his God-given gifts to corrupt other angels and turn them against God. He wanted to possess ultimate, infinite power. He wanted to become God, to equal God's power.

Bible accounts state he turned about 25-30% or 1/3 of the angels to rebel against God Himself. A war occurred in heaven.

The battle between the good angels and rebel angels was fierce. At the most critical part of the battle, God Himself gave power to a lower-ranked, yet extremely humble angel. His name was St. Michael the Archangel.

He defeated Lucifer and almost single-handedly won the battle. Because of him, the rebel angels were defeated. They were transformed into devils/demons and God cast them forever from Heaven. Hell was a place made for them.

So how did man sin? I know most of us are familiar with what happened next.

God created Adam and Eve, the first two humans on Earth. They were forbidden to eat of only one fruit - the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Evil One disguised himself as a serpent and tempted Eve to eat of the fruit.

Eve in turn tempted Adam to eat of it. So both were guilty. We can surmise too that Adam sinned by choosing Eve over God. He chose to listen to what Eve wanted, rather than that of God. This alone is a sin of idolatry (prioritizing someone or somebody before God).

In modern times, there is new yet growing scientific evidence that all human beings of all races can be traced back in origin to only one male and one female. This was discovered through modern DNA testing and other methods. More evidence is needed, and is being gathered as we speak.

It sure is good news. And it sure beats the interesting but highly controversial Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

So there you have it, the origin of sin.

Justifying The Death Penalty?

2009-06-17T06:36:00.000-07:00

Such an age-old debate: Is it right for the state to kill a criminal in cold blood? Or is life imprisonment a better solution?

Well, we could "rationalize" killing a convicted criminal sentenced to lethal injection. We could justify his death as good for society.

But it still would not be right. The fact remains that this criminal is helpless to defend himself or do further harm. So what justifies killing him?

If you killed an assailant in self-defense protecting yourself, the act is justified. Really, self-defense is the only moral sitiuation, nothing else.

Another reason against the death penalty is the possibility of the person living a new life away from crime.

If St. Paul, one of the greatest saints and a founder of the Christian Church was once a murderer before he got converted, who else can't?

The prisons are different nowadays. I'm sure you've heard of Christian renewal meetings or religious charismatic groups in many prisons now. This is a major change. It is a great thing.

This only proves that there is a chance for a criminal, for any person to change. There is no soul too dark for God's power to enlighten.

The death penalty takes away this gift of hope. By denying the criminal the right to live, society denies him/her the right to a better life.

Life imprisonment or the death penalty? Life imprisonment would be the more humane, wiser, holier choice.

Some would counter-argue that influential criminals can "twist" the system and may eventually be able to be get out of life imprisonment. They have power, money, can use their connections to beat the system presumably.

It is a reasonable argument. But this type of problem lies within the system itself. It is the flawed implementation of the system that is the cause of the problem here.

There is no perfect system of course. But to use the argument that death penalty is justified because certain influential people can twist the system is a fallacy. It is not enough justification by itself.

The issues against death penalty are from a moral problem by nature. On the other hand,the issue of influential people beating the system are more of a legal problem. The two issues are different from each other, related as they are.

They are apples and oranges and are not the same (so shouldn't be considered as such).

Another argument is that even if it's true that certain people of power can exploit the system, they comprise only a tiny fraction of the whole prisoner population. They are only a minority not the majority and therefore do not represent the plight of the great majority of prisoners.

The Harder The Better

2009-05-12T05:42:00.000-07:00

Sometimes life can be so filled with many hardships. We suffer inside, the problems just keep piling up with seemingly no end in sight. Ever had one of those days?

Sure. All of us pass through trials like this from time to time. It's not equal for everyone though. Some suffer longer, others shorter.

Some go through trials that push them to the limit. Others go through seemingly less hardship in comparison. Still others don't seem to undergo any form of hardship at all (at least our defiintion of hardship).

It is said that a great general's worst enemy is the lack of adversity.

Ironic isn't it? A great general knows he has been gifted with great military skill, yet how does he prove it when there's no great enemy to go against or an against-the-odds situation?

One thing is sure though. Sufferings are a part of life. It's there for an important reason. Secondly, God's perfect justice can assure you that God only gives hardships based on your maximum limit.

One other thing is also sure: there is not one life that hasn't or will not experience suffering one way or another. This major truth is self-evident and observable. It is irrefutable.

It is as self-evident as the truth that God exists.

God will not give you something beyond your capability. This is a universal law after all.

Usually, human nature tends to follow the "path of least resistance". In general, most people tend to choose activities or tackle problems that are not hard. They avoid harder ones like the plague.

The possible causes of these are at least two: from a form of lukewarmness in our spiritual life and a from a form of hedonism.

Lukewarmness is classified as one of the seven deadly sins. It is one of the more common sins. Ever had one of those days or times when you just don't seem to have energy and you're feeling all lazy?

Yup, that's lukewarmness (also known as sloth). It is like a parasite eating our souls. Especially when you're called to do a spiritual act, this sin is even worse.

Say, you need to help somebody in need and you're feeling lazy at that time. You may or may not even do it.

And when you do help that person, your face is with a frown. There's this sadness, a lack of happiness. You feel like you're just dragging your feet.

You know you should be happy, doing something for God with cheerfulness. Not because it benefits you but out of pure love for God and others.

Now let's talk about the other reason (the first reason being lukewarmness) for people avoiding what is hard in life: hedonism.

Hedonism can be defined as a belief that pleasure is the primary purpose of life. A hedonist's actions will ultimately lead to goals promotiing pleasure or self-gratification, whether he/she is aware of it or not.

Sure, most people will not be classified as being in hedonism in a total way. However, the fact remains many of us do fall into a variant or form of hedonism from time to time.

A little hedonism arises in us sometimes. You can blame the materialistic culture we have nowadays as one of the main causes.

So many businesses promoting the good life, consumerism has been on the rise. The advertisements all overwhelm us with messages of pleasure, pleasure, pleasure.

From food to luxury vacations, expensive living, etc. we are literally bombarded with ads that do get deep into corners of our mind, our subconscious mind. So we may not be even aware of it at times.

People then take the "path of least resistance" even on a subconscious level, without being aware of their behavior.

Anything viewed as causing pain (which is viewed as the complete opposite of pleasure) is avoided. Anything that does not connote some form of pleasure is either
ignored or not given the importance due it.

Remember a time when you wake up and it's Sunday morning. Oh, it's Sunday Mass time. You literally have to drag yourself to get dfressed.

There's this sadness, this lack of energy. Deep inside, you know this is not right. One should have a lot of anticipation for the Mass, considered the highest form of prayer!

Consider what you felt instead when friends invited you to the shopping mall for a movie, a date perhaps. Amazing energy you had right? Shame on us really.

This is because the Mass is at times viewed as a form of sacrifice, and sacrifice is usually associated with suffering or pain.

Yet there is a wise saying "Anything worthwhile will always be hard."

Sacrifice is essential to achieving goals. The higher the goal, the harder the sacrifice. This is universal law.

If you love God enough, the sacrifice of the Holy Mass becomes a work of love, and therefore a work of happiness. You attend Mass with a lot of joy inside.

If you love God enough, it is impossible not to become happy in offering your sacrifice of love through the Mass.

The world will often tell you and teach you "the easier the better". Follow the easy road, the road most travelled. Don't be a radical, follow the sheep.

Yet this contradicts with what Jesus Himself reminded us: "If you wish to follow me, you must carry your own cross."

To be a Christian means to be a radical to the world's materialistic ideaologies so many times. Only by having this type of courage can we succeed. It is the type of courage that is prepared to go against the social norm if necessary, and this is not easy.

It means that for a Christian, "the harder the better", follow the road that is different - the road less travelled.

We Are All Equal After All

2009-03-03T05:36:00.000-08:00

We see them everyday out there in the streets. The beggars, the street children, people clothed in filthy, dirty rags - society's unwanted.

They are quite a common sight are they? So much so that most of us have sometimes gotten used to them.

Ever remember the first time you saw a young kid begging just out your car window? The feeling of sheer pity that most probably made you give alms. Maybe it was food or money you gave.

Is it still there now? Do you still get that all-important feeling of charity?

Charity is a virtue; an offshoot or branch that comes from love itself. That's how important it is.

That pity towards someone in need is what makes us human. Without it, there is no peace in us. And when there's no peace, no happiness.

To be insensitive to others makes us robots. Unfeeling, suppressing emotions of pity to remove any sense of guilt deadens the soul. It robs it of life, of vitality. It turns us into living dead.

You can often measure the degree of spirituality we have by a simple test: if you can fight the "superiority complex" that tempts you when you see a beggar, then you're on the right track spiritually.

We all know this is not easy at all.

More often than not we are tempted to feel somewhat superior to the beggar. Worse, some of us may even feel we are "greater children of God".

Some may try to fight their guilty conscience by rationalizing that the beggar may be lazy, or that he/she probably deserved it because of some wrongdoing or sin. That's hypocrisy.

Fact is, no one's special because we are all equally special to God.

We are all brothers and sisters in Christ.

Once you feel more special than others, that's the sin of vanity/pride. Your spiritual life would be going down if that keeps up.

Yup, that's a sign you're going down.

One can argue though that many of the beggars, street children out there are members of crime syndicates. They beg from people, then the money is given to the syndicates. The beggars are left with only a small amount as compensation.

This is a common argument. It is the one most often used so we can literally remove any feelings of guilt when we decide to turn the blind eye.

It is hard, isn't it? To give money as aid is to take the risk that your money will just go to crime syndicates controlling their vast network of beggars and street children. It is of course, a legitimate concern.

However, there are other better ways than just giving money. It cannot always be used as an excuse not to help. It's better really to give food rather than cash to the beggars/street children out there.

Leftover food is good enough. Some restaurants have even done this. After office hours, they give out leftover food to the needy.

Of course, some people are already into that habit. After eating at restaurants, they pack their leftover food and give this to some needy soul out in the streets. It's a noble habit.

Idolatries

2009-01-27T05:05:00.000-08:00

All of us have a tendency to become obsessive with someone (or something) when we start to prioritize someone or something else before God. This is very observable.

The first commandment of God is clear: "Thou shall not have any other gods before me."

But often than not, we fall to this temptation. We not only fall, we fall over and over again.

I know you're asking "What? I'm not idolatrous. I only worship God, the only one and true God. No one else. What are you accusing me of? Certainly not me!"

Wrong. Believe it or not, this is one of the most common temptations in existence.

The word "idolatry" usually connotes in us the notion of worshipping various idols of pagan origins. You know, those statues of gods, goddesses or deities that primitive people dance to or give homage to that we sometimes see in movies.

Hmmmm... nope.

Far from that really. Idolatry is all around you, all around us - we actually do it everyday.

You see, each and every time we prioritize someone or something before God even for just a moment, we commit the sin of idolatry.

Think about it. Be honest here. When you find going to a movie more exciting or when you anticipate it more than going to Holy Mass, that's idolatry.

Common examples abound. A person who feels the calling for priesthood, for example, backs out when he realizes his family needs him to run the family business. He still prioritized his family over God.

There's a meeting in your religious organization, and it connflicts with a scheduled night-out with close friends. You make all types of excuses for not going to the religious meeting.

Rationalizations like "It's ok to be absent right now. I've always been going to the meetings in the past anyway." Or "I'll be absent tonight, but I'll just make up for it by going to the meetings in the future."

Why rationalizations? In psychology, rationalization is defined as one form (among many others) of "defense mechanism".

A defense mechanism is defined as an automatic, unconscious reaction to protect or shield our mind/ego from intolerable actions, feelings or experiences.

It is the mind's way to protect itself (you!) from pain. This is of course, emotional or mental stress or pain.

Ever felt those "pangs of conscience" undeniably creeping in, and you shielding yourself from guilt? Yup, those excuses are usually defense mechanisms.

You try to rationalize, coming up with so-called reasonable or logical attempts to justify a certain action. You do this because it makes you feel bad inside or you feel guilty doing it.

Hmmm, as if rationalizing a given act makes it moral. It's as if removing the guilt in an action justifies it.

Ever asked God for something that you really want but somehow you didn't receive it?

It could be because of idolatry. God knows the limits of our spiritual levels, our strengths and weaknesses. Only He knows us perfectly.

Maybe God knows you won't grow spiritually or you'll be spiritually corrupted by giving you what you prayed for. Since He knows the future, (and you don't!), I'm sure you'll agree that truly God knows best.

Doesn't it remind you of people saying "Lord, let me win the lotto and I'll surely give donatons to the poor. I'll give generously to charities!"

There are so many horror stories about people who won the lottery. In so many instances, they couldn't handle the increased power they got almost overnight.

They are individuals usually not used to handling such enormous responsibilities that come with great power. As the popular adage goes "With great power, comes great responsibility."

The first thing we can observe that may happen is this: The person becomes less humble, powerful temptations of pride and vanity attack. The higher the power somebody gets, the more powerful the temptations of pride.

That's why one must be vigilant all the more when one is given power. Only the virtue of humility will protect you and conquer the sins of pride/vanity. There really is no other way.

After pride, may come the other sins/vices. Greed from not wanting to share what one has so abundantly. Possibly gluttony from having able to afford expensive but addictive vices like drinking too much, drugs, gambling, etc.

Worse, even their family and loved ones got corrupted. In-fighting over wealth and distribution arises. Bragging off to neighbors, "Keeping up with the Joneses", etc.

Ironic isn't it? It's almost natural to assume a person (and his/her family) who wins the lotto will be happier. But history has shown it can be otherwise, that misery not happiness can result.

We as human beings seem to be so easily vulnerable to falling to sins of idolatry. Everyday, we often fall to prioritizing "things of the world" over the "spiritual missions we're given.

Possibly the most common idolatry is the prioritization of family or loved ones over God. First person we should think about when we wake up is God, before anybody else. How many of us really remember this consistently?

Fact is, without God, there's no family to love. God, being the source of all love, He is the reason why we have people to love and who love us back. Without Him, no love can exist at all and any family will fall apart without love.

Another common idolatry is the prioritization of a partner over God. We're talking about being so attached to a person of the opposite gender in a romantic way that the person replaces God.

Falling in love is part of God's plan as this must eventually pave the way for marriage or holy matrimony. But sometimes a person in love tends to become obsessed with the person he or she fell in love with.

Take the case of Romeo and Juliet. Only the two of them mattered, nobody else (sadly, not even God). And well, what happened? They eventually decided to kill themselves, one after the other. This is what happens when someone becomes more important to a person than God Himself.

It has been glamorized in writing and literature of course. There really is nothing good about mass suicide!

I'm sure we can all agree that one of the most common types of idolatry is our livelihood. Yup, our work, careers or possibly our own business which sustains us and our loved ones can often be our idol.

Of course we all need to work. We all have to "earn our own keep" as the saying goes. Nothing wrong with working hard, hey we do need to save up for old age by working hard while young.

The point where work becomes idolatrous is when we overdo it. When work becomes addictive (workaholism), or we become obsessed with amassing money or being too focused on reaching ever higher positions of power.

Of course, possible combinations of the factors above are likely to occur. Maybe even an "all of the above?"

Money and power are often this world's idols. We must constantly be on guard and be vigilant against idolatry, truly one of the worst sins to ever exist.

Still, there are other idols common in this world.

Some people have idolized sex and lust rules their lives. The profileration of pornography in mass media has increased the occurrence of sex addiction. Sex addicts are obsessed with the lure of the flesh. People like this usually have problems with personal relationships.

Others idolize drugs, falling into drug addiction. Narcotics drugs become the centerpoint of their lives. They live each day for that "next fix". Not doing so results in withdrawal stage, a reaction where the addict suffers for not taking the drug.

Can you imagine such a life? Enslaved by a piece of stick?

Then there are the gambling addicts. What started as playing card games for fun ends up being a point of addiction. Like any addiction, gambling becomes an "escape mechanism", a world where they can get away from the harsh realities of the real world.... even for just a short while.

A fix of drugs or a fix of cards? Really, it's all the same.......

The Permissive Society

2008-09-23T06:25:00.000-07:00

We live in a day and age where society can be said to be a "permissive society."

Modern society has slowly but surely turned sin and wrongdoing into something acceptable, like
it's some annoyance - something not to be taken seriously.

I mean, look around you and observe.

Look at the popular talk shows on TV. Homosexuals appearing a lot more often now compared to the past.

This promotes homosexuality on a daily basis in a way not seen before.

On an episode of this popular TV noontime show, an obviously effeminate kid, around 9 years old is made to dance before the public, live on TV.

He struts like a woman, and the host and people there applaud him like crazy!

The host even has these "words of wisdom" for him: "It's okay for you to be gay. Really. It's a modern world now, nobody has the right to judge you and tell you homosexuality is wrong. You have the right to choice."

Well, that same argument can be used to defend abortion. The so-called right to choice and freedom of rights are often used by pro-abortion groups or their new name "Pro-choice".

Basically, it tells you that you have the right to sin, the right to do evil. Nobody has the right to tell you if it's wrong or right, good or evil.

The teachings of God through the Church and the Holy Bible are deemed unfit for so-called "modern times." Nothing's further from the truth.

Our permissive society says "It's ok. We all must have equal rights and respect each other's beliefs even if they are, uhh, non-conformist."

Substitute the word "non-conformist" above with the word "sinful". Now, you're seeing things as they really are.

Relativism (we all can decide for ourselves what is right and wrong, so there are really no absolute truths!) and semantics (smart twisting of words), etc.

If you notice, there seems to be a significant increase in homosexual children nowadays. It is horrible. It is a sad state to see our youth, our future giving in to the evil of homosexuality.

Some of meda is to blame. The glorification of homosexuals leads to the glorification of homosexuality itself.

It sends the wrong signals, especially to the youth who are most vulnerable. A child may undergo a pyschological confusion often termed as "identity crisis".

In this critical point of a child's life, he or she develops a sense of morality, of what is right and wrong. A child may become confused on whether "it's okay to be gay" after all or that it is a great sin against God and nature itself.

What if that next child was your child? Think about it. Why take the risk?

Then, another "signs of the times". I've seen a few parents of these homosexual children defend the homosexuality of their children right on TV!

You know the world is really turning upside down when parents, who are supposed to protect their children from sin and evil turn a blind eye to it or promote it to their children as "natural".

A homosexual boy starts dancing like a girl, to the cheers of the crowd. The TV host asks the mother her feelings.

Guess what she said: "Oh I guess it's ok to me. There are a lot of gay boys nowadays anyway. It's a modern world. Not a big deal anymore. I love my child."

Wow. The only right thing she said there was "I love my child." Sure, you must love your child whether gay or straight. This is not the issue here though.

The issue is morality. Is it right to be so lenient when a child sins? Or should you wisely reprimand?

The mother's justification for her gay boy is based on "majority wins" ("There are a lot of gay boys nowadays anyway), and a distorted view of modernity ("It's a modern world") where there's more freedom (a wrong concept of it).

Something about this thing called "modernity". It's as if old values and morals are overturned in the name of modernity. Being modern does not make sin a virtue (or virtue a sin).

Okay, to be clear I'm not in a position to condemn homosexuals here. We're all sinners and that's the truth.

It's the principle "Hate the sin not the sinner." We cannot deny the truth that homosexuality is a great sin.

One only has to read the Holy Bible to confirm it. No ifs and buts.

Another issue is "single parenthood".

It can be observed quite easily that the incidence of women becoming pregnant but not having a husband has definitely increased in these times. Compared to the generations of our parents, "single moms" and "single dads" have become a lot more common.

A major reason is the breakdown of morality among the youth.

Say, a woman becomes pregnant (by premarital sex). The guy, once giving her his full attention, learns his girlfriend is pregnant.

The guy gets overtaken by fear. Fear, because he is not morally, emotionally, and financially prepared (he sure was physically prepared!).

He becomes cold, distances himself or cuts off any communication with the woman. Or he may be making more excuses not to see her.

He may tell her he's abroad or out-of-town. Worse, he may even accuse the girl that the child is not his.

Of course, this is only one of the reasons. It cannot be denied that the woman also has a part in this social problem. After all, it takes two to make one (baby).

But on this topic, families have become too lenient on their sons when it comes to responsibility like this.

I'm not biased here, just telling it as it is. I'm part of the new generation, the so-called "Generation X".

In the older generations (around thirty years ago or so), I observed that a guy who impregnated a girl was made to realize the seriousness of it. The family members of the guy would really commit their son to marry or take responsibility for the girl and their child.

Nowadays in the new generation, the family members themselves may even hide their son from the responsibility.

It's a major change of culture when you observe it.

The girl and her family usually get the short end of the stick. They foot the hospital bills, their family name is damaged, the parents are blamed for being lax, the girl gets condemnation and pity or social stigma, etc.

The problem is this so-called unwanted pregnancy phenomenon has been increasing so much these days it has in a way, transformed our culture, our way of life.

From this we can deduce this observation: when a negative event or sin occurs and only a few people do it, society criticizes it. But when that same negative event/sin is imitated by a lot more people, society tends to tolerate it.

Why is this? It's as if people become desensitized if a sinful activity becomes rampant. It becomes a part of life, a culture; it becomes something to accept, not something to condemn!

Then, there's abortion. The controversial Roe vs. Wade court case, which ultimately led to the legalization of abortion in some states in the US is much to blame (but not entirely).

Fact is, no amount of legalization will make somebody who is in God, who knows good from evil choose the wrong over the right.

Yup. It's easy enough to put the blame on the judges who erred on legalizing abortion. Roe vs. Wade can easily be such a scapegoat.

But it's also a fact that even before Roe vs. Wade, there were already too many abortions in the US! Roe vs. Wade only increased it exponentially.

It's also a well-known fact that an increase in premarital sex leads to an increase in unwanted pregnancies (particularly teenage pregnancy), and an increase in unwanted pregnancies lead to a corresponding increase in abortions.

People have become lax with their morals, like morality is some inconvenience to their daily lives.

Statistics For The Soul?

2008-07-22T06:49:00.000-07:00

In today's world, statistics plays such a vital role in our lives.

Yup, statistics. People, even businesses and economies rely a lot on statistics. Data from it influences decisions from the ordinary family to the governments themselves.

Say, for example, statistics says 60% of family budgets are allocated by the average family to food alone. You can be sure this data will affect a lot of things

A country's government may put ceiling caps on food being sold in that country so as to help the citizens from food prices being too high.

Private businesses may decide to invest more on food. There will be a noticeable increase in restaurants, eateries and food establishments sprouting everywhere, etc.

But we also have a tendency to rely too much on statistics. If we're not careful, this over-reliance can become an idol to us.

Take for example this statistic: Less than 2% of men and women will have stomach cancer.

Sure, you breath a sigh of relief. Great. You tell yourself "It's such a low percentage chance it'll most probably not affect me. I'm quite safe."

Well, I'm sure the 2% or less of men who actually got the cancer thought the same way.

Statistics has an important purpose, God Himself gave it to man to help him improve nature through modernization and technology. This, of course, aside from other gifts.

Man, as caretaker of creation, has the privilege granted by God to improve upon nature. The use of modern science and technology is meant to enhance nature, to improve upon it and in a sense extend nature.

At the least, man also has the great responsibility of taking care of nature and protecting it.

But back to our previous topic. Relying on statistics is okay, even necessary.

Over-relying on statistics though is a big no-no. It may keep us from relying on prayer and instead rely on science more.

The truth is, what will the statistic "Less than 2% of men and women will have stomach cancer" mean anything to you when you already have the cancer?

None. It will not matter to you at all. You could care less if the statistical probability of having stomach cancer was less than 0.0001%!

Remember that prayer and faith are still more powerful than science. Always rely on prayer first.

It's Not a Perfect World

2008-07-15T06:14:00.000-07:00

We all want a perfect world. Or rather we all want to have a more perfect world, a more perfect life.

This need is so natural in us we don't even have to think about it, it just occurs. It's as if it was hidden in our subconscious mind.

But it all comes down to the reality that it's not a perfect world after all. Something we have to live with.

Remember that God is a perfect being. Since we were made in His likeness, it is innate in us to yearn or to aspire for a more perfect situation.

It's "natural law", a spiritual instinct in us that makes us feel what should be (perfection) and what should not be (imperfection).

Perfection is an ideal state which is really more of a freedom from evil, or sin (freedom from crimes included).

Imperfection is the opposite. It is what we instinctively feel should not happen or should not be. These would include events like the prevalence of sin, widespread evil, rampant crimes, unpunished crimes, etc.

Below are some case scenarios wherein we'll try to analyze possible causes or reasons on why God has allowed certain events to occur. Many of these are very hard to justfy or explain.

Remember that nothing happens without God's permission and He needs to sometimes allow evil to occur in this world for His own reasons (possibly as a form of punishment for many cases).

And God's wisdom and reasons cannot always be understood at all, beyond our human understanding (we'll try our best though):

Case 1) A very wealthy but also very corrupt politician seems to have it all - lots of money, properties here and there, family, wife and lots of kids, seems to get away with graft and corruption everytime, etc.

At first glance, one may wonder "Why all the injustice? This man cheats and steals from tapayers' money (your money!) yet here he is, all safe and free....and happy to boot.

Happy? Hmmm, I don't think so.

He doesn't sleep well at night, always worrying if he'll eventually get caught. He plans his next moves of escape and deceit, amidst sleepless nights. His conscience hounds him on the money that is not really his and on the people he had to step on to get to his current lofty position.

And miles away, a poor but humble and honest man sleeps peacefully......

The politician's family? They look so completely happy to other people. But do you really know what the truth is behind the public eye?

All for show when outside. The truth is, the parents are so busy they hardly have time for their children. One of the children has a drug addiction problem, one has problems with failing grades in school, the other is a juvenile delinquent involved in a gang, fights, etc.

Stereotype? No, hard to believe but this is as true as it can get. It is more common than you think.

In this world there is always a price to pay and the price for sin is always high indeed, always.

Case 2) A good man - honest, close to God, always helping others, always with something good to say to somebody, serves the Church well, etc.

Then he gets accused of a crime he didn't commit and goes to jail. His name and reputation is shattered, his family falls apart, people accuse him unjustly, etc.

So what happened? How can God let such a good, holy man go to this end? Why?

We can surmise that God allowed this to happen for His reasons, His higher reasons.

This man is being used by God as a model for others to follow. If he remains in God through all the hardships and trials, he would be accomplishing his God-given mission.

We all need somebody to look up to, a role model for us to learn from. Especially in times of trials, this becomes all the more important.

So when some crisis happens to you or our loved ones, this good man's example of faith, courage and eventual triumph over great odds shall see you through.

Remember the saying "After the storm....the calm sea."

Case 3) A mafia boss - he seems to live an ideal life (similar to the politician example above), has so much money, lots of properties, wife and kids, he's got the fame of a celebrity, lots of henchmen and bodyguards, various businesses (both legal and illegal!), etc. Name it, he's got it.

People may ask "Why the injustice? Why does God allow an evil man like this to prosper? There are so many other men, honest good men who deserve the good life more."

First off, a life of crime when chosen has only one road - the road to destruction. It is always a life of sadness, a life where there is no peace. Without peace of heart and mind, a person cannot find happiness.

This mafia boss lives that life. There is no peace for him. His smile is only for the camera.

Behind the limelights though, his dirty conscience eats him up alive. It is a wonder, no small miracle if he can sleep soundly at night at all. He most probably has to use sleeping pills or tranquilizers.

And that's only for starters. When he goes out of his house, he always has to fear for his life. He needs to surround himself with a lot of bodyguards just to assure his safety.

Rich or poor matters little to the bullet. Anybody is vulnerable. Even President Kennedy was not immune to it!

You see, a mafia boss will inevitably have enemies because of struggles for power and territorial disputes.

It's also observable that people like him and his group seem to attract trouble, violence, bloodshed, etc. or a mix of these like a magnet. There's like this aura of "negative energy", if you will, around them or when you're near them that you can actually feel. Strange indeed.....

After this revelation, I don't think anyone can still argue God's justice on this person. He definitely does not live "the good life!"

Case 4) World wars - Why do wars occur? World wars have been occurring since time immemorial. These have claimed countless lives, wrecked economies, harbored hatred and fear, etc. Why would a loving, all-merciful God allow war to happen?

It's hard, but war is allowed by God to happen as a form of chastisement or punishment usually for "collective sin."

A single person's sin is an individual's sin. Collective sin is a combination of many people's sins.

Say, a whole nation's people approve of abortion. Or the majority of the nation's people support an unrighteous war. There are many examples from history.

In World War 2, a whole nation literally supported the invasion of other countries.

Yes, the people of Germany gave no opposition to Adolph Hitler's dreams of empire, of conquest. They were beguiled, charmed by the fiery speeches of a sweet-talking madman, Hitler.

They fell under his spell, mainly convincing them that Germans were the "master race" and that it was their inherent right to conquer. He also manipulated them into believing the lie that they had to attack other nations in order to protect themselves from being attacked first.

Sure, it was self-defense. Oh really now....

Let's take a more recent occurrence.

At this point in time (year 2008), the United States is besieged with so many problems. The housing bubble and credit crunch, among other factors, have hurt the economy in a way not seen since the Great Depression.

The US economy may be headed towards a recession (if not already in it!).

One can rightfully ask: "Why is this happening?"

Well, if in terms of "collectve sins", it doesn't take a genius to see the morality in the States going downward drastically through the years. Yup, time to be honest here.

I'll say the truth here though. Among all the countries in the world, the United States is the country that's capable and most worthy of being the world leader.

Let me explain.

Look, you really have to see the alternatives.

China? They're a world power now, sure, but are other nations willing to look up to communist Chinese for leadership?

The massacre at Tiananmen Square is enough reason. Also, their lack of good English-speaking skills makes it all the more unlikely. English, being the currently accepted universal language is key.

Japan? It's another world power. But the Japanese lack a sense of oneness, they seem to be "too distant" from other races.

They do not possess a clear role of leadership especially compared to Americans. Again, their lack of English-speaking skills is also a factor.

The Europeans? Germany, France or Russia maybe? However, again Europeans are not fluent with the English language compared to the Americans. But more importantly, (not to be offensive or racist here, ok?) Europeans seem to have this "distance".

Just a theory here, possibly the pride of being the original "Old World" powers make the Europeans seem a little too, well, unfriendly?

This leaves us with the Americans. One can say that compared to the Europeans, Japanese, or the Chinese, Americans are a friendlier race. They usually are compassionate people even to their enemies.

A good proof of this is the word "Joe". This word is widely recognized by different races of different people around the world as referring to an American person.

In the news, you see videos and pictures of Americans giving candy bars, chewing gum, etc. to the masses even in times of war.

It seems that Americans are informal by nature, in relative comparison to the Europeans, Chinese and Japanese (observably very formal people!). This informality and friendly, compassionate nature usually makes the American race in a lot more friendly terms with different races, people of many different culures.

Of course, it's not all roses. We're not saying the Americans are perfect, not by a long shot. Like all races they do have their weaknesses as we all do.

It could be the price of being the largest, richest economy in the world. There is so much materialism and consumerism in the US now, that morality has suffered a lot in return.

Take for example the now popular case "Roe vs. Wade", which led courts to ultimately legalize abortion. Now, over ten million babies a year are being aborted in the US alone, a staggering figure by any point of view!

San Francisco has become a haven for homosexuals. A new perversion has emerged, the legalization of so-called "same sex marriage".

The US has also seen a recent wave of mass killings, particularly schools and shopping malls. Hostage-taking usually takes place, the hostages are killed and the hostage-taker kills himself.

In a lot of incidents, there's just people being shot at random by the gunman or gunmen. The lenient laws on gun ownership is much to blame for these.

So are the numerous problems affecting the US now just a result of coincidence? Some accident perhaps?

Of course not. We can clearly observe the truth that the major social and economic problems happening in the US can be said to be directly related to the increasing moral degradation in the US.

This simply means the more morality goes down in the US, the more problems will occur. Yup, a clear case of cause and effect, this is truly universal law. These problems are the effect, and people's "collective sins" are the cause of this effect.

It's a "multiplier effect" of each individual person's sins, slowly but surely adding to each other and increasing the overall sins of all. Again, this overall sin is what is called "collective sin".

One could argue though "Why only the US? Other countries are a lot worse in terms of morality. Say, legalization of prostitution in Holland, honor killings in the Middle East, high suicide rate in Japan, forced abortion in China, etc."

Good point. However, we can also argue that the God is stricter with the US because the US plays a more special role as the leader of nations, something most nations are not capable of.

More power, more responsibility. This is a universal law. Assuming all things equal, the collective sins of people in the US will have more punishments than the collective sins of another country's people.

It cannot be the same because God needs to discipline the US more, so as to be a good example and model country to others.

Reality and the Human Mind

2007-10-09T07:02:00.000-07:00

The human mind was created by God to "conceive" reality. Meaning, reality has always been there before us.

God gave us a mind to see reality as He made it, as it truly exists. He made reality as He saw fit, in His genius.

So the human mind cannot create its own reality, nor can it re-create existing reality either.

The mind was not made to change reality but to understand it.

So if the mind is not used to understand reality and accept it as it is, then the mind loses its purpose.

Take for example the truth that God exists.

What if all the people in the world suddenly turned atheist (God forbid!) and stopped believing in God's existence?

Would that, in any way, affect or change the truth that God exists? Would God stop existing?

Of course not. God has always existed before time, before we were even created. He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.

Or if everybody stopped believing the planets exist (which they do not physically see), does that make the planets disappear?

It is important to know about this because there has been a recent surge in a belief called "relativism".

Relativism is a belief that there are no absolute truths, that truth is or can be subjective.

You may not realize it as it can be so subtle. It happens around us more often than we think.

Ever heard a relative or friend say "Oh, just do what you think is right." after you asked him or her what to do.

Or when you ask somebody "Hey, do you think I did the right thing?", you get this reply: "You only did what you thought was right."

Yup, that's relativism. So anybody can decide what is right and wrong huh? Whatever happened to what God and the Bible teaches?

God is the Supreme Authority, not any angel, man or woman.

Ironically, the statement of relativism that "There are no absolute truths" is self-contradictory!

By stating that as its own truth, relativism contradicts its own belief that there are no truths (everything being subjective or relative).

The evil and error of relativism can be seen and felt on both a personal and a world-wide scale.

Examples of the deadly tentacles of relativism spreading around the world are all over the news.
You see prostitution being legalized in some countries already like in Holland, while in most countries it is illegal.

Abortion is legal in some states in the United States, while illegal in some. It's as if the US isn't one country anymore really. All in the name of human rights, etc.

It's supposed to be the "United States" not the "Divided States".

So you see, one of the major reasons we shall always need God is because of this.

We humans beings will always need God as the supreme and absolute rule of law.

We need God as the higher being to rule over us, to decide and teach us what is right and what is wrong.

The alternative is chaos and disorder by relativism. Each person or persons of authority having their own opinion or version of wrong and right.

Imagine the president of one country declaring murder is not a crime, that he (and his trusted advisors) believes murderers should not be punished.

Then other presidents of other countries declaring the opposite, of course, that murder is a crime punishable by law.

Then that errant president arguing "But who has the right to decide right and wrong? And by what authority? It's all relative or subjective."

Then he further argues that they all can agree to disagree, that they all are intelligent, educated people (thus who is more intelligent cannot be an issue here!), etc.

So how do you refute or counter his argument?

Do you see clearly the chaos and utter confusion the errors of relativism brings?

Each person of authority creating their own rules based on what is beneficial to them, and not necessarily what is morally correct or for the common good.

We need God and shall always need Him or there will be no end to what is wrong and what is right, to what is good and evil.

Only The Real Matters

2007-09-05T06:57:00.000-07:00

We go through life searching, ever searching for answers...to some certain questions about life itself.

Why? Why do we do it? Why the need to do it?

When God creates a soul He puts inside that soul certain, unique characteristics. The Bible itself says "we were created in the image and likeness of God Himself".

Wow, what further proof of God's love do we still need?

One of the most important characteristics that God puts in our soulis called "natural law".

Natural law is defined as an automatic, almost subconscious knowledge of good and evil, of what is right and wrong.

Don't get confused though. What we call natural law is simply an"instinct" in us that makes us realize and feel that a certain act is wrong or right.

This is true irregardless of a person's religion, beliefs, culture, etc. It is therefore generic in us, something that is biological and cannot be said to be influenced by external, environmental factors.

Another proof supporting the truth of natural law is found in science. Scientific tests have shown that human babies already possess their unique personality traiits at the start.

It shows babies are either introvert, extrovert, or a more balanced mix of both from the start. That's why some babies are more passive than others and some more active.

This confirms the reason is biological and not environmental.

Without these scientfic proofs, people can often judge wrongly that a kid is shyer than others because the parents didn't bring him up well. Though, granted, traumatic events in a person's life can affect or alter personality it is not often the case.

This is not to say that parents' disciplining their children or bringing them up well is not important. No, on the contrary, it is very important to shaping a child.

The Holy Bible itself says in Proverbs (attributed to King Solomon himself!) "Bring up a child in ways that are of good, and he will never stray from that path in the future."

If the scientific tests are a basis though, the personality of a person, whether he or she is more of an extrovert, introvert, or a more balanced mix of both is based more on biological factors and not environmental.

We must defiine personality clearly though. It can often be confused with the spiritual level or what we call the "righteousness" of a person.

Personality can be defined as whether a person is more of an introvert, an extrovert, or a more balanced mix of the two. It is not in any way related to whether a person is good or bad.

Being an introvert or extrovert doesn't determine the spiritual level of a person.

If you're more of an introvert, shy and reserved, quiet type, how does that lead you to sin? It's the same with extrovert-type people.

Personality simply means you're either a more quiet type or the more talkative-type person.

So now that we know this, the next natural question would be "So what does determine the spiritual level or righteousness of a person?"

We already know it is not biological in nature. It means no person can be born "naturally evil" nor "naturally good". This is the main point.

If it's not biological, then what else is left?

Yes, there is only the environmental factor left. We can state that the spiritual level of a person is caused by environmental factors, not biological.

This also means being a good person or a bad person is definitely a choice.

Sin, by definition, has to be a choice of a person. If a person was forced to commit a sinful act, the act cannot be considered sin.

There are people who erroneously believe a person can be born evil, or has a tendency to do evil just because he/she was born that way.

This is why it's important to know the truth, that a good or bad person is not born but made.

Those who do sinful acts will never have an excuse now. They cannot state "this is my nature that's why I can't help it."

So remember and never forget: "Only the real matters. Reality is truth and truth is reality. Therefore, only the truth matters."

What is the meaning of suffering?

2007-06-19T07:06:00.000-07:00

Oftentimes, we wonder what the true meaning of suffering is. Why do we have to suffer?

Sure, we need not really understand the meaning of happiness. When we are happy, we feel joy automatically.

A smile forms on our face, the adrenaline rush.... We feel no immediate need to understand the feeling of being happy.

We dwell on it, and consciously and subconsciously wish our feelings of joy last as long as possible and not end. Who doesn't want to be happy?

God created us to be happy. The need for happiness is as basic as the need to love and to be loved. The highest form of happiness is love, and must always be based on love.

Happiness from a source not based on love does not last as long, and the intensity is also lower. This is God's universal law.

Happiness from love is so instantaneous.

But it's not a perfect world. Suffering is as much a part of our life as happiness is. Two sides of the same coin, right?

If you will observe in life, majority of our life is still filled with blessings of joy and only minority of our life is laden with sufferings and pain.

It is not because we deserve it, most certainly not. Like the saints say "Not through any merit of mine, but only through God's grace."

God is so good that He still allows happiness to occur for the most part in a person's life. Sadness and sufferings usually occur only as a minority part of our lifetimes.

So back to our original question 'What is the meaning of suffering and why do we have to suffer?"

No one, not even the saints themselves or the brightest theologians have ever laid claim to having the ultimate answer to this question.

Any person who does claim it is speaking from a point of vanity, not reason.
What we can offer is what has been observed from the past and is being observed in the present.

Many of the answers themselves so far are still an ongoing study.

We can state that suffering is an occurrence in our life that actually has many purposes. God uses suffering in this world for a variety of reasons, not always obvious to us or the suffering person.

In this sense, the cause or causes of a particular suffering can be a case-to-case basis thing. There is no one particular cause (or causes) for every occurrence of suffering in a person's life.

In the New Testament, Jesus forgave the sins of people with diseases and disabilities who came to Him to be healed of their misery.

Diseases and disabilities cause misery or suffering to a person. We can note that Jesus forgave the person's sins first before declaring "Your sins are forgiven. Go in peace."

At this point, only then does the actual miraculous physical healing occurs.

So in that sense, it is clear that the sufferings, misery of a person may be the result of past and/or present unrepented sins by that person.

However, the danger here is the fallacy that the cause of a person suffering right now is from entirely the result of his/her past and/or present sins. That may be the case, but it may also be from a very different cause or causes.

The Bible reminds us that God's ways are higher than ours, His wisdom beyond ours (or even the angels and saints!). It says "For who can fathom the ways of God?"

We see a beggar in the street and may unjustly accuse or judge the person prematurely. Some may say "He's lazy".

Others may blame his misery on a mismanaged government, hard economic times, corrupt people in power, etc. or even a combination of these.

We would be at fault here when we judge this beggar and conclude immediately that he's suffering now because of his past and/or present sins.

The truth is, only God truly knows all the causes, all the reasons for a person's suffering. We as humans may be able to know some of the reasons or part of the reasons but that's about it.
Our knowledge is limited.

The point is we often judge other people prematurely, we view them negatively in advance. This is a form of discrimination in itself, a "superiority complex" attitude.

It's implying we are better than somebody. Jesus Himself said "Why do you notice the speck in your brother's eye, while not seeing the pillar in your own eye? Remove your own speck first, then you would be able to see more clearly."

The truth is therefore, only God has the right to judge. He knows us, sees our souls inside out.

Also, one of the major reasons for a person's suffering is God could be testing that person. It makes us realize how weak we truly are without God and how much we need Him.

Trials and sufferings make a person stronger, tougher in the end.

A person thoroughly tested is likened by the Bible to "gold purified by fire." Like gold has to be cleansed or purified by the fires of a furnace, so it is with the human soul.

You will see this truth in great men and women, especially the saints. They're honored as great because they suffered a lot, but more importantly overcame these great odds.

People like St. Francis of Assisi, Mahatma Gandhi, Helen Keller, to name but a few.

King Solomon of the Holy Bible, the wisest man and king who ever lived was the one who wrote Chapters 10-22 of the Bible's Book of Proverbs. He once said "The man who conquers himself is greater than the conqueror of cities."

It's that hard. We all have weaknesses along with our strengths. It's always wise to thank God for whatever happens to us, good or bad.

If we truly trust Jesus, then everything is for a higher purpose.

In times of good or plenty, we can thank God for the blessings, the happiness, knowing fully well not everybody has these blessings.

Also, reflecting on harder times, troubled times in our lives (and our family's lives)
in the past helps us truly appreciate what we have been given.

This is true whether these blessings are great or of the smallest blessings.

But in harder times, we should pray to God for deliverance but still thank Him for the blessings we still have as well as the blessings we had in the past.

Ironically, it is even more important in hard times to see our blessings.

It is so much harder to see our blessings during troubled times than normal times
or when everythng is going so well for us.

The 7 Virtues

2007-01-26T05:43:00.000-08:00

The Holy Church has discovered seven holy virtues that fight or
defend against the seven deadly sins/vices. These serve as antidotes
to sin, like medicine to disease.

These seven virtues are (in no particular order except for humility)
humility, patience, vigilance/diligence, chastity, generosity,
abstinence, and kindness.

1) Humility - This virtue is considered the source of all the other
virtues, and therefore the highest among all virtues. It is acts of
humility that leads to all other virtues. If pride/vanity, the
highest of the seven sins, is the source of all evil then humility is
the source of all good - being its exact opposite.

If we combine all the seven virtues (along with its sub-virtues),
what results? The result is love, love is produced. Love, then is the
summation of all the virtues. And let's never forget that "God is
love". He is the ultimate source of love, and all the holy virtues.

Love, the virtues, and all that is good and holy can never exist
without our Almighty God.

Why is it so hard to be humble? Humility is the highest of the seven
virtues but it is also correspondingly, the hardest among the virtues.

The saints themselves valued humility the most. They are the
happiest men and women in this world because of this - that the
secret of happiness is humility.

There's a wise saying: "Only the humble are happy."

In order to be happy, one must be grateful for one's blessings (both
good times and bad). But in order to be grateful, one must be humble
first. Therefore, only the humble are happy.

Only the grateful appreciate their blessings and are happy for it.
Only the humble are grateful. Therefore, only the humble are happy.

2) Patience - This virtue defeats anger, one of the seven deadly
sins/vices. Anger is like a raging fire and patience is the gushing
water that puts it out. Anger, along with lukewarmness, is one of the
most common or frequent among the seven sins.

How hard it is to be patient! You're patient one moment, then
impatient the next.

Why do we become angry in the first place? Analyze yourself when you
give way to your anger. You will notice the truth that you only
become angry when you lose your patience. You get impatient first
before it leads you to anger.

That's why people who are easily prone to anger (I'm sure you know a
lot!) are also impatient people. Being patient is not their cup of tea.

Say, some big-time politician who demands everybody's attention, and
can't be made waiting for her order in a restaurant. The arrogance
and impatience leads the politician to bad-mouth, even threaten the
restaurant's workers in a fit of rage.

When confronted by angry people, you will often be tempted to be
angry yourself. Don't fight fire with fire, you will only fan the
flames. Practice the virtue of patience instead.

It's hard of course, especially when you're being insulted by that
angry person. But if you become patient enough, long enough, you'll
see the angry person start calming down. It's a soothing effect.

3) Vigilance/Diligence - This virtue defeats lukewarmness, one of
the seven deadly sins/vices. Lukewarmness, along with anger, is one
of the most common or frequent of the seven sins.

Ever have the feeling of waking up one morning, feeling lazy? Your
movements are slow, monotonous, like a zombie even. You mutter "it's
just another day like all the rest." That's lukewarmness, you're
neither hot nor cold.

Lukewarmness is a lack of fire, a coldness toward the activities of
life. It is a laziness towards doing good works and spiritual duties,
which eventually only leads to laziness in all aspects of that
person's life.

Observe lukewarm people closely. People who are lukewarm are usually
the ones that avoid spiritual acts, or who do not give importance to
religious works or anything related to it. They prioritize other
things over the spiritual.

They say "I don't have time for the religious meetings at church".
These are the very people who suddenly have enough time for the mall
or the Super Bowl! Talk about double standards.

Then observe people who can fight lukewarmness, people who are full
of zest and joy for life. Their dynamism is amazing. They have that
big smile most of the time, they are always eager to serve God more
by serving others. They do not avoid their spiritual duties or good
works.

It affects their whole life.

These vigilant, dynamic people tend to excel in their daily lives as
well as their spiritual life. They're also the ones who are leaders
in industry, They are always a role model for others to follow and
are an amazing sight to behold!

4) Abstinence - This virtue defeats gluttony, one of the seven
deadly sins.

Why abstain? Abstinence is necessary to fight addictions or
obsessions in life, these things that can take over our lives.
Without the sacrifice of abstaining, we can become virtual "slaves of
our passions".

Addictions. There are quite a lot huh? There are addictions to
almost anything that is enjoyable or gives pleasure. There's
addictions to watching too much TV, addictions to food or over-eating
(gluttony), addictions to over-working (workaholism) as well as other
addictions.

There are, of course, greater, more dangerous forms of gluttony or
addiction. Drug addiction (narcotic drugs), gambling addiction,
alcohol addiction (alcoholism), etc. have literally destroyed lives
and families.

Why do gluttony, obsessions and addictions have to be so closely
related to something enjoyable or pleasurable? The answer lies in
hedonism. Hedonism is based on the "pleasure principle", a form of
idolatry towards pleasure. It is tied to the belief that pleasure is
a primary purpose of existence.

Pleasure was created by God as a gift to us. There is pleasure in
eating food, in delicious drinks, in sleeping, in achieving
something, pleasure in hard work, etc. God could've chosen to not put
pleasure in these, but He chose to. That alone is enough reason to be
more grateful.

Pleasure, however, becomes harmful when it becomes an addiction or
obsession to a person. When we over-indulge in something pleasurable,
the activity can take over our lives such that we can find it
extremely hard to live life without it. It controls a person, and
that person becomes the slave rather than the master of that passion
or activity.

Abstinence requires the sacrifice of not giving in to the addiction,
of avoiding the activity for a period of time. It is hard and often
takes an iron will, but with God's help through prayers, it has been
done and can always be done again. Abstinence works!

5) Chastity - This virtue defeats lust, one of the seven deadly
sins/vices.

Chastity, especially in today's modern world is getting harder and
harder to do for many people. The media and technology have
multiplied the evil tentacles of lust by unheard-of proportions
through the spread of pornography.

The fact that pornography is a multi-billion dollar business in the
US alone speaks for itself. It has led to increased rape of women,
abortions, promiscous sex, sexual perversions, etc.

Lust can be defined as a form of "addiction" or gluttony towards
sexual pleasure or the sexual act.

The practice of chastity is the best way to fight the fires of lust
when it tempts us. Lust is a "fire sin", it tends to try to arouse
our base passions, our instincts. Like dousing fire, we need the
water of chastity to put it out.

In this way, chastity can be a form of abstinence towards the sin of
lust.

To be chaste in today's modern smut-filled world is truly hard.
Chastity is a virtue that can be compared to a white robe. During our
birth, we are chaste by nature and our souls can be compared to a
white robe, untainted and pure, white as snow. Innocence is a virtue!

Innocence is not ignorance. The two are very different from each
other. Innocence is a virtue, while ignorance is not. Ignorance comes
from sin and can also lead to sin.

God made the virtue of innocence for an important purpose. A child,
for example, has innocence to protect him/her from matters that will
not be suitable for his/her young age. Hence, you cannot teach "adult
matters" like sex, alcohol, smoking, etc. to a child. The child will
not be "mature" enough to make the choices necessary on such
sensitive topics.

It will not be choice anymore, but a decision based on confusion,
misunderstanding and lack of knowledge.

Ignorance is very different. Say a person murdering a drug pusher
(ala vigilante punisher style), can justify his action by telling
himself that he is doiing good to society. He is clearly ignorant of
the truth that only God, who gave us life can take away life.Not any
human being nor even the state.

But it's not a perfect world. As we grow up, our innocence is
diminished, and we become familiar with sin.

Slowly, like a white robe being tainted with dirt, our soul
accumulates sin as time goes by. The blackness and darkness of sin
enters what was once pure.

We simply are not the same anymore. Something has changed. Sin
causes us to lose our innocence and we can feel this loss so
naturally, without even thinking about it.

It's that dark feeling, negative and fearful.... a lack of peace
that is the usual characteristic of sin.

Chastity can also be applied to married couples as well. Instead of
giving in to the sexual appetite too often (than normal!?), both
partners can practice "abstinence from sex" every once in a while.By
abstaining, we actually increase our own self-control, and we do not
become "slaves of our passion".

And it does help in "family planning", when you and your partner
can't afford another pregnancy. There's this difference in that you
are doing "birth control" the natural way, a way that's allowed by
the Church.

Chastity works!

6) Generosity - this virtue defeats greed or avarice, one of the
seven deadly sins.

We all know generous people. Why? Because there are so few of them!

In current times where economic hardships seem to occur more
frequently, it is getting harder to find generous people. It is
getting harder to be generous as we don't want to take risks with
the uncertain future.

Most people live from paycheck to paycheck. There's always concern
about monthly costs of living, rising prices of commodities, lack of
job security, lesser pension payments and shrinking value, etc.- not
to mention the volatility of oil prices in these times.

And every year, there's that economic reality called "inflation",
which simply means prices of goods and services tend to rise up, not
down.

Before this piece becomes an economics lesson, it's good to know
there's good news out there though.

There's a new trend and this one's something to really be happy
about. there's been a major increase in donations to charity by very
rich people.

If you've been reading the news recently, really rich people,
billionaires like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett (with their wives to
boot) have greatly increased their donations to charities especially
their own foundations.

And it's not just limited to the West. Recently, asian action
superstar Jackie Chan donated more than 33% of his fortune (millions
of dollars) to various charities and charitable causes. He was simply
following other asian tycoons who donated from their huge fortunes
before.

It just shows the great truth that people are by nature, kind-
hearted. People are willing to help and do good to others when given
the chance.

7) Kindness - this virtue defeats envy, one of the seven deadly sins.

When faced with temptations of envy, pray for kindness to enter your
heart.

Know that God is perfect, and He gives His gifts to each of us for
His own reasons.

We all have different gifts. We only become envious when we feel
someone was given more or we feel we deserve more from God.

But what is it really to be kind?

To be kind means so much more than it sounds. And especially, to be
kind to others is easier to say than to actually do wth consistency.

Our Lord Jesus Himself said it in the Bible: "Even the pagans love
their children."

Why?

Many people are usually kind to others so other people will also
repay that kindness. Say, a person helped somebody by giving that
person a loan to pay some hospital bills.

Worse comes to worse, that helpful person may in the future, ask for
some help from the person he/she helped previously. It's a "debt of
gratitude". Debt of gratitude by any other word, is still a debt, and
debts are meant to be paid at some future time.

I know this can confuse, but don't get me wrong here. The principle
of "debt of gratitude" is a splendid thing, amazing even. It is
kindness given, kindness repaid. It's a mutual action, one that
usually makes people do good things to others.

In this sense, it is truly mutually beneficial to people and
promotes doing good and avoiding doing evil to others (to avoid being
treated badly in turn).

But God, Jesus, calls us to do more. The Christian is called to do
so much more than that!

For the Christian, he/she is required to practice "agape" or
"unconditional love", the highest form of love. The true Christian
will help others even without anything in return.

For Christian life requires the highest of love which also requires
the hardest sacrifice, even sufferings. It in turn, however, gives
the happiest life possible in this world...and in the next.

The 7 Deadly Sins

2005-10-17T06:25:00.000-07:00

The Church, through the ages, has discovered seven major weaknesses in men and women - known to us as the popular "Seven Deadly Sins". They are named as such because out of these seven primary sins, all other sins arise.

The seven deadly sins (known also as the "The Seven Vices" or the "Seven Capital Sins") are credited to an ancient Greek monastic theologian, named Evagrius of Pontus. The seven sins are (in no particular order): pride/vanity, anger, lukewarmness, lust, envy, greed, and gluttony.

God, in His love and mercy, has revealed to us "The Seven Virtues" through the Church. These seven virtues are antidotes against the seven sins/vices. These seven are:

1) Humility => Pride

2) Patience => Anger

3) Vigilance/Diligence => Lukewarmness

4) Chastity => Lust

5) Generosity => Greed/Avarice

6) Kindness => Envy

7) Abstinence => Gluttony

Humility is the source of all the virtues, just as pride is the source of all sins/vices.

Love, then, is the summation of all the virtues. And God is love.....

The "Seven Sins" in the common person are all rooted in the highest of all the seven sins - pride or vanity. Pride is the root of all the sins of men and women and is therefore the root of all evil.
The Seven Sins are:

1) Pride/vanity - defined by St. Thomas Aquinas as the "inordinate love for oneself". It is the cause of all sin and evil. The root of pride is man not subjecting himself to God's authority; of man's willful choosing of self over God.

It is that "thin line" between righteousness and self-righteousness.

It is clear that it is not wrong and only normal to love one's self. To love ourselves is self-preservation. What is wrong is to love ourselves too much, in an inordinate degree.

It becomes wrong when a person loves himself/herself so much that eventually, he or she loves himself/herself over God.

In all of mankind's history, there was never a sin no matter how small or great that did not have its root in pride or vanity. It is also therefore the most common sin.

Pride actually started not on Earth, but of all places, it started in Heaven! One of the highest ranked angels, Lucifer, was blessed by God with amazing gifts above most angels. He also possessed physical beauty, such as other angels looked up to him and music was said to accompany him wherever he was.

Instead of thanking God, this angel swelled up with pride and vanity at his God-given power and beauty. He eventually decided his power and gifts were not enough and desired to become as powerful as God Himself!

He tempted other angels in the process and had around 1/4 to 1/3 of the angels on his side. God chose a lower ranked angel, St. Michael the Archangel, to lead the majority of angels on God's side. St. Michael and the good angels defeated Lucifer and his evil angels in a great war.

God banished Lucifer and the evil angels out of Heaven, and straight into a dark pit called Hell. From that day forward, Lucifer's name became Satan. He and all the evil angels lost their natural angelic beauty and their sin corrupted their spirits forever.

It was Satan (in a serpent's form) that tempted our first parents to commit the first sin, "original sin", in the garden of Eden. Amazingly, he tempted them by a similar attack of
pride - he told Eve that she and Adam will become gods if they ate of the fruit forbidden by God. And they did.

The virtue that fights against pride/vanity is the highest virtue of all - humility. Since pride is the highest vice/sin, it is defeated by the greatest virtue, the virtue of humility.

Truly, humility is the hardest virtue to master. First, it is so hard to reach a certain level of humility. Second, assuming you do reach that level, it is so much harder to maintain it!

The truth is, in order to maintain a certain degree of humility much vigilance is needed. If you acquired a certain degree of humility at a certain moment, (say, right this moment) you will find that your humility level can go down as fast as a running cheetah. Just like that.

It is that hard. You really need to guard against pride as often as possible, as in every moment. It is hard but possible as the saints and holy people have shown us.

By our human strength alone, constant humility is impossible. But with God's grace (which we ask by prayer) it is indeed possible and necessary.

2) Anger - also known as "wrath". It is a sin that occurs when a person chooses hatred instead of love, resulting in a fury of emotions that overcome reason.

It is only justified when reason is still present when the strong emotions occur as the person does not lose control of himself/herself. Anger, if not tempered, can result in harm (physically or verbally) to another person who is the object of that hatred.

Anger is so common, it can occur right after we had a bad waking up in the morning!

How many times have we justified anger, saying "He/she caused me to lose my temper! It's only right I got mad." See the pride present in this self-righteousness example?

It's that pride that makes us prefer hatred 'instead of forgiveness or understanding. Hatred can turn into anger eventually. It's like a powder keg just waiting to be lit.

Of the "Seven Virtues", the virtue of "patience" is the antidote against "anger".

The more we understand or try to understand a person the more we become patient with that person.

As the popular Bible verse of St Paul says: "Love is patient, love is kind. Love does not keep a record of wrongs."

3) Lukewarmness - The sin of lukewarmness (or sloth) is defined by St Thomas Aquinas as "a form of sadness characterized by a lack of enthusiasm or fire in the accomplishment of spiritual works particularly those that demand more sacrifice".

It is neither being hot nor cold. A soul in lukewarmness is like a "living dead", doing duties without much love but out of obligation only. He/she lives life in a routine manner and possibly has forgotten what he/she is doing something for and why!

The lukewarm person lacks the love for God and this is the primary reason for lukewarmness.

The sad truth is that person may have started out strong, being very enthusiastic about serving God and others, praying, good works, etc.

But somewhere along the way, the person lost the "zeal", that fiery enthusiasm in doing good, and pretty much these things became routinary for him/her.

The fruits of lukewarmness are common indeed - sadness, laziness, taking our blessings for granted, taking people for granted, taking the gift of life for granted, etc.

From time to time, even the most persevering person is tempted to be lukewarm, lazy in his/her duties (spiritual duties, financial duties, family duties, livelihood duties, and all other duties).

Most people think it's only natural to be lukewarm from time to time. That's why they give in, because it is so common and they see other "lukewarm people". No, this is a grave error.

The key difference between the lukewarm person and the "diligent/vigilant person" is that the diligent person knows "lukewarmness" is one of the seven deadly sins and so guards against it constantly.

He/she knows lukewarmess/laziness is a "spiritual abnormality" in our soul and the spiritual life. If you love God enough more than yourself or anyone and anything, lukewarmness or any form of laziness can never overcome you at all in the first place.

From time to time we may fall to lukewarmness. Our sinful nature ("original sin" which was inherited from Adam and Eve) may defeat our nature as "children created in the image and likeness of God".

When this happens, we must do as the saints do when they sin. They immediately get back up from the fall of sin. They humble themselves and admit their sin, pray for forgiveness and go to confession. Basically, they never delay the repentance but act upon the sin as soon as possible.

And it works......

If God is the source of all love and true happiness can only come from love, how then can a person serve God in an authentic way and not be extremely happy doing it? It is impossible to love God and not be happy at the same time!

When lukwarmness occurs, there is a noticeable sadness that always takes place. This "sadness" is a major sign of lukewarmness. It can only occur when there is a lesser love for God somewhere in the process of service.

When Jesus Christ our Lord appeared to Saint Sister Faustina, He emphasized the hurt He feels from lukewarm souls. These are souls whom He has blessed but somehow, over time, they forgot God's blessings and the need to be grateful.

Two major reasons for lukewarmness:

1) We become less humble when we forget the blessings that were given us by God. To maintain our humility, constantly reminding ourselves (and others) of God's blessings is a must. Humility and gratefulness is the key to loving God more and more.

It is not only hard; it is impossible to love God (and others as well as yourself!) without humility and gratefulness. This is a universal law of God.

2) When we forget that life is short, we become vulnerable to lukewarmness. A person tends to lose the urgency of living a holy life - a prayerful life and accomplishing good works.

So the need for urgency is a major purpose in constantly meditating and reminding ourselves of the mortality of our lives. As Mama Mary said to the visionaries at Medjugorje "Never forget that your life is but a passing flower."

Of the seven virtues, the virtue that defeats lukewarmness is vigilance/dynamism.

4) Lust - The sin of lust is an abnormal desire for sexual immorality of the human body. Since our body is the temple of God the Holy Spirit Himself, this sin degrades the holiness of our bodies and makes it unsuitable for God to dwell within.

Lust is actually an idolatry - an idolization of the flesh, specifically idolization of the sexual/carnal pleasures of the body. In the Old Testament, the city of Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by God Himsef because the people there were caught up in various sins of lust.

St. Paul stated "Do you not know that your bodies are holy, and are the temple of God the Holy Spirit? He dwells within our body, so be aware of sexual immorality of the body. So use your bodies only for God's glory."

"Any other sin is a sin against others. But the sin of lust and immorality is a sin against one's own body."

As an analogy, God created food for us to be pleasurable and tasteful. However, the primary purpose of food is the well-being and nutritional needs of our body. The pleasure and taste serve only a secondary purpose.

Exactly the same principle can be applied to the gift of sex. Sex is a holy gift from God and He gave this to both men and women as a pleasurable means for procreation. But when men and women abuse this holy gift, they commit the sin of lust.

God's primary purpose for sex is for the great gift of procreation, no less than the creation of a new life. The pleasure in sex serves only a secondary purpose. Also, this sexual pleasure is only allowed for married couples.

The Church is also strict in only allowing the use of NFP or "natural family planning". So popular forms of contraceptives like condoms, pills, etc. are not allowed.

Lust, according to the teachings of the Church, has six types or species. These six are fornication, adultery, incest, seduction, rape, unnatural vice.

1) Fornication - is normal, but unlawful sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman . You see this trend nowadays in the modern world with colorful terms like "sexual promiscuity", "free sex", etc. all in the name of the so-called "sexual revolution".

The "modernization" of sex has produced an overly liberated view of the sexual act. The sexual act is seen as just any ordinary act which tends to justify sexual promiscuity or liberated sex activities between single, unmarried people.

The truth that sex is and has always been a holy, and therefore special act given by God Almighty Himself to both men and women is the first major flaw of "liberated sex". It cannot be treated as ordinary, like animals "doing it" anywhere on the street.

2) Adultery - is normal, but unlawful sex between a married person and a single person, or between two married people not married to each other.

We all know about stories regarding the sin of adultery in some poor couple's marriage. People we may know personally, whose marriages end up in disaster (or divorce?) when one of the partners (sometimes even both!) become unfaithful and cheat on the other.

Yeah, it's hard to be loyal to one partner, hey nobody said it's going to be easy. But when temptations to cheat do come, go back to basics and think back. "What made you become attracted to your partner?" Think of all the good times and hard times you had together. Think also of the "marriage vow" you both made in front of God and man.

Remember that no person or partner is perfect. It is said that a man starts cheating if he starts to look for the missing 10% his wife doesn't have. He may look for this in another woman.

The secret is this: Appreciate the 90% your wife already has, the good times you shared together and the bad times you endured together. Do this well, and you will fight the temptation to cheat everytime.

3) Incest - is the use of unlawful sex by a man and a woman who are related by ties of blood, or of affinity - that is, a relationship from a marriage.

It has all the terrible characters of lust, with the violation of justice (if either party is married) and violation of the holy virtue of piety.

Incest is so repugnant, it is taboo to even talk about it or mention it in ordinary human discussions. Most cultures around the world recognize its evil and disastrous effect on families and society as a whole.

To have sexual activity with someone of your blood is horrifying, to say the least. Yet, even in the Old Testament, one of King David's sons committed incest with his sister.

During World War 2, at the "Rape of Nanking" incident in which hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians were killed in China, forced incestous acts occurred. The Japanese soldiers forced some Chinese family members to rape each other - fathers raping daughters, brothers raping sisters, etc. If they refused, their whole family was killed.

A similar incident occurred during the 1998 riots in Indonesia, under President's Suharto. Under threat of death, a Chinese family's members were also forced to rape each other - the father raping his daughter and the brother raping a sister.

4) Seduction - is the sexual violation of a virgin. It is a species of lust and is a grievous sin.

5) Rape - is the forceful sexual violation of a person. Violence used can often cause great physical and mental trauma to the victim, as well as death.

6) Unnatural vice - the lustful perversion of normal and natural sexual processes. It is considered the worst type of lust because it goes against the order of nature itself.

Unnatural vice includes lustful acts that can only be considered sodomistic: homosexuality (sexual acts w/ the same gender), bisexuality (sexual acts w/ both same and opposite genders), pedophilia (sex w/ children), bestiality (sex w/ animals), necrophilia (sex w/corpses), etc.

Remember also that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha were destroyed by God (fireballs from the sky) because of the lustful, sodomistic acts the people did there. Specifically, the sin of homosexuality was prevalent.

Homosexuality has sadly increased its presence in our modern times. We're still in a state of shock at recent events of legalized "same-sex marriages" which started in San Francisco, USA, and is threatening to expand its evil in other areas of the US and the world.

Homosexuals have argued that the "definition" of marriage could include marital union between the same sex. Marriage is traditionally defined as "marital union between two people", and is one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church.

Homosexuals have wrongly argued that the statement "marital union between two people" can possibly include two people of the same gender. The Church has always maintained that only opposite genders are allowed to marry.

The Holy Bible is clear that God created both man and woman for marital union and sexual union, that God will never approve of same-sex unions or marriage.

Unbelievable. I never thought such an act was even possible. Same-sex marriage was never an issue a generation ago, as such a horrible thought was virtually unheard of!

But these are different times. The "culture of death" has caused the increase of homosexuality, as well as its other evil allies including increase in abortions, increase in divorce rates, increase in single motherhood, rise of radical feminism, and many others.

Homosexuality has to acknowledge its major flaws. The case against homosexuality:

1) If you believe that God is perfect (and He is), then you must trust Him that the gender He created you with right now is best for you. A perfect god will never make mistakes.

Homosexuals who blame God or who believe their current gender does not suit them, that they're better off as the opposite gender go against the truth that God is perfect.

2) As stated before, in the Holy Bible, God created only two genders at the garden of Eden. There is no such thing as a third sex/gender. Homosexuality is a sin, invented by men and women. It is not a normal part of creation, and is not of God's natural order. It is an abomination to God's perfect design.

3) Homosexuals who defend their acts of lust are clearly going against God's law, and are openly defying God Himself. It is an act of open rebellion, the cause of which is the source of all sin - pride.

Proud people choose to be their own god by making their own rules and not subjecting themselves to God's authority.

4) There's this deception that homosexuality is biological in nature, that therefore it is innate and cannot be changed. This is a big lie and many homosexuals fall into this trap. The tendency is to not fight homosexual feelings and behavior anymore in the belief that it is somehow "natural".

Don't. There's a lot of ongoing debate and research even right now on the causes of homosexuality but one thing is clear: there is no clear evidence that homosexuality is biological, genetic, hereditary or innate.

The evidence actually points more toward environmental factors being the cause of homosexuality, rather than biological ones. Usually, "father figure problems", lack of communicaton/closeness to a father or acceptance/bonding problems with members of the same gender.

Just look at babies and see that there is no discernible homosexual behavior. This is clear proof that homosexuality is not biological.

Of the seven virtues, the virtue that defeats lust is chastity.

5) Greed - is the inordinate desire for material/wealth or mental gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called avarice or covetousness.

Greed is more commonly known to occur in the greed for material gain. We call a person greedy or selfish when he/she is too possessive of material goods, money, property. We all know people like that, and we ourselves do fall to it as well - some more than others.

One of the direct fruits of greed is called "possessiveness" or "jealousy". Greed is usually associated with a person who has an inordinate desire for more - more money, more power, more things, etc. Possessiveness or jealousy is similar yet dfferent. It is an inordinate desire to retain or keep someone or something, even when it's time to let go. It is an inability to let go of someone or something, an over-attachment.

A possessive or jealous person is incapable of being generous to others, an unwillingness to share to other people.

So greed also occurs in the inordinate desire for more mental gain, a possessive or jealous type of greed.

The veteran superstar basketball player who bullies and downplays a new player in the team who shows talent is showing a mental greed. By refusing to be generous to others, he is showing a selfish attitude and greediness. He cannot take it when others outshine him or take his place.

Or a rich person who fears losing his life because he has become over-attached or possessive of money and worldly goods. He finds it hard to let go of his possessions and his life. Knowing life must end one day, he fears death like a plague.

The fear of loss can make one possessive. Say, in a man-woman relationship. The woman decides to break up with the man but the man cannot let go of her. He has become over-attached to her and feels he cannot live life without her.

Such possessiveness can lead to severe depressions, extreme sadness, health problems, etc. One must know how to let go when it's time to do so.

When you analyze the cause of greed, the desire for more even beyond reason and the unwillingness to let go when needed is related to too much love for oneself - in psychology, an over-inflated ego.

When one goes into greed, only one's own self is important. The love for God and others disappears. No one and nothing else matters but the self. The greedy person exists in a vacuum as if he or she were an island among people.

And sometimes envy can make people go into greed. When one feels that another person has more than him/her, that person can try to "match" the other person's possessions/achievements, to the point of acquiring more and more.

Of the seven virtues, the virtue that defeats greed is the virtue of generosity. By being more generous to others, the possessive nature of the self or our ego is restrained and overcome.

6) Envy/covetousness - is the desire for other people's traits, talents, possessions, status, achievements, etc. It is desiring something (or someone!) which someone has, but which the envious person lacks or doesn't have.

We all fall from time to time to the sin of envy. God, in His mercy and infinite generosity has blessed each and every person with exactly the right gifts. He gave us both strengths and weaknesses to make us truly unique. Thus, there is no excuse for envy.

No person is perfect. The person whom you envy could feel the same way towards you. Say, you envy someone for being a good singer (while you're only average in singing). Who knows? He/she could be envious of your great dancing skills, since he/she is a poor dancer.

The saying goes "You only want what you do not have."

Envy is a sin that says "God is not giving me enough, compared to other people". There is that constant need to compare yourself to others who you perceive are doing better than you. Hence the popular saying "Keeping up with the Joneses" is rooted in the sin of envy.

The envious person does not see his/her blessings from God, but only sees what others have. He/she has this "tunnel vision", and there is little or no gratefulness to God who gives all gifts. Thus, the grace of God is not seen or appreciated by a person in envy.

God is perfect. He does not make mistakes in giving the appropriate gifts to each person as He sees fit. The envious person is guilty therefore of accusing our perfect God of being unfair or impartial.

Envy can also make a person greedy. Thus we can say that envy can lead to greed/avarice, which is, like envy, also one of the seven deadly sins/vices. Say a person becomes envious of a neighbor wth a bigger house, he then strives to equal or surpass that person's achievement.

That envious person can be influenced by greed, as he aspires to acquire more and more money, goods, possessions. The sheer materialism can simpy overwhelm that person. And when one is greedy, one is also hesitant to give, to be generous to others. There's a fear of loss.

Envy can also lead a person into gluttony. Gluttony, like envy and greed, is also one of the seven deadly sins/vices.

Say, a person envies her friend's luxurious cars, this person over-works herself with endless hours of work. Eventually, she becomes a workaholic, a person addicted to work. Thus, the person falls into gluttony - a workaholic glutton.

Out of the seven virtues, the virtue that defeats envy is kindness. Kindness makes a person's envy go away because the person's eyes are opened to the truth of God's generosity to all His children.

No person is ever created perfect. The best tennis player may be a poor soccer player, the person with a sexy body may not be the most intelligent, the intellectual may not have good physical health, etc. We all have unique God-given gifts, strengths as well as weaknesses to balance.

In the end, no one can ever have an excuse to justify envy. When you're feeling envious, remember to be kind because God is kind to you and to others. Immediately think about what you have, what God has given you instead of what you do not have!

7) Gluttony - is defined as any activity that is obsessive in nature, an addiction that corrupts the soul. It is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one needs or requires.

This sin truly has one of the most varied forms ever known to man. When gluttony is mentioned, people usually associate it immediately with food addiction, or food gluttons. It is one of the most common forms of gluttony, but food gluttony is really just one among many other forms.

Basically, any activity we do that becomes too addicting or we become too obsessed about turns us into gluttons. Addiction/obsession is the trademark of gluttony.

The businessman who tries to be on top of his competitors works hard day and night. He loves his business, he loves working hard, he loves the challenge, and of course he loves the happiness of success, the thrill of every sale and euphoric feeling.

It doesn't mean businessmen are all workaholics, but a lot of them are. It is perfectly normal to enjoy your business or your work, but you have to be careful. Too much obsession with work, business or with sucess itself can lead to workaholism.

The key is balance. We have to lead a more balanced life. It can't be all work, and it can't be all play either.

The teenager who tries to "fit in", experiments with narcotic drugs. It starts with doing it for the fun of it, to be accepted by her peers, to shrug off peer pressure, and to be "cool".

Small doses turn to bigger ones. Marijuana turns to stronger drugs, cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, etc. Before she even realizes it, she is a drug addict, a drug glutton.

A man, out of work, turns to TV viewing as an outlet, an escape from the harsh reality of not having a job. The normal viewing of a few hours turns into hours and hours of more viewing. Eventually, he becomes a "couch potato", a TV addict.

Or the elderly woman who, out of boredom, tries to spice up life by playing games at the casino. She enjoys herself too much and goes back everyday for more. She becomes a gambling addict.

One thing common in all addicts/gluttons is most of them are in a "state of denial". You tell them about their addiction and they deny it. It is hard for their ego to accept the reality of it.

Of the seven virtues, the virtue that defeats gluttony is abstinence. By abstaining from something we like or some activity we like, we make a sacrifice. We do not easily give in to what we want.

Without abstinence and sacrifice, we can become "slaves of our passion", like an animal only following its instinct without any self-control or discipline.

What to Say to an Atheist

2005-08-05T05:47:00.000-07:00

Direct from the Pope

This was shared by Pope Benedict XVI at EWTN cable channel.
He was asked by people on the topic of
"How do you prove God exists without seeing him directly?"

He answered this: You do not have to "see is to believe" as the
only source of truth. For example, you do not see my intellect or
intelligence but know fully well that I possess intelligence.

You can measure the wind (invisible to eyes) with a barometer, etc.
but you cannot do this to my intellect.
This does not mean my intellect does not exist or ceases to exist.

God's existence is verified by the order and beauty of his creations,
most epecially the creation of intelligent life.

INTELLIGENCE IS INVISIBLE YET STILL EXISTS

1) The results of chemistry/physics tests are physical in nature
and can be verified by science because they are physical. Thus, we
can verify their existence.

2) Not so easy wih intelligence. It is invisible, is not physical and can
never be measured/verified physically by science. However, all of us
agree intelligence exists in a human being.

The same principle with God applies. The scientific method has its limits
and only means there are things (intelligence for example) that cannot
be verified by the scientific method physically yet still exist.

This nullifies the atheist argument against God - that He cannot or
does not exist just because the scientific method cannot be used to
detect His existence.

God exists as much as intelligence exists, even though both cannot
be detected physically by the scientific method.

End of discussion.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The scientific method, I do not attack as unnecessary. It is, it has its important uses. What is fallacious is how atheists misuse it, (mostly out of ignorance),

These are the atheists who claim that only the scientific method should be the absolute rule or method in determining reality.

If only it did not have its limits, its weaknesses, this would be true. Reality is far different.

There are simple truths that science does well at, but not all truths. This is in part caused by the simple truth that science can not always be purely objective. The subjective opinion of scienttists is vital to science, but this is also part of its weakness. It is based on human observations, which do not always agree w/ each other.

Ex. 1) We need oxygen to live.

Science can repeat this in labs, and it is demonstrably true all the time. This is pure objectivity.

Ex. 2) There is order in the universe

This is an example where science reaches its limits. Some scientists would agree, some would disagree. Same w/ order in snowflakes, etc. This is subjective, prone to different definitions.

Coin In a Box

In most major debates with atheists, the "coin in a box" argument is something that always wins. It has never been refuted.

It defeats the atheist principle "The scientific method is the absolute rule on determining reality." Which simply means, someone or something must be detected by scientific instruments, or the five senses, or both to be considered reality. The atheists believe only physical evidence of someone/something is what they consider reality.

There are three levels of reality that make this atheist principle an utter failure:

1) Physical reality

The coin in a box. I hide it deep within the earth, and according to the atheists, if scientific instruments or their five senses cannot detect someone/something, it does not exist.

Well, I hold the coin in my hand and it is real.

"To see is to believe" never worked anyway.

2) Mental reality

Let's assume:

If every person in the world thought of an ice cream at exactly 1pm on the very same day, that is mental reality. It is just as real as physical reality. It occurred in a point in time, and would be part of historical reality.

Whether science detected their thoughts at that time or not can never make that mental reality disappear. So if you ask every person who thought of the ice cream if he/she really thought of an ice cream, you would of course get a positive answer.

But wait, by their definition of reality, the atheists MUST say this event did not occur. It cannot be verified because it it is impossible to detect their thoughts by a scientific instrument nor by the five senses.

So how can atheists even argue that only physical reality is reality?

3) Spiritual reality

The public miracles at Fatima were witnessed by a large number of people in real-time, a first of its kind. That and all miracles take a very long time to be confirmed as truth by the Catholic Church.

Why? Because the Church invites scientists (theist and atheist, agnostic, etc.) to do an independent study on the miracles. If you research online well, the names of these experts are given to the public. There is no conspiracy here, just truth.

These are supernatural events with physical evidence, credible observers and an independent scientific study encouraged by the Catholic Church.

Truth And Nothing But Truth

Another thing. Many atheists believe Christians simply believe in
God because they were "born" into religion. Sure, many are Christians
only because of title, but do not actively seek out truth. But many
seek out the truth by making extensive research on different
religions and beliefs to separate the truth from hype.

I am one of these "seekers of truth". I am convinced of the validity
of the Christian faith (the Bible is historical and accurate, for
one). Up to now, I still seek higher truths. Knowledge is never-
ending.

In summary, what the great minds and great scientists have proven
and believed is that, even from a purely logical point of view, the
possibility of God (an intelligent, Supreme being) existing is higher
and more probable than a God not existing. The design of the universe
and creation has semblance of intelligent design, not randomness.

Order cannot exist by natural means alone but only through the
control of a higher, intelligent being.

Example: You cannot build a house of cards by simply throwing cards
randomly, it is impossible. The only way is to place it one by one,
carefully, with intellect. Tell me anyone who can do so otherwise?
Same goes with the creation of the universe, which has its own
defined set of laws, not a mass of chaos.

The universe is similar. It has certain patterns, fixed laws and
principles. It may seem chaotic sometimes, but one can still observe
order taking place.

Truly, as Louis Pasteur stated "Little science separates man from
God. Much science brings them back to Him." These great minds have
proven it and are convinced as well. Anybody who contradicts this is
implying he/she knows more about science and logic than these great
scientists. Please...

I'd honestly say that many Christians are ignorant of Christian
theology, but somehow hang on to their faith (by God's grace). They
may or may not stand to an attack from outside forces like atheism,
paganism, etc. Atheism is only one belief system, among many others.
Of course, atheists will insist they are correct or "special" from
other beliefs because it is human nature (ego) to defend one's
belief system and insist that it is the right one.

However, many Christians seek the truth (like you guys do, something
we have in common), and have experienced powerful arguments and
attacks to our faith and which only served to strengthen our love and
belief of God. This is better, because we actually challenge our
faith and theology to stand up to the strongest tests. Better than
being ignorant or in denial.

I've done my years of research and my Christian faith
stands up as truth among pretenders. I've also studied extensively,
arguments of the atheist and agnostic belief systems.
-----------

THE GREAT DEBATE

It used to be that most atheists deny the existence of any form of
"design". In debates with theists, theists would argue that "design"
was self-evident in nature and the universe, life, etc. Atheists would do
the opposite, they would state that "design" or randomness was
subjective, that they only see randomness.

Say, a snowflake (seen under the lens) had "order and design" to a theist
but an atheist would state there was no design or order.

Now more atheists are saying something new: that design and order does
exist but that doesn't mean an intelligent being is behind it.

Now that theists have at least convinced more atheists that order and
design do exist in the universe, life, etc. this is more of a first-round
victory for theists on this debate.

Second round begins. Soon, theists will be able to convince atheists that
design and order in nature is possible only by a higher, intelligent being
controlling it and designing it.

You don't see the Mona Lisa existing without an intelligent being
painting it. If it was a painting with random, abstract strokes, then it can
exist without an intelligent being. But not a Mona Lisa.

If you can believe that a computer exists only because a more intelligent
being designed it (the human brain is far more complex than a computer),
then human beings (intelligent life) can only exist because a higher, more
intelligent being, God, created humans.

HOW CAN SOMETHING EXIST FROM NOTHING?

We observe an orderly universe. We discovered that it is highly complex, with its own set of laws. And the most complex of all - the creation of intelligent life; can all this really just exist out of some random chance or accident?

Note thst we didn't make or create these natural laws. We only discovered them. They are solid evidence of intelligent design.

Can something exist from nothing? There is no observable evidence that it can. It is not possible.

How about the Big Bang Theory (and all existing theories)? The Big Bang Theory states a huge explosion created the universe. The problem with this is that any explosion requires ingredients. Things do not explode by themselves.

If there are ingredients that do exist, then where did the ingredients come from? Where do the ingredients of the ingredients themselves come from? And this logic goes on and on till infinity (ad infinitum), an infinite loop. Saying that something/someone can exist without a source is fallacious. It is not observable in science and it is not logically possible either. Obviously, there has to be a source for something to exist.

We can argue (for argument's sake) that even from a purely logical point of view, it is highly improbable that this level of order, complexity (and yes, beauty) can occur by random chance. So consequently, it is highly more probable that this intelligent design was created on purpose by an intelligent "Designer".

The truth is, a form of simple order is possible from random chance and even this usually occurs rarely. But to achieve a level of complex order (i.e. intelligent life) by random chance or accident is logically impossible. It would be analogous to throwing metal parts into the air and expecting to make a Porsche car by themselves.

If it is logically impossible for a certain high level of complex order to occur by random chance/accident, then the presence of complex order (i.e. intelligent life, etc.) simply indicates the logical impossibility of a God (Intelligent Designer) not existing.

QUOTES FROM FAMOUS SCIENTISTS

Sir Isaac Newton (before Charles Darwin): "Atheism is so senseless! When I look at the solar system, this did not happen by chance."

Louis Pasteur (same time as Darwin): "Ideas such as spontaneous generation (evolution) do not fit the evidence.....Life comes from life."

Sir Ambrose Fleming (pioneer of electronics): "It is disastrous to the ethical development or spiritual life of the young to lead them to believe that men are descended from monkeys."

Warner von Braun (Pioneer of space exploration): "To be forced to believe ONLY ONE conclusion - that everything in the universe happened by chance - would violate the very objectivity of science itself!"

It's all a matter of perception.

Majority of the truly "great scientists" of both past and present (skills above
the average scientist) like Newton, Pascal, Fleming, etc. have studied nature
and science, and science WAS the way for them to acknowledge that a
Creator, supreme being exists, God.

I'm referring to popular scientists, not no-names. They became popular
because they distinguished themselves from peers.

They saw order in the universe, in processes.It's more believable to
believe in real experts' opinions and observations than ordinary
scientists, lay people (who simply are not at the same level of the greats).

There are those here who will argue that majority of present-day, modern
scientists do not believe in God. I ask "where's your evidence?" The only
way to know this is to ask each scientist all over the world, or make a very
reliable, comprehensive statistical survey among a statistically significant
numer of scientists.

I'd rather believe the great scientists of both PRESENT AND PAST, than
average scientists. That simple really.....

WHY THEISTS DEFEAT ATHEISTS

It's about being balanced.

Atheists have a tendency to "over-logicize", they depend too much on
logic, science. Logic, science are only two sources of truth, but they are
not the only sources. Logic and science have limits, and eventually,
the atheist is limited in his/her search for truth.

On the other hand, a person can be the exact opposite. He/she may
"over-rely" on faith alone without balancing it with his/her faculty of
reason. One can become an overzealous fanatic.

There is a reason why God gave both faith and reason to men and women.
It is to be used in conjunction, to balance each other out.

Therefore, the theist has more truths by having not just faith nor logic,
but using both. The theist is the more balanced being.

HOUSE OF CARDS:

You cannot have a car without "car makers", meaning metal would not
by itself form into a ferrari. It has to have an "intellect" for such
complex design.

Some here have tried to argue by stating "lesser analogies" to the
house of cards, meaning they gave other examples of things taking
order by itself, seemingly without an intelligence behind it. These
are lesser examples, because they cannot compare in complexity to the
structure of the house of cards.

Like the "ferrari example", a ferrari would be similar to the house
of cards. Other analogies are too simple to compare with the "house
of cards". It would be like comparing a "beautiful artistic piece of
metal" to a ferrari.

Basically, it's about the delicate balance on how the universe
operates. Ex. the spinning of planets around the sun, the principles
involved are so delicate, so orderly that the planets do not move out
of its orbit nor hit each other. It is "too orderly" to say the
planets just formed themselves into this pattern.

Analogy is "house of cards" or the "ferrari".

And especially planet Earth. The laws and elements in our planet
have heavy scientific evidence of "intelligent design", as if the
elements somehow were "balanced" to provide and support a wonderful
event - the existence of life.

The existence of life here is too "advanced", too "intelligent", for
anybody to simply state it can exist without an intelligence
carefully balancing the elements which support life. Like the
"ferrari example", the ferrari cannot simply exist without
"intelligent people" making it. Metal, by itself does not naturally
form into a ferrari (maybe an artistic piece of metal, but not
something as advanced as a ferrari).

It is still more logical that a higher intelligent being, God, created energy
that produced the universe to SUPPORT life and intelligent life than
atheist logic that somehow, the universe and intelligent life "existed by
accident", that life and intelligent life came from non-living, inanimate,
non-intelligent sources. Such logic is contradictory, and more highly
improbable.

This is why majority of famous scientists believe in God
(Pascal, Newton, Pasteur, etc.). Their level of skill is higher than
most scientists, including "no-name" scientists.

Can you use probability theory on my "ferrari example"? Can you lay
claim that "theoretically, metal by itsef will form into a ferrari,
complete with engines, first-class mags, pioneer audio (don't forget
the woofer). Oh the "horse logo" may somehow carve itself.

The "house of cards" cannot be formed by even a million random
throws. It is plain physically impossible. It's like telling me a
human being will jump 100 feet into the air after 1 million tries,
that it is highy improbable, but possible.

Probability theory cannot be used here. It is a human invention,
therefore not perfect and prone to error. Science has to accept that
some things will have limits, some things are impossible to occur. A
theory is not a law, it is more of speculation, not reality.

This is reality: Unless anyone has performed a "complete house of
cards", with just throwing it into the air (like magic), this
argument cannot be refuted by mere speculation. If you have done it,
then you win, simple as that.

ON ORDER EXISTING WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE

1) Atheist Fallacy: Order can exist without intelligence guiding it. Ex. snowflake, soup, universe, nature, etc.

Theist Attack: This is one of the weakest arguments of atheism, always torn to shreds in major debates, always.

By the scientific method, we can self-evidently observe only organic beings (at least the level of humans's IQ) can create complex order. Not even animals are capable of the complex order we refer to (car engine, ferrarri cars, etc.)

Note we are considering the universe and its order as complex. Another complex order is the very existence of human life and intellect (also the only being with scientific capability).

Never has it been obsserved that inanimate objects (nature, universe, stones, rocks, etc.) can make complex order as say, something in the level of a car engine.

The snowflake you say? It is not equal to the complex order that a car engine has. I could make a simple kaleidoscope toy with mirrors and it will easily re recreate the geometric patterns we see on a snowflake (via a microscope).

Yup, a simple toy to recreate the geometric patterns. You cannot obviously do this with a car engine. It takes a lot more time, and effort to make a car engine. Snowflake and car engine are very different and are not the same in complexity.

Atheists should stop using the snowflake as an example of order comparable to the order present in a car engine.

Basically, by the scientific method, it is self-evidently observable that there has never been a case of inanimate objects capable of order (what more, complex order of the universe and its laws, intelligent human life, etc.)

There are atheists who will argue that the universe/nature is capable of forming its own orderly processes without an intelligence guiding it.

This is a fallacy since the universe/nature is inanimate, and therefore this belief violates the basic laws of science and logic. Yup, we have observed only organic beings are capable of order, but not inorganic beings. Never.

Since the universe/nature, etc. are inorganic, they do not have intelligence and obviously you need intelligence to create order (again especially of the highest levels of order).

The only logical way to force the belief that the universe/nature, though inorganic in nature is somehow, capable of creating order is by making it (universe/nature) a "special exception". This of course violates the laws of logic (on making special exceptions) .

If the universe/nature though inorganic, can create order without an intelligence guiding it, then anytihng goes. I should be able to observe, by scientific method, other inorganic objects creating order. This, is a clear "special exception" fallacy.

Sadly, I do not see rocks forming into tall buidlings, a lake creating a swimming pool by itself, etc. This is logically impossible. It takes intelligence (organic beings) to use inorganic things to form any semblance of order (car engine, etc.)

Thus, the order we see and observe is impossible without an intelligence guiding it. The intelligent design we see proves the logical impossibility of God (an intelligent Being) not existing.

Take note that science can only work from an environment of order, not disorder. There is no disorder in the universe (or science cannot even exist).

ON ORDER EXISTING W/O INTELLIGENCE DEBATE 2

I've been in major debates against atheists and time and time again, the fundamental flaws of atheism lead to their consistent defeat. This is expected because atheism's flaws are basic, fundamental in nature and cannot stand against good theist attacks.

One (among many) of their popular tenets is "Order can exist without an intelligence guiding it".

Atheists will resort to giving examples of order in nature (by their subjective definition of order). They would proceed to naming these. Some popular ones include snowflakes (viewed under a microscope), soup (yes, the contents in it as well), super novas, the structure of gems (diamonds, etc.), molecular structures, rainbow, etc.

The theists and atheists will debate back and forth - one in approval, the other one against it.

A scientist though, can be objective and use the scientific method to see the truth.

First, it is clear that the very notion of order can be subjective in nature. The structure of snowflakes, rainbow, supernova, and all mentioned examples are prone to subjective observation. Hence, the counter-attack by the theist debaters. Their strategy is built on this fact.

By the scientific method, a scientist will divide subjects into specific, separate groups for objective observation. Each group will be put into separate rooms and be provided a piano, and a full deck of cards.

Group A consists of rocks - this would represent inorganic objects.

Group B consists of insects, bees for example - this represents the animal kingdom

Group C consists of humans - this represents the human specie, the group w/ the highest intellect.

They will be observed for a period of time. The results:

Group C was able to achieve a high level of order. The piano was played (recognized as a musical instrument) and a house of cards was built. Intelligence that provided order was displayed of the highest among the three.

Group B displayed some order, though not in the level of Group C. A beehive was made, a structure with geometric design inside. Acceptable as order.

Group A, composed of inorganic objects displayed zero order, no activity or even any movement made.

By the scientific method, we can conclude that inorganic objects are incapable of producing order of any kind without an intellgence/intelligent being guiding them.

The notion that inorganic objects, snowflakes, gems, rainbows, etc. by atheists are somehow capable of producing order by themselves is fundamentally flawed.

Only intelligent beings, controlling inorganic objects can make these objects arrange into order as the scientific method proves.

If an inorganic object (rocks in our example) cannot do any movement or order by itself, then all inorganic objects will have to share that characteristic.

Arguing that snowflakes, supernova, etc. are capable of order is a viiolation of the "special exception rule", and definitely goes against the laws of the scientific method.

Peace.......

MORE ON ATHEIST FALLACY ON ORDER

1) There are only 2 classifications: inorganic and inorganic objects.

We can observe inorganic objects not capable of order. Only an intelligent, organic being must control the inorganic object/s to form any semblance of order.

Ex. Metal parts scattered in random. These are observed by the scientific method as incapable of creating a car engine by themselves. Only a human being (organic object w/ intellect enough) can move these to create the engine (complex order/object).

Science has concluded:

1) Organic objects are capable of order/complexity

2) Inorganic objects are incapable of order by themselves.

This is basic scientific laws/observation. It is irrefutable unless you can show inorganic metal parts moving by themselves to create an engine.

Now, the atheist newb spouts (out of ignorance): "Order is possible without intelligence. Order can be made by inorganic objects."

The atheist spouts: Oh, look at snowflakes, nebula, crystals, proteins, etc. as having order.

So the atheist is making a radical claim that: some inorganic objects are capable of order.
Then how come metal parts don't move by themselves to form an engine?

The atheist needs to make a third division (See first two scentific observations above):

3) Some inorganic objects are capable of order.

This, of course directly contradicts the second scientifically observed event:

2) Inorganic objects are incapable of order by themselves.

If some inorganic objects are capable of order as atheists claim, then why are other inorganic objects incapable of it? Then how come metal parts don't move by themselves to form an engine?

There is no logical consistency with the atheist claim. It's either "inorganic objects do not make order by themselves" or "Inorganic objects are capable of order". This is the scientific method.

But the atheists who claim this are actually saying "There's a third division. Some inorganic objects are capable of order, some are not."

Really? That is a clear "special exception" violation. Case closed as always.

ON EVOLUTION AND CREATION

Note: In order for something to be a fact (established truth),
it must be empirically observed while occurring at present, and
must be reproducible by experiment.

1) Both evolution and creation cannot be reproduced by experiment.

2) Both evolution and creation cannot be empirically observed while
occurring at present.

Therefore, evolution is an unproven theory and never fact.

THE SCIENTIFIC DILEMMA

The statement "The results of the scientific method should be followed" is unscientific
because it is a value statement that does not get its authority from anywhere but itself.

"We should use the scientific method." Why should we? "It proves itself." How does it
prove itself? "It uses the scientific method."

Atheist Statement: "The scientific method is true because it works and because it is
axiomatic (self-evident)."

Christian answer: Sounds a lot like faith to me. Who decides what is axiomatic?
Does the scientific method decide it? That makes it circular if it does. If not, then it is
not scientific itself.

I would have to do all the experiments to come to that conclusion. Other than that,
I take it on faith that all of the scientists who did the experiments and reviewed them
and tested them are not lying to me. That is my point.

You cannot use the "scientific method" as a reason to make science as an authority of
truth, simply because the only way to prove science as the truth is to use the
"scientific method"! The logic is circular.

ON MICROBIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION

Actually, from a microbiologist's perspective, all of those are far easier to explain
through intelligent design than evolution.

In fact, the immune system relies on a chain reaction of enzymes as well as the
coordinated activity of T-cells. The number of genes required to manufacture
all of the proteins necessary for it to work at all numbers in the thousands. To
claim that random single gene mutations created this process is beyond reason.
It is absolutely impossible.

None of the enzymes involved in combatting foreign proteins are used for any other
purpose in the body. Nor are they molecularly similar enough to have been modified
and retained by the random mutation of single genes. If you change one gene out of
those necessary for the maintenance of your immune system, you would not get a
system that works differently, you would get one that doesn't work at all.

According to the currently prevailing theory of evolution, the immune system
would have taken millions of years to develop, even in simple organisms, and it
would not have worked at all until it was complete. The theory of evolution indicates
that organisms would have shed these worthless protiens rather than conitnue to use
energy and nutrients to continue manufacturing them.

Microbiology has opened an entirely new world of biology to us. It is one that is far
more complex than anyone had previously imagined, and it will eventually be the
wooden stake that kills evolution.

IS SCIENCE THE SOLE AUTHORITY?

1) Ok. Atheists believe in science. Science and the scientific
method's authenticity is under the power of the so-called "scientific
community", a community of scientists and researchers.

Atheists state they believe the logic and discoveries made by
scientists in the scientific community. This means you believe a
group of people, who are experts in science.

Question: What, again gives these scientists and community the
authority to be believed in? Why should we believe what they say,
anymore than we would believe in other "logic" communities, like
philosophers (who also use logic)? By what authority should they be
believed in?

Logic is not the exclusive domain of science. Various disciplines
use logic and reasoning, like theology, philosophty, etc. A group of
theologians in the Vatican, are authorities that Catholics believe
in. They teach the Catholic faith and truths (using logic).

What would be the difference in believing in theologians, anymore
than believing in scientists? None. They are both belief systems,
though contrary to each other at times. Science is philosophical and
based also on faith (again since you cannot use the scientific method
to validate science, circular).

2) Great scientists like Louis Pasteur, Pascal, etc. and creationist
scientists alike are experts in science, and have concluded that the
universe and its laws are of "intelligent design", and that from a
purely logical point of view, the possibility of an intelligent
being, God, creating the universe is higher than the universe
existing from non-intelligent source/sources.

Other scientists, called evolutionists, believe otherwise. They too
are experts in science but concluded that they see no proof of
intelligent design, or of God existing.

Again, by which authority do we believe these two major divisions,
in the obviously divided "scientific community" itself? Either you
believe one or the other, you cannot believe both. So, again, this
proves science is not purely objective (as atheists falsely
conclude), but still based in part by faith, subjective reasoning or
opinion. This debate is proof of the scientific community's lack of
unity in certain major areas.

PART2:

Exactly the point. In order for science to be "purely objective",
the scientists who examined and evaluated evidence for evolution
should agree 100%.

In the surveys you have provided, a percentage
still did not agree (or were creationist believers). I therefore
conclude this makes science "partially subjective". The data may be
purely objective, but take note that scientists examining these data
are human. and have "differences of opinion" (creationists vs
evolutionists for example).

It is irrefutable fact. The people need a
"scientific community", experts, to analyze the data for them. This
is because if they don't exist, anybody's personal opinion will be as
good as anybody else's. Science needs these experts.

Unfortunately, they do differ in opinions. Opinions on, say origin of
the universe will need to be 100% agreed upon to make science
purely objective.

Creationists vs. evolutionists' never-ending debate shows a fatal
flaw in the scientific method and science itself. period.

Majority vote, again, by scientists can never be a basis of truth.
Again, by what authority do your evolutionist scientists deem themselves
to be the judge of truth, since majority, in scientific method, does not
win?

COIN IN A BOX

1) "Science is the only method of truth. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

This popular atheist argument is defeated by the "coin in a box" argument by theists. It's not only defeated but totally destroyed.

If I hid a coin in a box in a deep cave, then proceeded to ask the top scientists in the world if they believe a coin or not exists in that box (without mentioning anything else), and they say "there's a lack of evidence, so by the scientific method it does not exist." Then, that's a fallacy.

Whatever the scientific community says is irrelevant to the reality that when I go into that deep cave I see the existence of my coin, because I myself hid it there exactly.

By atheist logic, that coin must not exist. Tsk, tsk.

It's no wonder that atheism is not even considered a hard opponent by experienced theist debaters. It is an average opponent, as I emphasized earlier, atheism's fundamentals are considered weak.

More experienced atheist debaters (especially those who eventually converted to theism after knowing this truth amidst other truths), if honest enough (hard to find honest atheists in debate who will admit defeat staring them), eventually discover this truth.

The point of it is to show that science and the scientific method is too
limited to just rely on purely the use of scientific method to prove the existence of someone/something.

For science to claim it is the only way is radical and fallacious. Clearly, it is but one way, but not the ony way.
The existence of my coin, even without evidence to anybody, confirms this.

For the atheists, a tip: You should say "The scientific method is a good way to prove existence of someone/something,
but not the only way." This would give you more credibility in the eyes of good theist debaters.

The scientific method is similar to the legal law's rule of providing physical evidence to support a claim.
It works on many situations, yes, but it fails on other occasions. It doesn't mean this method will work on
each and every situation. This is an atheist fallacy.

We observe its failure in legal law. In cases where not enough physical evidence was presented, there are cases where the truth was
not observed. An innocent man was charged guilty, spent years in jail, etc.

Then, the real killer confesses to the crime. See? The limitations of our logic, of the scientific method
and legal method result in this - Limitation of truth/reality.

ATHEISTS WHO NOW BELIEVE IN GOD

I had friends, who had a hard time believing in the existence of God.
They can be classified as "strong atheists". Any belief in the
supernatural was laughed at. They only believed in science and logic.

To believe in supernatural phenomena and events would eventually
pave the clear way for belief in a supernatural being - God.
So it is essential to refute the occurence of the supernatural or paranormal.

I have seen how most of these friends eventually believed in the existence
of God, not in the traditional ways (Bible preaching, using hell as a threat,
intelligent design theory, etc.) but of all ways, the "supernatural" way...

1) One friend got converted by, of all places, a haunted
house (newly moved in). He saw events which simply cannot be explained
by science. At night, he saw a white robed lady going inside a restroom.
He knocked on the door, but no one answered. When he went in,
no one was there.

His wife also experienced the same phenomenon.
Scared the wits out of her.

One night, they saw together an apparition (through a semi-closed door).
It was a woman in white holding a candle. The woman disappeared slowly,
and they saw the candle still floating in the air apparenty going in their
direction!

My friend has analyzed that if "supernatural events" are real
(since he witnessed them first-hand), he wil have to accept the fact
that a supernatural being can exist or does exist. He is now a believer in
God.

It is this friend who doubted the reality of miracles before. Now, he is
studying closely the miraculous events at Fatima, the Holy Bible, etc.
Most of my other friends are doing the same, convinced of he and his
wife's testimony.

I've learned this truth: God has His ways to acheive His goals. Why does
He allow supernatural events to occur?
Because He knows these things can show proud atheists/agnostics that
the supernatural is reality and that He, God is real. He humbles intelligent
people that not everything is explainable by logic and science
(like supernatural events in the Bible).

By accepting that the supernatural does occur, even the strong atheists
would have to eventually accept the existence of a supernatural
being - God the creator of both natural and supernatural.

Yup, in this way, even the supernatural fufills an important purpose.....

ON THE GREAT MINDS:

A great mind or genius is great despite any age. It is classical and
is unaffected by time or technology. What we call "modern technology"
today will look primitive 300 years from now. So, where do you draw
the line? What does "modern" really mean now?

ON THE MIND AND SOUL:

Sorry to say, but any man who doesn't believe in an afterlife is
foolish.
Clearly there is an afterlife, and the only proof you need is
your very thought! Analyze it, the "mind (soul)" has no physical
dimensions, and no location, and therefore is not a material thing.

The mind breaks every law of science, and doesn't require an energy
source to sustain itself. So clearly it must "live" on even though
the body perishes. (even Einstein believed this) And proof of God (a
supreme, or perfect being) can be attained by reading some of the
meditations of Rene Descartes through natural reason.

And by natural reason, I mean it is self-evident. ie: we say two
lines
are parallel and will go on infinitely without ever intersecting, but
we cannot actually prove this with physical evidence. It is self-
evident
that the lines will not intersect. Now then we can examine the valid
argument:

: 1. An idea of the existence of God exists.
: 2. Cause for the idea must have at least as
: much formal reality as the idea has
: objective(realness) reality.
: ____________________________________________
: ^ A perfect being exists.

: And more proof would be that it is impossible to create something
more perfect than yourself. ie, creating something beyond your
comprehension would be impossible. So from that idea we can conclude
that all things are created from someting more perfect than itself,
and at the very beginning of that chain, we can will find, that
Perfect, Infinite, Supremely good being.

On the origin of God:

God has always existed since the beginning, that's why He is
omnipotent. The fact that He is God means no one created Him. If
someone did create Him, then He would not be God (the one who created
Him would be God).

The Bible is the Book of Truth. It was not created for propaganda
purposes, nor does it contain "fantasy stories" or myths. It is based
on plain truth, each and every word of it. It would be too lengthy to
explain everything here but the miracles in the Bible have only
recently been verified as true.

For reference, please watch "The Discovery Channel's" series
entitled "Secrets of the Bible" on cable channel. The scientists
themselves (both atheist and Christian scientists combined),
through the accuracy and wonders of modern technology and
computers were able to do objective analysis and study of the
authenticity of the Bible's events.

It is noteworthy to mention here that the verification of
"miracles in the Bible" as historical and accurate were confirmed
by a large party of both "atheist" scientists and Christian
scientists.

This is to make it as unbiased and objective as possible. Only facts
and proofs spoke for themselves.

There was good evidence
of the Bible's truth (parting of the Red Sea, David slaying Goliath,
Samson, Gideon's destruction of Israel's enemy through prayer alone,
etc.) You won't regret it.

On historical Bible:

There was a feature on cable (I believe it was Discovery channel
again), which strengthened the occurences of "Noah's Ark". Basically,
scientists were puzzled to find "fossilized remains" of plants,
animals, etc. on high places where it was physically impossible to
have a presence there. Say, "sea fish fossils" atop mountains, etc. A
great flood is likely to be the cause. It's too long to discuss here
though.

Also, accounts of a great flood during the beginning of time have
been discovered in many ancient texts from different cultures.

Why sufferings and imprefections occur despite a perfect God:

Sufferings, wars, diseases, deformities are not the will of God but
He allows these to occur for specific purposes. Nothing happens
without His permission. Say, a landslide occurs and instantly kills a
lot of people. He allows this as a warning to people's greed, say the
careless cutting of trees for commercialization, etc.

God will not do your work for you. He does not spoil His children.
Instead of blaming God for the world's misery, we should blame
ourselves more. Mahatma Gandhi once said "The world has enough for
man's need, but never enough for his greed."

WHY COMMUNISM AND ATHEISM SHARE SAME BELIEF IN NO GOD:

It is no coincidence that communism and atheism share the same
belief/philosophy that there is no god.

Engels, one of the founders of communism, states that religion is an
obsolete system, that religion is not needed anymore when communism
arrived. He attacked religion as a "myth" of sorts, lacking objective
truth.

Nothing could be farther from the truth (Again, both atheist
scientists and christian scientists have verified the miracles of
the Bible as true. Watch "Discovery Channel's "Secrets of the Bible.
Objective proof is all there. Period.) No atheist here has been able
to refute these proofs (for starters, watch it first).

Well, look at communism's steady demise over the years, now it is a
failure. Same with atheism, it will have its time, but eventually
the philosophy will disappear. History has a tendency to repeat
itself.

Q: If God created man, then who created God?

A: If there was a being greater than God, you would still ask
"Who created the creator of God?" You could ask this again and
again for no end. The flaw is you are basically falling into the error
of "infinite regression".

You are saying that there is no beginning, which of course is illogical.

From a purely logical point of view, the existence of an intelligent God
designing the universe and intelligent life is MUCH MUCH higher and more
probable than "infinite regression".

There is a beginning and everything has to have a beginning and an end.

Q: Why does God allow evil to occur? Did God create evil?

A: One thing I've observed that's so true, most atheists became one
because of ignorance. Yup, no offense meant, pls. don't take it
personally, it's just the truth. Ignorance especially on Christian
theology.

God allows evil to occur, but it is not His will for it to occur. He
did not create evil in this world. Evil is a result of people with
free will abusing their free will.

God gave men and women the gift of free will, the ability to
reason, to choose. This is because of His love for us and that He
made us as His children, not robots who have no choice. You are free
to do good or evil. Reward for good, punishment for evil. This means
there will be humans who will inevitably choose to do evil.

You see, free will is so important. Free will is what makes a human
being different from an animal. That's why we have cages for wild
animals because they do not reason. Free will is also the reason why
we have criminals inside prisons, people who must be punished for
abusing their free will.

When you have a child, you give the child a certain freedom. Ex. You
have to give that child freedom to play in the playground, even
though you know there is a risk of your child hurting herself, say
getting bruises, etc. Sure, you could guard every inch of her ground,
but that will spoil her. That wouldn't be freedom.

If you guard her every move, you are restricting her freedom. She
will not learn the lessons she needs to by herself. Same with God on
us His children. He has to give us freedom, respecting our free will.
In this He has to allow certain risks of people doing evil (abusing
free will). This is similar to a parent allowing a child freedom to
play even with the risk of her falling and hurting herself.

You cannot have it both ways. Freedom has a price.

He does not will or want evil to occur (because God is a being of
infinite and pure goodness, being the source of all types of love),
but necessarily must permit it to happen in order for free will to be
enforced. If God did not allow evil to occur, then free will can
never exist in the first place. If free will cannot exist in men and
women, then they cannot be considered human beings, capable of doing
good or evil. They would be robots or animals with only instinct and
not capable of choice or human reasoning.

It is a fundamental truth of Christian theology that God did not
create evil. Evil cannot come from God, because God is a perfect
being of perfect love and infinite goodness. A perfect being cannot
have imperfections or make a mistake. Got it?

A universal law is this: Evil cannot come out of something good (and
vice versa).

Q: God created man. Man did evil acts. Therefore, can God be evil?

If I create a robot, and the robot killed a person (against my
wishes), I cannot be considered evil.

God created people WITH free will. Many people choose to do good.
Some will choose to do evil (selfish interests). Abuse of free will
to do evil is called "sin".

God created us to be happy, meaning true happiness is only derived
naturally from doing good. Conversely, sadness and lack of peace
naturally occurs when a person sins. This is an innate "natural law"
that God made. Even atheists will admit they feel good when they do
good things and feel sad when they commit evil. It is an innate
instinct in souls.

God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. He created
"knowledge" of evil (so a person who ate this will not be innocent
anymore of what is good and what is evil). He did not therefore,
create "evil" itself.

Q: "If God did not create evil, how did evil exist?"

1) Atheists can say all they want, that atheism is not a belief
system. It's subjective. Truth is, it is a belief system because you
simply believe that God does not exist. Don't fool yourself that
you're so different from other belief systems, that you rely on
logic and science (Christianity relies on logic and science too,
obviously).

2) Ok. It is written in the Bible that evil first originated from a
highly-ranked angel, Lucifer, (means "Bearer of Light). He rebelled
against God (abusing his free will and causing the first sin). His
pride/vanity made him love himself above God, and made him want TO
BE GOD.

He tempted 25-30% of the angels in heaven to rebel against God, and
were defeated by God's champion, St. Michael the Archangel (he was
of much lesser rank, but had God's power in the end).

An angel (free will is a gift to both angels and man) who sinned.
Take note that NOBODY tempted Lucifer to rebel. But he tempted other
angels (who now are free to tempt men and women, protected by their
own God-given guardian Angels who advise them against temptation).

3) Again, evil and suffering is allowed by God to occur, because of
the concept of free will, and also as punishment for sins. Say, wars
occur because it is a chastisement of man's greed for power, etc.

ON THE PROOF THAT AN ETERNAL SOUL EXISTS:

I just watched a show about "near-death experiences" or "life after
death.

There was this atheist (he called himself a free thinker/atheist)
who got a stroke one day. He was unconscious on the operating table.
Suddenly, he saw his body being revived desperately by the doctor and
nurses. His family was crying.

He murmured "This is impossible, how can I be conscious, and see my
body and everybody else? Could it be that a soul/spirit really
exists after death?"

ATTENTION Atheists: Many who've experienced "life after death"
experiences have recounted the same thing. They saw their body,
(being pronounced dead even). They also were able to describe
accurately, in complete detail, the events they saw. They described
the people present, the loved ones (even the style and color of
clothes/apparel).

Remember that at that exact time, their eyes were totally closed,
their brains either dead or almost, all of these being verified by
medical instruments. There is logically no way they could've seen
their body and everyone, everything happening (from the outside at
that). This only proves that a second body (soul/spirit) does exist
and this is absolute truth.

The existence of a soul/spirit is not believed by atheists. They do
not believe it because the presence of a soul, if verified, will
naturally lead to the truth that God exists. The soul, being eternal,
and is constantly mentioned in the Holy Bible as true.

A person is eventually judged not on whether he/she was a Christian,
but on the goodness of his/her life. A Christian who lived an evil
life will not enter Heaven, but a non-Christian who lived a good life
will enter Heaven.

So it is wrong to say that only Christians will go to Heaven. Some
sects believe in that by taking the Bible too literally. That is a
flaw.

2) No problem with the facts. All the people who recounted how they
saw their bodies (and every exact detail they gave), even though they
were declared dead (yes, with eyes closed for the nth time!) gave
their testimonies IMMEDIATELY after they woke up. They said this in
front of doctors, nurses, loved ones (so it's authentic, no way for
them to have gotten it from any other person). This is well-
documented, and has baffled researchers/scientists to this day. It is
still being studied.

Anyway, we're going out of topic. I'd like to continue the story of
the atheist (real-life):

So, he reported seeing his body from the outside, as an observer.
Lots of people trying to revive him, no heart beat on the med
instruments, etc. He wonders how he can be seeing his body, 'cause
he is atheist after all and expected to "just disappear" like a used-
up energy matter (etc.). To him, this was simply impossible.

Yet, if it was a dream, why could he see his body, his relatives,
etc. He remembered being unconscious from his room (as well as the
pain he felt at that time, before he became unconscious). And now
he's seeing his own body being declared dead.

Then, from behind him, some black, hooded figures appeared at the
door (outside the room). They told him to come to that spot. He
thought they were hospital staff, and went to them.

Almost immediately, he was dragged down a dark tunnel. It seemed
forever, then he landed beneath a dark room. He couldn't see
anything, but there were many beings n that room, and they were
kicking him, dragging him. He somehow could feel the pain, and they
were laughing, hitting him harder when they saw his pain. They were
sadistic. He couldn't fight them, so he remained in a fetal position
(his exact statement) to shield the blows. He was crying for help.

Suddenly, a voice told him "Pray to God". He ignored it at first.
Then a second call, "Pray to God." He was asking himself who this
being was. He, in desperation, tried to remember a prayer, any
prayer. He tried to recall "Our Lord's Prayer", but couldn't.

Then, a third plea, "Pray to God". He shouted "Jesus, pls. help me!
The dark beings cursed, and went away from him as a bright light
shielded him. This time, he saw a bright tunnel, and saw Jesus and
some angels. He was told this was not yet his time, that he he had a
mission to tell this, especially to skeptics. He reported not wanting
to go back, but wanting to stay, so serene and peaceful it was there.
The feeling of being loved was overwhelming. Then, he woke up, to
everybody's amazement.

All of the witnesses who passed through the bright light recounted
that they didn't want to go back to this world anymore. It was said
to be indescribable. A feeling of extreme peace and overwhelming
love, a perfect world.

The great scientist, Pascal, came to this conclusion:

If you decide to believe in God, then when your life passes away,and
God does exist, you still win.

If you decide not to believe in God, then your life passes away, and
God does exist, you lose everything.

TRUTH: It's more logical to believe in God than not to based on
above. If you were a gambler, it's a safer bet to believe in God.

On the Santa theory: To say to believe in God is like believing in
Santa Claus is not an accurate analogy, very flawed. Why? It is not
the same, because there are greater risks in not believing in God
than not believing in Santa.

Basically, if you choose to not believe in God, the risks of gaining
a bad after-life are greater than choosing not to believe (our
original point above). There is no such risk whatsoever with
believing in Santa or not. Whether you believe in Santa or not, you
will not have any possibility of a bad after-life.

Remember again that Pascal's Wager is all about taking risks, on
which option is riskier or better (see original post above again).
This refutes the analogy of Santa theory (an obvious favorite of
atheists) completely.

For your further information, Pascal is an agnostic, that's why he
needed logic to convince himself of the truth.

On the spirit/soul's existence:

There are actually three levels in existence: spiritual, mental and
physical state.

These are working within each other and are not separate. Science
cannot prove with "physical methods" the existence of a spirit/soul.

At the same time, it cannot be disproved by science either. As of
this time, science is "limited" by its very nature, in that it can
only work within the boundaries of the physical and mental state.

On why God's plan is a work of genius:

If you were God, and you saw that your creation, mankind, did not
acknowledge you or love you back despite all your love for them, what
would you do? What type of plan will you really make to show your
love and teach them truth?

God's genius and perfection is shown by His plan: His begotten Son
(begotten, not made), God the Son, Jesus Christ would become man
himself, one of us. He would be born to a virgin, Mother Mary, to
show that nothing is impossible to God's power.

He would teach the truth and establish a new way of life not just
for one race but for all races of men - Christianity.

Then, in order to pay the "countless debts of sin" that men and
women have been making, His only Son would have to make the ultimate
sacrifice: a suffering so great and death on a cross like a common
criminal.

Jesus paid our debts in full with His blood. Even if each of us
suffered and died on a cross like him, our debts will still not be
paid. Our sins have been so great that only God Himself dying on that
cross will suffice. He did it out of pure love for us though He had
no obligation to. There is no love that can equal this.

Is there any person who can show a better plan than God's perfect
plan? The answer is no. No angel or human being can ever match God's
genius and wisdom. If you think you can, you're kidding yourself.

On Hell and Heaven:

There is a common misconception here. Hell is a place where the
souls there have decided to separate themselves from God, their
Creator. They despise and hate God, even unto death, though God still
loves them.

The fact that God can annihilate them but God choosing to spare
them, is proof of God's eternal goodness. He gives them a place to
exist. God does not force souls to love Him, for loving is always a
choice, free will. If not, it cannot be called love. God respects us
and gave us free will. We are not robots.

It is like a gangster you bring to a peaceful home or church.
Eventually, the gangster will seek to go out and seek the evil life,
danger, raping women, killing enemies, etc. Why? Because this has
become his nature, this is where he is content. Like a pig, even
though you dress it all up is still a pig. It sees mud and it rolls
all over the mud.

Similarly, if you bring an evil soul to Heaven, it's nature will
inevitably make that soul seek something else, it will choose Hell.

In the end, we will decide our eternity. We are all gifted with an
eternal soul, but where we spend that eternity is ultimately a
personal choice, a decision. There is no excuse, only choice.

Some have suggested it is more merciful for God to stop the evil
souls' suffering by erasing them from existence rather than letting
them burn in fire for eternity.

Logical, but flawed. There is a theological principle that God does
not destroy what He has already created. Consider Hell as "damage
control".

Look at our modern-day prison system. There are prisoners there for
life, having to do hard labor every day. What are we to do wih them?
Would it be right and "merciful" to end all their lives and shoot
them one by one so their suffering ends? You be the judge.

Hell must be harsh, for it is an example of what rebellion against
God will lead to. It has to serve as a deterrent. The souls there are
free to blasphemize God all they want, cursing and gnashing their
teeth in anger. Even there, God allows free will and does not force
souls.

ON HIGHER TRUTHS:

One thing that turns me off is when some Christian sects
(protestants) declare only Christians will go to Heaven.

1) How can this be, when at least 75% of people around the globe are
non-Christians? When I was desperately seeking for truth, this
troubled me a lot. Secondly, theology states no soul can enter heaven
with even a single stain of sin. One must be "pure".

In all my searching, only the theology of the Christian Catholic
Church has satisfied me. Listen well, for this is the answer:

The concept of either only Heaven or Hell is a concept made by
Protestants.

If you review your history, they were founded by a monk (Luther),
who was trained in the original church founded by Christ, the
Christian Catholic Church.

The Protestants have more than 1,000 different sects now. Obviously,
when one Church member found something "wrong", he branched out,
proclaimed his own theology and created a new sect. This is their
weakness, no unity. The Catholic Church has always been one, has
maintained its teachings, and traces its roots back to St. Peter, the
leader of Jesus Christ's apostles.

The Catholic Church teaches a middle ground, between Hell and
Heaven: Purgatory. This means your religion is not a basis on whether
you will go to heaven, purgatory or hell. This means both Christians
and non-Christians are judged after death, by the good things that
one has done, how he/she had loved and avoided sin.

Purgatory is mentioned in the Bible: The New Jerusalem Bible, 1
Corinthians 3:10-15 and 2 Maccabees 12: 38-45

Purgatory is a place where souls are purged, suffering temporarily
(unlike hell which is eternal). The souls are cleansed of any sin,
for it is necessary (only souls without sin can enter heaven).

The more truths one knows, the higher the punishment if that person
sins (compared to those who know less). The punishment for a
Christian will be harder than pagans. Because a Christian is blessed
with more truths and graces, it is naturally justified that the
standards of being good and avoiding sin is higher.

A pagan who does not know much about God, or about His Divine Son,
Jesus Christ, is given more leniency. In God's wisdom, each pagan has
an innate knowledge of basic good and evil. This is called "natural
law".

This is what makes them know instinctively, that killing a person in
cold blood without reason is inherently wrong even without being a
Christian or having knowledge of Christian teachings on sin.

Not all souls will pass even purgatory. Say a person kills a million
Jews, etc. Only God can really judge perfectly.

There are probably millions of souls in hell. Assume that if even
less than 1% of people who lived thousands of years ago, combined
with those who have died within modern times sinned so horribly as to
not even pass purgatory, then that's less than 1% of billions of
previously living people. That would still amount to millions (there
are more than 7 billion people alive in the world as of now).

Yes, one can assume then, that the majority of people in the world
will enter purgatory, Christian or otherwise. This means majority
will indeed enter heaven eventually. But note that the pains of
purgatory are more painful than earthly sufferings (depending on the
level of sins, for purgatory has different levels also).

It is a common misconception on hell. The Protestants claim only
Christans will go to heaven. This is a major flaw.

Nowhere in the Bible does it directly say that non-believers will go to
hell. The Catholic theology des more justice when it claims that both
Christians and non-Christians (that would include atheists, agnostics)
can go to heaven.

It's a lot more logical and just. The majority of people around
the world are not Christians, and God will not condemn the majority
of people He created.

For most people (Christians and non-Christians), most of us will have
to be purged at purgatory first. Which means most people, majority,
will enter heaven eventually, after purgatory.

Ex. Between a Christian murderer (believes in God) and a strong atheist
(out of ignorance, etc. but is a good citizen, has a good heart, helps
others, etc.), who do you think is more worthy to enter heaven?

Faith is not enough. Good works, the over-all goodness of a person
can justify heaven.

THEOLOGY OF PURGATORY:

1) Prayers for the dead are proof of purgatory because there would be
no need for prayers if indeed those souls are either only in heaven or hell
(as protestants/fundamentalists claim). The verse 2 Maccabees 12: 38-45
is to be interpreted therefore, that the souls do need prayer. It means
they are in a place that is neither heaven nor hell - purgatory.

2) To enter heaven, a soul must be perfect, no sins are allowed there.
Since no man/woman is without sin (specified in the Bible), how will any
soul enter in this case? Answer - purgatory.

3) Purgatory enables even non-Christians to enter heaven. The Protestant
claim that only Christians can enter heaven has done a lot to turn away
many people who otherwise would've been Christians.

4)Buey, here's a major reason that many Protestants are converting to
the Catholic faith:

The Protestants have more than 1,000 sects now (Mormon, Baptist),
each with significantly different teachings. Why? A member finds
(by his interpretation) that his/her current sects teaching has a flaw.
He/she decides to start another sect and detach from the current sect.

The new sect is started, then some member does the same thing
(multiply by many times, and you get the point).

This was prophecied by Jesus Himself, the Protestant movement. Most
Protestant theology is originally from the Catholic Church. Luther modified
what "he thought" were errors and presto, you've got new Protestant
theology.

The Catholic Church has always been one. The Popes can trace
ancestry back to the first Pope, St. Peter himself. It is one in
teaching and substance.

Why I know my Christian Catholic faith is the true one:

We do not fear science, for science only actually supports the
truths of the Christian religion, mainly the facts in the Holy Bible.

I've given some proofs that give the Christian religion the
'advantage" over other religions.

I do not speculate, as I've said before. It has taken me years of
research, scouting the world religions, while being scientific and
objective as possible (yes, I know what you're thinking, it can be
done).

1) that only Jesus Christ (on whom Christianity was born) rose from
the dead, recorded in the Bible as being seen and talked to by many
people. No other religion's founder has risen from death.

He did appear to many people (beyond Mother Mary and the 12
apostles), this is documented in the Bible. Many of these converted
to Christianity. If Christ did not rise from the dead, Christianity
will never be born.

2) This is the same Bible, whose historical data has been proven
accurate and this has never been refuted. Archaeology backs it up.
Compare the Bible with other religion's books and you will see they
do not simply have the historical credibility, accuracy the Bible
uniquely has.

Now, this adds credibilty to the Holy Bible. The miracles were
stated to have occurred, and the Bible's historical accuracy so far
makes it so that its statements must be believed rather than doubted.

It is mpossible then, not to love God as God is the creator of love,
and the ability to love and be loved comes only from Him. Do you love
your children? Then, where do you think that "ability" comes from?

Peace to all.....

GOD Bless,
Alex C

"Faith is higher than reason. Reason is useless....unless you believe."
- St. Francis of Assisi

"Before one can comprehend the mystical, one must first understand
the physical."
- St. Thomas Aquinas

"The way to wisdom is truth."

------
SCIENTISTS & SCHOLARS HAVE VERIFIED JESUS CHRIST AS A HISTORICAL
FIGURE

Source: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t007.html

Since it is from the New Testament that we gain our primary
knowledge of Jesus, it is fitting to ask whether this literature is
sound and historically accurate. Critics often describe the Gospels
as pious legend, having no historical competence, and designed only
for propaganda purposes. But while it is acknowledged that the
Gospels are not biography in the strict sense according to 20th
century definitions,[1] the following facts give immense weight to
the historical accuracy of the New Testament.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
OBJECTIVE SCHOLARSHIP UPHOLDS THE NEW TESTAMENT
Archaeologists studying ancient civilizations by uncovering ruins
and examining artifacts, are with increasing success confirming the
accuracy of the Biblical texts. Sir William Ramsey's vindication of
Luke's writings is a classic example.[2] The findings of archaeology
have in fact reversed the opinions of a number of former skeptics.
Among these is the scholar Dr. William F. Albright, who writes:

"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools
of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after
discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details."[3]

Recent archaeological discoveries include both the Pool of Bethesda
(John 5:1f) and "The Pavement" (John 19:13). Their existence was
doubted just a few decades ago. Confirmation of the accuracy of the
setting of Jacob's well has also been found (John 4).[4] Such
findings have caused many scholars to reverse earlier skeptical
opinions on the historicity of the Fourth Gospel. Its author has
demonstrated an obvious intimate knowledge of the Jerusalem of
Jesus' time, just as we would expect from the Apostle John. Such
detail would not have been accessible to a writer of a later
generation, since Jerusalem was demolished under Titus' Roman army in
70 A.D.
Also, the recent recovery of a Roman census similar to the one in
Luke 2:1f, and the historical confirmation of his "synchronism"[5]
in Luke 3:1f, underscores the care Luke took in writing his Gospel
(Luke 1:1-4).

[Read more about archaeological discoveries that confirm the Bible's
accuracy.]

Critics of Luke's Gospel often retreat into non-verifiable and
subjective opinions, but they have not overthrown Luke's historical
confirmations.[6] By extension, the other two "Synoptic"[7] Gospels
of Matthew and Mark, painting essentially similar portraits of
Jesus' ministry, are also trustworthy accounts of his life.

Additionally, outside the Bible, Jesus is also mentioned by his near-
contemporaries. Extra-Biblical and secular writers (many hostile)
point to Jesus' existence, including the Roman writings of Tacitus,
Seutonius, Thallus and Pliny, and the Jewish writings of Josephus
and the Talmud. Gary Habermas has cited a total of 39 ancient extra-
Biblical sources, including 17 non-Christian, that witness from
outside the New Testament to over 100 details of Jesus' life, death,
and resurrection.[8]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
THE GOSPELS BEAR INTERNAL MARKS OF HISTORICAL INTEGRITY
There are also characteristics within the texts themselves which
mark the four Gospels as sober history and neither legend nor
fictional propaganda. Consider that the Gospel writers set the
leading disciples in very poor light (Matthew 14:30, Mark 9:33f,
Luke 22:54f). Notice as well that they included hard words by Jesus,
which in fact repelled many hearers (Matthew 21:28f, Luke 9:23f,
John 8:39f).

One distinction of the four Gospels is that their famed treasure of
good news lies not nakedly on the surface, but hidden behind both
challenge (Mark 8:34f, John 12:25f)[9] and threat (Matthew 25:31f).
Such characteristics would have been counter-productive to
propagandists. Their presence in the Gospels demonstrates the
willingness of the evangelists to tell the truth, however
embarrassing or inconvenient.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED
Some express concern that the Bible may have been altered down
through the centuries. It is to this matter that Textual Critics
address themselves. They have discovered entire manuscripts and parts
of others, one portion dating to the beginning of the 2nd Century.
The New Testament has far better textual support than do the works of
Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, or Tacitus,[10] whose contents no one
seriously questions. In addition, the New Testament documents have
always been both public, and widely-disseminated. Thus it would be
impossible for any party to have materially changed their contents,
just as the Declaration of Independence, for example, as a public
document, could not have been privately altered without raising
notice and creating public furor. Sir Frederic Kenyon, former
Director of the British Museum, comments:

"The interval between the dates of the original composition and the
earliest extant evidence [i.e. our oldest manuscripts] becomes so
small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that
the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were
written has now been removed."[11]

In conclusion, it is not necessary that the New Testament be treated
with "kid gloves" and backed up by special pleading. Simply allow it
to be subject to the very same historical-critical standards that
Classical historians apply to secular literature. When equal
treatment is permitted its course, the Gospels fully pass the test.[12]
NEXT -- How do we know that Christ really rose from the dead?

REFERENCES AND FOOTNOTES

N.T. Wright of Oxford University writes that the four canonical
Gospels do fit into the broad genre of Hellenistic biography. See
N.T. Wright, Who Was Jesus? (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1992), p. 73f.
[up]

Sir William Ramsey, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House reprint; 1949 from 1894
lectures). Intent on discrediting Luke's writings, in the last
century this hostile scholar traveled across the Mediterranean to
that end. But he was astonished to discover that his archaeological
findings confirmed the full accuracy of the customs, locations, and
the governing titles (e.g. "magistrates" Acts 16:35; "proconsul" Acts
18:12) Luke had mentioned. These varied widely from region to
region. Ramsey concluded, "Great historians are the rarest of
writers...[I regard Luke] among the historians of the first rank"
(pp. 3-4). [up]

W.F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible (Revell,
1935), p. 127. [up]

Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (New York:
Doubleday, 1966), p. XLII. [up]

"Synchronism" means the tying together of unrelated events into a
single timeline. [up]

A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament
(Oxford, 1963). Sherwin-White is a renowned Oxford historian who
writes, "It is astonishing that while Graeco-Roman historians have
been growing in confidence, the 20th century study of the Gospel
narratives, starting from no-less-promising material, has taken so
gloomy a turn in the developments of form criticism... That the
degree of confirmation in Graeco-Roman terms is less for the Gospels
than for [The Book of] Acts is due... to the differences in their
regional setting. As soon as Christ enters the Roman orbit in
Jerusalem [e.g., Herod and Pontius Pilate] confirmation begins. For
Acts [authored by Luke], the confirmation of historicity is
overwhelming." (p. 107f) [up]

"Synoptic" means to describe Jesus in a similar way (syn = together;
optos = sight). [up]

Gary Habermas, The Verdict of History (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 1988), p. 169. [up]

G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (Image, 1959), p. 157. [up]

The closest we get to the original documents of each of the
mentioned secular Classical writers is between 900 and 1300 years.
By contrast, the "John Rylands Fragment" of the New Testament,
containing John 18:31-33, has been dated as early as 115 A.D. Entire
manuscripts of the New Testament can be dated to within 300 years of
its completion. Virtually complete New Testament books as well as
extensive fragments, can be dated to within 100 years of its close.
Nearly the entire New Testament can be found in quotations by the
early Christian writers. See Frederick Fyvie Bruce, The New
Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downer's Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1972), p. 14f. [up]

Frederick Fyvie Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They
Reliable? (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972), p. 20. [up]

Military historian C. Sanders lists three tests in his Introduction
to Research in English Literary History (New York: Macmillan, 1952),
p. 143f. And seven factors are cited by Behan McCullagh as criteria
for valid analysis of historical documents.[a] Using these sets of
standards, John Warwick Montgomery[b] and William Lane Craig[c]
respectively, roundly vindicate the Gospel accounts of Jesus' life,
death, and resurrection. Renowned Oxford Classical historian Michael
Grant, writes, "If we apply the same criteria that we would apply to
other ancient literary sources, the evidence is firm and plausible
enough to necessitate the conclusion that the tomb was indeed found
empty."[d] And Paul Meier writes, "If all the evidence is weighed
carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the
canons of historical research, to conclude that [Jesus' tomb] was
actually empty... And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered
in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove
this statement."[e] [up]
[Also read the facts about "The Jesus Seminar" criticisms.]

a. C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions (Cambridge
University Press, 1984), p. 19f.
b. John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Bethany, 1965).
c. William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise From the Dead?" in M. Wilkins
and J.P. Moreland, editors, Jesus Under Fire (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 1995), p. 141f.
d. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels
(Scribners, 1977), p. 176.
e. Paul Meier, "The Empty Tomb as History," Christianity Today
(March 28, 1975), p. 5.

Why Atheism Is Wrong

2005-07-08T06:23:00.000-07:00

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a supernatural being, creator, or deity. Briefly, it is a lack of belief in God.

It is one of the major opponents of the Christian Church and Christian beliefs. It has always been diretly related to materialism. Summed up, the more materialistic a society is, the less spiritual it becomes. The less spiritual it becomes, the stronger atheism affects that society.

Therefore, the more materialistic a society becomes, the more atheism strengthens over it.

Atheism relies mostly on logic, analysis, and science. They do not believe in faith, nor the miracles of the Bible.

Atheism, though has major flaws. At first glance, it seems atheism has a strong, irrefutable, non-debatable position. Like so many things in this world, it looks good only on the outside, but actually is weak on the inside - a foundation built on sand.

Atheism has three major flaws:

Atheist Statement No. 1 - "Atheism declares it does not believe in faith, that science is the way to truth because it does not rely on faith unlike religion. Science does not rely on faith and therefore cannot be biased."

Christian answer: Even in science, we still need a certain degree of faith in scientists and researchers since we ourselves cannot possibly verify all their findings to prove that what they are saying is true.

Unless you can verify scientists' findings one by one for yourself, you will have to accept their "word" at face value. You will have to believe that what they're saying is true. You will have to have "faith" in their words.

Look. In the past, we've had "scientific errors" committed by scientists. Errors such as scientific facts that were declared as truth but were later found out to be false or in doubt.

Among numerous examples, one example is found in medical science. For many years, scientists/researchers have always declared that damage to the human spinal cord was permanent and irreversible. This was a scientific fact, established as the truth before.

However, only recently, this previous scientific fact was proven to be, well, untrue. Modern findings have proven that the human spinal cord does regenerate, albeit, in a very slow manner. A lot of people with damaged spinal cords have been able to walk, much against the declaration of their doctors that all hope was lost.

That science is not based on faith is totally false. Therefore, this refutes the first statement of atheism.

As St. Francis of Assisi wisely said "Faith is higher than reason. Reason is useless.... unless you believe."

Atheist Statement No. 2 - "Science is based only on purely objective facts, while religion is partially subjective and therefore cannot be purely objective. "

Christian answer: Science relies on objectivity, and needs to utilize a method called the "scientific method". The scientific method relies on observation, experimentation, data-gathering, etc.

Once science loses its objectivity, or becomes partially subjective, it loses its credibility as a discipline.

Therein lies the problem. The scientific method does provide purely objective data, BUT scientists still have to "interpret them. Since scientists are only human, the interpretation of the data becomes mixed with personal opinions and become "partially subjective". This cannot be avoided.

Scientists are human beings with different beliefs, religions, philosophies, and come from various countries and cultures throughout the globe.

Take for example the debate on the origin of the universe. This major debate has been going on for centuries, and has divided the scientific community into "creationist scientists" and "evolutionist scientists".

The creationist scientists believe that the universe has order, design, and was created by an intelligent, omnpiotent being, a god. God is the creator of the universe.

The evolutionist scientists believe otherwise. They state that the universe has no design, has no order and is random. They reject the idea of a god, a creator of our universe.

And it doesn't even matter who has more numbers on either side. The truth is never based on "majority wins".

Say for example, my friend and I hid a silver coin inside a box. Now, we make a survey and ask all people around the world if they believe a coin exists in the box or not.

Even if all people around the world said they don't believe a coin exists in the box, the truth is not affected by their numbers. My friend and I know the truth that a coin does exist because we hid it ourselves! So truth is not based on majority opinion.

Atheist statement number 2 is therefore false.

Atheist Statement No. 3) "Science is better than religion because it relies on an objective method - the scientific method. This method produces truth because it is based on objective data, experimentations, logic, etc. Religion does not use an objective method and is based on opinion, speculation, etc. It lacks "scientific proof", on "miracles" in the Holy Bible."

Christian answer: Science does rely on an objective method, but by what authority does the "scientific method" produce truth? By what authority does science possess when it says we must believe science because it utilizes the "scientific method"?

I mean you cannot state that science is an authority of truth simpy because it uses the scientific method. It's like saying "I therefore conclude that science produces truth because it uses the scientific method."

By what authority?

How will you prove using the scientific method does produce truth? Because it's "scientific"? Because science said so? Again, the question "By what authority does science have by proclaiming to be the truth than religion"?

The statement "The results of the scientific method should be followed" is unscientific because it is a value statement that does not get its authority from anywhere but itself.

"We should use the scientific method." Why should we? "It proves itself." How does it prove itself? "It uses the scientific method."

Atheist Statement: "The scientific method is true because it works and because it is axiomatic (self-evident)."

Christian answer: Sounds a lot like faith to me. Who decides what is axiomatic? does the scientific method decide it? That makes it circular if it does. If not, then it is not scientific itself.

I would have to do all the experiments to come to that conclusion. Other than that, I take it on faith that all of the scientists who did the experiments and reviewed them and tested them are not lying to me. That is my point.

You cannot use the "scientific method" as a reason to make science as an authority of truth, simply because the only way to prove science as the truth is to use the "scientific method"! The logic is circular.

And yes, the miracles in the Bible have been verified by both atheist (for objectivity) and theist (God-believing) scientists as true historical events. Events such as the Exodus from Egypt, David slaying Goliath, parting of the Red Sea, etc. were tested and researched using modern scientific methods. Watch "Secrets of the Bible" at Cable TV's "Discovery Channel".

At a different cable channel, underwater cameras showed pictures of ancient relics -particularly a large "chariot wheel" deep beneath the Red Sea. When traced back, the design of the wheel was identical to the chariots used in Egypt at around the time Moses' parting of the Red Sea occurred!

God has been so gracious as to provide solid, irrefutable evidence to believers and non-believers alike.

Atheist statement number 3 is therefore false.

How Hard it is to be God!

2005-05-27T06:24:00.000-07:00

God has a common dilemma with men and women.

It goes like this: If God gives suffering to a person in life in order for that person to be detached from materialism and addictions, that person may not understand the reason for it and blame God for his/her problems.

However, if God decides not to give suffering to the person, that person can continue being materialistic, being a slave to his/her passions. This is because too much luxury, comforts can make one addicted to the ways of the world and even forget to take care of one's spiritual life and relationship with God.

Ah, if you were in God's place, what would you do? Tough, huh?

To further it, let's take the first instance: God does not give suffering to a person (even though that person is falling into deeper levels of materialism). That person can get too "attached", to the point of being even more materialistic than ever.

He/she can forget his/her spiritual life and forget to thank God who gave these gifts because of being too focused on the gifts rather than the giver of the gifts. The gifts become an "idol", as these can eventually become the person's priority rather than God.

Again, this is a form of "sin of idolatry", as anyone or anything you prioritize over God is your "idol".

Of course, it always depends on the person. Some will love God more, but some will also become detached from God due to materialism. For this topic, let's focus on those who do become materialistic.

Let's now take the second instance: God does decide to give suffering to a "materialistic" person, in order to help that person be more detached from materialism.

See, when suffering comes into our life, it's just not true that we are being punished. While it is possible that we are being punished for sins that we did not repent for, this is not always the case. So it is a case-to-case basis for God.

Oftentimes, suffering is God's solution for us, when He sees we are forgetting to prioritize Him first, above all, above the regular works and duties we do in this life. You really have to guard yourself as often as possible, because human memory is short!

Sometimes God gives us suffering to test us, to make us stronger so we'll be strong enough for some mission He may want us to do in the future. Consider it an honor then. Our perfect God will never give us tests beyond our capability.

Some people become detached from God when sufferings come. Some do wake up, and realize how materialistic and forgetful they've become and become closer to God in the process. It is a choice for each soul, for each person after all.

Just remember this: the harder you've suffered, the more ezxperienced, stronger and wiser you become. Less hardships bring also less results.

So suffering is a part of life, as much as joys and pleasures are. It is unavoidable.

As Jesus Himself said "Anyone who wishes to follow me must carry his own cross." If He carried His cross for you, what gives you the right not to?

The Genius of God

2005-05-13T05:16:00.000-07:00

How hard it is to be God!

Imagine this situation: God created the first man and woman, Adam and Eve, out of pure love for them. He planned for them to increase eventually by the birth of children through procreation.

Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and sinned against Him. This started the cycle of sin and corresponding violence which follows sin. Their offsprings sinned and the children of their offsprings also sinned.

Mankind, men and women were slowly, but surely, sinning more and more against God, against their fellow men and women. They were getting more distant from God and from the holy, righteous ways of our Heavenly Father.

God gave men and women free will - free will to choose to do either good or evil. Without the gift of free will to us, men and women will not have true freedom and will be but robots.

God gave us free will because He does not want robots, but wants us to be His created children. He will never force us to love Him back nor do good against our free will, even though He never ceases to love us His children.

However, what did men and women do? They abused this "gift of free will", and did more evil than good. Thus, they chose to sin rather than to be holy.

God had a very serious problem: He wanted to show His love to sinful men and women, to make them come back to holiness and release them from the slavery that sin always brings. However, He cannot force them, by the gift of free will, to suddenly turn from sin.

There had to be a way.

If you were God, what would you have done? How will you make sinful men and women come back to you? How will you let them know you love them and how infinite, endless this love is? How can you do these at the same time respecting their "free will"? Without forcing them?

The genius of God is how He did indeed find a way, the perfect way that only a perfect God can think of. Thus, the Divine Plan was conceived.

He willingly gave us the ultimate proof of His love - His one and only begotten (not made) Son, Our Lord God Jesus Christ Himself. One with the Father and the Holy Spirit, God from God, true God from true God.

As predicted by the prophets, like Isaiah and Jeremiah, many years before, Jesus would willingly sacrifice Himself and die an extremely painful, humiliating death for all men and women. He would be the "sacrificial lamb" for our sins, and the sins of all men and women in the past, as well as the future.

The sins of men and women, since Adam and Eve's original sin have multiplied in both seriousness as well as quantity. This means even if each and every person suffered and died on the cross to repay his/her sins it would not be enough.

It simply will not be enough to justify our "debts of sin" accumulated through thousands of years of human existence. That's how serious the situation had become.

It also means men and women were doomed to not be able to enter eternal life in Heaven. Not even the kindest, most virtuous person would be eligible. This is part of the universal law of God. The only way was for this "debts of sin" to be repayed once and for all.

Only the Son of God Himself, Jesus Christ, was enough sacrifice. Only the Son of God. He had to suffer, and suffer greatly, dying a criminal's death. He, who was without fault in this, He who was without sin.

He died so that we might live. By His death on the cross, men and women can now gain eternal life in heaven.

Jesus becomes the "new Adam" and Mother Mary as the "new Eve". In this way, the sins of our first parents, Adam and Eve are cleansed.....cleansed by the blood of Christ.

To save us from sin and eternal damnation by death on the cross was Jesus' most important mission. His second mission was evangelization - to spread the truth by spreading the Word of God through Christianity.

He started with twelve apostles, then slowly but surely gained more disciples. These would eventually build the foundations of the early Christian Church. Currently, Christianity is the largest religion in the world, with more than one billion Christians and growing......

What is Essential is Invisible

2005-04-21T06:52:00.000-07:00

We've heard the saying "What is essential is invisible to the naked eye."

How true. See, most things in our world are fleeting and temporary. Say, our cars, houses, things, etc. may exist right now, but may not be there anymore in the future.

Money, too. You may have money now, but that is no guarantee of the future. It may simply be depleted at anytime. Money is to be used only in this world; it cannot be brought into heaven, no matter how small or big. Once our life ends, our money stays here permanently.

There are three things that are irreplaceable. These three are time, youth, and life. They are directly related to each other.

1) Time - It is often called the "irreplaceable resource". Either you have time or money, or both. Money once lost can still be earned back or replaced. Time, on the other hand, when lost is lost forever.

2) Youth - The saying goes "Life is short. Youth is shorter". When we're young, we seem to be oblivious to reality, it just seems we'll stay young forever, don't we? Then, when you graduate from college, you go out into the real world and work so hard.

The busier you are, the faster time flies by. Suddenly, you're in your late 30s or early 40s and it hits you real hard! You're not getting any younger!

Ah, we do take our youth for granted so many times. We certainly will miss it when it's not there anymore. Don't believe me? Ask your grandma!

3) Life - The saying goes "The only sure thing in life is death." Or as another man said "Is there one who lived, but did not die?"

So what are the "essential things"? Those that do last?

They do exist, certainly, even in this world. And they are very few indeed, these "essential things that last forever".

Three essential things are:

1) Achievements - Ever wonder why great men and great women strive to achieve so much, work so hard as if there was no tomorrow? There's a good reason.

They know well that life is short. Not even youth or money is any insurance or protection against life's eventual end. Life is a gift, and wasting time is simply wasting our life.

When these great men and women are gone from the world, their good works, high achievements tend to be remembered for many generations to come, forever. It's as if time never affected them.

And the highest of these works are the "spiritual achievements", great acts or great works of love and selflessness. Among all great men and great women, the spiritual achievements of the saints are considered the highest.

The saints are ordinary people; ordinary people who have achieved extraordinary works. They are people who have gone beyond themselves, doing great works of love even without self-benefit whatsoever.They are the also the most humble, modest of people in their greatness.

2) Good works - The good works that we do for God and others are truly eternal. Even when we're gone from this world, people shall remember those "works of love", that "helping hand" we gave to them.

It is said that you will see how a person was loved, during his/her funeral. The more that person helped people and did good, the more people at the funeral.

When people are asked on comments about the deceased person, you won't hear people talking about that deceased person's wealth, or how good he/she was in business or career, money, etc. No. On a good person, you'll hear them tell you "He was a good man." Or "She was a good woman".

Comments like: "He was a loving father to his wife and children." "She helped me out when I was in my most desperate need". "A person always willing to help others". "A godly person.", etc.

People don't remember how rich or financially successful you are at your final hour. They'll only remember if you did good, the good deeds you did for them.

Also, for those people that were done wrong, there seems to be this "force of forgiveness" so strong you could really feel it. People seem to be able to forgive somehow the past wrongs done to them by a deceased person. It is unexplainably amazing, a phenomenon in itself.

3) Love - If there's one thing that is most eternal, it is love. As God is love, God created us out of love for us His children. As God is eternal and shall always exist, love therefore is also eternal since God is love.

God is the only source of love. He created love and love cannot exist without Him. Without God, we will not be able to love other people, even our loved ones, and we will not be able to be loved either.

God's gift of love to men and women is to make us love Him more and to know him more. It is to make us know Him, love Him, and serve Him forever!

The "acts of love" we show to other people shall never be forgotten forever.

As St. Paul said "Even if I know all mysteries, have gifts of prophecy, possess immense power....... but if I have not love, I am nothing."

What are You Searching For?

2005-04-08T06:14:00.000-07:00

We live day in, day out, accomplishing what we usually do, what we have to do. Work, then home, eat, sleep. Then, amazingly, it's similar upon waking up. Eat, then go to work, etc.

Always, there's this "hunger", something we all feel but can't seem to explain or comprehend. Even if you have it all, it never seems to be enough. The things of the world are simply not enough to quench this "emptiness".

You know a problem exists. This is obvious. If we state the problem, the problem is: an "inner hunger or thirst" that only comes back again and again no matter what we do or possess.

Now that we have clearly defined the problem, it's time to go to the harder part: the source of the problem.

Christian theology teaches us that there are three elements that make up a human being. These three are the spiritual, mental, and the physical.

The spiritual element ranks as the highest, second highest would be the mental element, and the last rank belongs to the physical element.

So what is the real cause, the source of our "inner emptiness"?

Physical element: Is it a lack of physical element? Hardly. Assume you've got these: good looks, good body, big house, sports cars, etc. - all the things money can buy. But are you really happy?

It makes you happy for a time, but eventually the "inner hunger" comes back. Instinctively, we seem to think we need more. More good looks, more cars, bigger house, etc.

The truth is, satisfying the physical element alone is not enough.

Mental element: Is it a lack of mental element? You've got the talent, the brains, the skills, a successful business or businesses, or a high-profile career, etc.

Again, even if you have all these, there just seems to be something missing, isn't it? We sometimes get into a state of denial, as if denying something that exists removes it from existence. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

We could brush it off as "imagination", or maybe a lack of someone or something in life. Oftentimes, the natural instinct is to somehow think that we need more. We think we need more money, more businesses, more challenges in life, more spice in our love life or marriage.

Somehow, satisfying the mental elements of life is just not enough.

This brings out the final element left: the spiritual element or the spiritual life.

How is your relationship with God? Do you prioritize Him and your relationship with Him as the highest of all your relationships? Remember that anyone or anything you prioritize over God is an act of idolatry, therefore a sinful act. There is no excuse. This includes our family, loved ones, business, career, etc.

See it all around you. There are a lot of good people. But many people just can't do it. Whether they're conscious of it or not, they prioritize family over God, or a love partner over God, a business/career over God, etc.

This "inner hunger or thirst" we feel therefore is a "spiritual hunger or thirst", an inner emptiness that can never ever be quenched or satisfied by the things of this world.

God instilled in us a form of "spiritual instinct", a trait which makes us search for Him even in this world. Hence, St. Augustine once said "God made us for Himself. Our hearts can never rest until it rests in Him."

No amount of satisfying our "physical elements", or our "mental elements" can ever substitute for satisfying our "spiritual elements".

To satisfy our "spiritual elements" means to prioritize God above everyone and everything we have been given in this world, never forgetting it all comes from Him anyway. It is to develop a closer relationship with God, by always prioritizing our "spiritual life" above both "mental life" and "physical life".

In the end, the source of the problem comes from wrong prioritization. We simply prioritize so many other things over our spiritual life. The solution to the problem therefore is to "prioritize our spiritual life" above other things in this world.

Love Overpower

2005-03-15T04:26:00.000-08:00

Power. There are those who say "Power makes the world go round." There are those who say "Love makes the world go round." So who's right?

Power is defined as an ability to achieve a desired goal, and/or an ability to influence others. It comes in a variety of forms: money, influence, beauty, high intelligence, control, fame, military strength, political clout, uncanny wisdom, etc.

The world is obsessed with power. When a person gains power, it's never enough and only more power is craved for. This greed for more power, or avarice, is like sea water - the more you take of it, the thirstier you get.

Why is it never enough?

First of all, this unlimited greed for more power is caused by a lack of purpose, a clear reason for obtaining that power. A person obsessed with gaining power has no justifiable reason to accumulate more power, he/she just wants more for the sake of it.

So to solve this, we have to answer the ultimate question: What is the purpose of power?

The answer is this: "Power exists only to serve love. Because God is love, power ultimately exists to serve God."

You see, power is but a tool, a slave even, for a higher purpose. God gave each person his/her own "ability" or "power" in each one's unique ways, to serve Him and to serve one another with love. Whether you are a rich man or a poor man. you have your own God-given power to use for God's purpose of love.

Power is but a slave of love, and cannot be above love. It's purpose is to serve love, to extend love to others. And since God is love, He being the source of all love and happiness, power inevitably exists to serve God.

Hence, power will lose its primary purpose if power is placed above love, if power becomes more important to a person than love.

The predictable result is corruption. We see this truth in people who have made power their ultimate goal. Observe them well, and see how power corrupts them and their relationship with God and others. As the saying goes "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Witness men who abused their God-given power. Examples are Hitler, who used the military might of Germany to conquer, and in the process exterminated millions of Jews.

Atilla the Hun, nicknamed "Scourge of Europe", who terrorized the known world in his time and caused untold deaths and war with other nations.

Contrast this with men and women who used their God-given power for good and the love of God and others. Examples are Pope John Paul II, who helped defeat the evils of communism and eventually helped to eradicate it by exposing it as a flawed ideaology.

St. Francis of Assisi, the son of a very wealthy man, who gave up his elite status and privileges. He served the poor, and eventually founded his own order, "Order of Franciscan Friars" (OFM). This order has spread throughout the world and is one of the largest today.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta, who reminded the world of the need to love the poorest of the poor, and became the founder of her own order "Missionaries of Charity", one of the largest in the world.

What makes a man or woman great is not how much he or she possessed power, but rather how that person used it - for either good or evil.

A rich man who used his power for evil, selfish purposes is poor indeed. The poor man who does good, even with very little power on this world is still the greater, richer person in the end.

For as the Bible quotes "What profits a man if he gains the whole world....but loses his soul in the end?"

The 3 Types of Love

2005-02-04T05:02:00.000-08:00

There are three types of love:

1) Eros love - known as "erotic love". It is based on strong feelings toward another. It usually occurs in the first stages of a man-woman "romantic" relationship.

This love is based more on physical traits. Say a person says he has "fallen in love" for a woman, because "she looked like an angel" (sheesh). Or a woman "falls in love" for a guy because he is intelligent, has good breeding, etc.

The weakness with this type of love is obvious. It is based more on "self-benefit", of what can benefit you rather than the other person. This is "I love you because it feels good, and makes ME happy loving you." See? The keyword is the word "ME".

When that person doesn't "feel happy" anymore in loving that person, she/he is led to believe that she/he has "fallen out of love". Actually, there was never "true love" in the first place. The fact is, love by feelings alone cannot be called "true love" simply because they do not know each other that much yet.

Two people feel this strong emotional attraction towards one another, though they barely really know about each other's personalities. A person usually puts her/his best foot forward, showing only her/his good side. In order to be sure if "true love" exists, two people must know and accept each others' good and bad traits.

Furthermore, they must have gone through a lot of time with each other, going through BOTH joys and sorrows, pains and pleasures, and still end up together. A lot of sacrifice towards each other is therefore essential.

It is love that is untested by hardships, and therefore may or may not last in the long-term. It may or may not develop into a higher form of love - philos love. Eros love can only succeed in the long-term if it progresses into a higher form of love. Otherwise, it will not last.

The romantic feeling common in "eros love" is natural, and an important part of a relationship between a man and a woman. Romance also plays a role in strengthening the bonds, especially at the start of a relationship. This is part of God's plan.

What we need to be careful of is assuming a relationship must be "real love" just because it is romantic, because all we feel is happiness. As with most anything in life, we must learn to use both our heart and mind to judge if something is real.

Be careful also of being in love with the "concept of love" itself, rather than for who the person is. TV. movies, media has "romanticized" so much, it is often hard to see reality from fiction.

You must love a person for her/his uniqueness, not because you simply want to feel the joy of "being in love." Such a love is concerned more with the "self" rather than the partner.

Over-relying on pure emotion without the balance of logic is a recipe for failure.

2) Philos love - a love based on friendship between two people.

It is true that two lovers that start out by being friends first before becoming partners usually are the relationships that last more, long-term.

Friendship is the foundation of a successful relationship. This is true whether it is marriage, or boyfriend-girlfriend, relationship betweeen family members, relationship with co-workers, employer, etc.

In the case of a man-woman romantic relationship, the advantage is you get to know each other first, before committing to a more serious relationship above friendship.

You start out as friends, then admire each other, then possibly strong emotions can suddenly appear over time and you both realize you miss each other more. It takes time, and is patient (love is patient, love is kind!).

This is in contrast to a man-woman romantic relationship which starts out by "eros love", meaning you get attracted by physical/mental traits alone. Strong emotions start almost immediately (some would even say "love at first sight"), though you do not even know each other that much.

With eros love, you see only each other's strengths/good side, everything is rosy, mushy feeling of happiness, etc. Again, you cannot judge "real love" between two people based on strong emotions alone.

Philos love is a love based on "give-and-take", where two people benefit each other in a mutual way. One partner is still concerned with what she/he can take, but at the same time is also concerned with her/his partner's benefit and therefore gives back in return.

Therefore, philos is a higher type of love than eros. Philos love is a mutual, "give-and take" relationship, while eros love is a self-based, form of love that is more concerned with the "self" or self-benefit.

Like eros love, philos love must develop into a higher form of love, the highest love of all - "agape" or unconditional love.

3) Agape - unconditional love

The third and highest type of love is "agape", or unconditional love.

Agape love is above philos love and eros love. It is a love that is totally selfless, where a person gives out love to another person even if this act does not benefit her/him in any way. Whether the love given is returned or not, the person continues to love (even without any self-benefit).

Say, you help out a person, even though that person hates you and curses you. Or you take insults from your partner without hitting back, all the while forgiving and praying for your partner to amend her/his ways. Or the famed "unconditional love" that a mother has for her child (her child will always be the most beautiful child in the world to her, even with a face only a mother could love!).

Or the love we show our parents, taking care of them and helping them in their old age. Just like they took care of us when we were young, it is done with or without benefit in return.

However, the highest type of agape love is not human at all, but divine - God's unconditional love for us, His children.

God's love was shown to us the most when God the Father sent His one and only Son, Jesus Christ to his suffering and death on the cross for our salvation. There is no greater love than this. Jesus had no obligation to die for us, but He chose to. It is His gift, His ultimate gift.

He chose to die for us because He knew what would happen to us, to all mankind if He left us on our own. Without Jesus' death on the cross, mankind is doomed to eternal damnation, no soul will be able to enter eternal life in Heaven.

The sins of mankind (since the first sin at Eden by Adam and Eve) have become so many and so great that no man can "redeem himself" by his own means alone. Even if each person "suffered and died on the cross", it will not be enough to "repay sins' debts" to God. Only the Begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ Himself, dying on that cross for us would "repay our debts of sin".

First Corinthians 13:4-8 provides a perfect description for agape : "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

In essence, eros love is "physical", philos love is "mental", and agape love is "spiritual". Thus, it is made up of the three fundamental elements of man: physical, mental and spiritual.

Are we guilty of idolatry?

2005-01-21T04:28:00.000-08:00

It's a fact. When asked what they prioritize in life, most people would choose either success in human relationships (family, marriage, etc.), or financial success (business, career, etc.) or even both. The ones who could excel in both are highly esteemed in society.

However, the question: "Where is the mention of God in this? Aren't we supposed to prioritize our relationship with God the most?"

Why? Consider this: most of us are guilty of idolatry and self-idolatry than we are aware of.

The first commandment in the Ten Commandments is: "Thou shall not have any other gods before me." At first glance, it seems so easy to follow, so direct. The truth is, it's not that simple.

Everyday is always a decision to prioritize either God, or someone/something. The will of God is for us to pass His tests, that we should ALWAYS choose Him. Simply put, God is first, before anyone or anything in this world.

That means a lot. Here are a few examples:

Example 1) A person who prioritizes his/her family above God.

Say, he is called by God to the priesthood, or she is called to be a nun and serve God. At first, there is great enthusiasm at such an honor given only to a very few. However, the person belongs to a wealthy family, and family pressures make that person change his/her mind. He/she has chosen family over God.

Example 2) Two lovers so in love with each other, that nothing else and no one else matters but the beloved.

Sure, it reeks of romantic emotions, of rosy "romantic schoolgirl fantasy". But that's beside the point.

Thoughts of love for God (of being in love with God first before another person or yourself, as God wills), are replaced by seemingly unstoppable human emotions for the human lover. The guy prioritizes love for God with love for the lady, and the lady does the same thing.

Instead of being grateful to God for giving them a partner, they failed the test and choose someone over God.

Reminds us of Romeo and Juliet. When family feuds besieged them, rather than be separated from each other, they chose to kill themselves. Literature has romanticized this, the truth is there's nothing romantic in suicide!

That's the result. Because they loved somebody else (their lover) more than God, they could commit murder - murder of their life. If they loved God more than somebody else (no matter who he/she is), the fear of committing mortal sin by suicide, would overcome any other emotion.

Be in love more with God first, before you love any other human person (not just as lovers, but also your family members). And never replace God with anybody else, not even love for yourself. Never forget who gave you those people to love in the first place.

As St. John said "God is love." God is the one and only source of all types of love. Without God, not one of us will have the ability to love or be loved back. Imagine a world without love, and life will simply have no meaningful purpose.

Without God, love cannot exist. Without love, life is meaningless, without purpose. Therefore, without God, life is meaningless and without purpose.

ON ROMANCE:

God made romance an important part of a male-female human relationship, especially at the start. It is like the "childhood part" of every person's life, where there's a lot of fun, joy, happiness, and not much problems or hardships (not yet at least). Everything that God has made is always good, always, never forget that.

But romance is only one part of a relationship. Like childhood is only one part of a person's life. It is not the highest priority. There are higher stages, where hardships, sufferings bring out the true test and strength of a relationship (or the lack of it).

Example 3) Prioritizing yourself over God

It's Sunday time, and a person knows he/she has to attend Mass that afternoon. He/she goes to the Playstation instead, plays around, and realizes it's time for Mass.

He/she muses "Hmmm, I feel quite lazy, I think I'll pass the Mass, just for today. I'll just attend Mass next week, anyway there's always a next time."

He/she has just prioritized himself/herself over God. Next week huh? What if God decided there would be no next week for that person?!!

This is also called self-idolatry. Every person always has that "free will" to choose either prioritizing God or oneself. This is never easy. There's that spiritual weakness called "pride" (also called vanity), which tends to pull us, and makes us prefer our own goals first before God (or even before other people).

Pride is also defined as inordinate love for oneself. It is a form of "narcissism", and the most dangerous of the seven sins. It is also acknowledged as the source of all evil.

Who has power over life and death?

2005-01-05T05:22:00.000-08:00

Only God has absolute power over life and death. Not the richest businessman, nor the president of the United States. God and only God alone.

What then, is death's purpose?

The Holy Bible teaches death (physical death) occurred as a consequence of sin. God warned our first parents, Adam and Eve, that if they ate of the "forbidden fruit", they shall surely die. This death is both a physical death, and more importantly, a spiritual death.

When they did eat the fruit, they didn't immediately die but "spiritual death" occurred - a separation from God. From this, any person who commits sin against God dies a "spiritual death".

One may surmise that had Adam and Eve immediately repented and asked God for forgiveness, He would have forgiven them, especially that being their first sin (though a major one indeed). Of course, they didn't. When God asked them why they ate it, they resorted to "finger pointing".

Adam blamed Eve. Eve blamed the serpent (a creature who was Satan himself disguised). The test of God was a test of obedience and gratefulness. They couldn't repent simply because of pride. They were too proud and chose to blame others, instead of themselves.

Isn't it the same nowadays? It takes a lot of humility to say "I'm sorry, it's my fault." It is so much easier to lay the blame on other people (or the government!). That is why pride is the root of all evil. All other sins are inevitably linked to pride/vanity as the primary cause (cause and effect).

One can wonder what would have been, if Adam and Eve didn't eat the fruit. Remember that God talked to them freely in the Garden of Eden. There may not be any need for death, where Heaven and earth was joined together, earth being an "extension" of Heaven. Possibly, we could have been able to travel back and forth between Heaven and earth. Ah, such joys!

So, first of all, physical death is a punishment for sin. An effect of "spiritual death" or sin (the cause). Again this is cause and effect.

One must not forget that each and every person born on Earth has sins. It starts with inheriting the first sin from our first parents, Adam and Eve. This sin is called "original sin".

As we grow older, we accumulate sins, of our own accord and free will.

So nobody can implicate that those who die in tragic ways (like the Asian tsunami), are sinful, because everyone of us has sinned and has sins. This is very important to note. Let us not judge others, for only God has the right to do that.

It is not the way a person died that matters, but how he/she lived. Our Lord Jesus Christ himself died a tragic, excruciating death on the cross. St. Peter, leader of the apostles, died horribly too crucified upside down on a cross many years later. And who can forget the many Christians persecuted, fed to the lions, defending Jesus and the faith to the end?

Imagine Mother Mary, Jesus' mother, as she witnessed the brutality done to her son, innocent as He was. From the scourging, to the crowning with thorns, the beatings and public humiliation, insults, carrying the heavy cross with blood pouring out like water, and finally...... the slow, painful death by crucifixion.

Can we even realize how that feels? Her son dying in front of her?

For every tear we shed, God cries with us. We are never alone.

Death reminds us of our mortality, of how short our life is. In this way, death creates an urgency for us to repent from sins committed - a reminder that every life has a definite deadline.

Why so many deaths this Christmas season?

2005-01-01T05:35:00.000-08:00

It's Jan. 1, 2005 as I write this. December of 2004 is by far the Christmas season with the most number of deaths ever.

First, a massive typhoon in the Philippines (direct result of illegal loggers and legal loggers!) kills more than a thousand people. Then, famous personalities pass away. All of these just weeks before Christmas.

Then, the biggest disaster came. A tsunami (giant tidal waves) struck Asia, killing over 150,000 people in an instant, just like that. Many Westerners were there (especially Swedish), taking a vacation at the beaches. Men, women, and children. It is said that children accounted for a large number of casualties simply because they can't swim as good as the adults or can't hang on as long as them.

The inevitable question: "Why"??

First, the message is this: death can happen to anyone at anytime. Rich or poor, from the older people to the youth. Youth and riches or power are no guarantee or protection. Death is truly the "great equalizer".

Second, the message is to cherish every Christmas time with our loved ones. From what has happened, you can never be so sure if you'll get to spend the next Christmas with them, or they with you.

In this way, death actually makes us appreciate life more, both our own and that of others. We often take life for granted, don't we? It awakes us up from our usual day-to-day routine, lukewarmness.

Imagine living a life with urgency, where you don't take ANYONE or anything for granted, where every moment, every second counts. Ah, such a life is "heaven on earth"!

Cherish every moment with those you love. As the saying goes "Live life everyday like it was your last. For someday, it will be."

GOD Bless,
Alex C