Who killed a child for soiling his diapers?

16 07 2013

lesbain beat child to death

Murray Weiss, Erin Calabrese and Andy Geller. “Momsters.” New York Post Online, September 21, 2004.
September 21, 2004 — A Harlem lesbian beat the toddler son of her female lover to death — fracturing three ribs and rupturing his liver — simply because he soiled himself, law-enforcement sources said yesterday.
Carmen Molina, 32, and the mother, Zahira Matos, 20, were charged with second-degree murder in the death of tiny. — who had 60 bruises all over his body — and face a maximum penalty of life without parole.
“They brutalized the child over a period of time. They’re simply monsters who beat children,” one cop said.
“Nobody human can do that,” agreed neighbor Melody Walker, who rushed to the women’s apartment at 2 a.m. Sunday after Matos asked her for help.
There, she saw the little boy lying bleeding with bruises on his arms, legs and stomach.
“To do that to somebody who came out of your body is just horrible,” said Walker, a mother of three.
The boy’s father, Yovany Tellez Sr., 21, refused to say anything bad about his ex-girlfriend, who began having an affair with Molina last November.
“It’s a terrible loss. I’m going through a hard time,” Tellez said after driving 14 hours to New York from his home in Grand Rapids, Mich.
Little Yovany died at St. Luke’s Hospital at 2:26 a.m. Sunday. The cause of death was fatal child-abuse syndrome — multiple blows that fractured three of his ribs, ruptured his liver, crushed his lower stomach and broke his leg, law-enforcement sources said.
A woman who lives directly downstairs said that at 2 a.m., she heard a child’s scream that “knocked me off my feet.”
In statements to cops, both women admitted hitting the tot repeatedly with their fists and beating him with a belt, the sources said.
Matos first told cops that the bruises on her son’s body were caused by her husband, who was a warlock and cast spells on the toddler, the sources said.
But after questioning, she broke down and admitted beating the boy, the sources said.
Matos was held without bail last night at her arraignment before Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Patricia Nunez.
Matos, a woman with sad, sleepy eyes and long straight dark hard streaked with blond, looked shocked during the proceeding. She hid her face in her hands and sobbed as she was taken back to her cell.
On Saturday, the sources said, the women were having trouble potty-training Yovany.
Matos went out and left the boy in the care of Molina. When she returned, he had a large bump and bruise on his forehead and was unable to move his right leg — it was broken, the sources said. Molina said the boy soiled himself and she exploded in fury, socking him in the stomach, the sources said.
The woman said she took the tot into the bathroom, washed him off and left him on a bathtub ledge, from which he fell and broke his leg, the sources said.
Walker said that when she was summoned to the women’s apartment — on the 15th floor of 3170 Broadway — the boy’s body was blue.
“It was really ugly,” she said. “There were bruises on his arms, stomach and legs, and he was bleeding from his rectum. I suspected foul play right away.”
Walker said Matos “wasn’t frantic in the way you are when you’re the mother of an injured child. She wasn’t crying. She just kept saying, ‘He’s not breathing, he’s not breathing,’ over and over again.”
“He was a typical 2-year-old,” Walker added. “He was just precious. He looked like he could be happy.
“This is horrible, very horrible. No child deserves this.”
Tellez was born in Miami and moved to Michigan when he was 8 or 9, his brother, Orlando, said by telephone from Grand Rapids. Matos is also from Michigan, while Molina has lived in both states, he said.
Matos also has two daughters, 6-year-old Yahmliz and Kimberley, who was born on July 22. Both are in the custody of child-welfare workers.

This child is a martyr of modern gay ideology that seeks to deny every child of a mother and a father, his natural parents, who  best loves and cares for him.





Does a circle have 3 sides because we say so?

14 07 2013

Gay marriage: Does a circle have 3 sides because we say so?

The current demand to redefine marriage to include same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples is often motivated by goodwill, the will to fairness and happiness, while opposition to this redefinition is often motivated by bad will, the fear or hatred of homosexuals. Nevertheless, the rightness or wrongness of same-sex marriage has to be decided on its own merits, not by taking the moral temperature of the advocates on both sides. For
We have no reliable moral thermometer to stick into people’s motives; and
We often have bad motives for good deeds or good motives for bad deeds; and
We need to judge the deed, not the doer.

When we turn to arguments from reason, the first thing we must agree about is the need to think honestly, open-mindedly, and clearly, especially about important things, and most especially about important things that we feel very passionate about, like sex. This is what I want to explore for a few minutes, as a philosopher.
It is true that we can change our thoughts, and change our definitions of things, of anything at all. Some of these redefinition’s are possible—e.g. we can criminalize or decriminalize many things, including homosexual acts But some redefinition’s are impossible. We can call squares triangles, but that does not make them into triangles. Calling call cats dogs does not make them dogs. And calling homosexual friendships marriages does not make them marriages. This does not depend on whether they are good or bad; it depends on what they are; it depends on their nature, their essence.
Unless there are no natures or essences, i.e. unless we are complete nominalists, and therefore skeptics. (If you are one of these people, and if you actually practice the philosophy you preach, then please do not invite me to your house for dinner, for you must believe that it is impossible to draw a real and absolute line between people and animals, in which case you may be either a vegetarian or a cannibal—two tastes I do not share.)
What Is Marriage?

The whole question of homosexual marriage depends on just one thing: on what marriage is, or rather on whether marriage has a “what” at all, a nature. If marriage is not a natural essence but an artificial human invention, like a game or a human law, than we can redefine it because we invented it in the first place. Because we invented football, we can not only change the rules but we could even call it baseball if we wanted to. We could say there were two kinds of football, and one of them used to be called baseball. If we invent a thing, we can redefine it. If not, not.
The question can be phrased this way: is the answer to the question “What is marriage?” dependent on our reason or our will? Artificial things are dependent on our will, for we willed them into existence. Natural things are dependent on our reason; we discover them rather than inventing them. The decisive question about homosexual marriage is just that: whether marriage is artificial, man-made, and dependent on human wills, or natural, discovered, and dependent on human nature.
The issue is not just psychological, or scientific, or religious, or ethical, but philosophical, in fact metaphysical. The deepest reason why popular opinion has changed in favor of same-sex marriage in industrialized countries (but nowhere else) is that these countries no longer think in terms of what is “natural.” We no longer understand, or feel the force of, the old notion of “nature,” which meant the essence of a thing as manifested by its natural activities. The old notion of “human nature” assumed an inherent, unchangeable telos or purpose or design in it. E.g. “the reproductive system” was designed for reproduction, as the eye was designed to see. (Duh!) But to the typically modern mind “nature” means simply simply stuff, the universe, whatever we can see. It has become an empirical concept, not a philosophical concept.
That is why the notion of “unnatural acts” no longer has a holding-place in our minds. To the modern mind, the difference between homosexual acts (or desires) and heterosexual acts (or desires) is like the difference between the acts on what we now call a football field and the acts on what we now call a baseball field. “Different strokes for different folks” is quite reasonable there. And if football players have traditionally had special privileges which were denied to baseball players, we feel, quite reasonably, that this injustice must be undone. Let us be inclusive; let’s include “baseball” under “football.” Let’s recognize the artificial quotation marks around these two terms. Let’s be Nominalists: they’re just man-made names, after all, not inherent natures.
An Illustration From Geometry

But suppose marriage is not like a game but like a geometrical figure, or a cat: something discovered, not invented. Then redefining it would be confusion. It would mess up the whole geometry of marriage, so to speak, as calling cats dogs would mess up the whole veterinary treatment of both animals.
And if marriage is as natural as geometry, then those who voted for a “Defense of Squares” act would not necessarily be motivated by a personal fear or hate of triangles, but by a love of geometry.
This is the first necessary thing for people on both sides of this deep divide to understand: that their opponents are not loveless cads, idiots or liars. There is an inherent reasonableness to both sides.
But they contradict each other. And therefore one side must be wrong and the other right. For the law of non-contradiction, at least, is not invented but discovered. There is no alternative to it. Its opposite is literally unthinkable. Contradictories are incompatible. The concept of “same sex marriage” may or may not be an oxymoron, but the concept of ”compatible contradictories” certainly is. Two propositions that contradict each other cannot both be true. That’s why neither side can compromise: not because these two groups of people intolerantly exclude each other but because their ideas do.
The traditional definition of marriage contains four properties, as a square contains four sides. If you subtract any one side from a square, you don’t change the nature of squares so as to have a larger set of squares, one that includes three-sided squares as well as four-sided squares; you simply don’t have a square any more, but something else, a triangle.
Four Dimensions of Marraige

That something else may be good or bad—it may be just as good as a square, or it may be less good—but it’s not a square. It’s a triangle. The four dimensions of marriage, as traditionally defined, are:
Freedom
Exclusivity
Permanence, and
Sex
It’s the fourth dimension that is most in question today—though the others are also, and there is no reason why any or all of them cannot be questioned and changed if marriage is artificial, like football.
1. Freedom

Small children cannot marry because they have not yet the maturity to make such a binding covenant freely, just as they cannot yet make legal contracts. “Shotgun marriages” are not marriages then, for the same reason. They are oxymorons. Arranged marriages are not necessarily oxymorons, but they are valid (i.e. real marriages) but only if both parties freely consent to them.
2. Exclusivity

Marriage is between two persons, not one, not three, not many. There can be covenant relationships among more than two persons, but they are not marriages. They are friendships or communes or kibbutzes or states.
3. Permanence

Marriage is for life. Perhaps divorce is literally impossible (as the Catholic Church says), perhaps it is possible and permissible as an extreme, emergency treatment, like amputation, but it is not natural, normal, or intended. Marrying a person is not like leasing a car. That’s why the argument for premarital sex and cohabitation (“let’s give the car a road test before we buy it”) is not only a bad analogy but an insulting one.
4. Sex

Marriage, as traditionally defined, obviously has something to do with sex. The sex between the married couple is to be (a) faithful and exclusive and (b) open to children (that’s part of the definition of a family). This second feature is why it has to be heterosexual: because heterosexual sex, unlike homosexual sex, can and often does produce children. That’s its nature, and its natural end, purpose, design, telos. (The “reproductive system,” remember!) And that’s the aspect that’s controversial today. Essential to the traditional idea of marriage is the idea that marriage, by its nature, produces children, is for children, is about children, is for the sake of children’s existence and welfare.
That’s the ultimate point of traditional marriage. To be complete, marriage needs children, and to be complete children need to be born into a marriage and a family. Every child needs the protection of a family, and every child needs two parents, not only to be procreated but also to be educated, by two different role models. Men and women are “hard-wired” with different instincts and different talents, and children need both. Deliberately depriving a child of a father or a mother is child abuse. What motivates (or should motivate) opposition to same~sex marriage is not hatred of homosexuals but love of children.
Notice how dependent this argument is on the old notion of “nature” and what is “natural.” This is an a priori concept, not an empirical one. It’s true that empirical psychological studies have reinforced it. But they cannot prove it. Such studies have shown that many psychological disorders come from the lack of a father or a mother in a child’s life. But these studies cannot of themselves decide the issue, since they can only compare the probable consequences of the two different arrangements, not adjudicate their intrinsic rightness.

There’s no way around it: philosophy is going to have to decide this issue. Or mythology, which is unconscious, instinctive philosophy. Is there such a thing as “the nature of things”? “To be or not to be, that is the question” not only for traditional marriage but also for Mother Nature herself. How big is the camel whose nose is newly under our tent? Read Brave New World, the most prophetic book of our time, to find out.

Peter Kreeft





I love it when your mom kiss you on the cheek

12 07 2013

I love it when your mom kiss you on the cheek

A young married couple was in a terrible traffic accident where the woman’s face was severely burned. The doctor told the husband that they couldn’t graft any skin from her body because she was too skinny. So the husband offered to donate some of his own skin. Fortunately, it was compatible with hers.
However, the only skin on his body that the doctor felt was suitable would have to come from his buttocks, because it was so soft and smooth. The husband and wife agreed that they would tell no one about where the skin came from, and requested that the doctor also honor their secret. After all, this was a very delicate matter.
After the surgery was completed, everyone was astounded at the woman’s new look. She looked more beautiful than she ever had before! All her friends and relatives just went on and on about it.
One day, she was alone with her husband, and she was overcome with emotion at his sacrifice, since he had gone through considerable pain and was not able to sit down for several weeks after the operation. She said, “Dear, I just want to thank you for everything you did for me. There is no way I could ever repay you.”
“My darling,” he replied with a smile, “I get all the thanks I need every time I see your mother kiss you on the cheek.”

 





How To Win Secret Points That Make Your Spouse Happy

9 07 2013

how to make your spouse happy

For a thousand years, married couples have tried to understand themselves  without success. Today, we are glad to announce that it is now possible. Reading The  WOMEN’s secret list, all men can understand why their wives treat them the way they do (please find below and don’t fail to read the rules). We are grateful to the female turncoat who passed it to us.

Rules

Remember, just one rule applies: Make your wife happy. If you do something she likes, you get points. If you do something she dislikes, points are subtracted. If your point total is positive, she will be happy. If it is negative, she will be unhappy. If she is unhappy, you will also be unhappy. Remember this. If your point total is zero, the expectant and very attentive gaze that so many men hate will dominate your life. Oh, there is one more little thing: You don’t get any points for doing something nice that she expects you to do.

The List

At a Party

• You stay by her side the entire party: +10
• You stay by her side for a while, then leave to chat with an old college drinking buddy: -2
• Named Tiffany: -10
• Who is an “exotic dancer:” -25
• With implants: -75

Birthdays and Anniversaries
• You remember her birthday or your anniversary: +3
• You buy a card and flowers: +10
• You give her a gift: 0 (remember, you’re expected to do this)
• You give her a gift, and it’s small appliance: -10
• You give her a gift, and it’s not a small appliance: +1
• You give her a gift, and it’s not chocolate: +2
• You give her a gift that you’ll be paying off for months: +30
• You wait until the last minute and buy her a gift that day: -10
• With her credit card: -30
• At the nearest 7-11: -40
• And whatever you bought is two sizes too big: -50
• Two sizes too small: +200
• You take her out to dinner: 0
• You take her out to dinner and it’s not a sports bar: +10
• Okay, it’s a sports bar named Bo’s Belly Barn: -10
• And it’s all you can eat night: -15
• It’s a sports bar named Bo’s Belly Barn, where you both eat at the all you can eat bar, and e place just coincidentally happens to be featuring a game involving your favorite team, d you paint your face the colors of this team, and you get stupid drunk: -50
• You go to a nice, pricey restaurant and hire a guitar player: +10
• You go to a nice, pricey restaurant, hire a guitar player and get up and sing: +15
• And you stink: +12
• And you are not half bad: +25

Thoughtfulness
• You buy her flowers only when it’s expected: 0
• You buy her flowers as a surprise, just for the heck of it: +5
• You give her wildflowers you’ve actually picked yourself: +10
• And she contracts Lyme disease: -25
• You forget to pick her up at the bus station after she visits her mother: 15
• The bus station is in Newark, New Jersey: -25
• When it is pouring rain: -35
• Which dissolves her leg cast: -50

A Night Out with the Boys
• You go out with a pal: -2
• The pal is happily married: +1
• With kids: +1 per kid
• The pal is single: -5
• He drives a Ferrari: -10
• With a personalized license plate that reads GR8NBED: -15
• You have more than a few and perform the tango with a poodle while wearing a toilet seat around your neck: -20
• You have lots of drinks and vaguely remember a ride in the back of an unfamiliar car with uniformed men, and being fingerprinted: -35
• Is that a tattoo???: -200

A Night Out with Her
• You take her to see a movie: +2
• You take her to see a movie she likes: +4
• You take her to see a movie you hate: +6
• You take her to see a movie you like: -2
• Which is called “Death Cop III: Bone Storm:” 12
• Which features cyborgs that eat people after horribly mangling them: -20
• And you told her it was a foreign language film about war orphans and nuns: -50

Saturday Afternoon
• You go to the mall together: +3
• You go to the mall, drop her off at the entrance, then park the car: +4
• You go to the mall, drop her at the entrance, then drive to a sports bar: -2
• You spend the day shopping for furniture and pretend to like it: +3
• You tackle a large household project, such as painting the den: +15
• Or refinishing the floors: +20
• Or rewiring the basement: +25
• Or adding a second floor: +50
• Or setting up a Nerf Ball hoop over the bathroom wastebasket: 6
• And you are tickled pink about it: -15
• You spend the afternoon watching college football in your underwear: -6
• And you didn’t even go to college: -10

Grooming and Exercise
• You trim your nails: +5
• You trim your nails in the living room: -10
• You trim your nails and flick them at the cat: -15
• You trim your nails by biting them and then spitting them at the cat: -25
• You shave on the weekends: +2
• You don’t shave on the weekends: -4
• You don’t bathe on the weekends: -8
• But then, neither does she: +8
• You develop a noticeable pot belly: -15
• You develop a noticeable pot belly and diligently exercise to get rid of it: +20
• You develop a noticeable pot belly and resort to loose jeans and baggy Hawaiian shirts to cover it up: -30
• You point at her and say, “Hey, look! Twins!” -800

The Baby
• You offer to feed and change the baby, but immediately fall back asleep: -5
• You actually feed and change the baby in the middle of the night: +5
• You feed the baby and clean her up, but forget to put a new diaper on her: -10
• You accidentally put beer in the baby’s bottle, thereby guaranteeing a good night’s sleep for the whole family: -0.1
• You put the baby out and feed and change the cat: -50

The Car
• You keep your car, minivan or pickup truck reasonably clean and gassed up, with the tires properly inflated and all necessary fluids at their proper levels: +5/week
• Your car, minivan or pickup truck is so filthy that she can’t find the shift knob and can hardly see out of the windows, plus the carpet is so grungy you could cut it up and feed the dog with it: 10/week
• You make sure there are barely enough fumes in the car to make it to the nearest gas station: -1
• Your car conks out at the side of the road and you fix the problem immediately: +10
• Your car conks out at the side of the road and you mess around under the hood without a clue as to what you are doing for two full hours, and finally use her cell phone to call a tow truck:- 25
• You have personally tuned and upgraded your car to the point where it can reach sixty miles per hour in five seconds flat, but you don’t know how to fix the dishwasher when it goes on the blink: -15
• Your car’s transmission conks out, you pull it out and disassemble it, but leave the whole thing in the bathtub: -50
• There are dead cars in your driveway or front yard: 5 per car per week
• There is a dead school bus in your driveway or front yard: -50 per week
• You lose the directions on a road trip: -4
• You lose the directions and end up getting lost: -10
• You end up getting lost in a really bad part of town: -15
• And meet the locals up close and personal: -25
• And she finds out you lied about having a black belt:- 60

The Dreaded Question: “Am I Gaining Weight?”
• You answer “absolutely not, you are the same slim girl you were when we were dating:” -5, because she knows you are lying, but it is a nice lie
• You hesitate before responding: -10
• You ask “Where?:” -35
• Any other response: -20 (as you can see, this is a always a no win situation for the husband)

When She Wants to Talk About Her Feelings or a Problem
• You listen, displaying a concerned expression: +2
• You listen for over 30 minutes: +5
• You relate to her problem and share a similar experience: +50
• You give her suggestions on how to fix her problem by adjusting her personality: -50
• Your mind wanders to sports and you suddenly hear her saying “Well, what do you think I should do?:” -10 to -20, depending on your answer
• You have fallen asleep: -50

Household Chores
• You make the bed: +1
• You make the bed, but forget to replace the decorative pillows: 0
• You throw the bedspread over rumpled sheets: -1
• You wash the sheets and pillowcases: +5
• You sleep on the sheets until they are greasier than a slab of raw bacon: -10
• You do all of the dishes: +10
• You load up the dishwasher, but leave the greasy pots for her: -5
• You load up the dishwasher, but let the dog have his licks first: -25
• You leave the toilet seat up: -5
• You replace the toilet paper roll when it is empty: +2
• When the toilet paper roll is empty, you resort to Kleenex or paper towels: -10
• When the Kleenex runs out you use the next bathroom: 20
• You go out to buy her favorite ice cream in the middle of a snowstorm: +2
• But return with beer: 5
• And no ice cream: 25
• You check out a suspicious noise at night: +2
• You check out a suspicious noise and it is something: +5
• You pummel it with a baseball bat: +10
• It’s her cat: 40
• It’s her mother: 150

Disgusting Jobs
• You unclog a stopped up toilet: +6
• You clean out the refrigerator: +10
• You clean up cat, dog or human vomit or other bodily fluids: +7
• You get rid of a dead rodent: +8
• You visit her parents: +1
• You visit her parents and actually make conversation: +3
• You visit her parents and stare vacantly at the television: -3
• And the television is off: -6
• You take her mother to see “Cats”: +350

And Now, It’s the Men’s Turn …

We always hear about the rules from the female side. Here are the rules from the men’s side. If you heed these rules, your man will be happy, and so will you.
Please note: These are all numbered “1” on purpose!

(1) Men are NOT mind readers.
(1) Learn to work the toilet seat. You’re a big girl. If it’s up, put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don’t hear us complaining about you leaving it down.
(1) Sunday sports — It’s like the full moon or the changing of the tides. Let it be.
(1) Crying is blackmail.
(1) Ask for what you want. Let us be clear on this one: Subtle hints do not work! Strong hints do not work! Obvious hints DO NOT WORK! Just SAY it!
(1) Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.
(1) Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That’s what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.
(1) Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become null and void after seven days.
(1) If you think you’re fat, you probably are. Don’t ask us. IT’S A TRAP!!!
(1) If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of the ways makes you sad or angry, we meant the other one.
(1) You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done — not both! If you already know how to do it, just do it yourself.
(1) Whenever possible, please say whatever you have to say during commercials.
(1) Christopher Columbus did NOT need directions — and neither do we.
(1) ALL men see in only 16 colors, like Windows default settings. Peach, for example, is a fruit, not a color. Pumpkin is also a fruit. We have no idea what mauve or puce is.
(1) If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that.
(1) If we ask what is wrong and you say “nothing,” We will act like nothing’s wrong. We know you’re lying, but it is just not worth the hassle trying to figure out what the hell it is.
(1) If you ask a question you don’t want an answer to, expect an answer you don’t want to hear.
(1) When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine … Really!
(1) Don’t ask us what we’re thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball, football, cars or golf.
(1) You have enough clothes.
(1) You have too many shoes.
(1) I am in shape. Pear IS a shape!
(1) Thank you for reading this. Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight — but did you know men really don’t mind that? It’s like camping!





Smart Little Boy

5 07 2013

The Smart Little Boy

The elderly barber was giving an equally elderly man a haircut, and he saw a ten-year-old boy walking down the sidewalk towards his shop.
He said “You know, Elmer, today’s kids are a real disgrace. They’re lazy as hell, doing nothing but playing video games, and they’re so ignorant, they don’t know squat! Here, I’ll prove it to you.”
The boy walked into the shop, and the barber held two quarters in one hand and a dollar bill in the other. He asked the boy “Which do you want?” The boy took the two quarters, said “Thanks!,” and left.
The barber said “And they never learn from their mistakes. That’s about the fifth time that kid has taken two quarters over the dollar bill.”
Elmer paid for his haircut and left the barber shop. As he walked back to the car, he saw the boy talking to a couple of his friends. Elmer strolled over and asked “Why do you keep taking the two quarters instead of the dollar?”
And the kid replied “Because the day I take the dollar, the game’s over.”





How I stopped a Cop Killer by Charlton Heston

3 07 2013

How I stopped a Cop Killer by Charlton Heston

A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD called “Cop Killer” celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment conglomerate in the world.
Police across the country were outraged. Rightfully so — at least one had been murdered. But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them, and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black. I heard Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned some shares at the time, so I decided to attend.
What I did there was against the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of “Cop Killer”- every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.
“I GOT MY 12 GAUGE SAWED OFF I GOT MY HEADLIGHTS TURNED OFF I’M ABOUT TO BUST SOME SHOTS OFF I’M ABOUT TO DUST SOME COPS OFF…”
It got worse, a lot worse. I won’t read the rest of it to you. But trust me, the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me for that.
Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth, where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and Tipper Gore.
“SHE PUSHED HER BUTT AGAINST MY ….”
Well, I won’t do to you here what I did to them. Let’s just say I left the room in echoing silence. When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said “We can’t print that.” “I know,” I replied, “but Time/Warner’s selling it.”
Two months later, Time/Warner terminated Ice-T’s contract. I’ll never be offered another film by Warners, or get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be willing to act, not just talk.
When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself … jam the switchboard of the district attorney’s office.
When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors … choke the halls of the board of regents.
When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl’s cheek on the playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment … march on that school and block its doorways.
When someone you elected is seduced by political power and betrays you…petition them, oust them, banish them.
When Time magazine’s cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy Christians holding a cross as it did last month … boycott their magazine and the products it advertises.
So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps of the great disobediences of history that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men, by God’s grace, built this country.
If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.
Thank you.
Charlton Heston
“Winning the Cultural War”
Speech to the Harvard Law School Forum
February 16, 1999

 





Is God Your Toilet Bowl because you say so?

29 06 2013

Is God Your Toilet Bowl because you say so?

Is your toilet bowl your God because you say so?

Few philosophers in history have been so unreadable and dry as Immanuel Kant. Yet few have had a more devastating impact on human thought.

Kant’s devoted servant, Lampe, is said to have faithfully read each thing his master published, but when Kant published his most important work, “The Critique of Pure Reason,” Lampe began but did not finish it because, he said, if he were to finish it, it would have to be in a mental hospital. Many students since then have echoed his sentiments.

Yet this abstract professor, writing in abstract style about abstract questions, is, I believe, the primary source of the idea that today imperils faith (and thus souls) more than any other; the idea that truth is subjective.

The simple citizens of his native Konigsberg, Germany, where he lived and wrote in the latter half of the 18th century, understood this better than professional scholars, for they nicknamed Kant “The Destroyer” and named their dogs after him.

He was a good-tempered, sweet and pious man, so punctual that his neighbors set their clocks by his daily walk. The basic intention of his philosophy was noble: to restore human dignity amidst a skeptical world worshiping science.

This intent becomes clear through a single anecdote. Kant was attending a lecture by a materialistic astronomer on the topic of man’s place in the universe. The astronomer concluded his lecture with: “So you see that astronomically speaking, man is utterly insignificant.” Kant replied: “Professor, you forgot the most important thing, man is the astronomer.”

Kant, more than any other thinker, gave impetus to the typically modern turn from the objective to the subjective. This may sound fine until we realize that it meant for him the redefinition of truth itself as subjective. And the consequences of this idea have been catastrophic.

If we ever engage in conversation about our faith with unbelievers, we know from experience that the most common obstacle to faith today is not any honest intellectual difficulty, like the problem of evil or the dogma of the trinity, but the assumption that religion cannot possibly concern facts and objective truth at all; that any attempt to convince another person that your faith is true—objectively true, true for everyone—is unthinkable arrogance.

The business of religion, according to this mindset, is practice and not theory; values, not facts; something subjective and private, not objective and public. Dogma is an “extra,” and a bad extra at that, for dogma fosters dogmatism. Religion, in short, equals ethics. And since Christian ethics is very similar to the ethics of most other major religions, it doesn’t matter whether you are a Christian or not; all that matters is whether you are a “good person.” (The people who believe this also usually believe that just about everyone except Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson is a “good person.”)

Kant is largely responsible for this way of thinking. He helped bury the medieval synthesis of faith and reason. He described his philosophy as “clearing away the pretensions of reason to make room for faith”—as if faith and reason were enemies and not allies. In Kant, Luther’s divorce between faith and reason becomes finalized.

Kant thought religion could never be a matter of reason, evidence or argument, or even a matter of knowledge, but a matter of feeling, motive and attitude. This assumption has deeply influenced the minds of most religious educators (e.g., catechism writers and theology departments) today, who have turned their attention away from the plain “bare bones” of faith, the objective facts narrated in Scripture and summarized in the Apostles’ creed. They have divorced the faith from reason and married it to pop psychology, because they have bought into Kant’s philosophy.

“Two things fill me with wonder,” Kant confessed: “the starry sky above and the moral law within.” What a man wonders about fills his heart and directs his thought. Note that Kant wonders about only two things: not God, not Christ, not Creation, Incarnation, Resurrection and Judgment, but “the starry sky above and the moral law within.” “The starry sky above” is the physical universe as known by modern science. Kant relegates everything else to subjectivity. The moral law is not “without” but “within,” not objective but subjective, not a Natural Law of objective rights and wrongs that comes from God but a man-made law by which we decide to bind ourselves. (But if we bind ourselves, are we really bound?) Morality is a matter of subjective intention only. It has no content except the Golden Rule (Kant’s “categorical imperative”).

If the moral law came from God rather than from man, Kant argues, then man would not be free in the sense of being autonomous. This is true, Kant then proceeds to argue that man must be autonomous, therefore the moral law does not come from God but from man. The Church argues from the same premise that the moral law does in fact come from God, therefore man is not autonomous. He is free to choose to obey or disobey the moral law, but he is not free to create the law itself.

Though Kant thought of himself as a Christian, he explicitly denied that we could know that there really exists (1) God, (2) free will, and (3) immorality. He said we must live as if these three ideas were true because if we believe them we will take morality seriously, and if we don’t we will not. It is this justification of belief by purely practical reasons that is a terrible mistake. Kant believes in God not because it is true but because it is helpful. Why not believe in Santa Claus then? If I were God, I would favor an honest atheist over a dishonest theist, and Kant is to my mind a dishonest theist, because there is only one honest reason for believing anything: because it is true.

Those who try to sell the Christian faith in the Kantian sense, as a “value system” rather than as the truth, have been failing for generations. With so many competing “value systems” on the market, why should anyone prefer the Christian variation to simpler ones with less theological baggage, and easier ones with less inconvenient moral demands?

Kant gave up the battle, in effect, by retreating from the battlefield of fact. He believed the great myth of the 18th-century “Enlightenment” (ironic name!): that Newtonian science was here to stay and that Christianity, to survive, had to find a new place in the new mental landscape sketched by the new science. The only place left was subjectivity.

That meant ignoring or interpreting as myth the supernatural and miraculous claims of traditional Christianity. Kant’s strategy was essentially the same as that of Rudolf Bultmann, the father of “demythologizing” and the man who may be responsible for more Catholic college students losing their faith than anyone else. Many theology professors follow his theories of criticism which reduce biblical claims of eyewitness description of miracles to mere myth, “values” and “pious interpretations.”

Bultmann said this about the supposed conflict between faith and science: “The scientific world picture is here to stay and will assert its right against any theology, however imposing, that conflicts with it.” Ironically, that very “scientific world picture” of Newtonian physics Kant and Bultmann accepted as absolute and unchangeable has today been almost universally rejected by scientists themselves!

Kant’s basic question was: How can we know truth? Early in his life he accepted the answer of Rationalism, that we know truth by the intellect, not the senses, and that the intellect possesses its own “innate ideas.” Then he read the Empiricist David Hume, who, Kant said, “woke me from my dogmatic slumber.” Like other Empiricists, Hume believed that we could know truth only through the senses and that we had no “innate ideas.” But Hume’s premises led him to the conclusion of Skepticism, the denial that we can ever know the truth at all with any certainty. Kant saw both the “dogmatism” of Rationalism and the skepticism of Empiricism as unacceptable, and sought a third way.

There was such a third theory available, ever since Aristotle. It was the common sense philosophy of Realism. According to Realism, we can know truth through both the intellect and the senses if only they worked properly and in tandem, like two blades of a scissors. Instead of returning to traditional Realism, Kant invented a wholly new theory of knowledge, usually called Idealism. He called it his “Copernican revolution in philosophy.” The simplest term for it is Subjectivism. It amounts to redefining truth itself as subjective, not objective.

All previous philosophers had assumed that truth was objective. That’s simply what we common-sensically mean by “truth”: knowing what really is, conforming the mind to objective reality. Some philosophers (the Rationalists) thought we could attain this goal through reason alone. The early Empiricists (like Locke) thought we could attain it through sensation. The later skeptical Empiricist Hume thought we could not attain it at all with any certainty. Kant denied the assumption common to all three competing philosophies, namely that we should attain it, that truth means conformity to objective reality. Kant’s “Copernican revolution” redefines truth itself as reality conforming to ideas. “Hitherto it has been assumed that all our knowledge must conform to objects…more progress may be made if we assume the contrary hypothesis that the objects of thought must conform to our knowledge.”

Kant claimed that all our knowledge is subjective. Well, is that knowledge subjective? If it is, then the knowledge of that fact is also subjective, et cetera, and we are reduced to an infinite hall of mirrors. Kant’s philosophy is a perfect philosophy for hell. Perhaps the damned collectively believe they aren’t really in hell, it’s all just in their mind. And perhaps it is; perhaps that’s what hell is.

Peter Kreeft





Why doesn’t everyone want marriage redefined?

27 06 2013

Why deosnt everyone want marriage redefined?

The American Supreme court yesterday voted to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) paving the way for the redefinition of marriage. Gay activist and lobby groups around the world are celebrating, but it is worth having a look at why many do not want marriage redefined.

Marriage is a unique institution that transcends any other relationship. The lifelong sexual exclusivity, mutual interdependence, and potential to create a family make it the most stabilizing force in our society. For the past few thousand years marriage has been defined, almost universally, as the union of one man and one woman. This system is best for our nation and should be preserved. Redefining marriage will destabilize our society and cause undue social and economic burdens that we cannot afford.

Marriage was not created to exclude homosexuals. It simply serves a purpose that homosexual relationships cannot: procreation and the stable rearing of children. The purpose of marriage (especially from the government’s perspective) is to provide a foundation upon which children can be produced and reared in the most optimal environment. As Chief Justice John Roberts stated in the oral arguments of Hollingsworth v. Perry last Tuesday, “When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say lets have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes [the rearing of children] that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”

Redefining marriage to include gay couples undermines its central objective by shifting the focus of marriage away from the rearing of children, towards the emotional and economic desires of the adult participants. Furthermore, as the Witherspoon Institute puts it, gay marriage “would undercut the idea that procreation is intrinsically connected to marriage.” It would fundamentally change our nation’s social and familial structure, make marriage irrelevant, and even attack our freedom of conscience.

Because gay marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon, there are very few examples of its effects. However, we can look to Scandinavia where gay marriage has become legal and socially accepted.

In the 1990s, many Scandinavian countries granted marital rights to same-sex couples. As Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has documented, the family structure has been all but eliminated, and marriage is becoming a novelty. In fact, it is becoming harder to measure the deterioration of the family there by the usual methods (divorce rates) because Scandinavians are hardly getting married in the first place. Simultaneously, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has exploded. As Kurtz writes, in only ten years, “Between 1990 and 2000, Norway’s out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39 to 50 percent, while Sweden’s rose from 47 to 55 percent.” Currently, “About 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark now have unmarried parents.” Single parenthood is now the norm, rather than the exception in Scandinavia.

As Frank Turek, author of Correct, Not Politically Correct, points out, here correlation does prove causation because we have seen the same patterns of family disintegration resulting from liberal marriage laws in other parts of the world as well. For example, in 1969, the year the first no-fault divorce law was enacted in the U.S. (in California), the out-of-wedlock birthrate was roughly 10%. Now that all fifty sates and DC enforce these laws, it is about 40%. As we can see, no-fault divorce laws have undermined marriage in the U.S. for the same reasons gay marriage has in Scandinavia: they focus marriage on the desires of the married people, not on children. Further liberalizing marriage in the U.S. will exacerbate our already high out-of-wedlock birth rate.

This is disastrous for both children and society. Study after study has shown that, statistically, children reared by their nuclear parents do better in almost every aspect of life when compared to children raised by a single parent. A study by Sara McLanahan, published in her book Growing up with a Single Parent, found that children born outside of wedlock are almost three times more likely to drop out of high school compared to their peers who come from traditional families. Another study in Sweden, published in The Lancet in 2003 found that children in two parent homes were about half as likely to suffer from suicide attempts, alcohol and drug abuse, and serious psychiatric illnesses than children raised by a single parent. Children born into single parent homes also do not have as many opportunities as traditionally raised children because they only have one stream of income, as opposed to two. The social harms of the familial breakdown are too much for the United States to bear.

Furthermore, as many homosexuals understand, it is nonsensical to argue that a child raised in the home of a same sex couple will get the same upbringing as a child raised in the home of his nuclear parents. Women and men contribute in different and unique ways to a child’s development. Ask yourself the question an eleven-year-old girl asked a dumbstruck Minnesota legislature last week: “Which parent do I not need- my mom or my dad?”

Though many gay rights activists like to argue that there is “scientific evidence” that proves children of gay couples are just as well off as children in heterosexual families, the truth is that gay marriage has not been around long enough for us to fully and definitively understand its effects upon children. As Justice Kennedy stated in the oral arguments last Tuesday, “There’s substance to the point that sociological information is new. We have five years of information [in California] to weigh against two thousand years of history or more.” If America is really looking out for its children, we should at least be prudent when redefining such a tried and true institution.

Gay marriage also affects children by contributing to the perception that fathers are not necessary to a child’s upbringing. If children don’t need both a mother and a father, as many gay rights activists propose, what reason is there for a father to stay around? Same sex marriage would encourage single mother households within the majority heterosexual community and further the breakdown of the nuclear family.

The economic burden this causes is enormous and will sow the seeds for a massive welfare state (many Scandinavian countries have some of the highest taxes and public welfare expenditures in the world). Currently, family disintegration costs American taxpayers roughly $112 billion per year, and the out-of-wedlock birthrate in America is only 40%, a number two-thirds that of Denmark. The economic toll caused by the breakdown of the family has been enormous in Scandinavia, and we should not force ourselves to subsidize homosexual marriage.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the gay rights movement is the toll it takes on our freedom of conscience. It seeks to force Americans to accept homosexual relationships as equal to heterosexual ones, despite possible moral or religious objections.

Oftentimes, the gay rights movement argues that homosexuals are discriminated against because they do not receive the same legal and economic benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples receive. However, the facts don’t always add up. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, many states including Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, recognize Civil Unions, which give homosexual couples all the rights and privileges of marriage. (Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut had civil unions before they redefined marriage). California, Oregon, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, the District of Columbia, Nevada, and Wisconsin allow homosexuals to claim domestic partnerships, which give almost all of the legal benefits of marriage.

Yet the gay rights crowd in these states is not content. In fact, California is in the center of the current Supreme Court hearings. The gay agenda is not to ultimately achieve economic or legal equality; it seeks to legally enforce unanimous social approval of homosexual lifestyles, to obtain mandatory social approbation from the rest of society.

These dangers are real. Many Catholic adoption centers, including the Catholic Charities of Boston, San Francisco, Washington D.C. and many affiliates in Illinois, have been forced to close because they stood by their religious beliefs and refused to allow homosexual couples to adopt children, even after they were told by their local or state governments to do so. Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois summed it up well: “In the name of tolerance, we’re not being tolerated.”

It is frightening to think about the potential fate of our freedom of conscience if the United States government forces the American public to redefine marriage. It is only a matter of time, as many Catholic priests have predicted, until a simple moral disapproval of homosexuality will be considered a hate-crime.

Redefining marriage takes away its meaning and purpose and creates a litany of other relationships that could potentially be defined as marriage. One of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, recognized this in oral arguments last Tuesday: “If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people [that could get married], with respect to… the incest laws [are there]?” Sotomayor (again, one of the most liberal justices on the bench) is exactly right: redefining marriage as a civil right, instead of an institution that serves a social purpose, opens it up to a limitless number of definitions including, but not limited to, polygamy, incest, and bestiality. As openly gay co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, Doug Mainwaring, has said, we are not redefining marriage: we are “undefining” it, and the consequences are limitless.

Modern liberals too often get so caught up in bragging that they are going against the current of tradition that they too often forget why certain values and institutions became tradition in the first place. They tend to believe that new is by necessity an improvement. In the case of marriage, new is ruinous. Homosexual marriage is destructive, causes social instability, and imposes undue economic burdens on American society. America should oppose “undefining” an ancient, tried and true, and sacred institution. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.

— Brandon G. Gill





The Weeping Emperor

27 06 2013

The Weeping Emperor

Otto the Great, Emperor of Germany visited Rome. On his way home, he passed through the land of Albania where people said a hermit, whose name was Nile, who was renowned throughout the whole country for his holy life, lived. So Otto went to the place where the hermit dwelt.

When he had spoken to Nile for some time, the Emperor rose up to go ; but before leaving he said to him, ” Nile, ask of me whatever you like, just as if you were my own son, and I will give it to you with the greatest joy.”

Nile put his hand on the Emperor s breast, and said, in a solemn voice, ” I ask of you, O Emperor, only one thing, and that is, that you will take care of your soul. Oh yes, I ask you, in the Name of God, to take care of your soul ; for, although you are an Emperor, you must one day die like other men, and will have to give an account to God of everything you have done ; and what will it avail you then if you have lost your soul ?”

When the Emperor heard these words he began to weep, arid, kneeling down at the Nile’s feet, he took the royal crown off his head and answered, ”  I will do what you ask me ; but pray you to God for me, and give me now your blessing.”

When he received the blessing of the Saint he rose up, and, still weeping and sobbing, went away along with those who had accompanied him.

Otto was then only about twenty years old. He had come to that time of life which is full of the greatest dangers. But he always kept in mind the solemn words to Nile, and as soon as any temptation came to trouble him, he remembered his promise, that he would all his lifetime take most care of his soul.

So he led a life of great piety. His prayers were long and fervent, and he gave great alms to the poor. People used to say he was more like an angel in Heaven than a man upon earth. Thus he passed his life, and when the end came he died the death of the Saints, and he is now in Heaven, happy with God, because he followed the advice of  Nile, and took most care of his soul.

 





The Trouble Tree

26 06 2013

Please, kindly leave your trouble on the Trouble tree outside.

A woman hired a carpenter to help her restore an old farmhouse, and he had just finished a rough first day on the job: a flat tire made him lose an hour of work, his electric drill quit, and his ancient one ton truck refused to start. While she drove him home, he sat in stony silence. On arriving, he invited her in to meet his family. As they walked toward the front door, he paused briefly at a small tree, touching the tips of the branches with both hands.

When opening the door, he underwent an amazing transformation. His tanned face was wreathed in smiles, and he hugged his two small children and gave his wife a kiss.

Afterward, he walked back to the car. They passed the tree, and her curiosity got the better of her. She asked him about what she had seen him do earlier. “Oh, that’s my trouble tree,” he replied. “I know I can’t help having troubles on the job, but one thing’s for sure; those troubles don’t belong in the house with my wife and the children. So, I just hang them up on the tree every night when I come home and ask God to take care of them. Then in the morning, I pick them up again. Funny thing is,” he smiled, “when I come out in the morning to pick ’em up, there aren’t nearly as many as I remember hanging up the night before.”





Jimmy Carter calls for women Priests in the Catholic Church

25 06 2013

Jimmy cater

President Carter seems very concerned about the Catholic doctrine of the male priesthood. Speaking at the Carter Center‘s “Mobilizing Faith for Women” the former President answered some questions about women and religion. Let’s look at his words against the Catholic Church and then I’ll provide three systematic responses:
“And I think the great religions have set the example for that, by ordaining, in effect, that women are not equal to men in the eyes of God. This has been done and still is done by the Catholic Church ever since the third century, when the Catholic Church ordained that a woman cannot be a priest for instance but a man can. A woman can be a nurse or a teacher but she can’t be a priest. This is wrong, I think.
And again, President Carter says: “And then after about the third century when men took over control of the Catholic Church, then they began to ordain that women had to play an inferior position, not be a priest.”
Now I can understand where President Carter is coming from. First, he and his wife are Baptists. As Baptists they do not believe in a sacerdotal doctrine of the priesthood. Unlike the Baptists, the Catholic Church believes that the priesthood is not merely a ministerial function or office. Rather, when a man is ordained a priest, he is configured to Christ in a special way. His soul changes. We call this the indelible seal or character of Holy Orders. This is why there have never been women priests in the Catholic Church – not in the third, second, or first century. Never.

1. Jimmy Carter, Let’s Take a Look at the Mystery of the Transubstantiation

Not only does the priest’s soul undergo a metaphysical change, but the priest loans his own body and voice to Christ when he recites in the Holy Mass “This is my body.” This act transubstantiates bread into the true Body of Christ.

Let’s pause here. This is my body. Human bodies come in two versions: male and female. God designed it this way. Both sexes image God because, as the Church teaches, both sexes are ensouled and rational. See Genesis for details.

However, when the priest says, “This is my body,” he is acting in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). Now then Christ is male. He was circumcised. The body that He offered on the cross was male. For this reason, only men can be priests because the Catholic Church mystically identifies the male Body of Christ with each and every male priest. The sacramental signification requires a man to stand in for the God-Man Jesus Christ at the altar.

2. Jimmy Carter and Clericalism

Secondly, President Carter unknowingly slips into clericalism. Clericalism is the insidious belief that clergy are de facto holier and more important than everyone else. As a Baptist, he likely sees his pastor as a CEO and/or a gifted public speaker. These functions parallel those of secular companies. Hence, to exclude women is, in his mind, sexist.

But the Catholic Church does not see priests as CEOs or primarily as preachers/teachers. Rather, priests are chiefly “fathers.” Their relationship to other people is not transactional, it’s paternal. Only a dad can be a dad. Again, it’s a male thing. The Aramaic word for “father” is Abba meaning “giver of love.”

3. Jimmy Carter, please meet the Blessed Virgin Mary

Here’s the third and final thought:

I’d like to point out that the Catholic Church explicitly teaches that the greatest human person ever created is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

May is not only a woman, she is the Woman. The Catholic Church also teaches that she is higher than all Catholic priests, even higher than the twelve apostles. In fact, she is higher than every single angel.

The priesthood, even the papacy, is not the highest “job” in the Catholic Church. In fact, the Catholic Church features many beautiful female saints in the canon of the Mass. I would even argue that the Catholic Church celebrates femininity more than any other religion and certainly more than any other Christian denomination.

At the end of the day, the Catholic Church teaches that it is holiness and intimacy with Christ that is most important, not being a priest. As a former Episcopal priest, I could go on to be a married Catholic priest. But I chose not to do so. Why? Because I realized that my personal “yes” to God is enough. Nothing more is needed of me.

I love priests. I kiss the hand of every priest I meet. I truly love priests because without them there is no Holy Eucharist and no supernatural life in the world. However, as my former spiritual director Father Ron Gillis (who died just last week) taught me, “At the front of most Catholic churches are not side altars dedicated to Peter and Paul, but to Joseph and Mary – a reminder that the priesthood supports the Church and not the other way around.”
That’s a beautiful and simple lesson for all of us.

Dr. Taylor Marshal





Why doesn’t everybody believe that there is a purpose in Life?

23 06 2013

why deosnot every one believe that life has a pBecause some people think there is no real purpose or destiny to human life! They believe that only the things we make, like cars and watches, have design and purpose in them. We know what the purposes of these objects are because we designed them. (For instance, we know that the purpose of a car is transportation, and the purpose of a watch is to tell time.) But the things in nature, like trees and stars, were not designed by any human beings, so we do not know their purposes as we know the purposes of the things we design. So some people believe that there are no real purposes in the things in nature, but only in humanly designed artificial objects.
But one of the things in nature is human beings. They are not artificial objects! They are not artifacts like cars or watches. We did not design human nature; we only carry it on, by reproduction.
So the people who deny that human life has any real purpose argue this way:
If only artifacts have purposes, while things in nature do not; And if we are things in nature rather than artifacts; Then we have no real purpose.
So the answer to the question “What is the purpose of my existence?” is that there is no real purpose; we can imagine or make up any subjective purposes we want, but there is no objectively real purpose to human life. Life is purposeless, pointless, meaningless, in vain. “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity” (Eccl 1:2).
This is the worst philosophy in the world. For it denies us the things we need most: meaning and purpose; a reason to live, learn, grow, and endure.
Meaninglessness is unendurable. Even pain isn’t as bad as meaninglessness. We can accept pains if they are meaningful: for instance, the pains of childbirth, or the pains of sacrificing for someone you love, or even the pains of martyrdom for a good cause. But we cannot accept meaninglessness. Even pleasures are not worthwhile if they are meaningless. (That’s why a billionaire can choose to commit suicide.) And even pains are worthwhile if they are meaningful. (That’s why a woman wants to give birth to a baby.)
The idea that objective things have no purpose is really atheism. For if God is real and if He created and designed everything, then everything has a purpose.
We can see some of the purpose of the things in nature. For instance, we can see that one of the purposes of stars is to enable us to think. For (a) if we did not breathe and bring oxygen to our brains, we could not think; and (b) if there were no green plants, we could not breathe, since their photosynthesis replaces carbon dioxide with oxygen; and (c) if there were no sun, there could be no green plants, for green plants need sunlight and heat, and (d) if there were no stars, there would be no sun, for the sun is a star. Therefore, if there were no stars, we could not think.
But many of the things in nature have designs and purposes that are not clear to us. They do not seem to be useful for us. (For instance, we wonder why God made so many mosquitoes.) So it takes a little faith, a little trust, to believe that everything has a purpose and that “all things work together for good to those who love God, who are called according to His purpose” (Rom, 8:28), though we do not see this. This is especially true of things that make us suffer. We do not always see how suffering has a good purpose.
But if the Creator is all-wise, all-good, and all-powerful, then the quotation above from Romans 8:28 is true. If He is all-good, He wants what is best. If He is all-powerful, He is able to bring about what is best, in the end. And if He is all-wise, He knows what is best.
And since we are not all-wise, we do not know what is best in the long run. That is why we have to trust Him with all those mosquitoes and even with much worse things, like cancers. He knows how to bring greater goods out of great evils. That is what He did two thousand years ago on the Cross of Calvary when He brought about the greatest good for us, the greatest gift we have ever been given–salvation from sin and the ability to enter Heaven–through the greatest evil that ever happened, the torture and murder of Jesus Christ, the only perfect man who ever lived, the man who was God Himself.
Christians believe this. Many people don’t. Can Christian give them any reason to believe their religion’s answer to the question “Why do I exist”?
The best reason we can give them is ourselves: our love and our joy. You can’t argue with the happiness of a saint.
The greatest love, and the greatest joy, is mutual: it comes from both loving and being loved. The next-greatest joy comes from loving, even without being loved back. Even this second-best joy of loving without being loved back is greater and deeper than the third joy, the joy of being loved without loving. That is why saints are so happy: they are never in the third level of joy but always in the second or the first. (In fact, since they know God always loves them, you could say they are always in the first.) That’s why the prayer attributed to Saint Francis says:
Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light and where there is sadness, joy. O divine Master, may I always seek not so much to be condemned as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen.

By Peter Kreeft





Why do I exist?

22 06 2013

why do i exist2

It is not a strange question at all, but a very natural question. Everyone asks it, consciously or unconsciously, though not necessarily in those words.
It is a religious question. It is a question to which all religions claim to have an answer. It is not abstract but as concrete and particular as you are. It’s about your life. Why is my existence in question?
Because you didn’t have to exist. If one little thing had happened differently to any of your ancestors, you would not exist. For instance, if your great-grandfather hadn’t been surprised by the sound of a squirrel dropping a nut on a dry leaf in the park where he was sitting on a bench a hundred years ago, he wouldn’t have turned his head around to see what the noise was, and he wouldn’t have noticed the pretty girl on the bench over there, walked over and struck up a conversation with her, got to know her, and eventually married her–and you are part of the rest of that story.
So is it just luck that you exist? Just chance? Did you just happen, or are you designed? Are you an accident, or are you wanted? Are you just lost on a stage without any lines to speak, just making it all up as you go along, or are you part of a play, a plot, a plan, with an Author’s mind behind it?
You can’t get the answer to that question just from your feelings, because your feelings change from year to year, day to day, even minute to minute. Everyone at times feels lost and meaningless, and everyone at other times feels part of a meaningful story.
It makes all the difference in the world how you ask that question. It amounts to asking whether your life has real meaning or not.
We deeply want our lives to have a real meaning. But where does this real meaning come from? Why is there a real answer to the question “Why do I exist?”
Because God is real, that’s why. Because you were willed into existence by an all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful God. That’s why your life has meaning and purpose. How can we know the true answer to this question, the meaning of our life? What must we know, to know who we are?
The secret of your identity is in the mind of your Creator and Designer. Therefore, to find the meaning of your life, you must know God. To find out who Macbeth is, you must ask Shakespeare. To find out who Gollum is, you must ask Tolkien. To find out who you are, you must ask God.
How do we know God? Through Christ. “No one has ever seen God; the only Son . . . has made him known” (Jn 1:18).
To know yourself adequately, you must know God. And to know God adequately, you must know Christ. Therefore, to know yourself adequately, you must know Christ. Christ reveals not just who God is but also who we are.
When we ask why exist, what do we seek?
We seek our origin, our nature, and our destiny. There are actually three parts to this question: “Where did I come from?” and “What am I?” and “Where am I going?”
There are two radically different possible answers to this three-part question: the no-God answer and the God-answer. We exist either because of mere chance and accident or because of divine design; we exist either because of blind matter below us or because of conscious divine spirit above us.
The three questions (of origin, nature, and destiny) are connected. If our origin is only material, if we came only from mindless matter blindly bumping into more mindless matter and not from the Mind of God designing and creating matter, then our nature is also only matter: we are only apes with bigger brains but no souls. If our parents were big apes, we are only big apes. And then our destiny, our end, is only the destiny of all matter and animal life: death and decay. Period. End of the story. That is the logical consequence of believing that there is no God. Death wins in the end.
But if one’s origin is from above, from God–if we are designed and created by an intelligent Spirit–then our nature can be also spiritual, made in the image of the God who is spirit. God may have used evolution to make our bodies out of previously existing animal species, but souls cannot evolve. God must create each soul afresh.
If that is true–if we exist because of God, if we are real because God is real–then the practical consequences are tremendously important. For then each one of us has intrinsic dignity. That means that we are not mere objects to be used by other objects. We are God’s kids!
And then our destiny (the third connected question) is also spiritual: to live forever with God in Heaven. God is our first beginning and our last end, our ultimate origin and our ultimate destiny.

Prof. Peter Kreeft.








%d bloggers like this: