The Christian Vanguard

I recently had a discussion with some Mormons, which got me really excited. So I looked for an old transcript of a video I had, and decided to put it up. It's dated December 25th, 2010.

What does it mean to objectify women? Ever since that ridiculous video of a gorgeous woman walking down the streets of New York, this has been a more pressing question, in my mind at least. The tone delivered with the phrase, "objectification of women" is usually negative, with a prescription to not do so usually following. So, what is this thing I'm not supposed to do?

Some people will often say, "Hate the sin, not the sinner." But why? Why can't I hate the sinner as well? 

C. S. Lewis describes a fascinating scene at the end of my favorite of his works, The Great Divorce. He describes seeing in heaven a beautiful and glorious woman. The protagonist asks his guide, an angel, who she was, thinking it may be Mary. The angel says she was a married woman who earned this glory by being a mother to children she met and a kind of lover to men she met. To qualify this last statement, the angel says that when she met men, the virtuosity that radiated in her character spurred these men to be better husbands for their wives. This always bugged me. I always thought there was a kind of impropriety to it. But, I've changed my mind. 

A few months ago, I went on a date with a woman. We met on Facebook, through common Catholic circles, and she was incredibly smart and pretty, so, we met up. Nothing really happened, but I learned from her that she was about 12 years older than I was. That surprised me, because she didn't look it. I thought she was my age, probably older, but not by much, a year or two maybe. So, I'm a bit disappointed that it didn't work out, and sometimes I wonder what would have happened if it did (it was mutually understood that it wasn't going to happen, so I wasn't like rejected or anything). Particularly, I wondered if age would be a factor. 

Sola Scriptura is a first world problem. Sure, it's nice if you have access to books, which many places cannot afford, and sure, it's nice if you know how to read, which 775 million people don't. If you need a bible to be saved, all the poor and illiterate people go to Hell I guess. Hooray Protestantism? The church, on the other hand, has oral tradition. Poor and illiterate people welcome. 

There have been some pretty stupid things said about feminism, from feminists. It's impressive, really. On the other hand, there have also been some pretty smart things said about feminism, from feminists. It's a bit polarizing, so I want to know, am I feminist?

My friends got married recently. My Catholic friends. Yeah, that means they're never getting divorced. My protestant friends hate on this. I guess they love divorce? No, I'm kidding. But no, seriously, divorce is never permitted. 

What is the difference between pornography and art, if there is one at all? It may be difficult to define, but easy to recognize.  

Libertarians want liberty. Or, the right to do something. The right to own a gun, to smoke pot, to have gay marriage. But this is wrong, if not incoherent. Rights are grounded in natural law. The 10th Amendment reflects this, the Declaration of Independence recognizes this, and St. Paul in his letter to Romans concerning homosexuality employs it. So, we have certain goods for our being. It is good to drink for that is necessary to stay alive. Hence, I'm entitled to water if I ever need it. Sure, you may also have the right to property, but your right to property is not so strong for it to be absolute, and in this case doesn't trump my right to your water if I'm dying of thirst, for it is wrong to die. So, if rights come from natural law, and natural law is that which is good, we cannot have a right to something that is bad. We can debate the merits of whether a thing is bad or not, but if it's the case that something is bad and contrary to the natural law, like suicide

There's a popular saying in Protestantism about the bible that say it is a "fallible set of infallible books." This is not appealing. Consider two analogies.  There is a bridge. The bridge will take you to one end of a cliff, across a chasm, to another end of the cliff. It is made of boards and rope. Each board is indestructible. If you step on it, it will hold your weight. The rope, however, is not indestructible. The rope is what holds the boards together. To what degree are you willing to put your faith into this bridge? Will you bet your eternal soul to it?  I hand you a pill box. In this box, there are compartments, each labeled for a day of the week. I tell you, for every pill that works, you are guaranteed to live. But I tell you, these individual pills will give you a guarantee, but what I can't guarantee you is that the box set I am handing you actually does contain these pills. Because I can't guarantee you that, it may be possible that every pi

There is this story about this young man who dresses and looks like a woman, and got into some trouble at the DMV.  It occurs to me that there is a contradiction or a hypocrisy among the LGBT people, and liberals in general, about what it means to be a male and female. See, on one hand, they want to deny that there is no right or wrong way to be a man or a woman. It's not like they have real differences , right? However, on the other hand, to appease those who want to change themselves from male to female or vice-versa, they must assume that these differences do exist and are real, or else the change is meaningless. So which is it? Are there real differences between men and women, or are there not?

Many non Catholics believe Catholic priests cannot be married. This is false.

I came across an argument against the immaculate conception of Mary. Though, it may not have been exactly that. More precisely, it was argued that the belief in the immaculate conception was inconsistent with the belief that Mary is the woman described in Revelation. In short, the woman described in Revelation has birthing pains. Birthing pain is a consequence of original sin. Mary had no original sin. Hence, either the woman described in Revelation is not Mary, or Mary had original sin. 

In Part II of my series on Original Sin, I quoted some people and documents as an interpretive guide for a better understanding of Original Sin. I want to unpack those quotations here in this post.

There are some that say in order to have knowledge, you must have certainty. This is false. Knowledge, classically defined, is three things: True Justified Belief.

This continues my series on Original Sin. In the previous post we looked at some of the biblical data on Original Sin. In this post, I want to look at some statements from Catholics to help us better understand what Original Sin is. I've heard some different statements of Original Sin and if one wants to object to it, it would be beneficial to understand what it is one is objecting to. 

In Christendom, the doctrine of Original Sin is not controversial. There have been notable Christians whom have denied it such as Pascal and presently Swinburne, but there hasn't been any significant group of Christians who deny it. To deny the doctrine is to easily fall into the Pelegian heresy. However, many of my friends are members of the International Church of Christ, and they deny Original Sin, and though they're not a significant portion of Christendom, they're significant to me simply because many of my friends are members, and so I want to dedicate a couple posts to the topic. In this first post, biblical data will be the focus.

Some feminists object to the use of the word "man" to expression mankind (maybe they too object to my use of the word "mankind". Maybe they prefer "humankind" or "personkind." I take it for granted we all know what I'm talking about when I say mankind, including the feminists, whom necessarily know what I'm communicating in order to object to it.) because it shows that men have some kind of superiority over women, or at least it is not gender neutral.

In the 1960's or so, we had the civil rights movement. This was the movement that secured civil rights to certain people, particularly black people. In the present day, some try to label the LGBT movement for the applicability of marriage to same-sex couples a civil rights fight as well. In the treatment of animals, those who want to secure certain rights to animals also try to fall under this category, but more commonly under the words "humane", to indicate fair treatment. In these three categories, we call them these names, civil rights fighters, humanitarians, and whatever else. But what we don't see is someone who fights for the rights of minorities a "minority-ist", a "black-ism" or even a "animaltarian." However, there are many people today who, purporting to defend equal rights for females, call themselves "feminist." Why is this unlike the others? Why don't these people pick up "civil rights act

There is a really strange view that one can be an agnostic and an atheist or theist. This is obviously wrong. 

A lot of smart people I know do not think beauty is objective, while I do. These are not your undergraduate relativists, whom believe that beauty is objective, as well as truth and morality. No, these are people who agree truth and morality is objective, even if sometimes they cannot provide a grounding for it, yet also believe beauty is subjective, or relative. 

Those that would have me leave the Roman Catholic Church have linked me several articles from James White, of Alpha and Omega Ministries. I am concerned for him. He seems to be very anti-philosophy. Or rather, he doesn't like it when Theology takes a backseat to Philosophy. Why this is so, I'm not sure. He might say because it's not Biblical, but there are problems.

Changing your mind, I’ve come to learn by accident, can be a dangerous thing. I converted from Protestantism to Catholicism, and I’ve learned a lot about people in the process. The most shocking discovery is how cruel and tribal people can be. I lost almost all my Protestant friends when I told them I thought we were wrong. Not that I was wrong, or they were wrong, but we were wrong. Many haven’t talked to me since. This is sad. But I am starting to see that this is also the case in my beloved apologetics community.

Converts tend to observe things that natives usually don't or take for granted. For example, an all-American boy may realize some of the formal subtleties in the Spanish language that a native Spanish speaker may have subconsciously forgotten. Or an immigrant can appreciate the virtues the USA better than what an American born citizen may have gotten accustomed to. I think the same can be said about religion. In this case, as I have come from Protestantism to Catholicism, I do want to point out some things about sex that I realize now as a Catholic is totally false about Protestantism, though at the time I didn't realize it.

Well, this Sunday, February 9th at 9am, I will be receive my first communion and my confirmation, and then it'll have been official, I'll be a Catholic for real. It was almost a year ago I made the decision public, and a lot has happened since then. So let me just round up some final thoughts here, and that'll be that for this long confession of faith.

I participated in a debate two nights ago. It was on the infallibility of the pope. The podcast isn't up yet, but here is my opening speech. When the podcast is up, I'll give my thoughts on the entire thing.