The Christian Vanguard

There is never not an opportunity every Christmas time to clear up some misconceptions about Christianity. There is lots of talk about the star, how many magi appeared to the baby Jesus, the exact date of Jesus birth, the viability of miraculous events like a virgin birth, etc. The worst come from Christians. They should know better, and some don’t, but the ignorant never pass up a moment to declare their ignorance. Maybe this is one of them. Hopefully not.  One particular theme I’ve noticed this year is this: it is hypocritical for Christians (or any American) to go Black Friday shopping the day after Thanksgiving. I’ve noticed this on Facebook, and they are accompanied by images. I don’t like this. Images appeal to emotion, and emotion can distort clear thinking. Maybe blind men see things more clearly then. As Ravi Zacharias has said about this generation, we listen with our eyes and think with our feelings. So, is this in fact hypocritical? 

I’ve received multiple lists of requests for more of my slogan takedowns. Some of them I haven’t heard before, so I honestly can’t say anything about them. But I did find some gems. Here they are. 

My second post about Christian Slogans was even more popular than the first. If you can think of any to tackle, send me a message or leave it in the comments, and I’ll try to include in my next post. Here are some more slogans! Enjoy! 

Apparently, my post on slogans was popular. So here is another couple that annoy me. 

Richard Dawkins is an amusing character. Dawkins believes you cannot justifiably call a child “Christian” and to do so is child abuse. Some things follow from this, like having these children removed from their parents. You wouldn’t allow a child to remain in an abusive house, right? It’s kind of funny though because some atheists will say all babies are atheists and so there is a presumption of atheism. I don’t know if Dawkins takes this route, but I doubt it because the reason he believes one cannot be a Christian child must also apply to atheist children. Anywho, having been Catholic, I have a different approach to this now. 

I’m not fond of slogans. They discourage critical thinking. Well, maybe they just discourage thinking, period. You’ll find slogans everywhere like, “The gap between the rich and the poor is getting bigger” and “I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!” Of course, a moments thought will tell you that the rich getting richer and the gap is widening says something to the rate of growth of both groups, not necessarily one at the expense of the other, and as for the latter, I don’t think your average Joe will throw himself on a grenade for my right to say something like the Constitution ought to be read with original intent. They’re conversation stoppers, and unduly so. Those particular slogans have been dealt with at length elsewhere. In the Christian community there are a couple I’ve heard repeated over and over again that I want to address. 

Are the differences between Democrats and Republicans substantial and important enough to keep the two from getting married? Yes, because of Same-Sex marriage and Abortion.

So there’s this girl. I’ve never met her, I just know her on Facebook. Apparently, according to her terminology, I have an “internet crush” on her. I don’t know what this means exactly. It’s not in Urban Dictionary. I guess it just means I am infatuated with some girl I know over the internet whom I’ve never actually met. It’s pretty straightforward I think. And it’s true. I think she’s cute. If she were here or if I were there, I wouldn’t mind taking her out. But so far as it goes, it is just that, an internet crush, as opposed to a legitimate crush. But is that sufficient? Is it sufficient enough for something to merely give the illusion of reality for it be sufficient enough for my experiencing it?

I would like to be a superhero. It would be really cool if I had superpowers. Reading people’s mind like Dr. Xavier would be nice, or maybe flying like Superman, so I could see the world instead of paying hundreds of dollars for a plane ticket. But like Spider-Man, we should know that with great power comes great responsibility, and we can abuse that power. In a way, we already do have these powers, and it is in our mind. I like to clock out of the world and stare off into space, imagine I’m saving orphans from burning buildings, or when I’m not in a good mood, setting fire to people’s property with my laser beam eyes. Most of the time, I’m the good guy. Sometimes, I’m the villain. Is there anything unethical about this?

I had a discussion with a Libertarian recently. Though he was personally against abortion, he believed, as Libertarianism dictates, government should not force his particular moral beliefs upon others. So long as a choice is to be made, that choice should not be influenced by that government. I replied by stating that life has precedence over liberty. He quoted Patrick Henry. We all know the quotation, “Give me liberty or give me death!” This is to contradict me. According to the statement, liberty is more valuable than life, but it doesn’t mean that at all.

  I watched a very strange movie the other day. A Midnight in Paris, written and directed by Woody Allen. I didn’t like it because it was sophisticated. I don’t mean sophisticated in the common use of the word, where it is to distinguish someone with honor. I employ it with the intent to summon the memory of the Greek Sophists, who impressed people with their words and rhetoric, but lacked real substance and rigorous argumentation. We do not look kindly upon them, and that is more or less what Woody Allen is doing here in this move. 

When it comes to picking winners, I never win. In the 2008 Presidential election, I voted for McCain-Palin. Obama won. In 2012, I voted Romney-Ryan. Obama won again, though by a smaller margin than his first election, which has never happened in the history of American Presidential elections, which indicates to me that he is nothing but hype. Even in the primaries, I wanted Rick Santorum over Romney, and before she dropped out, Michelle Bachman over Santorum. I did not vote for Scott Brown, I was shocked then terrified when Elizabeth Warren was reelected, I was almost in tears when Star Parker wasn’t elected, I was furious when Alan Lowenthal won the congressional seat, I rooted for the Lakers these last three seasons, and to top it all off, I’m a Raiders fan. I just can not pick them.  

I have this thing, where when I get mad, I demand an explanation. Sometimes, this is more important than an apology, though it probably shouldn't be. So for example, if someone calls me, with malicious intent, "Fatty", and once they have expressed sorrow, regret, and everything else, I usually ask, "Okay, but why'd you do it?" I now see that asking such a question may be futile.

After dozens of pages and a span of multiple months, I’m finally done with the Ferguson project. When I first picked up his book I had a sense of hope, a sense of discovery, a sense of adventure. I began to read it when I was seriously considering the claims of the Catholic Church, and I thought Ferguson, a trusted in name in my old church, would clear up many of my misconceptions, and point out an obvious mistake that I missed. I didn’t think I would end up clearing up Ferguson’s misconceptions and pointing out his obvious mistakes. 

Chapter five begins differently than the other chapters. Whereas the other chapters has a paragraph or two slowly working into Catholic doctrine, this chapter begins with a bang, with no introductory remarks whatsoever. It goes straight into Confirmation. And so to Confirmation we go. (This is 13 pages, so, brace yourselves)

Pacifists exists, despite my best efforts. Pacifists are those who hold that violent acts are not permissible, and so acts such as war are also not permissible. This view is popular among the secular left and mixed within Christianity, though notably in the Anabaptist movement. It occurs me to though that there might be some ambiguity in the word “violence” that, without clarification, may lead to either absurdity or inconsistency. 

The following entry is taken out of what was going to be a much longer entry dealing with Ferguson's last chapter directly dealing with Catholicism. But as I was writing, I realized the entry entry might take about ten pages, and that's not okay. This entry deals with the Apocrypha, which would have been about in the middle of the original entry, and so now, the next entry is going to be about two or three pages shorter. Yay. 

You’ve heard the term “safe-sex” before, most likely with the verb “practice” preceding it. What does that even mean? “Practice safe-sex” as if sex were intrinsically dangerous. Isn’t that what this assumes? So, what is so dangerous about sex? Well, as far as I know, there are three possible outcomes of sex (which are not mutually exclusive), which are children, diseases, and a emotional charge.

Chapters four and five deal with the same theme: soteriology, or, salvation, and the relationship between faith, works, grace, repentance, etc. I’ll be dealing with chapter four and appendix II here, and chapter five in my next post. It doesn’t take a paragraph before Ferguson begins to salivate at the thought of straw-men. He writes, “Although their theologians can quote certain writings which seem to support a more biblical position regarding works and grace, the average Catholic has little grasp of the biblical message.”

Note: I started this post as a non-Catholic. But then I stopped. I converted, and thought it wasn't necessary for me to finish this anymore. I want to review two other books, and I want to finish this review before I move on, for integrity's sake. Ferguson’s next target is the priesthood. This is not a doctrine that especially thrills me, and I suspect there is much equivocation happening on Ferguson’s part, looking at words and what they mean to denote what a thing is over looking at what the function of a thing is first and then putting its title secondary.  Also, Ferguson dismisses the Catholic explanation as “just human reasoning” and so debating the issue is not necessary; the topic is ceded. But I will briefly touch on it and move on.

I love to see people in love. I love weddings, I love couples, I love love. This is odd because I myself haven't been in a relationship for years, and not for lack of trying. I've heard this common piece of advice, "Maybe you're not compatible with this person." I want to examine this. 

I found this in my living room the other day. My little sister, Emma, made it for my mom. Most people would go, "Awwwww..." but not me. No, philosophy has turned me into a jerk. So I guess I should say that I get what my sister is trying to communicate, though, strictly speaking, this shouldn't be said. Why not? 

I control every part of my body. Punch me in the face, and you have punched me. Shoot me in the foot, and you have shot me. I am present at every part of my body. If you were to cut off my toe, I would no longer be present with that toe. Just because other things are present, like cells, bacteria, blood, etc., it doesn't mean I am not there or that I am the cells or I am the blood. We might be able to understand God's omnipresence the same way. This might panentheism though, and I could totally be wrong. Thoughts welcome.

I had to do a personal essay for my journalism class. I procrastinated on my first draft, and wrote it on the bus ride to school. However, upon reflection, I decided that there was much more to the story, and radically revised it. In my final draft here, I let the world know how I really felt about the situation. Here is it. Massive Mistake I know I am fat, and I try to not bring this fact to other people’s attention. XXL shirts cost a few dollars more, but who looks at me and seriously considers how much I paid for my clothes? It is hard to find belts my size, but who knows by looking at me how much time I spent looking for an adequate belt? My feet are a bit wider, but who notices that I never wear those narrow Converse shoes? My point is, I do not wear a sign that announces, “Fatty.” I do not wish to be different, and I do not want attention brought to me and my weight. Yet, on the other hand, I do want this attention.

In the movie Avatar, a human soldier takes on the body of a Na'vi. He is truly human and truly Na'vi. There is not two beings, but two natures in one incarnation. In Christ, God took on a human body. There was not a human mind and a God mind in one body. But the two natures of God and Man are present in one person. Avatar is commonly translated in English as "incarnation". This is an easy and fun way to understand the hypostatic union .

Here is my Amazon review for Surprised by Truth.

I've begun to write book reviews on Amazon. Here is my first one ! For Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.

On April the 17th, Adrian Urias of the Christian Vanguard attended the Tilden Study Center, an intellectual and cultural stronghold for Catholic youth! It was a most wonderful experience and look forward to future meetings!

So I work at Costco. We have brief meetings together before we go out to the floor, and we were getting talked about us not being on top of things and the supervisors see us doing nothing. This one guy complains and says something like, "Well, I'm always friendly with the customers, but for like ten minutes, I'll slow down, and that's when the supervisors see me. Why didn't they see me then?" Our lead manager said that was irrelevant and that we always had a job to do, basically shutting him down. I thought of this story. A man is in court before the judge for running a red light. Would it make sense for the man to say to the judge, "I may have run the red light this once, but what about all the other times I ran green lights and stopped at red lights? I've been doing that for years! Why don't you focus on that instead?" No, it would not. That's what he's supposed to do anyways. So if it's not a valid excuse in court, it's n

    There is no single person alive who taught me more about being a Christian than Ariana. This was, on her part, unintended. What I mean is, I have been in so many situations with Ariana where I was tempted to act one way, usually in my own selfish and cruel interest, but chose to do the Christian thing instead. There were many times where I also chose not to reflect Christ in my character, but I matured past that. Paradoxically, leaving her behind thus ending the friendship was perhaps the most Christ-like move in my life so far. To understand, maybe some background would be beneficial.     If you’re part of the ICOC, you’ll know what it means when I say that Ariana was my interest, and you’ll understand how serious it was when I tell you she was my first interest, catching my eye maybe two or three months into being a member of the ICOC and she stayed that way for four years. Basically, all my time in the ICOC, and then some. But for those not in the ICOC, I guess the easiest way 

I began to wrap up the intellectual fight. When I realized that what I had learned must turn into actions, I asked one of the shepherds of my Church to sit down with me. He wanted to know what our talk was going to be about, and I told him it was going to be about authority. 

After my exchange on Facebook, and private talks with other friends, I came to reject Sola Scriptura. I sent the following email to Sirico. This covers my more emotional side to the story. Rev. Sirico, Thank you very much for coming to Southern California on the 28th to speak. It is always a treat to hear you speak and it was really cool to finally meet you! Hopefully I can experience similar events again! During one of the breaks, we had a talk about Catholicism. I am a former Catholic (and former Marxist Atheist) and you presented to me an argument, what I perceived to be, contra sola scriptura. I've given it some thought and am keeping you updated, as you requested.

I had written this on my Facebook May 1st, 2012. Names have been changed. Most of what follows is a discussion on Sola Scriptura. Since then, two of my friends, Devin and Brian, do not hold to Sola Scriptura, but now hold a similar position I adopted soon after I had this conversation. More on that in a later post. Adrian: ...This same priest presented me with this challenge, and frankly, I was stumped. He said something like, "The church did not come from the Bible. The Bible came from the church. The Church canonized the Bible. This implies the power of the church." Thoughts? This is obviously an attack of Sola Scriptura.

    It has been asked of me, understandably, why I left the International Churches of Christ and decided to join the Catholic Church. In this series of posts, Eye of the Tiber (I am amused at myself with that pun), I explain my journey, my thoughts, my emotions, and my spirit. Because I am not officially a Catholic at this moment and still have to complete my Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA), I will also be describing that road as I walk it up until I finally take my first communion.     It started with Father Robert Sirico, founder and President of the Acton Institute. In 2011, a conference was held in Irvine on Christianity and Economics. Dinesh D’Souza headlined the event. I enjoyed the whole conference, but one speaker blew me away, and that was the Catholic priest, Robert Sirico. His style of speaking was colorful as he would pepper his talk on the intimate connection between economic freedom and human freedom with parables.

My debate on gun control. Transcript coming soon.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJX84OroFso

I had to write this essay for my English class a few semesters ago. Clearly, this isn't my usual writing style. But it has good information and is worth putting up.  Media ought to be held accountable for the behavior of children, and viewers in general, because of the harmful material it makes available, especially pornographic and sex laced messages, which affects humans in a negative way. All of the accountability should not be put solely on the media outlets however, as individual consumers play a causal role as well when it comes to the effects of media consumption, and thus some of the accountability, or at least moral obligation, is on the individual as well. Because some media is pornography, and pornography is harmful, then at least some of the media should be regulated in order to protect the general public welfare. 

I LOVE reading atheists hating on Tim Tebow! LOVE IT! It's so freaking encouraging. All I can do is laugh. Here is one particularly hateful post about Tebow from a popular atheist blog. Strong language. http://freethoughtblogs.com/physioprof/2011/12/15/fucke-christmas/ And former CNN news anchor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z_YZObTX64 One common complaint about Tim Tebow and God is that God does not care about football. I would like to defend God and Football. I would like to discuss whether or not God actually cares about football. I'm only half serious.

The Trinity. If that last sentence made you feel weary or made yourself prepared to be confused, yeah, you’re not alone. I know a lot of Christians who feel that way. I used to be there. I get it the feeling. What I don’t get is when one’s inability to comprehend the Trinity is used as an objection against it. A distinction needs to be made between something not making sense, and something being incoherent. You can say reject something on the basis of it being incoherent, but you can’t reject it on the basis of you not being able to understand it. All things that are incoherent don’t make sense, but not all things that don’t make sense are incoherent.

For whatever reason, the idea that if something is not falsifiable then it is not worth discussing is prevalent among many non-believers. I'm not sure why. I'm not sure what falsifiability even means honestly (but from what I've heard it is rooted in the thought of Karl Popper, and I haven't read any of his works). Christopher Hitchens in his debate with William Lane Craig seemed to take this line. He said it didn't matter to him to refute his arguments because they were unfalsifiable, and a test of a good argument was that it is falsifiable, not that it is unfalsifiable.

One thing I learned in my existentialism class last semester was the importance of being intersubjective. This means being with an other in a way that is real and sincere and not fake and shallow (read The Underground Man by Dostoevsky or The Stranger by Albert Camus on how not to be intersubjective). I argued that self-sacrifice is one of the most intersubjective ways one can be. As Jesus said, there is no greater love than that. But if being intersubjective is what is key to the existentialist, then refusing to be intersubjective is wrong, existentially. So, we come to a contradiction: self-sacrifice is a way to be intersubjective and not be intersubjective. A way to reconcile this is by including an after-life. Clearly, some acts of self-sacrifice are not wrong. To do something out of mere duty is, for a secular existentialist anyways, a grave sin. So, if there is life after death, you can give one's life for another that is still worthy of being a proper existential act. If

I've seen this floating around for a while. I think it's time a post was dedicated to it.

I’ve heard many “lessons” on purity. I don’t think many of them are that well thought out. It’s more of a, “This is what I believe, and if you don’t believe the same thing as I do, then you’re not godly” rants than an actual lesson. If someone is going to teach on it, then they should be informed, but many aren’t. I have put some thought into it. In fact, sexual ethics fascinates me and I hope to do more study about it and get my philosophy degree writing about it. I say that because I want to question a very common belief among my congregation and these brief comments should preempt any ad hominems. The proposition is this: a male should never be alone with a female.

I love California. I love the temperature, the beaches, the cities, the mountains, the deserts, the national parks, we have it all. It is amazing how one state can be so diverse. California also has a lot of religion. This may not be such a wonderful diversity. California has seen some weird things (hippies, Church of Satan, etc.) and amidst of all the religious commotion, I find that the layman comes to popular slogans such as “All religions are basically the same” or “All that matters is that you’re a good person” or “You have your way to God, and I have mine” “That religion is true for you, but not for me” and other abject nonsense. How are we to make any sense of all of this? Before we answer this question, let us examine what it is that is at stake for the Christian. The Christian believes, or at least the conservative Christian believes, that there is no other valid religion apart from their own. If, however, there is another way to achieve the ends that the Chr

This picture from Catholic Meme's started this fictional conversation. I've had bits and pieces spread out in real conversations, so here it is all condensed into the fictional character Jill.  Me:...and that's why I think that's a bad idea.  Jill: You should pray about it, bro. I did.  M: What do you mean you prayed about it? J: LOL! Don't you pray? M: I do. But I think you revealed that you and I don't have the same understanding of prayer. So, what do you mean you "prayed" about it. How do you "pray about" something?

Me:...and that's why I don't waste my time with those people. Bob: Wow bro, that sounds pretty prideful. Me: Prideful isn't a word. Proud. Bob: See, that proves you're prideful. Me: Okay, whatever. So what about that makes me proud? Bob: You're basically saying you're smarter than they are. You need to humble yourself. Me: Well, I don't think that's pride. Can you give me a definition of pride?

My sister, Emma, is an atheist, and can debate the issue. It's kind of sad and kind of cute at the same time, because she's only 7 and has been professing her Atheism since she was 4. She get's it from my mom, whom is also an atheist. I remember when she was 4, when I talking about God, she quoted Nietzsche, "God is dead." When she debates her twin brother, I usually have to step in. But she said something to me the other day that gave me a lot of hope. 

I was at PetSmart and wondered what life would be like as a fish. Goldie: Say, Pampano, do you think Man exists?  Pampano: No, not at all. I've never seen a Man. Have you?  G: No, I have not. But I think I might have some idea that He does.  P: Is that so? All I experience is our body of water, which I have swam eve ry inch of, and I've never seen any Man. Clearly, Goldie, you are delusional. G: I'm not sure only experience is what we fish should base our knowledge on.

One of the terrible things about being a philosopher is that I have to question commonly held beliefs. I have to think about other odd things, like being a brain in a vat, considering that I'm just a computer made out of meat, that I really have no knowledge (all beliefs I disagree with) but every now and again, I will adopt a position that isn't too common, and for whatever reason, it causes much hatred towards me. Being against same-sex marriage is one example. Now, I have given the world more reason to hate me. I've concluded that Black History Month is racist. 

January 28th, 2013, I was invited to be on my friends Podcast. The issue was the 40th anniversary of abortion.  http://www.contextministries.org/watch-talk-radio/ www.contextministries.org/app/download/527209704/abortion.mp3

Tuesday, February 26th, the bloggers Adrian Urias and Devin Ketch met Francis J. Beckwith at Azusa Pacific University. Imagine a tween meeting Edward Cullen, minus the gay. That's what I was.

The issue of immigration and what to do with illegal immigrants is one that I have avoided for years. I am a Mexican-American (though I would prefer it if you would just call me an American) living in Southern California, and I feel like most people expect an opinion about the issue from me. I don't have one, and I really don't want one. Expecting something of me based on that makes me uncomfortable. Unfortunately, I now see the issue as an unavoidable one, and since people have started asking me about it again, I have begun to put some serious thought into it. The following letter I think provides an adequate enough foundation. The question was asked to me, Do I think God sees illegal immigrants as being in sin? This is how I responded. 

This Valentine’s holiday, my church held a Casino Royale themed dance. Unfortunately for me, securing a ride proved too difficult an obstacle to overcome, so I was not able to put my luck with cards to the test. I was looking forward to it, and had thought about gambling away all my play money in bold (or stupid) and exciting ways. I could, after all, take that risk, since I am not actually wagering any real money. Wagers is what I want to talk about now, and a very famous wager put forth by Christian philosopher, Blasé Pascal.

How many times have I heard the phrase, "The gap between the rich and the poor is getting bigger"? If I had a nickle for every time I heard that, the gap would get even larger. It's a misleading phrase, and it is supposed to reinforce the idea that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. And in one sense, that is true, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Allow me to explain.

Science is a tool. Because it is a tool, it is therefore an amoral thing in and of itself, that is to say, there is nothing inherently wrong or right about it. For example, an axe is a tool, and can be considered a helpful tool to chop down wood so a man can provide warmth for his family. An axe can also be used as a weapon by that same man to chop down his whole family, but to say that the axe is bad or good, right or wrong, would be a category mistake. In the same way, science, especially those in the areas of medicine and life and death issues, is also amoral. However, guidelines and restrictions must be placed on the use of science. Some uses of science are clearly prohibited just as the use of an axe to murder a family is clearly prohibited. In a new and emerging area of science, that of Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD), popularly known as “Designer Children”, new questions will arise that have not yet been answered in virtue of the fact that it is a new f

It's been a while since I've posted anything up in a while. So here is an old essay I wrote. Unfortunately, the people of the Republic of California did not see things my way and passed the initiative.  2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” There has been much local talk about the “Living Wage” initiative here in Long Beach. Here are two articles from the Long Beach Post. http://www.lbpost.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2000000157%3A30-000-signatures-to-be-submitted-to-city-hall-today-for-living-wage&catid=85%3Anews&Itemid=650 http://www.lbpost.com/business/2000000168-long-beach-hospitality-workers-one-step-closer-to-living-wage-contentious-campaign-to-come The argument is a classic one. Because the workers cannot make a living off their wages, their wages must increase and if you oppose this, then you are greedy and heartless scum. I do not