The Christian Vanguard

    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 ...